Below is my column in the Hill on the new rules that came out of the negotiations leading to the election of Kevin McCarthy as the 55th Speaker of the United States. As noted below, I did not support the standoff and I do not support some of the changes that came out of the negotiations. Some of these changes were already in the works with McCarthy’s support. Moreover, some of these changes will make it more challenging for the Speaker by returning to prior rules allowing greater opportunity for amendments and floor fights. However, the holdouts were right that things have to change in Congress, particularly in allowing greater deliberation and debate over legislation. Some of these changes could achieve that worthy goal.
Here is the column:
The ascendance of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as the 55th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives may have come with all of the spontaneity of a shotgun wedding — but it finally came. McCarthy deserved better than a tortuous three-day floor fight but, then again, he is now second in line to the presidency.
Many of us have great sympathy for McCarthy, who looked like a guy caught in a feedback loop stepping on the same rake over and over again. (For the record, I opposed the floor fight, given the overwhelming support for McCarthy.) However, as is often the case in Washington, the narrative opposing these holdouts allowed for little recognition of what they achieved in McCarthy’s concessions. Indeed, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank ran a column titled “McCarthy’s fate is irrelevant. The terrorists have already won.”
Moreover, many in the media were honest about what they consider his greatest shortcoming: “Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi.”
Some of us sincerely hope so.
While Pelosi (D-Calif.) remains the ideal of many in the media, she tolerated little public debate or dissent. She thrilled her base with such infamous performative acts as tearing up a State of the Union Address of then-President Trump. As an all-powerful speaker, she oversaw a series of party-line votes with little opportunity for amendments or even to read some bills.
Many Republicans did not want the Pelosi model of an all-powerful speaker. For these members, the agreement with McCarthy is a type of Magna Carta.
The original Magna Carta, of course, was honored primarily in the breach by King John, who immediately asked the pope to annul it. Yet it was an impressive statement of rights.
No one is seriously suggesting that the GOP agreement is the new Magna Carta, but it is meant to redefine legislative rights — and it could have tangible improvements for the House.
I have worked in the House in various roles since I was a House leadership page in the 1970s and, much later, represented the House in litigation. I’ve watched the body become less transparent, less deliberative, with every passing year.
The Framers saw the House as a powerful forum to address factions in society, a legislative crucible where different interests could be expressed and resolved in majoritarian compromise. The legislative process can inform citizens while exposing legislative proposals to public scrutiny. But that process has been largely replaced with a series of robotic, preordained votes.
Some of these concessions may change that status quo. There are provisions I do not support — yet, we should acknowledge that these changes could also improve the process to allow greater dissent and debate.
Many in the media counter that such changes reduce the speaker’s power, as if the status quo under Pelosi was the optimal legislative model. Yet some changes would empower rank-and-file members to allow for greater diversity of views — not necessarily a bad thing.
Restoring the ‘Vacate the Chair’ rule
Nancy Pelosi consolidated her power by eliminating a rule that allowed any member to make a motion to vacate the chair, a type of legislative no-confidence vote. Pelosi eliminated the one-member rule and, instead, required a majority of either party to make such a motion. Some Republicans wanted that check on the speaker to be reinstated.
Notably, what has unnerved so many in Washington is that this speakership debate was not just largely public but also unscripted. It was an actual deliberation, conducted in front of the American people. While repellent to many, it just might be something that voters could get accustomed to.
Restoring legislative review and deliberation
The GOP holdouts sought to end massive spending bills moved forward with little time to read the legislation. They want a minimum 72-hour review period and a reduction of massive omnibus bills, to allow members and the public to better understand what is being passed.
The concessions reportedly include “open rules” on all major rules bills, such as appropriations, to allow lawmakers to offer amendments on the floor. It would restore an amendment process that was gutted in recent sessions, benefiting Democrats and Republicans alike.
They would reinstate “Calendar Wednesday,” which permits committee chairs “to bring reported bills directly to the House floor for consideration under an open amendment process, and reform the process by ensuring the same 72-hour notice that is required on all other measures is provided.”
For years, some of us have called for smaller bills and more deliberation. Massive bills are a way to hide personal perks and pork projects under fraudulent packaging like the “Inflation Reduction Act” that had little to do with inflation. The omnibus bill recently pushed through the House and Senate is an example of this abusive, opaque process. It was a collection of 7,200 earmarks and pork projects, including tens of millions for libraries for the papers of a couple retiring senators; five senators grabbed half a billion dollars for their favorite colleges. You had to swallow it whole or kill any spending bill.
Reinstate budget and tax procedures
Members want to restore the ability to reduce runaway spending and control increasing budgets and taxes. While one can disagree with some of the provisions, these members are clearly serious about gaining control over the budget. They would reinstate the “three-fifths supermajority in the House to approve any increases in tax rates” and require the Congressional Budget Office to analyze bills’ impacts on inflation.
They also would restore the “cut-as-you-go” (CUTGO) rule, which requires spending increases to be offset by equal or greater cuts in mandatory spending.
They would repeal the “Gephardt Rule,” which treats the debt limit as increased upon passage of a budget resolution. That rule allows members to avoid public debate over increasing a national debt that now stands at over $31 trillion. And they would restore the “Holman Rule” from 1876, permitting members to make targeted cuts impacting federal agency functions and salaries.
These are measures designed to control federal spending — a shock to a system that has abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility under both parties.
Committee reforms
Rebelling members pushed for a committee to investigate the FBI and its continuing scandals. I previously called for the creation of a new “Church Committee,” which will be established under Speaker McCarthy.
They also demand commitment to oversight in areas long ignored by Democrats, including the threats posed by China. The House Ethics Committee would have a new process allowing complaints from the public.
All of this challenges a status quo which seems inviolate to many in the media.
Yes, there are demands in the concessions that some of us do not favor. However, we should be honest about the status quo: Today’s legislative system is a mockery of the deliberative process, characterized by runaway spending, blind voting and perfunctory debates. You can dislike or denounce the holdouts while still admitting they have a point — Congress has got to change.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Interesting.
Seems to me, that looks a lot more like what and how a government should be ran.
Are some screaming about chaos?
Of course.
They prefer a orderly tyrannical government to tell them what to do, how to think, and embrace government over reach.
UF,
Do you really believe this? I’m more pessimistic. I don’t believe for a second that anything will change. If anything it just showed again how these guys can be bought once the price is high enough. To me, this is just a hiccup in the cogs movement towards less liberty and freedom.
Jim22,
Well, as I see it, there were those, the “holdouts” who with their demands put a spotlight on the whole thing, dragged it out for 15 votes and they whole nation watched.
The concessions are on full display. If McCarthy does go back on those concessions, he now can be held accountable. And it will be on full display for the nation.
I think that is better than tyrannical Pelosi like rule.
Will anything truly change?
Only time will tell.
The thousand mile journey begins with one step.
UF,
I wish I shared your optimism. I’m not sure the “spotlight” is as bright as you think. Yes, you and I and people like us might have been paying attention but I doubt most of the nation cared less if the there was a new speaker voted in. I would bet that most “citizens” don’t even know who the speaker was or what the position even is. McCarthy was going to say anything he wanted to get the votes and now that he has them, there will be zero accountability for turning his back on them. When there is zero accountability for major things such as using the IRS, the FBI as weapons against the people, why would there be any for a couple of lies to get some votes? Yes, I’m glad the evil witch is gone, but nothing will change as the Republicans have shown when they owned all three branches.
Pelosi was the nation’s greatest Speaker of the House in our history. She got through many laws when Trump did not. We got the infrastructure bill to fix your stuff you let go, got help for veterans, got us health care, got the inflation bill through, and more.Trump just wanted to gt s out of NATO, like Putin wanted If he had, what would have happened to Ukraine?.
Not to be a downer but, do any of us really believe anything will change? When was the last time you ever heard of politicians in power giving us more liberty and freedoms? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Jim, I’m cautiously optimistic in the same way as when Trump was elected. The rule changes suggest the new boss is not the same as the old boss. Power was given up to make that happen. Could the 15 votes have been simply performative? Sure. But I doubt it. True change has to start somewhere. This is somewhere.
Olly,
I hope your right, but changes that really need to happen,never do. Trump had both sides of the house and still didn’t remove Obmacare.
The Who Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Any organization that has a non-participatory, non-transparent decision-making process is asking for incompetence, corruption, and worse.
Congress has to change.
If every election from president down to the local level followed this example, we could save our representative republic.
The January 6th election for the speaker of the house, was one of the most open, transparent, honest and legitimate elections seen anywhere in recent decades.
A genuine display of true republicanism, open public debate – deliberation – compromise.
Representatives were allowed to present their opinions, time was allotted for all of the legistatures to think about what was said, and a reasonable compromise on the issues was achieved, the outcome resulted in everyone being dissatisfied to some degree.
It wasn’t “open”. It’s clear there were a LOT of backroom deals and concessions being made in order for McCarthy to get the votes he needed. Who knows what kind of deals they made out of the public view. All that you say was a mess and the status quo peeking back.
Svelaz: That’s rich coming from someone like you. I suppose those 7,200 pork projects in the omnibus bill were all deals made “in the light of day”?
Republicans are the ones who brought back earmarks. They WANTED them and they are the ones who abused it the most despite calling themselves the party of fiscal responsibility.
Even if half of that were true, why didn’t a righteous dem congress stop them…
Give it a rest, your scripted nonsense is as boorish as it is laughable.
“ Even if half of that were true, why didn’t a righteous dem congress stop them…”
Because democrats didn’t have a big enough majority to enact legislation to do what they wanted. Just like republicans are having to contend now with their minuscule majority. Republicans were desperate to go back to earmarks because its’ how they appeased their constituents, by bringing home the bacon in the form of government funded pet projects. That’s not saying democrats didn’t do it either. They are just as guilty as republicans, BUT it was republicans who wanted to end the ban on earmarks.
I would have liked to have seen more debate and less speechifying, because the 200 who refused to offer a compromise CANDIDATE other than Swampy McCarthy should have been publicly asked and pressured to publicly answer WHY they think Swampy was the ONLY person for the job. The holdouts offered a variety of candidates, and the 200 Swampy-backers rejected them all and never offered their own alternative. It was the refusal to offer an alternative that required Swampy to offer compromises to obtain his thrown. Now many are complaining about the compromises without explaining their refusal to compromise via an alternative candidate.
When someone is treated as “inevitable” by virutually an entire political party — such as Hillary was by primary-rigging democrats in 2016 — that party should be required to explain from whence that inevitability came.
In other words, what was, and continues to be, opaque — not even remotely transparent — is the decision of the vast majority that Swampy was entitled like a Clinton and inevitable like a Hillary.
I only hope for two things in Congress:
(1)That it not devolve/be reduced to unruly shouting matches like the British Parliament. I don’t think our citizens either desire or respect this; and
(2) that ALL riders and components attached to a pending bill be RELATED/RELEVANT in subject matter to the pending bill. Pork barrel additions, as well as totally-unrelated proposals/measures too insignificant to stand alone, really add to the sad realities of the Omnibus Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act. If even congressional members have no time to read it all, how many times have ordinary citizens been able to have the time??? Maybe we need a “small bill Wednesday” and a “Pork Barrel Friday,” where each state’s delegation can present proposals relating to its own state’s needs/interests.
. . . that ALL riders and components attached to a pending bill be RELATED/RELEVANT in subject matter to the pending bill.
The problem is that omnibus already have a thousand different subject matters even before amendments. A single-subject rule for bills would be desirable, but I think that would require a constitutional amendment – which would be good, but difficult to pull off.
(Constitutional amendment or House Rules amendment?)
Of course, the Omnibus Bill was so named because it necessarily covered a vast majority of spending-related issues; that was not my point. This was:
” WASHINGTON, Dec. 23, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — The 117th Congress finally wrapped up business by approving a lame-duck, pork-laden $1.7 trillion spending bill – consisting of more than 4,000 pages that not a single member had the time to read and fully analyze…” https://finance.yahoo.com/news/omnibus-spending-bill-does-not-194400851.html
No constitutional restraints on House Rules. The House can, and has in the past had the single topic rule.
Or are you saying the rule only matters if it becomes an amendment.? That would be good, I doubt congress would even bring the Idea to the floor. A convention of the states could do it…but the unknown is scary.
“ I only hope for two things in Congress:
(1)That it not devolve/be reduced to unruly shouting matches like the British Parliament.”
Really? The British parliament is a true venue of debate. They have more robust discussion and a better handle on what debate really is. Those “shouting” matches are what occurred with our congress in the beginning. They were imitating the debating “chaos” that occurred in British parliament. The backbenchers the “rabbble rousers” are just engaging in the same type of ‘heckling’ that the freedom caucus engages in here. The only difference is they do it during media interviews instead on the chamber where it belongs. The British PMs build courage by being ‘loud’ and ‘forceful’ with their ideas and arguments.
You are conflating open, honest, even “spirited” debate with “unruly shouting matches.” Nice try, thanks anyway.
(would you like me to attach some articles about Brits’ in general feelings about this?)
We saw the Republican congressman having to be restrained when going after Gaetz the Goof.
True. I believe several reported that the congressman was intoxicated. I also denounced the person who shouted “Liar!” when Obama was trying to speaking.
Interesting, should intoxicated congressmen be allowed to vote on pending bills and legislation? Or should their votes be disqualified? I wonder how many legislators or congressmen have voted while drunk.
Lin, I used to watch the British parliament in action all the time and those “shouting” matches were moderated by the speaker. That is always expected in parliament and it’s a long running tradition, even heckling. What made it more interesting to watch than congressional “debates” addressing an empty chamber or nearly empty chamber on C-SPAN is the fact that they did engage in “spirited” debate which often involved shouting. When Berkow was speaker it certainly made it a must to see. “ORDER!”, “ORDERRRR!!!” Congress is outright boring compared to the Brits.
Parliament’s debates have always been “unruly” and that is part of what a debate is when properly moderated by the speaker.
As for truly unruly you should see how the Taiwanese legislature “debates”, with literal fistfights and brawling.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): “My question really is, today, is what back room deals did they try to cut? And did they get those because we shouldn’t be operating like Nancy Pelosi, this small faction. They’re the ones that are saying they were ‘fighting the swamp,’ but then yet went and tried to act like you know, like, they actually are the swamp by trying to do these backroom deals. And we don’t know what they got, or didn’t get. We haven’t seen it. We don’t have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman’s handshakes were made. We just have no idea at this point. And it does give me quite a bit of heartburn, because that’s not what we ran on.”
“I want to see it in writing. I want to see what promises were made. And what we are being told is that these handshakes, what’s going on these promises will go through regular order and go through the regular appropriations process. I don’t want to see defense cuts. We don’t know what deals were made. And that’s something that we should be transparent about. Sunshine is the best medicine.”
I’m willing to bet that McCarthy is ousted before the end of this year on a no- confidence vote. If it only takes 5 members to call for one it’s guaranteed the freedom caucus will do it on a whim the second they don’t like what they see.
The rules change, assuming that the new rules are approved, is that it takes a single member to call for the Speaker to be removed.
That’s even worse
The vacate the chair rule will be used to intimidate the speaker into doing what the extreme minority in the GOP wants. It’s their “insurance” policy that guarantees he will comply with THEIR demands over everyone else’s.
Problem is republicans have a very, very slim majority that they will HAVE to seek compromise with the democrats or endure long protracted fights that will gridlock any legislation coming out of the house. With the budget cuts they want it’s virtually guaranteed they will go after social safety nets such as Midcare and SS. When they say they want to cut back on military spending and the need to face the threat China poses they only mean spending on Ukraine, not cutting back on military programs in general. It won’t be long before they start running into problems and get bogged down in Hunter Biden “scandals” and their Benghazi 2.0 investigations wasting money and time on witch-hunts and vengeance for the Jan 6. Hearings which they CHOSE not to be a part of.
Gridlock is a feature for the HFC, not a bug.
Turley left out the concessions he disagreed with. Obviously because there’s a lot he disagrees with.
McCarthy is going to be weakened and the cadre of Republican extremists will wield those new rules to engage in personal vendettas and hold the entire chamber hostage to their demands. That is the goal. Pelosi as a powerful speaker did exactly the same thing Mitch McConnell did in the senate. Turley didn’t gripe about it when He was in charge of the senate and he unilaterally dictated what went on the floor and what could and could not be debated. Turley remained silent.
Turley left them out because he doesn’t want to tick off his Republican readership.
Of course, Turley must keep his audience happy and content without antagonizing them by uncomfortable criticism.
Time for your nap, Svelaz!
ATS and Svelaz have big mouths and can destroy, but are unable to build. They are best at character assassination of good people, so I will provide a link to the rules. https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-01/House%20Rules%20Package.pdf Now they have the opportunity to add all those things they believe the good Professor left out.
Things are very fluid now, so additions and changes could have been made since the link was created.
The left always projects.
Simply because the degenerate’s wife created the most extreme, central-authoritarian HOR ever, doesn’t mean that now anyone right of that is ‘extreme.’
The left has to centralize power because their ideas are never popular – no one likes servitude. Again, the antidote for a fascist and creeping totalitarian regime is not extremism.
We really had a 2 consul republic like the Romans with Pelosi as the real consul, and Biden as the “other” consul there to fill in the paperwork and executive orders to justify the letter of the law (somewhat). Kamala Harris was more a stenographer than anything.
At first I thought this recent debate on the speaker was a somewhat boring exercise but as I heard of the demands then I became far more interested and happy to see the debate. Yes Matt Gaetz could be Bozo the Clown or Pennywise depending on your point of view (I tend towards Bozo) but it was time to have this talk and rule changes . Many definitely were needed. Funny to hear the BBC criticize this as chaos. Would seem they have not attended their own Parliament in some time.
I appreciate the British Parliamentary System but have no desire to replicate it here. We did fight a revolution against it after all (not the king). But one thing I always liked was the “Question Hour” when the PM had to answer all questions from the floor from any member. I always thought that could be a staple of the House where the Speaker had to answer all questions from the floor. With a time limit. Once a week should do just fine. Alternating parties for each questioner. Imagine what that could be like.
Hopefully we get no more 4000 page bills the night before a vote.
“At first I thought this recent debate on the speaker was a somewhat boring exercise but as I heard of the demands then I became far more interested and happy to see the debate. “
You are intelligent and well-informed. For you to have your first thoughts means the left did a good job preventing the truth from being heard. They do that through the media and by creating the opinion that if you disagree with them, you have faults in your character. (You don’t care about the poor, you are a racist, etc.) Leftists do not care about their character and can lie easily, but those supporting conservative or libertarian beliefs do care.
The left has had over 100 years of experience manipulating good Americans into doing bad things.
GEB, to your point about the 4000+ page bills that are dropped just before the vote – I would like to see omnibus bills eliminated altogether. They sometimes contain toxic provisions. For example, the the final days of the Clinton administration, companion bills were introduced in the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton without debate in either the Hiuse or the Senate. This unfortunate legislation, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, eliminated the possibility of regulation of over-the-counter derivatives (including credit default swaps) which had the effect of fueling the Financial Crisis of 2008. AIG wrote credit default swaps on subprime mortgages, failing to realize the enormous risk that it had taken. Its principal counterparty was Goldman Sachs. When the values of the collateralized mortgage obligations dropped, AIG could not meet its financial obligations to its counterparties. That’s why the Fed extended an $85B loan to AIG. It’s too bad that Alan Greenspan opposed the efforts of Brooksley Born, who chaired the CFTC, to regulate OTC derivatives. Brooksley Born has the biggest “I told you so” story of the century. That’s why I oppose omnibus legislation.
CC,
Great job writing up the basics of that story. Along with it, “Suck It Up’ Charlie Munger/ & Warren/ Buffet/Wells Fargo/Etc.,should have been forced into BK with Maurice Hank Greenberg /AIG.
The numbers will just be much larger this time.
This is how the left works, we get Ralph, Wally, Holmes, Svelaz and Anonymous comment bombing a middle of the road site to use a heckler’s veto to try to shut down intelligent commenting on the issues of the day. When I say comment bomb I mean not just commenting I mean commenting 100 times on each article the way that Anonymous and Svelaz do each and every day. They don’t leave a comment and then go away, they comment 100 times as they try to ruin the site. Conservatives would never go to a leftist site and do the same because conservatives don’t try to shut down dissent, the argue logically against it.
When conservatives don’t like what CNN or MSNBC are saying they change the channel, when liberals don’t like Fox News they call cable companies and try to have them shut down, they call advertisers and try to boycott Tucker, Laura and Hannity. Conservatives don’t go to talks that liberals (and even freaks) are giving on campus to blow whistles, shout and force a cancellation, they ignore it, but liberals DEMAND that the speakers be banned. Conservatives aren’t demanding that Musk ban or shadow ban liberals on Twitter, they just point out how moronic they are, but liberals, see Schiff, Adam, demand that Republicans be banned and censored. You will not see Jim Jordan calling Musk up with his Judiciary Chairmanship and threatening him if he doesn’t censor a Democrat.
Liberals make bad arguments, they cannot back up these arguments because NOBODY supports them, and they therefore try to ban any kind of debate. Please note the recent elections and think about how many Democrats hid from debating while no Republicans shied away from debating. The Liberals can’t debate things like the open border, billions in tax money going to illegals, teaching 5 year olds about gender, telling grade school kids to lie to their own parents about their “pronouns”, hiring 87,000 IRS agents while the border is open, having no bail for violent criminals that get released after their 23rd offense, giving farm subsidies to BLACK Farmers only, giving monthly money to Trans people only (a law in SF), planning on spending 300 BILLION on reparations, giving 300 BILLION to pay off kids loans. The left cannot debate these things and so the scream and shout you down.
hullbobby, thank you for voicing my thoughts!
Since I’m the only Ralph in the comment section at this time, I have to assume you’re referring to me, so I’ll point out concerning your “comment bombinga” garbage that I have never commented (to my recollection) more than once per article — differentiating comments from replies, which I also rarely post.unless as replies to replies I’ve received.
You are a lying fraud executing Fox bot tactics, which are to post lies and ad hominem attacks, especially if anyone dares to criticize RINO Fox “News” You can’t defend Fox or its lies or the neocon agenda that it’s resurrected, so you attack the commenters. No decent website would allow you to post comments like that — not ONE.
That’s what I keep saying – it matters much more (I typed ‘mush more,’ Freudian slip based on the mental powers of these intellectual amoebae) WHAT is done than BY WHOM, and that makes me a dastardly conservative to the left and a communist to the right. Which is why I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican, either.
Morons to the left of me, toadies to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with sanity.
Ralph, I NEVER said that you comment 100 times a column, but you are still a partisan hack. As for the others, yes, the comment bomb every day.
I repeat: You’re a lying fraud and a Fox bot that uses ad hominem instead of civilized discourse, and for that reason you should be banned from commenting at a legitimate website and make any website illegitimate when it allows you to engage in your rubbish.
You accused me of “comment bombing”: — “we get Ralph, Wally, Holmes, Svelaz and Anonymous comment bombing”
And then you defined “comment bombing” — “When I say comment bomb I mean not just commenting I mean commenting 100 times on each article”
And now you say “I NEVER said that you comment 100 times a column”
You’re a liar and a fraud, and those aren’t your only lies, but I’ve no intention of defending myself to a degenerate fraud such as you.
Time to stop:
1. Feeding the troll
2. Casting pearls before swine
Only someone with a “de minimis” mind would say, and I quote, “You’re a lying fraud and a Fox bot” and finishes off with “who uses ad hominem instead of civilized discourse”. Imagine not being able to see the hypocrisy of that statement. Hey Ralph, go back to the FBI of the DNC where you belong you trolling little fool.
Hey Ralph, go count up how many comments Svelaz, the comment bomber, has written for just this one issue and then tell me that he isn’t trying to co-opt the site.
Svelaz, Anonymous and now Ralph are trying to ruin the comments section of this great site by using a variation of the heckler’s veto. They can’t scream or shout you down in a comments section, but they can try to kill it with a flood of comments that turn everyone off and end normal discussion.
Ralph, go to a left wing site where you belong. I love guys that use a term like de minimis to imply that they have a legal background. Unfortunately for Ralph what we infer is a lack of intelligence. How’s that for ad hominem?
“[Y]ou should be banned from commenting at a legitimate website . . .”
I think you just proved his point about the Left’s fascist urges.
Ralph isn’t on the left. If you see “fascist urges” in his comments, they’re on the right.
I post fewer comments and many, many fewer words than John Say does. I don’t see you complaining about him, which tells me that you only care about comments that you disagree with. You want this to be a conservative safe-space. Too bad. No single anonymous commenter ever posts anywhere close to 100 comments, even S. Meyer’s Anonymous incarnation.
Please end the Safe space nonsense.
Libertarians and real liberals have always wanted free speech – look up mario Savio and the Berkeley Free speech movement.
In the past – like the MacCarthy era – Republicans were enemies of free speech – increasingly today they are vigorous defenders of free speech.
We are in the midst of a significant political re-alignment in the country – partly the parties are shifting positions. Partly large bodies of the electorate are.
Conservatives are becoming more libertarain – thanks to an increasingly authoritarian left.
Only the left talks about “Safe spaces” – that is YOUR rhetorical nonsense.
I certainly do not want this to be a “safe space”.
I want it to be a place where bad arguments and stupidity is called out.
On net today that benefits republicans far more than democrats.
But that does not mean there are not conservatives or republicans who make bad arguments.
Just far fewer and far less bad arguments than those on the left.
The most “extreme” conservative on this site is much less dangerous than YOU.
Pick the most extreme conservative you can think of on this site – impliment all their views.
And at the very worst the country might revert to something like the 80’s.
No one is talking about going back to slavery, or Jim Crow. Frankly no one is talking about putting Gay and trans people back in the closet.
What is “radical” today is not letting MTF trans compete in womens sports, or use girls bathrooms. And not trying to sexuallize kids or indoctrinate them in Racist marxism.
You could make Marjorie Taylor Green President and the country would do better than it has under Biden – that is not advocating for MTG, just pointing out how bad democrats are.
Only left wing nuts for the most part complain about my posts because only left wing nuts are so stupid as to think that a blog is a limited resource.
And only left wing nuts think anonymous posters have credibility.
Only left wing nuts think we are all actually equal.
That we are equally credit worthy.
That we all have equal burderns of proof – that even serial liars have no higher burdern of proof that those who are rarely wrong and correct their mistakes.
Hullbobby, clearly you don’t know what a hecklers veto is. You should look it up and understand what it really is. It’s not what you think it means.
Now you’re harping about others posting their own opinions because it’s ‘annoying’ to you that others can do that. John B. Say comments as much as I do. You’re just upset about the fact that there are other people engaging in discussion that express points of view you don’t agree with. Hey Hullbobby, that’s called freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, even ones that you don’t like. It’s the whole purpose of this site.
“ Please note the recent elections and think about how many Democrats hid from debating while no Republicans shied away from debating.”
Nope, a LOT of republicans are refusing to debate because they can’t argue their positions without relying on an echo chamber.
“ For many Republicans, ducking debates is a way to express disdain for a national media that former president Donald Trump has derided as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people”. Some Democrats have a different motive, refusing to share a platform with Republican election deniers peddling baseless conspiracy theories.”
No republicans shied away from debating?
In Nebraska, gubernatorial candidate Jim Pillen has refused to debate Democrat Carol Blood.
In the Pennsylvania’s governor’s race, Republican extremist Doug Mastriano has rejected a televised debate with an independent moderator.
In North Carolina, Ted Budd, who sat out four Republican primary debates in his Senate race, has said he will not accept an invitation from the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters to debate Democrat Cheri Beasley.
The entire RNC has decided to forgo debates all together. Republicans refused to debate because they couldn’t or wouldn’t face the BS that trump was peddling. Including all of his legal troubles. They were avoiding it like the plague. Just look at Hershel Walker.
I beleive I comment more than you do.
But I never comment nearly as stupidly as you do.
BTW VBS just reported that on Nov. 2 2022, at-least 10 Classified documents from the Obama Administration were found at a DC Think Tank of Vice President Biden. And a US attorney has been appointed to investigate.
There are details we do not know.
But obvious comparisons the Trump/Maralago are emerging.
These documents most likely came from Vice President Biden and were transfered to the Think Tank as he left office.
These were not found in a locked closet in ex-vice president Biden’s government office that is guarder by secret service.
They were found in a private think tank. In otherwords the espionage act MUST have been violated.
I have no problem – and fully expect that a thorough search of ex-president Obama, Bush. Clinton’s residence would likely also reveal classified documents – the same for prior vice presidents. This is not a crime or evidence of a crime.
There are some differences between ex-vice presidents and ex-presidents – as ex-presidents when they were president had unlimited declassification authority. Vice Presidents do not. Merely moving a classified document from a secure location to an insecure one as president declassifies it. That is NOT true of vice presidents.
Nor do I assume that because classified documents show up in otehr presidents or vice presidents personal homes (guarded by the secret service), that the president or vice president personally was responsible for that. Not that it matters if they were.
GSA transfers most documents on the presidents and vice presidents departure.
Neither Biden, nor Trump went throught the WH deciding what should go to MAL or wherever and what stays.
Nearly all of that is done by GSA.
Contra the nonsense spewed the past 6 months – presidents in particular not only have the authority to declassify, they also have the authority to decide what documents are personal – the plain law, as well as Judge Jackson’s ruling in the Clinton case establish that.
Had Trump personally directed that the documents that are at MAL be sent there – they are declassified, and they are personal papers.
But as VP Biden had NEITHER authority. Presidential papers and classified documents ended up – Not at his residence where he has an office paid for by the government and containing a SCIF, But Biden’s documents ended up at a private think tank.
Ungarded by the Secret Service and accessible by anyone with access to their storage.
i.e more akin to what Clinton did than What Trump allegedly did.
While there is a US Attorney investigating – I doubt that any charges will be filed. They should not be – absent proof that someone knowingly or recklessly transfered presidential papers and/or classified documents outside of govenrment control.
You can not get that with Trump at MAL, and you likely will not get that with Biden.
But this creates enormous problems for the DOJ efforts to go after Trump.
And I suspect house republicans will add it to their investigations.
Oh, and I am prety sure there were nuclear codes that Biden was selling to the russians among the UoP classified documents.
Oh, some of us “express” facts, and arguments.
Those are inherently superior to narratives and opinions.
The trust in media by the american people is at an all time low.
Trump’s fake news label just puts a name to what most people already recognized.
Media outlets that did nto report on the hunter Biden laptop in October 2020 or that reported it was russian disinformation – are “fake news”.
Fake news is journalists who are driven by view point not facts. Who take what they are told as gospel if it fits their beleifs and do not investigate.
I respect journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, because even if they sometimes get it wrong, they do not allow their strong left wing biases to prevent them from following a story whereever it leads.
Those who do not are “fake news”
Candidates are perfectly entitled to decide whether they will debate or not, And voters can factor that into their voting decisions.
Their opponents are perfectly free to try to make as much political hay as possible from their decision.
Candidates are also free to try to structure debates so that they will be most favorable to them.
Also in recent news the J6 committee on its way out the dorr released documents with the names, addresses and social security numbers of almost 2000 people who were subpeaned, called as witnesses or considered as witnesses.
This is actually a federal crime. Just as releasing Trump’s tax return is a federal crime.
The J6 committee can only get away with this – maybe, because they are protected from criminal prosecution for their work in the house by the constitutions debate clause.
So much for democrats morality.
I saw Zeldin Debate Hoschule.
I saw Oz debate Fetterman.
I saw several other debates where republicans crushed Democrats.
Of course mailin voting and early voting negates any of the value of debates.
hullbobby: Well, there you go. I propose, on the open floor of this blog’s comments section, a Bill of Attainer (sic intended) that we vote hullbobby’s as the best “Comment of the Day.”
Nay. Hypocrisy is ungentlemany on this forum. Boo.
I second that motion to make hullbobby’s comment the “Best Comment of the Day.”
HullBobby,
Well said.
I just scroll past those.
Upstate and Lin, please note that after my comment Svelaz has commented about 20 times already and it isn’t even noon yet. Thanks for all your great comments, the two of you are part of the reason this site is so enjoyable.
Hullbobby, you need learn how to count. It’s only been 10 posts. You’re up to 5 now. Keep going and you will match mine. You should stop before you reach your limit for the day.
HullBobby,
Also, as you point out, I do not go to leftist websites or blogs.
This blog is where is see and read (when I choose to) the leftists and woke mentality.
That is how I became educated into their thoughts.
And I always feel the need to shower afterwards.
Upstatefarmer, if you don’t go to leftist websites the only way you know what leftists think is through here. Is this a rightist website to you? I go on “rightist” websites too and they are as crazy nutty as they seem to be. At least I give them something to talk about. I’ve noticed on those sites they become stale with so much preaching to the choir and the echo chamber of agreement. Throw them some red meat or something to get riled up about and they liven up pretty quick. It’s like throwing fish pellets on the pond and watch the feeding frenzy erupt.
In order to bring civility back, Republicans need to turn the tables on Democrats and subject to the same processes Pelosi employed. Subpoenas and warrants against legislators, and the their STAFF. Dumping emails and texts, Get 6 years of tax returns for ranking Democrats, including Biden, and releasing those returns.
Pelosi has poisoned the well, and Democrats need to be forced to drink from it.
Over 20 years of Biden’s tax returns are already public, you idiot:
https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns
I have no idea if those are complete. But thats just Biden. There are whole raft of other Dems we need to put through the process, Pelosi invented.
Before calling anyone an idiot, think of what you reveal about yourself. You are not very bright. Biden wouldn’t put in his tax returns that he was paid $X by the Chinese. He wouldn’t reveal selling America down the drain, but an investigation can. We already have documentation of more than 100 money transfers. That is not all. His tax returns reveal what he earned. A forensic audit reveals what he spent, and on the surface, one can see an opulent lifestyle not matching his tax returns
If you were wondering what Matt Gaetz and Kevin McCarthy were saying during that confrontation, here is an accurate lip reading of the account:
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/gaetz-v-mccarthy-hilariously-bad-lip-reading/
Would be a great idea to also define/discuss your problems
to those changes you disagree with.
Let us hope so. I don’t think there’s a cure for leftist/globalist chicanery, so let’s see if we can at least stop it in its tracks. Bear in mind that to radical leftists, ironically, *discussion* is violence, it’s cancel or die. The tearing up of the speech was actually the final nail that made me swear to never vote dem again – Pelosi is a disgrace. It couldn’t possibly be worse than her.
With which proposed rules do you disagree, Professor, and why?
Awesome !!! Thanks
I read this column at The Hill yesterday, and wrote this comment a bit later after seeing a semi-related article at Fox, and would like to draw attention to that Fox “News” article:
“Florida Rep. Byron Donalds reveals committee appointment in exchange for McCarthy House Speaker vote”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-byron-donalds-reveals-committee-appointment-exchange-mccarthy-house-speaker-vote
The subtitle of the article says “To become House speaker, McCarthy had to make concessions to a group of hard-liners who refused to support him until he yielded to their demands,” and the article goes on to say “Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., revealed on Sunday that he is being placed on the House Republican Steering Committee in exchange for supporting Kevin McCarthy for House Speaker.”
Basically, the article tells half the story and reinforces the misleading week-long reporting that Fox “News” gave to all 15 votes that were necessary to get Gangster Swampy McCarthy installed (because apparently lobbyists don’t have enough influence on Congress already and needed one of their own to be Speaker). The week-long Fox “News” emphasis — especially from Sham Hannity — was that the “hard-liners” — “terrorists,” according to Gangster-Thug “republican” Representative Ben Crenshaw — were holding out ONLY for the purpose of receiving bribes and payoffs for themselves.
This Fox “News” article softens that outright allegation to an implication, but still continues the narrative by omitting the FACT that those called a “group of hard-liners” HAD to include demands for committee assignments along with their list of needed reforms, because aside from needing to be on committees to get the reforms enacted, they’d been threatened earlier in the week by Swampy McCarthy’s drunken GOON, Mike Rogers — the one that tried to physically attack Representative Gaetz — by being told that they “would lose their committee assignments” in retribution for not voting for Swampy McCarthy.
So they HAD to include demands for getting committee assignments along with their list of reforms or the reforms could have been ignored even if Swampy McCarthy agreed to them. And, of course, the reforms STILL might be ignored. But without being on committees, the “group of hard-liners” — or “terrorists” as establishment-“republican” THUGS see them — might just as well have put their reforms in a letter to Santa, mailed it to the North Pole, and then resigned from Congress.
In other words: The SAME reason that they needed to demand the reforms from a thoroughly-corrupt party establishment in the first place was the reason they needed to make demands that would protect them from retribution from Swampy McCarthy.
The moral of the story, in relation to corporate garbage media and the establishment-“republican” wing of the Washington UniParty, is that there’s a REASON that witnesses giving testimony in court are required to swear not just to tell the truth but to tell the WHOLE truth — because telling half truths is often the same as lying, or worse. Unfortunately, even on the rare occasions when they aren’t outright lying, Fox “News” — aka the new CNN —and the rest of the corporate garbage media aren’t required to tell the WHOLE truth, or even a fraction of it. Instead, they invent expressions like “hard-liners” or “election deniers” or “conspiracy theorists” or “anti-vaxxers” — or now, incredibly, “terrorists” — to stigmatize anyone questioning their agenda, narrative, or truthfulness and who dares to go looking for more reliable information, often from sources with more truthfulness and expertise who’ve been illegally BANNED from participating in the national dialogue, or just drowned out by an army of trolls hired to create the ILLUSION that more people agree with the political narrative than actually do.
And the result of all of the aforementioned is that while Fox “News” (whom I’m targeting here because they’re the ones republicans listen to) never spares any effort when it comes to giving CNN and MSNBC the criticism they deserve, the credibility of Fox “News” itself, and the rest of the corporate garbage media, continues to melt like the face of an Indiana Jones Nazi that has gotten a good look at the Ark of the Covenant.
ALL the MSM – which totally includes Fox and The New York Post, wants things to go “back to (what they consider) normal.” A never-was “normal,” to be sure, when the self-styled “journalists” who purportedly “report” the news are sppon fed “narratives,” don’t actually do any investigating of their own, and don’t get pushback from the rabble.
Tucker Carlson took a different view. He was one of the few.
Interesting thing about Carlson.
He is 100% isolated from FOX. He produces himself and sells content to FOX. The contract can go away, but Carlson has positioned himself to sell his daily video to the highest bidder.
I believe Tucker Carlson belongs grouped with those real journalists who are independent – the ones I read whether their political stances are close to mine or wholly in opposition, because they respect facts.
Most self-styled journalists are contemptuous of facts which don’t align with “the narrative.” I am contemptuous of them.
Excluding Tucker Carlson (Fox) and Miranda Devine (NYP), the only “investigating” that “reporters for Fox or the NY Post do is investigating what’s on TV or Twitter — nothing that requires them to get off the couch or out of their pajamas — and the investigation never goes any farther than finding out the latest gossip about the British Royal Family, or what’s on CNN or MSNBC, or what celebrity wisdom Bill Maher or the clucking Hollywood Hens on The View have to share.
Ralph calls McCarthy a “gangster” and yet he loves Pelosi. This is the idiotic mindset that us normal conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis.
I am fairly sure Mr. De Minimis is not a fan of Dolores Pelosi.
There is nobody in government I despise more than Pelosi. You appear to be a lying Fox bot, because that’s the tactic of lying Fox bots — to accuse anyone who criticizes Fox of being a leftists. They do that all day every day at Lying RINO Garbage Fox. It’s the standard tactic of UniParty trolls to pretend that criticism of one wing of the corrupt UniParty = endorsement of the other wing of the corrupt UniParty.
If you are a “normal conservative,” then normal conservatives are lying frauds.
Find me a statement I’ve posted anywhere that a reasonable person would interpret as indicating that I have a positive opinion of Pelose, lying Fox bot.
McQarthy is beholden to the RWNJ’s like Matt Gaetz. Elect a clown, get a circus.
Walter, a fool that had no issue with the Squad and Pelosi happily dealing with Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib or keeping Eric Swalwell on the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE after he was known to have slept with a Chinese spy.
You are right, Professor. We wouldn’t want a Speaker committed to the well being of the people and our democracy. It’s great to have a Speaker who is nothing more than an errand boy for the far right.
It seems that a day doesn’t go by when you don’t chatter about the talking points the sedition caucus must send your way.
I thought you guys loved change.
“I thought you guys loved change.”
Only if it’s accompanied by “hope.”
If Swampy McCarthy is an errand boy for anyone, it’s for K-Street lobbiets and Klaus Schwab. Clearly you don’t know much about Swampy McCarthy, who was recorded in January, 2021 as saying that some of his fellow republican House members (who happened to be more conservative than others) should be banned from social media. It’s delusional to think or suggest that Swampy will be their “errand boy.”
If the people whose well-being you refer to are K-street lobbyists, military contractors, fentanyl importers and distributors, NGO-slush fund runners, pedophile ring leaders, and the bourgeoisie you are correct, Pelosi was committed to their well-being. Proof’s in the pudding.
Justice Holmes wrote, “You are right, Professor. We wouldn’t want a Speaker committed to the well being of the people and our democracy. It’s great to have a Speaker who is nothing more than an errand boy for the far right.” “It seems that a day doesn’t go by when you don’t chatter about the talking points the sedition caucus must send your way.”
HOLY COW!!!
That comment from our regular trolling “Justice” is about the best example of pure psychological projection and delusion as you’ll see in these comment threads.
Well…he wasn’t wrong. The reaction to his comment shows how true it is. The bigger the reaction the closer the truth was his post.
Svelaz wrote, “Well…he wasn’t wrong. The reaction to his comment shows how true it is. The bigger the reaction the closer the truth was his post.”
Nothing you wrote was true.
Your comment was delusional.
Delusional: characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Witherspoon, you didn’t show Justice Holmes comments was NOT true. All you did was claim it wasn’t without something to support your disagreement.
Oftentimes the reaction to a post can show that the post was very close to the truth or it was the truth. Because it’s much harder to show it wasn’t. That can mean it’s most likely true.
Svelaz wrote, “Witherspoon, you didn’t show Justice Holmes comments was NOT true. All you did was claim it wasn’t without something to support your disagreement.”
To be completely accurate, I didn’t write that what Justice Holmes wrote was not true, I wrote that Justice Holmes comment was “psychological projection and delusion” and I wrote that “nothing you wrote was true” and overall your comment was delusional. Disagree if you like.
Svelaz wrote, “Oftentimes the reaction to a post can show that the post was very close to the truth or it was the truth. Because it’s much harder to show it wasn’t. That can mean it’s most likely true.”
That’s a really poorly written unethical rationalization trying to justify immature circular logic that’s false.
I’m done with your deflection.
Witherspoon, you stated that Justice Holmes comment was delusional. As per YOUR definition
“ Delusional: characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.”
“ To be completely accurate, I didn’t write that what Justice Holmes wrote was not true,…” but you DID
YOU, didn’t provide any evidence to the contrary. As in proving it was NOT true. Don’t blame me. Blame your own claim as definition.
HA!!
You of all people in these threads demanding evidence to prove a negative, that’s f’ing rich!
What part of I’m done with your f’ing deflection did you not comprehend?
Witherspoon, obviously you don’t know what ‘deflection’ means. I have done no such thing.
I”m not demanding evidence. I’m just pointing out that by YOUR rationale and definitions with YOU argued you have not provided the contrary evidence to claim that Justice Holmes post was not true,
I posted that his opinion rang true. You went on your usual rant including posting the definition of a word without noticing the irony. It just shows most of your arguments are based on emotional disagreements rather than logical ones.
“ What part of I’m done with your f’ing deflection did you not comprehend?”
I comprehend it just fine, it seems YOU keep responding to my posts despite saying you are done with my “deflection” which isn’t. You’re the idiot who keeps responding because you are too emotional to stop yourself. That is YOUR problem, not mine.
As suspected; the troll Svelaz is also one of the notorious Anonymous trolls commenters in these threads commenting using multiple psydonymes.
I’m shocked, shocked I say.
Witherspoon,
“ As suspected; the troll Svelaz is also one of the notorious Anonymous trolls commenters in these threads commenting using multiple psydonymes.‘
You certainly jump to conclusions faster than you can think things through.
I hit send before i put “Svelaz” too soon. It was not intentional. Calm down man. You’re making it so easy to point out how emotions rule your rationality.
Well, you could also add “arrogant”