Congress, Politics

The House Crack Suicide Squad: The Ouster of McCarthy Captures the Politics of Our Times

In Monty Python’s film, “The Life of Brian,” the lead character hangs hopelessly on the cross when a small army arrives to rescue him. His relief is short-lived as Otto, the leader, promptly announces that they are the crack suicide squad trained to kill themselves “within 20 seconds.” The scene came to mind yesterday as eight Republicans joined Democrats to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy. It was a moment that perfectly captured our politics of chaos and disruption, including the refusal of a single Democrat to prevent the House from going through a week of unnecessary turmoil. There was a time when opposing members would oppose such moves in the interest of House as an institution. This is not one of those times.

The most telling aspect of the ouster was that there was no plan other than vacating the chair. It had all of the logic of Monty Python’s Judean People’s Front Crack Suicide Squad. Eight members rushed forward and committed ritualistic suicide.

This is the first time in history that a speaker has been ousted despite the fact that McCarthy had all but eight of the Republicans supporting his retention. It is telling that we have gone through wars, economic crises, and social upheavals without resorting to this type of nuclear option.

These members have valid objections to the use of continuing resolutions and the dishonest process used for years to steadily increase our debt. I get that.  What I do not get is how vacating the chair will change anything.

Speaker McCarthy did make major changes in returning to regular order. There was more transparency and empowerment of members. It was far more democratic after years of almost autocratic rule by the leadership. Rules were changed as promised and greater amendments allowed on the floor. Ironically, it was the Democrats who embraced the all-powerful speaker model with reduced ability for members to read, let alone challenge, bills.

Notably, in his farewell remarks late last night, McCarthy said that Nancy Pelosi had assured him that he could return to the rule allowing any member to seek to vacate the chair because she and the Democrats would stand with the Speaker. If so, that was a statement consistent with the long values of the House. There were certain acts that were deemed as beyond the pale. Vacating the chair to make a statement was viewed as inimical to the institution. Despite decades of fierce political divisions, there were times when partisanship would be set aside.

As Democrats profess alarm over government shutdowns and the lack of legislation on key issues, this vacating of the chair will only delay business in the “People’s House.” It was certainly a thrilling moment for many, but few would argue that it was good for the institution. Indeed, they are more likely to get an even more conservative and strident speaker than McCarthy.

As for Republicans, they will now have to negotiate with Rep. Matt Gaetz and the other seven members to be able to resume business. In the meantime, much of the business on the border, the budget, and the impeachment inquiry will have to wait in abeyance.

At the same time, the chaos could well cost moderate Republicans their seats as the media portrays the GOP as careening and unable to govern effectively. That would then hand the House back to the Democrats in 2024. McCarthy was credited with raising a huge amount of money to reelect Republicans and coordinating a strategy to take the House majority.

The new speaker will face the same realities in dealing with a Democratically-controlled Senate and a Democratic White House in getting anything through Congress.

This effort would have been far more convincing if there was a cognizable plan and preferred alternative at the outset. The over 200 GOP members supporting McCarthy are not going to materially yield their positions to eight members. I simply do not see how the ouster will make a material difference while costing the GOP in terms of both time and optics.

The comedian Steven Martin once said “chaos in the midst of chaos isn’t funny, but chaos in the midst of order is.”

He is right. There is nothing funny in the chaos in Congress.

247 thoughts on “The House Crack Suicide Squad: The Ouster of McCarthy Captures the Politics of Our Times”

  1. McCarthy and McConnell are both sinkers who have stabbed their voters in the back repeatedly.
    If the GOP doesn’t have quarterbacks that move the founders football down the field to the end zone no one’s existence will include freedom.

    1. That’s what is happening as stupid is the call of the day for most. At least we have 8 spines in the House.

  3. Jonathan

    It’s getting tedious and time consuming to correct all of McInlyre’s mistakes, but I have a moment before I have lunch with Ms Abba.

    He keeps repeating the DNC talking point about “checking a box”, which is a complete and utter falsehood. Constitutional rights, as anyone knows, do not rest on “checking a box”. Constitutional rights must be waived, not claimed. His repeating of that lie is both juvenile and telling. Does he honestly think Trumps lawyers couldn’t have filed a motion day one because of an oversight on a form??? He knows better, but he’d rather act like a 3rd grader. With the crap show going on in Congress, you would think he would come here with better material from his sewing circle.

    He’s already had his sockpuppets come in with “House Rules, no Trump!”. And again the DNC forgot to tell him House Rules can easily be changed by majority vote. I guess he thought Moses made the House Rules.

    But back to the smoking hot Abba. She’s brilliant! Slow playing this and letting the libtard judge literally hang himself. The appeal will be a slam dunk.

    And I want to address his love affair with judges and prosecutors. Who exactly are these judges he holds in such high esteem?? I will tell you. They are dirtbag lawyers in robes. They hold the same biases they had when they were practicing small time tort law and defending DUI clients. DIRTBAGS. The cliche’s about lawyers are no accident. They spent a whole carrier “clucking defiance”. Or worse yet, lifetime prosecutors, who somehow go from “everyone is guilty” to “everyone is innocent until proven guilty”. My sweaty buttcheeks they do!

    Now specifically about this dirtbag in NY. Look at the things he has said.

    “Trump is a bad guy and she (Leticia James) should go after him”

    He is also on video, bragging about how he was a lawless cab driver. So he went to law school and suddenly when he put on a robe he is a paragon of virtue? SCUMBAG.

    He is also on video claiming he has “tools” to thwart the will of a jury whom he disagrees with, based on his emotional needs. No lie. Look it up. He is a SCUMBAG. Somebody tell Dennis that putting on a robe doesn’t make a scumbag any better.

    So some brain dead lefty is gonna come in and say, “oh well, he is the scumbag with all the power”. I will save them the trouble of looking foolish. He has all the power in his little courtroom. And he will get slapped down.

    1. “Constitutional rights must be waived, not claimed.”

      Nope.  They must be claimed.  In the case of Trump it’s up to Trump’s lawyers to request a jury trial.  It’s not automatic.  

      Just as your right to remain silent must be claimed.  It’s not automatic.  Whether a box was checked or not they were required to request it.  Trump’s lawyers did not. They messed up big time. 

      1. “Just as your right to remain silent must be claimed”

        Wrong-o bucko. “You have the right to remain silent”—Miranda

        Not “Do you claim the right to remain silent?, check this box”

        Thanks for playing dum dum

      2. Nope. They must be claimed. In the case of Trump it’s up to Trump’s lawyers to request a jury trial. It’s not automatic.

        You have to seek the right to a trial? You have to ask for a speedy trial.

        You’re speaking gibberish

        The Constitution never mentions bench trials……they only exist at the request of the accused

    2. Excerpted from Snopes:

      [A.G. Letitia] James had requested a bench trial in a form filed publicly in June 2023 that notified the defendants of their readiness for trial. Under N.Y. CPLR 4102, broadly speaking, almost anyone can demand a trial by jury within 15 days of such a notification:

      Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue of fact triable of right by a jury, by serving upon all other parties and filing a note of issue containing a demand for trial by jury. Any party served with a note of issue not containing such a demand may demand a trial by jury by serving upon each party a demand for a trial by jury and filing such demand in the office where the note of issue was filed within fifteen days after service of the note of issue.

      As a result of the imagery of a check mark on the court-issued notice and the seemingly clear right for anyone to demand a jury trial in New York, a talking point emerged to the effect that Trump’s lawyers’ “forgetting” (or otherwise failing) to “check a box on a form” was the sole reason for the lack of a jury.

      In an interview with Newsmax, Trump lawyer Alina Habba made the argument that her team, in fact, never had a right to a jury trial in the first place:

      I have to address this one common misconception in the press, and unfortunately it just keeps getting repeated, which is that we have this great option to have a box checked for a jury.

      No, we didn’t have that. That’s not how this works. They brought it under Section 63(12), which is a very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law, which is for consumer protections, not this. And that is why we’re sitting here in front of a judge.

      63(12) refers to a section of New York state law that allows the attorney general to bring action against businesses or people that engage in “persistent and repeated business fraud.” David Schoen, a lawyer on Trump’s impeachment team who was not a part of this fraud case, cited a 2011 case in which “a judge from the same court … said there is no right to a jury trial under New York executive law 63(12)” in an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow.

      This statement, about the case People of New York v. First American Corporation, is not entirely correct. There is no written law that Snopes can identify explicitly mandating bench trials for 63(12) cases, but there is a legal precedent for a jury trial being denied to a case brought under that law stemming from that case. The precedent stems not from 63(12) cases specifically, but from legally defined exemptions to a right for a jury trial in New York.

      The specific distinction applies to cases in which the damages awarded are “equitable” in nature. Such remedies are ones in which the “court compels the defendant to perform a certain act or refrain from a certain act.” N.Y. CPLR 4101 explicitly states that “equitable defenses and equitable counterclaims … shall be tried by the court” — i.e. without a jury. Several courts in New York have ruled that there is no constitutional right to a jury

      In the 2011 case cited by former Trump attorney Schoen, the judge ruled that “the remedies sought by James in this proceeding” were “equitable in nature” and that, as a result, they did not come with a constitutional right to a jury trial in New York State. James’ case seeks only equitable remedies, including:

      Permanently barring [Donald] Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State.

      As a result there exists a firm legal argument that this case was never eligible for a jury trial in the first place. As Schoen noted, however, there is no reason why the Trump legal team could not have at least attempted to do so, as First American Corporation did in their failed appeal for a jury trial in 2011.

      In FACT, Habba never eveb tried to request a trial by jury. She is now claiming she didn’t do so because there never was a right to one, but several legal experts I have heard comment say that there is at least an argument for a jury for the LIABILITY aspect of the case–but no right to a jury for damages, which are equitable in nature, such as seeking an injunction. Trump lost on summary judgment anyway, so the issue of liability would never have gone to a jury in the first place. BUT, having said all of that, Trump is again lying when he claims that Judge Ergonon denied him a “right” to a jury. He had at least a shot at getting a jury for liability, but his attorney model didn’t ask for one.

        1. Even Habba admited she never even tried to ask for a jury trial. Trump claims Judge Ergonon denied him a jury trial, which is another lie. Those are facts.

          1. Trump will then have a problem resolving that discrepancy, which he will be called on.

    3. “House Rules can easily be changed by majority vote”

      True, but you’re assuming that a majority of the Republican caucus wants to change this rule to enable Trump to become Speaker.

      You conjecture that Engoron will be “slapped down.” Only time will tell.

      2. Yeah, kind of like all you wackos yesterday crowing about Trump having to sell all of his assets. Get a grip time will tell.

      3. Just HOW MANY elections does Trump have to lose before Republicans finally figure out that he’s toxic and that the majority of Americans don’t want him?

    1. Darren Smith,

      why doesn’t the Turley Blog comments function “REMEMBER” the e-mail addresses and screen names of commenters?

      And why does it override a commenter’s keyboard strokes or preclude the ability of the commenter to space beyond one, and to return (i.e. enter), or space to the next paragraph?

      1. George

        That system is maintained by WordPress and is something their developers would know of. I don’t know the answer to that.

        2. Darren you truly have the patience of Job. 

          Behold, we account them blessed who have endured. You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is merciful and compassionate.
          – James 5:11
          (Douay-Rheims Bible)

          😉

    1. I told the dancing for joy tards they weren’t gonna like the replacement. LOL

      1. It won’t change anything.  Jordan still faces the same problem.  Basic math. 

  6. The perfect scenario;
    – Trump becomes the speaker. Third in line for presidency.
    – Dementia Joe forgets where he is permanently and hands duties over to the Cackling Idiot.
    – Cackling Idiot crosses the border she was in charge of and doesn’t know it and never returns.
    – Trump takes the reigns.
    – We start paying $2.25 for gas again.

  7. I think it speaks volumes that Speaker McCarthy trusted Nancy Pelosi and the democrats to have his back. That kind of trust seems to validate the decision to vacate his speakership.

  8. Jonathan: As the House roils in intrigue after the House ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker perhaps we should turn to the third day of DJT civil fraud case before Judge Engoron. And there are lots of fireworks.

    Despite being hit with a gag order DJT continues to lash out at the judge and the prosecutors. Before he went into the courtroom this morning DJT again complained he has not been afforded a jury trial. He calls it the “beginning of Communism”. Donald, you should look over your shoulder and ask your attorney, Alina Habba, that question. She failed to mark the box for a jury trial. She is the one who screwed up!

    What is intriguing about this case is that Ivanka Trump is listed as a prosecution witness against her father. It’s like King Lear where the daughter turns against her father. It’s a made for TV trial. Will Ivanka actually testify against her father? There are several issues involved. Letitia can’t prosecute Ivanka because the claims against against her are time barred. But James has also took the step to remove the independent monitor overseeing Ivanka’s businesses. Why might have she done that? Does James expect something in return from Ivanka?

    Any experienced lawyer on this blog might already be reading the tea leaves. James is probably coordinating her civil case with DA Alvin Bragg’s criminal prosecution of the Trump organization–where Ivanka can be charged. Might James have already reached out to Bragg and asked him to write an official letter indicating he will not charge Ivanka? If Bragg were to do that Ivanka could not plead the 5th to avoid testifying in the civil fraud case. She would be forced to testify against her father.

    Of course, it’s likely James will make her case without the testimony of Ivanka. DJT probably knows this so I suspect he has reached out to his daughter and told her some like this: “Honey, I’m being railroaded by James and this deranged judge. I will probably lose so do what you have to do to protect yourself and the kids. You testimony won’t make any difference anyway”. Good advice from someone who usually gives bad advice.

    Don’t you love these Shakespeare plays!

    1. Dennis has officially fallen off the planet. Can anyone make sense of this drivel????

    2. Ivanka doesn’t lose her 5th Amendment right because she’s not being charged. Is this guy serious?

      1. If she receives official notice from DA Bragg that she isn’t going to be charged, then she cannot refuse to testify on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment–because she cannot incriminate herself if the DA has officially notified her he isn’t going to prosecute.

        1. If she receives official notice from DA Bragg that she isn’t going to be charged, then she cannot refuse to testify

          Ivanka is in the drivers seat. The governments ‘word’ is meaningless. An agreement is required and Ivanka can demand immunity from any prosecution for past and future acts.

        2. Prosecute for what?   He doesn’t know what crimes she’s committed until she admits to them in court.  Incriminating herself is her option not brags.   you people need to stop reading Vox

          This sewing circle garbage is so hilarious

          1. So bragg is gonna send her notice she wont be prosecuted if she admits to murder in court??? And only she and her lawyers know what admissions she might make lead to a murder charge. Its just dumb on the face if it. Sewing circle Vox nonsense

  9. I am not convinced that the precedent set by Gaetz et al serves the American people well, and it deservedly doesn’t endear those men + Nancy Mace to their colleagues. Lest he need to be remembered, Gaetz is under investigation and could face a possible expulsion vote soon. What goes around comes around, and he may have to do his rabble-rousing in some capacity outside of Congress.

    Shut downs have never benefitted Republicans. At the risk of being called a “RINO” I refuse to accept the inevitability of a shutdown being necessary to achieve any kind of political goal. A shutdown harms innocent Americans who are least able to sustain it. How can anyone take a vote to shut down a government that will cause any junior enlisted military member to have to go to the food bank to feed their family? (They make next-to-nothing anyway.) What about the overworked border agents and TSA agents of whom there are too few? Air traffic controllers who are below minimum staffing levels will — like the others — have to work without pay. It is all well and good to say, “Well, they’re going to get paid retroactively with interest, so they are out nothing.” Many of those furloughed workers live paycheck to paycheck; their training may not translate to easy employment outside of government unless it is unskilled labor. Asking a GS-12 to work for minimum wage at McDonalds is not realistic.

    Who do shutdowns benefit? Nobody. Every Cabinet department will need to furlough workers with families. Coast Guardsmen will work for nothing. All of those 3-letter agencies like the EPA, FDA, SBA, GSA, NSA plus NASA will be on skeletal staffing. Depending on the length of the shutdown, up to 7 million mothers and children will lose WIC. Passport and FAFSA processing will stop. Seniors will have reduced access to customer service at Medicare and Social Security. National parks, museums, and aquariums will close. Unless food has been stockpiled how will the animals get fed?

    No self-respecting Republican should strive to make a point at the expense of harming innocent people. In divided government compromise is essential. If you hold both houses of Congress and the presidency you can ram through your agenda. That isn’t how it is right now. Ad what good does it do to brag in self-aggrandizement if you author a bill in the House that slashes spending while increasing the budget for defense and the border if it won’t pass the Senate and has zero chance of becoming law? I see Democrat campaign commercials mocking the inability of Republicans to govern. All of a sudden, things have become much harder to keep the House in 2024.

    1. Well who looses when our government can only pay interest of $2 trillion a month beginning next year, no one. The government cannot spend with out Americans seeing what each of the 12 departments have in their budget. Surprise there haven’t been any budgets submitted in years, and no family especially neediest spend with  abandon-like there is No tomorrow.
      Priorities are critical to sort out. Now. Please like this year after yearS… have been made, then the “gimmick, an Omnibus Bill. Hooray we are all saved.
      Sadly next year the Wall Street, Billionaires. Globalists  better pony up more money to save the millions of poor and middle class citizens, who can’t purchase Groceries,  necessaries
      The shutdown is a trick, where people become upset about who is going without essentials. I do as well. 
      We must now cut spending. Now. 
      What is cut or what is not where we focus.
      Next year will be horrific for all of us.

    2. The premise of your comment appears to be: If government doesn’t do it we’re all going to die.

      Except for “…provide for the common defense”, there’s almost nothing Government is given Constitutional powers ‘to do’, if you will. That it ‘does so anyway’ only means it’s taken that power from the States and citizens.

    3. “All of those 3-letter agencies like the EPA, FDA, SBA, GSA, NSA plus NASA will be on skeletal staffing.”

      And *that* is how a shutdown benefits Americans, especially the most productive. Government control of the economy kills wealth creation.

  10. It seems the commenters are as far apart as the Congressional Republicans. We are in a sad, sad state in the USA when civil discourse is impossible. The secret to Democrat success is clearly their united front on critical issues.

    1. “The secret to Democrat success is clearly their united front on critical issues.”
      You mean their lock-stepped indoctrination? I’m old enough to remember when that was a criticism of Soviet Russia, China, and North Korea, and an explanation of why the US would always be ahead of the pack. Now it’s secret of “success”?

      1. Ralph, when you have 8 members on your side voting with over 200 LOCKSTEP voting members on the other side it isn’t Soviet style politics to stick together. Your warring philosophy is what gave us Biden’s huge “bi-partisan” inflationary bills.

      2. It’s called discipline, Ralph. Highly valued in any collaborative group activity.

        1. Colluding criminals is not an advantage for We The People.
          The nation’s budget process has been in rape mode since 1997. At least 8 elected House members have a backbone. The rest, have their pockets wide open for more cash.

  12. What is leadership? Isn’t that the question regarding the speakers’ demise? The failure didn’t happen yesterday it happened when he acquiesced to the minorities’ demands to become speaker, allowing one individual the right to vote to vacate the speaker’s seat. In his haste to become speaker he didn’t think beyond the present and what the consequences may be if disagreement where to occur with just a single member.

    On to the rebellious members who voted for vacating the seat. Did they think what the consequences would be if their vote was successful? In their individual conceit they have wasted the majority the republican had, and in doing so made any future negotiations with the democrats more difficult if not impossible. What I mean by that “why would any democrat surrender the notion that they only have to sway one republican to file a motion to vacate, or be able to threaten the speaker with removal, or disrupt the chamber with a vacating vote.” They the rebels have placed any future speaker in a weaker negotiating position, unless the new speaker demands a majority vote necessary for vacating the seat. Only time will tell, what, if any damage this move will have on the proceeding of the House, or the upcoming election, but turmoil/chaos will ensue positively.

    The rebels should learn the meaning of Accrue, as defined by Merrian-Webster: intransitive verb “to come about as a natural growth, increase, or advantage the wisdom that accrues with age”.

    1. Only time will tell, what, if any damage benefit this move will have on the proceeding of the House, or the upcoming election, but turmoil/chaos will ensue positively.

      George W. We often talk about the disastrous policies of progressives (communists) and are left wondering how bad do things need to get before the people say they’ve had enough of it. Why should citizens continue to suffer the turmoil and chaos gripping this country while Congress marches lockstep in status quo comfort?

      The rebels should learn the meaning of Accrue, as defined by Merrian-Webster: intransitive verb “to come about as a natural growth, increase, or advantage the wisdom that accrues with age”.

      Don’t forget rebels, that knew the meaning of Accrue, founded this country. Clearly they knew what lay before them was going to be nothing but turmoil and chaos, but they did what had to be done, understanding full well that the outcome would be either independence from a totalitarian regime, or domination by it. We are at that same point in our republic’s lifecycle. It is our natural right to alter or abolish this existing form of government. As you say, time will tell.

      1. Olly
        Your reply is correct that our forefathers had ENOUGH, and as I’ve said many times on this blog, I’ve also had it with the direction of our great county. But: and I say this with the utmost respect to you, I don’t think eight members is enough to pull the heads of the majority out of their respective ass. As an employer I found that subordinates had a tendency to dither when the goal was subject to interpretation which seems to me the problem with the Republican Party. Today there is no leadership in the House and a divided electorate on direction(s) to take the party, other than winning some distant election. I do believe the majority will not acquiesce to the demands of such a small group and this move may cause more harm than good. There were other moves these individuals could have used to make their point (which I believe are valid). I think they jumped the gun.

        Now onto the speaker, I thought that the selection of McCarthy was a mistake in the first place, he is of the Ryan mold get along at all costs, have no stated goals and be happy with whatever the results are. But McCarthy was the selection of the majority no one else was willing to take the post. Wrangling is the nature of legislating. Herding a bunch of ne’er-do-wells is similar to gathers a group of cats!

        I may amend my thoughts if indeed Jordan is placing his hat in the arena.

        1. But: and I say this with the utmost respect to you, I don’t think eight members is enough to pull the heads of the majority out of their respective ass.

          George W., I agree with you. I don’t believe the fact there are only eight members unwilling to bend to the status quo is a sign that they are on the wrong side of history. The regime is out of control and something has to be done change course.

          Jordan or Donalds would be a great choice.

        2. Replacing House leadership is a positive step and is even more so if Jim Jordan becomes speaker, but we lose his voice in the committee. Why was this a good thing and something to be supported now?

          If McCarthy remained speaker, the problems would continue, and the likelihood of this type of challenge later, plus all the turmoil, could have been disastrous for the Republicans approaching 2024. If Jordan is a speaker, I think he will have the support of those most critical of McCarthy even when hard choices are out of favor with them, and that will preserve Republican unity. Jordan is measured when dealing with serious problems, and I think that alone serves harmony and helps their Congressional candidates.

    2. If I’m rebellious because I want to know what 12 departments spend each year, then so be it. I prefer to say I’m fiscally responsible. Not rebellious- I want a civil discourse.

      McCarthy told The House to adjourn in August for a 6 week vacation- that  was irresponsible. Any CEO who did that would be fired by the Shareholders.

      The House should have been diligently working like all of us who barely get two weeks in a year. Those who voted to keep McCarthy will get heat at home – and we continue yet to elect a new speaker during this 41 day reprieve, and pass the remaining 8 bills. They have passed 4 already. 

      Let’s support the whole of The House to get it done. I for one want to see the department spending. No budgets seem to have existed for years.

      1. The House should have been diligently working like all of us who barely get two weeks in a year.

        That’s a great point Kathie. The pattern (status quo) has been to create a crisis, blame the other party for that crisis and then kick the football. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

        A government “of the people” needs the people to have “rebellious spirit” towards their government. I’m not proposing the citizens become lawless. No, they need to Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
        will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.         Patrick Henry

  13. Relax. Joining the media hype machine is not your usual style.

    The reality is the House will elect a new Speaker soon. When they do Democrats will obstruct whatever Republicans try to enact.

    We’ll soon be back to the status quo with the perpetual expansion of government power; enriching defense contractors and Ukranian oligarch; enriching Big Pharma; and enslaving future generations with debt they did not vote for. Truly taxation without representation.

    That’s the status quo you think is threatened by using the voted upon procedures to remove McCarthy.

  14. The republicans made their rule 26{a} of the house republican conference rules for the 118th congress states that any GOP leader indicted of a felony with the potential prison sentence of two years or more needs to step aside.

    1. You living in a alternative reality has it’s advantages doesn’t it. The stunt pulled yesterday is a nail in the Trump cult coffin. The old school republicans and independents are going to be standing in line to vote the Trump caucus out.

  15. Loving your obsession, troll. Don’t worry, many institutions are accustomed to dealing with that sort of OCD.

  16. LOL — Dennis must’ve read the Bizarro World version of Mutiny on the Bounty.

    2. He can’t have seen any of the movies – they make it pretty clear that Captain Bligh (the title was sort of a courtesy – Bligh’s actual rank at the time was Commander, lower than a real Captain) did not mutiny against his own command.

      Further, Captain Bligh did, indeed, get redemption – he captained that little boat and its men to land and safety and civilization – a remarkable feat of seamanship.

      1. Agreed, but the title is not a courtesy. The Commanding Officer of a Naval vessel is vested with the title “Captain”. Try calling your Captain, Commander _________ habitually, and you’ll find out about courtesy.

  17. As I see it, the issue here is whether the Republicans are willing to allow a government shutdown in order to reduce government spending, secure the border and end the financing of the war in Ukraine. The CRs proposed last week included these elements but were rejected by enough House Republicans to prevent their adoption. So we will never know if the Republicans would have accepted a government shutdown when the Senate and/or Biden rejected this kind of CR. The House Republican position would have been bolstered but they may well have caved anyway. 

    The only leverage Republicans have to begin to do what is necessary to reduce spending and secure the border is the credible threat of shutting down the government, and making good on the threat when necessary. They now need belatedly to pass all 12 appropriations bills by Nov 15, send them to the Senate and refuse any more CRs. Negotiations on the bills between the House and Senate can take place while the government is shut down. The new Speaker should commit to this. 

      1. It keeps the military from prying down the barbed wire fences to allow some through? It keeps “judges” from ruling that someone giving you the stinkeye in a 3rd world latin hellhole is akin to political persecution? It shuts down some of the money flow from honest taxpayers (who will be born in 400 years) from paying for food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, police and fire services, etc. for a bunch of illegals? It temporarily shuts down some payments to “NGOs” that operate throughout the hemisphere aiding and abetting illegals to come to the US under false pretense? It cuts some of the money flow to the intelligence agencies’ propaganda arms (cnnmsnbcfacebooknytwapo)? It doesn’t secure it, it makes it more secure though by removing some of the money flow? Anything that throws a monkey wrench into the democrats is a good thing for the US.

      2. Border states, especially with help from other states, are more than capable of securing the border, if only the feds would stop cutting the barbed wire and assisting the illegal entries. Likewise, the border states, with help from other states, could finish building the WALL.
        It’s not hard to figure out how the border could become more secure with the feds out of the way.

      3. The shutdown is leverage to get the required policy changes. It doesn’t itself involve those changes. 

      4. “How does a government shutdown secure the border?”

        Feds out. Texas in. Problem solved.

  18. “McCarthy was credited with raising a huge amount of money to reelect Republicans and coordinating a strategy to take the House majority.”

    Uh huh. And at the time that McCarthy was “coordinating a strategy to take the House majority” the general consensus was that republicans were expected to have a landslide victory with a possible 40 or more seat majority in the House. After all, the party out of power in the White House almost always gets a huge bump in the election following a presidential election. But pursuant to McCarthy’s brilliant RINO strategy they defied history and all predictions by BARELY managing to squeak out a win with one of the narrowest victories in House history.

    There’s literally NOTHING to mourn about McCarthy’s exit from the speakership, and even if there were, there’s nothing to be gained by dwelling on McCarthy’s exit or pretending that he was a successful Speaker. Instead, the task is to select a new Speaker who will try to get the job done better than McCarthy. Enter Jim Jordan:

    “House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, announced he is running for Speaker – the first GOP lawmaker to put his hat in the ring for what’s sure to be a competitive race.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-jordan-announces-bid-for-house-speaker-after-mccarthy-ouster

    Time to focus forward, keep your eyes on the road, and stop looking at distorted images in the rearview mirror.

  19. Lucy was poised to pull the ball as she had done so many times before, but Charlie was ready and reacted to make contact and scored a field goal.

  20. Jonathan: Kevin McCarthy’s job was precarious from day one when he took the gavel. It took 15 rounds in the mud pit for McCarthy to prevail–and ever since he has walked the plank thanks to the mutineer Matt Gaetz and MAGA crowd. You like the “Life of Brian” metaphor. I prefer “Mutiny on the Bounty” where Capt. Bligh and other mutineers were cast out in a little boat on the high seas with no redemption.

    Matt Gaetz has never been a compromiser. He was on a personal vendetta to remove McCarthy. It was about a personal grudge. He was mad that McCarthy allowed the House Ethics Committee to continue to investigate the Florida lawmaker over charges of sex trafficking. What tipped the scales for Gaetz was McCarthy’s working with the Dems to pass a continuing budget resolution. For the Dems, they refused to support McCarthy because he caved to the House MAGA crowd that demanded a spurious impeachment inquiry of Pres. Biden.

    But you can’t blame the Dems for McCarthy’s demise. He brought it all on himself by continuing to cave in to the extreme right-wing of the party. McCarthy learned a hard lesson. You can’t appease mutineers. Any one for DJT as the next speaker?

    1. Captain Blight did not mutiny against his own command. As for redemption, he captained that little boat to shore and safety and civilization, a feat requiring superlative seamanship.

Comments are closed.