No Future for the GOP?

[IdleRich]

It's kinda more relevant that he said a few weeks ago that he wouldn't do it.

To enlarge on that

Earlier this month, the speaker told Breitbart News, “If we move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would occur through a vote on the floor of the People’s House and not through a declaration by one person,” but backtracked on Tuesday, making no mention of holding a vote to start the investigation.

The other thing is this key witness Devon Archer who gave testimony a month or two back which the Rs said would destroy Biden. Another example - as I said in the Trump thread - of MAGA Rs spouting consistent lies which the base believe but which I think backfire when reality falls far short. In this case the lead investigator clearly realized what a damp squib it would be and didn't bother to turn up...

Republicans insist that Joe Biden illicitly profited from his son’s business dealings overseas, but have yet to turn up proof. In July, Hunter Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer spoke behind closed doors to the House oversight committee, and said the younger Biden would sometimes put his father on speakerphone during meetings. But the former vice-president “never once spoke about any business dealings”, Archer said, adding that he felt Hunter was trying to create an “illusion of access” to his fatheras he pursued deals in Ukraine.

Seeing as Archer said the exact opposite of what they had promised that may have been a wise decision.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Damn only just saw this. Absolutely crazy. Can a state just declare people with certain beliefs persona non grata like that? Even in such a hilarious way? It especially seems weird to say that people are committing a thought crime by supporting the government.

"First I came for the Communists..."

Except it's obviously far crazier even than that, since it relies on identifying supporters of the Democratic party as "communists" on the grounds that their party is only about 95% as pro-capitalist as the Republicans.

 

[IdleRich]

It looks as though McCarthy is in trouble here. I guess he's tried to steer a course in which he pleases the hard right of his party without annoying the Dems too much. However the hard right, in this case personified by a 'orrible cunt Gaetz are about to launch a motion to vacate ie remove him... I think that means he needs the Dems to save him, but they are pissed off about the Biden impeachment thing and ain't gonna do it.

In other words he's tried to please everyone but done the exact opposite.
Question is, if he loses the speakership what happens? For him to win took a hundred and fifty votes, will we have to go through that rigmarole again to replace him?

 

[IdleRich]

It looks as though McCarthy is in trouble here.

And he sure was.

So, the hard right of the GOP along with l the Dems have booted him out.

But why exactly? What do the Dems gain? What wil happen now?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But why exactly? What do the Dems gain? What wil happen now?

They make him or some other Republican trade them something in return for making them the new speaker. Could be McCarthy again, could be someone else.

Doesn't matter who (depending - they'd never to agree to Gaetz himself or another crazy far right mfer) so much as what they can extract from the process. Rare the minority has this much leverage, benefiting from combination of slim GOP majority and bitter infighting.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

This was always a distinct possibility. Freedom Caucus et al held McCarthy's feet to the fire for a long, long time when he was initially elected and have threatening some version ever since. He called their bluff. They answered.

A significant part of the GOP isn't interested in governing at all and it's war with remaining part that is. Democrats are like, let's see what value we can extract from this clownshoes situation.

Not quite darkest timelime, but very bleak.

 

[IdleRich]

They make him or some other Republican trade them something in return for making them t Jimhe new speaker. Could be McCarthy again, could be someone else

Ta

This was always a distinct possibility. Freedom Caucus et al held McCarthy's feet to the fire for a long, long time when he was initially elected and have threatening some version ever since. He called their bluff. They answered..

Yeah, didn't they make it one of the conditions of voting him in that it would be easier to call a vote to vacate?

 

[IdleRich]

Just got in and the news is actually articulating what I was thinking or at least sort of vaguely wondering about before. Basically the Dems spent ages negotiating to prevent a government shutdown and, among other things, to keep money/aid flowing to Ukraine, but last time they needed a new speaker there were countless votes and (I think, but maybe I'm wrong here) all business stopped while that was happening - is there a danger that in their eagerness to claim McCarthy's scalp they will be undermining everything they just worked for?

Surely they wouldn't be foolish enough to do that so I'm thinking that there is something I don't know about or have missed which means that it won't happen like that... but what?

 

[Clinamenic]

Anyone have more context on what Matt Gaetz is calling for now? On the face of it, it seems quite reasonable, almost incredibly so. Granted I don’t know much about Gaetz, but I wasn’t expecting something like this from the likes of him.

“Now Gaetz is indicating he would be willing to repeal the rule altogether, but only if Republicans are willing to vote on things such as term limits for lawmakers and a ban on congressional stock trading that was proposed by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) last month.”

“Khanna unveiled his five-point political reform plan on the House floor last month, telling the Washington Examiner he plans to bring the legislation forward for a vote sometime by the end of the year. The plan would seek to enact term limits for Congress members and Supreme Court judges, ban congressional stock trading, create a judicial code of ethics for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices, and prohibit candidates running for federal office from accepting donations from lobbyists or political action committees.”

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Clinamenic]

Even if something like this were to pass, there would obviously still be vectors/avenues for corruption to take hold, but this would seem to set up a non-trivial bulwark against such corruption. Granted I’m no expert, and not a registered lobbyist (at least not yet), but I’ve been becoming more familiar with the various political funding assemblages comprised of 501c3’s, 501c4’s, a few other nonprofit types, PACs and SuperPACs, etc - and what Khanna proposes *could* make a lot of that harder. I say “could” because I haven’t looked deeply into what Khanna is calling for.

Anyway, interesting that Gaetz is, from what I gather, holding the house hostage until Republicans approve this serious measure proposed by a Democrat.

 

[Clinamenic]

 

[IdleRich]

So this Navarro guy been sentenced to 4 months in jail, he's gonna appeal but question is, will he be jailed meanwhile.

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

It'll be the rope for Biden.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Shame on @vimothy for failing to title this thread 'GOP Will Eat Itself'.