Victoria Spartz slams McCarthy for failing House GOP 'twice': 'We need to win something'

[mystery-ak]

Victoria Spartz slams McCarthy for failing House GOP 'twice': 'We need to win something'
by Eden Villalovas, Breaking News Reporter
September 21, 2023 08:45 AM

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) attacked House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for failing Republicans twice in legislative battles, saying if he failed House Republicans a third time, she would be "done."

House Republicans remain stalled over passing a stopgap funding measure needed to fund the government past the Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown.

Spartz, one of the Republicans who pledged to vote "no" on the original stopgap funding measure that was released over the weekend, said McCarthy is going to fail the GOP if he is not willing to fight for its concerns.

“If he is not willing to fight — fight and win — then he is going to fail Republicans,” Spartz told Politico. “He is going to be tested one more time. From my perspective, he’s already failed us twice. The third time, I’m done. … I judge people not on what they say, but the results. We need to win something.”

McCarthy unveiled an updated proposal on Wednesday for the stopgap spending measure that swayed some of the holdouts' opinions. The updated proposal includes an agreed-upon top-line number for the budget, something that hard-line House Republicans have pushed for to support the measure.

However, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) claimed at least seven Republicans planned to vote against the measure.

When opposing the original stopgap spending measure, which was issued on Sunday, Spartz blamed the Republican-controlled House for "failing the American people again" and blasted McCarthy’s “lack of real leadership.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/victoria-spartz-mccarthy-house-gop-fail

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It strikes me as remarkably dishonest for people like Sparks to assert their own ability to defy the Speaker, while pretending that other GOP members of the House don't have that exact same ability to defy the Speaker.  It's not about "leadership" - each a-hole we elect to Congress has enough of an ego that they can't be forced to support anything they don't like no matter how good that "leader" is.

I pointed out back in January that it was ridiculous to expect the House to pass 12 appropriations bills while having such a narrow majority, and while deliberately neutering the Speaker's ability to pressure members to support legislation.

So now, we're stuck in a standoff between some members of the Freedom Caucus on the right, members of the Problem Solvers Caucus on the Left, and no majority for any bill.  And the very same members of the Freedom Caucus who deliberately deprived the Speaker of any coercive power are now blaming him for being unable to coerce the rest of the GOP caucus to align with their views.

It's a bad joke.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And by the way, thanks to the hardliners, we've already lost so none of this really matters anyway at this point.  We're doomed to get a clean CR with, at most, cosmetic cuts.

After seeing this poop show in the house, the Senate has no incentive to make any concessions in conference.  They know that any facade of GOP unity will collapse as soon as any pressure is applied, and a handful of those Problem Solvers will sign on with Democrats to pass a clean bill.

The only shot we had on those negotiations was to look like we'd hang together for a shutdown, and that's gone.

[DefiantMassRINO]

We've given the Biden Admin 5 trillion dollars to play with.

They keep coming up with whacky ideas for unspent funds or yet-to-be-spent funds ... like Klimate Korps.

No more money until forensic auditing proves it's absolutely necessary.

Dems keep passing budget "frameworks" which are really just Looney Left slush funds of Nonsense.

[Bigun]

You don't need to win anything Victoria but you damned sure need to STAND FOR SOMETHING!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You don't need to win anything Victoria but you damned sure need to STAND FOR SOMETHING!

Doesn't do anyone a lick of good if they stand for someone but get steamrolled like the guy in Tianamen Square. His sacrifice accomplished nothing other than to generate a bunch of memes among the chattering class.

I'd rather have someone who thinks strategically and actually wins.

[Bigun]

Doesn't do anyone a lick of good if they stand for someone but get steamrolled like the guy in Tianamen Square. His sacrifice accomplished nothing other than to generate a bunch of memes among the chattering class.

I'd rather have someone who thinks strategically and actually wins.

So YOU say! I happen to believe otherwise! That man accomplished plenty!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So YOU say! I happen to believe otherwise! That man accomplished plenty!

Like what?

How - specifically - is China different/better off today because he got flattened flatter than Olive Oyl's chest?

[Bigun]

Like what?

How - specifically - is China different/better off today because he got flattened flatter than Olive Oyl's chest?

Do you think the huge internal problems they are experiencing today happened a vaccum? That man played a part in bringing about their current situation whether or not you ever admit it.

[DefiantMassRINO]

WTF, GOP, fight FOR something!

We need to GOP members that live for the fight.

What if the Texans had surrendered at the Alamo?

What if Jimmy Doolittle hadn't bombed Tokyo?

This GOP "well, we're going to loose, anyway" self-defeating pessisim is USDA Grade A BULL$H!T.

The Party of Reagan has no place for depressed, defeatist, goth Republicans.

If GOP members aren't going to fight for what they believe, they shouldn't hold elected office - GOP Wuss Caucus.

We fight on the Floors of Congress so we don't have to fight in the streets.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

WTF, GOP, fight FOR something!

They're not "fighting".  They're voting.  It's numbers, and being passionate about your position doesn't change the math.  It's about getting the votes, not about beating your chest.

If GOP members aren't going to fight for what they believe, they shouldn't hold elected office - GOP Wuss Caucus.

The inconvenient - and obvious - fact you are ignoring is that not every Republican in  Congress believes in the same things.  Some are more conservative than others, and given that we are in the middle of a congressional term, the composition of Congress isn't going to change before these votes.   

So with a four vote margin, if they all "fight for what they believe in" and refuse to compromise, they can't pass anything.  That's reality.  No matter how many fantastic speeches are given, and no matter how much anybody postures, that reality is not going to change.

Maybe your answer to that is that we should just let it all blow up, so that we can just elect better conservatives "next time".  Except that's never what happens when things blow up.   If the GOP engages in a pointless and ineffectual temporary shutdown, at the end of which we get absolutely nothing, that makes it far more likely that we will lose seats in the next Congress , and Congress will be even less conservative than it is now.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Do you think the huge internal problems they are experiencing today happened a vaccum? That man played a part in bringing about their current situation whether or not you ever admit it.

What is one specific problem China is having that you attribute to that guy?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Congress is not voting ... not debating ... not amending ... Leadership creates a "framework" in a smoke-filled backroom, and tell members they have to vote for it.  Otherwise, they're outed as RINOs.  They pass appropriations that are blank checks, not legislation.

Members of Congress don't want to vote.  They avoid having to take votes.  It's so they won't be accountable for an unpopular vote.

Giving away everything for nothing in return is not winning.

They're not "fighting".  They're voting.  It's numbers, and being passionate about your position doesn't change the math.  It's about getting the votes, not about beating your chest.

The inconvenient - and obvious - fact you are ignoring is that not every Republican in  Congress believes in the same things.  Some are more conservative than others, and given that we are in the middle of a congressional term, the composition of Congress isn't going to change before these votes.   

So with a four vote margin, if they all "fight for what they believe in" and refuse to compromise, they can't pass anything.  That's reality.  No matter how many fantastic speeches are given, and no matter how much anybody postures, that reality is not going to change.

Maybe your answer to that is that we should just let it all blow up, so that we can just elect better conservatives "next time".  Except that's never what happens when things blow up.   If the GOP engages in a pointless and ineffectual temporary shutdown, at the end of which we get absolutely nothing, that makes it far more likely that we will lose seats in the next Congress , and Congress will be even less conservative than it is now.

[Bigun]

What is one specific problem China is having that you attribute to that guy?

Our revolutionary war lasted for eight long years. MANY great people lost everything in that effort before victory finally came. To which of them do we attribute that victory?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Our revolutionary war lasted for eight long years. MANY great people lost everything in that effort before victory finally came. To which of them do we attribute that victory?

Hey, if that guy would have triggered a Chinese Revolution, I'd be giving him all the credit in the world.

But he didn't.  And I know we're all getting older and time compresses a bit, but that happened during the first year of the Bush Administration.  And that was H.W., not Dubya.  Thirty-four years ago. 

If a Revolution hasn't broken out by now, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't start anything.  Very brave guy, but it was a complete misreading of where China was actually at.

[Bigun]

Hey, if that guy would have triggered a Chinese Revolution, I'd be giving him all the credit in the world.

But he didn't.  And I know we're all getting older and time compresses a bit, but that happened during the first year of the Bush Administration.  And that was H.W., not Dubya.  Thirty-four years ago. 

If a Revolution hasn't broken out by now, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't start anything.  Very brave guy, but it was a complete misreading of where China was actually at.

If you say so. I beg to differ. You are no different than those who think they can determine the earth's climate fluctuations from a tiny spec of largely flawed data.

[Kamaji]

Hey, if that guy would have triggered a Chinese Revolution, I'd be giving him all the credit in the world.

But he didn't.  And I know we're all getting older and time compresses a bit, but that happened during the first year of the Bush Administration.  And that was H.W., not Dubya.  Thirty-four years ago. 

If a Revolution hasn't broken out by now, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't start anything.  Very brave guy, but it was a complete misreading of where China was actually at.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If you say so. I beg to differ. You are no different than those who think they can determine the earth's climate fluctuations from a tiny spec of largely flawed data.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?? Trying to attribute to one guy getting flattened more than 30 years ago some undefined "changes" in modern China?  And what even are those changes for which you'd give him credit?

The truth is that the Tiananmen square massacre actually worked from the perspective of the Chinese government.  It helped advance a very successful crackdown against dissent both in the public at large, and within the Chinese Communist Party. The government ended up with a tighter stranglehold over its people than before those riots began, and it maintains that hold today.

China's problems today are economic, and have nothing to do with tiananmen square. They have to do with a declining birth rate, and collapsing markets.

[libertybele]

WTF, GOP, fight FOR something!

We need to GOP members that live for the fight.

What if the Texans had surrendered at the Alamo?

What if Jimmy Doolittle hadn't bombed Tokyo?

This GOP "well, we're going to loose, anyway" self-defeating pessisim is USDA Grade A BULL$H!T.

The Party of Reagan has no place for depressed, defeatist, goth Republicans.

If GOP members aren't going to fight for what they believe, they shouldn't hold elected office - GOP Wuss Caucus.

We fight on the Floors of Congress so we don't have to fight in the streets.

 

 

[DefiantMassRINO]

He demonstrated that one person could make a difference.  He demonstrated the potential power of the individual.

A corrupt, tyrannical Government wants its citizens to believe that the individual is powerless.  Otherwise, he may take power back from the Government.

How much the Chinese Communist Party banned this picture in China for fear it might inspire protest, unrest, or revolution?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He demonstrated that one person could make a difference.  He demonstrated the potential power of the individual.

A corrupt, tyrranical Government wants its citizens to believe that the individual is powerless.  Otherwise, he may take power back from the Government.

How much the Chinese Communist Party banned this picture in China for fear it might inspire protest, unrest, or revolution?

.

You're just repeating what the chattering classes in the West want it to mean.  But that's just a romanticized talking point pushed by the media because they know it is a story people want to believe, and gets ratings.

The reality is that he demonstrated that one person could get flattened by a tank, that his fellow citizens would do nothing, and that government would crack down on dissent successfully.

That's the hard truth.

The lesson that should be learned from that is that being brave and stupid is a bad combination.  You need to be both brave and smart.

[Bigun]

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?? Trying to attribute to one guy getting flattened more than 30 years ago some undefined "changes" in modern China?  And what even are those changes for which you'd give him credit?

The truth is that the Tiananmen square massacre actually worked from the perspective of the Chinese government.  It helped advance a very successful crackdown against dissent both in the public at large, and within the Chinese Communist Party. The government ended up with a tighter stranglehold over its people than before those riots began, and it maintains that hold today.

China's problems today are economic, and have nothing to do with tiananmen square. They have to do with a declining birth rate, and collapsing markets.

There you go again attributing things I never said to me.

I NEVER said that the guy in the square was THE man who did anything! What I did say is that he was/is a factor in much of what has since occurred.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There you go again attributing things I never said to me.

I NEVER said that the guy in the square was THE man who did anything! What I did say is that he was/is a factor in much of what has since occurred.

And you still haven't even said what that is.  The only thing I can see that occurred because of that was increased, successful repression by the Chinese government.

When was the last time you saw mass civil disobedience in China that was not immediately, viciously, and successfully repressed?  They basically put entire cities on lockdown for more than a year, and the people still didn't rebel.  You know why?

Because they remember what happened in tiananmen square, and know that their government is not restrained by the normal bounds of human decency. The government intended to send a message, and it did so very very successfully.

That is the true legacy of Tiananmen Square for the Chinese people, no matter how much we may want to believe otherwise.

That was one guy caught up in the passion of the moment, so I'm not criticizing him.  It was his life to spend as he wished.   

But I would hope our elected representatives would think more strategically, and consider the most likely consequences of their actions before taking them.