A smaller majority in numbers or a smaller majority of those actually voting and acting along conservative lines? There is a difference.
Both. Most of those who left weren't conservatives, but they still voted conservatively on at least some issues. Which is better than them not voting at all. And it will have been
much better than if even more leave and the Democrats end up in the majority.
Had the majority that the GOP had to begin with acted and voted conservatively and stood their ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is the point I never understand. Why should we expect them all to vote hardline conservative when the majority of House Republicans aren't hardline conservatives in the first place? The House Freedom Caucus is maybe 15% or so of the total. At the other end of the spectrum is the "Problem Solvers Caucus" that has about 30 Republicans and basically the same number of Democrats. They've never hidden who they are, and get reelected because they usually come from moderate/swing districts. Most importantly,
there are those within that caucus that will never support the kind of shutdown the hardliners are demanding. That isn't going to change regardless of who the Speaker is. And that's the truth that limited the power of both McCarthy and now Johnson. The hardliner demand for a shutdown/holdout under these circumstances is something that cannot succeed because there aren't the votes to sustain it. That didn't change when McCarthy was booted, and it won't change if MTG and a few others ally with Democrats to give McCarthy the boot. There aren't enough conservatives in this Congress to make that happen. It's reality.
Either way you look at it McCarthy caved to the DEMS from the get go.
His hands were tied from day one by the narrowness of the margin, and by the reality that there were enough members on opposite ends of the spectrum to make a working majority impossible unless one side or the other was willing to compromise. What he
did manage to achieve was general GOP agreement on a CR that would have cut 8%, and that also included the "good" House border bill. More importantly, he even got the Senate Republicans to hold off on passing the Democrat bill in favor of supporting the more conservative option. That was our best shot at the most conservative bill possible given the numerical realities in Congress, and with Biden controlling the Presidency.
But as we all know, there were a dozen or so hardliners that refused to support that bill in the House because they were opposed to
any CR (which of course happened anyway even after McCarthy was gone). And after that bill died, the Senate Republicans gave up on the House, and just signed on to the Senate Dem bill with a few small concessions. Because they quite rightly realized at that point that the House GOP would be unable to pass a bill of their own.
Having a majority that refuses to stand their ground and gives into the minority is useless.
Useless? So you think the legislation passed by the House under McCarthy and now Johnson would be
no different than if Hakeem Jeffries and a Democrat majority controlled the House?
And just to circle back around to MTG's claim that she's forcing "change", exactly what change would that be? Because the power that just a few disgruntled MTG-types have to topple a Speaker is equaled by the power the more moderate Republican members have to prevent a conservative from becoming Speaker. That's why Jordan couldn't get elected -- which shouldn't shock anyone given that he's from a caucus that represents only 15% of members.
