Matt Gaetz is a hero

[mystery-ak]

October 5, 2023
Matt Gaetz is a hero
By Patricia McCarthy

So, eight conservatives have successfully ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House and much of the conservative punditry is angry! 

What does that tell us? 

It tells us that all those RINOs who voted to retain McCarthy are not conservatives.  That any member of Congress can and does vote to perpetuate the brutally irresponsible spending of the uniparty that runs the swamp which should be a wake-up call for all Americans. 

Congress can't stop spending and the Fed can't stop printing money to do it. Modern monetary theory is a joke; printing money backed by nothing is a dangerous way to operate.  It’s a pathway to catastrophic economic failure.  We are nearly there.  What is so shocking is that several of our most prestigious conservative columnists and commentators agree with the RINOs;  There's Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, and John Hinderaker, for example.  Each of them are fiscal conservatives who grasp the nature of the disaster that is the Biden administration.  And yet they are mad at Matt Gaetz!  He is the sanest and bravest member of this Congress.

Is it because they all are Fox News pundits?  We all know that the Murdochs are Trump-deranged.  Every Fox host – Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade, for example – is anti-Gaetz. 

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/matt_gaetz_is_a_hero.html

[Kamaji]

For giving the House to the democrats?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Time will tell ... it will depend what House GOP does with this opportunity for a reset.

Whomever wants the job has significant leverage to get a better deal than McCarthy.

The next GOP Speaker does not want to become the next John Boehner, Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy.

The next GOP Speaker will want a deal that prevents him from being ousted as easily as McCarthy. 

The next GOP Speaker will need the job security to crack the eggs necessary to make a new House GOP omelette that can deliver.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The writer apparently doesn't understand the difference between substance, and process.  In a constitutional republic, how you do something can be more important in the long term than whatever small advantage you gain on substance in the short term.

I'm not sure what they think they gained anyway.  There is no hardline conservative majority in Congress.  If the couple dozen hardliners who do exist refuse to accept anything less, they will quickly become irrelevant and cut out of every piece of legislation.   The result will be a more rapid slide to the left, and likely more losses next November.

The only ones helped by that are Democrats.

[Kamaji]

The writer apparently doesn't understand the difference between substance, and process.  In a constitutional republic, how you do something can be more important in the long term than whatever small advantage you gain on substance in the short term.

I'm not sure what they think they gained anyway.  There is no hardline conservative majority in Congress.  If the couple dozen hardliners who do exist refuse to accept anything less, they will quickly become irrelevant and cut out of every piece of legislation.   The result will be a more rapid slide to the left, and likely more losses next November.

The only ones helped by that are Democrats.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Time will tell ... it will depend what House GOP does with this opportunity for a reset.

Whomever wants the job has significant leverage to get a better deal than McCarthy.

The next GOP Speaker does not want to become the next John Boehner, Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy.

The next GOP Speaker will want a deal that prevents him from being ousted as easily as McCarthy. 

The next GOP Speaker will need the job security to crack the eggs necessary to make a new House GOP omelette that can deliver.

Well, if they elect Jordan, then he really doesn't need a better deal because he's aligned with the hardliners on substance anyway.  I'm sure that's the route they'd prefer. Of course, Jordan would need to get support from all but 5 moderates, which may not be possible.

Scalise probably would want a better deal than McCarthy got, but the hardliners probably won't give it.

Could easily be a stalemate with neither the moderates nor hardliners willing to budge.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Scalise can play the "I don't need this $h!t" and the "you need me more than I need you" cards.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Scalise can play the "I don't need this $h!t" and the "you need me more than I need you" cards.

If the hardliners agree to have Scalise become the new Speaker without any of the strings or promises they had on McCarthy, what was the point?   So Scalise can come in and do another CR with Democrat support?

So Gaetz & Co - who are enough to veto any Speaker election - may just say "no, we really don't need you, we have Jordan.". And of course, pissed-off moderates may respond with "and Jordan is never going to be elected Speaker."

Dunno what will happen.  Stalemate most likely means McHenry just stays, although there's some potential for the most pissed-off mederates cutting a deal with Jeffries.

[Hoodat]

I'm not sure what they think they gained anyway.

Here's what we have gained.  Back at the beginning of January, the old guard GOP Leadership was firmly in control.  McCarthy was next in line to be anointed 'Speaker', and no one dared stand in his way lest they be ostracized and marginalized by the leadership.  That is why McCarthy had no challengers.  It was political suicide for anyone to jump the line by declaring their own candidacy for Speaker.  And every one of us complained about how much we didn't trust McCarthy and how we wanted someone else.

Well it took nine months, but we finally got what we wanted.  Now we can have other candidates competing for the chair.  The Boehner→Ryan→McCarthy hold has been weakened, and now we have a chance to break out of the UniParty hold.  So let's not project too quickly here.  Turn back the clock to where we were in January and start this process over.

[Free Vulcan]

Neither hero or zero, and despite a lack of a plan, his action might come out as a win.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Here's what we have gained.  Back at the beginning of January, the old guard GOP Leadership was firmly in control.  McCarthy was next in line to be anointed 'Speaker', and no one dared stand in his way lest they be ostracized and marginalized by the leadership.  That is why McCarthy had no challengers.  It was political suicide for anyone to jump the line by declaring their own candidacy for Speaker.  And every one of us complained about how much we didn't trust McCarthy and how we wanted someone else.

Well it took nine months, but we finally got what we wanted.  Now we can have other candidates competing for the chair.  The Boehner→Ryan→McCarthy hold has been weakened, and now we have a chance to break out of the UniParty hold.  So let's not project too quickly here.  Turn back the clock to where we were in January and start this process over.

What I means was: what actual difference will that make in terms of the legislation that gets passed in this Congress?  Which is really what this is all about in the end, right?  Because from where I'm sitting, the odds on the legislation getting worse just increased.

As far as turning back the clock to January, that's only partially right.  Because now, there is far more acrimony all around, and the hardliners no longer have the "you have to give us what we want or there won't be a Speaker" argument. That was their leverage to force McCarthy and the rest of the House to make all those concessions to the dissidents.

[DB]

The jury is out... Way out...

[Kamaji]

The democrats are laughing behind the collective backs of the republicans, and preparing to seat Speaker Jeffries.

[Free Vulcan]

The jury is out... Way out...

I agree. Willing to let this play on for a bit, most importantly see who ends up Speaker.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Why would anyone take the Speaker role if the caucus is setting him up to fail?

Why would anyone (other than Kevin McCarthy) volunteer to be the next John Boehner, Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy?

If Matt Gaetz wants to have the power of a Speaker, he should run for position.

Anyone worth holding the office would want a very high threshold for being removed from the role prior to January, 2025.

McCarthy's arrangement gave too few people too much power to turn the GOP House into an unmanageable legislative body, like the Italian Parliaments of the 1980s.

Speaker is supposed to work from a position of strength, not weakness.  Would Nancy Pelosi or Tip O'Neill put up with this crap?  No, they would not.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why are only Conservatives labeled as "hardliners?"  Seems to me the leftist GOP are the hardliners.

In using the language of the Dems, we are losing right out of the gate.

[Free Vulcan]

This is what is at stake.

We got a little over 3 years at this pace before it starts sucking more than half of our tax receipts and drags us down to a place economically that none of us want to contemplate. Given how much the debt is accelerating ($1T in 3 months) it could be less.

I'm willing to tolerate some party chaos for anyone who's willing to take a hard line and address the elephant.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why are only Conservatives labeled as "hardliners?"  Seems to me the leftist GOP are the hardliners.

That's a good question.  Here's I always think of it, right or wrong.

I expect every member to act rationally in support of whatever it is they believe.  So do whatever it is that will get you closest to what you're trying to achieve, keeping in mind that half a loaf is better than none.  That means compromising if you are better off with the compromise than with nothing at all.  You can apply that test to anyone, regardless of ideology.

So I call someone a "hardliner", and it can be on the left or right, when they reject a compromise that would have put them closer to policies they preferred, and the failure to compromise put them further away.  In other words, not acting in their own rational self-interest.

That's almost never going to pop up with moderates because they're always willing to take the best deal they can get.  But it does happen on both the left and right when some people reject a compromise, and that rejection leads to something worse.  So to me, the Republicans who rejected an objectively superior 30 day continuing resolution that cut 8% and added border security, and knowingly enabled a 45 day CR that had none of that, were "hardliners", and acting irrationally.  Or as Chip Roy put it,

“If a Republican opposes a 30-day, 8% cut to the non-defense, non-veteran federal government with the best border security bill we’ve ever had attached to it, I honestly don’t know what to say to my fellow Republicans other than you’re gonna eat a s–t sandwich, and you probably deserve to eat it,” Roy told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.

“I’m an equal opportunity basher of stupid, and I think this is stupid.”

The "shit sandwich" to which Roy was referring was the entirely predictable CR we got instead of the one we could have had.  Because the theoretical alternative of "no continuing resolution, shutdown instead" was a practical impossibility that they should have known was never going to be the alternative.  Those who thought it was were just lying to themselves.

Hardliners.  Lying to themselves about what was going to happen to excuse a vote against self-interest.
 

[Kamaji]

That's a good question.  Here's I always think of it, right or wrong.

I expect every member to act rationally in support of whatever it is they believe.  So do whatever it is that will get you closest to what you're trying to achieve, keeping in mind that half a loaf is better than none.  That means compromising if you are better off with the compromise than with nothing at all.  You can apply that test to anyone, regardless of ideology.

So I call someone a "hardliner", and it can be on the left or right, when they reject a compromise that would have put them closer to policies they preferred, and the failure to compromise put them further away.  In other words, not acting in their own rational self-interest.

That's almost never going to pop up with moderates because they're always willing to take the best deal they can get.  But it does happen on both the left and right when some people reject a compromise, and that rejection leads to something worse.  So to me, the Republicans who rejected an objectively superior 30 day continuing resolution that cut 8% and added border security, and knowingly enabled a 45 day CR that had none of that, were "hardliners", and acting irrationally.  Or as Chip Roy put it,

The "shit sandwich" to which Roy was referring was the entirely predictable CR we got instead of the one we could have had.  Because the theoretical alternative of "no continuing resolution, shutdown instead" was a practical impossibility that they should have known was never going to be the alternative.  Those who thought it was were just lying to themselves.

Hardliners.  Lying to themselves about what was going to happen to excuse a vote against self-interest.
 

[Cyber Liberty]

That's a good question.  Here's I always think of it, right or wrong.

I expect every member to act rationally in support of whatever it is they believe.  So do whatever it is that will get you closest to what you're trying to achieve, keeping in mind that half a loaf is better than none.  That means compromising if you are better off with the compromise than with nothing at all.  You can apply that test to anyone, regardless of ideology.

So I call someone a "hardliner", and it can be on the left or right, when they reject a compromise that would have put them closer to policies they preferred, and the failure to compromise put them further away.  In other words, not acting in their own rational self-interest.

That's almost never going to pop up with moderates because they're always willing to take the best deal they can get.  But it does happen on both the left and right when some people reject a compromise, and that rejection leads to something worse.  So to me, the Republicans who rejected an objectively superior 30 day continuing resolution that cut 8% and added border security, and knowingly enabled a 45 day CR that had none of that, were "hardliners", and acting irrationally.  Or as Chip Roy put it,

The "shit sandwich" to which Roy was referring was the entirely predictable CR we got instead of the one we could have had.  Because the theoretical alternative of "no continuing resolution, shutdown instead" was a practical impossibility that they should have known was never going to be the alternative.  Those who thought it was were just lying to themselves.

Hardliners.  Lying to themselves about what was going to happen to excuse a vote against self-interest.
 

Thanks for the clarification!

[Hoodat]

Why would anyone take the Speaker role if the caucus is setting him up to fail?

Asking someone to keep his word is "setting him up to fail"?

[DefiantMassRINO]

For McCarthy, it was.  The guy never should have been Speaker ... he was too needy, desperate, and weak for the job.

This is what weakness and fealty look like:

Asking someone to keep his word is "setting him up to fail"?

[roamer_1]

Why are only Conservatives labeled as "hardliners?"  Seems to me the leftist GOP are the hardliners.

In using the language of the Dems, we are losing right out of the gate.

That's right. The Gang of Eight Moderates have held the Republicans hostage almost my whole life long.