GOP threats to McCarthy come into sharper focus

[corbe]

GOP threats to McCarthy come into sharper focus

BY EMILY BROOKS - 09/14/23 6:00 AM ET

GOP threats to Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) leadership from Republicans unhappy about his commitment to spending cuts are coming into sharper focus, with critics signaling the opening of an impeachment inquiry into President Biden won’t necessarily save him. 

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), one of the fiscal conservatives, said that a push to oust McCarthy is “definitely” something he would be “willing to entertain” in the coming weeks.

“Clearly, it’s not a big stretch for me. I never voted for Kevin McCarthy in the first place,” said Crane, who was one of the House Republicans who withheld support from the Californian during his marathon Speakership election in January. 

“I’m not thrilled with the job he’s done. More importantly, neither are my voters. So, I would love to see stronger leadership in the House,” Crane said. 

<..snip..>

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4203244-gop-threats-to-mccarthy-come-into-sharper-focus/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm curious as to why Crane believes that the rest of the GOP House would be willing to be bullied into electing someone acceptable to them.

The problem is that while the slim margin does give Crane, Gaetz, and just three others the power to sink the Speaker, it also gives to any other group of five House Republicans the exact same power to veto a Speaker they don't like.

[bilo]

I'm curious as to why Crane believes that the rest of the GOP House would be willing to be bullied into electing someone acceptable to them.

The problem is that while the slim margin does give Crane, Gaetz, and just three others the power to sink the Speaker, it also gives to any other group of five House Republicans the exact same power to veto a Speaker they don't like.

It's not complicated.

The debt is currently at $33 TRILLION the budget will run a deficit of $2 Trillion per year. In 8 years time, or less, the deficit will be $50 Trillion. At 5% interest interest alone will be $2.5 Trillion per year. The federal govt. takes in $5 Trillion per year.

IOW, in 8 years, or less, interest alone on the debt will consume 50% of the budget. How do programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, defense get funded?

Now I could take a swipe at all the establishment Pubs who think McCarthy is peachy keen but I believe even they will see the problem he doesn't have the strength to address.

[catfish1957]

Cut his nuts off already.  He's sold us out lock stock and barrel. 

Kevin must think we are brain dead to not notice the unadvertised budgetary exceedances.   Shell Game?  Snake Oil? Smoke and Mirrors?  What ever you call it....  it's your time to go.

[DCPatriot]

Cut his nuts off already.  He's sold us out lock stock and barrel. 

Kevin must think we are brain dead to not notice the unadvertised budgetary exceedances.   Shell Game?  Snake Oil? Smoke and Mirrors?  What ever you call it....  it's your time to go.

@catfish1957

You look but you do not see.  WTF is wrong with you, 'boy'?   

Last thing you want going into a presidential election is to piggyback cutbacks (as advertised by the MSM) on top of the repeal of Roe v Wade.

Somebody handed you a shovel and you just keep digging....

[catfish1957]

@catfish1957

You look but you do not see.  WTF is wrong with you, 'boy'?   

Last thing you want going into a presidential election is to piggyback cutbacks (as advertised by the MSM) on top of the repeal of Roe v Wade.

Somebody handed you a shovel and you just keep digging....

Channeling my inner Roamer, I prefer not to betray my conservative principals for political expediency.  At worst let's sack has ass November 6, 2024.  He's pretty much 75% done opposite of what he's promised.

[DefiantMassRINO]

If they oust McCarthy, the better already know who they will elect to replace him.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not complicated.

It must be because you didn't answer the question that you bolded.

This isn't a situation where a majority of the Republican caucus is screaming for McCarthy's head for the reasons you outlined. That is not what is happening.

What you have is a very small minority of House Republican members who are trying to leverage their place in the thin Republican majority to force decisions with which the rest of the conference does not agree. So the question is why the vast majority of the caucus that doesn't agree with Gaetz, et al, would simply give up and suddenly support whomever Gaetz wanted for the speakership.

There has always been the contingent of fiscal conservatives who take the position that Republicans should simply refuse to pass any budget legislation that doesn't meet all of their demands.  And when that doesn't happen and the government inevitably shuts down for lack of funds, those same "burn it all down" Republicans want to play that game of chicken right through the end.

But we always lose when we take that approach. Every. Single Time.  Because eventually, enough moderate Republicans who do not want the government to shut down for an extended period of time will end up siding with Democrats to pass the necessary legislation.  The only result of that is the massive disruption that comes from the government shutting down, and Republicans looking impotent.

The fact is that if we want to reduce the federal deficit, we must have control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Just like we had during Trump's first two years in office. Obviously, he squandered that in terms of deficit reduction, which just means we have to put somebody different in there this time.

But trying to force substantial budget cuts when you only (very narrowly) control one house of Congress is futile.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If they oust McCarthy, the better already know who they will elect to replace him.

Well, I'm sure Gaetz knows who he would like to have replace McCarthy.  But he also knows he doesn't have the votes.  If he did, we wouldn't be hearing about just this small group. We'd be hearing about a statement from a majority of the GOP caucus saying they wanted to replace the Speaker. And that is not what is happening

[libertybele]

If they oust McCarthy, the better already know who they will elect to replace him.

That's just it -- they should have never allowed RINO McCarthy to become Speaker in the first place.
So now who??

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's just it -- they should have never allowed RINO McCarthy to become Speaker in the first place.
So now who??

Nobody. There aren't the votes to elect anyone else.

That's why I kind of wish Gaetz and Co. would quit threatening and just do it.  Let's see what happens when 5 people try to bully the rest of the caucus.

Because my guess is that there will be well over five other Republicans in the caucus who will resent being bullied and will refuse to vote for anybody except McCarthy.

The result will be a midterm stalemate that makes the Republican Party look ridiculius and lose them seats in 2024.  I believe Gaetz is absolutely willing to do that simply because he thinks it will make himself look good politically to the burn it all down constituency.  And I think the only reason he has not yet done that is because he doesn't even have the five votes necessary to give McCarthy the boot.

[libertybele]

Nobody. There aren't the votes to elect anyone else.

That's why I kind of wish Gaetz and Co. would quit threatening and just do it.  Let's see what happens when 5 people try to bully the rest of the caucus.

Because my guess is that there will be well over five other Republicans in the caucus who will resent being bullied and will refuse to vote for anybody except McCarthy.

The result will be a midterm stalemate that makes the Republican Party look ridiculius and lose them seats in 2024.  I believe Gaetz is absolutely willing to do that simply because he thinks it will make himself look good politically to the burn it all down constituency.  And I think the only reason he has not yet done that is because he doesn't even have the five votes necessary to give McCarthy the boot.

I'm not a fan of Gaetz and hasn't voted in line with the party a few times and I stopped following him.  Right now I see him as just trying to make a name for himself.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm not a fan of Gaetz and hasn't voted in line with the party a few times and I stopped following him.  Right now I see him as just trying to make a name for himself.

The way I look at it is that elections have consequences.

The only reasonable way to run a caucus with this slim of a majority is that everyone has to agree to abide by the caucus vote on Speaker.  Because the reality is that any small group of representatives could sink the Speakership vote otherwise, and you could end up with various small groups of representatives refusing to vote for anyone but their person.  It just doesn't work.  If it truly blows up, the only beneficiaries are the Democrats.

I don't support McCarthy as Speaker because I'm a huge fan of his. I support him as Speaker because that's who the majority of caucus voted for. If the caucus majority has shifted since then, and there is now an alternative candidate who has majority support within the caucus, then I'd have no issue with filing the Motion to Vacate and electing that new Speaker.

But that does not seem to be the case right now. Nobody is claiming that a majority of a caucus wants to change speakers. It's just that a very small minority wants to collude with Democrats to force the GOP majority House of Representatives to proceed without having a Speaker at all.

[Kamaji]

It must be because you didn't answer the question that you bolded.

This isn't a situation where a majority of the Republican caucus is screaming for McCarthy's head for the reasons you outlined. That is not what is happening.

What you have is a very small minority of House Republican members who are trying to leverage their place in the thin Republican majority to force decisions with which the rest of the conference does not agree. So the question is why the vast majority of the caucus that doesn't agree with Gaetz, et al, would simply give up and suddenly support whomever Gaetz wanted for the speakership.

There has always been the contingent of fiscal conservatives who take the position that Republicans should simply refuse to pass any budget legislation that doesn't meet all of their demands.  And when that doesn't happen and the government inevitably shuts down for lack of funds, those same "burn it all down" Republicans want to play that game of chicken right through the end.

But we always lose when we take that approach. Every. Single Time.  Because eventually, enough moderate Republicans who do not want the government to shut down for an extended period of time will end up siding with Democrats to pass the necessary legislation.  The only result of that is the massive disruption that comes from the government shutting down, and Republicans looking impotent.

The fact is that if we want to reduce the federal deficit, we must have control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Just like we had during Trump's first two years in office. Obviously, he squandered that in terms of deficit reduction, which just means we have to put somebody different in there this time.

But trying to force substantial budget cuts when you only (very narrowly) control one house of Congress is futile.

[bilo]

It must be because you didn't answer the question that you bolded.

This isn't a situation where a majority of the Republican caucus is screaming for McCarthy's head for the reasons you outlined. That is not what is happening.

What you have is a very small minority of House Republican members who are trying to leverage their place in the thin Republican majority to force decisions with which the rest of the conference does not agree. So the question is why the vast majority of the caucus that doesn't agree with Gaetz, et al, would simply give up and suddenly support whomever Gaetz wanted for the speakership.

There has always been the contingent of fiscal conservatives who take the position that Republicans should simply refuse to pass any budget legislation that doesn't meet all of their demands.  And when that doesn't happen and the government inevitably shuts down for lack of funds, those same "burn it all down" Republicans want to play that game of chicken right through the end.

But we always lose when we take that approach. Every. Single Time.  Because eventually, enough moderate Republicans who do not want the government to shut down for an extended period of time will end up siding with Democrats to pass the necessary legislation.  The only result of that is the massive disruption that comes from the government shutting down, and Republicans looking impotent.

The fact is that if we want to reduce the federal deficit, we must have control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Just like we had during Trump's first two years in office. Obviously, he squandered that in terms of deficit reduction, which just means we have to put somebody different in there this time.

But trying to force substantial budget cuts when you only (very narrowly) control one house of Congress is futile.

This is the typical establishment Pub argument.

The debt ceiling sellout is a great example of how the stereotypical establishment argument isn't true. In that case the America First Pubs found a bunch of compromises other Pubs agreed with and when Senate Pubs balked instead of passing the bill McCarthy sold out and passed a bill with Rat support.

The old argument that we have to have majorities in the House, Senate and Presidency is a lie. What happened to ending Obamacare? All the establishment Pubs do is add one more condition before something can be done.

If McCarthy insists on being a tool of the left he needs to go.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The debt ceiling sellout is a great example of how the stereotypical establishment argument isn't true. In that case the America First Pubs found a bunch of compromises other Pubs agreed with and when Senate Pubs balked instead of passing the bill McCarthy sold out and passed a bill with Rat support.

The old argument that we have to have majorities in the House, Senate and Presidency is a lie. What happened to ending Obamacare? All the establishment Pubs do is add one more condition before something can be done.

So when the Senate balked, what do you believe McCarthy should have done?

And what do you think would have been the end result if McCarthy personally had stuck to his guns?

Because I think what would have happened is that at least 5 House RINOS would not have let it get to a shutdown, and would have cut a deal with House Dems to pass that appropriations bill anyway.

And McCarthy knew that was the alternative and judged that to have been an even worse outcome.