Jordan falls short of 217 votes; minority leader Jeffries gets 212 votes to Jordan’s 200

[Bigun]

Totally reject your conclusions. The whole point of dragging things to the right was to hold the moderates feet to the fire on legislation, like the budget, which they tried to do but were basically flouted.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Totally reject your conclusions. The whole point of dragging things to the right was to hold the moderates feet to the fire on legislation, like the budget, which they tried to do but were basically flouted.

I think you just proved my point.

They forced 15 votes for the Speaker in January, and then sank the Speaker in October.  That's the "controlling the caucus" part I mentioned.  Yay - good for them. Except we still don't have a Speaker and the FC candidate was rejected, so....

Then as you noted, they failed to have any positive impact on legislation.  Their biggest "achievement" was forcing the rejection of the CR with 8% cuts and giving us a CR with no cuts instead.  So a step backwards there.

I could not care less about their intentions, motives, how much they "care" -- that's all crap.  I care about the results of their actions.  The rest is just excuses. 

They are paid to understand the political dynamics within the GOP caucus, and within Congress as a whole.  It is their job to know how others are likely to react to what they do.  So saying "we did the right thing and it was what others did in reaction that screwed it up" is a crap excuse.  They are responsible for the logical and predictable consequences of what they do, and there is nothing that has happened that was not predictable.

They deserve to be judged by their results, and their results suck.

[Hoodat]

I think you just proved my point.

They forced 15 votes for the Speaker in January, and then sank the Speaker in October. 

On the 15th vote, they voted for Kevin McCarthy who promised to restore the 12-bill process for appropriations as well as agreed to subject himself to removal if he broke his promise. 

In September, Kevin McCarthy broke several of the promises he had made in January before becoming Speaker.  The following month, he was removed per the rules he had put in place.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

On the 15th vote, they voted for Kevin McCarthy who promised to restore the 12-bill process for appropriations as well as agreed to subject himself to removal if he broke his promise. 

In September, Kevin McCarthy broke several of the promises he had made in January before becoming Speaker.  The following month, he was removed per the rules he had put in place.

I disagree, but rather than debate that...what is the positive result of all they have done?   What legislation can you point to showing how we are now better off than we would be if Gaetz, Resendale, etc., had not done what we did?

Because I think we're worse off because of them.

[Hoodat]

I disagree,

Disagree all you want, but what I said is 100% accurate.

but rather than debate that...what is the positive result of all they have done?

Got rid of a business-as-usual Establishment pr*ck as Speaker.

What legislation can you point to showing how we are now better off than we would be if Gaetz, Resendale, etc., had not done what we did?

So far, no legislation at all is better than what we were getting.  Would have been nice to have gotten rid of McCarthy at the end of July instead.  Maybe then we could have gotten the 12 appropriations bills passed.  But your Establishment hero made sure that didn't happen.  So at this point, it is completely disingenuous to shift blame on Conservatives for not getting any legislation passed since you know damn well they aren't in charge.  McCarthy knew the stakes.  He agreed to those stakes.  He made his choice.  And this is the consequence of McCarthy's choice.  Maybe you should be blaming him instead of being fearful of another CR not getting passed.

[jmyrlefuller]

Well, here it is.

Trumpland influencer Joey Mannarino has now endorsed Hakeem Jeffries.

https://twitter.com/JoeyMannarinoUS/status/1715819274697056721

[libertybele]

Well, here it is.

Trumpland influencer Joey Mannarino has now endorsed Hakeem Jeffries.

https://twitter.com/JoeyMannarinoUS/status/1715819274697056721

The House is riddled with RINO's and those that back Trump.  I don't think in essence Trump is supporting Jeffries via Joey.

[Hoodat]

Joey Mannarino

@JoeyMannarinoUS
I’d rather have Hakeem Jeffries than Tom Emmer as Speaker.

I wholeheartedly mean that.

At least with Jeffries, we know he hates me and wants to ruin me.

He won’t pretend otherwise.

Republicans won’t pretend that he’s on their side.

Emmer is as bad as Jeffries but has that R next to his name, so it gives the establishment cover to run a train on our country’s sovereignty but do it with a “conservative” twist.

If you’re going to piss in my face, whip it out and piss on me like you’re R. Kelly. That’s what Hakeem would do.

Emmer would wait until I’m sleeping, piss on me and then tell me it was raining.

No way in hell.

Thank God we have another choice in Byron Donalds. He’s the way forward here.

Well, he's right.

[mystery-ak]

Sean Moran22 Oct 202312

Texas conservative John O’Shea said on Breitbart News Saturday that House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-TX) was the “matriarch” of the Republican opposition to Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) bid for Speaker of the House.

O’Shea spoke to Breitbart News Saturday host Matthew Boyle as 25 House “Republicans” blocked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan’s Speakership bid.

Granger was one of the more prominent members to oppose Jordan, the Republican Speaker nominee, as she serves as the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee.

O’Shea — a businessman who hopes to primary Granger — said that Granger represents “what is wrong with the country.”

He explained, “We have a ruling class of political professional politicians and this oligarchy does not care about their constituents.”

O’Shea added, “What does Kay do? Does she listen to her constituents, no. She goes her own path as the chairwoman of appropriations, never meeting a spending bill that she does not love. She decided to be the matriarch of the opposition.”

Granger’s Appropriations Committee represents a strong core of opposition to Jordan’s Speakership bid, as seven of the 25 House Republicans against the Ohio Republican are members of the committee.

This includes:

    Granger
    Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR)
    Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-FL)
    Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX)
    Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX)
    Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL)
    Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Granger’s opposition to Jordan incensed Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) so much that he called to remove Granger as the committee chair.

“Kay Granger doesn’t deserve to be chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She’s blocking the most fiscally conservative choice we’ve ever had to be the Speaker of the House. And she should lose her gavel for that,” Banks told Breitbart News’s Bradley Jaye.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2023/10/22/exclusive-texas-republican-john-oshea-kay-granger-matriarch-opposition-jim-jordan-speakership-bid/

[bilo]

Sean Moran22 Oct 202312

Texas conservative John O’Shea said on Breitbart News Saturday that House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-TX) was the “matriarch” of the Republican opposition to Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) bid for Speaker of the House.

O’Shea spoke to Breitbart News Saturday host Matthew Boyle as 25 House “Republicans” blocked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan’s Speakership bid.

Granger was one of the more prominent members to oppose Jordan, the Republican Speaker nominee, as she serves as the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee.

O’Shea — a businessman who hopes to primary Granger — said that Granger represents “what is wrong with the country.”

He explained, “We have a ruling class of political professional politicians and this oligarchy does not care about their constituents.”

O’Shea added, “What does Kay do? Does she listen to her constituents, no. She goes her own path as the chairwoman of appropriations, never meeting a spending bill that she does not love. She decided to be the matriarch of the opposition.”

Granger’s Appropriations Committee represents a strong core of opposition to Jordan’s Speakership bid, as seven of the 25 House Republicans against the Ohio Republican are members of the committee.

This includes:

    Granger
    Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR)
    Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-FL)
    Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX)
    Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX)
    Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL)
    Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Granger’s opposition to Jordan incensed Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) so much that he called to remove Granger as the committee chair.

“Kay Granger doesn’t deserve to be chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She’s blocking the most fiscally conservative choice we’ve ever had to be the Speaker of the House. And she should lose her gavel for that,” Banks told Breitbart News’s Bradley Jaye.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2023/10/22/exclusive-texas-republican-john-oshea-kay-granger-matriarch-opposition-jim-jordan-speakership-bid/

This shows the issue isn't about any social legislation. The problem rests with the Establishment Loyalists who like things just as they are. They don't want anyone bringing the budget process out into the open where there would be debate and plenty of questions raised. They love the backroom deals with lobbyists, to hell with the country.

FWI, the budget deficit this year is in excess of 1.7 TRILLION dollars. Interest on the debt this year will exceed the defense budget as the short term bonds at near 0% start to roll over. I can see these people on the appropriations committee have been doing such a good job they should all be retained and given raises! /s

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Joey Mannarino

@JoeyMannarinoUS
I’d rather have Hakeem Jeffries than Tom Emmer as Speaker.

I wholeheartedly mean that.

At least with Jeffries, we know he hates me and wants to ruin me.

Who is Joey Mannarino, and why should any of us care if Hakeem Jeffries wants to ruin him?

[mystery-ak]

Who is Joey Mannarino, and why should any of us care if Hakeem Jeffries wants to ruin him?

Joey Mannarino
@JoeyMannarinoUS
I help conservative candidates win elections and raise money | Social Media Strategist | Podcast Host: “The Joey Mannarino Show” | Italian-American

[Hoodat]

This shows the issue isn't about any social legislation. The problem rests with the Establishment Loyalists who like things just as they are. They don't want anyone bringing the budget process out into the open where there would be debate and plenty of questions raised. They love the backroom deals with lobbyists, to hell with the country.

FWI, the budget deficit this year is in excess of 1.7 TRILLION dollars. Interest on the debt this year will exceed the defense budget as the short term bonds at near 0% start to roll over. I can see these people on the appropriations committee have been doing such a good job they should all be retained and given raises! /s

Correct on all counts.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Joey Mannarino
@JoeyMannarinoUS
I help conservative candidates win elections and raise money | Social Media Strategist | Podcast Host: “The Joey Mannarino Show” | Italian-American

So he's just...some guy?   Sorry, but the fact that Hakeem Jeffries doesn't like him doesn't register on my "Give a Sh*t" meter.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This shows the issue isn't about any social legislation. The problem rests with the Establishment Loyalists who like things just as they are. They don't want anyone bringing the budget process out into the open where there would be debate and plenty of questions raised. They love the backroom deals with lobbyists, to hell with the country.

4 of the appropriations bill have been passed by the House, so those were certainly "in the open".  The agriculture bill went to a floor vote but some RINO's didn't like the cuts so they voted against it with the Dems.  But they're all at least on the record.  So that's 5.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable/

For the rest, I don't think it's that they're afraid of debate and having things in the open.  They simply don't agree on the numbers.

[roamer_1]

This shows the issue isn't about any social legislation. The problem rests with the Establishment Loyalists who like things just as they are. They don't want anyone bringing the budget process out into the open where there would be debate and plenty of questions raised. They love the backroom deals with lobbyists, to hell with the country.

FWI, the budget deficit this year is in excess of 1.7 TRILLION dollars. Interest on the debt this year will exceed the defense budget as the short term bonds at near 0% start to roll over. I can see these people on the appropriations committee have been doing such a good job they should all be retained and given raises! /s

I think folks just skim by numbers like that... too big to comprehend... That $1.7T in interest alone is approaching a third of every dollar this country - The WHOLE COUNTRY now - makes in a year.

Let that sink in.

[Free Vulcan]

I think folks just skim by numbers like that... too big to comprehend... That $1.7T in interest alone is approaching a third of every dollar this country - The WHOLE COUNTRY now - makes in a year.

Let that sink in.

And as it rises it will be a cash flow crunch as buyers refuse to show up and bond auctions, or they will require a steep risk premium, which will spike interest costs even faster in a vicious cycle till the music stops and we are Venezuela.

[DB]

I think folks just skim by numbers like that... too big to comprehend... That $1.7T in interest alone is approaching a third of every dollar this country - The WHOLE COUNTRY now - makes in a year.

Let that sink in.

The US GDP for 2022 was 25.462 trillion dollars. So that $1.7T is about 6.7% of what the country produces each year. Still bad, but definitely not a third of our annual GDP.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And as it rises it will be a cash flow crunch as buyers refuse to show up and bond auctions, or they will require a steep risk premium, which will spike interest costs even faster in a vicious cycle till the music stops and we are Venezuela.

The worst thing about all this is that who controls the House won't make a damn bit of difference if we elect a big-spending Republican as President.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The worst thing about all this is that who controls the House won't make a damn bit of difference if we elect a big-spending Republican as President.

This is inside out and upside down.  A Uniparty controlled legislature renders a president nearly moot on spending --- including his veto power.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Got rid of a business-as-usual Establishment pr*ck as Speaker.

In other words...nothing.  I mean, changing Speakers in itself doesn't change legislation one bit.  After all, Jordan also was going to support CR's, which was one of the reasons cited for getting rid of McCarthy.  So what's the bottom line difference in terms of actual legislation, or other concrete achievements?

Obviously, we can't even begin to answer that question yet because we don't yet know who the new Speaker will be.  But here's my guess - the RINO's are going to be much more willing to side with Democrats and not care what conservatives say than they were before all this went down.

So far, no legislation at all is better than what we were getting.

How so?  The continuing resolution passed earlier is still in effect until mid-November, so nothing has been shut down.  We also have done absolutely nothing to advance individual appropriations bills since this all started.  That makes it much more likely we'll be passing another CR when this one runs out.

So how are we better off?

McCarthy knew the stakes.  He agreed to those stakes.  He made his choice.  And this is the consequence of McCarthy's choice.

The alternative was not electing a Speaker at all.  McCarthy was absolutely correct to make those promises even if he wasn't sure he could deliver because those promises should never have been required to buy votes in the first place.  Gaetz and Co should have voted for McCarthy on the floor because he was the choice of the overwhelming majority of Republican delegates. For them to withhold their votes unless their views and allies got preferential treatment is what broke the House in he first place.

Also, there isn't agreement that McCarthy broke promises.  From what I've read, he didn't promise that 12 appropriations bills would actually pass.  That was beyond his power and everyone knew it.  He promised that he'd get them to the floor, and at least one of them - the agricultural bill - made it to the floor but was voted down.  How is it fair to hold him responsible for that?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This is inside out and upside down.  A Uniparty controlled legislature renders a president nearly moot on spending --- including his veto power.

Trump himself has come out against any entitlement reform, which takes most of the budget off the table at the jump.  There is zero chance any entitlement reform could be passed over the veto of a GOP President.  Zero.

You have openly mocked calls for cutting back spending significantly as fiscal conservatives being "stuck in the 80's."

It's disingenuous for you to push for a fiscal conservatism among Congress while rejecting it when it comes to your support of Trump.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's disingenuous for you to push for a fiscal conservatism among Congress while rejecting it when it comes to your support of Trump.

I'm simply trying to educate you on how our system of government works and who controls the purse strings ---- it's Congress. 

As long as your beloved Uniparty controls the legislature, nothing will change.  You calling for fiscal conservatism while protecting and rallying for the Uniparty's power is, IMO, the very definition of "disingenuous".

[libertybele]

That's pretty much it. They are trying to smokescreen this by blaming Gaetz and trying to get him back when they stand on zero principles other than keeping the train rolling.

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

DC_Draino
@DC_Draino

People forget that Kevin McCarthy put tens of millions of dollars into GOP primaries attacking MAGA candidates

When they survived his onslaught, he left them high and dry during the general and many lost close races

We could’v easily had a 20-30 seat cushion if popular MAGA candidates were supported

Some blame Trump for our tiny House majority

But it was Kevin using GOP funds to damage MAGA and boost unlikable establishment candidates

Raheem.
@RaheemKassam
·19h

Kevin McCarthy and Tom Emmer’s refusal to back MAGA congressional candidates is the reason they have a shitty majority. Yet somehow these two clowns feel entitled to lead their party? The GOP will not be considered serious until they dispose of these goons.

1:19 PM · Oct 22, 2023