Not exactly. Limited involvement in international activities, but against political entanglements in foreign wars.
What's Going on in the US House of Representatives?
- Thread starter ATeam
- Start date
Historical Perspective
The current Republican House leadership collapse should not be viewed in isolation. Historical context is helpful. Two points from these MSNBC guests:
The Republicans seem to be quite accustomed to rejecting and deposing their own House leaders. These days, they're making a bigger stink of it than usual.
The current Republican House leadership collapse should not be viewed in isolation. Historical context is helpful. Two points from these MSNBC guests:
- There has not been a leadership crisis as serious as this in the US House since before the Civil War.
- This is a feature of the contemporary Republican Party. Going back 30+ years, the only leader who managed to last without being forced out was Dennis Hastert, who is in prison as a sexual predator and groomer. The other Republican speakers were all forced out by Republicans.
The Republicans seem to be quite accustomed to rejecting and deposing their own House leaders. These days, they're making a bigger stink of it than usual.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Your post is incoherent.O Really ?
It's an enigma wrapped up in a mystery.
Wrong.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
And Then There Were Nine
With the US House speaker's chair still vacant, House Republicans are meeting Monday, 6:30 PM Eastern Time to decide which of the nine new candidates for the job will get the nod.
These meetings have not gone particularly well in the last couple weeks. What might be different this time around?
With the US House speaker's chair still vacant, House Republicans are meeting Monday, 6:30 PM Eastern Time to decide which of the nine new candidates for the job will get the nod.
These meetings have not gone particularly well in the last couple weeks. What might be different this time around?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Not only can't govern, but also can't count.
One should expect nothing less from MSNBC, which specializes in hyperbole and hysteria aimed at Republicans and conservatives. They, along with other legacy media repeated Joe Biden's preposterous claim that the Jan 6 riot was the worst event since the Civil War; now they've decided the current House leadership crisis is the worst since the Civil War. But is this political squabble a real crisis, or just a manufactured catastrophe for cable news and Democrat campaign rhetoric? Has the lack of a Speaker actually effected anyone's lives? To date only 14 pieces of legislation have been signed by Joe Biden, two of which were resolutions. This Congress has been seriously unproductive due to their division since day one, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most people can't even name the Speaker of the House, and those who haven't listened to the news or gone online likely can't tell we don't have one.
Also, here's an interesting piece of House trivia: the country went without a Speaker from Aug 1934 to Jan 1935 with NO Speaker while in the middle of the Great Depression. Reason: Congress wasn't in session. Do we really need people like the Squad in DC on a full-time basis now?
BTW, going back 30+ years, Jim Wright was forced out of the Speaker's chair in June 1989 for taking dirty money for a book deal; a few of us are old enough to remember that. There was also the notorious House Post Office Scandal in the early 90's, which implicated several Democrats and sent Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) to prison as he fell on his sword for Speaker Tom Foley. He was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
Congressional Post Office scandal - Wikipedia
Both parties have endured their share of crooked politicians and have gone through periods of dysfunction, and the country will survive this one as well. Also, McCarthy did nothing wrong; he just made a stupid gambit by accepting the Gaetz rule to get votes. Bottom line is, the Republicans will settle on a Speaker in a week or two and nobody will like him either.
Wow, MSNBC sets you off, doesn't it? I intentionally stuck to cold hard facts to avoid this kind of response. It's not hard to determine that this is the worst leadership crisis since the Civil War. All you have to do is count the number of days the House has been without a speaker. That's all there is to it. X number of days without a speaker is worse than a lesser number of days. Counting the days is not hyperbole and hysteria. It's counting the days.
Enough people are paying attention to this to affect election outcomes in House districts in 2024. And you can be sure the opposition candidates will do a fine job of reminding voters that Republican House members can't govern. The Republicans themselves are freely admitting on taped interviews that they look like fools, or words to that effect. They are producing, at no charge, wonderful campaign ads for their opponents to use. If I was a Republican campaign operative, I'd call that a crisis that is deeply harmful to any Republican house member with a credible opponent in a competitive district.
Who is being harmed by this Republican leadership crisis? Republicans.
And yes, the lack of a speaker has affected some people's lives. When a sheriff's deputy is stationed at a school because a Republican's daughter has been targeted by a death threat given by someone who wanted a certain speaker elected, I'd say that affects not just the daughter's life, but her family, and the entire student body and faculty at that school.
While a case can be made that the House would be just as effective if it was in session half the time, when it is in session, it is supposed to operate normally. There is no passing this Republican clown show off as something that has no significant impacts. Lasting harm is happening with every passing day the House is not in session to do its work. The impacts may not be immediately seen, but over time they will appear. Important and tedious committee work is done long before legislation sees the light of day. This is not being done now. There will be a price to pay for that down the road.
Some of the harm of not having a speaker is seen now in the embittered relationships that are being created and reinforced in the Republican caucus. This bitterness will make them even less effective than they were before, if they ever manage to elect a speaker and get back to business.
The country may well survive this period of dysfunction, but the dysfunctional Republican Party won't. We are witnessing the death throes of the Republican Party. This is not an instant process. But a few years from now, the Republican Party will be either gone or unrecognizable from it's current state.
What he did wrong was accept that stupid rule that one person can vacate the chair. And that is a major blunder. He did it to secure the speaker's seat for himself, not for the good of the House, and look where we are now
It is sad to say, but you are voicing the best case scenario. I'm not sure the Republicans will ever settle on a speaker. They may, but with the next round of 9 candidates seeking the position, there is no indication that the caucus will unite behind any of them, this week, in a week or two, or ever.
Pressure will certainly build to the point where something has to give. Your scenario that Republican infighting will give way to a speaker elected by a united Republican majority is plausible. But so is the scenario that a small group of Republicans will finally decide they've had enough, and they join with Democrats to elect a speaker. There are 18 Republican House members who were elected by voters who also voted for Joe Biden. Only a handful of those need step up to work in a bipartisan way for the good of the House to elect a speaker.
Last edited:
The Five Republican Families in the US House
I don't know if this characterization of the US House Republican caucus is helpful or not. It is interesting. But labeling presents a hazard. When you label something, you tend to defend the label and lose sight of the underlying facts.
You tell me. Is it accurate to characterize the US House Republican caucus as five warring families?
"The speaker saga has exposed the dynamics that have made the House G.O.P. nearly impossible to govern. There are too many conflicting ideologies, too many unyielding personalities and too much bad blood for the party to unite behind any one person." ...
"Republicans have made no secret of their divisions. They openly refer to their various factions as The Five Families — a reference to warring Mafia crime families. They consist of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, the conservative Republican Study Committee, the business-minded Main Street Caucus, the mainstream Republican Governance Group and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus." (full New York Times article)
I tend to think the situation is more complex than this five-families characterization suggests. The labels are not neat and clean. But since the Republicans themselves are speaking in these terms, the "five families" may be the operative "truth."
Note that the New York Times is not making this characterization. The newspaper is reporting the characterization Republicans are making. What do you think? Are the Republicans right? Is this an accurate characterization? And if so, how will they ever find their way out of their self-imposed leadership mess?
I don't know if this characterization of the US House Republican caucus is helpful or not. It is interesting. But labeling presents a hazard. When you label something, you tend to defend the label and lose sight of the underlying facts.
You tell me. Is it accurate to characterize the US House Republican caucus as five warring families?
"The speaker saga has exposed the dynamics that have made the House G.O.P. nearly impossible to govern. There are too many conflicting ideologies, too many unyielding personalities and too much bad blood for the party to unite behind any one person." ...
"Republicans have made no secret of their divisions. They openly refer to their various factions as The Five Families — a reference to warring Mafia crime families. They consist of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, the conservative Republican Study Committee, the business-minded Main Street Caucus, the mainstream Republican Governance Group and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus." (full New York Times article)
I tend to think the situation is more complex than this five-families characterization suggests. The labels are not neat and clean. But since the Republicans themselves are speaking in these terms, the "five families" may be the operative "truth."
Note that the New York Times is not making this characterization. The newspaper is reporting the characterization Republicans are making. What do you think? Are the Republicans right? Is this an accurate characterization? And if so, how will they ever find their way out of their self-imposed leadership mess?
Last edited:
There is no passing this Republican clown show off as something that has no significant impacts.
Pilgrim said:
Bottom line is, the Republicans will settle on a Speaker in a week or two and nobody will like him either.
Bottom line is, the Republicans will settle on a Speaker in a week or two and nobody will like him either.
Well, they did settle on a Speaker designate - in a matter of hours this morning: Tom Emmer. He's the Never-Trumper who was the paid spokesman for the National Popular Vote Initiative, so it remains to be seen if the House Republicans can unite behind him. However, he may get the necessary votes for the Chair due to some Democrat support; it seems some of them think he's someone they can "work with". So the House GOP gets what they deserve, unless eight of them get together and decide to give him the McCarthy treatment.
From my independent, non-Republican point of view, Emmer seems like a decent choice for the Republicans to make. He has lots of experience in the House and many positive relationships built up over time. He has good fundraising chops (something important to politicians, it seems). He's not a whack-a-doodle who is concerned about attracting attention to boost his social media counts. In normal times, a majority caucus would unite around such a candidate, elect the speaker and get on with the business of the House.
But these are not normal times.
Regarding Emmer's "never-Trump" tag, I'm not sure it is fully deserved. While he voted to certify the 2020 election, he has too much in common with election deniers for my taste. And his voting record is pretty much lock-step with Trump. As an independent voter, I view Emmer as one of the least worst possibilities. While Emmer is less than ideal, it is worse to keep the House shut down while the Republican circular firing squad continues to shoot.
Can the Republicans elect Emmer without Democratic help? It does not appear so. The Trump loyalists who put Trump above all else will see to Emmer's defeat. If some Democrats step in to vote for Emmer to end the Republican insanity, I guess that's better than continuing the insanity.
Regarding Trump's influence, Trump endorsed Jordan and Jordan was soundly defeated. Trump then let Republicans know he did not want Emmer nominated and Emmer was nominated. It makes one wonder how much influence Trump truly has in the House. It does not seem like much lately.
Last edited: