To the contrary, I think it would be the best chance to avoid gridlock. A moderate Republican speaker with Democrats willing to play along could actuallybpass bills that the Senate and President would sign on to. I don't think it will happen, but if it did I think it would be productive.
Perhaps, but this would be a very short-term scenario. McCarthy and the Republicans who backed him would get ****-canned in their respective primary elections if they decided to do this.
Attitude rules the day in the Republican party rather than accomplishments. It's fitting for a party that Trump currently leads for their Presidential nomination.
Here is short article on attempted recruitment of Gowdy http://thehill.com/homenews/house/255242-chaffetz-recruits-gowdy-for-gop-leader One conservative lawmaker said he believes Gowdy is making moves to mount a campaign for leader. But the lawmaker warned that a Gowdy bid sounds like a strategy hatched by McCarthy. "I think it is a McCarthy ploy to surround himself with somebody who the base likes but who is no threat to McCarthy," the conservative lawmaker wrote in a text message. "I could back [Gowdy] for Speaker. As majority leader, he would be a pawn of leadership." [bold is mine]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-house-speaker/?postshare=4441443549389509 "...... But his equally abrupt rise is a testament to the restiveness among the chamber’s younger generation of conservatives, who want more than assurances from above about their influence in the wake of House Speaker John A. Boehner’s (R-Ohio) resignation announcement. They want a high-profile seat at the leadership table — and to inject some swagger into a party that for months has been meekly navigating through infighting and chaos......"
Federal spending is down only because of the Sequestor. Didn't the government get shut down over that and wasn't Boehner against it? That is how I remember it but I could be wrong. The point being that spending isn't down because of Boehner's leadership but in spite of it and due to the TPers in the Congress who didn't care who they pissed as long as something good was done. But again my memory could be off on this one.
Spending reductions began for FY2012 - before the Sequester took effect (January 1, 2013). Boehner and his leadership team supported relaxing sequestration in part for national defense, but when Dems were only willing to go along with that if domestic spending was also restored, he walked away from the table (and wisely so). It wasn't in spite of Boehner. Keep in mind that he could have made the deal with Democratic votes. Also, though this isn't critical, sequestration didn't lead to a shutdown. It did lead to some employee furloughs. My wife was one of those employees. Obviously, we didn't like bearing the brunt of it, but if it was necessary to hold the the line on spending, we were willing to do our part.
i heard McCarthy described today as Boehner with 10 less IQ points. I would love to see Gowdy as Speaker.
So what accomplishments did Obama have before the 2008 election? Please do not tell me that Obama in 2008 was any more qualified to be POTUS than Trump is in 2016? Who is qualified and I am not talking about your beliefs but name anyone that is qualified to be POTUS? There are very few people that are running with any accomplishments.......The thing with Trump and Carson is a large group of people are sick and tired of politics as usual!!!!! Simple as that, who me a democrat that is not a politician as usual and I would consider casting my vote that way..... By the way which one of you liberals was NJ or Seattle that proclaimed the Tea Party was dead in 2011 or 2012?
Only on Hornfans would I be considered a "liberal". I don't recall ever claiming the Tea Party was dead. I've been critical of the Tea Party crowd based primarily on their lack of productive ideas and their lack of willingness to compromise.
I will give you lack of compromise but by their premise they want smaller government, which doing nothing is better than doing something. The ideas have been very productive and at the right time we will undo all this carp that Obama and the Congress from 07-11 did to this country.
It was probably Roger35, who was prone to making ridiculous proclamations like that. Plus, he actually is a liberal (or a troll pretending to be a liberal). What I predicted in 2012 was that the Tea Party would succeed in pulling the GOP to the right, putting Obama in the White House for 4 more years -- which happened. I'm starting to think it is going to happen again, only this time with Clinton/Biden/O'Malley. The GOP's best hope is that the Democrats put Bernie Sanders up.
http://trumpstump2016.com/2015/10/kevin-mccarthy-not-tough-enough-to-be-speaker-donald-trump/ Trump on McCarty -- aint tough nuff Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said he did not think Kevin McCarthy, who is vying to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House, would be the right man for the job, according to CNN. “I would like to see someone that’s very tough and that can negotiate with the Democrats, and I don’t know that he’s that person,” explained Trump. “We need somebody that’s a very, very tough, smart, cunning person. I don’t know that that’s him, and obviously this statement hurt him pretty badly in the eyes of some, unfortunately.” Trump was referring to statements that McCarthy made regarding the committee formed to investigate Hillary Clinton’s involvement and responses to the attack on the American embassy at Benghazi in 2012. McCarthy suggested that Republicans had created the inquiry only to harm Clinton’s political stature. Trump said that even if McCarthy had meant something other than how it’s being interpreted, Democrats and Clinton are “running with it” to damage Republicans. “Certainly he’s not off to a great start,” said Trump. “I watched that (comment), actually, and I was a little surprised by it. … It would have been nice if he didn’t say it, certainly, because then there would be no dispute.”
Hillary's people took McCarthy's comments and made a TV ad out of it The guy hasn't even taken the position yet, and is off to a bad start This tends to support the stereotype that smart people do not go into politics
This is a charade though. If no one wins an absolute majority of votes cast, they just repeat the vote until someone does. Eventually, they're going to crack and vote for McCarthy. Their only other option is to abstain altogether, which would let Nancy Pelosi become Speaker. I don't think they'd do that.
McCarthy is already disappointing, and he hasnt even taken office. He organized a Congressional cross-fit group and gave the men he likes matching jackets. Can spray-on tans and crying while watching CSI-Miami reruns be far behind?
There is a rumor out there that the real reason behind McCarthy's withdrawal was an affair. Supposedly with another Houston member -- Renee Ellmers.
The Speaker does not have to be a member Could be someone like Romney or Chenney But will probably be Boehner for an extended period. The story is that all the Reps piled in for what they thought was going to be a long meeting. They even had food laid out for them, expecting everyone to be there for awhile. However, once the McCarthy announcement was made, Boehner shut it down right away. He allowed no discussions, even though everyone was present, and did not let the other two guys running to speak. They say that some people were crying as they left (a show of solidarity with Boehner?).
I dont think either has the votes, but no one else does either. Would prefer to see Boehner out either way, and an outsider in, if necessary. But, yes, it was clear from this meeting he did not want a robust discussion (or any discussion) of the situation, or to give the other two a chance to be heard. When Boehner took over as Speaker, he complained alot about Pelosi's management style, said he would be much better. But his style turned out to be just like hers. Including the recriminations and revenge.
