Without a Speaker of the House, Republicans aren’t able to advance their agenda. Is that necessarily a terrible thing?
We’re Republican Legislators and We’re Not Here to Help
Without a Speaker of the House, Republicans aren’t able to advance their agenda. Is that necessarily a terrible thing?
3 Comments. Leave new
Here’s why it’s bad. The Republicans had a full-out warp core wingnut breach. Nine bat-crazy Republicans tried to vote out the Speaker. All the dems went along with this.
Any positive outcomes, the Republican wingnuts will take credit for. “See? Lookit! We’re draining the swamp.” Any negative outcomes, the old guard will cry, “Why didn’t the dems put bipartisanship ahead of party? If just a few had put the country first, this could have all been avoided.”
The dems, as is there habit, will play reactive catch up. That’s when they let the other side dictate the discussion and control the narrative while they read wooden press releases in a wooden way.
I’ve said it before. You never let crazy win. The Republicans who voted out McCarthy should have been stopped because they are far more dangerous than the Republican old guard.
That the dems failed to understand that worries me greatly because it is just one more sign that the party is approaching Sears status.
It’s not over yet. We may yet end up with a moderate Republican heading a caucus of both Republicans and Democrats.
Fair point, Lee. However …
In “2001: A Space Odyssey” (the book), Arthur C. Clarke observes that fail-safes and security protocols depend on the initial assumption that no one is DELIBERATELY trying to circumvent them. How confident are you that the same nine lunatics can’t, by deliberately gumming up the works, screw things up so severely that even that moderate Republican speaker won’t be able to get anything done?