pagerman @ work said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TRM said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

This is exactly why 20 conservative Republicans are standing up against the Washington machine. Bacon just proved their point. https://t.co/5R1a8ovRwj

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 5, 2023

---

Well, what did the 20 think is going to happen? For any piece of legislation, you're going to need 218. If that doesn't come from the GOP, they need to court the moderate and conservative Dems and give them more power over the process.

---

Perhaps, McCarthy should do what is best for the COUNTRY rather than what is best for his own professional career. Maybe the 20 incorrectly thought he had a fiber of integrity. Looks like they might have been wrong about that.

---

And why should anyone believe that the next person up for the position won't be opposed by these obstructionists?

---

They might be but who cares? The point is that votes are had until a viable candidate is produced. The reality is the freedom caucus has enough power to force such debate. You simply cannot tell them to get in line

---

Except for the small fact that they aren't even trying to have that debate.

All they are saying is no. Again, that is not a debatable position, that is a temper tantrum.

Offer a candidate so that we can have the debate. The only reason not to do so is to drag this out for their own individual political gain, i.e. "building their brand".

---

Have you been paying attention at ALL? They have offered damn good candidates such as Jim Jordan.

It's that the meek 202 are afraid to vote against McCarthy because they don't want to face retribution. McCarthy needs to step the hell down, so everybody is free to vote for who they want, and THEN the 20 can nominate people again. Hell, maybe Jim Jordan would reconsider once McCarthy steps aside.


It's the McCarthy side that has refused to offer any alternatives. To pretend that is the fault of the 20 is a joke.

---

Jim Jordan has said he doesn't want the job. Ergo he is not a legitimate candidate.

And the McCarthy side has offered a candidate. The Clown Caucus has said no. The next step in a negotiation is for the opposition to offer a (at least semi) legitimate candidate for the position. This does not include people that don't want the job and one term congressmen that are not up to the task of being Speaker.

---

Who has McCarthy side offered other than McCarthy?

And you are wrong on the "next step". The next step is for McCarthy to step down so that they can start fresh on candidates. HE is the head clown in a room full of clowns. They are the reason we have shifted left for decades. I can't believe people on this board still support a system that has proven to fail time and time again.

---

Gaetz and the rest of the 20 see the danger of the whole process being permanently corrupted. The system itself hangs on by a thread. Without the accountability that the 20 want..... that thread will fail or even be cut.... and then what? I may be wrong, but this may be the last stand to save this Republic.

---

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Quote:

---

GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Kevin McCarthy supporter, told CNN that the speaker vote process could go on "for a long time."

"These folks do not know how to get to yes. They've been offered every concession, or met every concession. They just don't know how to get to yes. It's an embarrassment to them, our party, the House and our country. I think there is totalitarian states out there, look at those 20 and say this is why we don't want democracy. That's an embarrassment. ... We're going to be doing this for a long time," he said.

---

The move here, Mr. Bacon, would be to publish said concessions, in writing, so you can build pressure on the 20. Simply stating concessions have been offered is not sufficient.

---

FireAg said:

---

If enough people aren't able to attend, doesn't that lower the threshold for Jeffries to win?

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Earned it in what way?

---

CowboyGirl said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Gaetz is his own dude.

There have been many reports of the 20 attempting to negotiate to a better set of circumstances in exchange for a vote.


I personally think that if Mccarthy were to step aside and someone like Scalise take his place, this would be over

---

Why would Scalise want to do that? He's already set in a much better position.

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

So, because he can raise lots of money he should be the speaker?

Gingrich really doesn't make much of a case there. He says he can raise money and manage the caucus, which he clearly cannot.

---

aTmAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TRM said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

This is exactly why 20 conservative Republicans are standing up against the Washington machine. Bacon just proved their point. https://t.co/5R1a8ovRwj

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 5, 2023

---

Well, what did the 20 think is going to happen? For any piece of legislation, you're going to need 218. If that doesn't come from the GOP, they need to court the moderate and conservative Dems and give them more power over the process.

---

Perhaps, McCarthy should do what is best for the COUNTRY rather than what is best for his own professional career. Maybe the 20 incorrectly thought he had a fiber of integrity. Looks like they might have been wrong about that.

---

And why should anyone believe that the next person up for the position won't be opposed by these obstructionists?

---

They might be but who cares? The point is that votes are had until a viable candidate is produced. The reality is the freedom caucus has enough power to force such debate. You simply cannot tell them to get in line

---

Except for the small fact that they aren't even trying to have that debate.

All they are saying is no. Again, that is not a debatable position, that is a temper tantrum.

Offer a candidate so that we can have the debate. The only reason not to do so is to drag this out for their own individual political gain, i.e. "building their brand".

---

Have you been paying attention at ALL? They have offered damn good candidates such as Jim Jordan.

It's that the meek 202 are afraid to vote against McCarthy because they don't want to face retribution. McCarthy needs to step the hell down, so everybody is free to vote for who they want, and THEN the 20 can nominate people again. Hell, maybe Jim Jordan would reconsider once McCarthy steps aside.


It's the McCarthy side that has refused to offer any alternatives. To pretend that is the fault of the 20 is a joke.

---

Or, perhaps the 202 believe that McCarthy has actually earned the job. That is a much more plausible explanation than your idea that fear is driving the solid support for McCarthy.

And it's not the fault of the 202 if they don't agree with the 20... or you. The 20 submitted their choice for leader - Biggs - during caucus in November. He lost 85% to 15%.

---

LOL. You clearly have no idea how this works.

---

FireAg said:

---

If enough people aren't able to attend, doesn't that lower the threshold for Jeffries to win?

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Earned it in what way?

---

Per Newt Gingrich...

"I thought McCarthy, frankly, who had won two consecutive elections… they gained seats in '20. They gained seats in '22. He was the singularly most active, best fundraiser, biggest campaigner. I thought at least the House was going to be a sign of stability."

Gingrich goes on to say in multiple interviews that at this point, anyone other than McCarthy would be unable to govern the House as well as the Republican caucus, because if 20 individuals can oppose the decision of 212 other caucus members and shut down everything, the entire session is doomed to fail. Simply because there will be other issues, and you will almost never have a 100% consensus. You have to accept losing a vote now and then.

Cruz said in his podcast that the Dems greatest asset and their greatest liability was their penchant to "toe the party line" and vote as a bloc. He followed by saying that the Republicans independence was also their greatest asset - as well as their greatest liability.

We're seeing the liability part now.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

No, they don't have any obligation to do that. They can just keep saying not Mccarthy.

Why is the onus on them to produce a viable second option? They simply just can say no to Mccarthy until the majority side puts up someone else.

---

If you don't like the guy you've lost to by a landslide 9 times in a row plus in the caucus vote…put up a viable candidate or shut up.

Donalds has now ran 5 times and he's receiving fewer votes each time. The holdouts are a group that's lacking serious ideas at this point

---

I dont think you understand. They don't have to do anything other than keep voting no. They don't have to put up another candidate. They don't have to do anything specific for this to continue.

Just keep voting no until Mccarthy is gone or he gives up too much for him.

---

Of course they can keep voting no. They can keep doing that and McCarthy can keep running.

I don't think that you understand. If the goal is to reach a resolution to this, the 17 or whatever that are still voting for Donalds not moving towards resolution by continuing to vote for Donalds.

At a bare minimum, come up with someone else the 20 can agree on. But the original 20 Nos now don't even appear to be able to agree on something between themselves yet alone do they appear capable of working with the other 210

---

eric76 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

No, they don't have any obligation to do that. They can just keep saying not Mccarthy.

Why is the onus on them to produce a viable second option? They simply just can say no to Mccarthy until the majority side puts up someone else.

---

If you don't like the guy you've lost to by a landslide 9 times in a row plus in the caucus vote…put up a viable candidate or shut up.

Donalds has now ran 5 times and he's receiving fewer votes each time. The holdouts are a group that's lacking serious ideas at this point

---

I dont think you understand. They don't have to do anything other than keep voting no. They don't have to put up another candidate. They don't have to do anything specific for this to continue.

Just keep voting no until Mccarthy is gone or he gives up too much for him.

---

Of course they can keep voting no. They can keep doing that and McCarthy can keep running.

I don't think that you understand. If the goal is to reach a resolution to this, the 17 or whatever that are still voting for Donalds not moving towards resolution by continuing to vote for Donalds.

At a bare minimum, come up with someone else the 20 can agree on. But the original 20 Nos now don't even appear to be able to agree on something between themselves yet alone do they appear capable of working with the other 210

---

The 20 do have power to get concessions, but that power would seem to be misused if there are no concessions that are acceptable to them. Sooner or later, they have to agree that they got what they need and get on with life.

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Earned it in what way?

---

Per Newt Gingrich...

"I thought McCarthy, frankly, who had won two consecutive elections… they gained seats in '20. They gained seats in '22. He was the singularly most active, best fundraiser, biggest campaigner. I thought at least the House was going to be a sign of stability."

Gingrich goes on to say in multiple interviews that at this point, anyone other than McCarthy would be unable to govern the House as well as the Republican caucus, because if 20 individuals can oppose the decision of 212 other caucus members and shut down everything, the entire session is doomed to fail. Simply because there will be other issues, and you will almost never have a 100% consensus. You have to accept losing a vote now and then.

Cruz said in his podcast that the Dems greatest asset and their greatest liability was their penchant to "toe the party line" and vote as a bloc. He followed by saying that the Republicans independence was also their greatest asset - as well as their greatest liability.

We're seeing the liability part now.

---

Nothing the House passes is gonna get by the Senate anyway, so Republican legislation is DOA anyway. What does it matter?

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

eric76 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

No, they don't have any obligation to do that. They can just keep saying not Mccarthy.

Why is the onus on them to produce a viable second option? They simply just can say no to Mccarthy until the majority side puts up someone else.

---

If you don't like the guy you've lost to by a landslide 9 times in a row plus in the caucus vote…put up a viable candidate or shut up.

Donalds has now ran 5 times and he's receiving fewer votes each time. The holdouts are a group that's lacking serious ideas at this point

---

I dont think you understand. They don't have to do anything other than keep voting no. They don't have to put up another candidate. They don't have to do anything specific for this to continue.

Just keep voting no until Mccarthy is gone or he gives up too much for him.

---

Of course they can keep voting no. They can keep doing that and McCarthy can keep running.

I don't think that you understand. If the goal is to reach a resolution to this, the 17 or whatever that are still voting for Donalds not moving towards resolution by continuing to vote for Donalds.

At a bare minimum, come up with someone else the 20 can agree on. But the original 20 Nos now don't even appear to be able to agree on something between themselves yet alone do they appear capable of working with the other 210

---

The 20 do have power to get concessions, but that power would seem to be misused if there are no concessions that are acceptable to them. Sooner or later, they have to agree that they got what they need and get on with life.

---

They don't HAVE to. At a certain point they prove McCarthy isn't able to unite the party, and to be an effective speaker.

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

So, because he can raise lots of money he should be the speaker?

Gingrich really doesn't make much of a case there. He says he can raise money and manage the caucus, which he clearly cannot.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

So, because he can raise lots of money he should be the speaker?

Gingrich really doesn't make much of a case there. He says he can raise money and manage the caucus, which he clearly cannot.

---

Hell I would be cool with Newt coming back.

---

eric76 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

eric76 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

No, they don't have any obligation to do that. They can just keep saying not Mccarthy.

Why is the onus on them to produce a viable second option? They simply just can say no to Mccarthy until the majority side puts up someone else.

---

If you don't like the guy you've lost to by a landslide 9 times in a row plus in the caucus vote…put up a viable candidate or shut up.

Donalds has now ran 5 times and he's receiving fewer votes each time. The holdouts are a group that's lacking serious ideas at this point

---

I dont think you understand. They don't have to do anything other than keep voting no. They don't have to put up another candidate. They don't have to do anything specific for this to continue.

Just keep voting no until Mccarthy is gone or he gives up too much for him.

---

Of course they can keep voting no. They can keep doing that and McCarthy can keep running.

I don't think that you understand. If the goal is to reach a resolution to this, the 17 or whatever that are still voting for Donalds not moving towards resolution by continuing to vote for Donalds.

At a bare minimum, come up with someone else the 20 can agree on. But the original 20 Nos now don't even appear to be able to agree on something between themselves yet alone do they appear capable of working with the other 210

---

The 20 do have power to get concessions, but that power would seem to be misused if there are no concessions that are acceptable to them. Sooner or later, they have to agree that they got what they need and get on with life.

---

They don't HAVE to. At a certain point they prove McCarthy isn't able to unite the party, and to be an effective speaker.

---

Then who is?

---

aTmAg said:

---

CowboyGirl said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Gaetz is his own dude.

There have been many reports of the 20 attempting to negotiate to a better set of circumstances in exchange for a vote.


I personally think that if Mccarthy were to step aside and someone like Scalise take his place, this would be over

---

Why would Scalise want to do that? He's already set in a much better position.

---

How is Majority leader better than Speaker? If that was really better than McCarthy would have stayed majority leader himself.

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TRM said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

This is exactly why 20 conservative Republicans are standing up against the Washington machine. Bacon just proved their point. https://t.co/5R1a8ovRwj

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 5, 2023

---

Well, what did the 20 think is going to happen? For any piece of legislation, you're going to need 218. If that doesn't come from the GOP, they need to court the moderate and conservative Dems and give them more power over the process.

---

Perhaps, McCarthy should do what is best for the COUNTRY rather than what is best for his own professional career. Maybe the 20 incorrectly thought he had a fiber of integrity. Looks like they might have been wrong about that.

---

And why should anyone believe that the next person up for the position won't be opposed by these obstructionists?

---

They might be but who cares? The point is that votes are had until a viable candidate is produced. The reality is the freedom caucus has enough power to force such debate. You simply cannot tell them to get in line

---

Except for the small fact that they aren't even trying to have that debate.

All they are saying is no. Again, that is not a debatable position, that is a temper tantrum.

Offer a candidate so that we can have the debate. The only reason not to do so is to drag this out for their own individual political gain, i.e. "building their brand".

---

Have you been paying attention at ALL? They have offered damn good candidates such as Jim Jordan.

It's that the meek 202 are afraid to vote against McCarthy because they don't want to face retribution. McCarthy needs to step the hell down, so everybody is free to vote for who they want, and THEN the 20 can nominate people again. Hell, maybe Jim Jordan would reconsider once McCarthy steps aside.


It's the McCarthy side that has refused to offer any alternatives. To pretend that is the fault of the 20 is a joke.

---

Or, perhaps the 202 believe that McCarthy has actually earned the job. That is a much more plausible explanation than your idea that fear is driving the solid support for McCarthy.

And it's not the fault of the 202 if they don't agree with the 20... or you. The 20 submitted their choice for leader - Biggs - during caucus in November. He lost 85% to 15%.

---

LOL. You clearly have no idea how this works.

---

Oh. Ouch. You've clearly put me in my place with your unassailable rebuttal. Obviously you know how everything in Washington works.

Seriously, I've been paying attention to politics for much longer than you have. I do know how it works. And I recognize an ill-advised political hijacking when I see one.

---

CowboyGirl said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CowboyGirl said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Gaetz is his own dude.

There have been many reports of the 20 attempting to negotiate to a better set of circumstances in exchange for a vote.


I personally think that if Mccarthy were to step aside and someone like Scalise take his place, this would be over

---

Why would Scalise want to do that? He's already set in a much better position.

---

How is Majority leader better than Speaker? If that was really better than McCarthy would have stayed majority leader himself.

---

Scalise is a policy guy - in the Majority Leader role he can work with Members to develop legislation, coordinate policy across committees, and make progress on issues without having to deal with crap like fundraising for other Members, beating his head against the wall negotiating with Chuck Schumer, having to continuously worry about managing the various factions of the Republican caucus, etc.

Kevin wants to be Speaker because it is a bigger spotlight and a platform to other things - Scalise doesn't seem to care about any of that.

---

lb3 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Quote:

---

GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Kevin McCarthy supporter, told CNN that the speaker vote process could go on "for a long time."

"These folks do not know how to get to yes. They've been offered every concession, or met every concession. They just don't know how to get to yes. It's an embarrassment to them, our party, the House and our country. I think there is totalitarian states out there, look at those 20 and say this is why we don't want democracy. That's an embarrassment. ... We're going to be doing this for a long time," he said.

---

The move here, Mr. Bacon, would be to publish said concessions, in writing, so you can build pressure on the 20. Simply stating concessions have been offered is not sufficient.

---

Exactly. Publish the puts and takes from each congressman including the 212 that are holding fast for McCarthy.

This weekend I expect some of the adults in the room to start releasing trial balloons for alternate candidates.

---

aTmAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TRM said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

This is exactly why 20 conservative Republicans are standing up against the Washington machine. Bacon just proved their point. https://t.co/5R1a8ovRwj

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 5, 2023

---

Well, what did the 20 think is going to happen? For any piece of legislation, you're going to need 218. If that doesn't come from the GOP, they need to court the moderate and conservative Dems and give them more power over the process.

---

Perhaps, McCarthy should do what is best for the COUNTRY rather than what is best for his own professional career. Maybe the 20 incorrectly thought he had a fiber of integrity. Looks like they might have been wrong about that.

---

And why should anyone believe that the next person up for the position won't be opposed by these obstructionists?

---

They might be but who cares? The point is that votes are had until a viable candidate is produced. The reality is the freedom caucus has enough power to force such debate. You simply cannot tell them to get in line

---

Except for the small fact that they aren't even trying to have that debate.

All they are saying is no. Again, that is not a debatable position, that is a temper tantrum.

Offer a candidate so that we can have the debate. The only reason not to do so is to drag this out for their own individual political gain, i.e. "building their brand".

---

Have you been paying attention at ALL? They have offered damn good candidates such as Jim Jordan.

It's that the meek 202 are afraid to vote against McCarthy because they don't want to face retribution. McCarthy needs to step the hell down, so everybody is free to vote for who they want, and THEN the 20 can nominate people again. Hell, maybe Jim Jordan would reconsider once McCarthy steps aside.


It's the McCarthy side that has refused to offer any alternatives. To pretend that is the fault of the 20 is a joke.

---

Or, perhaps the 202 believe that McCarthy has actually earned the job. That is a much more plausible explanation than your idea that fear is driving the solid support for McCarthy.

And it's not the fault of the 202 if they don't agree with the 20... or you. The 20 submitted their choice for leader - Biggs - during caucus in November. He lost 85% to 15%.

---

LOL. You clearly have no idea how this works.

---

Oh. Ouch. You've clearly put me in my place with your unassailable rebuttal. Obviously you know how everything in Washington works.

Seriously, I've been paying attention to politics for much longer than you have. I do know how it works. And I recognize an ill-advised political hijacking when I see one.

---

Bold statement. You have no idea who I am, how old I am, how long I've been paying attention, etc. I'm inclined to say you are wrong.

This is literally how it has worked forever. The person who wins rewards those who support them. The earlier and more adamant the support, the better the reward. If two power hitters were going head to head then each individual congressman better hope they chose right or they are on the outs if their guy loses. So that's not what happens. People jump on board with the one person who is next in line. That way they don't have to risk their horse losing and them being on the outs.

The idea that all these people are fans of McCarthy because he is such a swell guy and an inspiring leader is a total joke.

---

McInnis 03 said:

---

Kevin Hern's mom died this week adn he expects to be absent this weekend if it stretches into that.

Wesley Hunt's wife gave birth this morning and there's word he may miss this weekend as well.

---