Agthatbuilds said:

---

But, why must they? There's no reason for them to.

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

No matter what happens today Americans can rest assured that at least Nancy Pelosi will never be speaker of the house again.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 4, 2023

---

FireAg said:

---

I really wish someone would convince Jim Jordan to step up…

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Charpie said:

---

We know all about your security clearances dude.

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

No matter what happens today Americans can rest assured that at least Nancy Pelosi will never be speaker of the house again.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 4, 2023

---

At this point, maybe having Nancy wouldn't be a bad thing. At least it's the evil we know.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Charpie said:

---

We know all about your security clearances dude.

---

What does that have to do with anything?

---

Charpie said:

---

You literally said, "You don't know who I am."

Well, yes we do.

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

Selfishly, I want Kennedy to be Speaker. Simply because it would be glorious soundbytes 24/7/365.

---

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.

---

milosh said:

---

Jim Jordan is a lazy moron and he himself knows it.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Donalds losing even more votes in round 10. Holdouts seem to be diverging today.

Also a sign they won't be able to agree on what are acceptable concessions?

---

aTmAg said:

---

Charpie said:

---

You literally said, "You don't know who I am."

Well, yes we do.

---

You misunderstood what I was saying. He said, "I've been paying attention to politics for much longer than you have." Yet I could be 80 years old and paying attention since I was 12 for all he knows. He has like a 3000 post count (and I have an admittedly pathetic 58K). How in the world can he claim so confidently that he's been paying attention longer. Makes no sense.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Donalds losing even more votes in round 10. Holdouts seem to be diverging today.

Also a sign they won't be able to agree on what are acceptable concessions?

---

jrdaustin 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.

---

I think what he was saying was that when you take both 2020 and 2022 into consideration, the Republicans gained ground in the House where the presidency and the Senate were lost in 2020, and the Senate lost ground in 2022.

His point was that if not for the efforts of McCarthy, there would likely not be a Republican-led House in which to have a speaker fight.

https://www.gingrich360.com/2022/12/14/kevin-mccarthy-earning-the-speakership/

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

Selfishly, I want Kennedy to be Speaker. Simply because it would be glorious soundbytes 24/7/365.

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

Daddy-O5 said:

---

No matter what happens today Americans can rest assured that at least Nancy Pelosi will never be speaker of the house again.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 4, 2023

---

At this point, maybe having Nancy wouldn't be a bad thing. At least it's the evil we know.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Donalds losing even more votes in round 10. Holdouts seem to be diverging today.

Also a sign they won't be able to agree on what are acceptable concessions?

---

jrdaustin said:

---

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.

---

aTmAg
10:00p, 7/2/16

AG

So when I was a cadet about 20 years ago, we used to have a dessert on occasion that was sorta like Boston cream pie, but it didn't have any chocolate on top. I think it it had frosting instead. For anybody who worked there, "what the hell was that?" It was damn good. I want it again.


I can afford to be bold. Class of '89. Nonreg.
(I add that to piss you off that much more..) ;-)

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Charpie said:

---

You literally said, "You don't know who I am."

Well, yes we do.

---

You misunderstood what I was saying. He said, "I've been paying attention to politics for much longer than you have." Yet I could be 80 years old and paying attention since I was 12 for all he knows. He has like a 3000 post count (and I have an admittedly pathetic 58K). How in the world can he claim so confidently that he's been paying attention longer. Makes no sense.

---

Plus I still have to work for a living, thus the measly 3000 post count.

Not getting much work done today, though...

---

geoag58 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Donalds losing even more votes in round 10. Holdouts seem to be diverging today.

Also a sign they won't be able to agree on what are acceptable concessions?

---

You would have to know what any vote changer are being promised to make that statement.

---

milosh said:

---

Jim Jordan is a lazy moron and he himself knows it.

---