aTmAg said:
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:
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..) ;-)
The "paying attention" part is what matters.
And it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and I explained how.
I probably didn't pay too much attention until I was a page at Reagan's 2nd Republican National Convention at the Anatole in Dallas in 1984, where I got to hear speeches by Kirkpatrick, Tower, and Kemp, as well as Reagan - all of whom helped shape my initial political worldview. So if you were paying attention before then, kudos to you & I'll stand corrected.
As far as my being wrong. Both statements you made above can be correct. The person who wins will reward his supporters, but they can also support because they WANT to and are loyal to an individual they believe deserves the job. It doesn't necessarily have to be out of fear.
I stated much earlier in this thread that I agreed with the concept of holding McCarthy to a short leash. He's now conceded to an arrangement where that can be facilitated. Obstacles to getting this thing done have been removed, IMO.
Finally, I agree that he, among others, dropped the ball with regards to Obamacare. Yet I believe that was more rooted in the fact that the Republican caucus had not put together a reasonable alternative that could be put in place if Obamacare was overturned. They couldn't have just "gone back to the way it was". If they had done that without a workable alternative in place, they would have been rightfully eviscerated in the media and the next election cycle would likely have been a bloodbath.
