Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

The "sore loser" argument is the stupid talking point here. Of those 19 only 1 has put himself in for it. The others simply want somebody more conservative to be speaker.

Let me guess, you are all talk on small government? Or are you perfectly fine with bigger government?

---

I'm not a virtue signalling moron. That's who's pushing this.

I'd be fine with Jordan or Scalise, or any number of other folks, but this should have been debated and decided in the caucus. Gaetz et al couldn't find anyone who appealed to the broader caucus who would run, ergo, they lost. Now, they are trying to get around that by withholding their vote on the floor and holding the whole House hostage until they get their way. That's not leadership.

---

They tried to, but McCarthy brushed them off!! It has been said numerous times that McCarthy ignored these people because he thought the GOP had the midterms locked in a landslide. McCarthy assumed he could use the incoming GOP members to push him over. It isn't the case. He played his hand wrong.

That's not leadership. That is arrogance.

---

I'm sure McCarthy has made his share of dumb moves, but, if that's the basis for wanting someone else as speaker, the time to beat him was in the caucus vote. That's how the house is organized. Going around the caucus to try to sabotage the elected leadership is the wrong way to handle objections to the leadership.

---

That's the thing; he isn't the elected leadership for the role of Speaker and he won't be.

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

The "sore loser" argument is the stupid talking point here. Of those 19 only 1 has put himself in for it. The others simply want somebody more conservative to be speaker.

Let me guess, you are all talk on small government? Or are you perfectly fine with bigger government?

---

I'm not a virtue signalling moron. That's who's pushing this.

I'd be fine with Jordan or Scalise, or any number of other folks, but this should have been debated and decided in the caucus. Gaetz et al couldn't find anyone who appealed to the broader caucus who would run, ergo, they lost. Now, they are trying to get around that by withholding their vote on the floor and holding the whole House hostage until they get their way. That's not leadership.

---

They tried to, but McCarthy brushed them off!! It has been said numerous times that McCarthy ignored these people because he thought the GOP had the midterms locked in a landslide. McCarthy assumed he could use the incoming GOP members to push him over. It isn't the case. He played his hand wrong.

That's not leadership. That is arrogance.

---

I'm sure McCarthy has made his share of dumb moves, but, if that's the basis for wanting someone else as speaker, the time to beat him was in the caucus vote. That's how the house is organized. Going around the caucus to try to sabotage the elected leadership is the wrong way to handle objections to the leadership.

---

That's the thing; he isn't the elected leadership for the role of Speaker and he won't be.

---

He's the elected leader of the caucus. If these guys don't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they should say so, and should have said so to the voters when running for election on the Republican ticket--talk about lying.

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

So much this. He's had 2 months to whip the votes.

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Perhaps. Losing a 4th vote would undercut whatever momentum Mccarthy was able to build overnight

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

The "sore loser" argument is the stupid talking point here. Of those 19 only 1 has put himself in for it. The others simply want somebody more conservative to be speaker.

Let me guess, you are all talk on small government? Or are you perfectly fine with bigger government?

---

I'm not a virtue signalling moron. That's who's pushing this.

I'd be fine with Jordan or Scalise, or any number of other folks, but this should have been debated and decided in the caucus. Gaetz et al couldn't find anyone who appealed to the broader caucus who would run, ergo, they lost. Now, they are trying to get around that by withholding their vote on the floor and holding the whole House hostage until they get their way. That's not leadership.

---

They tried to, but McCarthy brushed them off!! It has been said numerous times that McCarthy ignored these people because he thought the GOP had the midterms locked in a landslide. McCarthy assumed he could use the incoming GOP members to push him over. It isn't the case. He played his hand wrong.

That's not leadership. That is arrogance.

---

I'm sure McCarthy has made his share of dumb moves, but, if that's the basis for wanting someone else as speaker, the time to beat him was in the caucus vote. That's how the house is organized. Going around the caucus to try to sabotage the elected leadership is the wrong way to handle objections to the leadership.

---

That's the thing; he isn't the elected leadership for the role of Speaker and he won't be.

---

He's the elected leader of the caucus. If these guys don't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they should say so, and should have said so to the voters when running for election on the Republican ticket--talk about lying.

---

Zarathustra said:

---

The real historic moment we are witnessing is Kevin McCarthy finally fighting for something.

— Daniel Bostic (@debostic) January 3, 2023

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

The "sore loser" argument is the stupid talking point here. Of those 19 only 1 has put himself in for it. The others simply want somebody more conservative to be speaker.

Let me guess, you are all talk on small government? Or are you perfectly fine with bigger government?

---

I'm not a virtue signalling moron. That's who's pushing this.

I'd be fine with Jordan or Scalise, or any number of other folks, but this should have been debated and decided in the caucus. Gaetz et al couldn't find anyone who appealed to the broader caucus who would run, ergo, they lost. Now, they are trying to get around that by withholding their vote on the floor and holding the whole House hostage until they get their way. That's not leadership.

---

They tried to, but McCarthy brushed them off!! It has been said numerous times that McCarthy ignored these people because he thought the GOP had the midterms locked in a landslide. McCarthy assumed he could use the incoming GOP members to push him over. It isn't the case. He played his hand wrong.

That's not leadership. That is arrogance.

---

I'm sure McCarthy has made his share of dumb moves, but, if that's the basis for wanting someone else as speaker, the time to beat him was in the caucus vote. That's how the house is organized. Going around the caucus to try to sabotage the elected leadership is the wrong way to handle objections to the leadership.

---

That's the thing; he isn't the elected leadership for the role of Speaker and he won't be.

---

He's the elected leader of the caucus. If these guys don't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they should say so, and should have said so to the voters when running for election on the Republican ticket--talk about lying.

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

No, in a parliamentary system, if you fail to accommodate the concerns of the minority parties under your coalition long enough, other parties reach out to them with enough compromises that they agree to hold a no confidence vote and boot your coalition from power. They ran "as republicans" on a platform that has been largely ignored by party leadership for decades. That doesn't remove their ability to demand better from their leadership.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I keep hearing Colin Powell's name brought up as an outside candidate. Wonder if that has any legs to it...

---

A) He's a Dem
B) He's also dead.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I keep hearing Colin Powell's name brought up as an outside candidate. Wonder if that has any legs to it...

---

A) He's a Dem
B) He's also dead.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I keep hearing Colin Powell's name brought up as an outside candidate. Wonder if that has any legs to it...

---

A) He's a Dem
B) He's also dead.

---

fka ftc said:

---

I keep hearing Colin Powell's name brought up as an outside candidate. Wonder if that has any legs to it...

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

No, in a parliamentary system, if you fail to accommodate the concerns of the minority parties under your coalition long enough, other parties reach out to them with enough compromises that they agree to hold a no confidence vote and boot your coalition from power. They ran "as republicans" on a platform that has been largely ignored by party leadership for decades. That doesn't remove their ability to demand better from their leadership.

---

This isn't a coalition. These guys all ran as Republicans. They weren't on the ballot under the label of some 3rd party.

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

No, in a parliamentary system, if you fail to accommodate the concerns of the minority parties under your coalition long enough, other parties reach out to them with enough compromises that they agree to hold a no confidence vote and boot your coalition from power. They ran "as republicans" on a platform that has been largely ignored by party leadership for decades. That doesn't remove their ability to demand better from their leadership.

---

This isn't a coalition. These guys all ran as Republicans. They weren't on the ballot under the label of some 3rd party.

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

txags92 said:

---

twk said:

---

96ags said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Reagan didn't want to be president either. Yet he ran and won and was the best president in our lifetimes. Stop with that idiotic talking point.

---

I have found that often times, the best person for a leadership role is the one that doesn't want the job. They tend to not be as self-serving.

---

Paul Ryan didn't want to be speaker. How did that turn out?

This is just another stupid talking point to justify taking hostages. If the caucus gives in this time, they will never be able to unite on anything else. Everyone had their chance to run for speaker in the caucus and McCarthy won. Trying to hold the vote hostage is must more sore loser behavior.

---

This is no different than watching a parliamentary style government form a ruling coalition. We have at least 4 sects represented in our HoR, but they currently all reside under the umbrella of the 2 major parties. In a parliamentary government, there are often two major parties that get 30-40% of the vote, but they need the support of smaller parties to get past the 50% necessary to form a government. Right now, the coalition of the GOP establishment and the freedom caucus has the majority, but the freedom caucus is not agreeing on who should lead the combined party. So, they are withholding support until they are given something of value to them (rule changes, a different leader, etc.). If McCarthy had done a better job making them feel included previously, this wouldn't be happening. Like her on not, Pelosi found a way to make sure that "the squad" always came through with their votes when she needed them, even though they hated her guts and alot of what she was trying to get done. This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

These guys get their committee assignments from the Republican caucus, not from the Freedom Caucus (whose leader has endorsed McCarthy, by the way). They were elected as Republicans. If they didn't want to be part of the Republican caucus, they shouldn't have lied to the voters by running on the Republican ticket.

In a parliamentary system, if you "defy the whip," enough, or on a big enough issue, you'll finds yourself "denied the whip," and running as an independent in the next election.

---

No, in a parliamentary system, if you fail to accommodate the concerns of the minority parties under your coalition long enough, other parties reach out to them with enough compromises that they agree to hold a no confidence vote and boot your coalition from power. They ran "as republicans" on a platform that has been largely ignored by party leadership for decades. That doesn't remove their ability to demand better from their leadership.

---

This isn't a coalition. These guys all ran as Republicans. They weren't on the ballot under the label of some 3rd party.

---

Quote:

---

And as republicans, I expect them to vote for republican small government ideals. Not go along with democrats on nearly everything. These 20 are the only ones adhering to those ideals.

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a failure of McCarthy's leadership to get it to this point and should disqualify him from further consideration.

---

So much this. He's had 2 months to whip the votes.

---

Really he's had two years...

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I keep hearing Colin Powell's name brought up as an outside candidate. Wonder if that has any legs to it...

---

A) He's a Dem
B) He's also dead.

---