Seems like McCarthy is overly concerned with having only Republicans support his speakership and any bills that he brings to the floor. If he were more moderate, he could gather votes from both sides of the aisle and push the extremists back into the fringes where they belong. That would be the truly patriotic thing to do; clean out the dregs of his own house. He could provide an off-ramp from MAGA craziness if he were brave enough to risk his otherwise failing speakership.
I think a lot of voters want bipartisanship, and that this would play well for the GOP with swing voters. Which is why I think it would be good for Democrats to play power broker in the speakership fight. Not only could they gain concessions from McCarthy, but they would be the ones who benefited from the voters' desire for bipartisanship. But Pelosi is far more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm wondering what pitfalls she sees from getting involved in the speakership fight.
That's a very fair comment. Democrats are still looking at 2024. If they rescue government...AGAIN...that does not mean the American voters will recognize them for it and vote for them. Republicans have gotten very good at hoodwinking the public with their "two Santa Clauses" posturing (tax cuts and deficit based government spending/trickle down economics) while forcing Democrats into the role of responsible adults.
IMO the biggest pitfall is how getting involved would be twisted by the sources most Republican voters continue to get their news: Fox "News" and other rightwing outlets.
It wouldn't take a genius political/media operative to spin Democrats getting involved into something that enrages Republican voters and helps drive turnout in 2024. Hannity is certainly not a genius, and even he's capable of turning Democratic involvement into a complete mess. I can see the beginning of his first show on the topic going something like this, "You elected a Republican House majority and Democrats and trying to take it away from you." As always, the truth doesn't matter in this scenario. IMO it would matter even less to One America and other "news" outlets. One America was even willing to carry Trump's election lies even further than Fox. They'd have no problem going "full propaganda" on something like this because, unlike with Trump's election lies, there's very little chance they get sued by anybody.
Secondly, if Democrats get involved in the Republican leadership fight, well, "turnabout is fair play." Should Democrats retake the House with a slim majority in 2024, Republicans would definitely take the opportunity to get involved in the Democratic House leadership election in January 2025. Depending on how large the Democratic majority is, and if any Democratic Representatives are elected from districts that Trump wins (regardless of whether Biden is reelected or not), this could cause the Democrats to have to make compromises with a MAGA House minority. Either that, or the Democrats end up with egg on their faces because it takes days to elect a speaker.
The House GOP caucus is a single party in name only. At minimum, the House Republican caucus is two parties: 1. Main Street Republicans 2. The Freedom Caucus. It ppears like the Freedom Caucus (officially 45 House Republicans) may have fractured and a third group of maybe 5-10 *really* far right Republicans has emerged, led by Gaetz and MTG. McCarthy's actual problem stems from a (craven) effort to in a sense be "bipartisan" back in January and placate the Freedom Cacus.
Under Pelosi's leadership, the strength of the Democratic House caucus has been their ability to listen to members who are further to the left, but at the same time not let a minority within the party drive the Democratic House caucus into a ditch. McCarthy got himself into trouble because he basically sold out the majority of his caucus by giving a handful of anarchists (and that's really what "burn it all down" people like Gatez are) far too much power.
Jay also commented that he thought the Democrats should stay out of it, and I'm trying to understand why there is such an objection to breaking party lines. McCarthy is the Speaker of the House, and theoretically not just the Speaker of the Majority Political Party of the House. Yes, the right-wing media may twist it if Democrats get involved in the Speaker election, but staying out of it has bad optics on the face of it. We've elected our officials to govern, and they all should be trying to do so. Is this really just a naive and Pollyanna point of view? During the first series of votes on the Speaker, when the Democrats literally brought in the popcorn to watch the show, I was really disappointed that "we" didn't try to form an "everyone but the radical right" coalition. I think that the people who stand to politically lose in such a situation are the moderate Republicans, but when they've already declared themselves as McCarthy supporters, if they withdrew their support simply because Democrats were also voting for McCarthy, that would just emphasize their lack of character, and we wouldn't be at a worse impasse than we're at now. I know I must not be seeing something, but I don't know what it is.
IMO, some House Republican history is really important in understanding what's going on now.
There's an unofficial House Republican rule, the Hastert Rule. Newt Gingrich institued the rule, although it's named for his successor as Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to the rule, the majority party will not bring legislation to the floor unless it has the support of "the majority of the majority."
It's only been violated by one Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner. Boehner broke the rule six times. He allowed votes on the American Taxpayer Relief Act and a Hurricane Sandy relief bill in 2012; three times in 2013, the Violence Against Women Act, a bill on federal acquisition of historic property, and a bill raising the debt ceiling and reopening the federal government; and once in 2014, a "clean" debt ceiling bill. After Boehner was ousted, everybody knew what happened to him, and that Gingrich and other House Republicans from the 1990s had a part in it even if they were no longer in government. That's why Paul Ryan didn't violate the rule and why McCarthy's afraid of doing it.
This is about the history of House Republicans going back to Gingrich in the 1990s, it's not about McCarthy. Not only are many of those 1990s House Republicans still around, the movement they started morphed into MAGA in 2016. One could even argue it's the one thing MAGA and Never Trump Republicans agree on. McCarthy, and anybody else in the GOP who might replace him, understand very well that Boehner's fate likely awaits them should they violate the Hastert Rule.
IMO, people have forgotten about the Hastert Rule and its impact on the House because Nancy Pelosi had been against it since she was Minority Leader when Hastert was Speaker. To my knowledge, Pelosi never applied the rule when she was Speaker from 2007-11 or 2019-23.
Thanks for this history lesson. My takeaway is that it shows once again that the Republican Party has devolved and broken the main rule of competent, conservative politics: eschew radical ideology. Instead do what has been proven to work, preserve the common good, and promote free labor (Lincolnian style) by promoting demand side economics and free market competition. That used to be conservatism. Today's Republicans haven't been that way since Eisenhower, and really jumped the shark since Reagan's trickle down economics.
To run the speakership without even talking to the "other side" is idiotic schoolyard behavior, not worthy of grownups. The rules of the House that put so much power into the hands of the speaker may need to change, again. Most of my adult life has been post Gingrich, but I read that when earmarks were allowed, congress critters commonly worked across the aisle trading votes for favors that benefitted their districts. The speaker consolidated his/her power mostly after earmarks were abolished, thinking that would curb corruption and self dealing.
Gingrich et. al. did reshape America just like he always said he wanted to do back when he taught at West Georgia Regional College...using words like cultural war and ideological war, & comparing himself to historical figures. In fact, he restarted the polarized, ideological-based polemics of the 1850s...which back then, led to the Civil War. The Civil War still looms large in Georgia with many adherents to the Lost Cause Ideology calling the Civil War the "War of Northern Agression" and claiming the North should have let the South secede.
But, unlike South Carolina seceding before Lincoln's inauguration, their 2020 coup failed, largely because the greater American public could see it happening in real time media and reject that false, minority viewpoint.
We, the majority who believe in Democracy, must go out and vote, especially in so called Red districts. We've finally done that in Georgia, turning our once Red State purple, including in Gingrich's old district 6, which I live in. Since then, Georgia has been gerrymandered, and I lost my democratic congresswoman directly because of that cracking and packing. But we are still the majority! It's time we re-asserted that.
I agree that Democrats should not get involved in Republican intra-party struggles, but how do we apply that to a motion to vacate the chair? It seems to me they should abstain, but if the chair is vacated and there is a new Speaker election, they should vote for Jeffries, as they did before.
I couldn’t agree more. The only deal Democrats should even consider is one where they have a certain number of committee majorities/chairs, and even then they need a similar low bar to removing the Speaker because there’s no reason to actually trust Kevin McCarthy.
Oh and let’s demand Marge Greene be thrown off her committees. Just because.
Regarding Kevin McCarthy's future: There is another possible alternative to those you mention Rather than supporting the Speaker who has repeatedly betrayed them, moderate Democrats could join with non-MAGA Republicans (whom Mr. McCarthy has also betrayed by supporting the extremists), forming a bipartisan majority to themselves "vacate the Chair" and elect a moderate Republican Speaker like Don Bacon (R-NE).
The only remedy for a failure of leadership is to replace the failed leader, as well as his team. Leaving Speaker McCarthy in place means leaving the House of Representatives grievously wounded and dysfunctional. As Mr. Bacon himself said last November when he offered to work across the aisle to find a compromise candidate in the event Mr. McCarthy could not cobble together enough votes:
"We need to govern. We can't sit in neutral, we can't have total gridlock."
Democrats would fail in their duty to the country were they to "save McCarthy", or stay absent from the Speakership replacement process. Mr. Jeffries should free his members to join like-minded Republicans and form a bipartisan majority to end the chaos, hand MAGA forces a stinging defeat, and restore normal order to the chamber by electing a Republican Speaker who owes nothing to the extremists.
As many of Jay's readers know, there is a network of ordinary citizens who've been advocating this solution for several months. Everyone who values our institutions is encouraged to pitch in. Learn more here: www.FeathersOfHope.net or jerryweiss.substack.com
For those who would argue that Mr. Bacon is not moderate:
I'm not talking about policy positions. I'm talking about loyalty to the institutions of our democratic republic and to the integrity of the House of Representatives, wherein policy disagreements are debated and legislation passed. In this regard, the former Air Force General's credentials are impeccable.
Really? You consider refusing to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection and for refusing to support the indictment of Steve Bannon makes Bacon's credentials impeccable??
Those are not "policy positions." Those are incidents of Rep. Bacon being on the wrong side of the law and an opponent of democracy. It's clear to me that so are you.
Chris, the implication of your post is that there is no legitimate argument to be made for opposing an impeachment resolution brought to a vote one week before the expiration of a president's term.
While I personally supported the Democrats on that issue, it's certainly legitimate to question whether a president who has left office should be subject to an impeachment trial.
Voting along with 196 other members of one's party against a resolution on the floor of the House does not make one an enemy of democracy or the rule of law. It is, in fact, an exercise of representative democracy. The same is true of voting along with 201 other members of one's party against holding a person in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify.
Both of these are policy positions, though ones with which you and I would disagree. I'm not endorsing Mr. Bacon for re-election, nor am I endorsing his viewpoint on most issues. I'm just suggesting that he is loyal to the institution of the House of Representatives, while MAGA extremists are not.
I agree, pilotusa. John Kasich would be an excellent candidate for Speaker. While it's not technically required that the Speaker be a sitting member of the House, it is pretty unlikely he could attract majority support.
On the other hand, he would be would be very influential as an advocate for the idea of a bipartisan majority replacing Kevin McCarthy with a non-MAGA Republican, one who owes nothing to the extremists. For that reason, we've included Mr. Kasich on our contact list ( https://jerryweiss.substack.com/p/updated-contact-list ).
“To my mind, the MAGA right absolutely needs a punching bag in order to seem effective. It’s easy to hurl insults and garbage from the side. But give them the actual reins, and they’ll drive the carriage into a ditch.” That’s all they want is punching bags-fodder to bitch about because there is no policy to talk about. Take the Border situation. It continues not because MAGA’s/Republicans won’t simply do their jobs and caucus with Dems to work it out, it continues because then they’d have almost nothing to rail at Biden about-and it is the one thing they can count on the base to mobilize for. The economy is a losing issue for them. Hardline cultural issues are wearing thin and actually losing constituents now (hello Ron? Ya still there?). They can’t yell against support for Ukraine. Hell even SCOTUS is starting to give em side eye. Whether externally or internally the Hill culture of blame is the only thing that drives them anymore. Let em drive, to use your metaphor...right off a cliff I say.
Hi Jay! I know this isn't the topic of this column, but I have a question about Trump's New York businesses going into receivership. When that happens, the receivers will naturally have full access to Trump Organization accounts. And they'll do some form of auditing to see what they're working with. Does this make Trump vulnerable to more lawsuits/indictments if he's engaged in more illegal activities than we know?
It is an interesting question. I don’t know that the receivers would have the time or resources to untangle the finances and books of the Trump Organization. My sense is that they would want to liquidate quickly by selling the properties to some third parties and offload the responsibility of managing. They might also need to settle any judgments using proceeds from the sales. My guess is that they won’t want to hang around long enough to report prior misdeeds, especially if the claims might be stale.
A quick sale would be pretty hard, wouldn't it? Buyers would want to do due diligence, and for that they want to see realistic books. So won't the receivers HAVE to untangle the finances in order to sell? It will be interesting to see who buys.
She reportedly has renegotiated yet again the prenup agreement to GUARANTEE a well-funded trust fund for her kid, Baron, and "adequate" monies for her to "live comfortably"...tRump signed off, as what choice does he have?
Bit of a stretch...how to separate "legitimate" from "illegitimate" sources, especially in the massive entanglement of finances that is the tRump Org. and its myriad of holdings.
That's what I don't know. Did they get access to all the books, or just specific ones? Search warrants have to be tailored to look for specific things.
I have to believe that having another Speaker isn't going to help the GOP. They're divided enough over McCarthy and if they try to put someone from the Freedom Caucus in, that's going to split them even more. Not that I have a problem with them ripping themselves to shreds, but we really do need a functioning government. As far as the bill goes, the stripping of funding for Ukraine is shameful. Thank you for your perspective, as always. I assume you're going to be traveling home from Italy at some point, although why you'd leave is a mystery. Lol I wish you safe travels home.
The GOP extremists, if asked, likely couldn't tell us what it is they really want. They have melted into a most unprofessional and embarrassing lot... how can their districts keep sending them back? The rest of the world has to be laughing...and Putin is thrilled. So much for their concern for Democracy and what's good for the majority of Americans. Next week will be another episode in Dysfunctional America. You again are calm and pragmatic as always, Jay. So appreciate you!
As an American, I am glad we are moving away from the shutdown. As a Ukrainian, I am crushed, although there is some hope, since the conversation is obviously ongoing. I hope the aid package can be approved soon. This is not a game.
I'm so sorry to you, and all Ukrainians for this. Yes, we need to stay on top of this and hold the entire Congress to their word that they will figure out a way to continue aid.
The extremists can't and won't do any but cause chaos and discord. And unhappy people with their sad personal lives led by the biggest loser bring that drama to DC and their followers love it. It's like a 24/7 "reality" TV show. But it's our freaking lives and we can't change the channel.
It is going to be interesting to see if Gaetz actually files it and it gets to a vote. I still say a candidate from the Problem Solvers Caucus has the best shot if McCarthy did get ousted. There are more than 6 Republicans that would NOT vote for any Speaker remotely related to the Toddlers, I mean, the "Freedom" Caucus.
They are already “leaderless!”🤣 How is it that Matt Gaetz CONTINUES to dodge accountability for his extracurricular, criminal activities? Surely his daddy isn’t still around to help him . . .
Am I wrong to not want Sidney Powell to get a plea deal? The corrupt State of Texas allowed her to keep her status as lawyer, which she had abused to lend legitimacy to the Big Lie, if she isn't incarcerated for that then she will have paid no price (except to wins of civil suits by Dominion & Smartmatic) to the American people for her duplicity. Happy Birthday President Jimmy Carter! The corrupt Republicans stole his re election from US too.
I'm sure we would all breathe a sigh of satisfaction if Powell took a plea but I can't imagine it would be as painless as the bail bondsman's. Surely she deserves some jail time. Or a stay in the looney bin. I worry about what would happen if her attorney requested a mental health evaluation. At the very least, she seems delusional. I laugh when I see that old Hollywood trope of asking someone who is the President to judge whether they're in touch with reality. Surely many Americans would answer that incorrectly now.
Look at it this way: reduced penalties PLUS a guilty plea for some of the lower-level plotters, but substantive and compelling evidence against The Chief, which after all is a key objective of the multi-count indictment. My sense is any plea-down to misdemeanor from felony charges is entirely dependent upon the strength of testimony to be given, especially as it concerns DIRECT and EYE-WITNESS accounts of tRump's words and actions. DA Willis is not about to hand out plea deals like Hallowe'en treats unless she has the goods, full stop.
I love that Gov. Kemp put the kibosh on any efforts to oust Fani Willis from her position AND they booted the troublemaker from the legislature leading that effort. I know it's not for "moral" reasons as they claim. Rather it's because Republican leaders in GA hate Trump for all the trouble he caused them and this is their comeuppance. But I'm good with that in this case.
Seems like McCarthy is overly concerned with having only Republicans support his speakership and any bills that he brings to the floor. If he were more moderate, he could gather votes from both sides of the aisle and push the extremists back into the fringes where they belong. That would be the truly patriotic thing to do; clean out the dregs of his own house. He could provide an off-ramp from MAGA craziness if he were brave enough to risk his otherwise failing speakership.
I think a lot of voters want bipartisanship, and that this would play well for the GOP with swing voters. Which is why I think it would be good for Democrats to play power broker in the speakership fight. Not only could they gain concessions from McCarthy, but they would be the ones who benefited from the voters' desire for bipartisanship. But Pelosi is far more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm wondering what pitfalls she sees from getting involved in the speakership fight.
That's a very fair comment. Democrats are still looking at 2024. If they rescue government...AGAIN...that does not mean the American voters will recognize them for it and vote for them. Republicans have gotten very good at hoodwinking the public with their "two Santa Clauses" posturing (tax cuts and deficit based government spending/trickle down economics) while forcing Democrats into the role of responsible adults.
IMO the biggest pitfall is how getting involved would be twisted by the sources most Republican voters continue to get their news: Fox "News" and other rightwing outlets.
It wouldn't take a genius political/media operative to spin Democrats getting involved into something that enrages Republican voters and helps drive turnout in 2024. Hannity is certainly not a genius, and even he's capable of turning Democratic involvement into a complete mess. I can see the beginning of his first show on the topic going something like this, "You elected a Republican House majority and Democrats and trying to take it away from you." As always, the truth doesn't matter in this scenario. IMO it would matter even less to One America and other "news" outlets. One America was even willing to carry Trump's election lies even further than Fox. They'd have no problem going "full propaganda" on something like this because, unlike with Trump's election lies, there's very little chance they get sued by anybody.
Secondly, if Democrats get involved in the Republican leadership fight, well, "turnabout is fair play." Should Democrats retake the House with a slim majority in 2024, Republicans would definitely take the opportunity to get involved in the Democratic House leadership election in January 2025. Depending on how large the Democratic majority is, and if any Democratic Representatives are elected from districts that Trump wins (regardless of whether Biden is reelected or not), this could cause the Democrats to have to make compromises with a MAGA House minority. Either that, or the Democrats end up with egg on their faces because it takes days to elect a speaker.
The House GOP caucus is a single party in name only. At minimum, the House Republican caucus is two parties: 1. Main Street Republicans 2. The Freedom Caucus. It ppears like the Freedom Caucus (officially 45 House Republicans) may have fractured and a third group of maybe 5-10 *really* far right Republicans has emerged, led by Gaetz and MTG. McCarthy's actual problem stems from a (craven) effort to in a sense be "bipartisan" back in January and placate the Freedom Cacus.
Under Pelosi's leadership, the strength of the Democratic House caucus has been their ability to listen to members who are further to the left, but at the same time not let a minority within the party drive the Democratic House caucus into a ditch. McCarthy got himself into trouble because he basically sold out the majority of his caucus by giving a handful of anarchists (and that's really what "burn it all down" people like Gatez are) far too much power.
As was stated...Landmines!
Jay also commented that he thought the Democrats should stay out of it, and I'm trying to understand why there is such an objection to breaking party lines. McCarthy is the Speaker of the House, and theoretically not just the Speaker of the Majority Political Party of the House. Yes, the right-wing media may twist it if Democrats get involved in the Speaker election, but staying out of it has bad optics on the face of it. We've elected our officials to govern, and they all should be trying to do so. Is this really just a naive and Pollyanna point of view? During the first series of votes on the Speaker, when the Democrats literally brought in the popcorn to watch the show, I was really disappointed that "we" didn't try to form an "everyone but the radical right" coalition. I think that the people who stand to politically lose in such a situation are the moderate Republicans, but when they've already declared themselves as McCarthy supporters, if they withdrew their support simply because Democrats were also voting for McCarthy, that would just emphasize their lack of character, and we wouldn't be at a worse impasse than we're at now. I know I must not be seeing something, but I don't know what it is.
“...if he were brave enough...” says it all
Good points...and a huge example of McCarthy's biggest character trait: cowardice.
IMO, some House Republican history is really important in understanding what's going on now.
There's an unofficial House Republican rule, the Hastert Rule. Newt Gingrich institued the rule, although it's named for his successor as Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to the rule, the majority party will not bring legislation to the floor unless it has the support of "the majority of the majority."
It's only been violated by one Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner. Boehner broke the rule six times. He allowed votes on the American Taxpayer Relief Act and a Hurricane Sandy relief bill in 2012; three times in 2013, the Violence Against Women Act, a bill on federal acquisition of historic property, and a bill raising the debt ceiling and reopening the federal government; and once in 2014, a "clean" debt ceiling bill. After Boehner was ousted, everybody knew what happened to him, and that Gingrich and other House Republicans from the 1990s had a part in it even if they were no longer in government. That's why Paul Ryan didn't violate the rule and why McCarthy's afraid of doing it.
This is about the history of House Republicans going back to Gingrich in the 1990s, it's not about McCarthy. Not only are many of those 1990s House Republicans still around, the movement they started morphed into MAGA in 2016. One could even argue it's the one thing MAGA and Never Trump Republicans agree on. McCarthy, and anybody else in the GOP who might replace him, understand very well that Boehner's fate likely awaits them should they violate the Hastert Rule.
IMO, people have forgotten about the Hastert Rule and its impact on the House because Nancy Pelosi had been against it since she was Minority Leader when Hastert was Speaker. To my knowledge, Pelosi never applied the rule when she was Speaker from 2007-11 or 2019-23.
Thanks for this history lesson. My takeaway is that it shows once again that the Republican Party has devolved and broken the main rule of competent, conservative politics: eschew radical ideology. Instead do what has been proven to work, preserve the common good, and promote free labor (Lincolnian style) by promoting demand side economics and free market competition. That used to be conservatism. Today's Republicans haven't been that way since Eisenhower, and really jumped the shark since Reagan's trickle down economics.
To run the speakership without even talking to the "other side" is idiotic schoolyard behavior, not worthy of grownups. The rules of the House that put so much power into the hands of the speaker may need to change, again. Most of my adult life has been post Gingrich, but I read that when earmarks were allowed, congress critters commonly worked across the aisle trading votes for favors that benefitted their districts. The speaker consolidated his/her power mostly after earmarks were abolished, thinking that would curb corruption and self dealing.
Gingrich et. al. did reshape America just like he always said he wanted to do back when he taught at West Georgia Regional College...using words like cultural war and ideological war, & comparing himself to historical figures. In fact, he restarted the polarized, ideological-based polemics of the 1850s...which back then, led to the Civil War. The Civil War still looms large in Georgia with many adherents to the Lost Cause Ideology calling the Civil War the "War of Northern Agression" and claiming the North should have let the South secede.
But, unlike South Carolina seceding before Lincoln's inauguration, their 2020 coup failed, largely because the greater American public could see it happening in real time media and reject that false, minority viewpoint.
We, the majority who believe in Democracy, must go out and vote, especially in so called Red districts. We've finally done that in Georgia, turning our once Red State purple, including in Gingrich's old district 6, which I live in. Since then, Georgia has been gerrymandered, and I lost my democratic congresswoman directly because of that cracking and packing. But we are still the majority! It's time we re-asserted that.
I agree that Democrats should not get involved in Republican intra-party struggles, but how do we apply that to a motion to vacate the chair? It seems to me they should abstain, but if the chair is vacated and there is a new Speaker election, they should vote for Jeffries, as they did before.
I couldn’t agree more. The only deal Democrats should even consider is one where they have a certain number of committee majorities/chairs, and even then they need a similar low bar to removing the Speaker because there’s no reason to actually trust Kevin McCarthy.
Oh and let’s demand Marge Greene be thrown off her committees. Just because.
Except it's not a "just because." She's done way more than enough damage to warrant a very reasonable and justified demand that she be removed.
Regarding Kevin McCarthy's future: There is another possible alternative to those you mention Rather than supporting the Speaker who has repeatedly betrayed them, moderate Democrats could join with non-MAGA Republicans (whom Mr. McCarthy has also betrayed by supporting the extremists), forming a bipartisan majority to themselves "vacate the Chair" and elect a moderate Republican Speaker like Don Bacon (R-NE).
The only remedy for a failure of leadership is to replace the failed leader, as well as his team. Leaving Speaker McCarthy in place means leaving the House of Representatives grievously wounded and dysfunctional. As Mr. Bacon himself said last November when he offered to work across the aisle to find a compromise candidate in the event Mr. McCarthy could not cobble together enough votes:
"We need to govern. We can't sit in neutral, we can't have total gridlock."
Democrats would fail in their duty to the country were they to "save McCarthy", or stay absent from the Speakership replacement process. Mr. Jeffries should free his members to join like-minded Republicans and form a bipartisan majority to end the chaos, hand MAGA forces a stinging defeat, and restore normal order to the chamber by electing a Republican Speaker who owes nothing to the extremists.
As many of Jay's readers know, there is a network of ordinary citizens who've been advocating this solution for several months. Everyone who values our institutions is encouraged to pitch in. Learn more here: www.FeathersOfHope.net or jerryweiss.substack.com
.
For those who would argue that Mr. Bacon is not moderate:
I'm not talking about policy positions. I'm talking about loyalty to the institutions of our democratic republic and to the integrity of the House of Representatives, wherein policy disagreements are debated and legislation passed. In this regard, the former Air Force General's credentials are impeccable.
.
Really? You consider refusing to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection and for refusing to support the indictment of Steve Bannon makes Bacon's credentials impeccable??
Those are not "policy positions." Those are incidents of Rep. Bacon being on the wrong side of the law and an opponent of democracy. It's clear to me that so are you.
Chris, the implication of your post is that there is no legitimate argument to be made for opposing an impeachment resolution brought to a vote one week before the expiration of a president's term.
While I personally supported the Democrats on that issue, it's certainly legitimate to question whether a president who has left office should be subject to an impeachment trial.
Voting along with 196 other members of one's party against a resolution on the floor of the House does not make one an enemy of democracy or the rule of law. It is, in fact, an exercise of representative democracy. The same is true of voting along with 201 other members of one's party against holding a person in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify.
Both of these are policy positions, though ones with which you and I would disagree. I'm not endorsing Mr. Bacon for re-election, nor am I endorsing his viewpoint on most issues. I'm just suggesting that he is loyal to the institution of the House of Representatives, while MAGA extremists are not.
.
I agree, pilotusa. John Kasich would be an excellent candidate for Speaker. While it's not technically required that the Speaker be a sitting member of the House, it is pretty unlikely he could attract majority support.
On the other hand, he would be would be very influential as an advocate for the idea of a bipartisan majority replacing Kevin McCarthy with a non-MAGA Republican, one who owes nothing to the extremists. For that reason, we've included Mr. Kasich on our contact list ( https://jerryweiss.substack.com/p/updated-contact-list ).
Write to him here: info@johnkasich.com
.
“To my mind, the MAGA right absolutely needs a punching bag in order to seem effective. It’s easy to hurl insults and garbage from the side. But give them the actual reins, and they’ll drive the carriage into a ditch.” That’s all they want is punching bags-fodder to bitch about because there is no policy to talk about. Take the Border situation. It continues not because MAGA’s/Republicans won’t simply do their jobs and caucus with Dems to work it out, it continues because then they’d have almost nothing to rail at Biden about-and it is the one thing they can count on the base to mobilize for. The economy is a losing issue for them. Hardline cultural issues are wearing thin and actually losing constituents now (hello Ron? Ya still there?). They can’t yell against support for Ukraine. Hell even SCOTUS is starting to give em side eye. Whether externally or internally the Hill culture of blame is the only thing that drives them anymore. Let em drive, to use your metaphor...right off a cliff I say.
Hi Jay! I know this isn't the topic of this column, but I have a question about Trump's New York businesses going into receivership. When that happens, the receivers will naturally have full access to Trump Organization accounts. And they'll do some form of auditing to see what they're working with. Does this make Trump vulnerable to more lawsuits/indictments if he's engaged in more illegal activities than we know?
It is an interesting question. I don’t know that the receivers would have the time or resources to untangle the finances and books of the Trump Organization. My sense is that they would want to liquidate quickly by selling the properties to some third parties and offload the responsibility of managing. They might also need to settle any judgments using proceeds from the sales. My guess is that they won’t want to hang around long enough to report prior misdeeds, especially if the claims might be stale.
A quick sale would be pretty hard, wouldn't it? Buyers would want to do due diligence, and for that they want to see realistic books. So won't the receivers HAVE to untangle the finances in order to sell? It will be interesting to see who buys.
I'm interested in this question too. Will the IRS eventually get involved? God, I hope so.
And what about Melania? Her prenup is worthless? How will she survive? HAHA
I Really don't care. Do U? 😉
😂😂👍🏻👍🏻
She reportedly has renegotiated yet again the prenup agreement to GUARANTEE a well-funded trust fund for her kid, Baron, and "adequate" monies for her to "live comfortably"...tRump signed off, as what choice does he have?
Money already set aside in a fully funded trust, not based upon any future contributions.
Bit of a stretch...how to separate "legitimate" from "illegitimate" sources, especially in the massive entanglement of finances that is the tRump Org. and its myriad of holdings.
I would think that there could be multiple civil cases brought by banks and insurance companies.
Weren't the books audited during the case against Weisselberg? And looked at pretty thoroughly during this latest case?
That's what I don't know. Did they get access to all the books, or just specific ones? Search warrants have to be tailored to look for specific things.
I have to believe that having another Speaker isn't going to help the GOP. They're divided enough over McCarthy and if they try to put someone from the Freedom Caucus in, that's going to split them even more. Not that I have a problem with them ripping themselves to shreds, but we really do need a functioning government. As far as the bill goes, the stripping of funding for Ukraine is shameful. Thank you for your perspective, as always. I assume you're going to be traveling home from Italy at some point, although why you'd leave is a mystery. Lol I wish you safe travels home.
The GOP extremists, if asked, likely couldn't tell us what it is they really want. They have melted into a most unprofessional and embarrassing lot... how can their districts keep sending them back? The rest of the world has to be laughing...and Putin is thrilled. So much for their concern for Democracy and what's good for the majority of Americans. Next week will be another episode in Dysfunctional America. You again are calm and pragmatic as always, Jay. So appreciate you!
Thanks Jay - always like to hear your views. They are well thought out and that is a gift these days.
One by one they will continue to fall in this Rico conspiracy until we finally reach the top of the trash pile, can’t wait!
As an American, I am glad we are moving away from the shutdown. As a Ukrainian, I am crushed, although there is some hope, since the conversation is obviously ongoing. I hope the aid package can be approved soon. This is not a game.
I believe they will find a way.
I'm so sorry to you, and all Ukrainians for this. Yes, we need to stay on top of this and hold the entire Congress to their word that they will figure out a way to continue aid.
The extremists can't and won't do any but cause chaos and discord. And unhappy people with their sad personal lives led by the biggest loser bring that drama to DC and their followers love it. It's like a 24/7 "reality" TV show. But it's our freaking lives and we can't change the channel.
So.
A shut down has been averted.
Good.
No funding for Ukraine.
Bad.
Is there anyone that doubts that in 44 days we will be right back where we were with a “government shutdown looming”?
If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
Is there anyone that doubts McCarthy will renege on the promise to fund Ukraine?
Have another bridge to sell you.
I hope i am wrong, but I am not optimistic.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
And the MAGAts are certifiably insane.
We’ll see what happens with the motion to vacate that Gaetz has now called. If it passes, then the House will be leaderless for some time.
It is going to be interesting to see if Gaetz actually files it and it gets to a vote. I still say a candidate from the Problem Solvers Caucus has the best shot if McCarthy did get ousted. There are more than 6 Republicans that would NOT vote for any Speaker remotely related to the Toddlers, I mean, the "Freedom" Caucus.
They are already “leaderless!”🤣 How is it that Matt Gaetz CONTINUES to dodge accountability for his extracurricular, criminal activities? Surely his daddy isn’t still around to help him . . .
Good morning, Jay! A little progress is better than none 👍🏻
Am I wrong to not want Sidney Powell to get a plea deal? The corrupt State of Texas allowed her to keep her status as lawyer, which she had abused to lend legitimacy to the Big Lie, if she isn't incarcerated for that then she will have paid no price (except to wins of civil suits by Dominion & Smartmatic) to the American people for her duplicity. Happy Birthday President Jimmy Carter! The corrupt Republicans stole his re election from US too.
I doubt she’ll get off that easily. Any plea deal that doesn’t include jail time for her would seem manifestly too lenient.
I'm sure we would all breathe a sigh of satisfaction if Powell took a plea but I can't imagine it would be as painless as the bail bondsman's. Surely she deserves some jail time. Or a stay in the looney bin. I worry about what would happen if her attorney requested a mental health evaluation. At the very least, she seems delusional. I laugh when I see that old Hollywood trope of asking someone who is the President to judge whether they're in touch with reality. Surely many Americans would answer that incorrectly now.
She would get jail time, I believe.
I'm not sure encouraging more plea deals is needed. Perhaps only Fani Willis knows and can make that decision.
It pains me to think that more of these criminals/traitors to the constitution, (because that is what they are) will be free to walk about amongst us.
The only silver lining is that the squealers will likely and justifiable have no friends on either side of the aisle.
Look at it this way: reduced penalties PLUS a guilty plea for some of the lower-level plotters, but substantive and compelling evidence against The Chief, which after all is a key objective of the multi-count indictment. My sense is any plea-down to misdemeanor from felony charges is entirely dependent upon the strength of testimony to be given, especially as it concerns DIRECT and EYE-WITNESS accounts of tRump's words and actions. DA Willis is not about to hand out plea deals like Hallowe'en treats unless she has the goods, full stop.
I love that Gov. Kemp put the kibosh on any efforts to oust Fani Willis from her position AND they booted the troublemaker from the legislature leading that effort. I know it's not for "moral" reasons as they claim. Rather it's because Republican leaders in GA hate Trump for all the trouble he caused them and this is their comeuppance. But I'm good with that in this case.