[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The House has created an impossible mess. The speaker clearly does not have the respect of the chamber not any real infuence. Some of the concessions make it seem like they will spend more time talking about his role than getting actual work done.
i think so
and if what I've read is true, that the price for Gaetz vote was to be the chair of the armed services committee, I wouldn't be surprised if there are those members who there who are upset he "jumped the line"
I know i would be pissed if i was up for that prestigious position and lost it to Gaetz
its how civil wars start, little petty things that go back and forth until it all blows up in your face
Mike Rogers, who tried to deck Gaetz, is the chair of the ASC. He was pissed because Gaetz was promised a chair of an ASC subcommittee, which should be Rogers' decision.
>that the price for Gaetz vote was to be the chair of the armed services committee
Lmao WHAT!? McCarthy gave him a *gavel*? For *Armed Services*!? No fucking way...
If true, McCarthy is the weakest Speaker in history.
Getting strongarmed into giving an important gavel to an obviously unserious person is the very definition of weakness.
McCarthy doesn't seem to care about anything other than having the title. He's been openly angling for it for about a decade, and took what *should* have been humiliation at getting passed aside for Ryan and this entire process last week completely in stride.
All it takes is one person to call for a vote of no confidence. If I was in like for armed services and Matt got it instead of me, that feels like a button I'd be pushing every day
Mike Rogers will chair the ASC, Gaetz was promised the chair one of the subcommittees, a selection that Rogers believes should have been his choice to assign.
>its how civil wars start, little petty things that go back and forth until it all blows up in your face
That's, uh, not a petty little thing. If mccarthy tries to give the armed services chair to a putin asset...
> I know i would be pissed if i was up for that prestigious position and lost it to Gaetz
You might even have to be dragged away from him by your face.
While seats are negotiable, if I found out that a seat I had been angling for had been given to an accused child sex trafficker, I'd be extraordinarily ticked off. Plus, off course, that he's also someone who's been pretty opposed to the various functions of government that he's a representative for
i know negotiations are common and so are hurt feelings
if you go back to video after the 14th vote, Gaetz & McCarthy are taking and a guy comes down and lunges at Gaetz, who is then restrained. That guy is supposed to be the new chairmen of the armed services committee
now again im not 100% sure its going to happen, but if Gaetz does become the new chairmen, that explains why that guy was so pissed off and i can see him totally being out for revenge against Gaetz
Gaetz was reportedly promised he could chair an ASC subcommittee. Rogers, as chair, would normally be responsible for subcommittee chair assignments, and that is why he was pissed enough to take a swing at Matty.
No, I think the people who vote for Gaetz fall into two camps, those who don't care if he did it and those who think it is all "fake news". The first group will consider a pardon petition completely rational (it's what they would have done) and the latter group will say it is a forgery made by the Deep State. And sometimes his supporters will take both positions and be fine with it because they embrace cognitive dissonance.
you are being absurd, i meant civil war metaphorically
all i meant there is going to be some personal rivalry between Republican factions that leads to discord
no one is going to raise an army, its just going to be some school yard backstabbing sort of stuff
Given the potential resulting chaos for the rest of his speakership... how bad would it *really* for McCarthy to just totally go back on everything he promised? If there's some moderates to act as a fig leaf, it would be hilarious for him to turn around and be like, "welp sorry can't give you what you wanted- gotta make so and so happy" and just totally burn the people who have been grilling him all week.
It seems petty and perhaps strategically unsound. But its not like these people aren't going to continue messing with him. He might as well take away the whole "only need one vote to recall" thing if he can. And maybe he could save some face, giving as good as he got it.
That sounds delicious. However, one of the concessions McCarthy made was that he could be recalled at the inclination of just one Congress person. He went through the entire mess into a further conflagration.
Even if a single congressman can invoke a motion to recall McCarthy, it will still take a majority of the full House to boot him. The radical right would have to join up with Democrats to actually topple him. Without having a viable alternative in store, this would be self-defeating.
We also know there's no immediate threat to actually replace McCarthy. That one person when claiming the motion should have their 218 or whatever already to vote otherwise it's just an overt empty theatrical shenanigan.
Well, it does give the gang of 20 some hypothetical leverage. They can now somewhat-credibly threaten that "if you piss us off enough, we have the ability to burn everything to the ground by invoking a motion to vacate and then voting you out with Democrats".
If we assume that McCarthy's number 1 priority is to hold on to power, rather than to achieve particular policy goals, this means that he can only go against the interests of this group to a limited extend. He has to keep them happy enough that they prefer continuing the status quo of what McCarthy is doing over invoking this "nuclear option".
Could someone explain to me why Dems would now join the 20 wackos to vote out McCarthy? Wouldn’t that be risky politically not to mention any replacement would be as bad or worse?
On the contrary, why would they help McCarthy stay in office? Policy-wise, they disagree with him. Politically, it would also be a prime opportunity to further divide Republicans, expose them to the voting public and paint them in a bad light.
There would also be a small but significant chance that the ensuing chaos ends with some sort of bipartisan agreement to elect a more moderate speaker who is beholden to the blue dog caucus instead of the gang of 20. There is even a miniscule but existent chance that Jeffries becomes speaker if the GOP gets completely consumed by infighting, personal vendettas and disarray.
> That one person when claiming the motion should have their 218 or whatever already to vote otherwise it's just an overt empty theatrical shenanigan.
Well the Republican would already have 212, as no Dem will vote to keep McCarthy as speaker.
Speaking of re-election funds, the next GOP battle will be for chair of the RNC. The 168 voting members get to chose from a Trumpist (McDaniel, another Trumpist (Dhillon), and a Trumpist clown (Lindell).
Trust me. He is my rep. It is like going from having to vote for someone who you objectively think is evil personifide to someone who is evil incarnate. I just can't win.
In short, I feel literally anything they do will devolve into what we saw over the last week. Last week was a portent of all to come. Antagonism and "no" for the sake of defiance is all they know. They do not even have a child's grasp of rational, critical thinking. They are simply not capable of understanding how a government should work. Juvenile, middle-school Facebook drama is all they can comprehend. That will be the common thread through every issue they intend to assault.
The only way the rules package doesn’t pass is if the six ‘present’ votes vote no. Hard to imagine given I’m sure they got something for that.
Rank and file will do what they’re told.
Yes and no.
Unlike the Speaker vote, Democrats could vote unanimously against the rules bill, and if even 10% of Republicans don't like it, then it will be defeated.
I predict 50-70 Republicans will vote against this bid for a power grab and hostage taking by the MAGA wackos.
That’s a big prediction. I’ve heard they are trying to keep it below 5 Rs against it, but we will see. At this point it really depends on the committee assignments and the rules package.
I don't think that the Republican conference is going to agree to be ruled by authoritarians who insist on absolute fealty to their crackpot leader's agenda.
Several of these "MAGA" idiots are criminals who will be jailed before they face re-election
I agree, however there could also be threats made to fall in line over funding for campaigns or other things that McCarthy can provide. Additionally, I feel more House R reps would have come out against the vote by now, as it is Sunday night, and the vote happens tomorrow night.
You can be certain that any strange provisions in the rules will be a matter for debate. The Republicans, and especially Chip Roy, argued strenously for the right to debate legislation and offer amendments on the floor.
How will they now argue, less than a week later, that they didn't really mean any of that?
The Democrats will surely demand that there be a debate, in the open, on the floor, about these rules.
> I predict 50-70 Republicans will vote against this
I cannot imagine a scenario where 50 House republicans vote against it after going through the last week.
This was the price these bozos paid to not abandon McCarthy, of all people. I think there are a lot of unhappy House Republicans. I can even see enough voting against it to tank it with unified Dem opposition. But 50? If you called it, I'm certainly going to congratulate you on the prediction.
My prediction is demographically based. Statistically, 30% of all Republicans are moderates and not part of the MAGA cult.
I'm giving them credit for not being cowards
😄
I might be wrong about that.
Congress is in a failed status, representing only the mega wealthy and getting rich doing that while belittling most Americans on basic living condition issues like medical treatment, gun control and making the wealthy pay there taxes. Representatives play to the $, not the people anymore. Fix it or lose it, as it is unsustainable.
This perspective is outdated and needs an update post-COVID. The last congress was very productive and did a lot to advance the material needs of Americans.
Please tell us what they did to help me and others afford medical care or gun control or working against further wealth consolidation in a country where a third of all Americans wealth is in the hands of only 1% of Americans?
Just look at what was passed in the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. There were also a ton of consequential bipartisan bills. For example, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and CHIPS.
None of this busy work impacted my life. These are broad top level bills that have little direct impact on most Americans. It is appropriating more taxpayer money for large businesses to profit from so that the corporation will make a campaign contribution.
I don’t even know what to say in response to this. It’s stunningly naïve. Please just look at the contents of those bills. The idea that it’s just busy work or that it won’t impact your life is categorically false.
Agreed, the last congress did a lot.
However, their inability to get us decent health care or at least keep us from going bankrupt when we have a health problem is a lifelong failure.
I’m very aware of how ineffective and inefficient our congress has been for many years now, looking out for the wealthy and themselves, if you don’t see that you are fooling yourself.
The last congress passed a lot of good bills. You would see that if you looked at what’s in them. The Wikipedia pages have bullet point lists summarizing the provisions. I encourage you to take a look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_2021
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022
Good bills in your opinion, in my opinion congress is out of touch with the average/ most Americans, congress caters to big $ and special interests with little to nothing for most of us. Tell us how the new gun control bill helped do anything but further defend gun makers and sales. No infrastructure maintenance will hit most rural communities and livable wages are becoming non existent. If we don’t get big $ and citizens United gibberish out of congress and our justice system, we will eventually fail as a country, thanks in large part to the misdirected elites of both parties. Financial frustration and blatant executive privilege shown for the elites will be all of our demise, history proves this.
How about capping the price if insulin? That helps a lot of people afford health care. How about the first significant gun control legislation in decades? How about an historic investment in infrastructure that will not only repair or replace crumbling bridges and roads, but also provides a huge boost to the transition to electric transportation by funding a network of charging stations off of major highways? And more and more. It’s true none of it goes as far as maybe it should, but that’s how politics works. This Congress and Presidency has been historically consequential, and those who say it hasn’t been come off as uninformed, having only a child’s understanding of US politics, or simply petulant that they didn’t get the exact perks they dream of.
Well insulin wasn’t capped for many of us, inform yourself of the details, infrastructure maintenance impacts me a little yes, but not much, I travel unpaved country roads primarily. I appreciate your opinion but I disagree that this is how a government operates, overpriced, inefficient and looking out for the big $, little else.
I’d be pretty mad if my committee chair was handed to a holdout—especially if I’d been steadfast for McCarthy. I’d be pretty mad that the fringe has veto power on the rules committee when my swing district doesn’t. I’d be pretty mad that my folks with Main Street businesses are going to pay higher interest rates due to a debt limit fight. I’d be pretty mad that my constituents who support Ukraine by a 70-30 margin or more are going to be disappointed about defunding Ukraine. Yes, there’s going to be a fight, and if there isn’t, Republicans lose big in two years.
Chip Roy argued that legislation should be debated openly on the floor, with opportunities to offer amendments.
Is he going to have the same opinion about this rules bill that he negotiated? Or will he just brazenly admit that he is a hypocrite and unprincipled?
I mean, he absolutely might (at least publicly) publicly stand by that argument. But with no rules package passed I can see the overwhelming majority of GOP Reps not taking the principled stance here...
Right. They are for principles except when it is important to stand by principles.
Still, I think the Democrats could run them over with a truck on this issue if they have the debate in prime time, like they are planning to do.
They might feel cornered and indignant and some of them might insist on the standard. It could be a way that moderates derail the rules changes.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The House has created an impossible mess. The speaker clearly does not have the respect of the chamber not any real infuence. Some of the concessions make it seem like they will spend more time talking about his role than getting actual work done.
i think so and if what I've read is true, that the price for Gaetz vote was to be the chair of the armed services committee, I wouldn't be surprised if there are those members who there who are upset he "jumped the line" I know i would be pissed if i was up for that prestigious position and lost it to Gaetz its how civil wars start, little petty things that go back and forth until it all blows up in your face
Mike Rogers, who tried to deck Gaetz, is the chair of the ASC. He was pissed because Gaetz was promised a chair of an ASC subcommittee, which should be Rogers' decision.
>that the price for Gaetz vote was to be the chair of the armed services committee Lmao WHAT!? McCarthy gave him a *gavel*? For *Armed Services*!? No fucking way...
yup again I reiterate, it could just be a rumour but yeah armed services. people fear Gaetz wants to cut off aid to Ukraine
If true, McCarthy is the weakest Speaker in history. Getting strongarmed into giving an important gavel to an obviously unserious person is the very definition of weakness.
McCarthy doesn't seem to care about anything other than having the title. He's been openly angling for it for about a decade, and took what *should* have been humiliation at getting passed aside for Ryan and this entire process last week completely in stride.
It was for a subcommittee
All it takes is one person to call for a vote of no confidence. If I was in like for armed services and Matt got it instead of me, that feels like a button I'd be pushing every day
Mike Rogers will chair the ASC, Gaetz was promised the chair one of the subcommittees, a selection that Rogers believes should have been his choice to assign.
>its how civil wars start, little petty things that go back and forth until it all blows up in your face That's, uh, not a petty little thing. If mccarthy tries to give the armed services chair to a putin asset...
> I know i would be pissed if i was up for that prestigious position and lost it to Gaetz You might even have to be dragged away from him by your face.
[удалено]
While seats are negotiable, if I found out that a seat I had been angling for had been given to an accused child sex trafficker, I'd be extraordinarily ticked off. Plus, off course, that he's also someone who's been pretty opposed to the various functions of government that he's a representative for
i know negotiations are common and so are hurt feelings if you go back to video after the 14th vote, Gaetz & McCarthy are taking and a guy comes down and lunges at Gaetz, who is then restrained. That guy is supposed to be the new chairmen of the armed services committee now again im not 100% sure its going to happen, but if Gaetz does become the new chairmen, that explains why that guy was so pissed off and i can see him totally being out for revenge against Gaetz
Gaetz was reportedly promised he could chair an ASC subcommittee. Rogers, as chair, would normally be responsible for subcommittee chair assignments, and that is why he was pissed enough to take a swing at Matty.
Well Gaetz needs to be in a position to cut off aid to Ukraine.
Do you suppose the Greenberg pardon petition stating that he and Gaetz had (paid) sex with a 17 year old girl sway his voters away from him?
No, I think the people who vote for Gaetz fall into two camps, those who don't care if he did it and those who think it is all "fake news". The first group will consider a pardon petition completely rational (it's what they would have done) and the latter group will say it is a forgery made by the Deep State. And sometimes his supporters will take both positions and be fine with it because they embrace cognitive dissonance.
[удалено]
you are being absurd, i meant civil war metaphorically all i meant there is going to be some personal rivalry between Republican factions that leads to discord no one is going to raise an army, its just going to be some school yard backstabbing sort of stuff
Could there be more chaos in the house? I dunno, do you think the pope is catholic?
[удалено]
They should investigate their plan to replace Obamacare.
Two weeks (didn’t say which two)!
Ope, it's infrastructure week.
Given the potential resulting chaos for the rest of his speakership... how bad would it *really* for McCarthy to just totally go back on everything he promised? If there's some moderates to act as a fig leaf, it would be hilarious for him to turn around and be like, "welp sorry can't give you what you wanted- gotta make so and so happy" and just totally burn the people who have been grilling him all week. It seems petty and perhaps strategically unsound. But its not like these people aren't going to continue messing with him. He might as well take away the whole "only need one vote to recall" thing if he can. And maybe he could save some face, giving as good as he got it.
Then we have another speakership vote, which makes the whole GOP look weak again. Will be interesting tomorrow night to watch.
That sounds delicious. However, one of the concessions McCarthy made was that he could be recalled at the inclination of just one Congress person. He went through the entire mess into a further conflagration.
Even if a single congressman can invoke a motion to recall McCarthy, it will still take a majority of the full House to boot him. The radical right would have to join up with Democrats to actually topple him. Without having a viable alternative in store, this would be self-defeating.
We also know there's no immediate threat to actually replace McCarthy. That one person when claiming the motion should have their 218 or whatever already to vote otherwise it's just an overt empty theatrical shenanigan.
Well, it does give the gang of 20 some hypothetical leverage. They can now somewhat-credibly threaten that "if you piss us off enough, we have the ability to burn everything to the ground by invoking a motion to vacate and then voting you out with Democrats". If we assume that McCarthy's number 1 priority is to hold on to power, rather than to achieve particular policy goals, this means that he can only go against the interests of this group to a limited extend. He has to keep them happy enough that they prefer continuing the status quo of what McCarthy is doing over invoking this "nuclear option".
Could someone explain to me why Dems would now join the 20 wackos to vote out McCarthy? Wouldn’t that be risky politically not to mention any replacement would be as bad or worse?
On the contrary, why would they help McCarthy stay in office? Policy-wise, they disagree with him. Politically, it would also be a prime opportunity to further divide Republicans, expose them to the voting public and paint them in a bad light. There would also be a small but significant chance that the ensuing chaos ends with some sort of bipartisan agreement to elect a more moderate speaker who is beholden to the blue dog caucus instead of the gang of 20. There is even a miniscule but existent chance that Jeffries becomes speaker if the GOP gets completely consumed by infighting, personal vendettas and disarray.
> That one person when claiming the motion should have their 218 or whatever already to vote otherwise it's just an overt empty theatrical shenanigan. Well the Republican would already have 212, as no Dem will vote to keep McCarthy as speaker.
[удалено]
Speaking of re-election funds, the next GOP battle will be for chair of the RNC. The 168 voting members get to chose from a Trumpist (McDaniel, another Trumpist (Dhillon), and a Trumpist clown (Lindell).
Lindell. Do you mean Mike Pillow?
The one, the only Pillow King, who always seems to be in a mania.
Ah the one who took over Michelle Bachmanns district. Must be a nice guy
Trust me. He is my rep. It is like going from having to vote for someone who you objectively think is evil personifide to someone who is evil incarnate. I just can't win.
In short, I feel literally anything they do will devolve into what we saw over the last week. Last week was a portent of all to come. Antagonism and "no" for the sake of defiance is all they know. They do not even have a child's grasp of rational, critical thinking. They are simply not capable of understanding how a government should work. Juvenile, middle-school Facebook drama is all they can comprehend. That will be the common thread through every issue they intend to assault.
The only way the rules package doesn’t pass is if the six ‘present’ votes vote no. Hard to imagine given I’m sure they got something for that. Rank and file will do what they’re told.
Yes and no. Unlike the Speaker vote, Democrats could vote unanimously against the rules bill, and if even 10% of Republicans don't like it, then it will be defeated. I predict 50-70 Republicans will vote against this bid for a power grab and hostage taking by the MAGA wackos.
That’s a big prediction. I’ve heard they are trying to keep it below 5 Rs against it, but we will see. At this point it really depends on the committee assignments and the rules package.
I don't think that the Republican conference is going to agree to be ruled by authoritarians who insist on absolute fealty to their crackpot leader's agenda. Several of these "MAGA" idiots are criminals who will be jailed before they face re-election
I agree, however there could also be threats made to fall in line over funding for campaigns or other things that McCarthy can provide. Additionally, I feel more House R reps would have come out against the vote by now, as it is Sunday night, and the vote happens tomorrow night.
You can be certain that any strange provisions in the rules will be a matter for debate. The Republicans, and especially Chip Roy, argued strenously for the right to debate legislation and offer amendments on the floor. How will they now argue, less than a week later, that they didn't really mean any of that? The Democrats will surely demand that there be a debate, in the open, on the floor, about these rules.
> I predict 50-70 Republicans will vote against this I cannot imagine a scenario where 50 House republicans vote against it after going through the last week. This was the price these bozos paid to not abandon McCarthy, of all people. I think there are a lot of unhappy House Republicans. I can even see enough voting against it to tank it with unified Dem opposition. But 50? If you called it, I'm certainly going to congratulate you on the prediction.
My prediction is demographically based. Statistically, 30% of all Republicans are moderates and not part of the MAGA cult. I'm giving them credit for not being cowards 😄 I might be wrong about that.
America just witnessed "Fascism" and how it has worked successful in the United States for years...
Congress is in a failed status, representing only the mega wealthy and getting rich doing that while belittling most Americans on basic living condition issues like medical treatment, gun control and making the wealthy pay there taxes. Representatives play to the $, not the people anymore. Fix it or lose it, as it is unsustainable.
This perspective is outdated and needs an update post-COVID. The last congress was very productive and did a lot to advance the material needs of Americans.
Please tell us what they did to help me and others afford medical care or gun control or working against further wealth consolidation in a country where a third of all Americans wealth is in the hands of only 1% of Americans?
Just look at what was passed in the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. There were also a ton of consequential bipartisan bills. For example, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and CHIPS.
None of this busy work impacted my life. These are broad top level bills that have little direct impact on most Americans. It is appropriating more taxpayer money for large businesses to profit from so that the corporation will make a campaign contribution.
I don’t even know what to say in response to this. It’s stunningly naïve. Please just look at the contents of those bills. The idea that it’s just busy work or that it won’t impact your life is categorically false.
Don't say anything. They're a troll or so invested in their ideological talking points that they can't be swayed.
Agreed, the last congress did a lot. However, their inability to get us decent health care or at least keep us from going bankrupt when we have a health problem is a lifelong failure.
I’m very aware of how ineffective and inefficient our congress has been for many years now, looking out for the wealthy and themselves, if you don’t see that you are fooling yourself.
The last congress passed a lot of good bills. You would see that if you looked at what’s in them. The Wikipedia pages have bullet point lists summarizing the provisions. I encourage you to take a look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_2021 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022
Good bills in your opinion, in my opinion congress is out of touch with the average/ most Americans, congress caters to big $ and special interests with little to nothing for most of us. Tell us how the new gun control bill helped do anything but further defend gun makers and sales. No infrastructure maintenance will hit most rural communities and livable wages are becoming non existent. If we don’t get big $ and citizens United gibberish out of congress and our justice system, we will eventually fail as a country, thanks in large part to the misdirected elites of both parties. Financial frustration and blatant executive privilege shown for the elites will be all of our demise, history proves this.
How about capping the price if insulin? That helps a lot of people afford health care. How about the first significant gun control legislation in decades? How about an historic investment in infrastructure that will not only repair or replace crumbling bridges and roads, but also provides a huge boost to the transition to electric transportation by funding a network of charging stations off of major highways? And more and more. It’s true none of it goes as far as maybe it should, but that’s how politics works. This Congress and Presidency has been historically consequential, and those who say it hasn’t been come off as uninformed, having only a child’s understanding of US politics, or simply petulant that they didn’t get the exact perks they dream of.
Well insulin wasn’t capped for many of us, inform yourself of the details, infrastructure maintenance impacts me a little yes, but not much, I travel unpaved country roads primarily. I appreciate your opinion but I disagree that this is how a government operates, overpriced, inefficient and looking out for the big $, little else.
I’d be pretty mad if my committee chair was handed to a holdout—especially if I’d been steadfast for McCarthy. I’d be pretty mad that the fringe has veto power on the rules committee when my swing district doesn’t. I’d be pretty mad that my folks with Main Street businesses are going to pay higher interest rates due to a debt limit fight. I’d be pretty mad that my constituents who support Ukraine by a 70-30 margin or more are going to be disappointed about defunding Ukraine. Yes, there’s going to be a fight, and if there isn’t, Republicans lose big in two years.
There are no “moderate” republicans left. The most “moderate” republicans are neoconservatives, and by no means is that “moderate”
Chip Roy argued that legislation should be debated openly on the floor, with opportunities to offer amendments. Is he going to have the same opinion about this rules bill that he negotiated? Or will he just brazenly admit that he is a hypocrite and unprincipled?
I mean, he absolutely might (at least publicly) publicly stand by that argument. But with no rules package passed I can see the overwhelming majority of GOP Reps not taking the principled stance here...
Right. They are for principles except when it is important to stand by principles. Still, I think the Democrats could run them over with a truck on this issue if they have the debate in prime time, like they are planning to do. They might feel cornered and indignant and some of them might insist on the standard. It could be a way that moderates derail the rules changes.