Yes, it is the majority population. Conceptually, I just have an issue with city politics being applied to suburban and rural areas. It's the nature of the beast though.
McCarthy drops out..
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
Because they're the ones leading the revolt that prompted Boehner to resign and McCarthy to drop out. Chaffetz is now the leading candidate to replace Boehner. And what is the so-called Freedom Caucus demanding? Basically that its 40 or so members run the whole House.
a lot of others in the conference don’t like the idea of handing out benefits to a vocal clutch of disruptors, whom they see as disloyal and uninterested in governing. In their view, these 40 to 50 lawmakers have been given too much leeway, and they say Boehner bent over backward to accommodate them.
" … the problem here isn’t that too many people are disciplined,” says Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma, with a chuckle. “The problem is they’re almost never disciplined at all.”
Representative Cole is a member of the Rules Committee that determines amendments and how legislation is handled on the floor. He doesn’t have much patience for hard-liners’ clamoring for “regular order” in parliamentary procedure.
“Voting against rules and not supporting the speaker on the floor, and then demanding more participation and regular order, seems to me at odds with yourself,” he says.
You and others claim that theirs is the majority view. That's only true in their districts -- their views fall well down into the minority nationwide on almost every major issue.
Last edited:
It is the nature of the beast. Denver dictates a lot of Colorado politics, NYC drives NY politics, Chicago leads IL. The exceptions are few and far between. Maybe CA in an outlier, not that all of the state is that liberal, but you have several large cities.
Do you have some way to validate your claim.? You certainly missed on your guess about me. No where can you find anywhere "that theirs is the majority view" when it is something I said. There are probably several views within the majority. I have actually seen no one who holds that view. Why in hell would you think they want to do away with JB and his followers to give in to a group of 30-40? You probably had that many allied with JB. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense to trade one small group making decisions for majority for an equally small group to make decisions for the majority. My understanding of the majority is that they want majority consideration when making decisions.
Mulvaney represents the adjacent district, and he is a leader in the group. He said specifically that he would break from the group and vote for someone who could pull the majority - the VP candidate in last cycle. I think Hensarling would measure up and several others.
Since the Speaker does not have to be an elected party(unknown to me), they are offering Newt as a temporary until someone can count the majority vote.
I highly doubt a 3rd party being able to make inroads because of lack of funding. I could see an individual with means and all the personality required to win, but cannot see a slate forming a party that could beat the two current parties.
The money and power all lives with the 2 parties. Right now I think it would be hard for a 3rd to stand up and have any real success. As it stands, the 30-40 that we are discussing have power because they are part of the party that controls the House. If they split off, they lose that power. They become a minority party in the House and lose committee chairs. It doesn't pay dividends right now. At best, it allows them to compete against GOP candidates in GOP heavy districts. It would make more seats competitive than before, but it may split the conservative vote in those districts enough that a Dem could win the seat, and that's not what they want.
I think the room for a third party is really in the middle - maybe a fiscally conservative party that takes a less conservative view on social issues. I think that party would pull some votes from both sides. A third party that tries to gain power by going further left of the D's or further right of the R's is only going to weaken the D's and R's, respectively.
A major motive given by the members of the Freedom Caucus for their insurgency is that they've been left out of plum committee assignments and they don't get any respect from the mainstream members. Most of them are in their first or second term, and yet despite their inexperience and oft-stated disdain for the process that creates and moves legislation -- you know, "compromise" -- they think they should be put in charge of running things in the House.
Yes, I meant to point that out. Those areas I mentioned along with Baltimore City constitute the majority off the population. Also, in Maryland, Democrats outnumber Republicans about 57% to 27%.
I might have agreed with you a year ago.....and most any other time in my life.....but I don't think I do anymore. If the right guy(s) successfully-influenced (whatever than means, exactly) the right people.....say the Koch Brothers.....I honestly see no reason why a 3rd party couldn't make some legitimate headway in the current political environment (which is anything but "normal").
Hell, Trump has largely become his own party already, and he's in standalone first place without giving two real ***** about anything beyond ensuring he's the first story every night on the news. Beyond that, I'm frankly surprised the Kochs haven't already gotten all the Congressional Tea Partiers they've financed into a hotel conference room and forced them to start wearing Don't Tread On Me party golf shirts to Capitol Hill everyday (not to mention send an armed detachment to the WH to take out BHO).
Smart *** jokes aside, I remain 100% convinced the only real solution to our currently-flaming political structure isn't a 3rd party, but rather a single party. Of course, the richer-than-gawd types you adore like the Kochs.....and those you despise like their good pal, Chuck Soros.....or for that matter, an uber-power-broker like Roger Ailes......simply can't allow to happen.
A Democracy or Republic works best and benefits the citizens the best when differing viewpoints find a middle ground and a moderate and balanced approach is taken to most issues. Got to get rid of the intense influence of the extremes to the point where they are found to be the decision makers. This is where we are with the House and the Senate has started to move there.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? All that I have seen is that they want to be able to represent the people who sent them there if they are in the majority on a given matter. Mick Mulvaney as the source. Rank has it's privileges , but that is not at the exclusion of the majority voice.
Rubberstamping everything that is offered is a terrible way to try to run a country conservatively. You do not have to "go along to get along". That requires no compromise.
Last edited:
Actually, that is beautifully put. I just don't see that it is valid. Actually what has happened over the past several years, Obama has had his way. When he had majorities, that is understandable. Elections really do have consequences. But, when Republicans had majorities in Congress, the Legislative branch was supposed to be co-equal branch. That election, too, should have had consequences. But the Republican leaders have allowed Obama to still have his way in an attempt to get along. Even when get along meant ignoring the majority of your party. The only people Obama has stood up to are Republican leaders. They have backed down every time there is a confrontation. It is not the responsibility of Congress to rubberstamp everything Obama wants just to keep moving.
At this point, concessions should be made by both parties to get an agreement. What if government shuts down? It is not necessarily the problem that only Congress must face. The Administrative branch is also involved. Some of the responsibility should end there. Now negotiate. Who blinks first is not necessarily the one to bear the burden. That judgment will be made later. Obama is not the most popular figure in the country now, but negatives are not as bad as Congress. Both branches will have to absorb whatever the population hands out. Do all or none have balls to stand up for their perception of what is right?
Or if you believe the rumormill, he dropped out because he couldn't keep it in his pants in Washington.
McCarthy and Renae Elmers were supposed to be having a thing.
Cool......Boehner never struck me personally as the type who might be out chasing someone (but even though he's my Congressman, what the hell do I know about his personal life).
Apparently someone updated both parties wikipedia page with that affair information and the ip address traced back to DHS in Springfield.