Kevin McCarthy gives a press conference — 39 Comments
He doesn’t sound too “wounded” to me, but a Man that is in Charge.
Neo, stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985. He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
Stop investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
If only he was Perfect then he would never dissapoint us, or Bunge.
I’m being critical and picky, but not in animosity to McCarthy. Mostly in terms of the good job question, this is what I think can be better:
On presentation, I like that the House is opened back up and the notion of giving the speech in the rotunda showing people wondering about to emphasize the openness. However, the rotunda high ceilings take away from his voice, making his sounds weaker and harder to hear. Also, people walking in the background make his speech seem unimportant. I also think, as DeSantis normally does and Pelosi might do, having supporters behind and around you helps bring home that people think what you are saying is important and support you.
On substance: I’m not going to listen to it all, because I don’t care too much. I already mentioned the Capitol being open as positive. I like the new rules, regardless of how they came to be, he still agreed to them and got others to agree. I like restricting use of SPR, but curious exactly what the House has done (is it just a bill that still has to get passed by both chambers and signed, or some restriction of bureaucracy that Congress can somehow control). I agree about George Santos, and while Congress could sanction Santos, why should the Republican majority play that game. It’s not like Pelosi impeached Biden for his lies about his personal experience. The bi-partisan stuff is both what bothers many people on the right, but also what I expect to hear from a leader in his position, especially with a small majority.
Finally, where I stopped; “faux pas” is a weak term for the different application of the law under the Biden administration regarding handling of classified documents. Biden’s response to Doocy yesterday was a faux pas, but the mishandling of classified data, and worse the differential application of the law in regards to mishandling classified data is pissing off many people that have seen careers and people destroyed for similarly violating the same law. I get the schadenfreude but now is the time to affect a serious tone, because it got a bit more serious with this second tranche of classified data in a garage. Even AG Garland recognized this, hence the Special Prosecutor announcement. Get ahead of this McCarthy!
He operates well with the harness the freedom caucus put on him he dinged cnn about the gaseous one so they cut to commercial
MBunge:
Stop trying to tell me what to do.
You have your opinion.
I look at evidence and change my mind where warranted, and not where not warranted.
Now we’ll see how he handles the big things like the debt limit didnt we just spent 1.7 trillion just last month?
Well… making 14,000 hours of J6 video public is a nice bid on the next hand. Credit where it’s due
Just a thought…Texas and Florida posted nice budget surpluses. Here’s hoping Abbott secures the border as a monumental “bite me” to the currently installed potatus.
Stop trying to tell me what to do.
True. Bunge should just goose you mercilessly.
I hope they really do release all the footage.
I am entirely willing to watch how McCarthy does. So far he is keeping commitments he made in the negotiations. I may disagree with him on some occasions, but if those occasions are relatively few, I’ll be happy.
I’m not about to say Kevin McCarthy is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known. But for now he is doing the right things, no doubt because of the pressure put on him by the Freedom Caucus. No need to criticize him yet, just keep putting his feet to the fire.
It is interesting that the Repubs’ slim majority that we bemoaned in anticipation of a larger “red wave” probably enabled the FC to have more influence over the GOPe.
It’s certainly not a bad thing for him to say he wants to release the J6 footage but concrete action is going to be a lot more work than that, and take a lot more time. Remember that stuff like J6 footage gets filtered through the media, and only people like us, the 0.1%, are going to see it or care.
I’m willing to be convinced he’s putting that work in, once we’ve seen some of it, but there hasn’t been time yet for anything more than talk.
If the actions of the Freedom Caucus have caused McCarthy for once to start walking-the-walk, that is a good thing. We’ll see how long he continues to do so.
Fine words. So far he’s earned a small measure of trust but he can be absolutely certain that his assurances will be compared to his actions, which will tell the tale. If he betrays his assurances, there will be no second chances with the base.
First question about George Santos and lying? Please! Biden should resign for his 40 years of lying.
M. Bunge once again confirms that he is a fool. He should just slink away like the miserable cur he has made himself. Into a very dark and distant corner.
“Stop trying to tell me what to do.”
Neo, Kevin McCarthy is EXACTLY as I described him and there is absolutely no reason to believe he won’t sell out conservatives the instant he thinks he can get away with it. Such a political leader demands vigilance and suspicion, not cheerleading.
And some friendly advice from a garden-variety moron? Don’t make a graven image out of your own judgment.
Mike
Cross your fingers and hope for the best I guess.
MBunge:
Close to two months ago I issued you this warning. Perhaps you missed it the first time. I’ll quote it here:
Maybe you ought to stop insulting people here in such personal ways. You’ve been commenting here a long time but you’ve stepped over the line many many times. I am reluctant to ban people, especially long-time commenters, but consider this a warning.
Instead, you have become more rude and more tiresome. And you fail to take your own advice: don’t make a graven image out of your own judgment.
Consider this warning number two. If you don’t stop with the rudeness, the next step is putting your comments in moderation. After that the next step would be banning, but I hope it doesn’t get to either of those points.
Happy Saturday!
I am surprisingly hopeful about McCarthy’s Speakership–because I have great trust that the twenty will hold him accountable. He has been totally Uniparty though, so there is that. Leopards don’t often change spots.
Being surprised by the Mike B-neo interaction I read above–here’s my uninvited input:
An edit what Mike B wrote.
I think it gets his point across without the offense neo takes at how he wrote it.
Original:
Neo, stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985. He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
Stop investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
Rewrite:
Neo, I disagree with your assessment of Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985.
He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
I hate to see you investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
Neo might weigh in here too —?is that better? less offensive??
(I removed the mansplaining. He is no longer “the boss of you.”)
Not a regular reader, but I get the feeling that neo, like I’ve long noticed w Ann Althouse, has at times a defensiveness about having her positions challenged (especially in the casual/teasing venacular guys often use to challenge each other) once she’s decided she has done enough reading to make up her mind. Though– obviously!– she welcomes what she defines as respectful discussion; she does have an open forum.
I long wondered if it is generational—neither is much older than I am, but are very much of the generation where women were expected to be nurses, teachers or secretaries–and never trouble their pretty little heads with too much thinking.
I have longed noticed an enormous difference in the (to me) “chip on the shoulder”/defensiveness/easily offended” attitude between the female physicians who were in the classes in med school where they made up 5% of the class, versus those of us who were 45%. There well may have been a big change in our acceptance by our peers/faculty v theirs. I never had a moment where I felt like I had to “prove that I deserved a guys’ spot.” Not one second, ever.
Even when I was the first to train in my fellowship; first in my section on staff. I was there because I was qualified; I was worth being trained. (And nobody ever indicated I was lesser. I do appreciate those who paved the way, and the support we all got from them.)
Or may it be attorneys in general? The nature of their profession? Do they get insulted if their thought process and resulting conclusions are challenged, as that is their “work product”? ESPECIALLY since they “win” if their thought process/conclusion convinces a judge/jury that they ARE correct??? So, (understandably) more invested in their conclusions than others??
Just speculating here, as I said–this subject got triggered in my mind long ago, reading AA regularly then. Probably when she started banning commenters (which is when I realized I started dropping off), long before the period where she dropped her commenters.
Actually–those thoughts have LONG been in my head—since I was student!
And NO OFFENSE intended to ANYONE here. I have never even discussed this with anybody.
That said — I wonder if neo might consider removing the second strike?
Being offended by those actual words is an over-reaction to my read.
(Though as I said–not a regular reader, so unfamiliar with what triggered the earlier warning; maybe more disrespect has come her way than I see in today’s post.)
This format leads to over reactions–limbic responses– based on the neuroscience. It is designed to engage that way on social media platforms.
Even the AI on Twitter had to be taken down in less than 24 hours, it became so offensive!
And do I assume that Mike B did not spend the time crafting his response, thinking of the interpretations, that she does on her thought -provoking essays.
(Hey Mike B–would it kill you to apologize for the mansplaining??? 😉 )
It is interesting that the Repubs’ slim majority that we bemoaned in anticipation of a larger “red wave” probably enabled the FC to have more influence over the GOPe.
I agree absolutely ! Here’s hoping there are more members of the Freedom Caucus next election,
Clue for Lee:
It ain’t about mansplaining,
IMO. neo is quite capable of expressing simple and complex ideas succinctly or elaborately as required.
It’s her blog, remember?
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) is forming an “anti-woke caucus” in Congress:
Banks says all the right things. As with McCarthy, we’ll be watching for meaningful follow-through.
Positives:
Banks is not a lawyer. He has not been professionally trained in sophistry or in coming up with pettifogging, pretextual reasons for doing nothing.
He does not tout his academic credentials (BA Indiana University, MBA Grace College)–you have to hunt for them.
Worked in small business (real estate, construction) before entering politics.
Military service in Afghanistan. (But: see Buttigieg, Pete–also from Indiana. Or Dan Crenshaw.)
His political career is relatively recent: Indiana Senate 2010-2016, U.S. Congress 2017-present.
Negatives:
Apparently cozy with that sanctimonious po-faced fraud Mike Pence. Probably unavoidable for an Indiana Republican.
Has an MBA. On the plus side, it’s from a small evangelical Christian college, so the opposite of “prestigious”.
Is encouraging military service and applications to military academies. Hard to square with his recognition that the U.S. military is now a major transmission belt, in the Leninist sense, for wokeness.
Not identified as a member of the Freedom Caucus. OTOH, he was one of the reps who received a vote for Speaker.
Ah well, can’t have everything. We’ll see if he has the necessary grit.
Hubert:
Off topic;
Drachinifel had an hour interview Admiral Chester Nimitz – Master of the Pacific with the author Trent Hone.
The book is Mastering the Art of Command
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and Victory in the Pacific
From Hubert’s link, supporting the view that conservatives are fed up with being shafted by the people who claim to represent them:
Second, Congress must stop funding wokeness. The Claremont Institute has tracked federal funding for leftist institutions and activities since 2016, which amounts to over $3 billion taxpayer dollars. This money is spent not only to spread anti-American doctrines which will tear the nation apart; it also funds a class of activists, paying their salaries so they can be a perpetual revolutionary class.
Astonishingly, Congress sent more funding to woke institutions and activities in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled both chambers, than it did in 2019 and 2020 with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair. This Congress, we should aim to eliminate all such funding.
OTOH, there is a lag in legislation and implementation, and we COULD be seeing that here, in which case the observation favors the Republicans. However, that’s a subtle point probably lost on most voters, and the GOP should probably bring that to the front page when defending their actions.
Additionaly: ” No bill that spends taxpayer dollars on leftist activities should pass out of committee without a recorded vote on an amendment to defund wokeness.”
I would extend that to ban spending on rightist activities (should any be offered), because the government should be neutral between political factions (hah), but since the Democrats define anything to the right of Stalin to be alt-right QAnon white supremacy, maybe that can wait to another day.
As to Mansfield’s “. . . by making them a nation of dependents. . . “, see AGR’s review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (circa 1830), particularly the extended quotation of Tocqueville at minute marks 12:00 – 14:00.
This outcome [dependencies] has a wholly basic foundation [equality] and a quite long train of effects [among which, our lives as lived].
My vote is to ban M. Bunge, who adds zero to intelligent, informed discussions here. He is merely a leftist agitator, a goad. May he live in California forever.
It’s really up to Bunge, as Neo told him. People who disagree with her or with other commenters generally stay, but not people who are deliberately rude to her or to others.
A few years ago I used to comment at Legal Insurrection. The comment section was, for a while, dominated by running and very personally nasty disputes between a pro-Trump guy and an anti-Trump guy. I think Prof. Jacobson eventually banned them both, but not before I stopped reading the comments.
Neo, I’m not defending Bunge here – I don’t follow this blog closely enough to have opinions about the usual suspects. But I didn’t find this comment of his offensive. Impolite perhaps or just impolitic. I’m not even sure it was rude. I don’t think he was directly insulting you either.
I’m of the same mind as Lee – and there is much worse out there. Maybe Bunge is well known for it and deserved that first strike. (and maybe your tamping down of his “exuberance” is a way to encourage the others as they say)
On the other hand, I’m a late middle aged white male who is known for terse and direct observation.
So take from this what you will.
Lee:
Of course your edit improves the entire thing by removing the parts I object to. It’s not the disagreement I mind, it’s the arrogant condescension, as well as the imperious ordering around.
So why you think I object to disagreement is a mystery. Plenty of people here disagree with me every day, and I either respond politely by pointing out a few reasons I disagree with them, or I don’t even respond because it’s just part of the normal blog commenting.
It is also interesting that both MBunge and you seem to think that I didn’t seek out disagreement and free discussion on this particular post. Odd, because here’s the entire content of what I wrote in the post:
See what you think. I think he does a good job
Translated: What’s your opinion? Here’s mine. The only other content in the post is the video of McCarthy’s press conference.
And yet MBunge writes, “stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy.” I find it extremely interesting that posting a video of McCarthy talking, and saying I think he did a good job and inviting others to express THEIR opinions, is now considered “rehabilitation.” It indicates to me that on some level Bunge may think the video does “rehabilitate” McCarthy, at least potentially. And apparently he thinks I should not post such videos because of the rehabilitation ban Bunge has declared I should institute? Or perhaps he thinks I should not express any opinion about something McCarthy says, if that opinion is positive?
In other words, Bunge’s position doesn’t even fit the content of the post.
Yawrate:
See my comment right above this one.
Also, you might be unaware of Bunge’s long history of rudeness and insults, some of it towards me but plenty of it towards other commenters. I actually might have banned him quite some time ago, but I am reluctant to do that and have given him many chances. Here I have given him another.
The imperious assertive voice, if I recall fifty years ago, was understood to mean, “We (mostly you) should….”
It was dumb and irritating then.
Worse now.
That said, if you want to send a letter to McCarthy to get him to do something useful, starting it out as “Dear Dishonest Butthead” is probably a loser. Or if it comes from an address which has insulted the guy forever.
You can slag him all you want after he’s out of the game. Until then, make your best case politely, including any implications of how many people you know are about to vote for his opponent.
My take is that McCarthy has been handed a situation different from the one he imagined he would have, and having recognized this and evaluated it, the competent politician is adjusting himself to the new reality. So his performance was appropriately sharp, deferential when it needed to be, and dismissive when he thought he could get away with it.
We’ll see what he actually delivers. As with all professional politicians, my take on acceptable performance is that it earns another one-day allowance of food rations, nothing more. Only consistently diligent and transparent politicians earn my support. When all the Jan 6th tapes are actually out there flooding the ethernet, I’ll re-visit.
Just ban the insufferably obnoxious jerk. I would have done so the first time he insulted you arrogantly and rudely a long time ago.
Neo, maybe I am too gullible, but I agree McCarthy did a good job.
1) good that he held a press conference at all
2) he handled questions easily, directing the order of inquiry, and closed it down and exited smoothly once a sufficient time had past and meaningful questions had been asked. Not his first rodeo.
3) he rattled off the 5 to 8 key issues easily and confidently; although we might expect that to be his job and key focus going forward
4) better than a prepared speech read off of a teleprompter; with little stumbling or other verbal ticks.
Most of us gave Trump the benefit of the doubt and a wait and see approach, so that is probably still a viable position to take with McCarthy – who will be watched closely in any case. Angie at 6:45 says it well, too.
Om: belated thanks for the link to video about Nimitz. My main takeaway from the video is that there would be no place for Nimitz–the architect of the U.S. Navy’s victory in the Pacific in WWII–or anybody like him in today’s military. We’re going to pay a heavy price for that. If you consider Afghanistan and its follow-on effects a downpayment, we’ve already started.
AesopFan: it’s infuriating that we–conservative taxpayers–are helping to pay for the destruction of our country, our heritage, and our culture, with no pushback from our so-called representatives. I hope Banks’ caucus can change this, but am not optimistic. As one commenter has said, the main business of Congress is appropriations–that is, using taxpayer money for their own professional and personal aggrandizement. Too many rice bowls at stake.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
He doesn’t sound too “wounded” to me, but a Man that is in Charge.
Neo, stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985. He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
Stop investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
If only he was Perfect then he would never dissapoint us, or Bunge.
I’m being critical and picky, but not in animosity to McCarthy. Mostly in terms of the good job question, this is what I think can be better:
On presentation, I like that the House is opened back up and the notion of giving the speech in the rotunda showing people wondering about to emphasize the openness. However, the rotunda high ceilings take away from his voice, making his sounds weaker and harder to hear. Also, people walking in the background make his speech seem unimportant. I also think, as DeSantis normally does and Pelosi might do, having supporters behind and around you helps bring home that people think what you are saying is important and support you.
On substance: I’m not going to listen to it all, because I don’t care too much. I already mentioned the Capitol being open as positive. I like the new rules, regardless of how they came to be, he still agreed to them and got others to agree. I like restricting use of SPR, but curious exactly what the House has done (is it just a bill that still has to get passed by both chambers and signed, or some restriction of bureaucracy that Congress can somehow control). I agree about George Santos, and while Congress could sanction Santos, why should the Republican majority play that game. It’s not like Pelosi impeached Biden for his lies about his personal experience. The bi-partisan stuff is both what bothers many people on the right, but also what I expect to hear from a leader in his position, especially with a small majority.
Finally, where I stopped; “faux pas” is a weak term for the different application of the law under the Biden administration regarding handling of classified documents. Biden’s response to Doocy yesterday was a faux pas, but the mishandling of classified data, and worse the differential application of the law in regards to mishandling classified data is pissing off many people that have seen careers and people destroyed for similarly violating the same law. I get the schadenfreude but now is the time to affect a serious tone, because it got a bit more serious with this second tranche of classified data in a garage. Even AG Garland recognized this, hence the Special Prosecutor announcement. Get ahead of this McCarthy!
He operates well with the harness the freedom caucus put on him he dinged cnn about the gaseous one so they cut to commercial
MBunge:
Stop trying to tell me what to do.
You have your opinion.
I look at evidence and change my mind where warranted, and not where not warranted.
Now we’ll see how he handles the big things like the debt limit didnt we just spent 1.7 trillion just last month?
Well… making 14,000 hours of J6 video public is a nice bid on the next hand. Credit where it’s due
Just a thought…Texas and Florida posted nice budget surpluses. Here’s hoping Abbott secures the border as a monumental “bite me” to the currently installed potatus.
Stop trying to tell me what to do.
True. Bunge should just goose you mercilessly.
I hope they really do release all the footage.
I am entirely willing to watch how McCarthy does. So far he is keeping commitments he made in the negotiations. I may disagree with him on some occasions, but if those occasions are relatively few, I’ll be happy.
I’m not about to say Kevin McCarthy is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known. But for now he is doing the right things, no doubt because of the pressure put on him by the Freedom Caucus. No need to criticize him yet, just keep putting his feet to the fire.
It is interesting that the Repubs’ slim majority that we bemoaned in anticipation of a larger “red wave” probably enabled the FC to have more influence over the GOPe.
It’s certainly not a bad thing for him to say he wants to release the J6 footage but concrete action is going to be a lot more work than that, and take a lot more time. Remember that stuff like J6 footage gets filtered through the media, and only people like us, the 0.1%, are going to see it or care.
I’m willing to be convinced he’s putting that work in, once we’ve seen some of it, but there hasn’t been time yet for anything more than talk.
If the actions of the Freedom Caucus have caused McCarthy for once to start walking-the-walk, that is a good thing. We’ll see how long he continues to do so.
Fine words. So far he’s earned a small measure of trust but he can be absolutely certain that his assurances will be compared to his actions, which will tell the tale. If he betrays his assurances, there will be no second chances with the base.
First question about George Santos and lying? Please! Biden should resign for his 40 years of lying.
M. Bunge once again confirms that he is a fool. He should just slink away like the miserable cur he has made himself. Into a very dark and distant corner.
“Stop trying to tell me what to do.”
Neo, Kevin McCarthy is EXACTLY as I described him and there is absolutely no reason to believe he won’t sell out conservatives the instant he thinks he can get away with it. Such a political leader demands vigilance and suspicion, not cheerleading.
And some friendly advice from a garden-variety moron? Don’t make a graven image out of your own judgment.
Mike
Cross your fingers and hope for the best I guess.
MBunge:
Close to two months ago I issued you this warning. Perhaps you missed it the first time. I’ll quote it here:
Instead, you have become more rude and more tiresome. And you fail to take your own advice: don’t make a graven image out of your own judgment.
Consider this warning number two. If you don’t stop with the rudeness, the next step is putting your comments in moderation. After that the next step would be banning, but I hope it doesn’t get to either of those points.
Happy Saturday!
I am surprisingly hopeful about McCarthy’s Speakership–because I have great trust that the twenty will hold him accountable. He has been totally Uniparty though, so there is that. Leopards don’t often change spots.
Being surprised by the Mike B-neo interaction I read above–here’s my uninvited input:
An edit what Mike B wrote.
I think it gets his point across without the offense neo takes at how he wrote it.
Original:
Neo, stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985. He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
Stop investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
Rewrite:
Neo, I disagree with your assessment of Kevin McCarthy. He is what he is, a professional politician. He hasn’t had a job outside of politics since 1985.
He’s not a Trump guy. He’s not a Tea Party guy. On the other hand, he doesn’t radiate distaste for the Republican base from every pore of his body.
I hate to see you investing in a guy who, history tells us, will probably betray and disappoint you.
Mike
Neo might weigh in here too —?is that better? less offensive??
(I removed the mansplaining. He is no longer “the boss of you.”)
Not a regular reader, but I get the feeling that neo, like I’ve long noticed w Ann Althouse, has at times a defensiveness about having her positions challenged (especially in the casual/teasing venacular guys often use to challenge each other) once she’s decided she has done enough reading to make up her mind. Though– obviously!– she welcomes what she defines as respectful discussion; she does have an open forum.
I long wondered if it is generational—neither is much older than I am, but are very much of the generation where women were expected to be nurses, teachers or secretaries–and never trouble their pretty little heads with too much thinking.
I have longed noticed an enormous difference in the (to me) “chip on the shoulder”/defensiveness/easily offended” attitude between the female physicians who were in the classes in med school where they made up 5% of the class, versus those of us who were 45%. There well may have been a big change in our acceptance by our peers/faculty v theirs. I never had a moment where I felt like I had to “prove that I deserved a guys’ spot.” Not one second, ever.
Even when I was the first to train in my fellowship; first in my section on staff. I was there because I was qualified; I was worth being trained. (And nobody ever indicated I was lesser. I do appreciate those who paved the way, and the support we all got from them.)
Or may it be attorneys in general? The nature of their profession? Do they get insulted if their thought process and resulting conclusions are challenged, as that is their “work product”? ESPECIALLY since they “win” if their thought process/conclusion convinces a judge/jury that they ARE correct??? So, (understandably) more invested in their conclusions than others??
Just speculating here, as I said–this subject got triggered in my mind long ago, reading AA regularly then. Probably when she started banning commenters (which is when I realized I started dropping off), long before the period where she dropped her commenters.
Actually–those thoughts have LONG been in my head—since I was student!
And NO OFFENSE intended to ANYONE here. I have never even discussed this with anybody.
That said — I wonder if neo might consider removing the second strike?
Being offended by those actual words is an over-reaction to my read.
(Though as I said–not a regular reader, so unfamiliar with what triggered the earlier warning; maybe more disrespect has come her way than I see in today’s post.)
This format leads to over reactions–limbic responses– based on the neuroscience. It is designed to engage that way on social media platforms.
Even the AI on Twitter had to be taken down in less than 24 hours, it became so offensive!
And do I assume that Mike B did not spend the time crafting his response, thinking of the interpretations, that she does on her thought -provoking essays.
(Hey Mike B–would it kill you to apologize for the mansplaining??? 😉 )
It is interesting that the Repubs’ slim majority that we bemoaned in anticipation of a larger “red wave” probably enabled the FC to have more influence over the GOPe.
I agree absolutely ! Here’s hoping there are more members of the Freedom Caucus next election,
Clue for Lee:
It ain’t about mansplaining,
IMO. neo is quite capable of expressing simple and complex ideas succinctly or elaborately as required.
It’s her blog, remember?
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) is forming an “anti-woke caucus” in Congress:
https://americanmind.org/memo/fighting-the-woke-agenda-in-congress/
Banks says all the right things. As with McCarthy, we’ll be watching for meaningful follow-through.
Positives:
Banks is not a lawyer. He has not been professionally trained in sophistry or in coming up with pettifogging, pretextual reasons for doing nothing.
He does not tout his academic credentials (BA Indiana University, MBA Grace College)–you have to hunt for them.
Worked in small business (real estate, construction) before entering politics.
Military service in Afghanistan. (But: see Buttigieg, Pete–also from Indiana. Or Dan Crenshaw.)
His political career is relatively recent: Indiana Senate 2010-2016, U.S. Congress 2017-present.
Negatives:
Apparently cozy with that sanctimonious po-faced fraud Mike Pence. Probably unavoidable for an Indiana Republican.
Has an MBA. On the plus side, it’s from a small evangelical Christian college, so the opposite of “prestigious”.
Is encouraging military service and applications to military academies. Hard to square with his recognition that the U.S. military is now a major transmission belt, in the Leninist sense, for wokeness.
Not identified as a member of the Freedom Caucus. OTOH, he was one of the reps who received a vote for Speaker.
Ah well, can’t have everything. We’ll see if he has the necessary grit.
Hubert:
Off topic;
Drachinifel had an hour interview Admiral Chester Nimitz – Master of the Pacific with the author Trent Hone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8oJoeN99qs
The book is Mastering the Art of Command
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and Victory in the Pacific
From Hubert’s link, supporting the view that conservatives are fed up with being shafted by the people who claim to represent them:
OTOH, there is a lag in legislation and implementation, and we COULD be seeing that here, in which case the observation favors the Republicans. However, that’s a subtle point probably lost on most voters, and the GOP should probably bring that to the front page when defending their actions.
Additionaly: ” No bill that spends taxpayer dollars on leftist activities should pass out of committee without a recorded vote on an amendment to defund wokeness.”
I would extend that to ban spending on rightist activities (should any be offered), because the government should be neutral between political factions (hah), but since the Democrats define anything to the right of Stalin to be alt-right QAnon white supremacy, maybe that can wait to another day.
Relevant to Rep. Banks post:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/thought-for-the-day-the-cache-of-the-oppressed.php
As to Mansfield’s “. . . by making them a nation of dependents. . . “, see AGR’s review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (circa 1830), particularly the extended quotation of Tocqueville at minute marks 12:00 – 14:00.
This outcome [dependencies] has a wholly basic foundation [equality] and a quite long train of effects [among which, our lives as lived].
https://youtu.be/FtjZ1TtY8RI
My vote is to ban M. Bunge, who adds zero to intelligent, informed discussions here. He is merely a leftist agitator, a goad. May he live in California forever.
It’s really up to Bunge, as Neo told him. People who disagree with her or with other commenters generally stay, but not people who are deliberately rude to her or to others.
A few years ago I used to comment at Legal Insurrection. The comment section was, for a while, dominated by running and very personally nasty disputes between a pro-Trump guy and an anti-Trump guy. I think Prof. Jacobson eventually banned them both, but not before I stopped reading the comments.
Neo, I’m not defending Bunge here – I don’t follow this blog closely enough to have opinions about the usual suspects. But I didn’t find this comment of his offensive. Impolite perhaps or just impolitic. I’m not even sure it was rude. I don’t think he was directly insulting you either.
I’m of the same mind as Lee – and there is much worse out there. Maybe Bunge is well known for it and deserved that first strike. (and maybe your tamping down of his “exuberance” is a way to encourage the others as they say)
On the other hand, I’m a late middle aged white male who is known for terse and direct observation.
So take from this what you will.
Lee:
Of course your edit improves the entire thing by removing the parts I object to. It’s not the disagreement I mind, it’s the arrogant condescension, as well as the imperious ordering around.
So why you think I object to disagreement is a mystery. Plenty of people here disagree with me every day, and I either respond politely by pointing out a few reasons I disagree with them, or I don’t even respond because it’s just part of the normal blog commenting.
It is also interesting that both MBunge and you seem to think that I didn’t seek out disagreement and free discussion on this particular post. Odd, because here’s the entire content of what I wrote in the post:
Translated: What’s your opinion? Here’s mine. The only other content in the post is the video of McCarthy’s press conference.
And yet MBunge writes, “stop trying to rehabilitate Kevin McCarthy.” I find it extremely interesting that posting a video of McCarthy talking, and saying I think he did a good job and inviting others to express THEIR opinions, is now considered “rehabilitation.” It indicates to me that on some level Bunge may think the video does “rehabilitate” McCarthy, at least potentially. And apparently he thinks I should not post such videos because of the rehabilitation ban Bunge has declared I should institute? Or perhaps he thinks I should not express any opinion about something McCarthy says, if that opinion is positive?
In other words, Bunge’s position doesn’t even fit the content of the post.
Yawrate:
See my comment right above this one.
Also, you might be unaware of Bunge’s long history of rudeness and insults, some of it towards me but plenty of it towards other commenters. I actually might have banned him quite some time ago, but I am reluctant to do that and have given him many chances. Here I have given him another.
The imperious assertive voice, if I recall fifty years ago, was understood to mean, “We (mostly you) should….”
It was dumb and irritating then.
Worse now.
That said, if you want to send a letter to McCarthy to get him to do something useful, starting it out as “Dear Dishonest Butthead” is probably a loser. Or if it comes from an address which has insulted the guy forever.
You can slag him all you want after he’s out of the game. Until then, make your best case politely, including any implications of how many people you know are about to vote for his opponent.
My take is that McCarthy has been handed a situation different from the one he imagined he would have, and having recognized this and evaluated it, the competent politician is adjusting himself to the new reality. So his performance was appropriately sharp, deferential when it needed to be, and dismissive when he thought he could get away with it.
We’ll see what he actually delivers. As with all professional politicians, my take on acceptable performance is that it earns another one-day allowance of food rations, nothing more. Only consistently diligent and transparent politicians earn my support. When all the Jan 6th tapes are actually out there flooding the ethernet, I’ll re-visit.
Just ban the insufferably obnoxious jerk. I would have done so the first time he insulted you arrogantly and rudely a long time ago.
Neo, maybe I am too gullible, but I agree McCarthy did a good job.
1) good that he held a press conference at all
2) he handled questions easily, directing the order of inquiry, and closed it down and exited smoothly once a sufficient time had past and meaningful questions had been asked. Not his first rodeo.
3) he rattled off the 5 to 8 key issues easily and confidently; although we might expect that to be his job and key focus going forward
4) better than a prepared speech read off of a teleprompter; with little stumbling or other verbal ticks.
Most of us gave Trump the benefit of the doubt and a wait and see approach, so that is probably still a viable position to take with McCarthy – who will be watched closely in any case. Angie at 6:45 says it well, too.
Om: belated thanks for the link to video about Nimitz. My main takeaway from the video is that there would be no place for Nimitz–the architect of the U.S. Navy’s victory in the Pacific in WWII–or anybody like him in today’s military. We’re going to pay a heavy price for that. If you consider Afghanistan and its follow-on effects a downpayment, we’ve already started.
AesopFan: it’s infuriating that we–conservative taxpayers–are helping to pay for the destruction of our country, our heritage, and our culture, with no pushback from our so-called representatives. I hope Banks’ caucus can change this, but am not optimistic. As one commenter has said, the main business of Congress is appropriations–that is, using taxpayer money for their own professional and personal aggrandizement. Too many rice bowls at stake.