Here’s my question about Gaetz’s method of removing McCarthy
As just about everyone who reads this blog already knows, the mechanism Gaetz used to get rid of McCarthy as Speaker was basically to allow the Democrats and a small GOP group to remove a Republican Speaker through the alliance of eight Republicans and every single Democrat.
The only reason I can see that this hadn’t occurred before was convention – plus it would be very difficult for such a tiny group to do it unless the majority margin was small. But it certainly might have happened. However, it was understood that, although legal, such a move might be suicidal, destructive, chaotic (whichever adjective you prefer) because basically any Speaker would be thus threatened if he or she disappointed even a very small number of his or her party members. With 221 Republicans in the House right now, it can almost be guaranteed that any Speaker would anger or disappoint or frustrate at least a tiny number of GOP members of the House. It’s basically inevitable.
Let’s put aside for a moment whether you think McCarthy was an okay Speaker or whether you think he dearly needed removal. My question is this: now that Gaetz has crossed the Rubicon, what’s to stop any other small group from doing the same thing? Power is intoxicating; how exciting to be able to exercise it with just a few colleagues! You might theorize that, in fact, Gaetz had more supporters than we know and that others would have voted with him if necessary. But that’s just a theory, and it’s irrelevant to my question because the removal could have been accomplished by that small group alone without any support or help at all from any other Republican. And I don’t think the Democrats would be at all reluctant to continue to cooperate with Republican chaos, and the removal of a succession of GOP Speakers.
Many people say, so what? The House GOP isn’t doing much anyway (and of course their power is limited by the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the presidency). But a demonstration of that sort of continuing and repeated chaos and dissension on the part of Republicans would, IMHO, lead to them losing both houses in 2024. And if that happens, we’ll see just how different a Democrat legislature is from a Republican one, especially if the president is also a Democrat.
But back to my question: what’s to stop other small factions from doing the same to any GOP member who replaces McCarthy as Speaker? Is it just the fear that it would backfire on the right and enable the left? That certainly didn’t stop Gaetz.
And that’s assuming McCarthy can be replaced fairly quickly and without too much fuss. If that happens, and if the rest of the GOP manages to stay its hand and not follow in Gaetz’s footsteps in terms of Democrat-aided Speaker-removal, then this storm will pass. But if not? Well, He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
}}} And if that happens, we’ll see just how different a Democrat legislature is from a Republican one, especially if the president is also a Democrat.
Actually, we’ve already seen this. As one of your previous and recent posts points out, it’s far more common for the Dems than for the GOP in the last 100y.
IIRC, it’s pretty much how we got stuck with ObamaCare.
And it is a huge part of the steady destruction of the Rule of Law and the Gramscian March of the PostModern Left through our social conventions.
First, let’s put to rest the idea that the method used to remove McCarthy was a break with tradition.
Restoration of the Motion to Vacate the Chair
“The House may remove its Speaker via a motion to vacate the Chair, which is agreed to by a simple majority vote. Throughout most of the history of the House, any Member could force a vote on the Speakership since the question was privileged, meaning it takes precedence over other business. (However, the House has never removed a Speaker.) Under the previous Democratic majority, the House changed rules to afford the motion privilege only if a party caucus or conference voted for its leader to offer it. The rules package for the 118th Congress removed the provision conferring status on the motion only if offered by party leadership, meaning any Member may now offer a privileged motion to vacate the Chair.”
Your question is a legitimate concern. Jim Jordan was asked that question today. The question actually was why would you want to be speaker if the rule remains in place. Jordan replied that he wouldn’t use the change as a pre-requisite to accepting the job.
I would assume that if Jordan, or Scalise, or someone else has sufficient support, the conference would change the rule– just so Democrat could use it to harass the Republican conference. They could just change the rule to what the Democrats had instituted in the previous Congress.
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2023/01/11/house-rules-118th-congress/
Now on to an interesting bit of fallout over this. Pelosi has been asked to vacate her office– which will now be used by McCarthy. And according to this news report, it was McCarthy, not the temporary speaker who is behind this.
The article intimates payback since Pelosi had told McCarthy their caucus would not use the tactic of voting against him just to enable a small portion of his conference.
https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2023/10/04/the-whole-mchenry-kicks-pelosi-out-of-her-hideaway-office-story-gets-even-more-amusing-n2164688
Brian E:
The method used by Gaetz was indeed a break with tradition.
I’m not talking about “one vote to vacate” – not that tradition. I don’t mention that in my post. I’ve been talking about a different tradition, which is that such a vote has never before been accomplished though the mechanism of 100% (or a large portion) of the opposition party plu a small group from the Speaker’s own party.
Never has happened before, because there was a convention that that was not cricket and also that it would backfire on the Speaker’s party.
Yes, the move by Gaetz was unprecedented, but we’ve seen unprecedented occurrences regularly (gender fluidity for example) that tradition doesn’t have the same reverence as it did decades ago.
Now you could claim hypocrisy on my part (or at least inconsistency, since as I conservative, I often wish for a culture that respects tradition.
Here’s some more tradition down the drain: “Naturally, the move prompted some wailing from Pelosi, who proclaimed that the decision (for her to vacate her office) was “a sharp departure from tradition.” It was kind of an ironic statement to make considering, as my colleague Bonchie noted, ousting a House Speaker – which Pelosi’s fellow Democrats ultimately supported even after she allegedly told McCarthy prior to him becoming Speaker she would push back against such a move – is quite a departure from tradition as well.”
My position is this would have been a good time to play hardball with the budget. My understanding is the House may now tie the Ukraine spending to some meaningful change in the border policy. Would McCarthy have supported that, or was he too risk averse?
But to answer your question, it will be up to the conference to change the rule to something similar to the Democrat rule in the previous Congress. We’ll see how noble the moderates and GOPe are– or whether payback is the order of the day.
Brian E:
How quaint, its up to the moderate Republicans to cut the radicals (Rep. Blue Balls and the Seven Dwarves) some slack and not trim their sails.
The Gang of Eight would never stoop so low again; oust another Speaker by voting with all the Democrats. That’s inconcievable.
It would be unprecedented.
Even a moderate Republican isn’t that much a fool to believe the Gang of Eight won’t do it again.
Principles indeed.
1. ” But a demonstration of that sort of continuing and repeated chaos and dissension on the part of Republicans would, IMHO, lead to them losing both houses in 2024.”
Why would it do that? Note, that doesn’t say “might” or “risks”, but “would”. Frankly, I doubt most of the public is paying the kind of attention we see here. I really don’t get that.
2. Nor do I see why the fact that it was a small number of Rs and all the Ds makes this a big deal. So what?
3. It may or may not be costly. I haven’t the faintest idea.
Brian E and Eeyore:
‘That which is rewarded is repeated.’
The way this occurred reminds me of how a parliamentary system operates in several countries. Small parties can have major impacts on the government.
Multiple parties cause coalition governments and the loss of a small faction can cause the collapse of who is ruling.
Perhaps this is an indication that political parties, especially the Republican, need to look after their constituents better to prevent the factions from causing a loss of power.
In 1910, Republican Speaker Joe Cannon, who had just faced a revolt by his caucus on a resolution concerning committee assignments, introduced a motion to vacate his own Speakership; he was sure the motion would fail, showing that he still had the backing of a majority of the House. Cannon’s plan succeeded, with the House rejecting the motion by a majority of 37 (155 Ayes to 192 Noes). Some of the Republicans who opposed Cannon nonetheless voted against, since they did not want to face the risk of him being replaced by a Democratic Speaker.
Cannon was out when the Democrats took over Congress in the next elections, 1910.
In 2015, Representative Mark Meadows filed a motion to vacate the speakership of John Boehner. Since the motion was not introduced on the floor, it was non-privileged and was referred to the Rules Committee instead of being subject to an immediate vote by the full House. Although the proposal was never voted upon, it still contributed to Boehner’s decision to resign in September 2015.
Eeyore:
You may or many not have noticed that the word “would” is followed by “IMHO,” which stand for “in my humble opinion.” That is the qualifier, of course.
Do I really need to explain why that is my opinion? But I will anyway: that is how the MSM will spin it and has spun anything remotely resembling that in the past from the GOP, often with great success. The MSM still has great influence and ability to set the “narrative.” And in this case, they will have a point. It may not be a chaos that people on the right who support Gaetz mind, but a lot of other people will indeed mind it.
You say you don’t see why it matters that this is a small number of Republicans and all the Democrats. It gives the Democrats tremendous power. And it indicates that the Democrats understand full well that it is in their interests to support McCarthy’s ouster – or at least, they strongly believe it is to their benefit. Time will tell.
It is unprecedented for a reason.
Brian E:
It was the Gaetz wing that insisted on reinstating the rule in order to accept McCarthy’s Speakership in the first place. They knew they could use it to oust him. They had him over a barrel.
So now you are proposing that the anti-Gaetz wing should change the rule back, if a Speaker is installed that the pro-Gaetz wing likes? Cool!
Why on earth would they agree to do that? Perhaps Gaetz and company will make it a condition of their voting for a new Speaker and ending the chaos?
Nicely Machiavellian.
I had missed the “heads I win, tails you loose” aspect of the rule change favored by Brian E and the Gang of Eight. However Jordan and Scalise have principles, unlike the little nest of scorpions.
Scorpions have eight legs, conincdence or conspiracy? I think not! (sarc)
To focus upon the eight Republicans is to fail to see the forest for the trees. If the Republican Party doesn’t start to actually fight with everything they have… which starts with using the budget as a club… Offering multiple, single item bills such as one that only funds the military with nothing else included… it’s over. The only real weapon the Republicans have is the money purse.
We need another Grant in both the House and Senate, no more McClellans.
What the majority of congressional Republicans have so far failed to grasp is that their reelection now depends upon actually defending the people who elected them. Too many people are fed up and the Internet has allowed a microscope to be focused upon the actions of their elected representatives.
Geoffrey Britain:
I am focusing on the 8 right now because this is the news right now, what we’re dealing with right now. I’ve written tons of pieces on what the right needs to do in general, over many many years.
By the way, as I’ve said before, if Jordan is Speaker I’m fine with it. That doesn’t mean Gaetz hasn’t set a dangerous precedent. But maybe we will dodge that bullet.
Grant and Sherman understood strategy and how to implement it. They also understood the costs.
Rep. Blue Balls and the Seven Dwarves appear to understand neither strategy nor tactics. What’s the plan except causing chaos in “your” own ranks?
Fragging your own officers, that’s how you win a long war, Geoffrey?
“So now you are proposing that the anti-Gaetz wing should change the rule back, if a Speaker is installed that the pro-Gaetz wing likes? Cool!”– Neo
I’m assuming there exists at lease one single individual in the country that both sides can trust.
In hindsight, the 21 conservatives should have blocked his winning back in January. The moderate/GOPe seemed like they were going to force him on the conference regardless of the cost.
Was there no one else in the entire Republican party that would have won the support other than McCarthy? After a dozen or so votes maybe they should have rethought his nomination.
So moving forward, is there no one both conservatives and GOPe trust enough to put in that position? What a sad state for the Republican party.
What I said was if that person exists, then the need for the single member veto would be less significant. What I read you writing is that Gaetz was petty and self-serving from your viewpoint, and the GOPe/moderates should retain their right to be just as petty and self-serving as payback.
So….I’m not sure I have this accurately. McCarthy called for the vote on Speaker having arranged privately with Pelosi – the leader of the Democrat faction – that they would support him in the vote? And then when the vote was taken, 100% of the Democrats voted against him.
McCarthy was conniving with the Democrats as a way of avoiding having to deal with his own intra-Party issues? He’d rather arrange for support with his titular opposition? Hmm. And he trusted them.
I can see why he’s peeved and demanding his office space now, though – it would appear he’s been thoroughly chumped and publicly humiliated. Pelosi has shown him who is top dog in California and the US House.
Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise would be good choices for replacement, I think.
Brian E:
No, not should be in the moral sense. But probably will be, or at least have every right to be, in the tactical sense. A big reason a person shouldn’t do what Gaetz did is that he sets it up for payback time. Now, whether they will pay him back is anybody’s guess.
As for whether there is one person both conservatives and GOPe trust enough to put in that position, that’s a very interesting question. The reason what Gaetz did is dangerous is that it empowers a VERY small group of dissatisfied people to undo the will of the vast majority. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Jim Jordan is the choice of the vast majority of the GOP members of the House, and they vote him into the position. The “vast majority” is not the same as “every single one.” There are 221 GOP members of the House at present. Let’s say that 213 like and approve of Jim Jordan and the remaining 8 do not. They can get rid of him if the Democrats join with them to do it – and the Democrats would certainly be strongly motivated to join with them. And this, despite the fact that Jordan would indeed have been someone “both conservatives and GOPe trust enough to put in that position.” You cannot please 100% of all 212, however. It is virtually impossible to do that. Eight people of 212 is 3.6%, which is a tiny percentage, but enough to have toppled McCarthy. And yes, maybe more GOP House members than 8 agreed with the Gaetz wing, but we don’t know if they did, we don’t know how many, and they certainly didn’t go on record as supporting it.
What IS a sad state of affairs is requiring nearly 100% agreement in order to have a Speaker continue to hold the office. That is a recipe for trouble.
I’m hoping, however, that if Jordan is selected, the moderates take the high road and don’t repeat Gaetz’s removal tactics.
Brain E objects to turnabout being fair play.
Poor Rep. Blue Balls, he leid down with the dogs and now he has consequences? F around and find out, Matt.
Aggie objects to, McCarthy, not to the consequences of Rep. Blue Ball’s actions. Democrats approve and undoubtablly say, more please, Matt!
No Republican should EVER assume a Democrat pol will behave in a manner that respects the rules, customs, and traditions of an institution over the possibility there might be some short term political benefit.
Aggie seems to have higher regard for Pelosi than McCarthy. Very strange, the Pyro(?) mind.
om, you are wrong, simply put. Impute your own thoughts.
A “correction” (my thought not Christopher B’s)
Christopher B is correct and he may object to my modification of his work.
Aggie:
Well, you never know until you ask. Strange way you put down one and raised up the other. The queen bee of California politics is still not the Speaker though.
Shouldn’t his open declaration that he is a weasel harm Gaetz’s career in Congress?
So….I’m not sure I have this accurately. McCarthy called for the vote on Speaker having arranged privately with Pelosi – the leader of the Democrat faction – that they would support him in the vote? And then when the vote was taken, 100% of the Democrats voted against him.
Aggie: I am not expert on the details, but my understanding is that McCarthy and Pelosi had that conversation after the November 2022 election, when Pelosi was outgoing speaker and McCarthy was trying to please Gaetz and his gang in order to secure the speakership for himself. Pelosi isn’t her faction’s leader anymore. Hakeem Jeffries is. That’s not to say that Pelosi would have lived up to her assurance if she had been leader, though.
The point of the rules change is that the Speaker doesn’t call for the removal vote. If one representative wants a vote, there’s a vote. I don’t know if McCarthy even consulted with Jeffries about what the Democrats would do. Not doing so was overconfident and foolish, but the time for such a conversation would have been before Gaetz made the motion. Afterwards would have been too late.
@Abraxas, Thanks for the constructive insights.
Brain E:
Speaking of unexpected consequences of Rep. Blue Ball’s excellent House adventure and Ukraine.
Oh noes you say?
H/T RedState
https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/10/05/putins-war-week-84-n2164708
Gaetz’s little gambit gave the Democrats more contol over spending. Smooth move for a scorpion.
Why should I care what Erick Erickson thinks?
Just maybe he knows about the process. Inconceivable. Unexpected consequences of unplanned actions.
Sort of like Vlad.
I have a different perspective on these recent historical events.
The MSM no longer has “great influence,” nor does it “set the narrative,” except among those in a very specific geographic area and in a rapidly aging demographic, well documented by subscription/viewership data.
The rest of the world has moved on to a multitude of non-propaganda sources for its information, or at least knows to dig deeper than what CNN blasts their way if a situation interests them. (You see how many unique readers you have each day!)
It is why the government has to CENSOR social media, collude with Google–to CONTROL our information to that of the MSM. Too many people go elsewhere.
You live among people who are so ill informed, many so limited in life experience, that they don’t know when they are being lied to. (Too risky to question The Narrative.) (I just spent another summer with them. Stunningly ill informed. Willfully, I have had to conclude.). You are enveloped in that Blue Cloud (not a criticism; statement of fact. I’ve lived there too.)
Where you live, the “useful idiots” still read NYT and listen to NPR (as did I for four decades) ; in the real world west of I-95, people who work and produce for a living know better than to waste their time with those instruments of propaganda.
A large majority of Americans never got a third shot; a majority of Americans think the 2020 election lacked integrity; only 11% of Americans hold Congress in a positive light. Most do NOT support funding Ukraine.
These people are not following/falling for The Narrative.
(I have no doubt this is NOT your experience with your neighbors/colleagues.)
I find the following brief history of Rs in Congress to be an outstanding explanation/reminder of why early polling shows a majority of R voters have no problem with what Gaetz et al did Tuesday; why Trump is leading resoundingly in all primary polls:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/10/03/kevin-mccarthy-tells-republican-caucus-he-will-not-seek-speakership-again-heres-my-thoughts/
TL;DR.
Like Nancy Mace–we ALL hate being lied to.
Being betrayed. As R voters have been for 13 long years now.
Like Rep. Mace, we all tolerate it only so long.
And no, we do not “just not understand politics” or “how the game is played.”
Nobody GIVES power–it must be taken.
You ONLY have power of the purse Kevin–you don’t give it to Biden as you did.
(And why didn’t all of these budget bills get out of committee? You knew when September 30 was this year. Why did you dismiss for six weeks?
Why are they home for a week right now? How beta, McHenry. What pathetic optics. Unless– your intent is to feed the “chaos” Narrative; to NOT get a budget by November 17th, but another CR.)
We also understand a lack of political courage; outright corruption even.
(yes Mitt Romney, I am talking to you about your chief of staff’s position on Burisma board. Yet you presume to lecture me about values. And sit in judgement on DJT.)
McCarthy is who FAFOd.
And it is he who clearly “made deals with Ds”–way back in January.
How else would he have expected Pelosi to “have his back”?
(If he was stupid enough to do that, to trust the Ds, he hasn’t been paying attention.Far better to endure “the chaos” and moving on to a new, less naive Speaker.)
McCarthy slow walked the budget, necessitating yet another CR, after completely capitulating to Biden in his “negotiations”–where he gave them the extension to 2025!
FAFO, for sure.
Reminder–this budget has no debt ceiling; it allows for an immediate TWO TRILLION dollar shortfall; we have a THIRTY THREE TRILLION dollar debt right now.
Economic security is national security.
No believers in that Magic Money Theory here, are there?
That money can be printed at will with no consequences, as long as we hold hands and all believe in Tinkerbell, or something like that.
Because the BRICs nations and the twenty two sign-ons have told us very very clearly they no longer are believers. They are letting go of our hands.
We are already in the dedollarization.
Question is how bad it will be; where we’ll end up in the new line up.
What life will be like not being number one.
Hopefully a new, trustworthy Speaker will grasp that.
Exactly how long are we to be Charlie Brown with Lucy telling us she’ll hold the football, if you just vote for her? Don’t disrupt the status quo in the House.
That WAS the game; the rules got changed back in January.
New rules, new game.
McCarthy agreed to them–thinking he had a side deal. With the enemy.
Perhaps now he gets that this is a civil war, a matter of securing national security, not a “difference of opinion on policy.”
And yes, “May you live in interesting times” is indeed a curse.
May we soon live in somewhat less interesting times.
Erickson has proved what a slithy tove he is, again and again,
yes the Senate wants to make Ukraine the 51st state, like some kids want a pony,
A good reason to support Jim Jordan for speaker: Liz Cheney opposes him. 🙂
I have yet to see anyone put forward a workable plan for “fighting harder,” or how another Speaker could have accomplished more with the current Republican House majority that McCarthy.
So McCarthy should have shut down the goverment and kept it shut down until Democrats relent? Why would Democrats relent? Shutdowns are always political disasters for Republicans and political wins for Democrats. We would have weeks of Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) running ads and stories about Special Olympians who can’t complete for lack of funding, kids losing their music lessons because grants are late, national parks shut down, military and federal law enforcement families going without paychecks, and so on.
And somehow this won’t crater Republican favorability, just has it has every time the tactic has been tried in the past 30 years? It’s going to be different this time? Or is the play that if Republicans just hold out long enough and “fight” hard enough that Democrats will relent, amid disasterous poll numbers for Republicans?
And if the answer is about procedural things, like starting appropriations bills earlier, then there needs to be an explanation of how that would have made things any different? Would Democrats be more likely to fold if McCarthy had started appropriations bills in May instead of August? Why?
Sadly, I don’t think that Americans are going to stand for fiscal discipline until the resulting pain from (i.e., inflation, interest rates, recessions) becomes greater than the pain of cutting spending and reforming entitlements. That’s just a byproduct of a two party system where one party is completely unserious about fiscal restraint and the other only gets fiscal religion when it lacks the power to do anything about it. Somebody is always going to be promising another round.
It doesn’t help that we’ve been continuously helping ourselves to progressively bigger rounds throughout the 21st century without any ill effect until the past few years, and even now it’s not as bad as it was in the 1970’s and early 1980’s (i.e., in the living memory of a lot of adults).
That’s the limitation and the challenge for those of us who see much bigger troubles coming in the future.
miguel cervantes – So what is your plan? What should McCarthy have done? What is Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise going to do to succeed where McCarthy failed? I hear a lot of conclusory comments like yours (i.e., if he had done what I think he should have he would still be speaker). OK, so what should he have done and why and how would it have worked?
And please identify the “lie[s] from the press” and excuses “from the leadership” that I’m supposedly accepting.
(FWIW – I have no problem with Jordan or Scalise as Speaker, but I have no confidence whatsoever that they will get better results than McCarthy.)
A tome from Lee, and a long one too.
But in the end Matt Gaetz voted with all the Democrats to get McCarthy. Lee can’t spin that away; Gaetz didn’t just talk betrayal he followed through. FAFO indeed.
Gaetz, the new, improved, “Maverick” of the House.
McCain of banning free speech, or preventing military tribunals, or blocking obamacare, that Jacob Marley who still skulks around,
Here’s a plan. I would suggest, if nothing else, Jordan’s style is more direct and will resonate with conservatives and Republicans.
McCarthy’s style was too insider Washington. I think McCarthy was responsible for the 2022 version of the Contract with America, and in my opinion, it was completely ineffective. I think Jordan is feisty, while still being controlled.
Jim Jordan makes his case for speakership: ‘I can bring our team together’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNXHJ_M3o9Y
Bauxite:
I think the argument is that another Speaker would force a shutdown. Why that would be better – or whether it would – isn’t clear, except it would show more fight and more defiance. In the past, the shutdowns have backfired on the GOP for the most part.
That’s why I say people advocating the idea that another Speaker would have somehow managed to do better are not being realistic. However, if Jordan becomes Speaker, I guess we’ll get to see whether he can do better.
Lee:
That Sundance article you linked was linked before by a previous commenter, and I responded to it. I will do so again. And perhaps I’ll write a post about it, too.
You write of the Sundance article, “I find the following brief history of Rs in Congress to be an outstanding explanation/reminder of why early polling shows a majority of R voters have no problem with what Gaetz et al did Tuesday; why Trump is leading resoundingly in all primary polls…”
And yet are you aware that the factual information in that article is ignorant, incorrect, or perhaps a deliberate lie (I don’t know which)? I wrote many many posts in real time about what happened with the GOP and Obamacare, and Sundance is just plain wrong. Here, for the sake of brevity, I will only link to two of my posts on the subject that give an overview of the actual facts as opposed to the mythology: see this, which discusses the history up to April of 2016, and then see this about subsequent efforts.
Bauxite:
What should McCarthy have done? What is Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise going to do to succeed where McCarthy failed?
That’s easy: No direct or side deals for funding you know what. Jordan’s recent answer on that is dead on.
Speaking of Hunter Biden (and you know what), Non Profit Efforts To Find (You Know What)’s Missing Children Hire Hunter Biden Linked Consultants. There’s been a lot of ostensibly good intentioned money headed in that direction, most of which has enriched the worst people.
Banned Lizard:
Wasn’t the side deal on a temporary measure (I think 45 days) to avoid a shutdown? So wouldn’t avoiding a side deal involve a shutdown? And wasn’t it Gaetz’s group that wouldn’t vote for some of the bills that didn’t involve side deals? I’m in a hurry and not going to look it up right now, but those are my questions and those are my recollections, although I could be wrong.
You can find my answer to Bauxite’s question here.
If I’m not mistaken, favoring the dropping of funding for the Ukraine war effort is by no means a unanimous or near-unanimous position among the GOP members of the House. I’m curious to know how Jordan, if he becomes Speaker, will get enough them to agree on such a thing.
Neo:
I too am curious to see how the drama plays out – especially considering the Senate, where Cory Booker and bipartisan allies vow shutdown if Ukraine funds are not forthcoming. We shall see whether funding or not funding Ukraine is judged to be the better shutdown hill to die on.
Boned Loser:
We will see how much power Vlad’s fans have in the budget process.
“Hill to die on,” own goal, own goal.