Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok, after Boehner's resignation, House Majority Leader Steve McCarthy (also recently famous for the 'the Benghazi probe was successful in doing what it was supposed to- affect Hillary's poll numbers' line) was the heir apparent for it, and seemed a total shoe-in for the job.

Until he dropped out of the running suddenly

Much to pretty much everyone's surprise, to the point that the vote for next speaker is now delayed.

Speculation engines are just warming up.


One possible reason is some of the Tea Party types were already labeling him 'another Boehner' and refusing their support (sidenote, I still find it kind of funny how they don't realize how much Boehner went to bat for them in the shutdowns and such. One complaint I saw from that corner was they didn't like how he ran things and how one had to approach his staff to get a bill on the floor, which is just how Speakers work). Seeing how they treated Boehner, McCarthy may have just thought things through and went 'nope, I'm fine where I am.'


Another factor, and one that seems to fall in line with his comments in the drop-out speech about how he wants a 'unified' choice with all the Republican votes, and not someone getting in at 220 votes or so (218 is the minimum required), is there may have been serious worry that they'd have to get some Democrat votes to get him in.... which they could fairly easily get, btw, but it'd give appearance of compromise and we can't have that, can we?


So now who the next House Speaker is is way up in the air again. Paul Ryan, another big name, has also said he's not interested.


So who's going to be House Speaker after Boehner? No-one's quite sure, and that's pretty interesting.

let me guess...he did something unethical with his weewee, and so now he needs to spend time with his family and find jesus.

I just hope it's not Jason Chaffetz, what a moron. Or maybe I do hope it is...idk, might damage Republicans.

This party is a F'ing mess

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
let me guess...he did something unethical with his weewee, and so now he needs to spend time with his family and find jesus.

Nope. He's not quitting his current job as Majority Leader, nor his seat in congress.

He's just saying, "that job everyone hates Boehner in? Yep, don't want it!".


The closest he has to a scandal is admitting the Benghazi probe was politically motivating which, yea, no duh.

He was weak, and a fool.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He was weak, and a fool.

Who do you want as Speaker?

superman

He's an illegal alien though

nice strawman, troll. reported. (sure that made no sense, but it's the cool thing to do at kmc, now)

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He was weak, and a fool.


Or possibly just quite sensible at seeing the job as the problem post that it is.

No-one can be obstructionist enough to make the Tea Party happy- and they're going to have to promise to be if they want the TP's support. Getting in without tea party support means likely having to constantly fight within the party to keep the job.

It's a tough position for anyone, who really could get the whole Republican party behind them right now?

hehe "TP". i see what you did, even if you didn't.

Originally posted by Q99
Or possibly just quite sensible at seeing the job as the problem post that it is.

No-one can be obstructionist enough to make the Tea Party happy- and they're going to have to promise to be if they want the TP's support. Getting in without tea party support means likely having to constantly fight within the party to keep the job.

It's a tough position for anyone, who really could get the whole Republican party behind them right now?

That's not his problem. He's a foolish. And weak.

He did always strike me as a foolish and a weak.

Seriously, you won't be happy with anyone who doesn't completely ruin your country. If they in any way compromise with Democrats they are stupid, weak, foolish, traitors, etc.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not his problem. He's a foolish. And weak.

How's he foolish? How's he weak?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not his problem. He's a foolish. And weak.


What do you want to see in a speaker, and importantly, how do you see them getting the job when they need the support of Republicans who like Boehner and McCarthy and similar?

Originally posted by Robtard
How's he foolish? How's he weak?

Do I have to answer what you already know the answer to?

Originally posted by Bardock42
He did always strike me as a foolish and a weak.

Seriously, you won't be happy with anyone who doesn't completely ruin your country. If they in any way compromise with Democrats they are stupid, weak, foolish, traitors, etc.

Quote me saying this, or retract your claim, liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do I have to answer what you already know the answer to?


Actually, yea. Your statements are vague and lacking in specifics. Knowing you, we can guess the general direction of your objections, but writing things down is how communication works, how people learn the specifics.

Without that, it's just vague growsing, and we don't really know your reasons.

He chose to step down because he was only going to get 220 votes instead of his target of 240.

Btw, 220 votes still makes him speaker.

He's foolish and weak.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He chose to step down because he was only going to get 220 votes instead of his target of 240.

Btw, 220 votes still makes him speaker.

He's foolish and weak.

Ok, so purely on his stated reason for dropping out, got it.

Note that in likelyhood, he'd need some Dems to get to that level. Think about what having to rely on Democrats would mean for a Republican speaker in this current Republican party climate, and how people would use that against him.


So sure, he'd get in, but with strong opposition. Basically, he'd enter exactly where Boehner is now, which is not a fun spot- you yourself have complained about him a lot, and a large part of that is due to Boehner's position. Indeed, the shakey support would make it hard for him to be any stronger a speaker, since he'd be too close to the edge of being replaced, like Boehner.

Not wanting that doesn't strike me as foolish. Unambitious sure, but that's not the same as foolish or weak.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, so purely on his stated reason for dropping out, got it.

Note that in likelyhood, he'd need some Dems to get to that level. Think about what having to rely on Democrats would mean for a Republican speaker in this current Republican party climate, and how people would use that against him.


So sure, he'd get in, but with strong opposition. Basically, he'd enter exactly where Boehner is now, which is not a fun spot- you yourself have complained about him a lot, and a large part of that is due to Boehner's position. Indeed, the shakey support would make it hard for him to be any stronger a speaker, since he'd be too close to the edge of being replaced, like Boehner.

Not wanting that doesn't strike me as foolish. Unambitious sure, but that's not the same as foolish or weak.

He would need less suport from dems if he got in at 220 and more if he got in at 240, so what you say makes zero sense in the light of things.

Boehner was a shill and an empty suit. Now that Paul Ryan is in the running, I am happy Kevin stepped down, Kevin would be another empty suit.

Someone will be speaker, and the right person will be appointed. I know you can't wait for another Obama yes man to show his face again like Boner.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Someone will be speaker, and the right person will be appointed. I know you can't wait for another Obama yes man to show his face again like Boner.

Hey Time, remember that thread the other day where I showed you that Boehner's time as speaker has been the most obstructionisting, least-yes-saying on record, by a wide margin? That half as many laws happened under him each year than even prior low years?


This definition of 'yes man' as 'someone who's willing to let anything pass, at all,' is pretty silly... and, to the point, I don't think you're going to find one who's actually interested in shutting down everything and would get enough support from Republicans, because too many have interest in the government continuing to function.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not his problem. He's a foolish. And weak.
I read this with a Mario accent.
Originally posted by Bardock42
He did always strike me as a foolish and a weak.

Seriously, you won't be happy with anyone who doesn't completely ruin your country. If they in any way compromise with Democrats they are stupid, weak, foolish, traitors, etc.
It would explain his support for Trump.

Seriously, for someone who claims not to be a Republican, TI is pretty vociferous about people he perceives as "not Republican enough"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I read this with a Mario accent.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quote me saying this, or retract your claim, liar.

I will not retract it. For one I never said this was a direct quote, it's a summary of your stance based on 1) your opposition to the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough and 2) your support for government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act).

If either 1 or 2 are not an accurate representation of your point please tell me so, and clarify your stance...

I do find it kinda interesting how reluctant Time is to explain his reasonings.

McCarthy decides he doesn't want the job, and is called foolish and weak. Paul Ryan says the same thing, and... he isn't?

I'm curious, shouldn't Ryan and McCarthy get similar labels, for doing the same thing (decline running for speakership) for similar reasons (being more happy with their current position, not wanting that difficult job)?






---
Also, I must post a retraction: I totally brainfarted on McCarthy's name when writing the thread title. It is, of course, Kevin McCarthy. I'd also like to thank you all for not noticing my error until I had a chance to ^^

in all likelihood, someone on foxnews called him "foolish" and "weak", and TI just ran with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I will not retract it. For one I never said this was a direct quote, it's a summary of your stance based on 1) your opposition to the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough and 2) your support for government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act).

If either 1 or 2 are not an accurate representation of your point please tell me so, and clarify your stance...

Quite me saying it or retract your claim, large liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it or retract your claim, large liar.

So, are

1) You oppose the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough

and

2) You support government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act)

correct summaries of your position or do you believe something different?

Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.

Jesus, the more you repeat it the more the sentence devolves into gibberish.

Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

*quite

Originally posted by Bardock42
Jesus, the more you repeat it the more the sentence devolves into gibberish.

Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

Nice to see you dodge your way out of making a claim I never said.

Moving on, liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice to see you dodge your way out of making a claim I never said.

Moving on, liar.

Yeah, lets move on. So, I think you and the Tea Party people definitely want an even more obstructionist leader than Boehner already wars. I definitely think that would be pretty devastating both to the Republican party and the US as a whole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, lets move on. So, I think you and the Tea Party people definitely want an even more obstructionist leader than Boehner already wars. I definitely think that would be pretty devastating both to the Republican party and the US as a whole.

More lies, which you cannot back up. Nor do you have proof of your claims. You clearly cannot understand simple things.

Do you want a speaker that works together more with Democrats or less than Boehner did?

Yes, now what, you liar.

it was an either/or question.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it was an either/or question.

Oh really, I thought it was just a stupid question.

it was a completely reasonable question.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.

He never said you said it in the first place, just said what he thought you thought.


Regardless of his statement, it'd still be helpful if you clarified anyway. If he's wrong, can't you just prove him wrong by providing a counter-example? That'd prove his impression was incorrect and put an end to it (which still wouldn't make him a liar, just wrong- which are two different things).


You've called both Boehner weak on these grounds, so is it the willingness to work with Democrats at all, even while being historically obstructionist and only doing so under extreme conditions, that automatically disqualifies someone in your eyes? Is Paul Ryan foolish and weak for declining to the role like McCarthy did, or is it because you view McCarthy as unlikely to be obstructionist enough (but not Ryan), or is it something else?

What do you want from a House Speaker?


Or to put it another way, people are less likely to speculate out loud on what your reasoning is if you just state your reasoning.

We need a non politician as speaker. I was thinking someone like George Clooney or Sean Hannity.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We need a non politician as speaker. I was thinking someone like George Clooney or Sean Hannity.


Interesting, and I'm going to assume that's a joke.


You really are avoiding making your reasonings known on this one...


You'll loudly say who you don't want, but are avoiding follow-up questions or explanations hard.

Originally posted by Q99
Interesting, and I'm going to assume that's a joke.


You really are avoiding making your reasonings known on this one...


You'll loudly say who you don't want, but are avoiding follow-up questions or explanations hard.

Appears you didn't know you don't have to be a representative to be speaker. I guess you're not that wise as you think.

Oh, I know*, but you're still making joking suggestions even within that.

If you'd said Eric Cantor or someone else like that, I'd find it more serious. Plus, you still aren't really explaining your motives for what you want in a speaker in general, be they from the house or elsewhere. I still find that interesting.

And in pure practicality terms, an outsider is generally going to have an even higher problem getting the votes.


*Though, sidenote, knowledge of the ins and outs of congress and wisdom are two separate things. Knowledge is based on whether or not someone has heard something, nothing more. Like upthread where I informed you that there was enough Republicans to get to 240. Did that knowledge affect your wisdom? No, it affected your knowledge base, a different thing.

----

This article goes a bit into what the problem is



Ok, simple obstacle right there- anyone that wants to go pure Republican needs this group. Simple, right?

Next step.



A common talking point for some Republican politicians, but...



-Note, Donald Trump has talked about *not* cutting them, and suffered no serious backlash for doing so. Which I'm with him on, btw.

So this is something only *some* Republicans are for to begin with.



Or to put it another way, the House Speaker doesn't have power to force this change, only to do a shutdown over it unless the Democrats blink- and we already know the Democrats are entirely willing to go shutdown on this matter.

So in short, it is making a house speaker sign an "I will do a government shutdown" pledge.

During a presidential race.

And furthermore,


They want to stop all appropriations/do a shutdown unless the Democrats give up on *every* major Obama policy- the ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, amnesty for immigrants, etc..

Which is completely disproportionate to what avoiding a shutdown would be worth, so, again, not a snowball's chance.

to sum up:


They require a multi-level written pledge to shut down the government indefinitely in exchange for stuff they can't get.

It's asking any would-be speaker to tie a 100-lbs weight around their ankle before going swimming. It'll never work and everyone aiming for the job knows it.

And you *need* this group to win the job going straight republican.

Unless they abandoned the Freedom Caucus for bi-partisan support, and makes enemies of them FC instead.

Oops, minor correction- That one is to avoid a debt crisis- which is national economic suicide.


The ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, *and* amnesty for immigrants is in 'exchange' for no shutdown- and offering nothing other than the continued operation of the government in exchange for multiple major policies is not much of a selling point.

So, two separate sets of pledges, neither of which work. That's what anyone who wants the job has to face- it's like Charybdis, threatening to drown anyone who signs.


And on the other side, Scylla- going elsewhere for votes, and thus almost certainly losing people to primary challenges launched in retaliation.

Is there a way through? Perhaps, but no-one seems to see it.

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, I know*, but you're still making joking suggestions even within that.

If you'd said Eric Cantor or someone else like that, I'd find it more serious. Plus, you still aren't really explaining your motives for what you want in a speaker in general, be they from the house or elsewhere. I still find that interesting.

And in pure practicality terms, an outsider is generally going to have an even higher problem getting the votes.


*Though, sidenote, knowledge of the ins and outs of congress and wisdom are two separate things. Knowledge is based on whether or not someone has heard something, nothing more. Like upthread where I informed you that there was enough Republicans to get to 240. Did that knowledge affect your wisdom? No, it affected your knowledge base, a different thing.

----

This article goes a bit into what the problem is



Ok, simple obstacle right there- anyone that wants to go pure Republican needs this group. Simple, right?

Next step.



A common talking point for some Republican politicians, but...



-Note, Donald Trump has talked about *not* cutting them, and suffered no serious backlash for doing so. Which I'm with him on, btw.

So this is something only *some* Republicans are for to begin with.



Or to put it another way, the House Speaker doesn't have power to force this change, only to do a shutdown over it unless the Democrats blink- and we already know the Democrats are entirely willing to go shutdown on this matter.

So in short, it is making a house speaker sign an "I will do a government shutdown" pledge.

During a presidential race.

And furthermore,


They want to stop all appropriations/do a shutdown unless the Democrats give up on *every* major Obama policy- the ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, amnesty for immigrants, etc..

Which is completely disproportionate to what avoiding a shutdown would be worth, so, again, not a snowball's chance.

to sum up:


They require a multi-level written pledge to shut down the government indefinitely in exchange for stuff they can't get.

It's asking any would-be speaker to tie a 100-lbs weight around their ankle before going swimming. It'll never work and everyone aiming for the job knows it.

And you *need* this group to win the job going straight republican.

Unless they abandoned the Freedom Caucus for bi-partisan support, and makes enemies of them FC instead.

You are silly to think that no one would listen to Clooney or Hannity..they both have interesting idea's.

It's not a matter of being interesting, it's the matter of it being a job that heavily involves procedures and knowledge of how the House works, and which has a lot of power within the house and therefore house members have a reason to want to keep in-house.

You'd get grumblings if a senator got the job, let alone entertainers.


I don't think they could get close to the support, even if it weren't for the Freedom Caucus/Establishment split. Clooney's not going to acceptable to them!



---

Article, largely Op-ed, but has some interesting bits on Ryan



Breitbart article


So there's some rebellion against the idea of Paul Ryan getting the job- interesting using almost the exact same language Time here uses on McCarthy.