Maybe
you guys have been following the brouhaha, but basically Boehner
stepped down as Speaker, Majority Leader (and heir apparent) McCarthy
withdrew his candidacy, and now no one (who is capable of getting the
200+ votes to pass) wants to step up. The GOP is asking Paul Ryan to
step up to the plate, but he hasn't committed yet.
Speaker
is "2 bullets" away from the presidency; you'd think that our most
promising legislators would be lining up to apply! But the problem is
that the House is GOP majority, and a contingent of ~40 Teabaggers (the
"Freedom" Caucus, or "anarchists" as Brooks called them) are basically
impossible to work with unless you totally embrace the
~Norquist/Palin/Koch agenda. As Brooks said on PBS, only a "moron" would
want the Speaker job now. So how did the 3rd most powerful position in
US gov't become a third-rail job?- There really isn't much benefit for a party to have a majority in the House when the other party has 40+ in the Senate and/or the White House. And it's hard to be confident that we'll have a GOP president in 2017.
- We don't live in a dictatorship where the Tea Party are the dictators, so can they espouse more reasonable and civilized goals instead? No group is ever going to get all they want, but is it so terrible to make deals to advance some of your agenda, but allow other interests to do the same (if what you have to give up is not so harmful)?
- So the GOP Speaker is caught between a rock and a hard place: he/she is expected to use the majority to advance conservatism (or at least keep the country running - pass a budget, etc.), but also find a way to get the Teabaggers to not derail the whole process (which is their stated goal if they don't get 100% of what they want, which we established is impossible).
- I don't know why the Teabaggers are so "needed"; is it because the GOP still need those 40 votes? Why not reach out to the Dems instead - can't you get 40 from them Blue Dogs? Is it just intractable polarization?
- The TP's excuse is that they are merely doing what the voters expect (obstructionism/anarchy/
holding the country hostage). Well, there is no district in the US where 100% of the votes support the TP agenda. So it is wrong for them to ignore potentially 49% of their constituents (likely the % is much smaller due to gerrymandering). - Also, this is a false pretext because polling suggest that the majority of Americans do not want gov't shutdowns and do not approve of an unproductive Congress. So why don't they just cut the crap and admit that they are serving the narrow interests of the 1% Norquist/Koch agenda?
- Should we amend job descriptions for Congress and the oath that they swear to, in order to make sure that our legislators will actually legislate in the country's interests? There are other explicit or implicit criteria like age, residency, religion, and funding - why not this? Don't we want to make sure they are qualified and able to carry out the duties of the position?
- It's like Kim Davis - she can have her beliefs, but if they're not compatible with the demands of her job, then she needs to be replaced and find a different job, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment