The Party of No

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Democrats are in record as willing to work with moderate republicans and have even put forward terms in several media outlets. Republicans will not accept the olive branch. Thus Demi rats can’t save republicans from themselves.

    And the Burn It All Down caucus is getting exactly what it wants.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    I don’t want to defend Adams in general, and I likely don’t agree with him on the particulars of aid to Ukraine and Israel, but I find his statement here defensible. A basic conservative principle is “first do no harm”. I want a government that does what it should and doesn’t do what it shouldn’t. The past few weeks have been that. I’m not saying I trust the GOP to pull it together, but there really isn’t anything that they’ve failed to do except for the things they never do.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

      BY failing to have leadership, they have failed in their Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 responsibilities to appropriate funds so the Executive Branch can fulfill its Article 2 Section 3 responsibilities to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress and signed by prior Administrations. That they routinely fail to do this by their own self-imposed fiscal year deadline doesn’t relieve them of the obligation.Report

  3. Saul Degraw says:

    At this point it is clear that the House GOP won’t put someone forward unless they are fanatically right-wing and also an election denier. Emmer is very conservative but he voted for the Respect for Marriage Act and to certify the 2020 election. This made him a pariah. He also had a tweet or two sympathetic to George Floyd.

    Johnson is a right-wing lawyer who denies the 2020 election, worked for “alliance defending freedom”, and is Putin’s pet on the Ukraine. He is however less openly antagonistic than Gaetz or Jordon. I don’t know if it is enough to save him but it is sort of what the House GOP speaker needs to be.

    I don’t think there is anything that Jeffries can offer to Republicans in Biden districts to bring them over to his side. They are mainly concerned about being primaried from the right and figure in 2024, they can be mealy mouthed enough about abortion but loud enough about “crime” to win a general. He can’t state Democrats won’t run against them in a general in 2024.

    I think the idea of corporatish 1990s style “moderates” that keep quiet on social issues saving the day is deader than a doornail. It would have happened already and the most moderate Republicans are still far to the right of the most conservative Democrats in the House.Report

  4. Philip H says:

    Looks like Mike Johnson of Louisiana has won the election, as the Burn It All Down Caucus actually voted for him.

    Now we will see what price he paid for the “honor.”Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

      I just hope that he’s more preferable than anybody else who has run in the last month.

      Back to business as usual!Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

        He’s clearly more preferable to the GOPReport

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

          True enough. I’m hoping that he’s the best that the Democrats could have asked for, given the other 20 people who ran for the job.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

            The Democrats left money on the table, so whatever else it’s not an optimal win for them.Report

            • North in reply to Pinky says:

              Curious? Could you expand on that? You surely can’t mean they missed out by not bailing out McCarthy do you? So what did they leave on the table?Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                I’m not clear what was on offer from the Republicans in exchange for support. Price shouldn’t have been exorbitant but there are no freebies in politics.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                Pinky’s MO is that Democrats should shut up and do as told.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                They were never told to do anything except vote for Jeffries – the GOP if it told them anything told them to keep out.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                I’ve made several comments on this over the past weeks about how a bargain could have been made. In fact, you agreed with my last comment on this subject, on the “So, Now What House GOP?” sidebar. Instead, though, the Democrats in the House shut up and did as told, so to speak.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                There was no offer of a bargain by the GOP and every suggestion by Democrats was rebuffed by the GOP. Whom do you think the Democrats would have bargained with?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

                Murc’s law is a well-known rule: only Democrats have agency.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                My read is they were reaching out and trying to cut a deal of some sort- then, abruptly, something aligned within the GOP and Mike Johnson was very abruptly voted in. I wouldn’t describe that so much as leaving money on the table as much as simply getting blind sided. Extracting some kind of concession for support was always going to be a dicey play, looks like the clock very suddenly ran out.

                I’m uncertain whether Johnson is better than his predecessor, a known backstabbing and deal breaking McCarthy, or if he’s worse. Probably negotiations on the budget will tell us more.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                Johnson got the votes for the following reasons:

                1. The murder of Emmer by TFG made it clear that no one who voted to certify the election would survive;

                2. Johnson is just as far to the right as the FreeDumb Caucus but he is not openly antagonistic to his own side like Jordan and Gaetz;

                3. There aren’t any real moderates left in the GOP and they all knew that any deal with Democrats meant a primary from the right and they don’t really want to work with Democrats anyway. Bacon is at least somewhat aware that Democrats actually control the Senate and WH and compromise is necessary to get anything doneReport

              • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                2. Johnson is just as far to the right as the FreeDumb Caucus but he is not openly antagonistic to his own side like Jordan and Gaetz;

                I believe this may have been the key to his election. In his acceptance speech he mentioned Israel several times but Ukraine not once. He threw the usual border hand grenades, and he said we had to get spending under control. He’s Trump’s guy but without LOOKING like Trump’s guy.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

                He is an election denier. He is clearly Trump’s guyReport

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                So, Saul, is your read then that Dems would have been better served had they abstained enough to preserve McCarthy’s speakership?
                I’m on the fence myself. Johnson ain’t pretty but it remains to be seen how he does business as Speaker.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to North says:

                I don’t know if anyone can do business as Speaker, at least until January 2025.Report

              • North in reply to CJColucci says:

                Yeah we’ll soon see. Does a new Speaker mean a new set of rules or will the GOP still have that idiotic “one vote to vacate” rule?Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                My position is that Democrats are not under any responsibility to take it on the chin and save Republicans.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                It’s like the Gaetz faction got together and said “How can we prove Chip was right to say ‘There is no such thing as a moderate Republican’ and hand the Biden camp an ammo dump of oppo research?”

                Election denier? Check
                Putin stooge? Check
                Hates queer people? Check
                Long history of Handmaids Tale quotes? Check
                Creepy covenant marriage? CheckReport

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                You and I both agree about that Saul; we’re both liberals. McCarthy richly DESERVED to be bounced. I am speaking strictly on a strategic/tactical sense.

                McCarthy was treacherous and two faced. He might have felt some gratitude or felt pulled to the center more by being bailed out by the Dems, or maybe he’d have doubled down on the treachery and McCarthyisms to compensate.

                But now we have Johnson. Is that replacement better/worse? I honestly don’t know.Report

              • Philip H in reply to North says:

                From a policy perspective it’s a wash. McCarthy would not oppose any of Johnson’s stated priorities.Report

              • North in reply to Philip H says:

                Yes that could be, in which case the mud on the GOP’s faces and punishing McCarthy makes it worth it.

                We’ll have to see if Johnson actually will bring things to votes.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                Democrats are being accused by the media already of putting party above country because Murc’s Law is a hell of a drug. If they caved and voted for Emmer or kept McCarthy, it would have been “typical spineless Democrats.”Report

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                I didn’t ask you, Saul, what our BSDI media would say. I wanted your personal strategeric opinion.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                I think voting to boot McCarthy was probably the correct thing to do from a norms and tactical decision. The Democrats are the opposition party in the House. They are not the save Republicans from their own issues party. If this were a Parliamentary system, no one would bat an eye if all the Democrats voted no on a vote of confidence.

                From a tactical prospective, I think the public needs to learn how extreme and dysfunctional the GOP is.Report

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Thank you, I don’t disagree. Time will tell.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8713640dad824186d2cd15394cce204a3bd0355266510e1dc1e8bb27a89efd8.png

    The Republican Party and its supporters on how to win friends and influence people. Note that the description of Harris is not safe for work.Report