A Chance for Sanity in the House of Representatives?

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.

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. InMD says:

    I think it would be political malpractice by Democrats to play any role in saving Johnson if that is even possible. The only way I could see any deal like that maybe making sense was when the military aid/immigration bill was on the table but Johnson made his decision then not to play ball.

    I think us political junkies need to just accept the reality that nothing is going to happen in the House until after the election. If nothing else it at least paints a pretty stark picture of the differences between the parties. One tries to govern, one doesn’t.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

      Pretty much.
      The idea that there is any remaining group of reasonable Republicans is absurd at this point. Any deal can be imploded by a single tweet from Trump, and he clearly does NOT want to “get things done” but rather, prefers chaos.

      Democrats don’t have any power to change this, unless and until they get a majority.Report

    • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

      So the Democrats shouldn’t make a deal in order to demonstrate that they try to govern?Report

      • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

        If, per Rep. Gaetz, via the esteemed Mr. Cain above, there are 3 Republicans that would vote for Jeffries, I would take that deal to make him speaker.Report

  2. Philip H says:

    Since the House has now recessed for two weeks – border “crisis” be damned we have to raise money to get reelected – I don’t see Greene’s motion going anywhere. Aside from the Gaetz quote – which is legit – AOC was interviewed over the weekend proposing the exact deal the OP lays out above to get Democrats to support Johnson. Which means that it’s likely now toxic to any remaining sane Republicans. Astute readers will note that all the Republicans who have left recently or have announced plans to leave are all pillorying their own colleagues for the lack of productivity this chaos is causing.

    Johnson has also finally discovered that governing is not a single party in a single House game, and as much as said so last week. The Freedom Caucus has discovered how little power they have when Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Philip H says:

      I commented a few weeks ago about parties with a slim majority claiming a mandate. This case certainly fits the bill of thinking there’s a mandate where none exists.Report

      • I used to argue with someone who claimed that Bill Clinton had a mandate in 1992.

        My argument was something like “He got 43% of the vote. I’m not saying he didn’t win the election but how can you claim a mandate?”

        “It was a mandate *AGAINST* Reaganism/Bushism!”

        So that’s how it’ll probably be played.Report

      • As political definitions go, a mandate just means legitimacy to govern.

        Pluralities can claim a mandate and be technically correct while still sounding silly when using the term.Report

      • I’m depressed this am, so… 6-3 is not a slim majority, but large enough to claim a mandate. Tomorrow the Court hears FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine to decide whether the states for themselves or the SCOTUS for the nation as a whole can overrule decisions made by the FDA almost a quarter-century ago.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain says:

          We are, quite literally, living that political commercial where a woman is sitting in an exam room with her doctor discussing her problem pregnancy, and a couple politicians and black robed judges are speaking over the doctor to add their opinions to her medical options.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain says:

          I think a large part of the problem is too many liberals and leftists don’t actually consider the make up of SCOTUS when formulating political plans. So they think the margins in the House and Senate matter, when the margin at the SCOTUS is equally if not more important.Report