• Unaware7013@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ve just seen that doing so will draw the ire of hardliners and gain no benefit from Democrats

    If the speaker lied, reneged on deals, and was a dirty snake in the grass.

    McCarthy could have had a deal weeks ago if he gave the hardliners the finger and went with the deal he agreed on. I would bet that the Dems absolutely would have supported him against Pizza Gaetz and the rest of the traitor causus just to piss them off. But dude has all the spine of a tank of jellyfish and double backed.

    Maybe he’ll learn that he’s worthless if no one trusts him.

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks. It’s an interesting article but I don’t think it addresses the core of the problem. Who eats the rats when the dirty snake is gone?

      The article covers a lot of reasons for Democrats to dislike McCarthy. That’s kind of a given though since he’s the leader of the opposition party during a time of heightened partisan rivalry. It doesn’t address the question of if it’s actually a good idea.

      The hope that Democrats will be able to force Republicans to elect a more moderate speaker seems like a moon shot. Democrats don’t have a majority and McCarthy barely managed to get past the objections of the hardliners. What chance does a more moderate speaker have?

      Barring that unlikely scenario, the result is going to be an even more divided house. We don’t even know when a new speaker can be elected. The hardliners have shown that they can shut down someone who shows even a hint of compromise. If their power to obstruct just grew since the Patrick McHenry doesn’t have the power to actually pass laws. Those hardliners now have a credible chance at carrying out their threat to “Shut it all down.”