dagblog - Comments for "What Just Happened to the House GOP?"

Speaking of the Kochs, great

Oxy Mora — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:10:58 +0000

In reply to Just a couple points as I see

Speaking of the Kochs, great article today in Daily Beast (or Salon?) on how their original Libertarian goals were self-sabotaged because they overreacted on anti-Obama stuff, helped create the tea party, eventually spawning Trump who as a budding "fascist" is their worst Libertarian nightmare.

Really interesting point on the Whigs.

Just a couple points as I see

trkingmomoe — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:00:15 +0000

In reply to I think there are new

Just a couple points as I see it.

Charles Koch is getting old and he would like to prove to himself that he is better then his abusive dad. He wants to achieve something his dad couldn't do politically. The window of opportunity to do that is closing. A new generation is taking over,

The far right fringe is desperate in their quest to grab power. Desperate people are not pragmatic. They are reactionary.

The House has had some stormy past but it was always filtered through journalism. This time in history it is getting played out in front of instant media. Even people who don't pay much attention to politics knows what is happening. People can see it in real time and make up their own minds about the ugly behavior. They run the risk of losing their support.

Whigs did this over slavery and Presidential nomination which led to their self destruction. I do think the GOP is a little stronger then that. GOP will certainly take a hit over this if some screw ball ends up Speaker.

I think there are new

Oxy Mora — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:24:33 +0000

In reply to While one could see the tea

I think there are new dynamics which is the reason I like the introduction of this topic by Doc. And enjoyed your take.

I think the practice, or threat of, primaries from the right against pragmatic Republicans may have been taken to a new level in our politics. The practice is an arrow in the quiver of tactics being used by the tea party to take control of the party---which I think is their basic strategy. I just don't know what to call it, or how transformative it is in the broad swath of our history.

One fundamental question here is whether there is any precedent for this particular overt threat against the election of a party's proposed speaker by joining with the opposite party to defeat him. I just don't know the history.

While one could see the tea

ocean-kat — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:22:12 +0000

In reply to What Just Happened to the House GOP?

While one could see the tea party as third party insurgents I don't think that the best frame to explain the situation in the house or the complexity of the dilemma the republicans face. People talk about the extreme right republicans but there isn't that much difference ideologically between the most extreme right republican and the least conservative republican. The difference is between the pragmatic republican and the non pragmatic republican.

The 50 or so non pragmatic republican congress persons could easily be marginalized. There's plenty of bipartisan legislation that could pass with both republican and democratic majorities. While democrats are more unified as a center left party they aren't that liberal and democrats want to see government work and most easily accept compromise. Pragmatic republicans probably wouldn't be hurt in the general election for supporting such bipartisan legislation. They'd likely benefit. The problem is they would be primaried and possibly lose. Therefore as soon as sufficient democrats supported the bipartisan laws the pragmatic republicans would pander to the non pragmatics and vote against legislation they actually supported leaving the speaker being blamed for passing laws with a majority of democrats and a minority of republicans.

Those 200 pragmatic republicans need to make deals with democrats and vote as a block to protect each other but with accusations of rino-ism, the stirred up base, and fears of primaries I don't see that happening anytime soon.

LOL.

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:31:04 +0000

In reply to Tmc, I cannot second that

LOL.

Right, I see the

Oxy Mora — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:14:36 +0000

In reply to Oh, they're insane. But it's

Right, I see the functionality.

Oh, they're insane. But it's

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:45:09 +0000

In reply to Thanks. Only mentioned it as

Oh, they're insane. But it's still, functionally, a third-party maneuver. They're threatening to run a third candidate for Speaker, against the Republican and Democratic candidates.

Pierce elsewhere compares this behavior to the (decidedly sane) Charles Parnell's maneuvering in the British Parliament: using a disciplined minority voting bloc to prevent the formation of a government until his demands were met.

Tmc, I cannot second that

Oxy Mora — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:35:39 +0000

In reply to Exactly.

Tmc, I cannot second that because my sordid history in these arenas prevents me from expressing views which even tangentially touch upon the moral high ground.

(Shit, I love it when these self-righteous sons of bitches get caught in the act)

Oops, sorry.

Thanks. Only mentioned it as

Oxy Mora — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:18:41 +0000

In reply to I'm going to go with the good

Thanks. Only mentioned it as an operative in the process which scuttled McCarthy inside his own party.

In any case, I'm going with Charlie Pierce's view that the overriding dynamic in McCarthy's declination is that the Republican caucus is insane.

Therefore, respectfully, can't go with your thesis of parliamentary maneuvering, as such analysis cannot be credible if the subjects are not acting rationally.

Seriously, is something new going on here? And if so, isn't it that a faction is trying to gain control of it's own party by destroying the party from within---which seems to me the thing which has taken our system of government into new territory.

Exactly.

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:30:12 +0000

In reply to I'm going to go with the good

Exactly.