Will Kevin McCarthy Be The Speaker Of The House? Or Mitch Senate Majority Leader?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

Amidst the insanity, the GOP defectors have identified a very real problem with the concentration of power in Congress.

 

The last 30 years have seen an extreme consolidation of power inside the House by members of leadership on both sides of the aisle, a trend which began in earnest when Republican speaker Newt Gingrich tossed aside committee norms to elevate loyalists and hardliners in the mid-1990s.

 

Majority and minority leaders now enjoy exorbitant control over rulemaking and the legislative and appropriative processes. Non-leadership members of both parties, meanwhile, have become historically disempowered, warm bodies expected to show up and vote the party line. Bills rarely come through committee, and as a result, see little input from all but the most senior members. This concentration at the top was something outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has often been referred to as the most powerful House Speaker in modern history, used to her full advantage.

 

Part of what the arch-right House Freedom Caucus and its 20-odd McCarthy opponents say they want is a reversal of this trend. The group is pushing for a decentralization of the “awesome power” of the speaker, as Pelosi once put it, and an equivalent empowerment of factions within the chamber. As Oklahoma congressman-elect and McCarthy opponent Josh Brecheen said, he wants to end “consolidation of power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many constituents of the 435 members of Congress.”

 

But the reforms they’re pushing that could have a positive impact on overall governance include placing more members unaffiliated with the speaker onto the House Republican Steering Committee, which makes critical decisions on committee assignments, and empowering the entire conference to pick who sits on the powerful Rules Committee, rather than leaving it up to the speaker. These changes would meaningfully shift how Congress operates. They would be major wins for rank-and-file members.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-vote-defectors-house-freedom-caucus.html

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

13 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

I second the nomination of Donald J Trump just for the hilarious memes

2016 is calling and they want their hilarious memes back. 

 

Not again! 

[B-Man]

 

 

                                               

 

 

.

[Coffeesforclosers]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Amidst the insanity, the GOP defectors have identified a very real problem with the concentration of power in Congress.

 

The last 30 years have seen an extreme consolidation of power inside the House by members of leadership on both sides of the aisle, a trend which began in earnest when Republican speaker Newt Gingrich tossed aside committee norms to elevate loyalists and hardliners in the mid-1990s.

 

Majority and minority leaders now enjoy exorbitant control over rulemaking and the legislative and appropriative processes. Non-leadership members of both parties, meanwhile, have become historically disempowered, warm bodies expected to show up and vote the party line. Bills rarely come through committee, and as a result, see little input from all but the most senior members. This concentration at the top was something outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has often been referred to as the most powerful House Speaker in modern history, used to her full advantage.

 

Part of what the arch-right House Freedom Caucus and its 20-odd McCarthy opponents say they want is a reversal of this trend. The group is pushing for a decentralization of the “awesome power” of the speaker, as Pelosi once put it, and an equivalent empowerment of factions within the chamber. As Oklahoma congressman-elect and McCarthy opponent Josh Brecheen said, he wants to end “consolidation of power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many constituents of the 435 members of Congress.”

 

But the reforms they’re pushing that could have a positive impact on overall governance include placing more members unaffiliated with the speaker onto the House Republican Steering Committee, which makes critical decisions on committee assignments, and empowering the entire conference to pick who sits on the powerful Rules Committee, rather than leaving it up to the speaker. These changes would meaningfully shift how Congress operates. They would be major wins for rank-and-file members.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-vote-defectors-house-freedom-caucus.html

 

 

.

 

Alright, I'm really interested to know what the Pre-Gingrich rules were.

 

Thanks Newtster! 🙄

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Amidst the insanity, the GOP defectors have identified a very real problem with the concentration of power in Congress.

 

The last 30 years have seen an extreme consolidation of power inside the House by members of leadership on both sides of the aisle, a trend which began in earnest when Republican speaker Newt Gingrich tossed aside committee norms to elevate loyalists and hardliners in the mid-1990s.

 

Majority and minority leaders now enjoy exorbitant control over rulemaking and the legislative and appropriative processes. Non-leadership members of both parties, meanwhile, have become historically disempowered, warm bodies expected to show up and vote the party line. Bills rarely come through committee, and as a result, see little input from all but the most senior members. This concentration at the top was something outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has often been referred to as the most powerful House Speaker in modern history, used to her full advantage.

 

Part of what the arch-right House Freedom Caucus and its 20-odd McCarthy opponents say they want is a reversal of this trend. The group is pushing for a decentralization of the “awesome power” of the speaker, as Pelosi once put it, and an equivalent empowerment of factions within the chamber. As Oklahoma congressman-elect and McCarthy opponent Josh Brecheen said, he wants to end “consolidation of power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many constituents of the 435 members of Congress.”

 

But the reforms they’re pushing that could have a positive impact on overall governance include placing more members unaffiliated with the speaker onto the House Republican Steering Committee, which makes critical decisions on committee assignments, and empowering the entire conference to pick who sits on the powerful Rules Committee, rather than leaving it up to the speaker. These changes would meaningfully shift how Congress operates. They would be major wins for rank-and-file members.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-vote-defectors-house-freedom-caucus.html

 

 

.

Yes, there is a serious issue here, buried underneath the clownish behavior of the anti-McCarthy Repubs.

 

In the House, it's the Hastert Rule, named after Republican Speaker Denny Hastert: the Speaker will not bring a bill to a floor vote unless it is supported by a majority of his caucus (the Republican members). This effectively destroys ANY bipartisan legislation from moving through the House. Under the current composition of the House, you could have 200 Republicans and 200 Democrats support a bill -- 90% of the House -- support a bill and it would never see the light of day because 22 Republicans oppose it. This is crazy, and it needs to change. It's not some kind of time-honored rule in place since 1800; it was created in 2006 (although I see some people say Newt Gingrich created it in practice in the 1990s). 

 

In the Senate, it's the filibuster rule. I'm a bit more ambivalent about that one, but we need to have an honest debate there too. What we're doing now in both houses isn't working so well.

[ChiGoose]

35 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Yes, there is a serious issue here, buried underneath the clownish behavior of the anti-McCarthy Repubs.

 

In the House, it's the Hastert Rule, named after Republican Speaker Denny Hastert: the Speaker will not bring a bill to a floor vote unless it is supported by a majority of his caucus (the Republican members). This effectively destroys ANY bipartisan legislation from moving through the House. Under the current composition of the House, you could have 200 Republicans and 200 Democrats support a bill -- 90% of the House -- support a bill and it would never see the light of day because 22 Republicans oppose it. This is crazy, and it needs to change. It's not some kind of time-honored rule in place since 1800; it was created in 2006 (although I see some people say Newt Gingrich created it in practice in the 1990s). 

 

In the Senate, it's the filibuster rule. I'm a bit more ambivalent about that one, but we need to have an honest debate there too. What we're doing now in both houses isn't working so well.

Aside from the rule being bad, Hastert was a sexual predator of minors. So if they want to keep it, they should at least change the name…

[Tiberius]

Two more Republican holdouts, Texas’s Michael Cloud and Georgia’s Andrew S. Clyde, cast ballots for California Republican Kevin McCarthy.

Their colleagues exploded in applause when they cast their votes. So far, four holdouts flipped to McCarthy, a sign that ongoing negotiations are working.

[Demongyz]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Two more Republican holdouts, Texas’s Michael Cloud and Georgia’s Andrew S. Clyde, cast ballots for California Republican Kevin McCarthy.

Their colleagues exploded in applause when they cast their votes. So far, four holdouts flipped to McCarthy, a sign that ongoing negotiations are working.

Donalds did too, however, he has still lost unless the Dems start crossing.

[Tommy Callahan]

the fact this has the left, the established right both attacking it. is telling

 

And still cannot fathom how term limits, actual appropriate bills vs omni bills, and a way to remove the speaker is being attacked. when its been openly popular on both sides of the isle for years now.

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

the fact this has the left, the established right both attacking it. is telling

 

And still cannot fathom how term limits, actual appropriate bills vs omni bills, and a way to remove the speaker is being attacked. when its been openly popular on both sides of the isle for years now.

 

 

 

Congressional term limits are an absolutely terrible idea. 
 

unless you think the biggest problem with Congress is that lobbyists don’t have enough power and there’s too little corruption 

Edited January 6, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Tommy Callahan]

LMAO.  your in the minority on that.  but probably have a lot of support in the groups that fund these people.

 

https://www.termlimits.com/library/National_Poll_2021-OF.pdf

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/should-there-be-term-limits-in-congress/

 

 

[Tiberius]

McCarthy needs to turn to the Democrats and put together a bi-partisan House leadership structure 

 

End this sh it show 

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

LMAO.  your in the minority on that.  but probably have a lot of support in the groups that fund these people.

 

https://www.termlimits.com/library/National_Poll_2021-OF.pdf

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/should-there-be-term-limits-in-congress/

 

 

I know I’m in the minority on Congress term limits, the majority is just wrong. 
 

Another “feel good” policy that fails basic root cause analysis and ignores negative externalities in favor of a simplistic and flawed narrative. 

 

It wouldn’t change much other than incentivizing legislators to spend more time setting up their post-Congress private sector windfalls through selling out the American people. An even bigger revolving door of corruption than we have today. 
 

If we want to stop electing #######s, then we should change the way we do elections to disincentive electing #######s. Anything else is a distraction or worse. 

[Tommy Callahan]

"Another “feel good” policy that fails basic root cause analysis and ignores negative externalities in favor of a simplistic and flawed narrative." 

 

LMAO. that covers every effing bill passed lately.

 

or our false paradigm that is the two-party system.  

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Chris farley

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

"Another “feel good” policy that fails basic root cause analysis and ignores negative externalities in favor of a simplistic and flawed narrative." 

 

LMAO. that covers every effing bill passed lately.

 

or our false paradigm that is the two-party system.  

 

 

 

 

I’d love to end the two party system but you don’t do it with term limits.

 

You do it by ending FPTP plurality elections 

[Tiberius]

McCarthy has the moment in his hand to unite the country. A bi-partisan House could begin to address the border, entitlement reform and a number of other major issues. 

[BillStime]

Drain the cult - lolz

 

 

[Backintheday544]

11 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Drain the cult - lolz

 

 

Wait is the blackmail employing their family members? Like vote for me or I’ll hire your nephew.

 

The House was much better run by George Santos. He probably just doesn’t want to run because he won so many times already.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Backintheday544

[SoCal Deek]

I apologize. What did I miss? 
You’all still screaming at each other about nothing? 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I apologize. What did I miss? 
You’all still screaming at each other about nothing? 

Well it's about time you apologized! Gees