House Changes Rules, Makes It Harder to Oust Johnson From Speakership
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
Well it appears that I have an unpopular opinion (again), but it seems to me that it makes some sense. Formerly, it would take only one GOP congress-critter to start a recall of the Speaker, and we've seen how many lone wolf RINOs there are. Would we really want to give such power to a sole member like (insert your favorite RINO here)?
Changing the rule to require nine members to start a recall will avoid a lot of chaos that a lone RINO could cause.
IMHO.
The prior rules for tossing him were extremely generous.
I think Johnson plays the game better than some realize. People like Massie are not a problem for him. They are useful buffers and cudgels.
We need to realize that Johnson wasn't negotiating that mega-budget with a Republican Senate and President. He had to come up with something that Schumer and Biden would agree to. The Musk-led outcry during the voting process was just what the country needed to rapidly slam on the brakes, create something better with everyone's attention on it, and reverse-uno the emergency budget back onto the Senate and Biden.
With hindsight it was likely the plan all along, with Johnson low-key doing his part.
True. And never forget, when thinking of Congress and why they do such incomprehensible things, that there is a cynical thing at work called "the power of no" or alternately, "there is no power in yes."
It goes like this... if a congress-critter says yes to something on its first offering, there is no power in that. However, a "no" can get you all kinds of leveraging power, the chance to negotiate your vote for something of value, say a new library in your district with (gasp!) your name on it. So the "no" is traded now for a "yes" and a transaction has been made.
There is no power in "yes" but there's lots of power in "no"....at least to a limited degree. To the less principled critters, this is the cynical way Congress operates and has for a long time.
Sometimes true, but the counterpoint would be what happened between AOC and Gerry Connolly. Connolly was the consistent "yes" vote for however many decades. AOC opened her wings to fly and shout "no" to party leadership--which has value to the public--but had no value in the fetid halls of the swamp.
Connolly's dutiful yes votes allowed him to chair a committee in the later years of his filthy career in the swamp.
Well, the "power of no" is simply one tool in a toolbox of grift and mendacity, not to be used often or unadvisedly, but it can come in handy occasionally. I suspect that over the last 60 years, that little tool has been used more than anyone might suspect.
And Connolly is one of the filthiest of the filthy infesting the swamp.