Burchett would ‘look strongly’ at ousting McCarthy if funding deal passes with Dem support

[ThatRobGuy]

Burchett would ‘look strongly’ at ousting McCarthy if funding deal passes with Dem support

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democ…

thehill.com

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democratic votes.


To me, this seems like stupidity on display "I'll vote to oust Kevin if there's a spending deal that gets any Democratic votes". It also shows the lack of seriousness about the matter among the "hard right" members of the house.

"Does the other side hate it?" should never be prioritized over "Does it make sense?"

If their priority is "this has to be a funding bill that 100% of Democrats hate and refuse to support, otherwise that means we must not be owning them enough", that shows an incredible amount of pettiness on their part.

It's also stupid for the simple reason that he just flipped his cards "face up" on the table. Now, any democrat who wants to see more intra-GOP fighting and make Kevin's life miserable knows they simply just have to pretend to support a deal and that'll immediately trigger talks of an ouster vote.

The "a sliver of compromise is an indicator of weakness" mentality isn't a viable way to govern at the national level...

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Burchett would ‘look strongly’ at ousting McCarthy if funding deal passes with Dem support

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democ…

thehill.com

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democratic votes.


To me, this seems like stupidity on display "I'll vote to oust Kevin if there's a spending deal that gets any Democratic votes". It also shows the lack of seriousness about the matter among the "hard right" members of the house.

"Does the other side hate it?" should never be prioritized over "Does it make sense?"

If their priority is "this has to be a funding bill that 100% of Democrats hate and refuse to support, otherwise that means we must not be owning them enough", that shows an incredible amount of pettiness on their part.

It's also stupid for the simple reason that he just flipped his cards "face up" on the table. Now, any democrat who wants to see more intra-GOP fighting and make Kevin's life miserable knows they simply just have to pretend to support a deal and that'll immediately trigger talks of an ouster vote.

The "a sliver of compromise is an indicator of weakness" mentality isn't a viable way to govern at the national level...

I hope voters are paying attention.

 

[durangodawood]

Burchett would ‘look strongly’ at ousting McCarthy if funding deal passes with Dem support

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democ…

thehill.com

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democratic votes.


To me, this seems like stupidity on display "I'll vote to oust Kevin if there's a spending deal that gets any Democratic votes". It also shows the lack of seriousness about the matter among the "hard right" members of the house.

"Does the other side hate it?" should never be prioritized over "Does it make sense?"

If their priority is "this has to be a funding bill that 100% of Democrats hate and refuse to support, otherwise that means we must not be owning them enough", that shows an incredible amount of pettiness on their part.

It's also stupid for the simple reason that he just flipped his cards "face up" on the table. Now, any democrat who wants to see more intra-GOP fighting and make Kevin's life miserable knows they simply just have to pretend to support a deal and that'll immediately trigger talks of an ouster vote.

The "a sliver of compromise is an indicator of weakness" mentality isn't a viable way to govern at the national level...

His political base probably supports this attitude. So how is this stupid?

Also, you assume that the goal is to "govern at a national level". Many on the far right want the exact opposite: to de-govern nationally. Breaking stuff is the plan, not a unfortunate side effect.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

His political base probably supports this attitude. So how is this stupid?

Also, you assume that the goal is to "govern at a national level". Many on the far right want the exact opposite: to de-govern nationally. Breaking stuff is the plan, not a unfortunate side effect.

It's stupid because uses a deeply flawed logic.

Democrats having to "suck it up" and sign on for something that's not exactly their cup of tea would be a signal of a negotiating victory.

The framework of Burchett's viewpoint is "Even if we got everything we wanted, if a single democrat votes for it, time to oust McCarthy".

It also doesn't necessarily have any ties to "govern vs de-govern".

With what he's describing, he's basically saying that he'd be more satisfied with a bill that increased spending that no democrats voted for, over a bill where the GOP was getting more of they wanted, but that a few democrats would vote for.


It resembles the mentality of a young sibling fight. "I don't really want this particular toy, I just want them not to have it because I know it'll agitate them to see that I have it"


Not to mention, as I noted before, he flipped his cards face up and gave house democrats leverage they didn't have before. That's a rookie move. House democrats now know how to "stir the pot". Just get 1 or 2 of them to vote in favor of a bill to trigger an ouster vote.

 

[durangodawood]

It's stupid because uses a deeply flawed logic.

Democrats having to "suck it up" and sign on for something that's not exactly their cup of tea would be a signal of a negotiating victory.

Thats not the signal he or his base would get. Theyd see "compromise", which is a bad word. You dont compromise with evil.

The framework of Burchett's viewpoint is "Even if we got everything we wanted, if a single democrat votes for it, time to oust McCarthy".

In the unlikely, no.... actually impossible, event that happened, then yes. But I think he's speaking in terms of possible events.

It also doesn't necessarily have any ties to "govern vs de-govern".

I dont know about "necessarily". But we should keep in mind that federal de-governing is the background aim of most of the hard right R's. I dont think its reasonable to remove that motive from the discussion.

With what he's describing, he's basically saying that he'd be more satisfied with a bill that increased spending that no democrats voted for, over a bill where the GOP was getting more of they wanted, but that a few democrats would vote for.

Yes he is - except that juxtaposition is not part of the reality of the situation. The logic could lead there. But we all, including him, know reality wont admit it

It resembles the mentality of a young sibling fight. "I don't really want this particular toy, I just want them not to have it because I know it'll agitate them to see that I have it"

I can see that. But people, especially those who marinate in right wing outrage-media all day long, are turned on by screwing the D's. These people are his base almost certainly.

Not to mention, as I noted before, he flipped his cards face up and gave house democrats leverage they didn't have before. That's a rookie move. House democrats now know how to "stir the pot". Just get 1 or 2 of them to vote in favor of a bill to trigger an ouster vote.

No one will force him to follow through. And his supporters wont care if failure to follow through is framed the right way.

Overall youre applying way to much logic and rationality to a game thats played by emotional - not rational - rules.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thats not the signal he or his base would get. Theyd see "compromise", which is a bad word. You dont compromise with evil.
But people, especially those who marinate in right wing outrage-media all day long, are turned on by screwing the D's. These people are his base almost certainly.
Overall youre applying way to much logic and rationality to a game thats played by emotional - not rational - rules.

Here's a good demonstration of the level of desire for compromise in the far right:

 

[eleos1954]

Burchett would ‘look strongly’ at ousting McCarthy if funding deal passes with Dem support

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democ…

thehill.com

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Sunday that he would consider supporting an effort to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if he allows a deal to pass to keep the government open that gets Democratic votes.


To me, this seems like stupidity on display "I'll vote to oust Kevin if there's a spending deal that gets any Democratic votes". It also shows the lack of seriousness about the matter among the "hard right" members of the house.

"Does the other side hate it?" should never be prioritized over "Does it make sense?"

If their priority is "this has to be a funding bill that 100% of Democrats hate and refuse to support, otherwise that means we must not be owning them enough", that shows an incredible amount of pettiness on their part.

It's also stupid for the simple reason that he just flipped his cards "face up" on the table. Now, any democrat who wants to see more intra-GOP fighting and make Kevin's life miserable knows they simply just have to pretend to support a deal and that'll immediately trigger talks of an ouster vote.

The "a sliver of compromise is an indicator of weakness" mentality isn't a viable way to govern at the national level...

The thing that Kevin McCarthy said he would do .... and hasn't .... it creating bills without bundeling funding within them (funding many things in one bill) ... I call this the "Christmas tree effect" .... things are added to bills (and funded) in order to get some things passed that either one party or another don't agree with and this provides a means for one party or the other to criticize the other over an aspect of the bill they don't agree with.

Bills need to be specific to one topic .... if that were done ... then this would stop one party or the other holding one another "hostage" over aspects of a bill they disagree with.