Next Speaker of the House? (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

There’s a lot of doubt that Kevin McCarthy will be able to get enough votes to become Speaker. It certainly won’t happen on the first ballot. Already Boboert and MTG are publicly at odds over it.

Maybe this is worth it’s own thread to watch. One person mentioned is Scalise.

 

[SystemShock]

How do you know that Johnson won't cause more strife and infighting with Republicans? They appear united on the surface right now, but give it a little bit of time.

Johnson will not cause the strife among Reps that keeping McCarthy would've, should he had stayed Speaker, the Reps knowing it was the Dems who kept him there, and the division between the pro-McCarthy group and the anti-McCarthy group.

Because he made a stupid deal to become Speaker. Anybody with half a brain cell knew McCarthy would end up exactly where he did when he made that deal. He deserved what he got.

Well, yeah, so imagine what keeping him Speaker would have done to the Reps.

Yes they could have, but again, what reason did they have to do save his Speakership?

The reason? Keep people like Johnson, Scalise, Jordan, etc. away from the gavel. Again, McCarthy may be a scumbag, but he's not a "David Duke without the baggage" scumbag, or a Bible zealot.

To prevent Johnson, who was on nobody's radar, from becoming Speaker? They couldn't have foretold that. The other two you mentioned didn't become Speaker. The Republican conference had a chance to elect a moderate in Emer and didn't even give him a floor vote.

The Democrats sit right next to the Republicans. Surely the Democrats had a sense of who had possibilities among the Republicans.

Essentially you asking them to vote for a bad Speaker to protect the country from Republicans electing a worse Speaker,

Well, yes, and to cause an even bigger division among the Republicans.

 

[coldseat]

Johnson will not cause the strife among Reps that keeping McCarthy would've, should he had stayed Speaker, the Reps knowing it was the Dems who kept him there, and the division between the pro-McCarthy group and the anti-McCarthy group.


Well, yeah, so imagine what keeping him Speaker would have done to the Reps.


The reason? Keep people like Johnson, Scalise, Jordan, etc. away from the gavel. Again, McCarthy may be a scumbag, but he's not a "David Duke without the baggage" scumbag, or a Bible zealot.




The Democrats sit right next to the Republicans. Surely the Democrats had a sense of who had possibilities among the Republicans.



Well, yes, and to cause an even bigger division among the Republicans.

The Republican conference wasn't really divided over McCarthy, it was just really 10-15 members. I think that Johnson, with his extreme fundamentalism will cause more division due to his inflexibility. The same thing that makes him a darling of the hard right will push Republican Representatives in districts Biden won away.

It's early still and he has major challenges with his conference coming very quickly. We'll see how fast the edges fray.

 

[Optimus Prime]

How did that conversation with his teen son go?

Also the story of how either the son and/or father got a burner phone

 

[J-DONK]

It could have totally been avoided, but Republicans refused to work with Democrats. They never do.

So while this was completely avoidable, it was also unavoidable because Republican obstinance. Regardless, Democrats voting out of fear of what might be or for the good of the country (however you choose to define that) to retain a Speaker they didn't have a working relationship with wasn't ever going to be the answer.

Right, I feel like I live in an alternate universe or something. McCarthy lost his job over the CR. The only thing getting passed in a non-emergency is a budget. Republicans already appeared to be unable, or unwilling to pass a budget under McCarthy. What was actually lost?

McCarthy was a weak speaker who was terrified to be seen working with Democrats.

Maybe don't pull that 90 minute review where Democrats are pulling fire alarms to read a bill. Is it Democrats fault, or the idiot in the chair?

 

[Taurus]

I get all that, sympathize even, but they missed the mark here. They made a choice by voting with the crazies to the effect of getting more crazy. Like I said, 90% Republican 10% Democrat got us in a worse spot now than we were before this whole mess started.

I can't accept that this couldn't have been avoided.

If only Mommy had dinner ready on time.
Then Daddy wouldn't have to hit her.

That's the gist of every 'blame Democrats' argument.

 

[DaveXA]

If only Mommy had dinner ready on time.
Then Daddy wouldn't have to hit her.

That's the gist of every 'blame Democrats' argument.

Sounds like a nice quip, but I don't agree with that, at all. This is coming from a guy who dealt with that growing up.

It's really simple, two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how lopsided they might be. And it's backwards. The handful of lunatic Republicans forced a vote. The Democrats voted McCarthy off the island. The Democrats in this case had a choice to make. They made the wrong choice, and now we all have to live with the Republicans taking full advantage of that choice.

 

[DaveXA]

Right, I feel like I live in an alternate universe or something. McCarthy lost his job over the CR. The only thing getting passed in a non-emergency is a budget. Republicans already appeared to be unable, or unwilling to pass a budget under McCarthy. What was actually lost?

McCarthy was a weak speaker who was terrified to be seen working with Democrats.

Maybe don't pull that 90 minute review where Democrats are pulling fire alarms to read a bill. Is it Democrats fault, or the idiot in the chair?

I've already clearly stated the Republicans are far more culpable for the situation that led to this mess, but that doesn't absolve the Democrats' role. McCarthy certainly didn't play ball in a lot of respects, but the alternative was always going to be worse. It's not much different than the "devil you know" idea.

 

[Taurus]

I've already clearly stated the Republicans are far more culpable for the situation that led to this mess, but that doesn't absolve the Democrats' role. McCarthy certainly didn't play ball in a lot of respects, but the alternative was always going to be worse. It's not much different than the "devil you know" idea.

It does absolve them because McCarthy was godawful. Was his replacement doomed to be even worse? From a legislative perspective, there is no 'worse'.
Nothing's getting done either way.

It's a Catch-22. Punt McCarthy and risk a complete loon getting the gavel or vote to keep him and get excoriated for keeping a faithless sack of lies when they had the chance to be rid of him.

 

[DaveXA]

It does absolve them because McCarthy was godawful. Was his replacement doomed to be even worse? From a legislative perspective, there is no 'worse'.
Nothing's getting done either way.

It's a Catch-22. Punt McCarthy and risk a complete loon getting the gavel or vote to keep him and get excoriated for keeping a faithless sack of lies when they had the chance to be rid of him.

Yeah, I get that. I guess it's a matter of opinion on what the better route was. I just hate the Johnson is the guy with the gavel. He's orders of magnitude worse imo. It is what it is at this point.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I get that. I guess it's a matter of opinion on what the better route was. I just hate the Johnson is the guy with the gavel. He's orders of magnitude worse imo. It is what it is at this point.

If McCarthy had not broken his promises to Biden and the Dems - completely reasonable deal that was made to keep us from defaulting on our debt - I think the Dems might have considered supporting him. But you cannot support someone whose word is garbage. You just cannot. I don’t think they had a choice, really.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

If McCarthy had not broken his promises to Biden and the Dems - completely reasonable deal that was made to keep us from defaulting on our debt - I think the Dems might have considered supporting him. But you cannot support someone whose word is garbage. You just cannot. I don’t think they had a choice, really.

Totally agree. Plus, they're the minority party. They are not responsible for electing the Speaker of the House. The majority party is. When the majority had trouble doing so, they attempted to reach out and was rejected. This is not the House Democrats' fault. Saying so is just a red herring from the truth.

 

[DaveXA]

Totally agree. Plus, they're the minority party. They are not responsible for electing the Speaker of the House. The majority party is. When the majority had trouble doing so, they attempted to reach out and was rejected. This is not the House Democrats' fault. Saying so is just a red herring from the truth.

Just to be clear, I've stated that it's primarily the Rs fault and it's not close. But saying the Ds had nothing to do with it is not accurate either.

 

[DaveXA]

If McCarthy had not broken his promises to Biden and the Dems - completely reasonable deal that was made to keep us from defaulting on our debt - I think the Dems might have considered supporting him. But you cannot support someone whose word is garbage. You just cannot. I don’t think they had a choice, really.

But they did have a choice. They voted McCarthy out. That was a choice. Not much of one, I agree. But it's still a choice.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Just to be clear, I've stated that it's primarily the Rs fault and it's not close. But saying the Ds had nothing to do with it is not accurate either.

Just to be clear, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[DaveXA]

Just to be clear, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is certainly interesting
===================


A teeny fraction of American households don’t have a bank account.

In recent days, it appeared that one such household might belong to the man second in line for the presidency: House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Johnson’s recent launch from obscure congressional backbencher to one of the most powerful people in the country has come with a wave of scrutiny.

Reporters are combing through his past and finding weird stuff — his curious arrangement with his son to monitor each others’ digital devices for porn, for instance.

One less salacious but perhaps more consequential discovery involves his finances.

In his most recent annual financial disclosures, released last year, Johnson (R-La.) reports no assets at all.
 Zero.


There are no retirement accounts, no money-market funds, no stocks, no crypto, not even a basic checking or savings account.

Even more peculiar, his disclosures have never listed any checking or savings accounts on any of the forms he has filed going back to 2016, the year he was elected to Congress.


This is confusing.

Where is his congressional salary being deposited? How is he paying his bills?


Johnson was asked on Sunday about his lack of a bank account during an interview on Fox News. “I’m a man of modest means,” he replied, deflecting.


He said he had previously worked at nonprofits. He noted that he also has either four or five children (which is a whole other story). “We have a lot of expenses,” he said, citing multiple tuition bills for those kids.

He then pivoted to talking about his upbringing as the son of a firefighter and declared that these humble financial circumstances help him “relate to every hard-working American family.”

The Fox News anchor asked no follow-up questions……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/07/mike-johnson-speaker-bank-account-mystery/

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is certainly interesting
===================


A teeny fraction of American households don’t have a bank account.

In recent days, it appeared that one such household might belong to the man second in line for the presidency: House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Johnson’s recent launch from obscure congressional backbencher to one of the most powerful people in the country has come with a wave of scrutiny.

Reporters are combing through his past and finding weird stuff — his curious arrangement with his son to monitor each others’ digital devices for porn, for instance.

One less salacious but perhaps more consequential discovery involves his finances.

In his most recent annual financial disclosures, released last year, Johnson (R-La.) reports no assets at all.
 Zero.


There are no retirement accounts, no money-market funds, no stocks, no crypto, not even a basic checking or savings account.

Even more peculiar, his disclosures have never listed any checking or savings accounts on any of the forms he has filed going back to 2016, the year he was elected to Congress.


This is confusing.

Where is his congressional salary being deposited? How is he paying his bills?


Johnson was asked on Sunday about his lack of a bank account during an interview on Fox News. “I’m a man of modest means,” he replied, deflecting.


He said he had previously worked at nonprofits. He noted that he also has either four or five children (which is a whole other story). “We have a lot of expenses,” he said, citing multiple tuition bills for those kids.

He then pivoted to talking about his upbringing as the son of a firefighter and declared that these humble financial circumstances help him “relate to every hard-working American family.”

The Fox News anchor asked no follow-up questions……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/07/mike-johnson-speaker-bank-account-mystery/

the reply
======

Following a report that newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., does not have a personal bank account, the GOP leader has now confirmed that this not true and he does have one, according to Politico Playbook.

“Newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson does not have a bank account," the lead of a recent story from the Daily Beast read. The Daily Beast cited financial disclosures that highlighted Johnson's financial status.

However, a new spokesperson for Johnson, Raj Shah, set the record straight to Politico Playbook on Monday.

“Speaker Johnson has a personal bank account,” Shah said in a statement. He explained that the account is not subject to House disclosure rules because it does not bear any interest.

MSN

 

[Lapaz]

the reply
======

Following a report that newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., does not have a personal bank account, the GOP leader has now confirmed that this not true and he does have one, according to Politico Playbook.

“Newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson does not have a bank account," the lead of a recent story from the Daily Beast read. The Daily Beast cited financial disclosures that highlighted Johnson's financial status.

However, a new spokesperson for Johnson, Raj Shah, set the record straight to Politico Playbook on Monday.

“Speaker Johnson has a personal bank account,” Shah said in a statement. He explained that the account is not subject to House disclosure rules because it does not bear any interest.

MSN

It’s hard to pay bills without a checking account. You’d have to pay everything in cash. Unless you don’t have bills, can one NOT have a checking account?