Democrats Should Not Join MTG's Effort To Oust The Speaker

 

There is a small extremist element in the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives who seem to enjoy creating chaos and using trouble. Although far from a majority in the GOP caucus, they were able to oust their own Speaker. They were able to do that because the Republicans have only a slim majority in the House, and knowing that Democrats would naturally vote against a GOP Speaker, they only needed a few GOP votes.

The result was weeks of chaos as Republicans could not agree on who the new Speaker should be. They finally settled on right-winger Mike Johnson. The extremists thought Johnson would go along with them. For the most part, he did. But to avoid a government shutdown, he negotiated a deal with Democrats. Now he has negotiated with Democrats again - this time to provide aid to Ukraine.

The extremists, led by Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), are not happy. They did not want Ukraine to get any new aid, and have been parroting Russian propaganda. Now MTG has filed a motion to vacate the Speakership, and is threatening to ask for a floor vote. 

Democrats should not participate in this latest bit of crazy political theater.

I'm not saying the Democrats should vote for Speaker Johnson. He's not a good Speaker, and should not be celebrated for negotiating with Dems on a government shutdown avoidance or on aid to Ukraine. He was forced into doing both.

But Democrats shouldn't vote against him either. This is a Republican problem, and they should make the Republicans handle it. 

Kicking the Speaker out would just result in more chaos, and it could be weeks before the House could do any business. 

Democrats should just vote "present". If they do that, I expect most Republicans would vote against ousting the Speaker, and business could continue. It would also show the extremist wing of the GOP just how little power they actually have, and that would be good for both parties. 

Plurality Of GOP Now Disapprove Of McCarthy's Removal

The chart above is from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between October 14th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Is The Next Speaker Also Doomed?

 

From the editorial board of The Washington Post:

No matter the circumstance, nobody should accept the speakership without more job security than Mr. McCarthy had. To become speaker in the first place, he courted the right fringe by agreeing to amend the “motion to vacate” rule so that any one member could force the chamber to consider firing him. Whoever comes next should insist that the bar be much higher. The last time House ultraconservatives foiled Mr. McCarthy’s ambitions, during the 2015 speaker’s race, then-Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) set conditions on agreeing to take the gavel after Mr. McCarthy’s bid fell flat among the ultras.

Getting at least that much right is not some arcane matter but a national necessity. The House GOP’s next leader will immediately face negotiations with the White House and the Democratic-controlled Senate on funding the government, with a shutdown as the price of failure. If the next speaker is not at least marginally more empowered, as opposed to constantly fearful of another ouster attempt driven by online activists or conservative media personalities, the chaos will continue.

McCarthy Destroys The House To Become Speaker

 

The following is just part of an excellent op-ed by Dana Milbank in The Washington Post:

This is what happens when a political party, year after year, systematically destroys the norms and institutions of democracy. This is what happens when those expert at tearing things down are put in charge of governing. The dysfunction has been building over years of government shutdowns, debt-default showdowns and other fabricated crises, and now anti-government Republicans used their new majority to bring the House itself to a halt.

This is insurrection by other means: Two years to the day since the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol, Republicans are still attacking the functioning of government. McCarthy opened the door to the chaos by excusing Donald Trump’s fomenting of the attack and welcoming a new class of election deniers to his caucus. Now he’s trying to save his own political ambitions by agreeing to institutionalize the chaos — not just for the next two years but for future congresses as well.

On Thursday, the day McCarthy failed on an 11th consecutive ballot to secure the speakership, he formally surrendered to the 21 GOP extremists denying him the job. He agreed to allow any member of the House to force a vote at will to “vacate” his speakership — essentially agreeing to be in permanent jeopardy of losing his job. He agreed to put rebels on the Rules Committee, giving them sway over what gets a vote on the House floor, and in key committee leadership posts. He agreed to unlimited amendments to spending bills, inviting two years of mayhem. He agreed to other changes that make future government shutdowns and a default on the national debt more likely, if not probable.

Perhaps worst of all, the McCarthy-aligned super PAC, the Conservative Leadership Fund, agreed that it would no longer work against far-right extremists in the vast majority of Republican primaries — a move sure to increase the number of bomb throwers in Congress. Essentially, McCarthy placated the crazies in his caucus by giving up every tool he (or anybody) had to maintain order in the House.

Finally, on the 15th ballot early Saturday morning, McCarthy’s abject surrender secured him the speakership, at least temporarily. But it was the most pyrrhic of victories. To save himself, he sacrificed the Congress itself. The saboteurs won. . . .

Finally, after four full days of chaos capped by intra-GOP fisticuffs and Republicans voting down their own motion to adjourn, McCarthy claimed the gavel. But by then his fate had become unimportant, because whoever occupies the speaker’s chair will now be irrelevant. McCarthy’s surrender has condemned the House to two years — or more — of anarchy.

Remembering A Great Speaker Of The House - Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is stepping down from House Democratic Party leadership. I think she will be remembered at one the the greatest Speakers the House of Representatives has ever had.

Here is part of an op-ed on Speaker Pelosi by Michelle Cottle in The New York Times:

When Nancy Pelosi first took up the speaker’s gavel in January 2007, it was amid soaring talk of making history and breaking barriers. “For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she proclaimed at her swearing-in. “Now the sky is the limit. Anything is possible.”

Sixteen years, four presidents, two impeachments, one pandemic and a failed insurrection later, Ms. Pelosi will soon hand over that gavel for good and step down from House leadership amid a darker, more divided political landscape than she likely imagined in those first heady days. The George W. Bush years weren’t a high point for bipartisan comity and public trust in government, but they were a far cry from the violence-obsessed, conspiracymongering nihilism of Trumpism. But Ms. Pelosi has never been one to let the haters get her down, and some of her most important acts of leadership have come at some of the nation’s lowest moments.

History, being reductive, will remember Ms. Pelosi as the first woman to rise to the exalted post of speaker, just two steps away from the presidency. Those who have watched her work in the House for so many years will remember her as something arguably just as notable: a total badass.

By that term, I don’t mean that Ms. Pelosi is some swaggering, performative tough guy. Quite the opposite. In her two decades atop the House Democratic caucus, whether in the majority or the minority, she has been a strikingly effective leader in part because she doesn’t much give a flip about her public image. What matters to her is getting stuff done — be it passing legislation, thwarting the opposition’s agenda or protecting her members come election time. She is brutally pragmatic (too much so for some in her caucus) and has a shrewd sense of the political pressure points of allies and opponents alike. She doesn’t hog the credit for her clever ideas, nor does she waste time publicly rationalizing or blaming others for her bad ones. No one outworks her, and aides and allies have happily cultivated the legend of her endless energy. (Key points: Doesn’t need sleep. Runs on chocolate.)

Ms. Pelosi has frequently been underestimated. It is one of her competitive advantages. That whole grandmother-in-pearls thing led many to assume that she could be talked down to or outmaneuvered or intimidated. More than one Republican president and congressional leader has seen his best-laid plans shatter against her vaguely awkward, excessively bright smile. (Ms. Pelosi has never been natural in front of the camera.) Mr. Bush’s second-term goal of remaking Social Security never had a prayer. Even President Donald Trump was clearly in awe of her and had no idea how to deal with her treating him like a petulant man-child. He still doesn’t. The poor guy can’t even come up with an insulting nickname for her that sticks.

Many have misunderstood Ms. Pelosi’s political core. She has spent her congressional career representing San Francisco, fueling caricatures of her as a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing lefty extremist. But she is a political creature not of San Francisco so much as of Baltimore, where she was raised in a local Democratic dynasty. Her father, “Big Tommy” D’Alesandro, went from Maryland’s House of Delegates to five terms in Congress to three as mayor of Baltimore. She and her brothers learned to count votes and knock on doors practically from birth. Constituent service was a quasi-religion, and starting at age 13, the D’Alesandro children spent several hours a week fielding constituent requests and helping maintain a “favor file” on everyone they assisted. “We dealt with human nature in the raw,” Ms. Pelosi’s brother Thomas D’Alesandro III (who also served as Baltimore’s mayor) once told me.

The transactional, pragmatic politics of her youth have served Ms. Pelosi well as leader. When it comes time to whip votes or cut a deal, she has her own version of a favor file to consult: She knows precisely what the members need — not to be confused with what they want — and how much they can reasonably risk to take one for the team. Time and again, she has wheedled, negotiated and threatened her restive members into line to pass legislation ranging from Obamacare, which the speaker cites as her proudest legislative achievement, to last year’s bipartisan infrastructure package and the Inflation Reduction Act, which is really more about reducing health care costs and tackling climate change. . . .

Ms. Pelosi is stepping back from leadership while her political stock is high within her party. Despite House Democrats losing the majority, pretty much everyone acknowledges that they dramatically overperformed this cycle, given the political fundamentals at play. And her personal brand has been burnished by her cool handling of the assault on her husband and the recently released video showing her poise during the Jan. 6 insanity. (With Congress under attack, she was ripping open a beef stick with her teeth? Ice-cold.) . . .

Ms. Pelosi is an original, and we are unlikely to see another leader of her ilk any time soon. She elbowed her way to the tippy top of the congressional boys’ club, then set about distinguishing herself as the most formidable, most effective House leader since the middle of the last century. Love her or hate her, you have to acknowledge the fundamental badassery.

Pelosi Outmaneuvers Trump -- Again

If Trump was counting on a national-televised speech before the entire government (and the nation) to tell more lies to get his wall, it looks like he will be very disappointed. He can't go to the House of Representatives to speak (even for a State of the Union speech) without an invitation from the House (which would be done by a vote of House members). That invitation has not been offered yet, and it looks like it won't be extended.

The letter above is from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Donald Trump. In it, she suggests the speech be postponed until the government is opened, or that Trump deliver his speech in writing (as all presidents prior to Woodrow Wilson did). In other words, Trump won't get his moment in the spotlight as long as he keeps the government shut down!

Trump needs to realize that he is just outclassed by Pelosi. In a battle of wits with her, Trump is defenseless.

House Of Representatives Of The 116th Congress

The 55th Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

The House of Representatives of the 116th Congress has 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans. There is one open seat -- the 9th District of North Carolina. This gives the Democrats a current advantage of 36 seats (votes).

From Vox.com, here are 10 new Democratic committee chairs who will provide oversight of the Trump administration:

Intelligence Committee — Adam Schiff (D-California)

Oversight Committee — Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Judiciary Committee — Jerry Nadler (D-New York)

Ways and Means Committee — Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts)

Financial Services — Maxine Waters (D-California)

Foreign Affairs Committee — Eliot Engel (D-New York)

Energy and Commerce — Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey)

Natural Resources — Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona)

Veterans’ Affairs — Mark Takano (D-California)

Science, Space, and Technology — Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas)

Thoughts On Pelosi Becoming The Next Speaker

Much has been made of opposition to Nancy Pelosi becoming the next Speaker of the House on cable news programs. Those talking heads and pundits would have you believe this is a divisive issue among Democrats, and that Pelosi may not be able to get the votes to become Speaker. That's nonsense.

The truth is that Pelosi has strong support among the Democratic base. The Quinnipiac University Poll, the Politico / Morning Consult Poll, and the CBS News / SSRS Poll all show that the Democratic base supports Pelosi -- with many more supporting her than opposing her. Democrats like Pelosi, and respect her service to the party and the country. Her election to the speakership is not going to split the party.

There seems to be a feeling among some that the argument about Pelosi is between the progressive and the moderate/conservative Democrats -- with progressives being the ones wanting a Speaker other than Pelosi. Not true. Pelosi is a progressive, and many of those opposing her are not.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) is one of the most progressive members of the new Congress, and she campaigned saying she would support someone other than Pelosi for speaker. But after talking with Pelosi and those who oppose her, she has realized that Pelosi is the progressive choice for speaker. She wrote this to her supporters:

“Right now, out of the field, I would say that [Pelosi] is the most progressive candidate. All of the rebellion for the Speakership are challenges to her right, and so I think it's important to communicate that. My standard in this is: I'm going to support the most progressive candidate that's leading the party, and right now, that is Nancy Pelosi, in terms of the running. I would like to see new, younger leadership, but I don't want new leadership that's more conservative.”

As of today, there is no one running against Pelosi for Speaker. There was some talk that Marcia L. Fudge (Ohio) was thinking about running against Pelosi, but after talking with Pelosi she changed her mind. She is now supporting Pelosi.

One reason there is no candidate that has come forth is that Pelosi has the votes in the Democratic caucus to be the caucus nominee on the House floor. The best another candidate could do would be to force the Speaker vote to a second round. That would be pointless.

While saying he would stay out of the race for Speaker, President Obama called Pelosi one of the most effective legislative leaders the country has ever seen, and said:

“Nancy is not always the best on a cable show or with a quick sound bite or what have you. But her skill, tenacity, toughness, vision, is remarkable. Her stamina, her ability to see around corners, her ability to stand her ground and do hard things and to suffer unpopularity to get the right thing done I think stands up against any person that I’ve observed or worked directly with in Washington during my lifetime.”

It's time to stop the nonsense arguments against Pelosi. She will be the next Speaker of the House -- and that's a very good thing for Democrats.

Would Anti-Pelosi Dem Faction Help Elect A GOP Speaker ?

It is now known that the Democrats will have a significant majority in the next House of Representatives (that will be seated in early January of 2019). That would normally mean the next Speaker of the House would be a Democrat.

But there is a small group of anti-Pelosi Democrats that are trying to force the party to bend to their will. They remind me of the "freedom caucus" that caused so much trouble for Republicans in the 115th Congress? Is this group going to keep Democrats from accomplishing anything in the 116th Congress. Maybe. They are certainly sounding like they could be troublemakers who will divide the House Democrats.

They are now claiming they will vote against Nancy Pelosi when the Speaker election is held on the floor of the Senate, and they claim they have enough votes to prevent her from winning the Speaker election.

These Democrats (?) don't have enough votes to keep Pelosi from becoming the Speaker nominee of the House Democratic Caucus. She will be the nominee of the party. The Republicans will put their own nominee up -- and the one with the most votes will be Speaker.

Understand that the anti-Pelosi Dems are not saying they will abstain from the vote. That would just reduce the number of votes needed to become Speaker. They are saying they would actually vote against Pelosi -- and the only way to do that is to vote for the Republican candidate. Even if the faction put up their own candidate, it would just require a second vote (after their candidate was eliminated), and would once again come down to Pelosi or the Republican.

Are these people really willing to vote for the Republican? Is their misogyny so strong they would put a Republican in as Speaker of the Democratically-controlled House? I'm wondering if they have thought their ridiculous threat through. The folks who elected them did not do so to get another right-wing Republican Speaker. Some of them might even face a recall, and all of them would have a real Democrat opposing them in 2020.

I suspect this is just a lot of huffing and puffing, and most will fall in line on Speaker election day (while a few will vote present). They are trying to force their minority view on the majority. It won't work. Nancy Pelosi is going to be the next Speaker of the House -- and any Democrat that votes against her will only be hurting themselves. No real Democrat would vote to install a Republican as Speaker.

Should Pelosi Be Speaker If Dems Take The House ?

The latest squabble from left-wing Democrats is that Rep. Nancy Pelosi should be replaced as Speaker of the House if Democrats regain control in the coming election. Is that a good idea?

The Republicans are trying to use Pelosi as a scare tactic to get out their voters. That's because they have no real issues to run on, because they made a real mess of the 115th Congress. Everything they tried to do (including passing a budget) has flopped -- and the one thing they accomplished, tax reform, has been exposed as a huge giveaway to the rich and to corporations. They are left with nothing but to demonize Pelosi to try and get out their voters.

Sadly though, it seems the GOP scare tactic is not just affecting their own voters, but also some Democratic candidates. At last count, about 51 Democratic House candidates have said they would not support Pelosi for Speaker. I think they're making a mistake. The Pelosi-haters are not going to vote for them regardless of which Democrat they support for Speaker, and not supporting Pelosi is not a big vote-getter among Independents.

These candidates say it's time for younger people to take over the party leadership. I'm not opposed to passing the torch, but is this next Congress the time to do that? Here are some things Democrats need to consider.

1. There's a reason that Republicans hate Nancy Pelosi. It's because she is smart, tough, and knows how to use the rules against them. She's also a good negotiator, who won't be run over by right-wing Republicans. With Trump still in the White House, we will need a tough and smart Speaker to stand up to him.

2. Pelosi id the only woman among the Democratic House leadership. If she is replaced, it will be by a man, and once again the party in the House will be ruled by an all-male leadership team. Is that what we want? Is that fair, considering that Democrats are running more female candidates than ever before?

3. Pelosi is the biggest fundraiser of all. She has raised about $91 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee through July (more than twice what anyone else has done) -- money badly needed if the Democrats are to flip Congress. If the Democrats are successful, it will be largely due to Pelosi's remarkable fund-raising.

I think Pelosi should be elected Speaker for the 116th Congress. At her age, she won't hold the position too long, and it would give Democrats some time to groom younger people to assume leadership positions -- and there should be some women among those being groomed to take over.

Replacing Pelosi right now would be like Democrats shooting themselves in the foot -- and borrowing a gun from Republicans to do it.

Is Nancy Pelosi Really A Problem For Democrats ?

I'm not surprised that the Republicans are trying to demonize Rep. Nancy Pelosi. She used to be the Speaker, and Republicans want to convince Americans that somehow she would be terrible for the nation if the Democrats regain the House majority and she were to again become Speaker. That's to be expected, and Democrats return the favor by doing their best to demonize Paul Ryan (the current Republican Speaker).

But I'm hearing more and more from Democrats (mainly those in the party's left wing) that Pelosi is somehow hurting the party and should be replaced if Democrats regain the majority. Is that true? Is Pelosi a drag on the Democratic ticket this year?

For an answer I went to the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between March 10th and 13th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points.

The charts show that Pelosi is no more unpopular with all adults and with Independents than Paul Ryan is, and both are equally popular within their own parties. If Pelosi is a drag on the Democratic ticket, then Ryan is equally a drag on the Republican ticket. And both are more popular than their counterparts in the Senate.

The upshot of this is that those who would vote against a Democrat because of Pelosi is probably a Republican, and wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter who the prospective Speaker could be. This election is not about Pelosi or Ryan. It is about the direction that Trump and the Republicans are taking this country.

I can understand that the party's leftists would like to see a leftist as Speaker. I wouldn't mind seeing that myself. But the attacks on Pelosi coming from members of her own party are out-of-place at this time. The only important thing right now is for Democrats to unite and unseat as many Republicans as possible -- for the good of the country.

Nancy Pelosi is not the devil incarnate. She actually did a credible job the last time she was Speaker (and was largely responsible for shepherding Obamacare through the House).

If the Democrats elected to the House want to replace Pelosi next January, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to make her Speaker again, I don't mind that either. She has been a loyal Democrat for a long time. But either way, this is not the time to be squabbling over her. This is the time to unite to create a blue wave this November.

Has Paul Ryan Brought The House Republicans Together ?

It looks like the House of Representatives has a new Speaker. The vote won't come until next Thursday, but after speaking to his fellow Republicans (and getting the support of the so-called "Freedom Caucus"), Paul Ryan has said he will be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. In a letter to his fellow Republicans, he said:

"I never thought I'd be speaker. But I pledged to you that if I could be a unifying figure, then I would serve—I would go all in. After talking with so many of you, and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as a one, united team. And I am ready and eager to be our speaker."

Are the Republicans now really united? Has Paul Ryan really brought to together? I know that's the image they would like to present to the media (and through them the voters), but I don't believe it. I want to see how they handle a couple of things that are coming up very soon -- raising the debt ceiling, and passing a new budget. The debt ceiling will need to be raised in the first week of November to avoid a default on government debts, and a new budget will need to be passed by December 11th to avoid a government shutdown.

While the "Freedom Caucus" (the teabagger caucus in the House) is going along with Ryan as Speaker, that does not mean they have changed their minds about what they want. They (and some other House Republicans) want to stop the raising of the debt ceiling and pass a budget they know the Democrats and the president could never agree to -- which would shut down the government.

Is Ryan going to let them do that? Or is he going to want to compromise to avoid that (which is what killed Boehner's speakership). If Ryan can somehow maneuver the House through those, and still maintain a unified party, then I'll give him credit. But I think he's taken over a thankless job, and probably one that no one could do (considering the state of the current Republican Party).

Can Paul Ryan Bring Peace To Warring GOP Factions ?

(The caricature above of Paul Ryan is by DonkeyHotey.)

House Republicans got what they wanted -- the ouster of John Boehner as Speaker. But it hasn't been the victory they had hoped for. For a few days, it looked like Kevin McCarthy (GOP Majority Leader) would slide right in to Boehner's old job -- but that was not to be. The GOP "freedom caucus", made up of about 40 teabagger Republicans, made it clear that he did not have their support -- and they had enough votes to block his election on the House floor.

That threw the speaker election into disarray. Several representatives have tossed their name into the hat, but none of them have a lot of support. Enter Paul Ryan. Ryan doesn't really want the job. He's already head of a very powerful committee, and still has presidential aspirations -- and traditionally, the Speakership has not been a job that creates presidents.

But the Republicans are now desperate. They need someone who can corral enough votes to be elected Speaker -- and it looks like Ryan is the only representative well-liked enough to do that. The GOP representatives all see him as a solid conservative (because of the austere budgets he has proposed in the past). It's looking more and more like Ryan could be the consensus candidate, if he can be talked into accepting the job -- and I believe it is now very likely that he will be the next Speaker of the House.

Will he bring peace to House Republicans (and the base party voters)? I doubt it. While he's a right-wing conservative, he still will face a Senate where Democrats can block House actions, and a president who can veto them. Is he going to be more likely to let the House Republicans shut down the government over silly issues like Planned Parenthood? I doubt it. He might throw them a bone, like Boehner did in the past, but eventually even he will have to try to govern (and that means avoiding shutdowns over right-wing issues) -- and when he does try to govern, he will become just as unpopular as Boehner was.

John Boehner was not the problem, and Paul Ryan is not the solution. The real problem is a war for the soul of the Republican Party -- in the Congress, and in the party's base. On one side are the teabaggers and evangelicals. They don't like anything a Black (or woman) president would do, and they are willing to shut down the government over social issues (issues that go against current law and public opinion). The other side is the business-oriented establishment Republicans. They see the other side as hurting the party's electoral chances, and want to stay in power to reduce taxes for the rich and corporations and reduce regulations on Wall Street.

This war is not new, and has been going on for a few years now. Ryan is not going to be able to bring peace between those GOP factions. That's nothing against him. I don't think anyone could do that at this time.

It will be interesting to see what happens, and we won't have long to wait. The debt ceiling will need to be raised in November, and a budget needs to be passed by December 11th. The teabagger element will be willing to shut down the government over those issues, while the establishment faction doesn't want that. It seems that Ryan is already between a rock and a hard place, and he doesn't even have the job yet.

Gohmert Falls Short Of Speaker's Job -- By 202 Votes

Yesterday I posted about Louie Gohmert's quixotic and rather ridiculous attempt to be elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Today I have the sad (not really) duty to inform you that crazy Louie has fallen short of that goal -- 202 votes short (out of the 205 votes needed to be elected). Louie got 3 votes, and one of those was his own vote.

The other two GOP representatives who cast a dubious vote for Louie were Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma and Randy Weber of Texas. The voters in Oklahoma's 1st Congressional District and Texas's 14th Congressional District should think long and hard about re-electing these two in 2016. Their belief that Louie Gohmert has the intelligence, skill, and leadership potential to be Speaker of the House shows their link to reality to be tenuous at best.

But Louie's huge defeat doesn't mean the country dodged a bullet. That's because the clearly incompetent John Boehner got 216 Republican votes -- enough to re-elect him to the Speaker position.

(The image above is from the Facebook page of the Democratic Party.)

A Bit Of (Unintended) Humor To Brighten Your Day

(This cartoon image of Louie Gohmert is by Matt Wuerker at Politico.com.)

If you are like me, the thought of Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress has put you in a depressing tailspin -- so I thought we could all use a little humor. And the craziest man in Congress, the man who never passes up an opportunity to say something stupid for the cameras, the man who makes other extremist Republicans nervous when he opens his mouth, has provided it for us.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has announced his candidacy for Speaker of the House, and he has even created a web page to promote his candidacy. I provided a link to that web page just in case you think that couldn't possibly be true. To Gohmert, John Boehner is a flaming liberal, and he even had the temerity to call him a "dictator". Saying as many as 30% of congressional Republicans could bolt from the GOP if Boehner is not ousted, Gohmert told Fox News:

“They are so fed up that we are not fighting for what we said, and if we don’t show them that, it’s going to devastate this country.” 

Gohmert says he doesn't expect to be elected on the first ballot, but believes the party will turn to him for "leadership" after three or four rounds of voting.

Those of us who live in the world of reality have long suspected that Gohmert lives in a dream world of his own making -- a world where facts don't matter and nothing is too insane to be uttered by a public official. If you doubt that, then peruse these examples of Gohmert's rhetoric:

(On the IRS)
"We can put Obama on the defensive just by completely getting rid of the Internal Revenue code." 

(On terror babies)
"[The children] could be raised and coddled as future terrorists [and] twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life."

(On muslims in the Obama administration)
 "This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America."

(On the oil pipeline)
"So when [caribou] want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. ... So my real concern now [is] if oil stops running through the pipeline ... do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?"

(On the shooting in Aurora, Colorado)
"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place. ... We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."

(On cutting food stamps)
"It's not evil to cut food stamps. Some poor people are obese, so this will help them."

(On same-sex marriage)
"The problem is. . .when you say it's not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?"

(On the Attorney General testifying before a House committee)
"I cannot have a witness challenge my character! The Attorney General will not cast aspersions on my asparagus!"

Now I don't expect Louie Gohmert has a snowball's chance of surviving the Sahara Desert in the summer to be elected Speaker, but I find the idea of it very humorous -- and it shows that he still has no connection to the real world.

Bernie On Speaker Boehner

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has a valid point here. Speaker Boehner has not acted in the best interests of the House of Representatives, the government, the people of the United States, or his own political party. He has let himself be ruled by a tiny minority of his own Republican caucus, because he doesn't have the strength, intelligence, or political skill to control that caucus. And because that minority controls him (instead of him controlling the GOP caucus), he has refused several times now to even allow a vote on the Senate version of the continuing resolution -- in spite of the fact that the Senate has voted on every continuing resolution sent to it by the House. Boehner is the weakest and least effective Speaker of the House that this country has ever had.

Speaker Boehner Has A Lobbyist Girlfriend

Before the last elections, Rep. John Boehner cautioned his Republican brothers to rein in their sexual desires, even having private chats with some of them. He wanted to avoid any scandals that might derail the Republicans' quest to return to power. But it looks like he has failed to heed his own advice.

The National Enquirer is coming out with a story about Speaker Boehner breaking his own marriage vows with a couple of girlfriends of his own. One is congressional press secretary Leigh LaMora, and the other is a congressional lobbyist -- Lisbeth Lyons. Some might question the source, but remember, it was the Enquirer that exposed the infidelity of John Edwards. And they turned out to be right on target with that one. Additionally, there have been rumors of Boehner's infidelity floating around for a while now.

It's bad enough that Boehner would break his own rules and desecrate his own marriage, but having sexual relations with a lobbyist ups the ante substantially. It puts his political decisions in question. Lobbyists exist to influence politicians to support their clients by passing or eliminating laws which affect those clients. And there are laws to prevent those lobbyists from buying influence with those politicians.

But money is not the only way to buy influence. There are also sexual favors (and blackmail to keep indiscretions a secret). Having a lobbyist girlfriend calls into question any decisions Boehner might make in the House of Representatives. Is he bringing up a bill (or blocking a bill) because he thinks it's good for America, or as a payback for sexual favors? And do the Republicans really want a tainted Speaker as they struggle to return to power?

It is one thing to oppose the politics of a Speaker. It is quite different to be unable to trust a Speaker. Maybe it's time for the Republicans to consider replacing Boehner (even though he's had the position less than a month).

This Should Scare All Texans

We were warned about a month ago that this might happen, but now Panhandle State Rep. Warren Chisum has made it official.   Chisum has sent a letter to all his Republican colleagues running for election to the House this year announcing his candidacy for the speakership of the Texas House.   Chisum is one of those Republicans who are upset because the current speaker, Joe Straus of San Antonio, is a moderate Republican who generally treats both sides of the aisle fairly.

Chisum is not just a Republican -- he is on the far-right fundamentalist fringe of the party who thinks bills written by moderates and liberals shouldn't even get out of committee and definitely shouldn't be allowed a vote on the House floor.   His one claim to fame in the last session of the Texas legislature is getting a bill passed that forces all Texas high schools to offer a Bible course.  

He wanted to make it a mandatory course for all students, an effort to proselytize students for his own religion, but his fellow House members wouldn't go that far. They watered the bill down and made the course an elective (so a student didn't have to take it if he/she didn't want to).

Chisum has also introduced in the past a bill that would prevent schools from teaching sex education to any student without written permission of the student's parents.   And he is in favor of teaching the religious concept of creationism in science classes to break "the evolution monoply in the schools."

He is a homophobe who has come out in the past against any kind of hate crimes legislation. He has also increased a bill to double the waiting time in Texas before a divorce decree could be granted.   He is a member of the Texas Conservative Coalition, agroup of far-right House members.

But the really scary part is that this nut, a member of former speaker Craddick's inner circle, may have a chance of getting elected to the speaker position.   It all depends on how the November election comes out.   If Democrats win a majority in the House there will be a Democrat elected speaker.   If Democrats maintain their present strength, then Speaker Straus will be re-elected.   But if the Republicans are able to significantly increase their margin in the House this November, then Chisum stands a good chance of getting elected speaker.

This makes it very important to vote for Democrats in House races wherever possible in November.   It's bad enough that Republicans hold majorities in both legislative bodies, but having a Speaker Chisum would be disastrous for Texas.

Rep. Turner Wants To Become Speaker

Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) has tossed his hat in the ring for consideration to become the next Speaker of the House in Texas. He's joins a half dozen or so Republicans that have announced their plans to seek the office.

Now I'm starting to believe that Speaker Craddick may really be in trouble. Turner is a true Craddick loyalist, and has been so for several sessions now. He even helped to author the bill that ensured the last election for speaker would be by roll call vote, and not by secret ballot.

When loyalists like Turner seek to become speaker, then there is an excellent chance that Craddick's reign is over. His candidacy is a good omen for the people of Texas.

But I cannot bring myself to support Turner's candidacy. He has been too close to and supportive of the dictator Craddick. In fact, if it weren't for a few Democrats like Turner throwing their support behind Craddick, we could have already been rid of him. What the heck was Turner thinking?

I really can't see good House Democrats voting for Turner. He's just too closely tied to Craddick, and Craddick has never treated the Democrats fairly in his long tenure as speaker.

However, I do believe the Democrats should solidly support a representative from Houston, and there is one who's declared her candidacy. Of course, I'm talking about Rep. Senfronia Thompson. She has had the courage to stand tall and oppose the Craddicks of the world, and she has the intelligence, passion and experience for the job. She has earned the support of all true Democrats.

I urge House Democrats to vote for a terrific Democrat, and turn their backs on all the members of the Craddick cabal. Vote for Rep. Senfronia Thompson!