No More Speaker Fiascos, Please

I am once again torn after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a resolution, a motion to vacate Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. Whether or not we will have another Speaker fiasco is up for debate as many House Republicans have expressed, "It's not the time," but certainly there is even growing disdain for Speaker Johnson among Republican voters outside of Congress.

The issue for me is that while I disagree with Johnson's decision to allow for more funding to Ukraine, I have also expressed numerous times the need to have at least some modicum of unity within the party, and to have an understanding that while we all want certain things, we're not ever going to get everything we want.

I don't want an all or nothing government anyway, regardless of who is in charge. It doesn't get the work done if you have that expectation or operate that way. The job of Congress, in my view, is not to do the bidding of the parties, but to do the bidding of the American people they represent.

That means having a discussion on the issues, searching for and finding that important middle ground, and deciding things on the basis of compromise that still gets something done even if neither side gets a perfect resolution.

I grant you, the topic of Ukraine is a hot one. It's not our fight. I admit to having mixed feelings about it. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I am not as huge a fan of Putin as some my Republican friends seem to be. I view Russia as an evil regime with interests and ideals far removed from core American values.

They are allies with countries like Iran and China for Heaven's sake. And I disagree with Putin's rationale for invading Ukraine in the first place.

The bottom line is, I have no admiration for Putin at all, honestly. I feel for the citizens of Ukraine, caught in a battle they likely will never win. But the amount of money we are sending over there just feels wrong to me when we have other issues inside our own borders to address and a ballooning debt crisis.

I mean, what's the end game for the United States, really, when it comes to Ukraine?

Look, we're only 7 months away from the general election. Can we afford to have another clown show Speaker fight? And I know that assessment might piss of some of my fellow Republican friends. But that's what it is. That's what it looks like to the general voting public. It especially looks like that to the all important independent voters who ultimately decide who wins the race.

I get it. We're conservatives. We're Republicans. We take the higher moral ground and unlike the Democrats, when we have bad dogs, we scold them. 

Meanwhile, all of this infighting also does another thing. It creates a huge distraction. There's work to be done. We should be filing resolutions and having discussions that advance the interests of the public at large. 

I don't like all of what Mike Johnson is doing. At the same time, I have no expectation that I will find myself in agreement with him 100% of the time. Just like with any politician. I don't even disagree 100% of the time with the Democrats.

I think it is important to air our concerns and state our disagreements. But immediately calling for someone to be fired just because we didn't get our way on one or another issue to me is simply childish and uncalled for.

The big question is, how do we expect to win elections if it appears we cannot even agree with ourselves? How can we convince the American people we know how to lead if we can't even decide who leads us?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Time To End the Circus on the Next Choice for Speaker

There are days when I swear, I am but a mere witness to a circus and that bothers me. Because right now a lot of the circus seems to be on my side of the political aisle. And I mean that with all sincerity. Hey look, I have said it many times before and I will say it again, just because I am a republican doesn't mean I am going to overlook reality like the other side does and dismiss what I can see with my own damn eyes!

I supported McCarthy for the speakership when the question came around last time and urged my fellow republicans to simply show strength and rally around the guy—even if they have some reservations. Which, to be fair, we're going to have with just about anyone. No one is a perfect candidate no matter what they are running for. 

The thing for me was about the optics of it all. Take optics for what they are, but the truth is that's exactly what the media wanted everyone to see. Instability, infighting, disarray, discombobulation and lack of direction.

And the months long McCarthy fight did more than provide for enough of that, and even with the now ousting of McCarthy we're still giving the media the same fodder for more bad optics.

Nonetheless, I can also understand some of the arguments in favor of McCarthy's losing the gavel. I'm an honest guy, like I keep saying. Was the decision a bit hasty in my opinion? Sure. Regardless of anyone's opinion overall the reality is that it just adds to the narrative that the republican party is disorganized and unfocused.

But that's for another day.

The two top contenders in the mix right now are Rep. John Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and so far, it appears Scalise may have slightly more support than Jordan does. Personally, I think Scalise may be the better choice right now, but honestly, I think either would make a good speaker. Jordan in the past, for example, has shown deep interest in getting to the bottom of a lot of important questions, and he's been a bull in Congress in my opinion.

At the same time, I also believe that Scalise has more admiration and respect from the other side and that makes him slightly more suited to the position. Because not only does he need to rally the caucus, he needs to be able to reach across the aisle and be able to bring sensible judgement and ideas to the table working with the president.

Granted, regardless of whatever respect he has from either side, getting the 218 votes he needs to become speaker is no easy task. Especially if the republicans can't make up their minds what they want or need to do. And right now, they are having a really tough time with that.

Throw into the mix the Trump card. It's not the first time his name has come up of course. It did as well when McCarthy was fighting for the spot. His name is in the mix yet again, with at least a couple members supporting the idea, and the infamous Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she won't support anyone other than Trump for speaker.

Trump even went on to post on social media a picture of him holding the speaker's gavel without any text to accompany it, and publicly stated when asked whether he'd consider the role if asked, "All I can say is we will do whatever is best for the country, republican party and the people."

By the way, Trump will never be speaker. At least not in my opinion. For one thing if the battle for Scalise and Jordan are a climb up a very steep mountain, the feat for Trump would be one of astronomical proportion the likes of which we have never seen or may never likely ever see again.

It is, by all measures, simply anecdotal. But again, it adds to the circus even though I might support Trump to land the role—although I am not sure I agree that it would be good for the country, the republican party or the people. And that's not me discounting Trump's leadership capabilities. It's just me being realistic.

And, at the same time, reaffirming my position that what we need right now in the role of speaker is someone who can be less divisive and rally the troops and be able to cross party lines. I think that person is Scalise. Jordan would have difficulty doing that in my opinion, and certainly Trump would not be able to do that.

In fact, going one step further, I think Trump in the role of speaker would also damage some of his chances in 2024 as well as distract him from his own campaign. As I have said many times, the focus needs to be on 2024 and on how we defeat President Biden. And that's as tough a road, despite that it shouldn't be, based on Biden's complete failure of a presidency, as Scalise's ascendency to the speakership. But we're in a very weird time right now and the media's not giving things to us straight and many Americans either don't care or are actually listening to what the media is telling them.

Either way, what I am hopeful for is that we can be swift in our election of a new speaker and keep the infighting to a bare minimum, showing strength and solidarity to the American people who very badly right now need to see a republican party better able to come together.

We need to end the circus. It's gone on long enough and it's gone beyond the clown show. We're in near ridiculous territory.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest Springboard stuff from here, HubPages and other places where I ply my wares and share my thoughts.

Being An Atheist Does Not Bar Me From Being A Conservative

Let me start off by saying that this blog post is a response to a comment I received on Facebook, and that while my response to it is both tongue and cheek and serious, the comment I am responding to was entirely tongue in cheek. Let me also, for the sake of the record, state a couple of other noteworthy things here just so that it is clear how I am coming down on any of my positions here.

• Up until 2005 I was a card carrying member of the Republican National Committee. Since the beginning of my cognitive life I had sided with conservative and republican values.
• I am currently a registered republican.
• I have financially contributed to the campaigns of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John McCain for president, Mitt Romney for president, Mike Bost for Congress, Paul Ryan, Ron Johnson, and a number of other republican candidates campaigning for certain political elected positions.
• I am an atheist.

Let me also state for the record that, in my view, my last bullet point does not bar me from the republican party, does not preclude me from being labeled a conservative, and does not mean I hold no moral values—conservatism does not have a single thing to do with theology, but rather has everything to do with common sense values, views, and political posturing.

I am a republican. I am a conservative. Nothing about my views, beliefs, or political posture suggest otherwise on the whole.

We talk all the time about radicals and extremists. Certainly these terms apply to Christians, Muslims, and atheists alike. I am not an extremist or radical atheist. I am for Judeo-Christian philosophy for example, as a founding principle of our government, our Constitution, and our system of laws, and our fundamental beliefs about human rights throughout the world, and the spread of democracy and freedom.

Considering the holiday is right around the corner, I am an atheist who is conservative enough to appreciate the religious freedom of those who celebrate Christmas for religious reasons and am FOR saying Merry Christmas. I am also for the spirit of giving whether or not it be tied to Jesus, God, or any other religious reason. Again, it is to my mind just the right way to think as a HUMAN BEING.

I can think of no common sense human quality that would suggest that people should be disrespectful, rude, or selfish.

So what if I do not believe in God? So what if I do not believe that Jesus was His Son? (Note that despite my core beliefs I STILL capitalize where it is appropriate and am respectful to do so, and when referring to any religious aspects have ALWAYS done so.) Is religion even necessary to be good? Is it necessary to be moral even though the definition of morality is theological in nature? Is religion necessary to do decent things, and understand fundamentally that the pain and suffering of others is bad? That it is inhuman and inhumane? Is religion necessary to appreciate life, and to underscore the very fact that no matter where we come from, or what end we will face, that while we are here on Earth life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness is precious, that it must be appreciated, and that it must be PROTECTED? Is religion necessary to know that persecution is bad, murder is wrong, and oppression and infringement on personal freedom is cruel and unjust?

In a word, no. And again, the way I see it that is just simple common sense.

So, I suppose I should cut to the chase and get to the comment before I get too far ahead of myself. This could turn into a rather long winded post. Now I finally understand why many in the past have called me a windbag.

"After sitting here thinking about your discussions we have had in times past...I've decided that since you believe in Jesus being a real person but not who he says he was, that you are a liberal Christian. Many liberal Christians are also democrats as well.
Ergo you're a democrat! Congrats on your new found party, The DNC!"

Now, just to be fair let's take one single statement here for the purposes of initial analysis. When did Jesus ever say he was "who He said He was?" Nowhere in any official record did Jesus Christ ever claim to be the Son of God? He never did. His actions may have suggested it. The story may have suggested it. But He never said it. The "fact" that Jesus was the Son of God was a suggestion by His disciples and the men who chronicled the story after His death.

By the way, did I mention that I am atheist? At the very least, even liberal Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God. I do not. Liberal Christians very simply have a different view of "What would Jesus do?"

What am I for?

• I am for marriage between a man and a woman.
• I am pro-military.
• I am pro-life.
• I am for smaller government.
• I am for lower taxes.
• I am for free markets and capitalism.
• I am for sound immigration policy and reform and securing the border.
• I am for the Constitution.
• I am for freedom of religion.
• I am for free speech.
• I am for the 2nd Amendment.
• I am for minimalist regulation.
• I am for school vouchers.
• I am for welfare reform.
• I am for strong national security.
• I am for military action where it is deemed necessary and beneficial.
• I am for spreading of freedom and rights to religion, and the pursuit of happiness.
• I am for PROTECTING the right to religion, and the pursuit of happiness.

In fact, the only area where I disagree with the total free market system is when it applies to globalization and trade policies which disadvantage American businesses, particularly in manufacturing. I am actually FOR a zero percent corporate tax rate, believing that taxes should be collected at the point of sale of raw goods, the point of sale of finished goods, and labor should be taxed. These are not necessarily republican or conservative beliefs, but they are mine. And even these beliefs are FAR REMOVED from ANY liberal or democratic belief. So, even if some of my beliefs are removed from conservative values or republican party values, they are also removed from liberal or democratic values.

No democrat would be for a zero percent corporate tax rate. No democrat would be for labor bearing the bulk of taxes collected. Liberals and democrats would prefer that the rich and the corporations would pay everything and leave the rest of us untouched.

The bottom line here is that nowhere in my bullet points did I describe a tenet of liberal or democratic belief. Furthermore, many of my bullet points also defy liberal Christian tenets. For example, liberal Christians are for gay marriage and for tighter gun control legislation. Many liberal Christians also oppose war.

Therefore the only logical conclusion I can come to, if I believe the comment was made genuinely, is that the person who made the comment does not understand the values of either party, does not know what values make one a conservative or a liberal, and does not understand the core definition of a liberal Christian. I am still scratching my head a bit on how the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed in coming up with this analysis by the commenter because on the whole it doesn't make any sense at all considering my positions.

Clearly the comment was tongue in cheek. Knowing the guy who made the comment, I give him much more credit for being intelligent than his comment suggests. If I am to take his comment with any seriousness, I have serious concerns about him entering a voting booth. So we'll just leave it at that.