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.

Election Denial Is Not a Reason to Say No

Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and many others in Congress on both sides, in this whole clown show we currently are watching unfold before our eyes as we once again can't seem to pick a speaker are citing Jim Jordan's "election denial" position as a key reason he simply can't be the speaker. 

But do we have short term memory problems here, folks?

Beyond just the tweet from 2017 from Nancy Pelosi that resurfaced after she publicly made the same assertion that denying Biden's win is a big reason to say no to Jim Jordan's bid in which she wrote, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy and follow the facts." What the hell was the entire four years about while Trump was president? What seemed to be the primary function of Congress under Speaker Pelosi's charge?

To deny the election of President Trump and get him out.

The odd thing to me is this. In 2016 there was no evidence that the election did not happen as the voters decided it. And I don't say that as a republican nor as a Trump supporter. I say that because there was literally nothing to suggest that Trump did not win in 2016 other than innuendo and accusation placed by Hillary Clinton and the democrat party that somehow Trump colluded with the Russians to seal the deal.

Something that was clearly debunked at every turn no matter how long investigations ensued trying to make their accusation valid. But of course, they couldn't because it simply wasn't true.

But that didn't matter. Not to the media. And not to the democrat party. In their eyes Trump simply was not the legitimate president under any circumstance and it was their job to oppose him no matter what and oust him from office whatever it would take.

The work of the American people, in their eyes, literally became the removal of a duly elected, sitting president against the will of the American people, and to convince the American people they were doing the right thing.

Going back to that "no evidence" argument regarding 2016, there seems to be quite a bit of it regarding 2020—or if it is not evidence per se, it's at least a lot of question marks that deserve a deeper dive look and some more definitive answers other than, "Biden won, just deal with it."

Look, I am not even so much an election denier as I am simply a concerned citizen who thinks our elections matter, and if there are questions, we ought to be interested in knowing what the real answer is. Perhaps if the media and the then leader of the House, and even the American people had been quick to dismiss the idea of a stolen election in 2016, I could accept a quick dismissal of the same in 2020.

But we have a complete reversal here, and we have since Biden was "elected."

Jim Jordan has simply been one of the more vocal congressmen asking questions and wanting answers. "Let's look into it," he has said. Because again, unlike the Russia collusion hoax which had all sorts of evidence pointing to "it didn't happen," the questions regarding to 2020 at least point to, "it possibly happened."

Without rehashing the suggestions I have made in the past, which I believe are legitimate questions; we know that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. We know that Biden supposedly got the highest number of votes for any elected president in the history of the United States, and that before mail-in ballots were counted, which were about 90% for Biden, Trump was winning the electoral college.

If nothing else, I think we need to know more about how those mail-in ballots were received. By whom and under what oversight? What checks and balances were there and how were they verified? 

Either way, what we have here is simply a mess of great proportion. And it is costing the American people valuable time. Not only that, but it's also thoroughly eroding any sense by Americans that we can rely on our government and our elected officials to get things done that are critical to our lives and to the nation's needs.

For the past 7 years what we've seen is chaos. Frankly from both sides. And right now, at least on our side, we're seeing massive division that is hurting us, and I think it may hurt us going into 2024 no matter who the nominee happens to be, even if I am convinced to this point it will be Trump.

We cannot be a party divided and stand any more than we can be a nation divided and stand. If the question barring Jim Jordan from the speakership is simply his stance on the 2020 election, well, we've been down this road before with Pelosi. No one complained about her attacks on the election which led to four years of investigations and impeachments. So, why should it be a problem for Jordan?

Granted, I don't want to see more of what we saw under Pelosi. But at the same time, I also think there is just too much work to be done that isn't getting done as bickering back and forth seems to be the only job Congress has any more.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook, YouTube and X at @JimBauer601 to keep up with the latest from all the places I share my thoughts and opinions.

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.

On McCarthy: Obligations Now, Spending Later

Everyone is trying to suggest Speaker Kevin McCarthy rolled over on the debt ceiling debate. Maybe he did? Maybe he didn't. The thing is, getting anything agreed upon on any bill is a tough thing to do on its own. It's when we throw in all these add-ons and ultimatums that we get all tangled up, and processes take longer or shut down.

The key issue, in my opinion, regarding the debt ceiling is that it is about money already spent and making sure we honor our debt obligations. We have to pay our bills regardless of the reality of out of control spending. 

You can't go to Discover and say, "Let's hold my payment until we can talk about spending less." That's just not how it works. You spent the money, the bill has come due, and you have to pay it. Even if the spending was irresponsible or out of line.

McCarthy does assert that the dems are onboard with furthering the discussion to include some welfare reforms, cut spending and slash IRS funding. Who knows if they will actually be onboard when the real debate begins. 

Nonetheless, I think all of these are important issues and I truly hope McCarthy can bring these items to the table.

But the point is that that's the time to have the discussion. Before future spending occurs. And we need to stop just talking about cutting spending, but actually do something about it. That's where we always get stuck. When the bills come due and the other side wants something we use it as a tool but once all is said and done it's back to business as usual.

Almost as if the government is simply playing games with the American people to make the appearance they want to cut spending. If they really did then the issue would not come up nearly every time the bills come due and we have to raise the debt ceiling.

Because we spent too much, again.

Even when Trump threatened to shut down the government, I thought that was a wrong-headed approach, and I am a strong Trump supporter. To me, it serves no purpose to default on our obligations and shut down the government. It doesn't help any American if that happens. And beyond that, it does nothing to actually curb spending.

To further call for McCarthy's ouster for coming to some terms around the deal, I think, is wrong-headed.

Beyond that, the animus from our side, against our side, against McCarthy is just more of the same problem republicans always have. We simply have trouble rallying around and uniting as a party. Debt ceiling aside, it kills us in elections.

We already have an uphill battle to win seats and offices as it is. When we can't unite, the other side wins by default a lot of the time. And beyond that, it's fodder for the other side and its accomplice media to spread the news that our party is in chaos. It never looks good for us. 

Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, but no matter what she did the democrats stuck by her side come hell or high water. Regardless of what you think about McCarthy, I think our side needs to do the same.

Because while McCarthy might not be our "winner," so to speak, if we can't rally behind him now, how are we going to be united in 2024 to win back the White House? Because one can argue that because we have such animus toward certain candidates, if we don't go to the polls to vote for whoever the nominee winds up being, it may as well be a vote for the other side to win.

Frankly, the bottom line for me is this. We're being way too hard on McCarthy. We need to give him a chance and cut him some slack and stop fueling discussions of infighting and chaos that the democrats can use as a reason NOT to vote republican in 2024.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to get all the latest posts from all the places where I write.