I mean when you look at those interviews with Hannity and Jake Tapper on CNN he isn't so much boasting as on the defensive when he confirmed what was the worst kept secret in Washington-that Benghazi and Emailgate is a partisan witch hunt, the committee is basically running a Super PAC on Congressional grounds.
Looking in his eyes you see a man who is not ready and is out of his depth. He has the least experience of any House Speaker since 1891 and it shows.
The GOP loves to put people into complex political positions without the necessary political experience-they think lack of experience is a virtue. It sure has been with McCarthy so far-for Democrats.
McCarthy has Trump wondering if he's up to the job.
“Um, I would like someone who’s very tough and that can negotiate with the Democrats, and I don’t know that he’s that person,” Trump said. "I don't know that that's him, and obviously, the statement hurt him badly in the eyes of some."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi
No one else knows that either.
The current Majority Leader who has messed up roll calls in the past to the detreiment of prevoius House Speaker Boehner is considered on the proverbial glide path to nomination-for no other reason than that no one else wants the job.
However, the fallout is so bad that Utah's Jason Chafee is now considering a long shot bid. To me if McCarthy wins as expected that's a big win for Dems as I don't think this is the last gift he gives us by a long shot.
"Politico is reporting that GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz is now expected to challenge Rep. Kevin McCarthy in the battle to succeed Speaker John Boehner. While Politico reports that this is a “long shot,” it is an indication that McCarthy’s open boasting about how the Benghazi probe drove down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers may have weakened his standing among fellow Republicans, some of whom have been openly critical of his screw-up — or, if you prefer, of his candor."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/02/whats-next-in-the-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-hillary-mess/
Ir gets better.
"Whether this ends up meaning anything in the battle to replace Boehner remains to be seen. But it raises another question: What comes next in the battle over McCarthy’s comments?"
Again, why would Democrats want to stop McCarthy taking over? Here's the good part:
"A House Democratic aide tells me that some Democrats are considering a next step: Offering a “privileged resolution” on the McCarthy comments — a resolution that would basically ask for House recognition of the idea that McCarthy admitted that taxpayer funds are being used for political purposes. The details are technical, but in essence, if the privileged resolution is drafted correctly, it would probably force the House of Representatives to deal with it and hold a vote on it, no matter who introduces it."
"So basically, House Republicans would be forced to vote on whether they stand behind the McCarthy remarks. They would probably vote to “table” the resolution, putting an end to action on it. But Democrats would then try to point to that vote as evidence that Republicans support his comments, i.e., as evidence that they support the notion that the Benghazi probe has morphed into a tool to drive up Clinton’s negatives."
"Another option being considered by Democrats, according to the House Democratic aide, is a request for action by the House Ethics Committee. Ather presser yesterday, Dem leader Nancy Pelosi suggested that McCarthy’s comments may have revealed an “ethics violation of the rules of the House,” adding that McCarthy had “clearly, gleefully claimed” that the Benghazi probe “had a political purpose and had a political success.” To my knowledge, however, no Democrat has publicly said that he or she would actually appeal to the House Ethics Committee."
As Salon puts it:
"Kevin McCarthy’s Benghazi clustermuck gets worse: The likely next speaker is a man out of his depth Kevin McCarthy clarifies his Benghazi remarks, says he didn’t intend to say the thing he said several times"
As for McCarthy’s claim that he never intended to suggest that there’s a political angle to the Benghazi committee’s work, that argument might hold water if he’d only said it once. But he said the same thing several times, on television, where people saw it. “When we look at Hillary Clinton’s numbers today, America says they distrust her,” McCarthy said on “Fox & Friends.” “Why? Because they found out the truth about her. And the only way they found out that truth about it was the Benghazi select committee.” On CNN he said much the same thing, offering the Benghazi committee as part of his strategy to “win the argument to win the vote.” His message – which he’d clearly crafted well in advance of this spate of interviews – was that select committee investigations are a great way to win political arguments.
Now he’s saying that’s not the case and falling back on the acceptable Republican framing of the Benghazi investigation as a solemn, fact-based inquiry into a tragic loss of American life. As Brian Beutler points out, McCarthy is already well over his skis in making promises to conservatives in the House that he can’t possibly keep. It’ll be interesting to see whether McCarthy’s colleagues feel they can rely on him to follow through on anything when they can’t even trust him to stay on message"
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/kevin_mccarthys_benghazi_clustermuck_gets_worse_the_likely_next_speaker_is_a_man_out_of_his_depth/
Just as Trump is my favorite Republican Presidential candidate, McCarthy is my favorite Republican House Speaker.
Looking in his eyes you see a man who is not ready and is out of his depth. He has the least experience of any House Speaker since 1891 and it shows.
The GOP loves to put people into complex political positions without the necessary political experience-they think lack of experience is a virtue. It sure has been with McCarthy so far-for Democrats.
McCarthy has Trump wondering if he's up to the job.
“Um, I would like someone who’s very tough and that can negotiate with the Democrats, and I don’t know that he’s that person,” Trump said. "I don't know that that's him, and obviously, the statement hurt him badly in the eyes of some."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi
No one else knows that either.
The current Majority Leader who has messed up roll calls in the past to the detreiment of prevoius House Speaker Boehner is considered on the proverbial glide path to nomination-for no other reason than that no one else wants the job.
However, the fallout is so bad that Utah's Jason Chafee is now considering a long shot bid. To me if McCarthy wins as expected that's a big win for Dems as I don't think this is the last gift he gives us by a long shot.
"Politico is reporting that GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz is now expected to challenge Rep. Kevin McCarthy in the battle to succeed Speaker John Boehner. While Politico reports that this is a “long shot,” it is an indication that McCarthy’s open boasting about how the Benghazi probe drove down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers may have weakened his standing among fellow Republicans, some of whom have been openly critical of his screw-up — or, if you prefer, of his candor."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/02/whats-next-in-the-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-hillary-mess/
Ir gets better.
"Whether this ends up meaning anything in the battle to replace Boehner remains to be seen. But it raises another question: What comes next in the battle over McCarthy’s comments?"
Again, why would Democrats want to stop McCarthy taking over? Here's the good part:
"A House Democratic aide tells me that some Democrats are considering a next step: Offering a “privileged resolution” on the McCarthy comments — a resolution that would basically ask for House recognition of the idea that McCarthy admitted that taxpayer funds are being used for political purposes. The details are technical, but in essence, if the privileged resolution is drafted correctly, it would probably force the House of Representatives to deal with it and hold a vote on it, no matter who introduces it."
"So basically, House Republicans would be forced to vote on whether they stand behind the McCarthy remarks. They would probably vote to “table” the resolution, putting an end to action on it. But Democrats would then try to point to that vote as evidence that Republicans support his comments, i.e., as evidence that they support the notion that the Benghazi probe has morphed into a tool to drive up Clinton’s negatives."
"Another option being considered by Democrats, according to the House Democratic aide, is a request for action by the House Ethics Committee. Ather presser yesterday, Dem leader Nancy Pelosi suggested that McCarthy’s comments may have revealed an “ethics violation of the rules of the House,” adding that McCarthy had “clearly, gleefully claimed” that the Benghazi probe “had a political purpose and had a political success.” To my knowledge, however, no Democrat has publicly said that he or she would actually appeal to the House Ethics Committee."
As Salon puts it:
"Kevin McCarthy’s Benghazi clustermuck gets worse: The likely next speaker is a man out of his depth Kevin McCarthy clarifies his Benghazi remarks, says he didn’t intend to say the thing he said several times"
As for McCarthy’s claim that he never intended to suggest that there’s a political angle to the Benghazi committee’s work, that argument might hold water if he’d only said it once. But he said the same thing several times, on television, where people saw it. “When we look at Hillary Clinton’s numbers today, America says they distrust her,” McCarthy said on “Fox & Friends.” “Why? Because they found out the truth about her. And the only way they found out that truth about it was the Benghazi select committee.” On CNN he said much the same thing, offering the Benghazi committee as part of his strategy to “win the argument to win the vote.” His message – which he’d clearly crafted well in advance of this spate of interviews – was that select committee investigations are a great way to win political arguments.
Now he’s saying that’s not the case and falling back on the acceptable Republican framing of the Benghazi investigation as a solemn, fact-based inquiry into a tragic loss of American life. As Brian Beutler points out, McCarthy is already well over his skis in making promises to conservatives in the House that he can’t possibly keep. It’ll be interesting to see whether McCarthy’s colleagues feel they can rely on him to follow through on anything when they can’t even trust him to stay on message"
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/kevin_mccarthys_benghazi_clustermuck_gets_worse_the_likely_next_speaker_is_a_man_out_of_his_depth/
Just as Trump is my favorite Republican Presidential candidate, McCarthy is my favorite Republican House Speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment