Yes, we have bananas

But the Dems are not neutral. McCarthy took every opportunity to stick it to the Dems - even recently when he stated he would hold a floor vote on the impeachment vote, and then backtracked on that. He went back on the budget deal he agreed to earlier in the year.

If he wanted the Dems to remain neutral in a vote he KNEW was coming at some point, then he should have treated them fairly in the lead up to that vote.

Too often McCarthy legislated for the 20 (plus 1) disloyal knuckleheads in his own party when he should have been trying to protect himself by trying to gain at least a few of the dems from the Trump districts (5 in total) - but he didn’t.

Edit: I will also note that the Reps have now either removed or forced out their last three Speakers - but some seem to think this is the dems fault?


Problem is that you don’t have a working definition for what “Big Money” is, therefore you can blame anything you like on this Bogeyman. If you want to say Corporations are behind the environmental devastation caused by widespread fracking I’m right with you. But anti-vax? Give me a break. Pharmaceuticals are the epitome of Big Money and they make a lot of dollars selling vaccines.

And when has school choice been about Big Money? You think it is the top 1% running charter and religious schools? Give me an even bigger break. Wall Street and Corporate America couldn’t care less about school choice.

Big Money was really big time before the 1970s, when fat cats in smoke-filled rooms decided who would run for office. It was business funded political machines who decided that FDR and JFK would be running for president and who had enormous influence on the Congresses that passed stuff like the Voting Rights Act, established the EPA, created national parks, and mandatory public schooling. Big Money is ultimately pragmatic. Ideologues aren’t.

The Founding Fathers created an American political system where the intent was that the major decisions would be made by the educational and financial elites of the times. Voting was restricted to landowners, the Big Money of the time. They were as much afraid of the anarchy of mob rule as they were about autocracy.


A tidbit on the news a couple days ago. Adjusted for inflation, since 1978, worker pay has increased 18%. “JC” pay has increased 1400%. This is consistent with the stated objective of “supply side economics”: concentrate all the money in the hands of the few who already have the most.

There has been a noticeable shift in the goals of the worst excesses of “JCs”. Used to be a “JC” made himself a bigger shot by growing the company into a conglomerate. Remember Jimmy Ling at LTV? When his success at Chrysler went to his head, Iacocca bought Lamborghini and Gulfstream. When Ferdinand Piëch successfully turned around VW in the 90s, he went nuts buying up halo brands, as well as redundant mass market car brands.

Now, rather than building a company, the CEO’s objective is to hollow out a company, to line his own pocket. Divisions are spun off, to juice the numbers of what remains. Meanwhile, the full profit of the rump company, and more, is used to buy back stock, so that, by the time the “JC” takes his loot and leaves, the company is severely, maybe terminally, weakened.



I think this is one point where it’s useful to think of the House as having 3 parties. Dem, Rep, and - to use your term (which I rather like) - the Knucklehead party.

At the moment, none of the parties have an outright majority, so the governing must be done by coalition. The R and the K party have chosen to join together to create a coalition majority over the D party. But the coalition is quite fragile.

The Rs can’t do anything without the Ks. If the Rs attempt to do anything in cooperation with the Ds, the Ks can throw a hissy fit and make sure that nothing at all can get done for a while.

The coldly logical thing to do would be to oust the Ks from any relevance. But that means the Ds could outvote the Rs and get what they want. The Rs don’t like that idea at all. So they’re trying to maintain this difficult coalition with the Ks because they can then get at least a bit of what they want as long as they cater to the Ks.

My longer term view, then, is that this is not a situation that can be resolved quickly or easily. Not within this session of Congress. My planning would be based around a mostly dysfunctional House until 2025 when the voters get their biannual chance at making changes. So I’m pessimistic for the prospects in 2024.



Reading your analysis, I was struck by the resemblance to the current ruling coalition in Israel, the conservative party aligned with nutters, and we have been seeing where that has been leading.


1 Like

The D’s can do a heck of a lot of things. The R’s not so much. The R’s used to call it being an obstacle. Now they call it a failure. It is all the same. Remember Newt? Same loud bologna.

1 Like

Clearly, the solution is a third and/or fourth party.
Most modern democracies are not binary, they form coalitions as needed.
Of course, that would require a revamp of our electoral system from an 18th century one to a 21st century one,
There are still looney parties in other countries, but most don’t threaten the economics of their country.

1 Like

Coalition governments are pretty common in parliaments around the world. The US is rather unique with a system that tends to distill things down to two parties. Most other places support 3 or more and are used to forming coalitions as part of their government.


1 Like

We assume the UK has three parties, labor, liberal, and conservative. That is not exactly how it works though. The liberals do not form a government with a PM. Instead, they add to either the Labor or Conservative coalition and temper the policies.

When Americans think moderates need to do XYZ we are really talking the UK liberals who do not truly hold power.

I prefer stark disagreements. Too many Americans say they are all the same. No they are not. Some are huge failures lying their behinds off. Time to go. We have had 40 years with no federal industrial policy. That is a disgrace. Time to say so. Useless baggage as my grandmother would call the cat.

Here’s a timeline and some details that I haven’t seen elsewhere. I can’t vouch for its accuracy. It seem likely that we will know in a few days.

Here it is on Twitter.


My dad, a native French speaker, lived in NYC in the 30s, and read French language media. I remember him talking about the chaos in the Third Republic: one coalition after another collapsing the moment anything controversial came up. With that background, he was a firm supporter of the Electoral College, as it, as you say, distills things down to two parties.



One faction would say a lack of government industrial policy is a success. We have all heard the talking points “one size fits all”, “big gummit picking winners and losers”. The foundation of the “supply side” nonsense was that the “JCs” are all seeing, all knowing, and are always right, so the “JCs” should have all the money, because they always know the best way to use it.


The JCs got a lot less money. Many were bankrupted for a tax cut. The few that actually got a tax cut are so wealthy it was unnecessary. The lying to the average guy was he was going to get a tax cut that matters. He is an ejit. He lost a lot of his pay, benefits, and healthcare instead. Dumb as a box of rocks. He was probably laid off some high average of times.

He was the Me Generation. Taking pride in that he got what he really deserved.

The fight between Hamilton on one side with Washington and Madison and Jefferson on the other side was all about slavery. The plantation owners were very jealous of anyone who did well. The plantation owners were generally in debt. Jefferson died owing a lot of money. He had owed a lot of money all his life.

As secretary of state Jefferson hated the job, the paperwork all of it. He was a deadbeat. He had a lot of land left to him. He was so obnoxious he forced the battles with Hamilton. Hamilton of course would go on to be as obnoxious. Generally speaking Jefferson had never really worked he was far too lazy to work.

No, it’s just that the Ds took advantage which made the disfunction worse.


ah if you can not even own that why have an opinion?

I am pulling for Jim Jordan for speaker. I am sure the GOP will look so bad the country will sue for a divorce. Many Republicans will become independents.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


posted without comment

The “disfunction” can not go away.


The problem is there is no Republican economic plan. There are no financial incentives for anyone etc…The country would not grow at all with a Republican control over the economy.

If there is a Republican economic plan I challenge you to link us to it.


Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration - Wikipedia.

1 Like

Yeah, just imagine if there was a way to stop it, like Karl Rove suggests.


Didn’t make it worse - it laid it bare the existing dysfunction for all to see.

As a former supporter of the republican party, this is a rot that needs to be excised and that will never happen if the dems provide cover for them.

I liken it to a misbehaving child. Sometimes it does not matter what I say, the child will continue to misbehave. It is not until the child makes a significant enough mistake for which they feel significant consequences that they change their behavior. Often that means that in the short run, we all feel a little more pain than we would otherwise. Often that pain is necessary for people to change behavior - and we might need to feel the pain of that dysfunction and of a potential shut down in order for the Reps to (and the public demand they) start to get their house in order.

Who was a very misbehaving child until one day his actions got him a brief expulsion from school - and while painful for all, was better for it ever since.

P.S. The Reps need their own expulsion - they will be better for it once they spend a bit more time “wandering the wilderness.”


With the goal being to demonstrate that the republicans are incapable of governing.

Do you think it’s working?