• Safeguard@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see your point. It's just kinda… Not true I think.

    As I see it: They never wanted McCarthy anyway, he was too extreme for them from the beginning. They realized pretty soon that they would rather see him go then stay, since it would just be too difficult to get on board with his shenanigans. He was not being a Speaker of the House, the whole house, he was trying to be the lackey for the Republicans.

    And using the shutdown as a way to pressure them was a republican thing. Not the Dems. The Dems just called their bluf. Which in the end… turned out to be just that.

    In the end, republicans are doing this to themselves, they are (rather) quickly destroying the party from within. Fascinating to see.

    • Safeguard@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thinking about it more… It would have been an interesting tactic of the Dems to "cooperate" with some more level headed Republicans and sideline the Chaos Caucus from having anymore influence. It could have had major impact on the effectiveness of the house going forward.

      As I understand it, they actually tried this. Sort of. But McCarthy was very ANTI-DEMS towards it. So they voted the way they did.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEj9pnkXei0

      • bedrooms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that's fair. My comment was a reaction to the opinion in the article that implied Dems enjoy the chaos for political advantage. As you probably understood, I don't like it if that was really the case.

        • Safeguard@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed, that would not be beneficial to anyone really. Basically a "shitty move".

          Seems like Republicans really did not leave them any other option though.

          Also: the reporting of the New York Times has really nose-dived in quality the last few years.