‘Is This a Game Show?’

Fun and prizes with the anti-McCarthy bloc.

By
134
Sean Hannity speaks during CPAC’s Texas 2022 conference. (Photo by Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images.)

Feral creatures can’t be fully domesticated. From Kevin McCarthy being humiliated by the Trumpist wing he cynically courted to Trump himself being defied by the insurgents he empowered, the leopards’ bellies are suddenly full with the faces of their friends and “handlers.”

Trump is reportedly aghast at how “stupid” and pointless roadblocking McCarthy is. Newt Gingrich, a MAGA fellow traveler and longtime Trump apologist, told Axios he “can’t imagine how one could run the House with the blackmailers as self-righteous and militant as they currently are” and warned that the GOP is in deeper trouble than at any point since 1964. A wing of the party committed to thwarting “the establishment” at every turn has insisted on doing just that and its admirers are shocked, shocked.

Of all the instances of enablers struggling to cope with what they’ve wrought, though, none is more enjoyable than Fox News’ longest-serving host complaining that Republican politics has become a “game show.” 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Try Free ALREADY A PAID SUBSCRIBER? SIGN IN
134
By
Comments (134)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Gbr0wn

    You could make a case for defaulting on the debt sooner rather than later - in particular if you're convinced it's the only way to end deficit spending

    Collapse
  2. Borkus Flimflam

    I can’t help it, but every time a Republican talks, the world dies a little bit more.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Theirnscott

    Nick, I think Kevin has given away all he can and he's 6 votes short. Will the "Always Kevin" group finally move on? I dunno, but Steve Scalise made the motion to adjourn. See you at 10 PM.

    Collapse
  4. Wsampson

    What is a reasonable conservative?

    Collapse
    1. Borkus Flimflam

      My dog’s anus.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Gbr0wn

        Why isn't id "Dorkus Flimflam"?

        Collapse
  5. Cegoodman85

    Keep doing what you're doing, Nick. I appreciate getting your analysis on the different possible outcomes. I like scrolling down and seeing another paragraph when I thought I had come to the end.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Nick Catoggio vertical-nib Author

      Haha. I really need to focus on making these columns shorter.

      Collapse
      1. Robert

        A vote for longer.

        Collapse
      2. Susan

        Long form essays are too rare. Most of us have an attention span for good writing.

        Collapse
  6. Susan

    "Would anyone dispute that the House is better off considering appropriations bills individually, with contributions from all members, than rubber-stamping an omnibus monstrosity written by the leadership three hours before funding for the government runs out which no voting member has read?" I won't dispute it, but I also think that what we're seeing this week might be a clue as to why we've ended up with a long series of omnibus bills.

    Collapse
  7. Retired Prosecutor

    The return to regular order would be extremely desirable. The current scheme with top-down legislation and ultimate voting on "omnibus" legislation with multiple inputs is a betrayal of what our Founders intended. Representatives shouldn't be asked at the last minute to vote on legislation they oppose in many parts and haven't read. Nancy Pelosi . . . I'm looking at you.

    Collapse
    1. Borkus Flimflam

      Blah blah blah. Blah. What a load of prosecutorial diarrhea.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Johnw.Peabody

    To your Question: I think this has gone far beyond personal loyalty to McCarthy - this is now about preventing the bomb-throwers from winning holding the other 90% of the caucus hostage to mindlessly obstructionist game-show shenanigans. It is now a test of wills to set the stage for the rest of this Congress. If the McCarthy supporters (now turned into anti-obstructionists) have the stomach to go to the mat (which they appear to have so far), then I think over time they will have the upper hand. The public is tiring of the obstructionists, at some point many if not most of them will assess this is hurting their base, and they will accede.

    Collapse
  9. CatoTheElder

    This is why negotiating for hostages is so fraught with difficulty. You might be able to win the freedom of some good folks, but you further imperil many more on an even larger scale.

    Goals, allies, and methods might all have to change, and the agenda for the institution ripped up and rewritten, but one doesn’t let the nutjobs take charge.

    To paraphrase from a popular children’s book:

    “If you give a lunatic whackjob the whole plateful of cookies, they’re gonna want the whole gallon of milk, too. And cake, candy, drugs, and booze.”

    It’s also why, sometimes, at some point, somebody has to call a halt on vote-taking, declaring that “This ain’t a democracy.” Which would be a reflection of the pedant’s point that we don’t have a real democracy, and that stuff like this is, in a nutshell, why.

    I don’t think there’s any way to do the declaration of non-democracy thing in the current circumstances, so other methods will have to be used. But there will be costs. And if another gallon of milk is just the beginning, the camel’s nose under the tent flap, as it were, well, good luck.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Christophertingey

    Most of these articles keep referring to the debt ceiling fight and imply that it would be a bad thing if it wasn't raised. I disagree. At some point someone has to say enough. Stop spending money that we don't have. Force them to make spending cuts. Why don't we start making the case that it isn't the failure to go more into debt that would be the cause of any hardship incurred, but the insistence of legislatures and executives on overspending. It may be a hard sell, but it is another way to look at it that seems to get left out.

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      You're confusing the debt ceiling with spending bills. Raising the debt ceiling is done to pay for money already spent. Not raising it means the US government defaults on its debt. I don't think that would be a positive outcome.

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      Go tell your Grandma Social Security is too expensive and now she's on her own. See how that flies.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Christophertingey

        Tell Grandma that we will be cutting spending so we will be able to continue her social security.

        Collapse
        1. Hikingguy

          Grandma is a smart old gal. she's watched the GQP slavering to gut Social Security for decades. She is immune to happy horseshit.

          Collapse
    3. BadgerBill

      Not raising the debt ceiling means the federal government can’t do its basic functions. That means national parks are closed, the VA slows down its services, social security payments are slowed down or not made. This is not what we want to see happen. We’ve seen it before, it’s not good. I support a move to fiscal sanity, and old and important Republican position, but there’s no interest in it in the Republican Party now. I don’t buy the sudden interest after the drunken ill-managed Covid spending of the Trump denouement and Biden first year.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Christophertingey

        If we have to take on more debt just so the government can do basic functions, we are already at a debt crisis.

        Collapse
    4. Srhritz

      Raising the debt ceiling means authorizing the payment of spending already voted on and incurred. If you want to reduce spending, you start by actually cutting spending. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is like maxing out your credit card and refusing to make your minimum payment.

      Not raising the debt ceiling puts the United States in technical default which could push us into a debt crisis. I agree that we're heading for a debt crisis with our current spending levels and spending cuts (which must include Social Security and Medicare reform) are a must - but playing games with the debt ceiling will not make that happen.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Christophertingey

        Taking on more debt to pay the interest on your existing debt is not a solution, but more of the problem.

        Collapse
      2. BadgerBill

        Amen, but given the stated objectives of the “Republican controlled House” (Ha! They can’t even elect a speaker.) to do nothing but have investigations into Hunter Biden (and who knows what else-maybe Benghazi or Teapot Dome), there’s not even a nod to fiscal responsibility. We can only wish, I guess.

        Collapse
Load More
Worth Your Time

Our Best Stuff From the Week We Didn’t Fix the Debt Ceiling

When No One Cares

Book Banning Ain’t What It Used To Be

Does Anything Matter?

Avatar photo

About Nick Catoggio

Nick Catoggio is a staff writer for The Dispatch and writes the newsletter Boiling Frogs. He previously blogged as Allahpundit for Hot Air. ⁣  ⁣  Subscribe to Boiling Frogs here »
More from Nick Catoggio