Snakes in the Fox House....Captain America vs FOX

So I assume like most Americans in this day and age, your familiar with Captain America?

You know, this guy? 

Well it turns out he's actually pretty anti american...no really watch this:

And they got a point, I mean the Supreme Serpent sounds just like a right winger right?

in fact heres the actual comic panel where the Supreme Serpent is talking:

Oh wait, my bad....this is awkward. Thats not the Panel FOX was quoting.....thats actually the REST of the Supreme Serpents Speech. You know, the part they didnt want you the viewer to know about.

Which is even more awkward, when you consider that it is FOX claiming they are the ones holding the same view as the Serpents, which appear to be extremely violent....not the other way around. The Serpents do not claim to be holding the views of FOX and Friends.

Oh...and its not just violence against illegals that is the only problem here. Here's another problem:

That would appear to be the Serpents attacking a professed LEGAL immigrant.....because he came to their town.

So apparently FOX and friends believes that violence against LEGAL immigrants is part of their right wing beliefs....

But actually believe it or not, thats not the biggest problem for FOX in this second panel.

You probably noticed the art style in that second panel looks DRASTICALLY different than in the first.  Which it should....because its from a different comic book. Its from Avengers 32....published in 1966.

Which is a little awkward, given that FOX and friends claims the Serpents are a new group who were created to fight the new Captain America.

Of course, lets be fair, maybe they mean the Serpents have never fought Cap before....not that they are new.

From 1966

From 1997

Well, so much for that theory.

So what's changed that suddenly, for the first time in 50 years, that having Cap oppose the Sons of the Serpent makes him Unamerican?

Oh wait, I actually figured this out. See in all the above images Captain America looks a little different than he does now:

Captain America 2015.

If your not good with details, let me help you out. At the moment, Captain America is black. In every previous picture ive show you, he was white.

So you know, when he was a white guy punching out ignorant racists it wasnt worth mentioning.

But now that the man under the hood is Black.....well now he's getting uppity and its a major attack on an american ideology.

Or at least that is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that FOX and Friends (and many other right wing sources) have suddenly decided that a 50+ year old story line is suddenly major news....and the only thing thats changed is the protagonists skin color.

Which brings us to our final irony. Despite appearances, the Sons of the Serpents are not a racist right wing group.

For example, here is the unmasking of the Original Supreme Serpent back in 1966:

Thats right, the groups founder was a foreign military official....specifically an [implied] communist Chinese general.

And the whole point of the group? actually to stir up distrust among Americans so as to weaken them for a war.

The second incarnation of the group was led by this guy:

Who, as you may notice is black.....as for the record was the leader of the next incarnation of the Serpents. In both case, both men were using faked racism as a cover for their true agendas, either increasing the ratings of their television show (by reporting on the attacks) or to drive up crime rates (and racism being the explanation for the seemingly random crimes) in an attempt to drive down property value so it could be bought more cheaply. 

Now all 3 groups made mention of the same idea....that some part of the fictional marvel universe version of the American media would defend their actions....there by giving the group more attention and increasing their effectiveness in scaring people for their real purpose...which was always exploiting the fuck out of the people they just scared for the groups gain.

A belief, that FOX and Friends (and other right wing sources) has just brought out of Fiction and into reality.

Which is going to look awkward when, true to form, this incarnation of the Sons of the Serpent have their true goals exposed, and its revealed that, as always they were only appearing to be violent racists to trick stupid people into supporting them while they fucked over those same stupid people.

But hey, you got to admire the FOX and Friends crew.....it takes a special kind of fucking retarded to get conned by something that was outed as a con half a century ago in a book deemed appropriate for and theoretically aimed at young children (as all 60's comic books were legally required to be).

Because remember folks, it wasn't Marvel comics that said the Sons of the Serpents represent the views of conservatives who watch FOX....it was FOX that did that. 

  

Hillary 2016: Brought to you by your lying corrupt media

So, um quick question, who do you think most people would say won the Democratic debate this week?

Now if your not sure, lets see if I can help you out.

Heres the analysis from debate hosts CNN, declaring Hillary the unquestioned winner, which says "Hillary Clinton proved without a doubt Tuesday night why she is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner."

They also had a second article claiming: It was a victorious comeback for Hillary Clinton, a front-runner who has been on the downswing.


The National Journal, was running a story called "Hillary Clinton Won" and says straight out "Hil­lary Clin­ton won. She won be­cause she’s a strong de­bater. She won be­cause Bernie Sanders is not. "

Or slate, running a piece called Worldly and Wise, which declares "Clinton had no peers on the stage." and that if Biden was thinking of entering the race "if Hillary Clinton collapsed, he must have seen for himself that she crushed it."

Bloomberg News ran with this headline "Grading the Democratic Debate: Hillary Clinton Schools Her Rivals"

New York Magazine ran this headline: "The Hillary Clinton Panic May Have Just Ended" saying " Clinton demonstrated that she was, by far, the best presidential candidate onstage. Indeed, she may have been the only person onstage actually running for president."
Then Ryan Lissa over at the New Yorker tweeted this "Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible"
Vox had a story with the subheading "Clinton is not facing first-rate competition" and explanation of

"Clinton's greatest achievement in the 2015 primary hasn't been anything she's done against the candidates running against her. It's been preventing other, more formidable politicians from running against her at all. These four guys simply aren't close to being the second, third, fourth, and fifth most serious alternatives to Clinton that the Democratic Party has to offer — and it showed." 

The New York Times did their look at the debate, and starting their story as follows: Bloggers, commentators and the Twitterati quickly weighed in on the first Democratic debate, scoring the winners and losers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).

Even Conservative blog Redstate ran the following headline "Hillary Clinton Wins Round 1 in a Knockout (I Think)"

So the obvious answer here is that most people think Hillary just flat out killed her competition right?

Actually no. In fact, as it turns out, the only article I linked to that is remotely defensible is the last one, the conservative one, over at RedState. Everyone else is pretty provable lying to you.

See, much like my blogs on the GOP debate, the RedState article is only suppose to represent the opinion of the writer, a point made clear repeatedly in the article itself (not to mention the wording of the headline). And he personally thinks Hillary won, which is a reasonable opinion t have, at least 1 person thinks every candidate won. No problem.

Now the rest of these posts however are trying to give you the "objective" analysis of the debate.....implicitly backed up by some data. Or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Except, heres the data:

Time did a poll which said 56% believed Bernie Sanders had won.....to 11% for Clinton
MSNBC was 69% to 12% in favor of Sanders
Liberal blog site Daily Kos had it 56% to 38&, for Sander
A FOX affiliate had 78% for Sander....15% for Clinton
Even the conservative bastion The Drudge Report had Sanders over Clinton 54% to 9%


Slate, which you will noticed I linked to their story proclaiming Clinton the winner with no peers on the stage, did their own poll.....which Declared Bernie Sanders the winner with 76% (to Clinton's 17%)

But perhaps most egregiously is CNN.....who hosted the debate, and was the first article I linked to, in which, like slate declared Hillary the winner and clear front runner.

Which is odd because their poll of their own viewers after the debate looks like this:

Or actually, I should say the poll LOOKED like that.

Now it doesnt look like anything, since CNN deleted it after people started pointing out their own poll didnt back up their analysis of what the poll told them.

Although, if you go look at their articles you likely wont be seeing any one pointing this out....cause CNN has been deleting those comments....plus any that generally seem to support Sanders.

Now like I said, if you personally think Clinton won the debate, I have no problem with that. But even those who saw the debate and think she won really should be wondering what the fuck is going on here?

We know in 2008 the media believed Hillary to be the next president....and that kinda embarrassingly didnt work out for them. And since 2008 they have believed her to again be the next president.

However, unlike 2008, it seems this time around they are just flat out refusing to do their jobs and actually report on facts that contradict the fantasy they WANT to be true.

And to be fair, this isnt just a problem affecting the Democrats, lots of Republicans (most recently Rand Paul) have made the same claim on their side....that the media is clearly pulling for Trump to the point of not reporting on other candidates/not pressing Trump on issues and his recent drop in polls/catering the next debate rules to his personal preferences, because they know he is what gets them the best ratings.

So it seems, the Media has already decided the 2016 election will be Trump v Clinton....facts and legitimate journalism be damned.

Because hey, we Americans dont need to be able to make an informed and accurate decision about out government.....we only need to make the decision most profitable to our media overlords......

The Doctor is in....sane. (Ben Carson)

So it turns out if there is a winner in the whole implosion of the US house of resp things, its actually Doctor Ben Carson.....cause without that story his own two no good very very bad weeks would likely be the front page story.

First, it turns out we can add economics to the ever growing list of things that shockingly even a brain surgeon doesnt get.

From an interview with NPR'S Kai Ryssdal:

Ryssdal: All right, so let's talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, "We're gonna run out of money, we're gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November." Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Right......except that cutting the budget has about as much to do with the debt ceiling as the fact it is October has to do with what day of the week it is. They may be tangentially related, but the budget is not what you were asked about

Ryssdal: To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, "Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period."
STRIKE 2!   But at least we can rule out accidental misspeak.

Ryssdal: I'm gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that's already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I'm saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You're always gonna ask the same question every year. And we're just gonna keep going down that pathway. That's one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

STRIKE 3! YOURE OUT!  Seriously the anchor even told Carson what the debt ceiling was, (as it became clear he had no idea) and he still couldn't answer the question...but at least he used the word debt that time. so theres that.

By the way, this wasnt the only problem for Carson in this interview, there was also this:

"Ryssdal: Let me turn to tax policy for a second, if I might, Dr. Carson. You have come out and said you prefer a 10 percent flat tax. You base it on tithing and the Bible —

Carson: Not necessarily 10 percent, but I use 10 percent because it's easy to work the numbers.

Ryssdal: Well if you're gonna propose a flat tax, then, sir, you gotta give me a number. So what's your number for the flat tax?

Carson: I think it would probably be closer to 15 percent."

Well hopefully your not planning on voting for Doctor Carson because of his tax plan....because he just admitted he's lying to you and that your taxes will be about 50% higher than he's claiming they will be

Also 10% is "easier to work the numbers?" who's working the numbers? I assume Carson means himself in his speeches when he gives examples.  Which seems to mean Carson is so bad at math he cant be honest about his own tax plan cause he wouldnt be able to do the math involved in it himself.

Yikes......

And heres the thing, unfortunately for Dr. Carson, we are just getting started...and the rest of it is even worse.

My guess is you heard about the recent shooting in Oregon. Carson clearly has....and he has some advice for all potential victims of future shootings (and yes, you can likely already guess from the premise here, this aint going to go over well):

Right, unlike the victim's who apparently just let themselves get shot, Carson would totally rush the shooter and actually you know try to do something.

Cause victim blaming sounds great.

And he didnt just say this once, From a CBS interview:

“From the indications I got, they didn’t rush the shooter, I would ask everybody to attack the gunman because he can only shoot one of us at a time. That way, we don’t all wind up dead.”

He said the same thing in a tweet of an interview put out by ABC.

But this is where the story takes a freaking amazing turn. On an appearance on a radio show Carson was asked if he in fact every has been in a situation with a gunman. And actually as it turned out the answer was yes. He was once involved in a robbery at a Popeyes.

Presumably, Carson heroically rushed the shooter and saved everyones lives right?

Per Carsons reply:“Guy comes in, puts the gun to my ribs and I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,'”

Oh...so when someone points a guy at you...you dont rush them.....you actually just throw some minimum wage worker under the bus.

By the way in a follow up interview Carson was asked what the gunman's reaction was

"The resolution was, [the gunman] said, 'Oh, sorry,' and then he went to the appropriate person behind the register who gave him the money, and he left the store running before the police got there,"

See, everything was OK, no one got shot, and Carson helped the gunman successfully rob the store by making sure he stuck his gun at the "appropriate" minimum wage, possibly teenaged worker, and not you know, the important doctor.....

Oh and how doe Carson justify NOT rushing this shooter?

“They’re two very different situations. You’ve got a crazy person who’s shooting people and is clearly going to continue to do that versus somebody who’s coming in to try to get a little bit of cash. Now I’m not justifying the fact that he’s coming in to rob the place, but you’ve got to be able to distinguish between somebody who’s trying to rob a joint and somebody who is trying to kill you,”

Ah....see there it is, you only need to rush the shooter if you think he's going to kill YOU personally....otherwise you can just direct him to someone else and make it their problem on the assumption that other person is the one the shooter might truly feel the need to kill....

By the way, there is one more fairly problematic twist here for Carson.

Someone had the bright idea of asking the Baltimore Police about the robbery, to get some more detail. Turns out "We searched for it and based on the general statement, we have no report,".  So yea, its possible the event didnt even happen and Carson made the whole thing up.

By the way a couple of hours after the police made that announcement Carson was on CNN and was asked to defend his original comments:

Note the accusation here by the survivor: Carson cant understand unless he lived it.  This would be the perfect opportunity to mention (once again) your story where you HAD lived it as youve already talked about elsewhere.

Odd, if the story about Popeyes was true, Carson didnt go that route suddenly....you know only after the Baltimore PD weighted in.

Instead he attacked the survivor for basically being a mouthpiece who was only repeated lines fed to him and likely couldnt possibly really be offended......


And sadly for Carson, that interview got even worse for him later:

Yes, see if the Jews hadnt given up their guns and had you know fought back they wouldnt have been exterminated.....so kinda there fault I guess?

By the way, the Anti-Defamation league wasted no time in hammering Carson on this one:

“Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, but they could not stop the Nazi genocide machine, In short, gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.”
They could have also mentioned the Białystok Ghetto Uprising, the Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising, the Będzin Ghetto uprising, and the Łachwa Ghetto uprising just to name a few.

And that doesnt count things like the Sobibór uprising, in which unarmed jews (in a death camp) stole the german weapons and used them against them....

And Carson's response to all of this?

"That's total foolishness, I’d be happy to discuss that in depth with anybody but it is well known that in many places where tyranny has taken over, they first disarm the people. There’s a reason they disarm the people. They don’t just do it arbitrarily."

So according to Carson the ADL is wrong.....Jews didn't fight back and maybe if they had they wouldn't have been massacred....

But hey, you have to give Carson credit here, when it comes to blaming victims for their own deaths and offending pretty much everyone....the good doctor sticks to his guns.

The House divided against itself. (speakers race 2015)

So, I have a problem. And its kinda embarrassing, even if it is something that, I am assured, happens to every guy at least one. It appears I suffered from premature blogging with my last entry.

You see, last time out, I blogged about the giant cluster fuck the House was in over the vacated speakers gavel, and basically implied it couldnt get any worse, hence why I wrote the article when I did.

Holy FUCK did I blow that prediction.

So quick update. When last we left, we basically had 3 possible candidate for Speakers. The heir apparent, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the Democratic opposition candidate Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Jason Chaffetz as the potential Tea Party nominee.

And look. I admit I wrote a blog saying it was potentially possible that Pelosi could win. But even i said that wasnt really likely...just legally theoretically possible.

Like everyone else, even after his bad week from hell, I fully expected Kevin McCarthy to be elected speaker last Thursday.

Except, then, just a couple hours before the vote was scheduled he dropped out of the race.

Thats right.....on what was basically election day the guy who was heavily favored to win decided with out warning "Fuck this shit...I'm out"

Now why did this happen? we dont actually know for sure.

There are two theories however.

Theory 1: It was made clear by internal "polling" to McCarthy that he wasnt going to have the votes needed to win (due in part to his Benghazi comments last week), and might in fact lose the overall numbers to Pelosi on the first ballot (although this wouldnt make Pelosi speaker as she needs a majority of all votes cast....not just get the most votes).

And to avoid this humiliation, that would effectively end any future political advancement, he dropped out.

Theory 2: Kevin McCarthy is cheating on his wife (with, it is alleged, another member of congress), and got caught kinda. 

So, heres how thats supposed to play out: GOP rep Walter Jones of North Carolina set the following letter to House Republican Conference the day before stating the following:

'“Some of the most difficult times have been when our Republican leaders or potential Republican leaders must step down because of skeletons in their closets, We’ve seen it with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Bob Livingston, who ran for Speaker in 1998.

With all the voter distrust of Washington felt around the country, I’m asking that any candidate for Speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public.”

So for those who dont know, the one thing Gingrich and Livingston had in common, and what actually eliminated the possibility of Livingston becoming speaker, was having an affair.

So yea, Wednesday afternoon Rep Jones sends a letter to the House Republicans saying anyone having an affair should drop out so as not to be an embarrassment...and the next day, first thing in the morning, McCarthy drops out. (and for the record there are preexisting rumors of his having an affair even before this letter....so assuming one is the result of the other may not be a stretch)

Now it doesnt really matter too much which theory is correct. The end result was the same. The speakers election had to be rescheduled....because the majority party didnt have a candidate.

Really, it cant get that much more embarrassing than that (actually I take that back, it can, and I'll get to that later)

So yea, now the field is wide wide wide open, and the leaderless rabble of the GOP is searching for a diamond in the rough

Let the chaos begin.

We start with the other previously mentioned Republican candidate, Jason Chaffetz. Now as I mentioned in my last blog, Chaffetz didnt exactly have the best week ever. In fact he kinda got massively humiliated by his own graph used at the planned parenthood hearings he chaired.

By the way, turns out, the humiliation wasnt over yet. See this week, on the same day McCarthy dropped out, Chaffetz announcing the finding of his now finished hearings.  

And what wrongdoings did he find by planned parenthood? Drum roll please:

Yea, thats right, they found absolutely no wrong doings of any kind by planned parenthood.

So yea, the new big scandal the GOP was hoping to make a massive issue out of, that propelled Carly Fiorina to the top of the Presidential pile......yea well turns out, not so much. Nothing to see here.

So yea, the guy basically responsible for ruining that for the republicans....and in the most embarrassing way possible (the graph again), is running for speaker.

You tell me, how likely do you think republicans are to support him? Yea,,, I dont think he has a chance anymore either.

By the way. speaking of not finding shit, and wanting to be speaker, Congressman Darrell Issa announced he would consider running for the position.  Issa is probably best know for his 4 different attempts  to find scandal in Benghazi with his hearings..... hearings that went so poorly for him half the reason the current Benghazi special committee was created so the GOP could use the issue to damage Hillary's electoral chances, without Issa's massive incompetence getting in the way. (Which hasnt worked out well for them....as thats what got this whole speaker debacle started)

But yea, seriously when your own party redoes things to remove you cause they think your a moron.....your not going to be speaker.

Luckily for the GOP, it doesnt appear either Chaffetz or Issa actually expects to be speaker....in fact both have already pledged to support Paul Ryan for speaker.

In fact, Paul Ryan is getting support from pretty much everyone....even John Boehner has met with him twice in 3 days to support him as the next speaker.

So I guess the giant republican embarrassment that McCarthy kicked off with his Benghazi comments last week, is finally over?

Yea not so much. You see when asked if he WANTED to be speaker, Paul Ryan basically took to every form of media he could find to repeatedly give his answer.

Turns out, much like Speaker Bohner. Paul Ryan doesnt want the fucking job....especially now that the party has imploded.

It's also worth noting that far right wing commentators like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, Erick Ericson, the Conservative Review, and WorldNetDaily are already rallying people against him because he's "too liberal". hes also already opposed by several tea party members of congress.  

Well so much for Plan B.....

Luckily for the GOP there is one final candidate, who is actually willing to take the job, and has some support. Enter Representative Daniel Webster of Florida....who is officially backed by the Freedom Caucus (which is a nice way of saying the tea party).

And actually, at first, Webster doesnt seem like a bad choice....after all in the Speakership election in January, that John Boehner won, Webster was the republican with the second highest amount of votes......12. yea ok....thats not as impressive as I perhaps though it was.

Now admittedly the freedom Caucus has about  40 members....so I guess thats growing support for Webster?

Maybe....but maybe not. Both Congressmen Tom McClintock and Reid Ribble have left the caucus recently....both over their mettling in the speakership, and Ribble explicitly because of the support of Webster.

So yea, even that 40 votes or so may be much softer than it seems.

And it should be mentioned, Webster is only a two term congressman, and has no legislation to his name. He's basically a blank slate without a record.....not really a great basis for growing support outside the tea party. |

Also likely worth noting, One of the major strikes against McCarthy, even before his candidacy exploded, was his relative inexperience in congress compared to other speakers. McCarthy was first elected in 2006.....6 years before Webster. So if McCarthy was inexperienced, what would Webster be?

Plus there is an additional problem, even if, somehow he won, Webster would be on track to have one of the shortest Speakerships in history.

See, a couple months back, Florida's electoral map got thrown out by the State Supreme Court's because some of the districts were illegally gerrymandered.

One of those happens to be Congressman Websters district. And we arnt talking a small change either. In both 2012 and 2014, Websters district was slightly more republican than democrat...to what was about a 4 point difference in favor of the GOP. But after the court ordered redrawing? that district is set to be leaning 18 points in favor of the Democratic.

That's basically insurmountable, no matter how the election goes nationally. And when the first two chapters of your story are "speaker resigns because he believes republicans are out of control" and "original replacement drops out of race at last second, causing massive chaos" you really dont want chapter 3 to be "incumbent speaker of the house defeated in landslide"....which is basically Websters future no matter the national outcomes.

So there is almost nothing to convince people to vote for Webster.....unless you like stories about the speaker that are embarrassing to the party (as the lose of his seat would be).


So where does that leave republicans? It actually leaves them with 3 possibilities of what to do:

Option 1: Keep John Boehner.

Boehner said he wont resign until a new speaker is named. So in theory if the GOP cant find anyone, just keep him around until the election next year.

Of course that would create the narrative the the GOP incapable of governing (a point dems are already ruining against them on), that they are actually incapable of deciding among themselves who should lead them and instead have to resort to forcing someone they ousted to stay in the job against their will.

Thats a horrible narrative to have leading into an election....and a horrible legacy for Joh Boehner personally.

Which brings us to Option 2: John Boehner says to hell with this shit, I want nothing more to do with this and resigns anyways.

There actually IS a contingency for this. Upon becoming speaker the speaker submits a list of names to the Clerk of the House of members to replace him. If the office of speaker becomes vacant, the first name on the list becomes temporary speaker.

Now while no one knows whos name is actually at the top of the list, the smart money says its Majority Leader McCarthy....you know the guy who just dropped out.

More to the point, the guy who just dropped out possibly due to a sex scandal.....a scandal that when it breaks (if true) would pretty much force him out office...likely in the next 3-6 months

Meaning we would get to replay this entire debacle for the GOP....with the added sex scandal fall out....right in the middle of the presidential election.

You what to know the number 1 way to fuck up the GOP's chances in that election. ^ thats it.

So yea, both of these options kinda suck for the Republicans....and its possible the only thing standing between them and even greater embarrassment is the patience of a man who no longer wants the job to stick around...and who could change his mind at any time.

Which brings up to our 3rd and final option. this one already floated by  GOP Representative Charlie Dent:

"We may need a bipartisan coalition to elect the next speaker, That's a very real possibility right now, and I think anybody who is honest about this knows it."

Thats right....option 3 is working with some democrats to elect a speaker.....

by the way, the Democrats, in the form of Minority Whip Steny Hoyer have actually responded to this:

"Clearly, with Pelosi's name on the ballot, she'll get the overwhelming majority of all Democrats, I'm sure. She's indicated that's what she wants to do. Republicans are going to have to decide on their side what they're going to do."
Translation: The Democrats have their candidate already...but is a show of magnanimity, they are willing to let Republicans vote for her as well if they want.

And is that likely to happen?

Well in a story that seems tangential at first, the Export-Import bank was reopened this week after being shut earlier this year by the GOP in the House refusing to fund it.

See Democrats forced a vote to refund it on the House Floor.....and it should be mentioned Democrats do not have the votes to do that on their own....they had help.

Specifically they had 41 republicans join them in this effort......that being 16% of Republicans.

Thats right, 16% of the GOP in the house broke ranks with the party to help the Democrats pass a bill.

By the way, the Democrats +16% of the GOP adds up to 229 votes. The threshold to elect a new speaker (assuming all members vote) is only 217.

Now just because a Republican was willing to reopen the Ex-Im bank doesnt mean they would be willing to vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker.....but it would seem to suggest the Democrats have a very good base to start with, should they decide they need to peel off some republican votes....or even just to convince them not to vote at all (as the Speaker need only win the majority of votes case, not the majority of the House)
 
 So while I actually first floated the idea of Pelosi as speaker more as a theoretical exercise in what was legally possible....I may have actually been on to something after all.

And it all crashes down...(the GOP hunt for the next speaker.)

So as I mentioned in my last blog, current Speaker of the House John Boehner is on his way out the door in just a couple of weeks. And so, the race is on to find the guy whos going to replace him.

Or at least thats how its supposed to be working. Instead its working out in a way much more reminstant of this verse from Metallica's King Nothing

"Wish I may, wish I might

Have this I wish tonight

Are you satisfied?

Dig for gold, dig for fame

You dig to make your name

Are you pacified?

All the wants you waste

All the things you’ve chased

Then it all crashes down

And you break your crown

And you point your finger

But there’s no one around

Just want one thing

Just to play the king

But the castle’s crumbled

And you’re left with just a name

Where’s your crown,

King Nothing?

Where’s your crown?"

Cause yea, so far it seems the hunt for the speakers gavel is just destroying republicans left and right.

We start with the man, who had been widely believed to be the heir apparent, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy....and well he got off to a rocky start:

First there was this in his announcement of running for speaker which contained a lot of lines like these:


I have visited Poland, Hungria, Estonia,”

[I have]“visited in our, uh, the allies in the Arab Gulf."

We must engage this war of radical Islam if our life depended on it. Because it does.

This "safe zone" would create a stem a flow of refugees

Unlike during the surge in Iraq when Petraeus and Crocker had an effective politically strategy to match the military strategy

We have isolated Israel, while bolding places like Iran.

The absence of leadership over the past six years has had a horrific consequences all across the globe.

“live on the greatest nation that’s ever been on the face of the Earth.”

[president obama should be blamed for] “putting us in tough decisions for the future,”

[The VA should be criticized for not assisting vets]“who fought to the death in Ramadi.”

Keep in mind, these are ALL from the same 30 minute or so long announcement speech. That's a palinesque mastery of the English language. But according to his campaign, it wasnt his fault, he forgot his glasses and couldnt read the speech.

Sadly for him though, by the end of the day, glasses where the least of his problems, cause then this happened:

That, for the uninitiated was the heir apparent to the speakers gavel saying that, the longer running special committee in history, outlasting the watergate investigation, the McCarthy HUAC investigations, the JKF assassination investigation ect, was done ENTIRELY to hurt Hilary Clinton's poll numbers.

Now this is not exactly shocking. When the 8 previous congressional committee investigations (including ones chaired by republicans) turned up nothing, a lot of people didnt actually see the point for this new committee, and claimed it was formed for that purpose.

Which of course republicans denied, they claimed the 8 previous committees hadnt had the oversight to get EVERYTHING needed, and this committee would.

Now maybe you didnt believe that, but maybe you did.

But if you did the man assumed to be the new most powerful republican in Washington, just told you that you were wrong and the entire thing was partisan from the beginning, and was never intended to do anything other than hurt Clinton in the polls.  And well, its set off all kinds of shockwaves in Washington....and not all of them are coming from the Democrats (who are considering no longer showing up at committee hearings and various other measures now that this seems to be partisan poltics to hurt the presumed democratic nominee for president)

For example:

Now maybe you think I'm overplaying how bad a mistake this was, but McCarthy seems to think he fucked up, since he went back on FOX news a few days later to try to reverse himself.

Problem is, this didnt exactly help McCarthy's case for looking competent, as there are multiple instances of him pretty badly botching sentences/forgetting words in the middle........which is odd since there was no speech to read this time, so he cant blame this one on a lack of glasses. 

Oh and then, after the apology people actually noticed this in an interview he had previously done on CNN:

That would be a SECOND mention of the primary accomplishment of the select committee being that they hurt Clinton's Poll numbers, made in a different interview on a different network. Which makes his suggestion that he just "misspoke" that one time very very very unlikely.

And actually, McCarthy isnt the only one to take a hit on this, right in the middle of all this a statement was released suggesting the head of the select committee that's doing all this investigation to hurt clinton, and who had been considered one of the possible tea party candidates for speaker, Trey Gowdy was retiring from congress.

Now admittedly that wasnt exactly accurate, Gowdy was in fact only announcing that he will no longer be considering running for Speaker, he was just so convincing about it several republican members of congress misunderstood and thought he was retiring. This came the day after Speaker Boehner met with Gowdy to talk him into challenging McCarthy for the job.

Now to be far, I cant prove the two are related, but given that Gowdy took himself out of the race in the days between McCarthy's original statement and backtrack.....and it would be Gowdy who would take the heat if his committee was believed to be nothing more than a thinly disguised partisan witch hunt......well its easily believable he just decided he'd rather not feel the heat.


And actually, stories not over yet. Cause after announcing he was out, Gowdy was endorse for speaker by congresswoman Mia Love, and also Representative Jason Chaffetz, who was the guy in my second video example of republicans criticizing McCarty, who stated in that video he endorsed McCarthy.

So I guess he switched sides because of how badly McCarthy botched things right? I guess, but he didnt stay on Team Gowdy long, because the next day:

Finally, a republican who wants to be speaker who isnt at all involved it the self implosion McCarthy kicked off. I guess we finally have a winner right?

Not so much. turns out there is one person Jason Chaffertz didnt count on, who may have just derailed his bid for Speaker....Planned Parenthoods lawyer.

Check this out, from the same day Chaffetz announced his run

Now the last question by a committee member in a hearing is usually their big gun/main point question. And Chaffetz had his big chart ready to drop the hammer on Planned Parenthood.....clearly didnt go the way the wanted. And he had nothing to counter with, given how fast he moved on to the next speaker.

But I mean, how could he know Planned Parenthoods lawyer would recognize that chart in seconds?

Well actually as it turns out, it wouldnt have been hard to guess.

Now its a bit hard to see due to the corperate logo crap on the screen, so this is a picture of the same slide Chaffetz used:

 

Now direct your attention to the bottom right corner......yep there it is on the slide itself, "SOURCE: AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE"

Yea thats right, the lawyer likely didnt recognize the chart...he just read it....unlike apparently Chaffetz. 

Cause see its unlikely Chaffetz was intentionally trying to lie.....after all if he was, you'd think he'd be smart enough to remove the source from the bottom. Cause really I doubt even he is that stupid.

of course the alternative to being that stupid isn't much better. The alternative is that the head of the committee looking into planned parenthood couldnt even be bothered to read his own evidence before presenting it, and therefore likely has no idea what hes actually talking about.

Neither of those are good alternatives if your trying to convince people your competent enough to be Speaker of the House....

 And actually they get worse the more you look at the chart. You will note as well the chart is missing a Y axis......which actually makes sense if you look at the numbers. Consider, the number of Cancer screenings preformed by Planned Parenthood in 2013, according to that chart is 935,573....which is a significantly larger number than the 327,000 abortions preformed......yet is actually placed below the smaller number.

Of course, maybe I cant blame this one on Chaffetz, this could just be another example of the same republican math in which in which the 3rd presidential debate was the "1st" the 5th was "2nd" and the 6th (or 7th) is "3rd"

All I know is, its been a catastrophic week for all the potential republican candidates for speaker.

Hopefully they can find someone who can NOT implode in 24 hours or less before the election.

Which by the way is in 4 days, on October 8th. So I suggest they look FAST.

otherwise, maybe the chances of 29 republicans taking a long lunch break, and thereby not voting (and what that means), is a lot more likely than I think.....