McCarthy Taking Action as New Speaker of the House: Removing Schiff and Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee

  

     After winning Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy made good on a promise he made before the start of his speakership: booting Democrats, especially California Democrats. This move comes in response to the removal of two House Republicans from their respective committees in 2021. With the majority, McCarthy has now reversed the tide by blocking two key Democrats, Swalwell and Schiff, from their position on the House Intelligence Committee. The justification for their removal? In a written explanation, McCarthy cited that the intelligence committee had been “misuse[d]” which had “severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions — ultimately leaving our nation less safe.” As such, he explained, removing Schiff and Swalwell is necessary “to maintain a standard worthy of this committee’s responsibilities.”

This action was met with swift criticism from the Democrats, with Schiff himself saying, "This is, I think, not an unexpected but nonetheless, destructive move by Kevin McCarthy.” Much frustration over the decision has stemmed from Schiff and Swalwell’s past work on the intelligence panel, namely on the investigation and impeachment of former president Donald Trump. In the past, the precedent has been for House speakers to adhere to the recommendations of the minority party leader for appointments to this panel. However, as Speaker, McCarthy reserves the power to make the appointment himself without a vote on the house floor.

However, McCarthy’s decision is not without context. Despite criticism of the apparent targeting suggested by the selection. McCarthy explained that the decision was also based on Schiff and Swalwell’s past conduct: social media remarks on Trump and Russia, and reported interactions with a Chinese spy respectively. McCarthy likely provided this evidence to match similarly cited reasoning used to remove committee seats from Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar due to their inflammatory and violent social media activity against the opposing party.

With tensions rising, McCarthy’s actions mark a starkly divided Congress. Whether acts of “political vengeance” or removals in the honest interest of Congress. McCarthy’s action with Schiff and Swalwell, as well as his promises to push more Democrats off of committees using the majority Republicans now hold in Congress, have raised even more adamant disapproval and frustration from the Democrats. Although McCarthy’s power to directly punish or block Democrats or certain legislators from committee positions is generally limited by full floor House votes, his control over the intelligence panel and political goals set a shaky tone for bipartisan cooperation in this new Congress.

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeffries-taps-schiff-swalwell-house-intelligence-committee-setting/story?id=96610001

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/mccarthy-democrats-schiff-swalwell-intelligence-committee/index.html 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/25/house-republicans-mccarthy-committees-debt-limit/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/politics/mccarthy-schiff-swalwell-committee.html 

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151335616/mccarthy-democrats-schiff-swalwell-intelligence-committee-assignments

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-01-24/mccarthy-rejects-schiff-swalwell-from-serving-on-intelligence-committee

White House plans to end COVID-19 public health emergency in May

On Monday, President Biden announced to Congress that he will end the national emergencies related to the coronavirus on May 11. This announcement was prompted by efforts by Republicans in the House to end the emergency declarations immediately. The White House is arguing that such a move would disrupt the process of taking down emergency declarations, and that waiting would help avoid widespread uncertainty in the healthcare system. The administration also has previously stated that they would give 60 days notice before ending the emergencies.

While most Americans have already been vaccinated and life for many has returned to normal, an average of over 500 Americans die of the virus each day. This still is around twice the number of deaths per day in a typical flu season. Ending the emergencies could also have consequences for the cost of Covid tests and various other Covid-related treatments.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/30/us/politics/biden-covid-public-health-emergency.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/30/biden-end-covid-health-emergencies-may-11/

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/30/biden-end-covid-health-emergency-may-00080305

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/30/politics/may-11-end-of-covid-and-public-health-emergencies/index.html

Mifepristone Lawsuits Raised in North Carolina and West Virginia set the Tone for the Post-Dobbs Legal Battles for Abortion Rights

    

In the wake of the Dobbs Supreme Court decisions, states across the nation have experienced an influx of lawsuits trying to push against new restrictions and bans. Central to these efforts have been lawsuits targeting the distribution and accessibility of the abortion pill, mifepristone. The pill, which has been approved by the FDA “...can only be prescribed by certified providers who understand how the drug works and agree to look out for potential complications or medical conditions such as an ectopic pregnancy, which requires immediate medical attention. But the FDA also says mifepristone is safe enough to be provided via telehealth appointments and mailed to a patient without evaluating them in person.”

        However, despite this federal regulation, many states, including North Carolina and West Virginia, have placed restrictions and bans on the drug. The manufacturer of the drug, GenBioPro, has challenged West Virginia’s restrictions, and in North Carolina, Dr. Amy Bryant challenged the state’s law as well. Both suits pursue similar discrepancies, arguing that the state laws limiting or banning mifepristone are preempted by federal law. Bryant’s lawsuit articulates how state law has infringed on federal regulation by stating that the FDA used its jurisdiction “to impose a precise set of controls on an FDA-approved drug, a State may not impose additional controls—including restrictions that FDA has specifically rejected—that upset the carefully balanced regulatory scheme established by federal law.”

If these lawsuits were successful, they may open up avenues for abortion access to be maintained through medical abortions such as mifepristone, which make up a majority of abortions. Although these two suits seek only to suspend the laws in their respective states, they may encourage similar suits to be leveled against states across the nation. Despite these efforts, however, lawsuits are also being raised on the opposing side, instead targeting the FDA’s approval of the drug from 2000. Groups filing against the drug also claim that the initial approval of mifepristone was unconstitutional, and extended beyond the FDA’s powers.

While only the start of the various legal battles that are certain to arise in a post-Roe world, these lawsuits have begun to set the precedent for how abortion policy will be negotiated and cemented across the nations. With the Dobbs decision shifting considerable power to the states to decide on abortion regulations, much is still up in the air regarding the interpretations and constitutionality of the new laws set in place. Lawsuits such as GenBioPro and Dr. Bryant’s have started to help define how people will find access to safe legal abortions across the nation.

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/north-carolina-doctor-sues-abortion-pill-access-test/story?id=96634916 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/25/politics/abortion-mifepristone-west-virginia-north-carolina/index.html 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/25/abortion-pills-lawsuits-00079396

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/health/abortion-pills-ban-genbiopro.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-pill-maker-challenges-state-bans-new-suit-rcna67455

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/north-carolina-abortion-pill-regulations-invalid-complaint-says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/abortion-pill-lawsuit-wont-get-a-fair-shake-in-post-roe-america/2023/01/26/d3893864-9d88-11ed-93e0-38551e88239c_story.html

Trump to regain access to Facebook, Instagram

 

   On Jan. 25, Meta announced that former president Donald Trump’s accounts on Instagram and Facebook would be reinstated in the coming weeks. In November, Trump’s Twitter account was reinstated, but the former president has yet to use it. Instead, he has only been active on his own social media network, Truth Social, which he founded after he was suspended from major social media platforms in the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021. 

    This may seem inconsequential–if Trump didn’t opt to return to Twitter, why would he return to other social media–but an article from the Associated Press pointed out how advantageous this is given Trump’s upcoming 2024 election bid. The advertising potential that sites like Facebook offer is vital to a political campaign. Through Facebook, Trump and other candidates can gain access to emails and addresses. Both of those things make aggressive campaign advertising that much easier, and were integral to the strategies of the 2016 campaign that got Trump elected.

    While Trump signed an exclusivity clause with Truth Social’s network, it’s evident that appealing to a wider audience beyond the right wingers who populate that site will be necessary in order to have a shot at the Republican nomination. 

    While we’re a year out from any voting taking place at the Republican National Convention, 169 Republicans met in South Carolina on Wednesday in order to select a leader. According to polling done by the New York Times, a significant number of them are less enthusiastic about the idea of nominating Trump. 

    Some quotes include: 

    “This isn’t 2016,” said Mac Brown, the chairman of the Republican Party of Kentucky. “People have moved on.”

    Jonathan Barnett, an R.N.C. member from Arkansas who claims to have been the first member of the committee to endorse Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, said the party would benefit from its nominee being forced to navigate a crowded primary field.

    “I’ve been a supporter of Donald Trump in the past,” Mr. Barnett said. “I just think that we need choices this time. We’ve got to look at all of our options.”

    “Did I vote for Trump in 2016? You bet. Did I vote for him in 2020? You bet,” said Hank McCann, who joined the R.N.C. from Delaware in 2020. “Now, I don’t know. I think we’ve got probably 10 candidates that can win.”

    These are all very preliminary interviews, and the tide could change easily. But for now, it appears that alternate candidates–like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is currently campaigning against AP African-American studies in between bids against LGBTQ+ rights–may be early frontrunners. It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Would a younger, similarly right-wing but less…Trump-like candidate be what the Republican party needs to succeed? I fear that if the Republican party abandons a candidate like Trump, who is so entrenched in scandal and wrongdoing that it’s almost easy to dunk on him from a liberal perspective, 2024 will be a much more painful battle. 

Sources: 

https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-donald-trump-social-media-e4d02e3b3adba891549d09a43868ccdf 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/rnc-trump-2024-election.html 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/michigan-republicans-draft-desantis-2024-00078244 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/22/trump-south-carolina-campaign/ 

U.S. approaches debt ceiling

Last Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen sent a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling and the Department of the Treasury will begin taking extraordinary measures to avoid defaulting on the debt. 

The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is the maximum amount the federal government can borrow to finance pre existing obligations. Since the U.S. spends far more on its programs than it brings in from taxes and various other revenue, it borrows large amounts of money to pay bills regarding things like salaries for the military, federal employee salaries, tax refunds, and many other government operations. The U.S. nearing the debt limit poses a threat to financial markets due to the Republican and Democrat clashes, and defaulting on said debt jeopardizes programs such as Medicare and social security.

Extraordinary measures are actions taken by treasury secretaries to prevent a U.S. default on its debt, and are authorized by Congress to do so. These measures typically involve changes in behind-the-scenes accounting by the Treasury Department, cutting down on costs that aren’t strictly necessary for government obligations to buy time for Congress to suspend or raise the debt limit. The limit had previously been raised to $31.4 trillion in December 2021.

Treasury Secretary Yellen has said that extraordinary measures are estimated to delay reaching the debt ceiling until June 2023, and now it is in Congress’ hands to make a decision before that deadline on how to avoid a government default. They have several options including suspending the limit temporarily until they can agree on a more permanent solution or raising the debt limit to a higher amount to avoid reaching it. These are both decisions Congress has made in the past, as recently as 2021. They could also choose to eliminate the debt limit entirely, a recommendation favored by some Democrats, arguing that the cap only stops the government from spending money that was already authorized to be spent by Congress.

Unfortunately, the current division in Congress makes it unlikely that they will be able to come to a consensus until far closer to June, if before the deadline at all, as it has been a known tactic for Republicans to try and pass sweeping spending cuts along with any plan to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. With Republicans in narrow control of the House, they are in a position to stall any possible decision for extended periods of time. House Speaker McCarthy has already said that Republicans will seek to use the debt limit debate to acquire spending cuts. President Joe Biden has also made comments, saying that Congress must raise the debt ceiling the White House will refuse to negotiate.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/us/politics/debt-ceiling-economy-congress.html

https://time.com/6248656/what-debt-ceiling-means-for-you/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics/debt-ceiling-deadline-treasury/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/politics/debt-ceiling-extraordinary-measures/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/us-debt-default-payments/

Two California mass shootings in two days: Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park

    Today at 2:20 p.m., seven people were killed in a shooting near Highway 92 in Half Moon Bay, close to Half Moon Bay city limits. The suspect, Zhao Chunli, was taken into custody shortly after the shooting occurred; a semi-automatic handgun was recovered and determined to be the weapon used in the shooting. An eighth person is being treated at Stanford Medical Center for their critical injuries.    

    With seven victims thus far, the incident can be classified as a mass shooting. According to CNN, there have been 38 such incidents in the first 23 days of 2023. Yesterday, 11 people were killed in Monterey Park, California. Nine others were wounded. The suspect, Huu Can Tran, was apprehended upon entering a second location with an intent to continue shooting.  

    Both events are similarly disturbing attacks on the Asian American Pacific Islander community, and the motives of each attacker are unknown at this time. The fact that they both occurred within hours of one another highlights the severity of gun violence in America, and calls into question the effectiveness of state restrictions by themselves.     

    California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. There are restrictions on assault weapons and their associated magazines, required universal background checks, waiting periods, minimum age laws, and protections in place for victims of domestic violence. Despite this, the legislation comes with complications; “California compliant” AR-15 copycats are being made to meet demand, and federal judges have blocked laws that aim to hold gun dealers responsible for selling illegal assault weapons accountable. Overall, California’s gun restrictions appear to have been at least somewhat successful in comparison to other states. According to the Washington Post, California also has the seventh lowest firearm mortality rate in the country, with 8.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2021.     

    However, some of these restrictions may be up for reconsideration. In June of 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In essence, this ruling interpreted the “right to bear arms” as the right to bear arms outside of the home, declaring that restrictions on the ability to carry a gun in public are unconstitutional. California was one of eight states, including New York prior to the Bruen ruling, that required an individual to express a true "good cause" to carry a firearm before issuing a concealed carry permit. The Bruen ruling struck down the "good cause" clause specifically. Newsom condemned the court’s decision–while the Bruen ruling didn’t invalidate the restrictions in place, it made them vulnerable to a challenge in court. The implementation of the ruling is ultimately left up to the local and county offices that issue concealed carry permits, and many officials are unsure how to proceed in light of increased demand. This, to me, is an example of both the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decisions, and a friction that follows federalism in practice. The Supreme Court has no power by itself to implement a decision; in a state like California, where laws restricting access to firearms could likely pass and the governor is in support of those laws, bills are written to work around the rulings made at the federal level. This differs from the interpretation of the Bruen ruling in a state like Missouri or Texas.

       In the wake of the past days’ tragedies, Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed a desire for gun reform at the national level. President Biden, who signed a bipartisan gun reform bill into law in June of last year, issued a statement last night in support of the victims of the Monterey Park shooting.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/23/us/shooting-half-moon-bay-california

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/22/california-gun-laws-monterey-park-shooting/

https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843

https://www.everytown.org/press/california-is-advancing-an-important-bill-to-combat-the-supreme-courts-dangerous-ruling-in-nysrpa-v-bruen-heres-what-to-know/#:~:text=Bruen.,carry%20a%20firearm%20in%20public.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/22/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-shooting-in-monterey-park-california/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf 

Google Files Defense Brief for Contentious Supreme Court Tech Case

On Thursday, January 12, the Supreme Court case Gonzalez v. Google gained fresh media attention after Google filed a defense brief to the Supreme Court. The family of Nohemi Gomez, who was killed in a terrorist attack in France in 2015, alleges that YouTube (which is owned by Google) allowed for terrorist organization Islamic State to gain members via the promotion of terrorist content by YouTube's recommendation algorithm. Google claims that it's protected by Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, although the Supreme Court may potentially overturn or alter this section of the act. 

Section 230 states that companies aren't liable for any content posted on their websites by third-parties, similar to how phone companies aren't liable for conversations that people have through their phone lines. Section 230 has given internet companies an enormous amount of protection from lawsuits, although with social media having exploded in popularity in recent years, the internet has changed significantly since 1996. Large amounts of misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content has been posted on these platforms, and many are beginning to question whether Section 230 should be altered or completely removed. 

Dislike for Section 230 seems to be one of the few things Democrats and Republicans can agree on, although for very different reasons. Democrats argue that Section 230 protects misinformation and hate speech posted on online platforms, and that holding tech companies legally responsible for such content would help to decrease the presence of such harmful content. Republicans, however, argue that the lack of guarantees for free speech in Section 230 gives companies a free-pass to censor whatever they deem harmful (which Republicans claim is often done with anti-conservative biases). On Wednesday, President Biden tried to harness this bipartisan dissatisfaction with Section 230 and called for its reform in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Online companies are terrified at the prospect of losing this liability shield, and proponents of Section 230 have claimed that it's a necessary protection that will prevent internet companies from having to greatly rework the way they operate. Google stated in it's defense brief that greatly altering or abolishing Section 230 would "upend the internet" and could lead to increases in content moderation if companies fear getting sued and remove anything that anyone objects to. However, Google claims it could also cause increases in harmful speech if companies decide to remove all content filters, allowing them to ignore third-party content posted on platforms. 

The Supreme Court accepted the case on October 3, 2022, and is scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 21st, where attorneys from both sides will have 30 minutes to argue their cases. The Supreme Court has never had a case on Section 230 before, and thus no judicial precedent exists for it. If the court overturns or greatly alters Section 230, it will have significant implications for online platforms and how they operate.

Sources: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-calls-changing-big-tech-moderation-rules-not-how/ 

https://fortune.com/2023/01/04/what-is-section-230-social-media-tech-regulation-3-way-could-change-twitter-facebook/

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3811161-google-warns-supreme-court-against-gutting-controversial-tech-provision/ 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/01/11/biden-urges-bipartisan-legislation-to-rein-in-big-tech-companies-as-gop-targets-president-in-tech-probes/?sh=78f250882efd

Image source: https://www.cumanagement.com/articles/2022/08/compliance-what-supreme-courts-administrative-state-decision-means-credit-unions

Biden's Document Troubles

This past week, news broke that classified documents had been found both at President Biden's former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, and at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. The documents were likely misplaced during Biden's time as Vice President, with Biden stating that he was "surprised" to hear about their discovery. While under most circumstances the story would simply be dismissed as sloppy staff filing, the development has gained much more significance in light of the situation surrounding former president Donald Trump's possession of classified documents. In August, the FBI raided Trump's Mar-A-Lago home in Florida and seized hundreds of classified documents, with President Biden and other Democrats rightfully criticizing Trump for being irresponsible with such highly sensitive material. However, this has led to criticism (mostly from Republicans) that Biden was hypocritical for criticizing Trump's possession of classified documents despite having his own set of classified documents.  

However, there are significant differences between President Biden's and former president Trump's cases. For starters, while less than 20 documents have been discovered in Biden's residence and former office so far, Trump was in possession of over 300 classified documents. Additionally, upon discovery of the documents, Biden quickly turned them over to the National Archives and Records Administration. In contrast, Trump refused to return his documents despite the NARA's request in 2021 that they be returned, resulting with the FBI's raid on Mar-A-Lago over a year later. In short, while Biden has cooperated with the investigation and it seems like he simply misplaced the documents, Trump has actively tried to work against investigations into his possession of classified documents. Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed separate special counsels to review both Biden's and Trump's possession of classified documents.

Both Democrats and Republicans have also criticized Biden for not announcing the discovery of the documents sooner, as the batch found in his former office and the batch found in his residence were discovered on November 2nd (only 6 days before the midterm elections) and December 20th, respectively. Additionally, despite the clear differences in both Biden's and Trump's cases, there is a possibility that people won't look further into the details of each case and incorrectly assume that the two cases are equivalent, despite Trump's situation being more serious due to both the number of documents and his lack of cooperation with investigators. This could potentially give Trump some cover in the 2024 presidential race, although a possible indictment from Garland would likely turn public opinion further against Trump. As the situation seems to be an unforced error by Biden's team, the case will likely blow over for the president after the special counsel completes its investigation, although not without attacks from Republicans. 

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/seattle/news/ag-merrick-garland-appoints-special-counsel-to-take-over-biden-classified-documents-investigation/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/biden-classified-documents-what-matters/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/15/biden-trump-document-discovery-classified-00077988

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-documents-classified-white-house-response-democrats/

Kevin McCarthy New Speaker Of The House

 

On January 7th republican Kevin McCarthy was elected speaker of the house. This vote came after former speaker of the house democrat Nancy Pelosi stepped down in November of last year. Mccarthy hails from Bakersfield California,  and was first elected to congress in 2006. He has served as both minority and majority leader through the years. 

He was declared the speaker after the 15th round of voting. Now newly elected as speaker of the house there is controversy over how he secured the last remaining votes. He is thought to have struck deals with the last withholding votes coming from the far right. 

After the 14th round of voting concluded and he was still not installed as speaker the house did not adjourn but voted again. Entering the 15th round of voting far right senators from Virginia and Arizona voted present. This action moved the threshold of needed support securing his win. 

This vote marks the longests election for a house speaker in a century. According to an NPR article on Mccarthy’s election  “The longest vote in U.S. history took place in 1855, lasting 133 rounds over two months.” 

https://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/about

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/17/nancy-pelosi-to-step-down-as-house-democratic-leader-as-gop-to-take-majority.html

https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown

Delegitimizing the Oppostion

I grew up during the high water mark of "the Loyal Opposition" bipartisanship, linked to Cold War politics aka "politics stops at the water's edge" all thanks to the elite consensus over containing communism and maintaining the global institutions established after WWII. Having a party system in which the parties themselves agree on the Constitutional order and believe in giving up power after losing an election is paramount to the future political stability of the USA and therefore the world.

I think that's why this recent piece of analysis about the internal GOP fight over the House Speaker resonated with me (Nymag's Jonathan Chait via the OG blog Digby's Hullaballo (https://digbysblog.net/2023/01/04/eating-their-own/):

By way of illustration, take this op-ed by Representative Bob Good, one of the anti-McCarthy rebels. “We must elect a speaker who will utilize the power of the purse as leverage to restore fiscal sanity and defund the government tyranny we campaign against,” he writes. “For the good of the Republican conference, for the good of Congress and for the good of the country, let’s hope Republican leaders will listen to the will of their constituents and vote for transformational change on Jan. 3.”

Good believes that the Biden administration is imposing “government tyranny” and that the House will somehow bring it to an end through a funding agreement with the Biden administration. He believes the House should be a venue for “transformational change.” Many political activists and candidates have called for transformational change, but only on the right wing is it considered normal to expect this to happen while the other party controls the presidency...

Because this anger has no productive channel, it returns again and again in the form of internal recriminations. The House [Republican] caucus during Democratic presidencies for the last quarter-century has been an endless procession of coup attempts. Gingrich was deposed for failing in his holy mission of forcing Clinton to slash government. John Boehner and Paul Ryan were driven into retirement. The House Republican caucus will be a cauldron of rage, because the party, at its core, does not believe it should be forced to share power. (emphasis added)

Hullaballo is really one of the better political blogs out there, clearly Democratic in orientation (not just anti-MAGA) but full of reasoned analysis. Congressional politics don't make it into HS history surveys, but having lived through the 1994 Gingrich-led "Republican Revolution" and all that came after, that final paragraph stings. Gingrich was also taking the fall for the ill-fated attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office after Clinton lied under oath about his extramarital affairs, but the recent history of GOP Speakers is not encouraging and there have been periodic government shutdowns as a series of GOP House caucuses insisted on trying to make refusal to pass a budget a way of taking a hostage and negotiating for major policy changes on that basis. While the far right has lost most of these showdowns, Ryan and Boehner basically did quit in frustration with the far right, and the far right is the dominant wing of the party in the House of Representatives, and the country at large. So here we are. The next opportunity to "take a hostage" will be the debt ceiling fight coming up in a few months and that could threaten global economic stability. More on that another time unless a student blogger beats me to it.