CSotD: The Attack of the One-Trick Ponies
Skip to comments
On the Fastrack (KFS) wins the Best Coincidental Timing Award for what can’t have been but surely seems a commentary on the GOP gridlock. And Dethany is right: The problem seems to be with people more interested in putting on a performance than getting anything done.
Victoria Sparks (R-IN) has taken to voting “present,” indicating her dissatisfaction with her fellow Republicans for failing to caucus and come up with a coherent plan. It’s not a bad protest, as long as she realizes that it’s no different than failing to vote: Under House Rules, a vote only counts if it is for a particular person.
Her performative gesture, then, is no different than if she left the chamber without voting, because it lowers the number of votes needed to succeed. If 12 Republicans joined her in voting “present,” Hakeem Jeffries could win with only 212 votes.
I like the people who bellow their votes, and who add “The Honorable” to the name of their candidate, which raises the question of whether a vote for the Honorable Kevin McCarthy counts in favor of the guy we’re more familiar with.
This kind of drum-beating nonsense is fun stuff at a political convention but seems pretty childish in the halls of Congress.
Nick Anderson is only one of several commentators to compare Nancy Pelosi’s firm grip on her party to McCarthy’s inability to exert leadership on his own, and, specifically, on the Crazy Caucus whose bullying and posturing have started even before the next session has formally begun.
The whole world is watching, and if the members of the Crazy Caucus are fooling their voters, they haven’t fooled David Rowe, who not only gets the caricatures right but adds a nice touch with Boebert’s frilly apron and a pun on the title of Grant Wood’s classic painting.
And, in case you thought this was just some internal squabble that wasn’t making us look like nitwits in the eyes of the greater world, Rowe sees his Grant Wood homage and raises it to Jacques-Louis David, to make the point that, however much the Crazy Caucus may be to blame, Kevin McCarthy is no Napoleon nor is his mighty steed Marengo.
Clay Jones doesn’t doubt the crazy part, but he raises the question of what value there is in the Republican Party holding itself hostage? As he notes in his essay:
When this is finally decided and we have a Republican Speaker of the House, he or she will be
the weakest speaker in the history of that elective body. The GOP’s slim majority is
being held hostage by 20 members. When this is over, they’ll be able to hold
their own hostage again and again.
Ann Telnaes doesn’t give the GOP credit for being held hostage by a small group of performative looneys, pushing the blame instead on the party itself, not just for a lack of discipline but for a history of being willing to cannibalize itself.
After all, it’s not just that they are allowing the crazies to run wild in the Chamber well this week, but they’ve also been willing to sacrifice party credibility by casting out reasonable dissenters like Liz Cheney, by nominating empty suits like Herschel Walker and by refusing to participate in the Jan 6 Committee hearings.
Holding power matters. What you do with it becomes just another performance piece to impress the rubes.
Peter Schrank wonders aloud if the party has gone so far off the rails that it’s worth saving at all, and note that he drew this before the current kerfuffle in the House had launched.
There was already considerable speculation over whether McCarthy or anyone else would be able to gather the party into a functioning group, and the current dustup seems like a preview of the next two years.
“Tyranny of the Majority” is a major drawback to the Parliamentary form of government, but an advantage is the ability to call for a vote of no confidence without having to wait until a specific date.
Then again, one might reasonably ask if Telnaes’s elephant would ever put down the fork long enough to make that request.
Football Follow-Up
I use, and praise, Steve Brodner‘s work often enough that I don’t mind disagreeing with him on this one.
I won’t defend the way the NFL has handled injury issues across the board, but the Players Association seems on top of that issue, and I think Brodner overstates things, because, however much still needs to be done, there has been a significant improvement in how injuries are assessed and handled.
It’s hard to document, because not only did team doctors once inject players with pain killers and send them back out on the field, but the players themselves failed to report injuries, in part because of the existing culture of playing hurt and in part to protect their jobs.
However, there have been significant rule changes to help prevent injuries, and the erection of the “blue tent” on each sideline provides an improved ability to diagnose problems and make intelligent choices about whether a player will return to the game or sit it out.
Are there more injuries? Or are more injuries being reported? It’s likely a combination.
All sports contain some element of risk. I interviewed a researcher in helmet design after the death of Natasha Richardson from an unremarkable fall while skiing, and he said that, while his research was more focused on football and hockey, where brain injuries are more likely, there really is no way to make sports entirely safe: Even heading a soccer ball contains the potential for brain damage.
Richardson was not wearing a helmet, nor was Sonny Bono.
But their deaths are a reason to require helmets, not a reason to close all ski hills and ban the sport.
The most educated speculation on Hamlin’s injury is that it was caused by an ill-timed blow to the chest that essentially short-circuited his heart.
We’ve seen this in other sports, particularly when a player is struck in the chest by a ball, but, again, it doesn’t mean we should ban lacrosse or baseball, though it certainly means we should have first-class medical help on the scene.
Hamlin is alive because treatment was available: That’s the takeaway.
Comments 11
Comments are closed.