Which allowed the GOP controlled house to elect a much more fashy religious zealot who will be waaaaay worse for the country?
Am I missing something here? How is this not the biggest "own goal" they have pulled in recent memory? Now we get to listen to endless whining by liberal media outlets about how evil the new anti-daddy of the week is?
Hard to call it an own goal when this isn't going to change any policy. The same batshit they proposed before will be proposed again, and it'll be shot down unless it's the type of batshit Democrats agree with (see: Ukraine). Just as before.
We'll have to see how it plays out, but extensive, public infighting is rarely good for organizations. Seems defensible to sign off on your opponents' desire to go at each other's throats.
We also have to consider the counterfactual, where we'd be ripping Democrats for helping keep whoever the hell was speaker before in power. If you're criticizing this and you'd criticize that, too, your position is not very coherent.
My position is they should have let McCarthy stay in. Nobody liked him, and nobody wanted to work with him. Since the government is deadlocked anyway, I'd rather just leave it that way as a way to stop republican progress.
Of course, that's all predicated on the notion that the Dems and Republicans aren't playing for the same team. Which they are.
It's like when people were like "why is trump golfing all the time?"
Like, do you want him to show up for work and make everything worse?
It's "harm reduction" like the Dems like to pretend they're into, by means of not speeding up fascism. Instead they hit the No2 button in the fascism mobile
I don't think many people want to work with the new speaker, either. He's like the fifth choice, right?
And if the goal was to keep them from doing anything, they got nothing done while the whole leadership crisis sorted itself out.