Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Bob Good’s Not-So-Excellent Adventure

—

by

sherlockj
in ,

Virginia Fifth Congressional District

by James C. Sherlock

Republican Rep. Bob Good (R-Va), who represents Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District, got his five minutes of fame.

Yesterday he was given a tree with which to hang himself on The New York Times editorial page.

His op-ed contained statements that Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tx) called “stupid platitudes that some consultant told you to say.” The rest of that tweet is NSFW.

There was talk of fistfights about to break out. Mr. Good was not reported to have contemplated fighting the former Navy Seal, Crenshaw’s single remaining eye notwithstanding.

Good clearly wanted to get his goals, from whatever source, in print for the ages.

I support regular order, which is at the core of what Good indicated he wanted to keep from having to vote for omnibus bills. But that is hardly revolutionary thinking.

The House had last exercised regular order way back in 2019 under Republican Speaker Paul Ryan. When Kevin McCarthy was Majority Leader. Before Good was in Congress. Apparently unconvincingly to Mr. Good, McCarthy had already agreed to regular order when Good’s op-ed was written.

Good wanted the ability of individual members to offer amendments on the floor. Mr. McCarthy had already agreed to that as well.

He wanted the ability of a single member “to move to vacate the speaker’s chair.” We are left to wonder if Mr. Good had an individual member in mind.

He comforted readers that he “understood the frustrations of Republicans” and stated his intention to grant Republicans “total confidence in the Speaker” they were to elect. Kevin McCarthy, he had concluded, was not that person.

He offered that it was time for Republicans to “move on.”

That op-ed will likely next re-appear in Mr. Good’s obituary along with the accompanying Times photo of him standing in the spotlight in front of a nearly empty House chamber. In the photo Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is seen smiling. It is probably safer when she smiles.

A forecast by the reliably wrong Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) that “Mr. McCarthy doesn’t have the votes today. He will not have the votes tomorrow and he will not have the votes next week, next month, next year” proved ephemeral.

Very late Friday night, Mr. Good and his soulmate Gaetz along with three other Republicans voted “present” on the ballot in which 216 Republicans elected Mr. McCarthy speaker.

That victory required one member to fly back from his hospitalized wife’s bedside in Texas for the vote to put Mr. McCarthy over the top. So that Good would not have to compromise whatever may constitute his principles.

I hope the citizens of Virginia’s Fifth House District have taken careful note.  If this is what they elected Bob Good to do, he delivered.

Just as he urged, the House has moved on.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

57 responses to “Bob Good’s Not-So-Excellent Adventure”

  1. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    The real problem is that McCarthy has no mandate to lead, just the slimmest possible victory, if you can even call it that. The reformers only had leverage because McCarthy was criplingly weak.

    Beyond that I think the Good et al reforms are good. Especially since the House has nothing else to do, except complain about Biden. Congress is divided.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      He has a mandate to lead, just not to insist.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Good was simply throwing an infantile tantrum because McCarthy had backed Denver Riggleman in their nomination contest. Riggleman was the incumbent, and it was logical the leadership would stand by him. There was no more substance to Good’s position than that. It was petty revenge, and it failed. He’d be wise to return to his back bench and lay low for a while.

      1. VaNavVet Avatar
        VaNavVet

        What did you expect from a Republican that voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election?

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Good’s holdout did leverage important changes to the House Rules. Not sure if it was worth it. Doesn’t matter to me since I was moved out of Good’s district. I am with Wexton now, begrudgingly.

    Meet Republican William Pennington, the freshman who became speaker in 1860 after 44 vote counts over 8 weeks. One term only. Voted out. Died from a morphine overdose in 1862.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20bbd00d2e1c6bb8f921e18181439a206c9128234c2f6cd61c4aa87df6773deb.jpg

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Gee, and that political battle was yet another warning sign of what catastrophe that followed?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I had never come across Pennington before. A long time Whig, but the Whigs impoloded! The pro slavery Whigs side with the Democrats. The pro internal improvement Whigs, like Pennington, side with the new Republicans. Pennington sealed his fate when he signed the Corwin Amendment which aimed to protect slavery as a last-ditch effort to appease seceding states.

  3. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    The House will continue to have debated arguments over decisions they have to make. It is too close to call for any one vote.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      In future votes, I think you will see some moderate Republicans voting with Dems in the end… not without drama but for the good of the country. The rightwingers may very well be sidelined.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Just like moderate Dems voted with Repubs for the good of the country in the last sessions?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Don’t recall any government shutdown threats in the last sessions….

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Exactly. It will be interesting to see if the moderate Dems vote with the Repubs to start to bring our national debt down to less than 100% of GDP.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If it is a true negotiation, I think they will. If it is just brinkmanship again, no they won’t but moderate Rs will join them rather than going through another drawn out shut down. Will Rs revisit the sequestration fiasco again…? All tbd…

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The Dems have gone for unsustainable deficit spending, the Repubs for excessive tax cuts. The problem is they too often have indulged each others excesses. The result is debt in excess of GDP for the first time since WWII.

            That is unsustainable except to believers in the delusion of modern monetary theory.

            If moderate Dems will cooperate with the Repubs to reduce deficits for the good of the country there will be no need of sequestration or shut down threats.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The US debt hit 100% of the gdp in 2013 and has been above pretty much ever since. It peaked at about 135% in Q2 2020 and has been dropping after that point.

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Sorry my previous comment was not clearer. You are right, we’ve been around 100% for awhile.

            Following the crash of ’08 debt increased to about equal to GDP, sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more. In ’20 the deficit alone jumped to about 15% of GDP and as you note the debt ratio jumped to about 135% and remains well over 120%. The scary part is that the forecasts are for escalating deficits. That is unsustainable.

            What is also unsustainable is more idiocy with Repubs saying to the Dems, spend what you want, and the Dems saying to the Repubs you cut taxes as you want.

            Some of the negotiations have been to change that dynamic. We’ll see how it works out.

            tps://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp

          6. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Moderate Dems do not exist. Spanberger? 100% Pelosi. Warner and Kaine – in UpChuck Schumer’s pocket…
            I don’t get Manchin, and when you have to cite Sinema as the “sane” Dem, you have slim pickings!
            Tulsi Gabbard is a Leftist economically and probably socially, but she is sane. Which is why she is out as a Dem!

    2. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D’Aulnais

      With the agreed upon rules every session will begin with The Pledge, The Prayer, and The Motion to Vacate.

      As thin as the margins are in both houses, it’s likely that the majority will change hands in one or possibly both. According to an article on 538’s website, about 10 Congressmen on average either die, resign, or are arrested in a two year period.

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Wishing somebody dead? Really? Not seeing much change here despite the new sheriff. Going back to ignoring all this like I did the past two weeks.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    If they don’t like omnibus bills, there is a simple solution. Pass the individual appropriation bills on time, by Oct. 1. That would be regular order.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Glad to see you have edited your post to embrace a return to regular order that the Dems ditched. That it was inspired by my response to you, inexplicably deleted, that regular order is the process that addresses the travesty of omnibus bills is ok too.

      There will be much that I as an independent, like you as a Dem, will dislike in Repub control of the House, but the change from the excesses of the Dems is a feature not a bug.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Congress has not passed the appropriation bills on time since I can remember–no matter which party was in the majority.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          That’s one of many reasons some of us have chosen independence over partisanship. Saying “The other guys have done it too” does not make it right.

          The hope for change in the House is that in addition to redressing the excesses resulting from narrow Dem control of Congress that it will resist despicable uniparty actions like the recent bums rushes to pass the Omnibus and “Inflation Reduction” acts without examination or amendment.

          There will be plenty of warts on the Repub majority in the House. The opportunity is that several of the changes enabled by the Speaker imbroglio can return Congress to more democratic processes.

          Here’s a pretty good Congressional Research Service report on regular order: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46597

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I can remember when Congress was done with everything by the end of June and went home. The fiscal year started on July 1. They got it done because government buildings were not air conditioned.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Regular order was seldom in order during the Pelosi regime.

      It wasn’t just omnibus appropriations bills that were written in her office. It was any legislation of importance to her, regardless of topic. And nearly anything of substance was deemed worthy of being written in that office.

      Regular order is more than separate appropriations bills.

      It is the presentation and consideration of legislation and testimony and debate and amendments from both sides. The House’s committees consider bills and issues and oversee agencies, programs, and activities within their jurisdictions.

      Here is the list from the last congress.

      Agriculture
      Appropriations
      Armed Services
      Budget
      Education and the Workforce
      Energy and Commerce
      Ethics
      Financial Services
      Foreign Affairs
      Homeland Security
      House Administration
      Judiciary
      Natural Resources
      Oversight and Accountability
      Rules
      Science, Space, and Technology
      Small Business
      Transportation and Infrastructure
      Veterans’ Affairs
      Ways and Means
      Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

      Then there are:
      Joint Economic Committee
      Joint Committee on Taxation

      We surely remember the important policy and legislative debates from those committees during Mrs. Pelosi’s tenure.

      Don’t we?

      The January 6th committee was bi-partisan.

      Wasn’t it?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Do you consider strict adherence to the Hastert Rule to be “regular order”?

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          I have no idea what the
          “Hastert rule”was, and I don’t even care to look it up. Regular order is regular order.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            What ever happened to inquiring minds want to know… alas… here is what Wiki has to say:

            “The Hastert Rule, also known as the “majority of the majority” rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House. Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.”

            Now really, I am interested if you believe that following the Hastert rule (something I suspect will be adhered to in this Congress as it has in past) is a legitimate part of “regular order” or not.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    If they don’t like omnibus bills, there is a simple solution. Pass the individual appropriation bills on time, by Oct. 1. That would be regular order.

  7. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    I’m hoping that Good’s tantrum doesn’t doesn’t make the congressman persona non grata for the next 2 years. The 5th can’t afford to lose federal opportunity and support.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Part of the negotiation was that there would be no retributions.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        “Good” luck with that.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          It was explicit, all I was doing was repeating what was promised. Saying vote for me or I’ll screw you was not a winning negotiating tactic for McCarthy after the 1st round.

          We’ll see how it works out. I’m in the 5th so I care.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I’m in the United States so I care.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The real concern is that with a narrow majority a small clutch of Repubs can threaten to kill anything they don’t like. We saw that with the squad and several ad hoc groups of Dems last session. That could make for a difficult session.

            Pelosi pretty much ended up promising everything to everyone and was able to coerce 100% support on legislation she wanted. After what it took for him to become Speaker, it is hard to see McCarthy being able to exert that kind of control.

            That said, some of the process changes, like regular order, seem like steps in the right direction.

            I personally am looking forward to several sets of hearings. Who knows, we may have reason to take a lesson from Spiro Agnew and impeach Kamala first.

      2. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        There’s a difference between active retribution and ignoring someone. Just because you’re promised no retribution doesn’t mean that you’ll get any favors or preference.

  8. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    “I hope the citizens of Virginia’s Fifth House District have taken careful note. If this is what they elected Bob Good to do, he delivered.”

    This will be just fine with the 5th. It is so overwhelmingly red that nothing short of Good identifying as Nancy Pelosi could queer his standing.

    FWIW there are some useful things in McCarthy’s concessions. Here’s Jonathan Turley’s take: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3803600-the-55th-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-is-no-nancy-pelosi-and-thats-a-good-thing/

  9. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I disagree. McCarthy was likely always going to win, but we have to see if the concessions play out.
    I think McCarthy is a Swamp creature, but maybe better than Cocaine Mitch.
    Watch the Dems use their power. They play smash mouth.
    Rs won a majority in 1994 and Newt got played. Rs had a massive win under BHO with the Tea Party and betrayed them. Trump won (the Dems were so overconfident they did not arrange to cheat. They haven’t made that mistake again) and McCarthy did nothing. When the 2018 midterms rolled around, and the Dems stole the House, partly through, maybe entirely due to the fake Russia hoax, McCarthy ran ads about Speaker McCarthy’s build the wall act – why didn’t he do it in the prior 2 years? Then Rs should have won 50 seats and barely squeak out a majority, while the vast majority of the country agrees we are n the wrong track. Besides the obvious built in to cheat election irregularities, we do not operate as a serious country. If Congress doesn’t pass a balanced budget, they should not get paid. We have printed money too long. The no amendments, no debates, no single bills stuff has to end and we have to get serious about our spending, but that would require doing something hard, like quit spending and screwing over future generations. It always was possible to stop McCarty with only a handful of votes. The point was made. He made concessions. Finally, you got to manipulating the number to have a majority by voting “present” and those who said they would never vote for him kept those promises, while allowing him to achieve the majority vote he needed to become Speaker. We will see how it turns out, but I am used to Rs blowing it…

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “…but that would require doing something hard, like quit spending and screwing over future generations”

      Or we could just make the boomers pay their fair share or cut their benefits that they put on the credit card.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Troll – you know nothing, as usual. What do you mean “pay their fair share?”
        You know that the top 10% of earners pays 90% or so of taxes, right? You know they get to pay full price for schooling, right? In after tax dollars? You know their deductions and dependents get phased down or out, right? Who consumes all that spending? Besides the grift and graft part?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          In 2021, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the US paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent. For comparison, the average American taxpayer in the same year paid 13 percent. No they do not pay their fair share. They are the ones grifting.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            As noted, this appears to be an apples and oranges thing. There is a difference between income and wealth. We tax income. (We shouldn’t, but that is another story for another day) Assuming taxing income is a good thing, and you have accumulated wealth, should the taxpayer get to keep it? Seems that way to me, or you could just steal the money, which is what I feel the government does at all levels when it taxes income. We did not have an income tax until…1913? That amendment and the direct election of Senators should be repealed…

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Smith’s statistic was the top 10% of earners. Your response was to selectively cite the top 1/100th of the top 1%. They are very different groups.

            I certainly agree with your criticism of billionaires. As you note they are not paying most of the freight. As Smith correctly noted, the rest of us are.

          3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Above thread we are talking the subset (minority?) of Americans who actually pay IRS any tax.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            One thing to keep in mind is that the FICA tax is collected from virtually everyone who works, is about equal to the income tax revenues and funds Social Security and Medicare Part A.

            The Federal income tax primarily funds Defense, and Medicare Part B.

            70% of the Federal workforce is DOD and other security agencies.

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Exactly, but you were not. You injected 1/100 of 1%.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Your problems with boomers are a recurring theme. Hope it helps.

  10. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    I was surprised at the comment that 201 was the last time for Regular Order. Google says: “The last time Congress was able to maintain regular operations without a continuing resolution was in 1996—(over) two decades ago.” I understand there were times when the House passed some Appropriations on time, but not enough time to successfully negotiate/reconcile with the Senate. In any case, I think that the concessions negotiated during the votes are well worth the couple of days it took. Congress fritters away weeks at a time on a regular basis. I am perplexed at all the attention over the threshhold for vacating the chair vote. If there were a serious reason to recall a Speaker, then it stands to reason that there would be a large number in favor, and a requirement for 5 votes should not be a big hindrance. Since we are apparently going back to the traditional method, which I do not recall being overly used. it shouldn’t matter much one ay or the other.

  11. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
    Charles D’Aulnais

    “ He wanted the ability of a single member “to move to vacate the speaker’s chair.” We are left to wonder if Mr. Good had an individual member in mind.”

    I believe this was agreed to. In which case, it’s possible the beginning of every day’s session will start with the Pledge, a prayer, and the motion.

  12. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    I’m happy to see national attention for the need to return to regular order. The last minute omnibus bills that nobody reads and the country can’t pay for are unsustainable. This was never the intent of the framers.

    With that said, I don’t think Bob Good did himself or the country any favors by showboating, and refusing to vote for McCarthy after the substantive issues were agreed to. I am also very troubled by reports that some of the holdouts were vying for appointments to important committees in return for their support. That really is blackmail. I don’t know if Bob Good was guilty of that.

    There was also discussion here about everyone paying their fair share of taxes. That’s a complex subject, but one obvious factor is that a high percentage of what candidates promise to do when running for office, is accomplished by tax breaks. When a politician says he or she will do more to encourage X or provide incentives for Y, they are talking about tax incentives. We shouldn’t vote for someone based on such promises, then complain when people or businesses react as intended by the legislation to lower their taxes.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      just for the sake of clarity – how is regular order defined?

      Does regular order more or less insure that
      legislative process can be stopped/gridlocked?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Regular order was when individual appropriations were passed for each department and function of government rather than omnibus behemoth bills to fund everything at once.

        Below is a longer explanation of regular order.

        “Regular order might also be called ‘doing things the old-fashioned way.’ The way you heard about Congress in school. A bill is proposed to the body. Leadership assigns it to a committee, or more than one. Then the chairman of the committee decides whether to consider it and when. Public hearings are scheduled in coordination with the ranking (most senior) member of the opposition party on that committee.”

        “After the hearings, the chairman brings forward a version of the bill he or she likes and schedules a ‘markup’ to consider amendments. The members of the committee from both parties offer amendments, debate them and vote on them.”

        “If the committee likes the amended bill enough to approve it, the next step is floor consideration. The gateway to the floor is a ‘motion to proceed,’ which, in recent times, has often been filibustered.”

        https://www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539358654/what-is-the-regular-order-john-mccain-longs-to-return-to-on-health-care

        It was a system whereby the legislators and committee members had input, deliberated and offered amendments.

        Today, spending bills are often over 10,000 pages long, written in secret by staffers and passed in a rush to avoid a shutdown.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Thanks. Can legislation to fund the agencies be passed on time in regular order without it being “bundled”?

          Is the motivation behind omnibus to be able to actually fund agencies that otherwise would not be
          in a timely manner?

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Omnibus bills are a way of avoiding the normal process, and the scrutiny that comes with it. They allow Congress to fund things and make other changes that would likely never happen apart from the funding crisis of their own making.

            As the article mentions, they could start working on individual appropriation bills anytime. Leaving everything until the last minute shouldn’t be allowed. At some point, we have to stop doing it.

            It’s done because we allow them to get away with it. One way that’s done is to suggest that the omnibus bill MUST be passed or the sky will fall. It won’t.

            A government shutdown is not the end of the world, and it’s still not too late to pass individual bills.

            Our elected officials get away with not doing their jobs because we let them, and because the news media consistently misrepresents the situation.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            See my latest comment and get the book if you want more information.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Regular order was when individual appropriations were passed for each department and function of government rather than omnibus behemoth bills to fund everything at once.

        Below is a longer explanation of regular order.

        “Regular order might also be called ‘doing things the old-fashioned way.’ The way you heard about Congress in school. A bill is proposed to the body. Leadership assigns it to a committee, or more than one. Then the chairman of the committee decides whether to consider it and when. Public hearings are scheduled in coordination with the ranking (most senior) member of the opposition party on that committee.”

        “After the hearings, the chairman brings forward a version of the bill he or she likes and schedules a ‘markup’ to consider amendments. The members of the committee from both parties offer amendments, debate them and vote on them.”

        “If the committee likes the amended bill enough to approve it, the next step is floor consideration. The gateway to the floor is a ‘motion to proceed,’ which, in recent times, has often been filibustered.”

        https://www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539358654/what-is-the-regular-order-john-mccain-longs-to-return-to-on-health-care

        It was a system whereby the legislators and committee members had input, deliberated and offered amendments.

        Today, spending bills are often over 10,000 pages long, written in secret by staffers and passed in a rush to avoid a shutdown.

  13. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    For anyone interested in what “regular order” is (emphasis mine):

    One of Congress’ most fundamental responsibilities is to pass a budget and fund the government. The way we budget and fund the government is, unfortunately, now dysfunctional. It is a problem that has gone on for far too long, and we have become accustomed to it. This is no way to govern. This broken process filled with last-minute deadlines, continuing resolutions, and even government shutdowns is wasteful. It is inefficient and harmful to the American people. Our broken budget process needlessly shortchanges effectiveness of Federal programs through the never-ending cycle of short-term continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills, creating budget crisis and keep the government perpetually at the edge of a shutdown. That threat occasionally comes to pass. Though Congress designed a clear budget process in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to establish our own funding priorities and set a timeline for enacting them into law, we have failed time and time again to live up to our own standards. In fact, Congress has only managed to enact all 12 required appropriation bills on time in four of the past 40 years. Instead, this body has passed an average of four CRs every year, and the frequency has only increased in recent years. Since 2011, we have passed 34 CRs. Sometimes these CRs fund the government for as little as one day at a time. As a result, the majority of sitting Members of Congress have never seen this body pass a budget through “regular order.”

    This book is available on Amazon.

    https://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Good-Very-Funding-Government/dp/1724991256/ref=sr_1_6?crid=39NV3CPEVZVJC&keywords=omnibus+bills&qid=1673193468&rnid=283155&s=books&sprefix=omnibus+bills%2Cstripbooks%2C93&sr=1-6

Leave a Reply

Read More