Paul Broun Leads Effort to Fire McCarthy

That didn’t take long.

The House of Representatives won’t vote until October 8th to decide who will replace John Boehner as Speaker, but that isn’t stopping a group led by former Georgia congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun from launching a campaign opposing California Rep. Kevin McCarthy for the job.

Broun and a coalition of other organizations apparently led by the Constitutional Rights PAC launched the website on Wednesday. In a press release, Broun was quoted as saying,

Having worked with Kevin McCarthy in the House, I’ll admit he’s a friendly guy. But we need a dramatic change in House leadership – we can’t afford to replace Speaker Boehner with someone who will continue to carry out his failed legacy, one that has been stifling conservative progress for six years.

McCarthy and Boehner are cut from the same establishment cloth, and if the former replaces the latter, I’m pledging to help my fellow Americans mobilize to make sure he’s fired.

Simply stated, we must have fresh, new, truly conservative leadership so the American people can see that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Paul Broun's New Logo
Paul Broun’s New Logo
The former Athens congressman has a new logo, which appears on the webpage. That logo, in turn, links back to the website of the Constitutional Rights PAC, which in turn still contains two pages soliciting contributions for Broun’s 2014 Senate campaign, in which he failed to make the runoff between Jack Kingston and David Perdue. The PAC’s mission statement says it “exists to advocate Constitutional governance and remind elected servants of the oaths they swore to uphold.”

There have been rumors that Broun will re-enter Georgia politics as a candidate in one of the 2016 races. Qualifying, we’ll remind you, is six months and one week away.


  1. xdog says:

    Beautiful. Pledging to work to fire someone from a position he doesn’t yet hold is proof you can’t be too prepared. Broun and his sponsors are always ready to shoot, ready, aim. It ought to be on their coat of arms.

  2. Andrew C. Pope says:

    Not surprised he wants to get back into politics. Times are hard for doctors who don’t have admitting privileges to any hospitals.

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    “McCarthy and Boehner are cut from the same establishment cloth…”

    There’s a honeymoon of course, I predict a McCarthy exit sometime after Nov 2016.

  4. John Konop says:

    We have many congress persons wanted to shut down the government without proposing a real plan to make cuts. Why not first put out a real plan, with detailed cuts?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      That’s the same thing we’d ask Boehner when he’d agree to just keep writing blank checks and never actually deal with spending.

      Why not first put out a real plan, with detailed cuts?

      Boehner’s strategy has always been to wait until the last minute to reveal some sort of spending bill, creating a crisis of urgency, and then threatening committee seats of anyone who dare suggest they have time to read the bill instead of just voting blindly for it.

      Is McCarthy going to be any different? It’s a fair question.

      I don’t agree with throwing out the baby before the bathwater even makes it into the tub, but I think the search for the next speaker needs to be a bit more meaningful than a simple ‘heir to the throne’ selection process.

    • David C says:

      Because spending cuts in the abstract are popular. Spending cuts in the specific are not. And the moment you put out a real, detailed plan, it’s something specific that can be attacked. It’s the same reason the same Congress loves to vote for repeal, but never comes up with replace when it comes to Obamacare.

  5. Rhonda Kazmierski says:

    Am I the only one who would love to see, South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, replace Boehner? One had only to watch his performance, as he questioned the press, just a few day’s ago, to realize that he could more than adequately replace, Boehner, to whom, I say, Good RIDDANCE!! Adios. Ciao. Goodbye. 😀

  6. seenbetrdayz says:

    I’m hoping Webster gets the nod. —not because I agree with him on the issues (some, like Afghanistan involvement or foreign aid, I’d be polar opposite of his position), but because he’s laid out the style of management he would have in the House. No more of these new-age requirements for having your bills heard (heard, not necessarily passed). Everyone gets a fair shot, and ideas succeed or fail based on their own merits, and not thinly-veiled threats from the whip team. He wants to go back to basics.

    The House, under leadership of both the previous speaker Pelosi and John Boehner, has become a mess of hoops to jump through and favors to trade. Traditional rules have been . . . fudged, shall we say, in order to basically attempt pass the unpassable and unpopular. This needs to stop. Go back to the way it was done for ages rather than the rather arbitrary methods used under the last two speakers.

    It’s been like watching a kid teaching an adult how to play a game that the kid has no intention of losing. Don’t be surprised when the rules mysterously change whenever you get close to your goal.

    • Charlie says:

      Once again, you watch as a spectator, offering a solution you know has zero probability of happening so you can continue to tell yourself you’re participating an invested, but are really just hoping for more years of schadenfreude.

      “Conservatives” wanted Boehner gone. They got that. And as usual, they like you had no actual plan to replace him other than with some mythical form of perfection that doesn’t exist.

      So now, even before the candidate that had the buy in of those conservatives that actually get a vote can be elected, the “will never be happy” wing of the party is once again moving the goal posts.

      And you guys wonder why you’re ignored when it’s time to make actual decisions…

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        We’re all just spectators. You’re opinion means about as much as mine to those in D.C., and as much as anyone else’s here, which is to say, squat. They’re only gonna do what they want to do. The only difference is that you’re all too happy to play the role of obedient lap dog to those in power because otherwise you’d have no purpose at all, just like the rest of us. Sorry to trip your high horse.

        Here’s Daniel Webster’s vision, just remove the guy’s name and tell me if this is actually a way you’d like to see the House be run, because if we can’t agree on that then there’s not really much point in discussing candidates:

        • Baker says:

          Getting of rid of earmarks is one thing that has made this so much harder. I think in the long run it was a good thing but I think people up there in that snake pit are still figuring out how to do things without them and that is proving trickier than imagined.

          That was a big deal and people (Boehner) should get credit for doing so, not just vilified endlessly.

            • Baker says:

              “Earmarks are a rounding error compared to entitlments…..can we not have the real adult conversation from Washington?”

              Oh definitely but my point is just that earmarks were a way for things to get moving. Obviously things need to move in the right direction but that kind of logrolling could break up stalemates and now that tactic is gone.

              In other news, there is a candidate who has actually proposed real entitlement reform and is talking about it regularly. This particular candidate has also vetoed more tax increases than any governor in history. But apparently he’s not conservative enough for some folks.

  7. Noway says:

    Charlie, you’ve written many columns and you may have addressed it, but what options do you see available to the Repub House and Senate to help reign in spending that is rapidly sending us to our fiscal death. Instead of acting like those of us who express frustrations are morons, please tell us how to lessen those feelings. Is any hope of change dependant on the Repubs gaining the White House? I’m genuinely interested in your opinions instead of your increasing snark.

Comments are closed.