The Case for Scalise

I thought this needed its own thread bc I keep getting downvoted for saying it needs to be Scalise. It needs to be Scalise.

I get it. He’s part of the establishment. To some extent, unfortunately, we need an institutional republican. It will lend some credibility to Roy (who is clearly the brains behind this operation and who has been steadfastly reasonable).

Scalise’s pros - I haven't witnsessed him going back on his word or otherwise welching on a promise. I could be wrong, so please enlighten me.

For purposes of the instant thread - I think the major case is that Scalise would probably agree to some of the most essential demands. I think it politically helps him to have LESS discretion, which is what these demands of our brave 20 have sought. This is bc if times get tough, he can make Gaetz the bad cop when he’s “stuck” doing "radical" shite like allowing floor debates on important bills and investigating the Deep State. The tough decisions are already made in the name of restoring order.

Furthermore - Scalise is not from California. I know Louisiana is bonkers, but I had a political science professor once who characterized us as liking to periodically give the bird to the rest of the country when we vote. That is accurate. SOH is wayyyy more high profile than whip- if he fricks over St Tammany on national television, he’ll have to relocate after he’s unelected. Just think about how we are about our football coaches. Louisiana is not an easy crowd. We're usually drunk and worse when we're pissed and losing.

I think that Trump or Donalds or someone needs to make a deal with McCarthy that he can be the Whip if he steps aside and nominates Scalise. Or some such. What's wrong with that?