EXCLUSIVE: Matt Gaetz Rips McCarthy’s ‘Commitment To America’ Agenda

The Daily Caller ^

[Dr. Franklin]

Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz slammed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s “Commitment to America” agenda in an exclusive interview with the Daily Caller on Friday, focusing specifically on one bullet point that suggests the GOP should subsidize the hiring of 200,000 new police officers through recruitment bonuses. ... “So if you see, like, the third bullet point in whatever this is suggests that the federal government needs to fund incentives for 200,000 new law enforcement. I do not believe in the federal government being excessively entangled in state and local law enforcement. It is not practical,” Gaetz told the Caller.

Gaetz also suggested that McCarthy may have gotten the idea from ex-GOP pollster and communications consultant Frank Luntz, noting that McCarthy rented a room in Washington, D.C., from Luntz and called him his “roommate.” ...

“Publicly, the day the minority leader released his palm card calling for excessive federal involvement in local law enforcement, I stood on the floor and lambasted federal involvement in local law enforcement,” Gaetz added. “And what I’m telling you on the record is I’m against the federal government utilizing money as a way to impact behavior at the local level in the public safety space, and I’m against it whether Californian Nancy Pelosi pushes it or whether Californian Kevin McCarthy pushes it.”

[ReaganGeneration2]

The GOP Federales do not want to win both houses and pass legislation.

If they did, they’d advertise with a set of pre-written, pre-negotiated bills on 5 or 6 key issues, and a budget, saying “these are on Biden’s desk on Day 1” if you elect us. They’ve had decades to work on them.

But Congress doesn’t work like that. It’s not a law-making entity. It’s a money-laundering, division and electoral industry, designed to take our money, divide us, and perpetuate itself.

Their only possible redeeming value is to foster enough division such that it ensures Biden doesn’t go full dictatorship.

[Baldwin77]

But for a few (including Gaetz) the GOP “leaders” in both houses of congress have been utterly useless.

[JoJo354]

That is what I was thinking. Wouldn’t this make “local” police beholden to DC? Wouldn’t that make them more federal police than local or state? And then who would control them in the end? Oh yes...DC!

[hardspunned]

Just what we need, an additional 200,000 “DC Strong” Washington funded potential federal thugs spread around the country. As if turning this thing around isn’t going to be hard enough already.

[Zathras]

So we want the GOP to fund hiring of police officers who in 70% cases are going to vote Democrat.
Sure sounds a great deal like the H1b program bringing in Democrat voters from India.
Matt is correct.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

The commitment of conservatives to failure. Better that biden committing us to internment camps, or another step in helping him?

[FreeReign]

“So if you see, like, the third bullet point in whatever this is suggests that the federal government needs to fund incentives for 200,000 new law enforcement. I do not believe in the federal government being excessively entangled in state and local law enforcement. It is not practical,”

Gaetz is absolutely right.

The liberal world order wants to federalize our local police. McCarthy in typical RINO fashion pushes their agenda.

[ecomcon]

The point is to federalize the popo, just like the demofascists want. This in order to have loyal troops in place when the time comes, God forbid.

Little by little, fedgov consolidates.

[FreeReign]

I'm not sure the issue, federal subsidies of local police, is the issue. Rather it might well be Matt Gatez' frustration over being denied significant leadership position under leader McCarthy.

It's a very important issue.

Gaetz thankfully is running with it.

Not sure what your frustration is with it, but to suggest cynical intent by Gaetz is unfortunate and not convincing.

[FreeReign]

They are extremely effective ads. I agree with Gaetz on this, but his position is going to be a total loser in swing states and House districts.

The solution is for Republican leadership to support a national campaign to support LOCAL politicians who support more LOCAL funding of police.

[Alberta's Child]

The whole discussion is pointless, in a way. This country doesn’t need more police officers. It needs more prison cells, and more prosecutors who are willing to put criminals in them for a long time.

This is nothing more than a campaign issue aimed at building support among suburban Karens who are swing voters. It’s just intended to present the GOP in contrast to the “define the police” nitwits on the left.

[FreeReign]

Okay then.

The solution is for Republican leadership to support a national campaign to support LOCAL DA's who support prosecuting criminals.

More money for LOCAL police, prosectors and jail cells where appropriate, too.

[Spktyr]

If the Feds want to spend money on police where it will make a difference, they should subsidize body-worn cameras and make their use mandatory for other (existing) funding to continue to flow.

[Alberta's Child]

That’s a good idea and it should be included in the details, but it’s too complicated for a campaign slogan. “200,000 police officers” works better with low-IQ voters.

[nathanbedford]

You misread what was never written nor intended.

[FreeReign]

I'm not sure the issue, federal subsidies of local police, is the issue. Rather it might well be Matt Gatez' frustration over being denied significant leadership position under leader McCarthy.

I posted what was "written" by you. The floor is yours to explain what you "meant".

[nathanbedford]

I posted what was "written" by you.

Indeed you did but that has absolutely nothing to do with your misreading. I said, "you misread what was never written nor intended," and indeed you have. How have you misread what I wrote?

I said it is Matt Gaetz who "might be" frustrated", "Rather it might well be Matt Gatez' frustration…."

You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration: "Not sure what your frustration is with it…." Worse, you then proceeded to compound your distortion by accusing me being "cynical:" To suggest cynical intent by Gaetz… ..". Of course, I made no such suggestion-your suggestion is as misplaced as your distortion.

Having compounded distortion with false accusation, you then asked me to explain myself: "The floor is yours to explain what you "meant".

I am ever willing to defend what I said but I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend what I did not say nor to defend a false proposition advanced by someone else wrongly attributed to me.

Finally, what is "not convincing" (your words) is a mode of argument that first quotes someone but then proceeds to distort and fabricate.

[FreeReign]

You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration:

You're the one who first thought Gaetz' actions "might" be due to his frustration instead of him actually taking action because he believes in the issue.

I disagree with that assessment. I think it's an unfair assessment.

I believe Gaetz took a strong stand on the issue because it's the right thing to do. Not because he was frustrated because he didn't gain a leadership role, which would be a cynical thing for HIM to do.

Worse, you then proceeded to compound your distortion by accusing me being "cynical:"

That's your misread and fabrication.

I did not accuse you of being cynical. I said your comment was "unfortunate and not convincing".

[nathanbedford]

You quote my words: "You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration: " You're the one who first thought Gaetz' actions "might" be due to his frustration instead of him actually taking action because he believes in the issue.

Am I arguing with Franz Kafka or is this Catch-22?

As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "here you go again." Your words:

You're the one who first thought Gaetz' actions "might" be due to his frustration instead of him actually taking action because he believes in the issue.

I disagree with that assessment. I think it's an unfair assessment.

I made no "assessment" whatsoever. You're the only one here who has made that assessment. I merely raised a possibility, preceded by the words, "I'm not sure." Odd that I would say "I'm not sure" as well as the word "might" when making an "assessment."

You may be quite right, Gaetz might well be motivated by a problem with the issue rather than frustration over being cut out of a leadership role, I don't know. By the way, neither do you.

Oops! Here you go again:

I did not accuse you of being cynical. I said your comment was "unfortunate and not convincing".

Of course you accused me of serving up cynical suggestions, here are your words:

Not sure what your frustration is with it, but to suggest cynical intent by Gaetz is unfortunate and not convincing.

Finally, if you had taken a moment to conjure up all your brain cells and pay attention to what I actually wrote, you would understand that I made no assertion or "assessment." Rather, I mooted a possibility which indicates no attempt even to be "convincing" but perhaps an attempt to solicit opinion about what in fact are Gaetz' motives and, more importantly, to solicit opinion about whether McCarthy is opening up leadership to MAGA inclined members of his caucus or freezing them out?

Lest you twist these words as well as everything else you seem to read, I don't know the answer to that question but I would like to know.

[FreeReign]

I did not accuse you of being cynical. I said your comment was "unfortunate and not convincing".

Of course you accused me of serving up cynical suggestions, here are your words:

Not sure what your frustration is with it, but to suggest cynical intent by Gaetz is unfortunate and not convincing.

To say that you suggested cynical intent on Gaetz' part is not the same thing as to say that your suggestion was cynical.

One doesn't have to be cynical to identify another as cynical. Basic logic, brain cell guy.

As I said, you misread, twist and fabricate.