金婚
美媒大骂特朗普得了老年痴呆，头一次见总统向本国海军宣战！,夷红谈娱乐,原创 美媒大骂特朗普得了老年痴呆，头一次见总统向本国海军宣战！_我的网站
A | 这阵子，国际局势的浪花翻涌，不少人都在关注着美国海军的动向。
With pressure mounting to avert a government shutdown, heightened by culture war demands from House conservatives burned by previous brawls, the House speaker faces a difficult decision – risk a shutdown or risk the gavel.
That was 2015. But 2023 is treading a similar course.
For former House Speaker John Boehner, it was the final chapter in a lengthy standoff with House conservatives that contributed to his resignation from Congress after 25 years and almost five in the top job. For current House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, just seven months into his tenure, the outcome remains an open question.
With a looming deadline to fund the government and much left to be accomplished upon Congress’ return from recess, McCarthy and other congressional leaders expressed willingness earlier this month to pass a stop-gap measure to keep the government funded, buying lawmakers more time to work out the 12 appropriations bills they’ve been pursuing. But demands from the House Freedom Caucus have complicated the effort and put McCarthy in yet another bind from the right that analysts say could be the one to put his leadership position on the line.
“This is now the most important fight he faces as speaker and the choice between kind of the campaigning arm, the House Freedom Caucus arm, and the actual governing arm of keeping a government running,” says Casey Burgat, the director of the Legislative Affairs Program at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.
McCarthy has walked a fine line with the conservatives since the speaker battle, when they took him 15 grueling rounds before granting him his win, and in turn gained the power to bring up a vote for his ouster, lowering the threshold to just a single lawmaker.
So when the House Freedom Caucus announced it would oppose a stop-gap measure to keep the government funded unless certain conservative provisions are includes – like addressing DOJ "weaponization" and ending "woke" Pentagon policies – it prompted a confrontation with McCarthy that’s been brewing and bubbling in fits and starts for months, ready to boil over.
Such legislation would lose support among House Democrats and face steep odds in the Democrat-controlled Senate, making a shutdown likely. But without the support of conservatives on a clean continuing resolution and only a few votes to spare in the GOP narrow majority, McCarthy will likely need to rely on Democrats to approve a stop-gap measure – a move sure to provoke the hard-liners in his caucus.
“This is where his choice comes in,” Burgat says. “If he takes Democratic support, which likely he'll need to do, then that opens himself up to at least a motion to vacate because it only takes one now.”
The contours of the standoff were previewed during the debate over the debt ceiling, as House conservatives demanded controversial spending cuts and policies that put McCarthy in a difficult negotiating position with Democrats and the White House. Ultimately, Democratic votes on the debt ceiling agreement outnumbered Republicans in the House in a turn of events that infuriated some members of the House Freedom Caucus.
That same small but vocal minority – numbering in the mid-30s out of 222 Republicans in the chamber, though the caucus doesn’t publicize the exact number – made their frustration known just days later, when they blocked a routine vote, sending the chamber into a week-long gridlock. At the chamber’s reunification, McCarthy told reporters they had agreed to “sit down and talk more” in future spending negotiations. And shortly after, Republican appropriators agreed to mark up the 12 spending bills well below the levels agreed to in the debt ceiling deal in what appeared to be a major concession made to the House Freedom Caucus that has colored the funding process so far.
But this time, emboldened by the shortcomings in the last fiscal battle, they may come out with a greater show of force, as McCarthy faces what political science professor Rob Mellen Jr. calls a “no win situation.”
“I think this might be the fight they're willing to go to the mat for,” says Mellen, of the University of South Florida. “That this time if he really doesn't feel like he's going to compromise with them and give them what they want, that they may be willing to just say, ‘Hey, we'll shut this down. We'll go that direction, and we'll remove you if you go to the Democrats.’”
Members of the Freedom Caucus have for months suggested that they would be willing to let the government shut down if they don’t agree with the funding package. Indeed, for the conservatives, who largely hail from safe districts, there isn’t much to lose, as analysts note that if the government shuts down and Republicans are blamed, the conservatives won’t be on the chopping block like their colleagues in swing districts.
But some have noted that for the Freedom Caucus, perhaps armed with the understanding that their demands have little chance of becoming reality, the ultimate goal may be McCarthy’s removal after all.
“It just puts McCarthy in this bind and sort of forces his hand almost to do what he did before, which is get the government funded with Democratic votes, and in so doing, they can respond by triggering a call for his removal,” says David C. Barker, professor of government and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. “And I think that's what they're agitating toward. That's what they want. That's kind of what they wanted from the beginning. And they've been looking for a mechanism to do it. And I think maybe all along they've planned on this being the one.”
True to form, Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas didn’t mince words about McCarthy’s dilemma with the Freedom Caucus last week, calling a motion to oust McCarthy “inevitable” if he continues to rely on Democrats.
“McCarthy’s going to have to listen to the people on the right or else he’s going to have to rely on the Democrats to pass this,” Jackson said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. “But I’m telling you if that happens, I mean, it’s going to be detrimental to leadership in the House if they blow off the concerns of the people like myself and Freedom Caucus and some of the other people on the right that are making reasonable demands in this process – it’s going to be a problem.”
Whether McCarthy can rely on Democrats to back a CR is one thing. But whether they’ll protect his gavel is another matter altogether.
Some dynamics suggest at least some Democrats would come to his aid, like reports of a coalition of Democrats offering McCarthy a deal during the debt ceiling fight that they would help him keep his job should he responsibly raise the debt ceiling. Another calculation for Democrats is McCarthy’s possible replacement, who likely wouldn’t align more closely with their positions, making McCarthy’s retention arguably in Democrats' best interest.
But even if McCarthy survives a motion for his ouster with the help of Democrats or calls conservatives’ bluff and his speakership isn’t ultimately threatened, analysts say his hold on the conference will remain shaky and his ability to get things done stunted.
“He can only afford to lose four. And if there's 40 that are just mad at him all the time, then they're going to be reluctant to support him even if it's on things that they want to,” Burgat says. “They've proven willing to shut down the chamber even when it's run by their own party. And so, as much as he'll defang them on this one vote, he'll need them again for any Republican priorities to be passed out of the House heading into an election year.”
It’s a dynamic that haunted Boehner for years and ultimately contributed to his early departure. And the House Freedom Caucus has only grown bigger and more brash, releasing statements and listing demands publicly, while McCarthy’s margin is just a fraction of what the former speaker’s was in 2015.
“McCarthy is closer to being one of them than Boehner ever was,” Barker says. “Boehner really was more of a traditional Chamber of Commerce-type of Republican whereas McCarthy stylistically and policy-wise for some time now has been a MAGA-friendly flame thrower right in line with them. He certainly was during the Trump years. And so, you know, it just shows their willingness to eat their own.”
Unlike McCarthy, Boehner was already on his way out, planning to resign months later, when he made the decision to step down. Even then, he noted that had he not been planning to leave, he wouldn’t have done so when talk of a motion to vacate began swirling.
“It was never about the vote. There was never any doubt about whether I could survive a vote, but I don’t want my members to have to go through this, and I certainly don’t want the institution to go through this, especially when I knew I was thinking about walking out the door anyway,” he told reporters at the time.
When asked what advice he would give to McCarthy, then his presumed successor, he urged the California Republican to protect the institution. And when questioned by another reporter about whether the next speaker would ultimately face the same fate, he earnestly replied.
。最近，《国会山报》一句犀利的问题，更是让人坐不住了：特朗普到底为什么对美国海军宣战？这句话背后，牵扯着好几件耐人寻味的事情，如同漂浮在海面上的冰山，露出水面的只是个开始。 最让人困惑的，莫过于特朗普对福特级航母后续舰的蒸汽弹射系统改造要求。8月13日，他突然下令，要求将多里斯·米勒号的电磁弹射系统改回老旧的蒸汽弹射。这并非一时兴起，紧接着他又不断宣称要在彻底击败伊朗后，将霍尔木兹海峡宣布为美国领土，甚至还在白宫地图上圈出了这片海域，然后大声宣告：这是真的！ 这种自信满满的表态，总让人觉得有些与众不同。 霍尔木兹海峡，可不是随便就能拿下的停车位。
B | 它像一条连接东西方贸易的生命线，全球能源运输都依赖于它的畅通。如果这条通道受阻，能源价格飞涨，各国经济都会受到波及，影响之大，难以估量。油轮在海峡中穿梭，航运公司的账单，沿岸国家不得不考虑的政治稳定，这些现实因素，可不会因为总统的一句话就发生改变。伊朗的回应也直截了当：霍尔木兹海峡不可能靠一条推文、一艘航母、一项命令或一次竞选演讲就‘拿下’。这段对话其实点出了口号式地缘政治的本质问题。你可以用华丽的辞藻营造气势，但对海上通道的真正控制，需要的是长期的、稳定的、可持续的实际能力，需要一套完善的规则体系。国会山报用向海军宣战这样的措辞，并非危言耸听，而是提醒我们，海军需要承担前线的风险，保持航线的安全，而总统的目光却始终游离在如何让前线更轻松之外，反而将焦点放在了我宣布这块归我的政治姿态上。 对那些在甲板上挥洒汗水的军人们来说，这种表态并非减轻了压力，反而像是增加了任务的难度，还切断了后路。更让人尴尬的是，白宫内部的消息传出，这些表态事先并没有经过高级顾问的充分讨论，被形容为开玩笑。可玩笑不能随便说，更不能反复。政治玩笑一旦被重复、被画进地图、被公开固化，就会演变成一种外交上的既成事实的假象，迫使军方在海上用更高的姿态去配合总统的台词。到最后，承担这笑话成本的，往往是那些默默坚守在航母甲板下的人们。再来看看蒸汽弹射怀旧梦的背后。特朗普的命令并非只是单纯地倒退技术，而是体现在对军费开销上。海军花费了十几年时间，将福特级航母的弹射系统升级为电磁弹射，旨在解决老系统维护、人力需求和新机型适配等一系列现实问题。参议员凯恩等公开致信，强调海军转向EMALS是为了更精确的控制、更广泛的机型适配、更低的维护成本和更少的人力需求。电磁弹射，并不是新潮玩具，而是为了在战斗力与后勤保障之间找到平衡点。更重要的是，工程已经进行了大半，贸然更改方案，就如同把正在装修的房子推倒重来，结果往往不是更坚固，而是更昂贵、更耗时。 麻烦远不止于弹射系统。
C | 据报道，海军还在评估调整福特级航母舰岛位置的可能性，仅仅因为总统对航母外观更接近二战时期的偏好。要知道，航母这种复杂的系统，哪怕一个小小的位置调整，也会牵一发而动全身：飞行甲板调度、雷达通信、烟气气流、管线布局、施工工序，无一不受到影响。这绝非单纯的审美问题，而是直接关系到作战效率和安全。说到黄金舰队计划，这更是令人咋舌。这个计划要打造核动力战列舰编队，配备高超音速武器、轨道炮、激光等一系列前沿科技，预算高达2750亿美元。
D | 国会预算办公室的报告指出，建造一艘首舰就得花费230多亿美元，后续舰艇平均价格也高达180亿美元。这样的成本，连福特级航母的单舰造价都难以比拟，与其说是复古，不如说是把最贵几个字写在了舰艏上。 报告中还明确指出，工业基础的限制和系统集成风险是主要障碍。将如此多的先进系统塞进一艘战舰，不仅会增加复杂性，还会推高成本。更重要的是，造船产能和建造能力也面临着现实的瓶颈。这就像在缺工、缺产线、缺经验的情况下，强行打造一批概念车，还要求按期交付。 美国国内的反对此计划的声音也越来越大，民主党参议员默克利等质疑在家庭负担日益加重的情况下，投入数千亿美元建设战列舰是否合理。
E | 《纽约时报》等媒体也提出了类似的疑问：这个计划能否真正开工、能走多远，都还是未知数。 这正是美国政治中永恒存在的问题：国防项目从来不是单纯的军事决策，它还需要考虑选票、产业、财政等多重因素。特朗普把战列舰包装成黄金舰队，名字听起来很响亮，但若仔细分析，却能看到赤裸裸的财政缺口。 所以，《国会山报》那句为什么要对美国海军宣战，并非哗众取宠，而是发出了一个深刻的提醒：当政治叙事越来越像短视频，依赖快速传播和视觉冲击，那么，那些依靠长期主义撑起来的专业机构，还能否保持独立思考的能力，还能否被允许依据工程逻辑和作战需求来做决策？今天的【烽火点评】就到这里，期待与大家在下期节目再次相见。返回，查看更多。
F |
Current article:http://52id16e.ruidunguizanpaorangchongouxia.sbs/list_lip9/pizvt2.html
Published on:00:00:00
