Next Speaker of the House? (9 Viewers)

Pretty comprehensive look into Jordan’s failure to say anything about sexual abuse at the Ohio State Wrestling team. And his efforts to cover up the fact that he knew about it and didn’t say anything.

Pertinent quote from the WaPo article in case it’s paywalled:

“The Post interviewed 11 former wrestlers from the Jordan era at Ohio State who said Strauss used medical exams to perpetrate molestations or worse. Eight said they had clear recollections of team members protesting Strauss’s conduct either directly to Jordan or within Jordan’s range of hearing. All considered it inconceivable that Jordan did not know about Strauss’s disturbing behaviors.”

MT15 said:

Pretty comprehensive look into Jordan’s failure to say anything about sexual abuse at the Ohio State Wrestling team. And his efforts to cover up the fact that he knew about it and didn’t say anything.

Click to expand...

Maybe he should have said that Strauss was a liberal if he wanted to gain his father's support

MT15 said:

Correct, I was totally unaware. Why do you think Amash is unaware that the process was changed 10 months ago? Why would he rant about it on social media as if it hadn’t been changes? Isn’t that pretty dishonest?

Click to expand...

He's unaware and dishonest? Seriously? That tweet was from January 6, 2023 which is the day before McCarthy was elected Speaker.

So that supposed chaos and dysfunction of Republicans electing a Speaker got the Ammendment process opened back up after 6 years of zero Ammendments. Hmmmm

SaintForLife said:

That tweet was from January 6, 2023 which is the day before McCarthy was elected Speaker.

Click to expand...

So, I looked at the first 2 tweets and established that they were current and then read the rest of them as a thread. I didn’t check the dates after that. It would be better not to mix in new tweets with old, but I should have checked the date on every thread.

I still don’t like Amash, I think he’s not entirely honest and exaggerates his complaints.

MT15 said:

Click to expand...

So much for them selecting a moderate that could possibly draw D votes. And of course when whoever the R's pick fail they will blame the D's.

DJ1BigTymer said:

So much for them selecting a moderate that could possibly draw D votes. And of course when whoever the R's pick fail they will blame the D's.

Click to expand...

Republicans won’t choose anyone reasonable out of their conference. Eventually Republicans will probably agree on a right-wing wacko. The only way to avoid that will be for Democrats to agree with moderate Republicans to vote for a moderate Republican to assure he meets the minimum vote needed.

……Democrats are going out of their way to say they are ready to deal. “We are willing to find a bipartisan path forward so we can reopen the House,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said at a news conference on Friday, after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) went down in his third and decisive defeat in the speakership vote.

Republicans, Jeffries said, had a choice: to “embrace bipartisanship and abandon extremism.”


The Democratic rank and file has quietly been working in this direction. Rep. Annie Kuster (N.H.), chair of the New Democrat Coalition, told me that moderate Democrats “were talking to any reasonable Republican we had a relationship with” in an effort to empower Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) to bring up bills that have broad support in both parties.

She noted that the Democrats’ conditions were minimal and hardly left-wing: to agree to avoid a government shutdown; to pass spending bills along the lines of the fiscal accord McCarthy and McHenry themselves made with Biden in May to avert a debt default; and to provide military aid to Ukraine and Israel and humanitarian aid for Palestinians.


Some middle-of-the-road Republicans were genuinely interested, Kuster said, but the plan blew up in the Republican conference on Thursday “because word got out that we [Democrats] might support the McHenry solution, and that made it unacceptable to the right.”

More moderate Republicans also worried that Jordan would use a McHenry interlude to keep his own candidacy alive.


Democrats have reacted with understandable horror at the willingness of 200 Republicans to make the election-denying, insurrection-sympathizing, Trump-backed Jordan second in the line of succession for the presidency.

But it’s important to recognize an additional blessing: For some two dozen Republicans — whose ranks grew through the three ballots — a Jordan speakership was too much to accept.
The iron rule of Republican politics has been that the right wing of the party plays hardball and more moderate Republicans inevitably fold.

Not this time.

Because of the brave souls who went public, the party caucus voted 112-86 by secret ballot on Friday afternoon to force Jordan to step aside. All friends of democratic rule should be grateful.

With a regiment of nine lesser-known Republicans pondering a now wide-open speaker’s race, a new version of the McHenry option might gain appeal…….

AOC: Donalds has only served one term. The last thing that he did in The Oversight Committees was attempt to submit falsified evidence. I think it helps to have some real experience in one of the most complex legislative bodies in the world before you try to run it

Click to expand...

Not to mention he was arrested for distribution of marijuana and declared no contest in some bank bribery scheme...record was later expunge. It's like these clowns are criminals, racist, sexual abuser/witness, pedophiles, or con artists.

What a crew of idiots the House GOP is. Gerrymandered districts reward extremism.

Different graphic on the contenders. There really are zero moderate, sensible Rs left in the House.

SaintForLife said:

Gee I wonder what changed when they started allowing ammendment again in 2023. Oh that's right. It was when McCarthy was elected speaker after multiple votes. The same process that many here said was chaos or a clown show.

Increased amendments to spending bills
Another change in the new rules is allowing any one lawmaker to offer amendments to spending bills.

The move's supporters say it is intended to increase transparency in some of the government's most sprawling pieces of legislation -- shortly after the passage of a $1.7 trillion spending bill late last year that was largely negotiated behind closed doors.[/]

What the House Republicans' new rules change, from speaker power to spending

The new House rules mark a sharp change in procedure on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have been in control for the last two years

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I'm guessing most of yall weren't aware that zero amendments were allowed for 6 years in a row, or that the ammendment process was opened back up thanks to the concessions Republicans forced when McCarthy was elected speaker. But lets keep talking about supposed chaos.

Opening up the ammendment process has ruined the House?

Click to expand...

Ignoring your typical style of argument and rhetoric (false premises and misplaced allegations), I do agree that amendments and even earmarks can be productive parts of the legislative process. When a member is advocating for an amendment or earmark it can require the kind of horse-trading that we used to see much more often in Congress. And that deal making leads to pragmatic relationships and even some bi-partisanship instead of tribal dogmatism.

I think open amendements began to be seen as a tool for obstruction and earmarks a tool for corruption. But that view is too simplistic and closing them down removes a dynamic that can aid rather than hinder the process.

This year, the most proximate motivation for limiting the amending process involves minority party “poison pill” amendments like Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney’s (D-NY) LGBT amendment to the recent Energy and Water spending bill. We should expect, then, that the largest effect of a shift to restrictive rules is likely to be that fewer Democratic amendments are permitted.

Click to expand...

You don't say. A rule to restrict Dems from adding amendments to a bill means that we have a "uniparty"?

We got a preview of what this process might look like going forward when the House Rules Committee approved the terms of debate for the Legislative Branch spending bill this week. Republicans and Democrats proposed roughly equal numbers of amendments (19 and 18, respectively), and had approximately the same success rate at getting their amendments approved: 7 for Republicans and 6 for Democrats. For Republicans, this is slightly worse than their overall success rate for getting amendments approved by the Rules Committee since Ryan ascended to the Speaker’s chair (which stands at 49%), while for Democrats, it’s roughly the same as the overall figure (37%).

Click to expand...

Importantly, on both sides, potentially divisive amendments got left behind.

Click to expand...

So to Chuck's point, amendments does offer more input. But as we see in the Senate with Tuberville single-handely bogging down the whole confirmation process, this house process can bog down the legislative function via abuse of the rules: as these Freedom caucus members want their amendments added but was denied by committee.

Among the 11 Republican-sponsored amendments blocked by the Rules Committee, moreover, were 9 offered by members of the House Freedom Caucus, the conservative group that has continued to produce headaches for Ryan during the early months of his speakership.

Click to expand...

The House is already behind last year’s pace for approving spending bills; by this date in 2015, the chamber had approved five appropriations bills, as compared to just one this year. Given the upcoming election, this year’s calendar gives them little time to spare, and continued conflict over amendments may well help put Congress on the path to a now-familiar, year-end spending fight.

Click to expand...

Edit: to be clear, I'm not countering Chuck's points. I am specifically pointing at the abuse from the nihilistic, anarchist, dystopian Freedom Caucus/Maga. The squad may be considered radical, but it's more ideologic or policy. These freedom caucus cant barter/compromise in committee so they demand to shove what they want down other's throat or else destroy everything.

For what it’s worth
==============
The solution to the leadership void in the House of Representatives is staring us in the face.

We have three parties in Congress, not two: the Freedom Caucus Party, the Old Republican Party and the Democrats. The last one has the most members, so it should have the House speakership.


Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has been winning the most votes on each speakership ballot because he commands the biggest party. So he would be the speaker if our political system were functioning properly.


Until we recognize which party in the House is largest, this situation will not resolve itself. A new speaker might be chosen, but how secure will he or she truly be (asking here for some gentlemen named McCarthy, Ryan and Boehner)?

I don’t have any view about Jeffries’s qualities as a potential speaker. I report this merely as an observer of the basic dynamics.

Those dynamics are unmistakable, and the opportunity that they offer to recalibrate what and how many parties we have is an exceptionally valuable one. We should push it to the max. If there weren’t so much urgent work in the world waiting to get done, this speakership standoff would actually be good for us.


Party realignments have happened every so often in U.S. history.

Early on, they typically involved one party splitting. In the late 1820s, the Democratic-Republicans became, respectively, the Democratic Party and the National Republicans.

The latter then evolved into the Whig Party. Then, in the early 1850s, the Whigs split into the Know-Nothings and the Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans defeated and absorbed the Know-Nothings and with victory in the Civil War gave us the modern party system of Democrats and Republicans……

Optimus Prime said:

Click to expand...

That's a good question McCarthy. Why did you give them the power to be able to do that?

I'm glad that weasel go taken out by his own venomous snakes.

This guys reason for why he won't vote for Emmer on the House floor ...... . It's 2023, give it up toilet paper, you lost that fight.

=================
Republican Rep. Rick Allen told CNN's Manu Raju he would not vote for Rep. Tom Emmer on the House floor, saying he’s “very concerned” about Emmer’s vote to codify same-sex marriage in the last Congress.

“No,” he said when asked if there was any way he would vote for him.

This comes as other members, particularly those of the hardline Freedom Caucus, have expressed reservations about supporting Emmer on the floor if he wins the GOP nomination.
=================