Next Speaker of the House? (7 Viewers)

[MT15]

There’s a lot of doubt that Kevin McCarthy will be able to get enough votes to become Speaker. It certainly won’t happen on the first ballot. Already Boboert and MTG are publicly at odds over it.

Maybe this is worth it’s own thread to watch. One person mentioned is Scalise.

 

[DaveXA]

Oh, this would be hilarious, lol:

It ain't happening. I'd love it, but it ain't happening, lol.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Because Republicans are such firm believers in benevolence toward political foes, they are furious with Democrats for failing to save Kevin McCarthy.

After Democrats voted en masse this week to remove the California Republican as House speaker, his fellow Republicans responded by revoking some of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Capitol office privileges. They are reportedly planning more acts of retaliation.

But Democrats were right not to save McCarthy. With the forces unleashed by former president Donald Trump and the MAGA movement damaging the House GOP caucus, Democrats absolutely shouldn’t have stepped in, because so doing would help Republicans erase their own culpability for nourishing those forces for so long.

Republicans believe Democrats should have joined most of them to vote against the motion to vacate the speakership that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) brought against McCarthy, which would have enabled him to survive despite eight GOP insurgents voting to remove him. As Punchbowl News’s Jake Sherman reports, Republicans intend to “exact revenge for a long while.” McCarthy himself was reportedly behind the retaliation against Pelosi.

All of that is absurd, but it’s also revealing. In a sense, what Republicans really wanted from Democrats is help in solving a problem that’s grown intractable for them: At critical moments such as these, there’s nothing holding the House GOP majority together.

Gaetz and his insurgents ousted McCarthy mainly because he agreed to pass, along with many Democrats, temporary funding keeping the government open through mid-November. McCarthy’s enemies wanted him to shut down the government to force President Biden and Senate Democrats to accept savage spending cuts. They see joining Democrats to keep the government open as abject capitulation.

What’s become clear now is there is no Republican majority in the House united behind any governing approach. The Gaetz faction is committed to a project that most House Republicans ultimately are not: eschewing consensus governing entirely wherever possible and making no concessions to Democrats whatsoever.

In this, the Gaetz crew has been urged on by Trump, who wants Republicans to shut down the government to defund ongoing prosecutions of him, a Total War posture that would make any compromise on spending bills impossible. “The MAGA dysfunction caucus within the GOP just mirrors Donald Trump’s political style and program,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) told me.

But that’s not quite where McCarthy and most House Republicans are. Their game is to indulge Trump and the MAGA movement some of the time, but not all the time. They are willing to run bad-faith investigations designed to smear the Trump prosecutions, to launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden without any serious basis and to use hearings to hype fears that MAGA voters are widely persecuted by law enforcement.

But they’re not willing to damage their own political prospects (or infuriate big donors) with a protracted government shutdown, as the Gaetz crew wants. McCarthy will greenlight corrupt congressional hearings to help Trump, but he won’t follow the logic of Trumpian politics all the way to Armageddon. Yet there’s no GOP majority behind refraining from Armageddon, either.

At bottom, Republicans think Democrats should have helped save them from that problem. Republicans essentially want Democrats to stand by while they indulge MAGA in all kinds of sordid ways and then rush in to provide votes when MAGA’s demands grow so problematic for Republicans that the GOP conference can’t hold together any longer.

Democrats can’t play along with that. It would allow Republicans to get away with all they’ve done to nurture MAGA’s pathologies and permit the GOP’s more vulnerable members to achieve distance from those indulgences. That would make it harder to extract the price from Republicans that they should justly pay: losing control of the House.

“House Republicans have done nothing but feed Trump derangement and MAGA extremism three meals a day,” Raskin said. “When the monster turns around to attack them, why do we suddenly have to become their babysitter?”..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/05/house-gop-speaker-jim-jordan-maga-trump-ukraine-aid/

 

[V Chip]

Yeah any time Republicans talk about doing what's right for the country or the "institution," all any Democrat or non-rightwing hack needs to do is point to this:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said.

 

[Taurus]

Quit whining! Democrats aren't here to save Republians from themselves

Democrats are sick of bailing the GOP out of their own messes, and boy, are Republicans crying about it

www.salon.com

The question is who? Or is there one?

The Dems asked for the vote to be delayed till after feinstein's funeral so that some members can attend. That was rejected. And when the Dems in the "problem solver" caucus asked for a concession such as the rules change (only majority/minority leaders can call for a vacate vote) they were told that the vote is happening. Unless the rules have changed, only the majority leader or speaker can put a vote to the house. The alternative is to petition a majority of members signatures.

What is a ‘motion to vacate’, the procedure that ousted Kevin McCarthy?

US House speaker was removed from office after making deal with Democrats to avert shutdown

www.theguardian.com

Btw, McHenry is suppose to be one that can be trusted by Dems. He instantly is petty.

Again, why is it the Dems job? These clowns could've easily concede to some dem demands. Their greed and hubris lead to this vacate rule from the start. Jefferies made that point in his release. They could ve began and ended with a power sharing house by giving in to a few concessions. A small number of these "moderate" could done that in jan. No McCarthy with a slim majority said f that.

To compare, the Dems with a 50/50 Senate agreed to a power sharing agreement. That's what adults do. These house repubs refused, none approached the Dems in jan or this past week. To think otherwise is wishful thinking. Unfortunately, they will again have to make this decision soon. So far they have chosen party over country. Let's hope they grow up.

The thing about letting the GOP bleed out from self-inflicted wounds is that the rewards depend on the next election.
A power-sharing agreement where the Speaker's job is dependent on Dem support allows the Democrats to claw back some power now.

 

[UriUT]

The thing about letting the GOP bleed out from self-inflicted wounds is that the rewards depend on the next election.
A power-sharing agreement where the Speaker's job is dependent on Dem support allows the Democrats to claw back some power now.

I'm not saying I'm against power sharing or even just recognizing a few changes where deals can be done in good faith. I don't think the Dems aren't either. Eventually at least as I heard neither sides want to talk to each other. What I doubt is whether there are adult republicans willing to put country over party. And till now, none have stepped forth.

 

[Lapaz]

I disagree, I think Democrats are playing this the right way. If the "moderates" in the Republican party don't want a radical right winger for Speaker and are willing to work with Democrats on a compromise to lock the MAGA extremist out of power, then they need to go to Democrats to start the conversation and ask. If that happened, Deomocrats would certainly work with Republicans. Democrats are under no obligation to swoop in and save the Republicans from themselves or to save the voters from the Republicans they elected.

That's really the only way that Democrats can effectively use the power that they have right now.

The speaker controls what legislation goes to the floor. It doesn’t matter if 434 representatives want to vote on legislation, unless the speaker wants it.

 

[coldseat]

The speaker controls what legislation goes to the floor. It doesn’t matter if 434 representatives want to vote on legislation, unless the speaker wants it.

I know. I'm not sure what your point is though.

 

[Lapaz]

It ain't happening. I'd love it, but it ain't happening, lol.

The only hope is a moderate Republican. Jeffries will never get Republican votes. Republicans will want a Republican as long as they have the majority.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The only hope is a moderate Republican. Jeffries will never get Republican votes. Republicans will want a Republican as long as they have the majority.

Defeating Dems is their only goal, they couldn't care less about actual governing.

 

[Lapaz]

I know. I'm not sure what your point is though.

My point is if the speaker is an extremist, you can’t work with moderates to lock out the speaker.

 

[Lapaz]

Defeating Dems is their only goal, they couldn't care less about actual governing.

I think there are enough vulnerable Republicans that are motivated to govern. There are currently 19 Republicans in districts that Biden won. Democrats can support one of those as Speaker. I’ve heard Joyce might be a good moderate candidate.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I think there are enough vulnerable Republicans that are motivated to govern. There are currently 19 Republicans in districts that Biden won. Democrats can support one of those as Speaker. I’ve heard Joyce might be a good moderate candidate.

In any case, any "moderate" Rep could never gain enough votes from their own caucus if there were to receive support from the Dems. Stefanik practically said so on one of her GOP News appearances, she also spilled the beans on their sole goal of defeating the Dems.

 

[coldseat]

My point is if the speaker is an extremist, you can’t work with moderates to lock out the speaker.

Not within the House, but if the Republicans elect an extremist Speaker, that wouldn't be because of anything Democrats would or would not do. Also, whoever the Speaker is, they will still have to make compromises with the Senate and president. So just because they have an extremist Speaker it doesn't mean they'll get everything (or any of the hardline crap) that they want.

I'm not against Democrats working with Republicans to elect a compromise Speaker, but I have seen no evidence that Republicans would work with Democrats to do so. I highly doubt they ever would. Regardless, the only way this idea even has a chance is if Republicans ask first (likely when they're desperate). If Democrats initiate this idea, it will be dismissed out of hand by Republicans.

 

[UriUT]

The adult repubs are leaving.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The adult repubs are leaving.

And also being voted out.

 

[Lapaz]

In any case, any "moderate" Rep could never gain enough votes from their own caucus if there were to receive support from the Dems. Stefanik practically said so on one of her GOP News appearances, she also spilled the beans on their sole goal of defeating the Dems.

If all Democrats agree to support a moderate, that candidate only needs about 6 Republicans. There are 19 Republicans in Biden districts. There are probably many more Republicans that support a moderate. I think a moderate Republican would get more than 300 votes.

 

[Lapaz]

Not within the House, but if the Republicans elect an extremist Speaker, that wouldn't be because of anything Democrats would or would not do. Also, whoever the Speaker is, they will still have to make compromises with the Senate and president. So just because they have an extremist Speaker it doesn't mean they'll get everything (or any of the hardline crap) that they want.

I'm not against Democrats working with Republicans to elect a compromise Speaker, but I have seen no evidence that Republicans would work with Democrats to do so. I highly doubt they ever would. Regardless, the only way this idea even has a chance is if Republicans ask first (likely when they're desperate). If Democrats initiate this idea, it will be dismissed out of hand by Republicans.

Jordan doesn’t care if nothing happens. He’s an anarchist. Maybe if border patrol was closed and the borders were truly open, then maybe he would budge, but I think he’ll blow things up.

 

[MT15]

Just saw this: