Next Speaker of the House? (2 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.

 

[Lapaz]

The Democrats publicly stated multiple times, from Jefferies own mouth, that they would be willing to work to elect a moderate Republican for Speaker with minimal agreements. Mainly to change the rules and to fund the governments. That's it! Your information is wrong. We've provided proof of this several times in this thread. For whatever reason, you refuse to accept it so that you can continue with this erroneous belief.

I've never seen a link where he said a moderate Republican. I've seen him refer to a unity candidate. Please PM me any link or post it here, and I'll admit being wrong.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, I honestly didn't know anything about this guy. Which is part of the reason, I assume, he got elected. But after just doing some cursory reading up on him my opinion has changed quickly. Still, I'm no really worried about him passing anti-gay laws. That will quickly backfire and not go nowhere. Same with anything rolling back abortion on the federal level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/25/dangerous-mike-johnson-house-speaker/

Right, if they want to maintain a majority, they'll have to tread lightly on the unpopular stuff. I think he's smart enough to realize that, but were he in a position where he's not accountable, different story.

 

[coldseat]

I've never seen a link where he said a moderate Republican. I've seen him refer to a unity candidate. Please PM me any link or post it here, and I'll admit being wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/20/house-speaker-vote-live/#link-BDRFLTVE7JGPDCOE4LD7AWHRHI

 

[Lapaz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/20/house-speaker-vote-live/#link-BDRFLTVE7JGPDCOE4LD7AWHRHI

That link you provided is a perfect example of the problem. The interviewer asked Jeffries specifically if his idea of a unity candidate implies that 5 Republicans need to vote for him as speaker, and the closest he would come is saying that it isn't about him. Then he was asked if it would be a Republican speaker with more power for Democrats, and again he wouldn't say that he would support a Republican. I've heard many other Democrats interviewed, and they always said Republicans should back Jeffries. I've also read multiple posters on here say that's the smart play for Democrats, and I always disagreed, because I knew the end result would be a worse speaker, than if they actually agreed to support a moderate Republican. Maybe I don't get it, but that's exactly how it played out, and I anticipate worse things from this speaker than we got from McCarthy. If Democrats had played their cards right, the country could pass legislation to strengthen Democracy. Now, lord help us.

 

[Taurus]

Johnson voted against the continuing resolution. Prepare for lots of blackmail attempts from Republicans. Johnson will probably want to shut down the government. It will be a mess. Democratic interests will pay the most. That's why I kept saying that Democrats needed to get behind a reasonable Republican. I knew eventually Republicans would settle on a much less desirable candidate, and now we have him. Democrats didn't play the game well. Maybe they can convince voters to vote out Republicans, but the House will now do everything in their power to torpedo the economy, and they will blame Democrats. Will they be able to convince voters? I think they will be able to do so, because they are better at messaging. Truth will suffer.

There. Was. No. Play.

The Rethugs simply would NOT make a deal. Of any kind.

This is all, 100%, entirely, completely, without question on the GOP.

 

[Lapaz]

There. Was. No. Play.

The Rethugs simply would NOT make a deal. Of any kind.

This is all, 100%, entirely, completely, without question on the GOP.

I think you're wrong. There are enough vulnerable Republicans that I think would've dealt. No serious effort was made. There is no doubt that it is 100% on the GOP that we got an election denier as theocrat as a speaker. It is shared blame between moderates that it happened, because it could've been prevented if the moderates had a spine.

 

[UriUT]

That link you provided is a perfect example of the problem. The interviewer asked Jeffries specifically if his idea of a unity candidate implies that 5 Republicans need to vote for him as speaker, and the closest he would come is saying that it isn't about him. Then he was asked if it would be a Republican speaker with more power for Democrats, and again he wouldn't say that he would support a Republican. I've heard many other Democrats interviewed, and they always said Republicans should back Jeffries. I've also read multiple posters on here say that's the smart play for Democrats, and I always disagreed, because I knew the end result would be a worse speaker, than if they actually agreed to support a moderate Republican. Maybe I don't get it, but that's exactly how it played out, and I anticipate worse things from this speaker than we got from McCarthy. If Democrats had played their cards right, the country could pass legislation to strengthen Democracy. Now, lord help us.

We re not hearing the same thing. He said that 5 republicans can break and pledge on a bipartisan path forward with the dems…not simply elect him; it can be electing one of them. And he has been careful not to name any names…other than that they cannot be an election denier. It’s been the same message he and all the dem leadership stated.

Edit: also, in my post, he had even stated they don’t even care about power sharing….just keep the gov open. How does that fit with….jefferies must be speaker?

Democrats play cards carefully amid GOP’s Speaker chaos

The GOP’s 16-day battle over the Speakership has left Democrats patiently waiting, sitting on the sidelines to see if there’s a deal to be had. Republicans began Thursday with plans to vote for a t…

thehill.com

[House Minority Leader] Hakeem [Jeffries] and Katherine [Clark] are pretty consistent in saying, we’re not asking for shared power, we’re not asking for equal representation on committees or anything. All we want is to keep the government open, let’s give money to Ukraine, along with Israel.

 

[UriUT]

I think you're wrong. There are enough vulnerable Republicans that I think would've dealt. No serious effort was made. There is no doubt that it is 100% on the GOP that we got an election denier as theocrat as a speaker. It is shared blame between moderates that it happened, because it could've been prevented if the moderates had a spine.

And yet none did. The fact that none of them even considered working or reached out to dems doesn’t convince you otherwise? Fear of the party is greater than the good of the country.

 

[superchuck500]

His wife couldn’t attend because she’s been praying so hard for the last few weeks.

 

[coldseat]

That link you provided is a perfect example of the problem. The interviewer asked Jeffries specifically if his idea of a unity candidate implies that 5 Republicans need to vote for him as speaker, and the closest he would come is saying that it isn't about him.

He answered that question directly and said NO. Go back and listen, it was the first word out of his mouth. While he didn't name a specific Republican, it's clear what he meant.

Then he was asked if it would be a Republican speaker with more power for Democrats, and again he wouldn't say that he would support a Republican.

You're reaching. All he said was that they would have to talk. Which if there was going to be a compromise Republican, they would have to talk. It's clear what he meant and was saying.

I've heard many other Democrats interviewed, and they always said Republicans should back Jeffries. I've also read multiple posters on here say that's the smart play for Democrats, and I always disagreed, because I knew the end result would be a worse speaker, than if they actually agreed to support a moderate Republican. Maybe I don't get it, but that's exactly how it played out, and I anticipate worse things from this speaker than we got from McCarthy. If Democrats had played their cards right, the country could pass legislation to strengthen Democracy. Now, lord help us.

You want to belive in a fantasy that was never possible because there were NO moderate Republicans willing to even consider working with Democrats on electing a Republican Speaker. And you blame Democrats for not making that fantasy a reality.

 

[Lapaz]

We re not hearing the same thing. He said that 5 republicans can break and pledge on a bipartisan path forward with the dems…not simply elect him; it can be electing one of them. And he has been careful not to name any names…other than that they cannot be an election denier. It’s been the same message he and all the dem leadership stated.

Edit: also, in my post, he had even stated they don’t even care about power sharing….just keep the gov open. How does that fit with….jefferies must be speaker?

Democrats play cards carefully amid GOP’s Speaker chaos

The GOP’s 16-day battle over the Speakership has left Democrats patiently waiting, sitting on the sidelines to see if there’s a deal to be had. Republicans began Thursday with plans to vote for a t…

thehill.com

Yet he wouldn't simply say that Democrats would vote for a moderate Republican. It was all meely mouth talk. They should've been clear that they would vote and wanted to work with a moderate Republican. No wordsmithing. Clarity was needed. They misplayed their cards.

 

[Lapaz]

He answered that question directly and said NO. Go back and listen, it was the first word out of his mouth. While he didn't name a specific Republican, it's clear what he meant.



You're reaching. All he said was that they would have to talk. Which if there was going to be a compromise Republican, they would have to talk. It's clear what he meant and was saying.



You want to belive in a fantasy that was never possible because there were NO moderate Republicans willing to even consider working with Democrats on electing a Republican Speaker. And you blame Democrats for not making that fantasy a reality.

He was never clear. That was the problem. You have to guess on what he meant. I believe no serious effort was made. It is not a fantasy. It is reality that Democrats had leverage that they didn't use.

 

[UriUT]

Yet he wouldn't simply say that Democrats would vote for a moderate Republican. It was all meely mouth talk. They should've been clear that they would vote and wanted to work with a moderate Republican. No wordsmithing. Clarity was needed. They misplayed their cards.

Ok…..it was very clear to me. Along with the we don’t want power…..just keep the government open….it’s pretty clear to me. Regardless 0 repubs even asked.

 

[bird]

Just listening to Johnson's speech, he doesn't sound like a horrible person. He's definitely a religious fundamentalist, which I'm quite used to. But his speech is free of the usual right wing rage rhetoric.

I'm not saying he isn't problematic, but maybe he isn't much worse. We'll see.

He can take his religionist bullschlitz and shove it straight up his azz along with his election denialism. He is excrement.

 

[UriUT]

His wife couldn’t attend because she’s been praying so hard for the last few weeks.

Christ…..Matt gaetz, the ever sleaze-ball even called on god during his interview on ari Melbur. He was asked why he opposed McCarthy on grounds that McCarthy worked with dems but it was ok for him to work with dems in ousting McCarthy.

 

[coldseat]

He was never clear. That was the problem. You have to guess on what he meant. I believe no serious effort was made. It is not a fantasy. It is reality that Democrats had leverage that they didn't use.

We will never agree on this. You are wrong.

Also, you were locked into this belief from the very beginning of the process. There is no amount of clear evidence that will change your mind now.

 

[MT15]

I think you're wrong. There are enough vulnerable Republicans that I think would've dealt. No serious effort was made. There is no doubt that it is 100% on the GOP that we got an election denier as theocrat as a speaker. It is shared blame between moderates that it happened, because it could've been prevented if the moderates had a spine.

How could the democrats vote for a moderate R when they never put one up for a vote? They couldn’t ever vote present because everyone who ran was MAGA. No moderate Rs ever tried to work with Dems. Zero.

 

[MT15]