Ouster of the House Speaker

[kdawg]

Given Trump is a pretty wealthy guy, is he actually being represented by the top criminal/constitutional/white collar lawyers in the US? His legal teams often seem to be a complete rabble. And frequently lose. I assume the best of the best don't want a bar of him, or there isn't the equivalent of a cab rank rule in the US.

Although he could probably afford decent representation he has a long history of not taking their advice and not paying them - so it's pretty clear that he's now much more limited in who will take the work, and apparently they want a hefty fee up front which I can understand.

[BBB]

More fool Trump then, particularly if his attitude lands him in the slammer.

[bcm119]

Could someone knowledgeable comment on the recent developments?

One thing I really don't quite understand is the eagerness with which the Democrat Caucus joined in. I completely get why the Democrat Caucus might be fed up (promises not kept), but on the other hand, it's hard to understand what the pay off is, given the likelihood that any replacement might be even less conciliatory. Devil one knows and all that.

Boehner was cast in a very harsh light by some, but he seemed to be a statesman as compared to the current crop.

Specifically, I see the following scenarios as a result 1) McCarthy gets re-elected as speaker and 2) someone else is elected. Scenario 2) is the "devil one doesn't know". Scenario 1) gets us back to square 1, except with a lot more distrust.

I suppose maybe the Democrat Caucus reached this decision after it offered support in exchange for concessions, and that offer was outright rebuffed, possibly b/c McCarthy believes he'd end up back as speaker anyway. It just seems like not getting involved may be the better play. Short term "gain" of having McCarthy associated with a ignominious historical first just seems like very little pay-off in view of potential down-the-road headaches (e.g. even less willingness to negotiate in the future).

Or am I missing something?

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

[Rich Beaudoin]

When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

I’m convinced by evidence that many people will choose ‘even worse’.

[vertical_doug]

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

You are baffled because you are thinking about this in the wrong context. It isn't really about governing. Congress has not wanted to govern for a long time. They just want the purse strings.
The endless bickering allows them to get screen time to pretend they are fighting for the constituents behalf, when in reality, that is entertainment. The rest is fund raising from donors. The democrats view this as a great opportunity to fund raise.

I think if you could see behind the curtain and the date book for many in congress you would be shocked on what they are really doing - fund raising. Scalise is a fund raiser, Jordan is a bomb thrower. The bomb thrower is just a useful idiot. Jordan has been in congress for 16 years, can you name one notable piece of legislation or accomplishment during that time? You can use wiki.
(He's just an example, but the odds are pick anyone randomnly and the result is the same.)

[j44ke]

It's all legal if you are at the head of the tree. Apparently.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hile-in-office

Given Trump is a pretty wealthy guy, is he actually being represented by the top criminal/constitutional/white collar lawyers in the US? His legal teams often seem to be a complete rabble. And frequently lose. I assume the best of the best don't want a bar of him, or there isn't the equivalent of a cab rank rule in the US.

You have to be able to represent a client without perjuring yourself or contributing to your client's criminal behavior. That is difficult to do with Trump. Most top firms won't represent Trump because basically they can't. He's radioactive. His unwillingness to pay for representation is just the tip of the iceberg.

[j44ke]

You are baffled because you are thinking about this in the wrong context. It isn't really about governing. Congress has not wanted to govern for a long time. They just want the purse strings.
The endless bickering allows them to get screen time to pretend they are fighting for the constituents behalf, when in reality, that is entertainment. The rest is fund raising from donors. The democrats view this as a great opportunity to fund raise.

I think if you could see behind the curtain and the date book for many in congress you would be shocked on what they are really doing - fund raising. Scalise is a fund raiser, Jordan is a bomb thrower. The bomb thrower is just a useful idiot. Jordan has been in congress for 16 years, can you name one notable piece of legislation or accomplishment during that time? You can use wiki.
(He's just an example, but the odds are pick anyone randomnly and the result is the same.)

Yes, and now they've discovered a new way to not govern. Just don't elect a new Speaker. Scalise doesn't have the votes to be speaker. Why do you choose someone in caucus who doesn't even have the votes lined up from his own party to elect him Speaker? Because no one else wants to be Speaker who isn't named Jordan. These guys are busy sinking their own boat and getting stuck on an argument over how large a hole to drill in the hull. They should just pick the honorable representative from Rio de Janeiro to be Speaker.

[robin3mj]

I get the argument but I don’t understand why anyone would excoriate the Dems for sinking McCarthy as a bloc. They lined up en masse behind Jeffries fifteen times while McCarthy floundered and they actually know what they want to accomplish.

Probably overly optimistic but I’d say there’s a higher chance of Jeffries getting the gavel than Jordan. And any R who replaces McCarthy is likely to have as tenuous a hold on the position as he did.

[Saab2000]

They should just pick the honorable representative from Rio de Janeiro to be Speaker.

I think there may be a vote soon to expel him from the House. He has fresh felony charges.

[j44ke]

I get the argument but I don’t understand why anyone would excoriate the Dems for sinking McCarthy as a bloc. They lined up en masse behind Jeffries fifteen times while McCarthy floundered and they actually know what they want to accomplish.

Probably overly optimistic but I’d say there’s a higher chance of Jeffries getting the gavel than Jordan. And any R who replaces McCarthy is likely to have as tenuous a hold on the position as he did.

Exactly right - which is what I mean about arguing over the size of the hole to drill in the bottom of the boat. Almost all of what the Republicans are up against is self-inflicted.

[j44ke]

I think there may be a vote soon to expel him from the House. He has fresh felony charges.

You mean that's not an asset?

I'm kidding of course...

[Saab2000]

You mean that's not an asset?

I'm kidding of course...

Don’t get me wrong. I think the rage from his own party is completely fake. He can’t win reelection and I think they’d like to field a candidate who can win the district for a while.

His disappearance will be welcome. He is an embarrassment.

[spopepro]

Idk… I just can’t be as cynical as you guys. And maybe it’s because I have known and do know some of the people in the house professionally. Yes, finance laws and our party system (the fact that the standing presidential nominee automatically leads the national is a major fault here) are pretty broken, but I still think most people in the house are trying to do the right thing and are busy doing so. I’ve been called to provide info for at least 10 bills that either never made it to committee or never got past it. They were 100% serious efforts that just couldn’t get traction. Some pieces ended up at parts of larger omnibus bills, some ideas keep coming around, and some just don’t have the broad support of a big country made of lots of different people.

I think that’s what gets lost in all of the strategy and intrigue narratives. These folks are just people. Most aren’t any more aware or connected than you or me and certainly have similar failings. Putting big narratives about stuff that really could just be personal beef elevates many of these people beyond their true capability. Yes, most are a little too in love with the feeling of power, and yeah, there are some string pullers out there that find people like Bobert in modeling catalogues and make something they want… but I don’t, or maybe just can’t, believe that everyone there is only out for siphoning funds and the veneer of governance.

[j44ke]

Idk… I just can’t be as cynical as you guys. And maybe it’s because I have known and do know some of the people in the house professionally. Yes, finance laws and our party system (the fact that the standing presidential nominee automatically leads the national is a major fault here) are pretty broken, but I still think most people in the house are trying to do the right thing and are busy doing so. I’ve been called to provide info for at least 10 bills that either never made it to committee or never got past it. They were 100% serious efforts that just couldn’t get traction. Some pieces ended up at parts of larger omnibus bills, some ideas keep coming around, and some just don’t have the broad support of a big country made of lots of different people.

I think that’s what gets lost in all of the strategy and intrigue narratives. These folks are just people. Most aren’t any more aware or connected than you or me and certainly have similar failings. Putting big narratives about stuff that really could just be personal beef elevates many of these people beyond their true capability. Yes, most are a little too in love with the feeling of power, and yeah, there are some string pullers out there that find people like Bobert in modeling catalogues and make something they want… but I don’t, or maybe just can’t, believe that everyone there is only out for siphoning funds and the veneer of governance.

Yes, I think you are right and it is a good reminder. The struggle to make a difference is real and valuable.

[theflashunc]

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

Why don't 6 Republicans just vote for Jeffries? The Dems have been consistent who they support for speaker. And the GOP doesn't need any Dem votes to elect a speaker. This is 100% a result of GOP party dysfunction. It's not on the Democrats to solve fundamentally GOP problems.

[bigbill]

When the Titanic struck the iceberg, I'm sure there were folks who were happy that their side of the ship was okay.

[echappist]

Why don't 6 Republicans just vote for Jeffries? The Dems have been consistent who they support for speaker. And the GOP doesn't need any Dem votes to elect a speaker. This is 100% a result of GOP party dysfunction. It's not on the Democrats to solve fundamentally GOP problems.

Objectively, it isn't.

While you are right that it is not incumbent upon the Democratic Caucus to solve problems of the GOP, there are two issues related to the emphasized portion of your statement.

First, the Democratic Caucus actively participated in both the motion to dismiss the vacating motion and the later vacating motion. While the genesis of the intent is squarely the result of GOP dysfunction, the events that led to the actual removal could not have occurred without active participation of the Democratic Caucus.

Next, upthread we explored why the Democratic Caucus wished to vote this way. Whatever the reasons are (and some of them are quite valid), the end result is further short term disarray with the potential for longer term stability should the Dems retake the House (say should the framing of "GOP can't get things done" becomes the prevailing narrative). In other words, it's a calculated gamble, and it should not be viewed as less than that. Except this gambit comes with potential costs, both to the nation as a whole (e.g. a new speaker even less willing to pass funding bills) and the Dems in particular (if the framing doesn't take hold).

I understand that McCarthy bad-mouthed the Democratic Caucus after passing the CR funding bill, but those are just words in the grand scheme of things. The factual consideration is that he did allow a vote on the bill. The next speaker might not allow such a vote.

To be clear, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that to be in politics involves stratagems and a certain level of intrigue. Part and parcel of the process. What I think is less than impressive about this gambit is that any short-term victory the Dems get in the ouster is likely symbolic and short-lived, and the medium-term consequences might not be worth the short-term gain. From a game theory perspective, this level of intrigue should be utilized only when the outcome is decisive and significantly to one's advantage; b/c anything else, it's just a half-measure without much real effect (in terms of passing bills) but does serve to antagonize.

[theflashunc]

Objectively, it isn't.

While you are right that it is not incumbent upon the Democratic Caucus to solve problems of the GOP, there are two issues related to the emphasized portion of your statement.

First, the Democratic Caucus actively participated in both the motion to dismiss the vacating motion and the later vacating motion. While the genesis of the intent is squarely the result of GOP dysfunction, the events that led to the actual removal could not have occurred without active participation of the Democratic Caucus.

Next, upthread we explored why the Democratic Caucus wished to vote this way. Whatever the reasons are (and some of them are quite valid), the end result is further short term disarray with the potential for longer term stability should the Dems retake the House (say should the framing of "GOP can't get things done" becomes the prevailing narrative). In other words, it's a calculated gamble, and it should not be viewed as less than that. Except this gambit comes with potential costs, both to the nation as a whole (e.g. a new speaker even less willing to pass funding bills) and the Dems in particular (if the framing doesn't take hold).

I understand that McCarthy bad-mouthed the Democratic Caucus after passing the CR funding bill, but those are just words in the grand scheme of things. The factual consideration is that he did allow a vote on the bill. The next speaker might not allow such a vote.

To be clear, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that to be in politics involves stratagems and a certain level of intrigue. Part and parcel of the process. What I think is less than impressive about this gambit is that any short-term victory the Dems get in the ouster is likely symbolic and short-lived, and the medium-term consequences might not be worth the short-term gain. From a game theory perspective, this level of intrigue should be utilized only when the outcome is decisive and significantly to one's advantage; b/c anything else, it's just a half-measure without much real effect (in terms of passing bills) but does serve to antagonize.

Nothing changed from when McCarthy was voted in as speaker. Democrats have been consistent since the new Congress was sat who they want as speaker.

Flip the script, would the GOP come to the aid of a Dem majority that was as deeply dysfunctional at this is? God no.

The GOP has 218 votes. On them to figure this out. Time for one party in DC to start acting like adults.

[echappist]

Nothing changed from when McCarthy was voted in as speaker. Democrats have been consistent since the new Congress was sat who they want as speaker.

Flip the script, would the GOP come to the aid of a Dem majority that was as deeply dysfunctional at this is? God no.

The GOP has 218 votes. On them to figure this out. Time for one party in DC to start acting like adults.

So you concede that the ouster isn’t 100% due to the GOP as you posted above, and would involve agency on the part of the Democratic Caucus? B/c otherwise your hypothetical would fall flat.

I’m not saying the Dems need to come to the aide of McCarthy, but there is a tangible difference between casting abstaining votes vs. actively abetting the 8 GOP rebels. There’s nothing preventing Gaetz from keeping on filing motions to vacate. If the whole point is to demonstrate how big of a clown show House GOP is, then Gaetz and his ilks constantly agitating for chaos would do just that.

And the main point of my original post remains. What tangible benefit do the Dems get out of this GOP infighting? I see little benefit to the nation and to the Dems, and the main effect seems to be proverbial eggs on the face of GOP. But disgrace and ignominy just don’t seem to bother those who are shameless (a lot of the House GOP). So what is the tangible gain here?

[j44ke]

I'd say right now that this is decisively and significantly giving the Democrats the advantage. They are sitting at their desks waiting to proceed. They've offered up their candidate for speaker. They're ready to vote for him as a unified block. But the Republicans have the fcking majority! They're driving the car. All they need to do is vote for someone as a party! They just can't get it done. No one in the party is popular enough with their fellow party members to get the majority of votes to become speaker? Geez. That's kind of a problem. Maybe 6 or so of them should join the Democrats and vote for their guy. The Democrats seem to like him.

Game theory - hah! I love it. This is politics. You power up whenever the chance arises.