Ouster of the House Speaker

[theflashunc]

Of course not. But are they going to settle on a more functional speaker in round 2? What is the evidence they'd elect someone more conducive to progress in governing now?


That's the simplest solution, but is it the most likely?

How was McCarthy functional? He barely averted a debt default with significant help from the Dems, and could not get a budget passed (that was part of that broader framework with the White House) because of his inability to corral his caucus. He couldn't even last a year.

[theflashunc]

Or the Reps and Dems pick a R-normie and elect him together, like what happend in the Ohio House
speakers race.

The closest guy to 218 currently is Jeffries. And again, why would Democrats vote en masse for a Republican when they've shown to be fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy negotiating partners. Jeffries delivered the people necessary for a clean CR, only to have McCarthy throw the entire Democratic caucus under the bus on national TV.

[Bob Ross]

“The fact that ALL Republicans would rather fight over Scalise (who attended a neo-Nazi event) or Jordan (who allegedly covered up rampant sexual abuse) rather than simply work with Democrats to elect a Speaker says it all.”

- journalist Brian Tyler Cohen

[christian]

We keep saying republican dysfunction is "not the democrats' problem", but it actually is every US citizens' problem, and it may become the people of Ukraine's problem too.

That is objectively true, but it's also true that this is who Republicans voted for. The solution to Republican dysfunction has to happen primarily at the ballot box, not on the good graces of the loyal opposition.

So it seems worthwhile to try to understand why the dems were willing to fan the flames of that dysfunction beyond the obvious schadenfreude of watching your political opponent make fools of themselves on the global stage. Maybe we're just taking the scenic route to neutralizing the arsonist wing of the right.

I think the problem is this - McCarthy showed his hand that he was more afraid of or loyal to the arsonist wing of the Republican party than he was to any ideas about good governance or a principled stand on Ukraine or anything. His position vis-a-vis the Democrats was, "You should support me, because the next guy could be even worse." But that's largely false - he was powerless by choice to stop the arsonist wing of the Republican party. At that point, had the Democrats "rescued him" by supporting him to remain speaker, he wouldn't have been any more in control of his own caucus; the Democrats too would have been enabling the arsonists.

In the current House, you effectively have 213 Republicans, 8 arsonists who caucus with the Republicans, and 212 Democrats. The 213 Republicans hold all the cards; they are in the majority so they get to elect the Speaker. To do that, they can caucus with the arsonists and let them dictate the terms, or they can compromise with the Democrats, and make the arsonists pay. It is clear which route they are taking, which makes them no more responsible than Gaetz, Buck, Biggs etc. If Kevin McCarthy had any balls at all, he'd be Speaker, the arsonists wouldn't get on a sub-committee to scratch their own asses or get a single bill out of committee, and he'd direct the NRCC to not give a cent to them. But that would require working with Democrats, a bridge apparently too far.

At least this way, the Democrats are making it clear to the Republicans what their choices are. Do I trust that House Republicans will make the best choice for America? Of course not. I'd bet against it 100 times out of 100.

[HorsCat]

The closest guy to 218 currently is Jeffries. And again, why would Democrats vote en masse for a Republican when they've shown to be fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy negotiating partners. Jeffries delivered the people necessary for a clean CR, only to have McCarthy throw the entire Democratic caucus under the bus on national TV.

If they could find a non-crazy R and could extract meaningful if limited commitments in the form of actual rules they would all have to live by (like raising debt ceiling and funding government without the clown car shenanigans), then the Democrats could demonstrate a good faith commitment to "responsible American governance" by doing so. At least that's the theory. Call me naïve but I still believe that by and large the current Democratic party is committed to the principle of compromise and capable of doing so.

I'd bet against it 100 times out of 100.

Is there any room for a 101st time and if so does that change your bet? (Things are pretty dire and we could really use that lucky 101st.)

[thollandpe]

The solution to Republican dysfunction has to happen primarily at the ballot box, not on the good graces of the loyal opposition.

There it is. The crux of the biscuit.

[72gmc]

McCarthy … remember when he had his staff calling him Leader (with capital L) back when Nancy was actually leading things? He only coveted the office space and the title. The definition of an empty suit.

If only the Rs could find someone who actually respects the role of the House, and by extension the validity of our system of government, and isn’t also paralyzed by fear. They had that person but they kicked her out.

[fastupslowdown]

Democrats viewed McCarthy as untrustworthy. Remember McCarthy said he wouldn't bring an impeachment inquiry without a full house vote. He realized he couldn't obtain one and then authorized it anyway. McCarthy wanted to be speaker for the sake of being speaker. He had no legislative goals and gave away the store to get it, empowering the extreme fringe of his party in the process. McCarthy getting thrown out was not an if but a when. Gaetz said he would continue to have vote after vote in a sort of carousel attack that would never have ended.

The dysfunction isn't new, its only getting worse. McCarthy joins Cantor, Ryan and Boehner. Anyone remember when Cantor , Ryan and McCarthy were billed as the "young guns". I still remember the book and media tour.

Common sense dictates that Republicans ought to consider a power sharing deal similar to what occurred in the Senate for the first two years of Biden's Presidency, but I don't see Republicans even remotely willing to consider the proposal and anyone who did sign on would be voted out. The party right now supports a "my way or the highway" approach to politics.

Nancy Pelosi was effective. She will go down as one of the most competent house speakers of the past few decades. I'd probably say something similar about McConnell. This has nothing to do with political positions but an ability to form consensus, protect members from bad votes and pass legislation. McCarthy couldn't do that. He'd simply chase consensus and see it move away from him. Jordan will be worse. He has the lowest rating among House Republicans at getting legislation passed. One thing I feel confident about is this circus won't end soon.

Republicans , I thought wanted to hold sham hearings to damage Biden. Right now they're not doing that. Instead they are showing the country party dysfunction.-Mike G

[fastupslowdown]

And now Sean Hannity is involved:

Hello,

Stephanie from the Hannity show with Fox News. Sources tell Hannity that Rep xxxx is not supporting Rep Jim Jordan for Speaker. Can you please let me know if this is accurate? And, if true, Hannity would like to know why during a war breaking out between Israel and Hamas, with the war in Ukraine, with the wide open borders, with a budget that’s unfinished why would Rep xxxx be against Rep Jim Jordan for speaker? Please let us know when Rep xxxx plans on opening The People’s House so work can be done. Lastly, are there any conditions Rep xxxx will choose to work with Democrats on the process of electing a new speaker? The deadline for comment is 11 AM ET tomorrow 10/16. Thank you.

[thollandpe]

Maybe they’ll answer a request with a request.

”Given that six former wrestlers from Ohio State University (OSU) have said they were present when Jordan heard or responded to sexual abuse complaints about a team doctor, and that he did nothing more than say ‘I have nothing to do with this’ and then continued with practice. And that OSU later concluded that this team doctor sexually abused at least 177 student athletes between 1979 and 1998, and that Jordan was assistant coach for seven of those years.

And given that OSU’s policy on mandatory reporting is, ‘Any employee who receives a disclosure of a sexual assault or becomes aware of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a sexual assault may have occurred involving anyone covered under this policy must report all known information immediately.’

How can you possibly support the nomination of this person to be third in line to the Presidency of the United States of America, given this [alleged] gross abrogation of duty, responsibility, and human decency?

[ides1056]

A house divided can not stand. True then. True now.

[j44ke]

And now Sean Hannity is involved:

Hello,

Stephanie from the Hannity show with Fox News. Sources tell Hannity that Rep xxxx is not supporting Rep Jim Jordan for Speaker. Can you please let me know if this is accurate? And, if true, Hannity would like to know why during a war breaking out between Israel and Hamas, with the war in Ukraine, with the wide open borders, with a budget that’s unfinished why would Rep xxxx be against Rep Jim Jordan for speaker? Please let us know when Rep xxxx plans on opening The People’s House so work can be done. Lastly, are there any conditions Rep xxxx will choose to work with Democrats on the process of electing a new speaker? The deadline for comment is 11 AM ET tomorrow 10/16. Thank you.

This is a telephone call you received? Eegads.

[vertical_doug]

Did Hakeem Jeffries get more votes this round than Jim Jordan?

[monadnocky]

Did Hakeem Jeffries get more votes this round than Jim Jordan?

Appears so, by 12.

[monadnocky]

Rumor is Jordan is actually going to lose votes on the next round of voting. If that happens, he's done.
Might just open the door for McCarthy to come back.

[theflashunc]

Did Hakeem Jeffries get more votes this round than Jim Jordan?

Hakeem has gotten more votes than any other candidate for speaker on 12 of the 16 ballots held this year.

[fastupslowdown]

Did Hakeem Jeffries get more votes this round than Jim Jordan?

Democrats are unified. While true, not significant. Same occurred during multiple rounds of voting for McCarthy.

[fastupslowdown]

This is a telephone call you received? Eegads.

No, It was reported as part of a pressure campaign by Sean Hannity to target No Votes

[fastupslowdown]

I don't know what's going to happen.
I do know that Jordan reached out to Scalise who is refusing to help. Jordan has never passed any legislation . And furthermore no Republican from a swing district who votes for Jordan cannot expect to remain in Congress past 2024.

[j44ke]

No, It was reported as part of a pressure campaign by Sean Hannity to target No Votes

I see. Yeah I read the article in the Washington Post and saw reference to an email effort but hadn’t seen a direct quote of the text so thought maybe they were running a constituency-focused robo call. If so would be interesting where the funds came from and where they got the list.