Can the Dems retain the House Speaker??!

[Norman Alexander]

Only he can fix this?

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

...She is being an even bigger dip-**** than her usual dip-****** self.

Boebert is so repulsive. I don't even like to eat at McDonald's anymore.

Did you see the clip where Boebert is on the floor of the House saying trump should tell McCarthy to withdraw? (The woman who was reelected by 600 votes?)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

At one point she looks positively orgasmic.

[Norman Alexander]

Her 15 minutes of infamy.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Doubt

The Democrats can, if they choose, end this. Either a few don't show up or some vote for McCarthy and you get a situation where Jordan is locked out and McCarthy owes his seat to the Democrats.

Why would they do that?

I think I heard a Democratic Congressman address this today.

They are interested in working with partners in solving problems for Americans, not solving Republican chaos.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Quote:

SIX failed attempts so elect a Speaker so far.

This comment by Republican Rep. Kat Cammack made while nominating McCarthy (again) is a real head scratcher:

"Diversity of thought is a good thing. But they want us divided. They want us to fight each other. That much has been made clear by the popcorn and blankets and alcohol that has come in over there."

Does this moron really think the Dems are sitting in the House and voting while eating popcorn and drinking alcohol? MORON.

I don't know about alcohol, but Ted Lieu, a Democrat House member from California, Tweeted this picture.

(Picture of him holding a bag of popcorn)

Overall it must be pretty dull to be a democratic congress-critter right now.

You're not really involved in any debates over who the speaker should be. There's no new legislation coming your way you have to worry about. You can't even do any committee work.

ETA: Too bad democrats couldn't play a joke on McCarthy. Have a few of their members vote for him or abstain from voting.... just enough so that he is 1 vote shy of a win. (but unfortunately that would be a bit risky... unless they are counted last, it could backfire on them.)

[Lukraak_Sisser]

This does show the inherent weakness of a two party system. There is barely ever need to compromise and eventually you get enough politicians who are unwilling to even consider that.
And from the way it looks on the outside those do seem concentrated in the GOP.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Thing is we do not have collective guilt in the US;you would have to prove every GOP house member is guilty of collusion with the Russians. And some of them have been pretty consistent in their oppostion to Putin.
ANyway is still amounts to outlawinf oppostiion by law, and it sucks.

Each member by their very own actions is individually guilty.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

This does show the inherent weakness of a two party system. There is barely ever need to compromise and eventually you get enough politicians who are unwilling to even consider that.
And from the way it looks on the outside those do seem concentrated in the GOP.

IMO it's not necessarily a feature of a two party system, it's a feature of a weak party (or parties) in a two party system.

Mrs Don was born and grew up in the United States but moved to the UK 30+ years ago when she was in her 20's. One of the differences she perceived between the UK and US political systems was that, whilst both have effectively a two party system, in her experience US representatives were much more prepared to work for their constituents' benefit rather than toeing the party line. This is based on her experience from back in the 80's and early 90's.

I think that she is shocked at how things have changed since then in the US. Being left of centre I would tend to place the majority of the blame on the Republicans. If a party really doesn't have a popular set of core policies, then there's no reason to work with the other party to try and achieve them.

For example, there's a high level of support in the US for both gun control and universal health care. The Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to try to work with the Republicans to implement policies in this regard but the Republicans only want to oppose the Democrats AND they don't have a corresponding set of popular policies to work with the Democrats to try and achieve.

[Bob001]

As I watched some of the proceedings today, it surprised me that no Democrat stood up to make a stirring speech about a brilliant young man who best exemplifies the integrity and wisdom of the modern Republican party, and concluded "I therefore nominate to be our next Speaker George Santos." It would also throw a monkeywrench into the machine if somebody stood up and nominated Donald Trump. Repubs would have to choose to vote for him or against him, or timidly vote "present."

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Bob001

It would also throw a monkeywrench into the machine if somebody stood up and nominated Donald Trump. Repubs would have to choose to vote for him or against him, or timidly vote "present."

That would backfire horribly for the Democrats if/when all the GOP members of the House of Representatives vote for him for fear of alienating his base.

[smartcooky]

It has been hilarious to watch the GQP imploding with bickering, the infighting, the back-biting and the moronic displays such as Bobblehead today. Some of them really need to be sent to AAH!!!

Even funnier though, is thinking back to Spineless and his dick-wagging threat a few weeks ago to block any legislation initiated or supported by those Senate Republicans who voted with the Dems to pass the Omnibus Bill. If there is ANY House Republican who is in absolutely no bloody position to get into any kind of pissing contest with his Senate colleagues right now, its Kevin McKiss-Arse!

[The Don]

The BBC considers three resolutions to the current impasse over the election of the speaker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64170729

1. McCarthy wears down/gives into the rebels and prevails - but then he'd be very weak
2. The Republicans agree on another candidate - but who would that be and how loony would they have to be to appeal to the Freedom Caucus
3. The Democrats help to install a compromise candidate, possibly from outside the House - but why would they help the GOP out to stymie their legislation

Whatever happens ISTM that the Speaker will be weak and that will lead to uncertainty and instability - which is perhaps what the Freedom Caucus want, just to create instability and mayhem.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Not saying that at all. The villians, IMHO< are the establishment Republicans who embraced the nutjobs becuase they thought it would be to their advantage and they could control the extremist. THey were wrong.
They forgot:The monster always turns on it's creator in the end.

My apologies

I didn't mean to imply that that was your view - I should have made it clear that it is the view of the GOP House member, Republican loyalist or FOXNews viewer.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by The Don

That would backfire horribly for the Democrats if/when all the GOP members of the House of Representatives vote for him for fear of alienating his base.

I funno. The Repub House already plans to do everything it can to sabotage the Democrats and the Biden administration. I don't think Speaker Trump could make it worse. But giving Trump a platform where he is on public display to the world every day would be catastrophic for the Repubs, especially when he discovers that the Speaker has nothing like the power or perks of the Presidency.

Of course, Trump might turn it down, and whoever gets elected would be weakened by the knowledge that he was the second choice.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I funno. The Repub House already plans to do everything it can to sabotage the Democrats and the Biden administration. I don't think Speaker Trump could make it worse. But giving Trump a platform where he is on public display to the world every day would be catastrophic for the Repubs, especially when he discovers that the Speaker has nothing like the power or perks of the Presidency.

Of course, Trump might turn it down, and whoever gets elected would be weakened by the knowledge that he was the second choice.

I think you overestimate how interested many people are about politics and/or underestimate just how partisan people are (including those "Independents" who really are Republicans in a floppy hat and dark glasses). A solid 40%+ of the US electorate will either not care about what Speaker Trump is doing or accept the Right Wing echo-chamber view that he's doing a spectacular job at frustrating the gun-grabbing, freedom-stealing, baby-eating communists the other side of the aisle.

IMO Speaker Trump could drop-trousers and literally take a dump on the Speaker's desk and the needle of public opinion would barely deflect at all.

That said, the chances of President Trump being elected speaker are tiny, his likelihood of accepting is vanishingly small and him actually seeing the role through is zero.

[psionl0]

This is such a ludicrous situation. There is no constitutional requirement for an absolute majority of MHRs (218) to vote to elect the speaker. The constitution only says "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers".

The house could easily make it a rule that the speaker only needs a majority of the votes cast. If nobody gains a majority then a run-off vote could be called.

The problem seems to be that the Democrats want to be able to play the same dirty politics that the GOP plays so they never fix potential hang-ups like this when given the opportunity.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is such a ludicrous situation. There is no constitutional requirement for an absolute majority of MHRs (218) to vote to elect the speaker. The constitution only says "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers".

The house could easily make it a rule that the speaker only needs a majority of the votes cast. If nobody gains a majority then a run-off vote could be called.

The problem seems to be that the Democrats want to be able to play the same dirty politics that the GOP plays so they never fix potential hang-ups like this when given the opportunity.

Why should the Democrats bend over backwards to fix a problem that's entirely of the Republicans' making ?

It's like the situation in the UK where Brexiteers are complaining that Remoaners aren't working hard enough to try and find solutions to the Brexit impasse (though in this case, no acceptable solution is available).

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The Don

Why should the Democrats bend over backwards to fix a problem that's entirely of the Republicans' making ?

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

[bonzombiekitty]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Does this moron really think the Dems are sitting in the House and voting while eating popcorn and drinking alcohol? MORON.

I dunno about alcohol, but there's been at least one Dem representative who posted a picture of himself holding a box of popcorn and captured it something like "Ready for the house speaker vote".

[Random]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

Because Republicans beating each other up and tearing apart their party in the process is not actually a "problem" for Democrats.

[Tero]

If Scalise gets nominted, he may be especially tough on Democrats. He is one of the very few people in the country that has been shot at by antifa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise

Quote:

On June 14, 2017, during practice for that year's Congressional Baseball Game, Scalise was shot and seriously wounded by an anti-Trump domestic terrorist[5][6][7] who was targeting Republicans.[8] Scalise underwent treatment for several months, returning to Congress on September 28.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

Lost the election. Hmm. The problem exists entirely because of Hunter Biden's laptop. Can't wait for the laptop to be interrogated by the committee.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

And there wasn't a problem before the last election. Pelosi was elected previously as the Speaker using the current rules and ran the House. Stuff got done. We can argue how effectively.

The Repubs won the last election (just). But they can't even get this first job done, and it looks like they never will. The Repubs are why the problem exists. Nothing to do with the Dems at all.

So that sort of kills your point?

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Tero

Lost the election. Hmm. The problem exists entirely because of Hunter Biden's laptop. Can't wait for the laptop to be interrogated by the committee.

If it is a Vista laptop, they won't have a chance!

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

If it is a Vista laptop, they won't have a chance!

If you're looking for an impeachable offence, there it is.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

As Norman Alexander points out. Before the election, and for the last 160 years there hasn't been a problem, the party with the most Representatives selected one from among their number to act as Speaker - usually on the first ballot.

Unless they were clairvoyant how would the Democrats have known that the needed to tweak the rules to accommodate a GOP majority too small to cope with the idiots in their own ranks ?

If this was a regular occurrence then you might have a point, but it isn't.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should this problem exist in the first place? The Dems had a majority before the election.

Part of the "now" problem is that the "hardliners" want the rules to be changed so they can oust a sitting speaker easier than the current rules allow. Now of course this was something that was a general claim from many republicans when the Democrats were in control - it was a political attack, based on their vilification of the democrat speaker. Now however as usual the republicans want to keep the current rules because they are in power and they never wanted the rules to change to make it harder for republicans to remain in control. If you look at the "hardliners" you can see they are simply too thick to understand "politics as usual".

[rdaneel]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

And there wasn't a problem before the last election. Pelosi was elected previously as the Speaker using the current rules and ran the House. Stuff got done. We can argue how effectively.

The Repubs won the last election (just). But they can't even get this first job done, and it looks like they never will. The Repubs are why the problem exists. Nothing to do with the Dems at all.

So that sort of kills your point?

Makes me think of the adage "make it idiot proof, and somebody, somewhere, will invent a better idiot".

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by rdaneel

Makes me think of the adage "make it idiot proof, and somebody, somewhere, will invent a better idiot".

This is exactly how a party dies, last time this happened was the Wigs!

[newyorkguy]

I think part of what we're seeing is probably the inevitable fracturing of the Republican Party's base. There's two factions and they really don't have much in common. First are traditional Republicans, pro-business, fiscally and socially conservative. Second are working class Republicans, not so much focused on fiscal conservatism but socially conservative, searching for simple solutions to complex problems. Almost two years ago a GOP Congress member from Indiana told NPR:

Quote:

"All of the statistics and polling coming out of the 2020 election show that Donald Trump did better with [working class] voters across the board than any Republican has in my lifetime since Ronald Reagan," Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told NPR. "And if Republicans want to be successful as a party, win the majority in 2022, win back the White House in 2024, I think we have to learn lessons that Donald Trump taught us and how to appeal to these voters." NPR April 2021 report

The working class faction explains the rise of Boebert, Gosar, Greene et al. McConnell and I guess even McCarthy represent the more traditional GOP. These emerging working class or trumpist Republicans are too extreme for most traditional Republicans. I think that's what we're seeing in the House. The battle for control of the Republican Party. Pro-business or the party of working class Americans. Which is it going to be? Up until now its been both but that is obviously changing.

[Tero]

I think the insurrectionist wing is going to have their way. They will eventually come and support McCarthy, but will make sure it is going to be a real possibility in 2024 to put in place a president that did not win the electoral college. All the things we feared will become a reality. Democracy is losing as Kevin makes concessions.

[Donal]

A couple random thoughts:

1) as funny as this is on a base level, it is still infuriating. These people are there to do a job. I've been saying for a long time the Republicans have no interest in governing and here we are.

2) McCarthy doesn't seem to have a chance of winning. These aren't policy issues. He's not going to compromise the opposition onto his side. He's already far-right. This is some Mean Girls ****. They personally hate him.

3) I am so far pleasantly surprised that none of the self-important centrist nitwits in the Problem Solver Caucus took it upon themselves to try and make a deal with McCarthy for their own benefit. Even they aren't stupid enough to think you can trust the Republicans right now.

4) Speaking of the Problem Solvers, where are they now? Shouldn't the Democrats in there be convincing their Republican friends in there to vote for Jefferies? You know, in the spirit of compromise and getting things done. Seeing as to how every compromise they've pushed has been to favor the right.

5) I find it hysterical that Elise Stefanik is nowhere near the discussion of who besides McCarthy. She debased herself so badly to please Trump and it means nothing.

[Darat]

Sweepstake, any one?

I'll throw in a (random) number: 11

[Donal]

We'll do it the way their pick the pope. Everybody pulls from the deviled egg jar. Whoever pulls the black one "wins".

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I think part of what we're seeing is probably the inevitable fracturing of the Republican Party's base. There's two factions and they really don't have much in common. First are traditional Republicans, pro-business, fiscally and socially conservative. Second are working class Republicans, not so much focused on fiscal conservatism but socially conservative, searching for simple solutions to complex problems. Almost two years ago a GOP Congress member from Indiana told NPR:


The working class faction explains the rise of Boebert, Gosar, Greene et al. McConnell and I guess even McCarthy represent the more traditional GOP. These emerging working class or trumpist Republicans are too extreme for most traditional Republicans. I think that's what we're seeing in the House. The battle for control of the Republican Party. Pro-business or the party of working class Americans. Which is it going to be? Up until now its been both but that is obviously changing.

Your first group is already dead and gone. Its demise was heralded by Bush the Elder being ousted for having the temerity to try to balance the budget. We can debate when the Last Good Republican left, but they're extinct as the dodo now. The modern GOP old guard are the second group, who pay lip service to fiscal conservatism but only as a means of demanding attention when they're out of power. The loonies are a new batch that runs on pure revanchism. Ascribing them any kind of fiscal or social ideology is folly because hypocrisy is internalized to the core; the only thing they genuinely share is a love of bigotry and a need for attention.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Donal

...Shouldn't the Democrats in there be convincing their Republican friends in there to vote for Jefferies?...

They may well be doing that, just privately, not publicly.

By the way, Elise Stefanik was the Congress member to nominate Kevin McCarthy. An upstate New York FOX TV affiliate reported Tuesday evening:

Quote:

North country Congresswoman Elise Stefanik officially nominated Kevin McCarthy to be speaker of the House of Representatives. "Kevin McCarthy is a strong conservative, he is proudly pro-life, a supporter of our Second Amendment rights, and he is committed to stopping wasteful government spending and shrinking the size of government,” she said. “No one in this body has worked harder for this Republican majority than Kevin McCarthy.” WNYTV link

[crescent]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The house could easily make it a rule that the speaker only needs a majority of the votes cast. If nobody gains a majority then a run-off vote could be called.

McCarthy is not even getting that. Jeffries has been pulling in the most votes, but he's not got majority either.

There's talk of just giving it to whoever gets a plurality of votes. That would force the holdouts to decide between actually voting for the GOP's preferred person, or seeing the Dems get it.

But that might require a rule change, and I don't know if such a change can be made with congress not in session.

As it is, we have essentially no House of Representatives right now.

[sackett]

Cromwell's solution had a simple, weaponized look to it: "I say you are no parliament!"

Churchill admired Noll no end, and wanted to name a battleship after him. I'm imagining the future super deluxe carrier USS Old Joe Biden. Her crew call themselves The Fighting Brandons, and wreck every saloon in Honolulu when they're in port.

Yeah, well, if Winnie could dream, I can too.

[Random]

Originally Posted by crescent

McCarthy is not even getting that. Jeffries has been pulling in the most votes, but he's not got majority either.

There's talk of just giving it to whoever gets a plurality of votes. That would force the holdouts to decide between actually voting for the GOP's preferred person, or seeing the Dems get it.

But that might require a rule change, and I don't know if such a change can be made with congress not in session.

As it is, we have essentially no House of Representatives right now.

A procedural change like that could be made with a straight majority vote, but when you game it out it's just a more complicated version of what we already have. The never-Kevins will say no, and then you would need Democratic votes, but why would they help Kevin? And around and around we go...

[Donal]

Plus, Jefferies has the plurality right now. any Republican to support that might as well just vote for him or "present".