It’s incredibly strange that the Democrats have been pilloried forever about being a disunified party (which people have decided made it easier for the more unified Republicans to run roughshod over the un-unified Dems) and now some Democrats are bemoaning that Democrats are unified.
I, for one, am enjoying seeing the shoe is on the other foot this time.
Yep, I’m sure that is why they ended the voting.
As an example, you know where Cheney stands on issues, and where she stands on the republican members. You think Jordan would ever get a gavel with her in charge? There would be at least 5 members out in the cold on committee assignments. Republicans would not vote for her or anyone like her.
Thanks, and a tip o the hat to smithsb, who posted this in another thread:
Ha ha! She’s my Rep! That kicks ass!
(I don’t see anything I’ve linked…)
Just to let you know I do
As I quoted from an Axios article in post 26:
And we are seeing a few dozen getting cracked and scrambled.
I don’t see the Never Kevin’s giving up. Their future fundraising and attention is based on proving they are no compromise people. Better to blow up the place and destroy the party than to compromise.
Democrats are not going to not vote. Not to get McCarthy in.
We cannot end up with no speaker for the complete cycle. Budgets need approval.
The only Kevins won’t accept complete loss of giving the Never Kevins pretty much all they want with no consequences. If it is a Scalise or Jordon or whoever then they need a lot given up by the Nevers in return.
That’s improbable to happen.
And as spiteful as the Nevers may be they won’t go so far as to not vote putting Jeffries in. Stopping all business is one thing, that is another.
So the I have to place in first place the option of days going by to reach a point that some combination of Rs and Ds agree to a candidate and set of concessions that each can swallow.
The only other choice is complete cave on all demands by McCarthy with some nothing that he uses as a face saving attempt, then completely neutered leadership and out in a few months.
Right now, IMHO, Kevin wants the job so bad he will, after being made to sputter all night, cave in to the all the demands of the Never Kevins. Going another day of not getting the vote will be worse than being beholden to a single vote of no confidence at any time. Better to be a ‘Former’ Speaker, than never speaker at all.
And if he wants to keep the job, he’ll be forced into an endless loop of supporting the whims of the extreme right, which will leave the House in perpetual disfunction with minimal efficacy for the next two years - which may sadly be the best we as a nation can hope for. Meanwhile, the Democrats will try to keep the government running, along with a maybe half a dozen to a dozen halfway functional Republicans, and the rest of the team will be able to function the way they have for over a decade - “We were voting to do the right thing and investigate/punish/etc the bad guys, but the evil Demonrats kept blocking us with the aid of a Few Traitors.”
Easier than returning to a party with an actual platform.
But still, my money’s on Kevin Kaving, because if he loses here, he will NEVER get the stink of failure off him. And it may already be too late.
What if the Democrats approach McCarthy and offer: he goes on camera and says that under his speakership the debt ceiling will be raised; and if he does so, 100 Democrats skip the vote, giving him a majority.
Would the Democrats like that deal? Would McCarthy take it?
That would mean trusting Kevin to a. actually keep his word (highly unlikely) and b. Kevin being able to wrangle enough Republican votes to get the debt ceiling raised (also unlikely). Nope. The Dems just need to sit back and enjoy the circus. Whatever emerges will be crippled beyond repair.
There was a Republican dude on MSNBC earlier saying that Republicans didn’t trust McCarthy.
Doubtful because he would lose even more GOP votes for promising to raise the debt ceiling.
And if any of them realize he struck a deal with the Dems they would run him out of town on a rail.
I would also say that there is a fairly likely option which you might classify under (1) but doesn’t involve the Never Kevins giving up.
1a) The never Kevins allow McCarthy to win after making him agree to some extreme conditions that basically hands them all of his power.
For example: McCarthy agrees to only bring up legislation if and only if it is supported by the majority of the freedom caucus, and puts in place a mechanism by which they can unilaterally recall him and start up the whole speaker contest again if he reneges.
And you know McC will never agree to that, right?
(I say that but if he wants the position more than he wants to be able to wield the power I suppose it could happen.)
That’s the aptly phrased Kevin Kaves option. Improbable but something improbable has to happen.
I’m not saying its the most likely scenario among the ones @FlikTheBlue proposed, but its more likely than some.
Jeffries might actually manage a bi-partisan House.
There’s a lot of reasons why I feel a “deal with the Democrats” to elect either McCarthy or a “moderate Republican” Speaker won’t work, but mostly I just don’t think many Democrats would go along with it. And for each Democrat that won’t play ball, you need to rope another Republican into this coalition – which gets difficult beyond the dozen or so who might plausibly be described as “moderates”
I just watched Hannity since he can’t ignore this like he does other Republican malfeasance. It was hilarious to watch him and Gingrich sputter about some Republicans being, well Republicans. The party of “no”, leopards eating faces! It was some delicious schadenfreude. Of course, Hannity then had to deflect from the ugly truth to calling Democrats evil, hateful anti-Americans and I turned it off.
I’ve been slow to agree but with each vote the improbable things seem to be becoming more and more probable.
Do the rules of the house allow you to change the house rules before the house is sworn in?
This is starting to remind me of my methamathematics class.
If such a rule change were proposed it would really make things interesting. Do the freedom caucus stand by Gaetz’s boast that he would rather have Jefferies than McCarthy? Do the Democrats support such a rule change, despite the fact that it probably lets the Republicans off the hook, in hopes that the stuborness of the Freedom Caucus might let Jefferies slip in?