I’d say something like, “The Republicans have a miniscule majority, but a majority all the same. McCarthy wants to win the speakership, and he’ll do anything to make it happen, like put MTG, Jordan, and Gaetz in charge of committees that churn out articles of impeachment every other day. We have absolutely no chance of having a Democrat as speaker, but we can mitigate the worst Republican tendencies if we come together as a unified group and support the most moderate Republican we can to become speaker. What do you say?”
Apparently, Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks it is possible to sway a few republicans.
And we have to put someone in for speaker that is going to be elected and not allow the Democrat to pull away one or two because that’s what they want to do. And they can do it. Believe me, it can be done. We have Republicans in there that would possibly make a deal, as hard as that is for people to believe.
Not to mention that no moderate Republican is going to position themselves as King of the Democrats.
I don’t know, Kinzinger and Cheney probably have a few sympathetic (soon-to-be) ex-colleagues who barely survived getting primaried themselves and who don’t see much of a future with a party run by MAGA-crazies. If I were one of them, and saw myself as getting primaried out of a job, most likely, in 2024, and I were being offered a chance to serve two years as Speaker of the House, and maybe even eventually switching parties to serve as a conservative Dem in future houses (on the promise of no serious opposition from the Dems in running on their ticket), I’d certainly have to consider it.
And remember, I’m talking about 218-217. You don’t have to persuade a lot of GOPers to pull this one off.
No one would vote for a member of the other party for Speaker without also switching to that party. You are deciding which party should control the agenda. If you think the other party should, then you’re in the wrong party.
Let the Republicans in the house spend the next two years failing to elect the speaker. They have nothing better to do anyway and it will keep them too occupied to start an impeachment circus or obsess over Hunter’s laptop.
I like this one.
Which is why the Freedom Caucus are not going to get their ask of establishing a confidence vote on the Speaker, though. The leadership knows that would only create a revolving door of caretakers.
Well holy shit!
Buckle up.
Friend, that has not mattered for at least the last six years.
He’s co-chair of The Main Street Caucus. Over 50 members it seems. Not sure he speaks for them all (or how sane they are :)) but maybe enough would be willing to threaten to go with him to offset a few Dem progressives who would vote against a “centrist” unity candidate.
He’s also in the Problem Solvers Caucus which is a bipartisan group of congressfolk that are mostly from purple districts at glance.
This is an idle threat to change the negotiating posture of the right-wing Republicans. I suspect Democrats are the only ones taking it at face value.
100% this. I understand the desire to imagine scenarios where McCarthy or an even nuttier nutjob is not Speaker for the next two years, but it’s a fantasy. There is zero chance of that happening in this political climate. McCarthy is the best we’re going to get, as depressingly dismal as that is.
I don’t think anyone is taking it at face value.
It is, however, a warning shot across McCarthy’s bow.
I think it’s a shot across the bow of the anti-McCarthy right-wingers: If they don’t get behind McCarthy, they might end up getting someone they like even less.
I think something like the Bacon plan could work. Whether a particular GOP Rep might go for it depends largely on how purple their district is. Remember, if a handful of moderate Reps make a deal to get the Speakership and some plum committee chairs, their districts are going to be in line to get a lot of, um, bacon. Voters may not want to give that up in favor of electing some Trumpy backbencher, partisanship be damned.
As a progressive Democrat I can’t imagine anyone objecting to this plan. Our entire caucus voted for a spending bill that was much less than we wanted, we’d stick together on this, too.
I think the ones who would object would be the long time Democratic representatives who would lose out on those plum committee chairs. I doubt they would be happy at losing those positions to a carpetbagger.
But…they’ve already lost their committee chairs, because their party doesn’t have the majority.
Only temporarily. There’s hope that they can get them back as soon as 2024. If they give them up to a Republican who changes party, they’re never getting them back. I agree that it would still be a good idea for the country as a whole, but I’m not sure if those long serving Democrats will go for it.
doing some musing here.
a rep. is vested in retirement at 5 years (80% of salary at age 62).
being voted out is considered retired.
given that, find a republican has been in for 5 years, nearly 62, moderate, and voted out.