They are Congressman [Congresswomen] elect so how can they vote to adjourn?
This. Kevin McCarthy’s problem was never Chip Roy. Sure, he and some of the other hard-core Freedom Caucus members gave him a bigger problem than he anticipated. But they were always going to be amenable to being bought off through rules changes or guarantees that would ensure they could make absolute spectacles of themselves during a debt ceiling hike or government funding debate. The genuine “Never Kevins” are about a half dozen House Republicans like Gaetz, Boebert, Biggs, Good and Rosendale for whom opposition is the ends, not the means. How he gets enough of these members to relent is yet to be seen.
I’ve been amused how on MSNBC they have started referring to this core group as nihilists. Seems to be spot on. They don’t really believe in anything other than destroying the current order.
Think of it as that the meeting of electees vote to adjourn, just as the meeting of electees votes to select a Speaker. A set of standing legislation and rules not dependent on the swearing in of the members governs the proceedings of the meeting of electees.
Republitalk for “It ain’t over until I get what I want!”
“We believe in nothing, Lebowski!”
Perhaps it’s been answered upthread already, but… why do these holdout Republicans hate McCarthy with such a seething passion?
According to one article I saw somewhere, Bob Good of Virginia hates him because Good primaried a more moderate GOP member, McCarthy gave financial support to Good’s opponent in the primary, and then never called Good after Good won the primary and did not offer Good any financial support for the general election.
Politics can be very personal sometimes …
I doubt they all hate McCarthy personally. But their brand is unrelenting opposition to the Republican establishment, which McCarthy personifies. Their core political identities – the voters they attract, their fundraising, their media presence – is built around this brand. McCarthy has no stick or carrot that can influence them.
Sort of what I alluded to in my last post but Gaetz, Boebert and the others want to burn everything down. Complete gridlock is their desired outcome. I have read they don’t trust McCarthy because he has made deals with Democrats in the past after promising he wouldn’t.
ETA: @flurb gets at it as well - they want to destroy the establishment. And they hate the Democrats.
Hmm, thanks.
That’s easily fixed.
Bring into the chamber a very large bucket of popcorn, a gallon of treacle, a couple of canisters of Easy Cheese, a barrel of pickled Lebanese cucumbers and keg of root beer. Then lock the doors and nobody gets out until a nomination for Speaker gets bipartisan support and minimum 275 votes.
Not possible. That’s the way they elect Popes, and the Vatican has a very strict trademark.
Great headline (Gift link)
Are there any RINOs that the Dems would be happy enough with to vote for? I know it is distasteful to vote for the other team but this way they can control who the next Speaker is instead of the Pubs. That’s the best the Ds can hope for, right?
I’m not sure how many, if any, “moderate Republicans” are even left in the House. Most of them have retired, or been primaried out of office, in recent years.
The Dems could push for something like this, but I suspect the GOP nutjobs would hand McCarthy a win long before they allowed the Democrats to exert power here. They hate the establishment but they hate liberals more. They can go home and sell, “I fought against the Deep State Democrats trying to STEAL THE SPEAKERSHIP.” They can’t sell “I voted McCarthy because I got very sleepy after the sixth ballot” quite so easily.
The only way to win is not to play, and the Democrats are doing a marvelous job of holding together.
Case in point - when MTG is a voice of “reason and responsibility” in your speaker contest, you know the crazies are running the asylum. We’ve had multiple opinions, professional and otherwise in the thread that confirms that the conflict is the POINT for a substantial percentage of the current Republican party. Heck, I firmly believe that at some level, many of that group would prefer that Jeffries win (as they take a principled stance against the Traitor Kevin) so that they can spend the next 2 years doing nothing but ranting about evil Demonrats and just voting a blanket ‘no’.
That’s easier than passing legislation, running government, or any other responsibility.
For that fringe AND THE VOTERS WHO ELECT THEM (key point, double emphasis) - the outrage and the obstructionism is the point. Anyone selected as a compromise by the Democrats would just reinforce their points that the ‘traitors’ in the party must be purged or that extra-governmental actions should be taken to protect True Americans are fully justified.
As Johnny_Bravo just said, the only way to win is not to play the game. Keep voting, looking strong and confident, and let the Republican’s keep screwing up by the numbers. Even if Kevin inches over the starting line, no one expects him (or his successors) to keep the caucus in line. It’s going to be various flavors of crazy for two years no matter what, unless enough Republicans see that their bad press for another government shutdown / failure to investigate / inability to provide cash to their districts means reluctantly going back to bipartisanship.
Sorry, I missed that post. I guess I’m the idiot. Apologies to @hajario.
Aren’t there laws about what PACs can do, like not coordinating with individual campaigns? I wonder if “I promise not to give money to your opponent” qualifies.