True, but remember we’re not talking about their first choice, or their twentieth choice. We talking about a House that’s incapable for weeks or months on end, being paralyzed with no electable Speaker.
I’m sure that he doesn’t want to. But I do think that he’d do it for the country. But, likewise that he’d only do it if he had genuine concerns about McCarthy or whoever was looking likely to replace McCarthy.
If Romney wouldn’t do it then I’d assume that he knows something and that it’s best to just let things unfold as they will naturally.
There’s always the chance that McCarthy is a good guy who knows how to manage his messaging versus his actual activities to ensure that a reasonable and fair outcome is arrived at.
With a politician, you have to look at their product, not their words. There’s a lot of ways to make something fail while it seems like you endorsed it.
I don’t see McCarthy not getting it. He’ll promise all sorts of crazy stuff to the small handful of far right representatives that are holding out in order to bring them on board. The moderate wing, such as it is, will go along with them.
All available evidence points to McCarthy being little more than a craven toady who is terrified of the MAGA base. I know of no reason to believe he is a “good guy” or someone to whom the words “reasonable” or “fair” could ever apply.
I would agree that that’s his public facing persona and it may be all there is to him.
If so, then I would encourage Romney to accept the job. But I would encourage him to investigate the question, first, and ask those who know him - among Republican centrists - how McCarthy comes across when he’s not acting in public.
I’m not certain how likely it is that McCarthy succeeds and gets the position of Speaker but I am willing to stick my neck out and say there is no circumstance under which Romney would be interested in taking the position.
Yeah, not so sure “moderate” is a great term, other than relative to the rest of the party. Maybe the “not-Trump-cult conservatives” wing?
The rub is that in a narrow GOP majority even a small number being stubborn has veto power. The hardest Right has long used that tactic but they are not the only ones capable of it. It is just a handful who conclude that the concessions to the Trump-cult wing are too onerous to bear and who refuse to vote along with any such deal. Them dutifully voting along no matter what is possible. And no fun.
The not-Cult conservatives will definitely accede to much … but maybe not enough to satisfy the Cult. Then? That’s more fun!
McCarthy is a toady currently more scared of the Cult than anything else. He wants the Speakership for its own sake. Not a good guy or reasonable. But he’s boxed in.
Can any House business be done pending a new Speaker being elected?
What would work out best is if the “moderates” reached across the aisle and worked with Democrats, sidelining the extremists in their party.
Don’t think that will happen though.
What I perceive is McCarthy thirsts so for the Speaker’s chair that he’s willing to bear any ordeal to get it and you’d want to put him under protective watch if he failed to.
Must the Speaker be elected by majority or only by plurality. If 212 Ds vote for Jeffries, 210 Rs vote for McCarty and the remaining Rs vote for someone else, is that it or must they vote again. If the remaining Rs abstain or vote “present” does that constitute a majority vote for Jeffries?
Interesting.
Needs majority of votes cast. In that hypothetical of voting present or not voting Jeffries would become Speaker with no R votes and less than 218 voting for him. Not if they vote for someone else; not a plurality.
Throughout the Trump Administration there were those who kept thinking that Romney would ride in on a white horse and save the day when it seemed that Republicans were going too far, like on the Trump tax cut or filling RBG’s Supreme Court vacancy. He never did. Sure, he seems personally decent enough compared to a Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, but he’s a genuinely conservative politician. Why would he want to lead a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans?
For the better of the country.
We don’t always do things that we enjoy or that directly profit ourselves. Sometimes, we do it because someone has to.
Nope. They’d have three primary opponents filed to run against them in their home districts before their handshakes with the Democrats are done.
The Freedom Caucus doesn’t have to worry about opposition to their right, and they figure the moderates won’t come out for the primary anyway, so they have no such constraints on their freedom of action.
That isn’t the deadly threat that it used to be. Half of the primary opponents supported by tRump lost, and of those that won, a lot lost in the general, or won by a thread-thin margin. Hell, that recount in Colorado might just get Boebert tossed out (Yeah, I know, it’s an outside chance, but this is the season of miracles.)
I think tRump fatigue might just work to our advantage here. How many of these mega-donors are shoving cash towards Repub Congressmen, only to see it wasted with investigations and impeachment proceedings everyone knows will go nowhere? Sure, they have the good money to throw out after the bad, but impeaching Joe Biden for wearing a tan suit isn’t going to feed the bulldog. At least there is the chance that, working with Democrats who aren’t the love children of Che Guevara, legislation might get passed that will be to the GotRocks’ advantage.
I’d still consider it a threat, even if it’s not a Trump-focused one. Mega-donors know they need to keep shoveling the cash to keep “critical race theory” and “groomers” front-and-center with the grassroots base even if Donald Trump is receding into the background.
Ultimately, any Republican crossing the aisle to work with Democrats has to decide if the headache caused by the primary would be compensated for by the kinds of benefits that that action would result in an easier general election. Even if we assume that Trumpism doesn’t have the hold it once had on the GOP, that’s still a very tough tradeoff for a politician to make, with a lot of unknowns.
Again, how does that help them?? If I’m shoveling cash to elect a Congressman to pass legislation to ease safety and environmental regulations, how does it help me when all he wants to do is go after drag queens…especially since said DQs are molesting less kids than Catholic priests and Repub legislators? Is that getting good bang–
No, no that metaphor – Is that getting my money’s worth?
Congresscritters can walk and chew gum at the same time.
In particular, they can inveigh on the subjects that the grassroots consider important while also - with much less fanfare - take those legislative actions that are key to their donor base. While passing those anti-trans bills that will die in the Senate, they are also marking up legislation in committee that will allow hog farmers to continue dumping their waste into streams, causing algal blooms and forcing downstream users to have to invest in better water purification techniques. This is what the donor base counts on, because it knows that without those noisy distractions, its agenda wouldn’t exceed a 30% approval rating.
c.f. Republican Party, 1976-present.
Thanks.
Also can we get rid of the fantasy that a non-Representative can be Speaker? Yes, the Constitution doesn’t spell that out, but it ain’t happening.
FWIW.
I’d give McCarthy 50/50 on first vote and if not it could get very. messy.