That part could be bipartisan without any blowback.
Nope.
If Ds vote for it in any number greater than zero, the paranoid schizophrenic freedumb circus will see it as a purely D plot against them.
And in this case they’d be right. See also stopped clock.
Definitely!
And these are our brave patriots, who praise the soldiers who are willing to die for their country, and who they send off to do that.
What do they think they’ll wind up with, if they give in to threats? Who do they think is supposed to stand up to threateners, if not them?
Who was it that came up with the “one vote to oust” rule?
Allowing one member to introduce a motion to vacate the chair was the rule for nearly 100 years. Democrats raised it two years ago, and Republicans reverted the change this year.
Right. As alluded to before, this was one of those “nuclear option” things that would be used only for critical moments and whose mere threat would cause everyone to back down to cool off, or the affected individual to quit with dignity .
It was used once in 1910, under Speaker Cannon, incited by Cannon himself as a sort of Vote of Confidence strategy, and the strategy succeeded in quieting opponents.
It was proposed in the Rules Committee (not on the floor) in 2015 and though it went nowhere it was part of what led Boehner to quit.
Gaetz and a handful of stablemates turned it into an instrument of blackmail and pulled the trigger in a fit of pique when Kev had the gall to NOT provoke a shutdown unless the CR contained the defunding of just about every admin official one of them did not like. Plus, they were counting on that the Dems would panic and rush to save Kev, because of fear of a FC Speaker.
“They hate us so much they’re bound to vote to keep us out!”
Think about that a bit, Mr Gaetz. What does that say about you?
No, there are a few Blue Dog Democrats out there. DINOs.
So a few, maybe just enuf to balance the worst of the FC, then maybe.
Nine, to be exact, which is more than I thought there would be. That said, at least to this point, they’ve all consistently held to the party line, and not voted for any Republican nominee for the speakership.
Sure, but if the Minority leader told them to, they likely would, And it’d be believable. Especially as the Freedumb caucus really are moron.
Agreed.
DINO/RINO: It used to be a silly concept. If you voted with the Dems on procedural stuff, you were effectively a Democrat. Ditto if you were a Republican.
But now there are actual Republicans in Name Only, congressional members who call themselves Republicans but refuse to vote on rules and the like even when those rules are supported by an overwhelming majority within the GOP House. Ironically, they are all Freedom Caucus members, Gaetz et al. They can’t do that core job that members in the least safe districts can do. They are RINOs: I’ll list them.
Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona
Ken Buck of Colorado
Tim Burchett of Tennessee
Eli Crane of Arizona
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Bob Good of Virginia
Nancy Mace of South Carolina
Matt Rosendale of Montana.
I don’t understand this idea that Democrats would vote for a Republican Speaker. Party concerns aside, you vote for the Speaker that is going to put forth legislation that you support. Which Republican is going to do that?
It’s hard to quantify, but it seems like the gap between the moderate Dems and GOP is *almost *as large as the gap between all of the GOP. I don’t know how a candidate could straddle that gap and still get 217 votes.
This site orders by voting record. The Blue Dogs are right in the ‘middle’ as expected. Peltola-D is at 70% progressive and next is Fitzpatrick-R at 35%.
To be fair, this site ranks by ideology and shows actual overlap in the middle. Maybe this represents what they wish they could vote for.
I hope this doesn’t happen. If the Dems decide they need to help elect a GOP Speaker, I hope they continue to vote as a bloc and all vote Present. Individual Dem reps don’t need to take on the baggage of why they did or didn’t vote for a GOP Speaker.
Something I’m sure you knew, but want to make explicit. One big reason the gap is so damn large is that the Republican’s have shifted so far right as a whole, complete with kicking out, or forcing into retirement, anyone that even looked moderate. Or who were just as conservative, but were insufficiently loyal to Trump (Cheney as the prime example).
So yeah, dragging themselves ever more rightward has it’s consequences, as does divorcing themselves from any sense of responsibility to law, custom, or even a passing familiarity with the truth.
Yeah, my problem with the “Jeffries gets the Democrats to back a ‘moderate’ Republican Speaker scenario” is that the math doesn’t work. Right now, he can keep his caucus unified behind a milquetoast message of the need for bipartisanship and a willingness to work with Republicans to get back to the people’s business. The moment there’s a real likelihood of a coalition Speaker, that all evaporates. Many Democrats will refuse to back a Republican Speaker under any circumstances. Many more will demand agreements written in blood to protect liberal positions (nearly half the Democratic conference is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus) – for one example, that the budget will not include any anti-abortion riders. But that in turn would drive dozens of Republicans into opposing the deal. There just isn’t enough “middle” left in Congress to forge a centrist governing majority.
What if, just to fuck with the Rs, all the Democrats were to abruptly switch to voting for Liz Cheney? Would there be “cross-over”?
Why would the Dems want to give control over the legislative agenda to a hard right winger?