Right. And any “moderate” R’s that cross over and are taken down by the voters… will NOT be having “moderates” running for that seat the next cycle. The Republicans’ answer to losing is always “we were not hardcore right enough”.
Yep. That happened in 2016, after 2012. It worked for them once.
Dude, “Elective Boogaloo” was sitting right there.
No need to re-draft the Constitution, only change the House rules.
Prior to Clay becoming Speaker, it was more of an impartial chair position. He got elected Speaker and claimed the power to decide the House business.
Change the rules to strip out the legislative agenda functions from the Speaker, and give them to the Majority leader.
I know, to amend the House rules you need to have a Speaker. I’m speaking in the abstract here. 
I still think it was a personal issue between the two that we don’t know about.
Austin Scott of GA throws his hat in the ring. (probably paywalled)
A little-known Republican emerged on Friday to challenge Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio in the raucous party feud over selecting a new speaker, underscoring the G.O.P. divisions that have left the House leaderless and paralyzed for more than a week.
Representative Austin Scott of Georgia, a mainstream conservative and ally of the ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, said he would seek the nomination. He effectively was putting himself forward as a protest candidate against Mr. Jordan, the hard-right Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The surprise move promised to prolong the infighting that has raged among Republicans since a hard-right faction of Mr. Jordan’s supporters forced out Mr. McCarthy last week and then refused to back the party’s chosen successor, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, for the post.
“When I woke up this morning, I had no intention of doing this,” Mr. Scott told reporters, adding: “But I believe if we as Republicans are going to make the majority, we have to do the right things the right way. And we’re not doing that right now.”
Seems like a fun thing to do on a whim.
Maybe they were playing Truth or Dare and he chose Dare: run for Speaker.
Well, you couldn’t expect any GOP house member to opt for Truth.
Well, glancing over his Wikipedia article, it’s all pretty much mainstream Republican thought, which will get no traction here. But:
In 2001, Scott was the first Republican in the Georgia House to work with Democrats to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the state’s flag.
-and-
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Scott consistently supported military aid to Ukraine. As of October 2023, he received an “A”-rating on the congressional report card on Ukraine support by Defending Democracy Together.
Right. “Sane” is an insufficient bar as sane alone still means no actual work gets done.
I’m fine with the Ds throwing support behind a sane candidate in return for delivered sane behavior and real bipartisan work getting done. Which requires that sane candidate is also worthy of trust to deliver on that.
Short of that sane GOP house members whoever they may be, if they be, may eventually need to reach a point that they vote for Jeffries with his promising to deliver bipartisanship …
Exactly. It angers me that anyone is even considering that there might be an expectation that anyone with a D after their name would vote for a Republican candidate whose public statements include vows to oppose and destroy Joe Biden and liberal policies, or to even refrain from voting for their own candidate, who promotes the policies they advocate.
It angers me because it’s nothing more than a setup to blame Democrats for Republican dysfunction. There is absolutely no reason for any Democrat to take the historically unprecedented step of supporting someone committed to the destruction of their agenda. It’s ridiculous and disingenuous to suggest that if they don’t do so then the Republican dysfunction is a “both sides” problem.
Too many Democrats have absorbed enough of the propaganda and fallen for the both sides bullshit as it is, and this is just another extreme example.
What business? Impeaching Joe Biden? Enacting national book and abortion bans? Pulling all funding from Ukraine? Attempting to drive the President’s son into a mental crisis in order to damage his father? Weakening worker protections and environmental protections? Harassing the agencies that are prosecuting Trump? Why the f would any Democrat want to help the Republicans do their “business”?
Oh, not their business. I mean the business that could get done if they worked with Democrats and if songbirds flew out of my ears, as both are equally likely.
Fair enough, and I’ll make you a deal: when I see mockingbirds tweeting from your earlobes, I’ll support Democratic votes for Jordan.
Thinking about this today—does anyone watching this closely have a realistic timeline for when a speaker might be in place? I’m assuming five minutes before disaster, but my main worries are the the reputation of the USA as a country that can govern itself is tanking internationally, and that the risk of default is much greater than it was in September. I can’t see them getting together to elect a speaker AND getting a funding package through. Can someone knowledgeable calibrate my worries?
We are talking about the Speakership here.
Government shut down. No bills passed. No new reps sworn in. The House can do little without a Speaker. It wont be a Dem.
He seems sane then. Wrong about nearly everything but sane.
I did say “Sane”, didn’t I? Jordan does not qualify. 
Is there any reason why Jeffries cannot just step-in and just start acting like Speaker? I know he does not have the power of the Speaker officially, but can he just start doing what needs to be done, start working with some of the Republicans who also want to start working again, get going on the debt ceiling deadline, etc. Can someone in the room who wants to be an adult just start doing the role?
I think, open to correction, that matters don’t come to the floor without the approval of the Rules Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker, so if there is no Speaker, no meetings of the Rules Committee.
Or a discharge petition, signed by a large number of members of the House, to discharge a matter from the Rules Committee and bring it to the floor of the House.
But I could well be mistaken. This is all very complex.
As a moderate (now former) Republican, I would favor the non-FCers (pronounced fckers) in the House to nominate NO ONE and just vote present every time and let this be between Jordan and Jefferies.
So it’s cool, even necessary for Democrats to support a Republican, but unfathomable for the Republicans to support a Democrat? Ridiculous.