As sorta-started over here, but I think it deserves it’s own thread.
Is there anyone clamoring for the job that is not from the Freedumb Caucus?
McCarthy has had a bad go of being Speaker. He got his name in the history books. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d be happy to be done with the position.
IMO the Ds should assist, but their price is getting rid of the current session’s rules that gave the Frothing Wacky Caucus a total veto over all House business.
Throwing McCarthy under the bus, or preserving him in all his craven awfulness, is a small price to pay to obtain the gain of shoving FC back under its rock. I think now is a time that the rest of the non-FC R’s can see that FC is more trouble than it is worth to them. If the D’s provide some numbers and some cover to make that more likely to happen, so much the better.
Exactly which way the Ds vote or abstain to best facilitate matters depends on all the secret negotiations madly taking place right now.
ETA: @Whack-a-Mole: the reason nobody wants the job is that the FC veto rule renders it an utterly poisoned chalice. Remove that rule and suddenly it’s the plum job everybody wants again.
There are no such rules. The reason why Gaetz, MTG and co. have had a veto over House business is because McCarthy let them by refusing to bring bills to the floor that would pass with some Democratic votes (with the exception of the debt limit deal and yesterday’s continuing resolution). That’s not a rule – it’s his choice.
Doesn’t the Freedumb Caucus have a sort of Sword of Damocles thing going on with McCarthy? If McCarthy doesn’t toe the line the sword drops?
I believe that there is, effectively, such a rule, which McCarthy agreed to during the torturous series of votes which eventually gave him the speakership earlier this year. He agreed to a rule that allowed any one House member to advance a vote to oust the speaker.
It’s not explicitly a veto, true, but in effect, it acts as one, because pissing off even a small number of members of his caucus is enough to imperil his job.
Good points, but I don’t believe the Republicans can elect anyone unless and until they come together to bring the rabid Wacko Brigade to heel and stop treating them like equal partners with equally valid views. They’re anarchists and deserve to be sidelined. McCarthy chose to get into bed with them in return for power, but it only ended up neutering him completely. I doubt any other candidate would make that mistake (at least not one with a shot at winning the speakership). The uber crazies are badly outnumbered, and if the rest of the conference doesn’t smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and make them act right then they’ll just have to deal with the pile of shit they keep leaving all over the place.
My vote is for Jeffries to tell Kevin that the Ds will vote “present” as long as he stops letting the lowest uncommon denominator run the show. Take away Gaetz’s power to threaten doom and destruction every other second. I doubt Jeffries will be able to successfully demand concessions for the Democrats, and doubt even more that Kevin would keep his word if he made any, but a simple return to a normal difference of opinion would be nice.
ETA: above quote was from @Horatius but the quote box didn’t carry over the name for some reason.
The motion to vacate is only a “veto” if he lets it be. Any one Representative can file the motion, but it requires a majority of the House to be successful. If he can convince enough Democrats to oppose the motion he doesn’t need to worry about what the Freedom Caucus will do.
I think it’s been reported that he also agreed not to bring any vote to the floor that would require any Democrat votes to pass.
The Freedom Caucus rebellion isn’t rooted in any rules, but rather “commitments” that they claim he made in order to secure their votes for the Speakership in January. What exactly these “commitments” were change in each telling by Freedom Caucus members, and McCarthy has explicitly denied some of them.
So 9 reps can hold up legislation? That’s worse than the Senate.
I think the problem is the uber-crazies show-up in big numbers for primaries. That’s how they got power. The threat of being primaried out of office is real which lets the crazies run the show. The “normal” republicans (I am stretching that word) have to be crazy.
McCarthy gave them three seats in the Rules Committee (I may have the number wrong). That gave them a disproportionate role over what bills could come forward. Kick them off the committee, put in McCarthy loyalists, and that may make things better.
If this is true, this is the single worst thing I’ve ever heard coming out of Congress. Or am I just terribly naive? This amounts to a preventive measure against bipartisanship…that is, against any hope of reaching functional democracy.
…which is actually the whole point.
That’s certainly how it reads, but is that the actual fact of the matter? Seems to me if that were true some media would be on it. We all know the ideal of Congressional compromise is elusive, but for the Speaker to promise he’ll avoid it at all costs? That sounds like a new bit of horror.
The alleged commitment is that McCarthy would not bring measures to the floor if they would only pass because of Democratic votes. Even now, there are lots of bills that pass the House with broadly bipartisan support.
And this isn’t an unusual position for Speakers to take, maybe not as explicitly and rigidly as McCarthy has. The Speaker is his or her party’s leader in the House. They should be getting enough votes from their own party to pass bills. It’s the narrowness of the Republican majority, and the existence of a nihilistic, intransigent faction operating in bad faith within the Republican caucus, that is causing this principle to be a problem.
I’ll call it right now that McCarthy will be speaker 45 days from now. If the hard right tries to oust him, they will lose and be weakened, and McCarthy will be strengthened.
I think you might be right but then I wonder, if this will be the case, why McCarthy didn’t break their hold till now?
Nitpick: [quote=“MulderMuffin, post:7, topic:990958”]
They’re anarchists
[/quote]
No, they’re not, not by any useful definition of the term.
Thank you.