This is the way I’ve been thinking. The Dems should seize the moment with the House members in disarray to bring in an establishment Republican they can stomach, line up the few necessary R votes, and fire away.
You mean, Robert Kennedy’s campaign manager? I think there would be some opposition there from the Dems.
Kasich is a terrible choice, but Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, or maybe some others, would be okay.
But very unlikely that they’d get any Republicans to go along.
That’s one of the keys, as I understand it. To make Congress work, you have to trust the other side to keep their promises.
By the end, the Dems wouldn’t trust McCarthy if he said it was daylight at 12 noon, without sending a staffer out to check if he was lying.
Especially as they arent sitting members, so there is a good excuse not to vote for them.
Of the ten Repubs who voted to impeach, two are still sitting.
Small correction: Dennis Kucinich is RFK Jr.'s campaign manager.
This seems like it might have been the biggest deciding factor. Nothing was ever going to work as long as Gaetz (et. al.) were holding McCarthy on a 3-foot leash. McCarthy might have been somewhat manageable on his own, but Gaetz’s hold on power had to be zapped.
I also suspect that Gaetz won’t have this power going forward. Even if the rules aren’t changed, Republicans have had about enough of his shit, and there’s already talk about expelling him from the Republican caucus.
I’d be surprised if they did it at this point. But if, say, Scalise is elected as the new speaker, and Gaetz files a motion to vacate against Scalise? I think they’d kick his butt out so hard he’d just be a little speck flying over the horizon, accompanied by a slide whistle.
Small correction? Kucinich and Kasich are about as opposite as you can get.
I’m thinking it was more conceivable in January than now. Scalice will probably be speaker next week.
But, if they do go many ballots again, I don’t think any Republican, however moderate, would be acceptable to the more progressive House Democrats. And I don’t think a Republican, known for party disloyalty, would get a single House Republican vote (Trump family members exempted). I wish they would have tried for someone non-partisan. What about the chief Justice of a state Supreme Court from a state where this is a non-partisan office?
But Jeffries may have gamed this all out and realized negatives I am missing.
Perhaps no acceptable outsider would take the job.
Given the Pub Party right now, getting elected with Democratic votes would pretty much ensure you would lose your primary due to “treason”. I don’t think anyone moderate Republican takes that deal.
Yeah, the trajectory since the 90s has been that in turnover years it’s the moderate Republicans who got trounced, then when the next swing comes around it’s harder-right hardliners who make the comeback.
The obvious trick in trying to get a stabilized House has got to be how to not just muzzle but outright neuter and defang Gaetz, Biggs & Co. and that would take the sort of spine that the Establishment R’s have shown to lack.
Trump was right about the Establishment Republicans after all: they are weak.
Could an outsider even be effective at the job? Someone that doesn’t know how the House works, didn’t aspire to that type of role, very few or no allies to work with and rely on? It could be as bad as no Speaker.
Also the job comes with the side gig of 2nd in the line of succession. I’m not sure a outsider that 218 Reps don’t find objectionable would make a good President.
The cynic in me says that you only get to be Speaker by having allies that benefit from you in power and by making deals for the rest. You have to have things to offer and you have to actively campaign. Most outsiders don’t have enough leverage.
(Not just responding to you @PhillyGuy, but anyone that thinks it someone from outside the House could be Speaker.)
As much as I’ve defended in this thread the authority of the House to elect a non-Member Speaker, I think it’s a terrible idea. Especially a “non-partisan” outsider. The job of the Speaker is inherently political and partisan. I understand this isn’t the case in some parliamentary systems where the role of the Speaker is explicitly non-partisan and more intended to referee debate.
The House doesn’t work that way. The Speaker decides what bills will come to the floor and when, and what amendments will be allowed to be offered. He appoints all members of select committees and conference committees. When a bill is introduced, the speaker determines which committee will hear it. He leads negotiations with the Senate and the White House on major legislation and has to decide where to compromise and what red lines he won’t cross. He has to do all of this with an ear toward the competing interest of whatever majority elected him Speaker and has to defend those decisions against Members who will criticize him. Any “non-partisan” placed in the roll is either going to flounder or is going to look a lot less non-partisan once he or she starts making these decisions.
If so how many Scaramuccis do y’all give him?
Why, given that the fundamentals won’t be all that different, would this be anything other than a rinse repeat cycle?
I will not be surprised if that prediction, shared by many of the pundit class, is correct. The lesson learned from last time is that the less crazy GOP elements will give in to any demand rather than work in a bipartisan manner. And they will not insist on demands for their votes. As much as they acknowledge and bemoan that their conference is being ruled by its nihilistic rump.
Is there anyone who is planning on retiring?
I don’t see where any of that has to be inherently “partisan” along traditional party lines. As you said:
He has to do all of this with an ear toward the competing interest of whatever majority elected him Speaker and has to defend those decisions against Members who will criticize him.
If someone was elected on the basis of cross-party coalition of members, then they only really have to worry about keeping those members happy. And those members would have, by the very nature of voting for this person, demonstrated that they’re open to the concept of finding a middle ground.
Things like committee assignments have some rules, involving majority vs. minority numbers on each committee, but within those rules, you could make a lot of non-partisan decisions. Find members of each party that have shown a willingness to compromise, and put them on the committees, instead of the bomb-throwers.
Similarly, only bring forward bills that you are confident have the support of the members who worked together to elect you as speaker.
The only way the nonpartisan speaker would happen is after a bipartisan majority agreed to caucus together and negotiated to divvy up the other power positions in the house, and the role of the nonpartisan speaker would for the most part to bring up budgets and major legislation that the two factions in the unity caucus already agreed upon, and likely let the committees do their thing except when the factions within the unity caucus break agreements down. And even then, it would be the parties that make the new agreements first. A nonpartisan speaker would basically be there to be a rubber stamp.
I think it could work, although its still a huge longshot for moderate republicans to choose it over getting to be in an outright majority where the negotiations are still intraparty.
I agree this is technically possible, but so far outside the bounds of historical and contemporary American politics that I can’t really wrap my head around it. Arguably you’d create a new kind of “partisanship” – the middle versus the extremes – that has never existed in the House. But it would take a fundamental restructuring of the incentives in our politics and not just airdropping a “nonpartisan” Speaker into the House.
If Jim Jordan starts to gain ground, all the Democrats should agree to vote for him. Then have Jeffries give a press conference saying publicly that he was surprised at all the concessions that Jordan had given, and that he looks forward to a new era of progress and bipartisanship in the House.
Jordan might not be able to get out of there alive. No one will believe his denials.