US Politics: the McCarthy Trials

[Larry of the Lawn]

Lol remember when Steve Scalise was the "mostly positive" republican house member during the Google hearings when it became laughably apparent how technically inept Congress is as a whole?  I mean i guess it's easy to seem normal when you're the foil for Steve King.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Scalise withdraws his nomination for Speaker. What a mess. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

Not a single Republican would even entertain the idea of joining Democrats to vote for Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker, so I hope everyone is prepared for a completely nonfunctional House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. (Never mind that the GOP would still have the majority if they did this, and therefore complete control of legislation and near-complete control of resolutions and debates.)

The funniest outcome now would be Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, after thirty rounds of voting. 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Not a single Republican would even entertain the idea of joining Democrats to vote for Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker, so I hope everyone is prepared for a completely nonfunctional House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. (Never mind that the GOP would still have the majority if they did this, and therefore complete control of legislation and near-complete control of resolutions and debates.)

The funniest outcome now would be Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, after thirty rounds of voting. 

I wonder if the D's could force votes through the House on some issues via cloture?

 

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

I wonder if the D's could force votes through the House on some issues via cloture?

As an aside, it's "cloture" in the Senate, but called the "previous question" in the House. What this would do is end debate on a proposal to bring it to a vote, which might be useful for avoiding amendments and legislative maneuvers.

There is also the discharge petition, which might have been what you were thinking of? To do so from a standing committee is possible, but while it can effectively force a vote, the Speaker still has a lot of control over the process. To do so from the Rules Committee is a lot more complex, but is a more useful tool the minority party has at their disposal... if there were a possibility of majority-party members breaking ranks.

However, the previous question requires a simple majority of all voting members present, and discharge petitions require a simple majority of the entire House (218 votes). Republicans would refuse quorum in the former case, and have nothing to worry about from the minority party in the latter case. And they have no intent of having a Democratic Speaker, so that even the remotest possibility of popular legislation being passed is negated.

Basically, the minority party is powerless in the House, particularly if the Speaker wishes it. (Contrary to the outsized power they can have in the Senate, which Republicans have heavily and increasingly abused since the Clinton era, especially through the legislative filibuster.)

[Maithanet]

Democrats providing thier votes to some Republican speaker in exchange for some concessions is at least possible, although still not likely.  It would allow that Speaker to not have to kowtow to the freedom caucus.  But it's always easier in theory than in practice.  Even the "moderate" Republicans have very little in common with Democrats.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Democrats providing thier votes to some Republican speaker in exchange for some concessions is at least possible, although still not likely.  It would allow that Speaker to not have to kowtow to the freedom caucus.  But it's always easier in theory than in practice.  Even the "moderate" Republicans have very little in common with Democrats.

The problem is the only remaining potential Republicans left who could potentially do this all want to have many more years of political careers. There's no about-to-retire moderate left who could step in as a career capstone, like Fred Upton. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Even the "moderate" Republicans have very little in common with Democrats.

As you alluded to with the quotation marks, that's in large part because there is no such thing as a "moderate" Republican. This is not least because the Overton Window continues to shift to the right, accelerated by Reagan and literally everything about him, Clinton and his Third-Way destruction of the Democratic Party, and Trump's strategy of saying the quiet part out loud.

Partisan gerrymandering is most culpable for this. In House races, this has caused the race to the right in order to win primaries, and therefore win the general election by default. In state races, this has resulted in state legislatures reflecting Republican lust for power rather than the electorate, causing a stranglehold over states that might contain a large amount of Democrats or more moderate Republicans.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Fez said:

The problem is the only remaining potential Republicans left who could potentially do this all want to have many more years of political careers. There's no about-to-retire moderate left who could step in as a career capstone, like Fred Upton. 

I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe at this point they have to pick someone who isn't in Congress (and no, not Trump). 

[Varysblackfyre321]

I think maybe republicans were working under the “we are the silent majority” delusion with regards to RFK. That since they liked him, that people they like him, a lot of democrats will like him.

That democrats, liberals, the left when pushed, pressured, or given license to they’d back conservative ideals so long as a more liberal or at least non-conservative aesthetic is utilized.

[Many-Faced Votary]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think maybe republicans were working under the “we are the silent majority” delusion with regards to RFK. That since they liked him, that people they like him, a lot of democrats will like him.

I believe it was more than that in this case. They also thought that RFK would be a successful spoiler because of his last name, not realizing that worship of one's political leaders is unique to their party. (From a concerning obsession with Reagan to thinking that Trump is literally God. It was perhaps inevitable.)

[Gaston de Foix]

11 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Democrats providing thier votes to some Republican speaker in exchange for some concessions is at least possible, although still not likely.  It would allow that Speaker to not have to kowtow to the freedom caucus.  But it's always easier in theory than in practice.  Even the "moderate" Republicans have very little in common with Democrats.

In theory the terms of the deal would not be substance (where no single bloc exists to justify movement on anything because it's all a zero-sum game)* but process where the House could change its rules to diminish the power of the speaker in favor of the House as a whole.  The elevation of a neutral or well-regarded Republican moderate as speaker would likely have to be part of the deal.  

That's what, theoretically, the Freedom Caucus and commentators like Justin Amash are most concerned with.  The thing is the way the House has been run as a dictatorship from the Speaker chair is a stable equilibrium.  I'm not sure an alternative will be stable over time, just like the attempts to resurrect the Roman Republic keep collapsing back into Caesarism.  

I'm not going to say it's gonna happen, but I see that as a potential deal-space for now.  A strong majority of either party would probably change the rules back.  

*On substance, there's just no window for a deal on substance for anything like permitting reform (bipartisan majorities of each house would support it) because it would give Biden a win.  Trump would come out against it.  There's not space for a straight up deal like Israel aid for Ukraine aid (bipartisan majorities still support both as well) because that's also a "Dem win".  Even a serious attempt at deficit reduction which is frankly an overdue necessity probably won't pass.  

[Many-Faced Votary]

Jim Jordan makes second bid for House speaker : NPR

"The guy who won more conference votes than me realized that he doesn't have nearly enough votes to win on the House floor... So surely I do!"

Absolute clowns. If only the pre-Tea Party and pre-MAGA Republican establishment hadn't been historically competent in their evil; we could be watching the GOP and everything they stand for finally implode in spectacular and long overdue fashion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Let's assume for a moment Gym doesn't become speaker.

What's the endgame then? I mean, I assume that'd mean we get to see the US sleepwalking into a shutdown, while the Gaslight Obstructionist Party still figures out, who should be speaker.

[Many-Faced Votary]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Let's assume for a moment Gym doesn't become speaker.

What's the endgame then? I mean, I assume that'd mean we get to see the US sleepwalking into a shutdown, while the Gaslight Obstructionist Party still figures out, who should be speaker.

One has to believe that they will reconsider the person who already successfully became Speaker, as he might well be the only one who has any path towards 217 votes. McCarthy has already implied that he wouldn't mind being in the running, and he "only" lost about eight votes from his conference, as compared to the others' numerous more.

That said, he has already made it clear that he will not deal with Democrats, and thus has no intention of governing or of rejecting Trump or keeping his far-right flank in line. All Democrats voted against the absurd rules package that enabled any one member of his conference to move to vacate the chair and led to his downfall, and all but one Republican voted in favor of it.

I don't believe the GOP sees a political detriment in causing a shutdown. They certainly see no responsibility in avoiding one, or in governing in general, or in sustaining people's livelihoods, or in maintaining the country's credit rating, of course. Trump has openly commanded them to cause a shutdown and blame Biden for it, and it was an explicit push to operate as normal for House Republicans.

Even with a Speaker, I tend to believe that we would have seen a shutdown. (Especially McCarthy, who is bitterly partisan and beholden to the far right, and utterly spineless.) Without a Speaker, the country and the world can see with their own eyes that the Republican Party is wholly at fault, regardless of the media coverage working overtime to normalize and excuse them. Even if it will not matter in the slightest for Republican voters, it might make a difference for the few swing voters who still exist.

[ThinkerX]

Rumor had it that some no name back bencher republican congressman threw his name into the ring during one of the secret ballots. Had no credentials other than being 'sort of moderate' (apparently avoiding the outright nut-jobbery) - and still garnered eighty votes. If true (who knows) then that might send a shock through the Freedom Caucus. Somebody like that who is willing to toss a couple of major concessions to the D's...

[DanteGabriel]

On 10/11/2023 at 10:49 AM, Fragile Bird said:

For those of you who are older, you may remember US Olympic gymnast Mary Lou Retton, a real superstar when she won all her gold medals at the age of 16. She’s 55 now, and fighting for her life in a Texas hospital because she has a very bad case of pneumonia and can’t breath on her own.

She has no medical insurance.

Apparently there’s a go-fund-me page for her. You might want to donate a few bucks to help an American hero in her time of need.

Oh, the horrors of living in a socialist commie country like Canada, where I would never need a go-fund-me page if I caught pneumonia.

I can't help but remember she played Tiny Tim in the show-within-a-show production of A Christmas Carol in my favorite Christmas movie, "Scrooged."

This timeline is not only the dumbest and most vicious, but also incredibly self-referential.

Not that I have much pity to spare for Reaganites getting a taste of what they voted for.

Edited October 14, 2023 by DanteGabriel

[IheartIheartTesla]

I find it impressive that "Jewish space laser" lady now doesn't want to bring in any Gazan refugees to the US because we could be importing people with anti-Semitic views.

Anyway, the House cant even pass a resolution supporting Israel, so toothless tweets are all that are left for these clowns.

[kissdbyfire]

On 10/12/2023 at 6:48 PM, Many-Faced Votary said:

Steve Scalise ("David Duke without the baggage," in his own words)

The baggage? Did he mean the robe and hood?

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

The baggage? Did he mean the robe and hood?

At the rate Republicans are moving, the "baggage" he's referring to probably means "not being racist and anti-Semitic enough."