Ouster of the House Speaker

[echappist]

Could someone knowledgeable comment on the recent developments?

One thing I really don't quite understand is the eagerness with which the Democrat Caucus joined in. I completely get why the Democrat Caucus might be fed up (promises not kept), but on the other hand, it's hard to understand what the pay off is, given the likelihood that any replacement might be even less conciliatory. Devil one knows and all that.

Boehner was cast in a very harsh light by some, but he seemed to be a statesman as compared to the current crop.

Specifically, I see the following scenarios as a result 1) McCarthy gets re-elected as speaker and 2) someone else is elected. Scenario 2) is the "devil one doesn't know". Scenario 1) gets us back to square 1, except with a lot more distrust.

I suppose maybe the Democrat Caucus reached this decision after it offered support in exchange for concessions, and that offer was outright rebuffed, possibly b/c McCarthy believes he'd end up back as speaker anyway. It just seems like not getting involved may be the better play. Short term "gain" of having McCarthy associated with a ignominious historical first just seems like very little pay-off in view of potential down-the-road headaches (e.g. even less willingness to negotiate in the future).

Or am I missing something?

[zetroc]

McCarthy did not do himself any favors with the Democrats by calling for Biden's impeachment on bogus charges.

"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."

[echappist]

McCarthy did not do himself any favors with the Democrats by calling for Biden's impeachment on bogus charges.

"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."

The present situation would be more akin to one's enemy getting pummeled by a third party, and one can either join in on the pummeling or sit on the sidelines, except by joining in, one doesn't get to fully resolve the situation.

In which case, why not let one's enemy and the third party waste energy while watching from the sidelines.

Democrats don't need to do the Republicans any favors at this point. McCarthy was inept, but he buffered the Republicans from the lunatic fringe. Better to have the 8 out in the open. And these 8 are so fringe-y that Bobert and Greene did not vote with the 8. So now the 8 have to pick 1 person to replace McCarthy and get that person voted in as Speaker. How are they going to do that? You can expect at this point that all 208 Democrats will vote as a block against anyone they don't like, and anyone they don't like will be any Republican (including McCarthy) put up for Speaker. 210 Republicans voted against dismissing McCarthy. How many of those people are going to vote for any candidate that the 8 select as an alternative Speaker acceptable to them? Not all 210. Democrats only need what, 6 votes from across the aisle to defeat any candidate selected by the 8?

So I think the question here is who among the 8 is going to vote for McCarthy to be returned to the Speaker position. The 210 Republicans need 4 defectors from the 8. What is the price for each of those 4? And they all have a price. In the end, Geatz is potentially going to get left out in the cold.

I think the potential down side would be that McCarthy would be even less willing to do what he's supposed to do (e.g. let funding bills get voted on), because he might have to offer sweeteners.

Or perhaps that might be part of the calculus, to show just how badly the GOP runs the House when in control of it, all as a part of a longer-term strategy aimed at 2024 elections. While it would be somewhat cynical, at least there would be a potential material pay-off as opposed to mere embarrassment for one's political opponents.

[j44ke]

I just don't think that the Democrats want to solve anything for the Republicans. Not their job. I mean, one of the Republicans in the 8 (from SC) said the clincher for her was the unwillingness of McCarthy to work towards increased access to birth control even after he promised to do so. That's a Republican voting against a Republican speaker for not increasing access to birth control? She also says she is a fiscal conservative. And she's from South Carolina. Whacky times.

I think the better analogy is that the Republicans were already drilling a hole in the bottom of their boat and the Democrats just lent them a better drill so they could do it faster.

[j44ke]

So McCarthy has just announced he's done with being Speaker. Now the 210 are able to turn on the 8 because they can all vie for the Speaker position without violating any allegiance they had to McCarthy as Speaker. House is adjourned now until Tuesday.

[spopepro]

If some reports are to believed, there was a bit of an open line left for some Ds to rescue McCarthy’s speakership, but in the midst of those conversations McCarthy went on every platform he could blaming Ds for every slight perceived and real. I suspect McCarthy was hoping to project party solidarity after splitting his to pass the CR. This did have the effect of spiking any chance of relief.

Oh, and other reports of some Rs who got personally insulted my McCarthy in conversations about saving his speakership that caused them to switch to voting to vacate. McCarthy has always been a belligerent bully… there might be some political strategy to the Yeas today… but don’t underestimate how many just deeply dislike McCarthy.

[echappist]

So McCarthy has just announced he's done with being Speaker. Now the 210 are able to turn on the 8 because they can all vie for the Speaker position without violating any allegiance they had to McCarthy as Speaker. House is adjourned now until Tuesday.

Looks like the main point I raised is now moot.

Then again, you have people like Scalise tossing his hat into the ring, and Scalise looks quite a bit worse than McCarthy.

Thanks to everyone who has chimed in.

[j44ke]

Could someone knowledgeable comment on the recent developments?

One thing I really don't quite understand is the eagerness with which the Democrat Caucus joined in. I completely get why the Democrat Caucus might be fed up (promises not kept), but on the other hand, it's hard to understand what the pay off is, given the likelihood that any replacement might be even less conciliatory. Devil one knows and all that.

Boehner was cast in a very harsh light by some, but he seemed to be a statesman as compared to the current crop.

Or am I missing something?

Democrats don't need to do the Republicans any favors at this point. McCarthy was inept, but he buffered the Republicans from the lunatic fringe. Better to have the 8 out in the open. And these 8 are so fringe-y that Bobert and Greene did not vote with the 8. So now the 8 have to pick 1 person to replace McCarthy and get that person voted in as Speaker. How are they going to do that? You can expect at this point that all 208 Democrats will vote as a block against anyone they don't like, and anyone they don't like will be any Republican (including McCarthy) put up for Speaker. 210 Republicans voted against dismissing McCarthy. How many of those people are going to vote for any candidate that the 8 select as an alternative Speaker acceptable to them? Not all 210. Democrats only need what, 6 votes from across the aisle to defeat any candidate selected by the 8?

So I think the question here is who among the 8 is going to vote for McCarthy to be returned to the Speaker position. The 210 Republicans need 4 defectors from the 8. What is the price for each of those 4? And they all have a price. In the end, Geatz is potentially going to get left out in the cold.

[rwsaunders]

Bring back Strom Thurmond! Oh wait...he's dead and he was a Senator. Well ok then...bring back Strom Thurmond!

[72gmc]

Aside from the kind of calculus Jorn is proposing, I don’t see the point of rewarding someone who gained the speakership as he did (perhaps the most cowardly way imaginable) with a continuation. There may be no better option, but his willingness to grovel showed he was no alternative to chaos anyway.

[theflashunc]

Could someone knowledgeable comment on the recent developments?

One thing I really don't quite understand is the eagerness with which the Democrat Caucus joined in. I completely get why the Democrat Caucus might be fed up (promises not kept), but on the other hand, it's hard to understand what the pay off is, given the likelihood that any replacement might be even less conciliatory. Devil one knows and all that.

Boehner was cast in a very harsh light by some, but he seemed to be a statesman as compared to the current crop.

Specifically, I see the following scenarios as a result 1) McCarthy gets re-elected as speaker and 2) someone else is elected. Scenario 2) is the "devil one doesn't know". Scenario 1) gets us back to square 1, except with a lot more distrust.

I suppose maybe the Democrat Caucus reached this decision after it offered support in exchange for concessions, and that offer was outright rebuffed, possibly b/c McCarthy believes he'd end up back as speaker anyway. It just seems like not getting involved may be the better play. Short term "gain" of having McCarthy associated with a ignominious historical first just seems like very little pay-off in view of potential down-the-road headaches (e.g. even less willingness to negotiate in the future).

Or am I missing something?

Four fundamental reasons:

1) McCarthy's muddying the waters and downplaying the severity of January 6. Including voting against certification of the election after people stormed the building to do a coup.
2) McCarthy's continued tight relationship and subservience to Trump.

And probably most importantly:
3) Going back on the comprehensive debt limit/budget deal he agreed to in the Spring.
4) Throwing Democrats -- who bailed him out just three days prior by voting for the clean CR -- under the bus on national TV and saying it's their fault the country is as close to a government shutdown as it was.

There were no concessions they would get from McCarthy. And the GOP is the majority. Not their job to try to solve an issue that exists in the GOP caucus.

It's some weird unspoken dynamic that the GOP gets to act like children in a tantrum, and then blame the Democrats for not cleaning up their mess as the only adults in the room.

This is a GOP problem. Pelosi had a similar majority margin in her latest run as Speaker. And you didn't see any of this nonsense. Government worked just fine. When you have a party that's now built entirely on grievance and revanchism -- there's no official GOP Party Platform of policy goals, for example -- this is what you get.

[bcm119]

Could someone knowledgeable comment on the recent developments?

One thing I really don't quite understand is the eagerness with which the Democrat Caucus joined in. I completely get why the Democrat Caucus might be fed up (promises not kept), but on the other hand, it's hard to understand what the pay off is, given the likelihood that any replacement might be even less conciliatory. Devil one knows and all that.

Boehner was cast in a very harsh light by some, but he seemed to be a statesman as compared to the current crop.

Specifically, I see the following scenarios as a result 1) McCarthy gets re-elected as speaker and 2) someone else is elected. Scenario 2) is the "devil one doesn't know". Scenario 1) gets us back to square 1, except with a lot more distrust.

I suppose maybe the Democrat Caucus reached this decision after it offered support in exchange for concessions, and that offer was outright rebuffed, possibly b/c McCarthy believes he'd end up back as speaker anyway. It just seems like not getting involved may be the better play. Short term "gain" of having McCarthy associated with a ignominious historical first just seems like very little pay-off in view of potential down-the-road headaches (e.g. even less willingness to negotiate in the future).

Or am I missing something?

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

[Rich Beaudoin]

When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

I’m convinced by evidence that many people will choose ‘even worse’.

[vertical_doug]

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

You are baffled because you are thinking about this in the wrong context. It isn't really about governing. Congress has not wanted to govern for a long time. They just want the purse strings.
The endless bickering allows them to get screen time to pretend they are fighting for the constituents behalf, when in reality, that is entertainment. The rest is fund raising from donors. The democrats view this as a great opportunity to fund raise.

I think if you could see behind the curtain and the date book for many in congress you would be shocked on what they are really doing - fund raising. Scalise is a fund raiser, Jordan is a bomb thrower. The bomb thrower is just a useful idiot. Jordan has been in congress for 16 years, can you name one notable piece of legislation or accomplishment during that time? You can use wiki.
(He's just an example, but the odds are pick anyone randomnly and the result is the same.)

[j44ke]

You are baffled because you are thinking about this in the wrong context. It isn't really about governing. Congress has not wanted to govern for a long time. They just want the purse strings.
The endless bickering allows them to get screen time to pretend they are fighting for the constituents behalf, when in reality, that is entertainment. The rest is fund raising from donors. The democrats view this as a great opportunity to fund raise.

I think if you could see behind the curtain and the date book for many in congress you would be shocked on what they are really doing - fund raising. Scalise is a fund raiser, Jordan is a bomb thrower. The bomb thrower is just a useful idiot. Jordan has been in congress for 16 years, can you name one notable piece of legislation or accomplishment during that time? You can use wiki.
(He's just an example, but the odds are pick anyone randomnly and the result is the same.)

Yes, and now they've discovered a new way to not govern. Just don't elect a new Speaker. Scalise doesn't have the votes to be speaker. Why do you choose someone in caucus who doesn't even have the votes lined up from his own party to elect him Speaker? Because no one else wants to be Speaker who isn't named Jordan. These guys are busy sinking their own boat and getting stuck on an argument over how large a hole to drill in the hull. They should just pick the honorable representative from Rio de Janeiro to be Speaker.

[robin3mj]

I get the argument but I don’t understand why anyone would excoriate the Dems for sinking McCarthy as a bloc. They lined up en masse behind Jeffries fifteen times while McCarthy floundered and they actually know what they want to accomplish.

Probably overly optimistic but I’d say there’s a higher chance of Jeffries getting the gavel than Jordan. And any R who replaces McCarthy is likely to have as tenuous a hold on the position as he did.

[j44ke]

I get the argument but I don’t understand why anyone would excoriate the Dems for sinking McCarthy as a bloc. They lined up en masse behind Jeffries fifteen times while McCarthy floundered and they actually know what they want to accomplish.

Probably overly optimistic but I’d say there’s a higher chance of Jeffries getting the gavel than Jordan. And any R who replaces McCarthy is likely to have as tenuous a hold on the position as he did.

Exactly right - which is what I mean about arguing over the size of the hole to drill in the bottom of the boat. Almost all of what the Republicans are up against is self-inflicted.

[Saab2000]

They should just pick the honorable representative from Rio de Janeiro to be Speaker.

I think there may be a vote soon to expel him from the House. He has fresh felony charges.

[j44ke]

I think there may be a vote soon to expel him from the House. He has fresh felony charges.

You mean that's not an asset?

I'm kidding of course...

[theflashunc]

I'm with you, I was also baffled by the dems decision to go along with the ouster. The chances of getting someone worse than McCarthy seem high, or at least wasting a whole lot of time and not getting a spending bill signed in time. When the choices are terrible or even worse, you go with terrible.

Why don't 6 Republicans just vote for Jeffries? The Dems have been consistent who they support for speaker. And the GOP doesn't need any Dem votes to elect a speaker. This is 100% a result of GOP party dysfunction. It's not on the Democrats to solve fundamentally GOP problems.