112

Republicans fail to coalesce around speaker choice, leaving House in limbo (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 8 months ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

It would have been more news worthy if they actually had managed to agree. At this point the squabbling pack of cranky toddlers masquerading as adults that are the Republican party shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. It would be funny if these absolute wastes of oxygen weren't nominally running a country.

[-] mriguy@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Their intention has never been to run the country. It is to KEEP the adults (Democrats, sane Republicans, if there are any left) from running the country and paralyze the government. If nothing can get done, then the government isn't, for example, passing laws to restrict corporate power, or make anybody's life better. The rich and powerful have no counterweight.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Look at it from a purely strategic point of view. There's no reason any smart person would want the job at this point. The Clown Team has shown that they can do exactly what they want with zero consequences, so there's no way a GOP Speaker can make any kind of deal with anyone.

[-] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 28 points 8 months ago

I wonder how long it will take for 5 or 6 Republicans from strong Biden districts to say fuck it and throw in behind Jeffries?

And is that longer than it will take the Republican conference to get their shit together and vote on a new speaker?

It seems to me like the problem the Republicans have is the Trump faction that has no interest in government functioning at all. If we assume those votes are unattainable, do they even have a majority/plurality?

Can the Speaker Pro Tempore keep the house out of session? If it's "pending the call of the chair," do they still do the daily pro forma session?

Hey, with the House like not actually running, can Biden make a bunch of recess moves? I feel like I remember Pelosi purposely keeping the House technically "in session" to cock block Trump on some things...

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

If 5 or 6 Republicans support Jeffries, they will effectively be leaving the Republican party. They are guaranteed to have a primary challenge, and lose any funding from the party. I don't think that's likely to happen, but who knows? Maybe a small group will decide they have a better chance running (I) than (R).

The Freedom Caucus absolutely is interested in governing, they just want to govern on their own terms and view any compromise as weakness. They place so little value in a functioning government that they would rather bring it all to a halt than compromise. Remember what got us here in the first place, they were ready to shut the entire government down and got mad when Kevin used Democratic votes to pass a stop-gap. They will take shutting down the House for all business as a consolation prize.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 20 points 8 months ago

The Freedom Caucus absolutely is interested in governing, they just want to govern on their own terms and view any compromise as weakness. They place so little value in a functioning government that they would rather bring it all to a halt than compromise.

That's not governing, that's ruling.

[-] TAG@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

I would be curious if a centrist Republican could work with (centrist) Democrats to gain the speakership in exchange for some key concessions, such as pledging to not follow the Hastert Rule (a rule that most Republican speakers follow, that they will block a bill that does not have the support of the majority of the majority (Republican) party even if a bipartisan majority supports it). That assumes that a lot of Democrats will trust a Republican to be bipartisan and not weasel out of their word or be pressured by their party follow partisan lines.

[-] Prox@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

There is zero reason for Democrats to throw any votes behind a Republican speaker. If the majority party can't find a leader they agree on, that's on them. Dems only need 5 Reps to back Jefferies.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Actually, the main thing that would block this at this point is that there is a Speaker Pro Tempore, and while he can't do much one of the few things he can do is keep the House in recess until a Republican has enough Republican votes to win the election.

So, even in the hypothetical case where there is a centrist Republican who can pull this off, that person will have to get Patrick to agree to open the House to hold the vote in the first place.

[-] Davel23@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago

As far as I understand it, the Speaker Pro Tempore has no power other than what is necessary to getting a new "permanent" speaker elected.

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

Like when he tried to kick Nancy Pelosi out of her office.

He had no power to actually do it. She left the office willingly because she has class, not like we can say the same thing about Mr. Speaker PRO Tempore who had a little hit of power go to his head.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah. It is basically there to provide someone to call the House in session after a decapitation strike and to be in line for President.

[-] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Not correct. They have all the same powers.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 22 points 8 months ago

Don't expect this to change until after elections. Putin's Party has a vested interest in having a broken government.

[-] PowerGloveSoBad@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

LOLOLOLOL

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Did you use an AI tool for that summary? I'd love to get access to it if so, it's the most accurate I've seen so far!

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 8 points 8 months ago

Scalise is bleeding votes.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Apparently publicly calling yourself "David Duke without the baggage" creates baggage....

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

Guess not all Republicans are ready to stop pretending they care about non-white people.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Funny thing is compared to Jordan, Scalice is the "sane" option.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

These chucklefucks couldn't lead themselves out of a wet paper bag.

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Deja Vu. 🍿

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

House Republicans were on the verge of open revolt Wednesday after the ideologically fractious conference failed to coalesce around a speaker nominee, leaving the chamber rudderless and leaderless for an eighth day.

The inability of House Republicans to agree on who will lead them has left the chamber in an effective standstill since Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted as speaker, unable to consider any legislation to aid Israel in its war against Hamas or pass any appropriation bills to avoid a potential government shutdown in mid-November.

But in a conference where emotions are raw, divisions are deep and grudges are held after the McCarthy ouster, the slight was another example of the discord that has complicated House Republicans’ ability to elect a new speaker.

Democrats have no plans to help elect either Republican candidate as speaker and instead will vote for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) as they did during the 15 rounds of balloting it took for McCarthy to win the gavel this year.

Scalise and his allies worked on tabling the motion because they knew he would win the nomination with a simple majority, and made a bet that it would be easier to coalesce around him on the House floor with the public pressure of the cameras rather than if the vote were closed.

Multiple lawmakers who attended candidate forums this past week said Jordan proposed putting forward a stopgap spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that funds the government at current levels for six months.

The original article contains 1,493 words, the summary contains 251 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Prox@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

A CR that's six months long is just a budget by another name.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

There's pressure on them to figure out something quickly with ongoing world events. That's pretty much the last thing the GOP needed to calm down divisions

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023

112 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18073 readers

3699 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News