Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

House Adjourns After Kevin McCarthy Fails Three Times to Secure Speaker Position

House Adjourns After Kevin McCarthy Fails Three Times to Secure Speaker Position

Guess it’s time for some backroom deals.

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) needed 218 votes to become Speaker of the House. He could only lose four Republican votes.

We all knew five Republicans vowed not to vote for McCarthy. We heard about a few more who were on the fence.

On Tuesday morning, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) said she would not vote for McCarthy, bringing the number to six.

Little did we know that the number against McCarthy would blossom into double digits.

The House went through three rounds.

The Democrats nominated election denier Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in all three rounds. Reps. Elise Stefanik, Jim Jordan, and Steve Scalise nominated McCarthy in each round.

Rep. Paul Gosar nominated Andy Biggs in the first round. Rep. Matt Gaetz nominated Jordan in the second round. Rep. Chip Roy nominated Jordan in the third round.

Yes, Jordan received a nomination right after he nominated McCarthy. Jordan said he didn’t want the job.

McCarthy lost 19 votes in the first and second rounds. Then he lost 20 votes in the third round.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) called to adjourn the House until tomorrow.

The House adjourned and will meet again tomorrow at 12 PM ET. I’ll set up another live blog but I won’t be able to update it as much since I have a few appointments.

Jordan also told CNN he doesn’t want to become Speaker:

Rep. Jim Jordan said Tuesday there is no chance he will become speaker of the House.

He told CNN he wants to be House Judiciary chairman, adding that he would lobby his colleagues to back GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

In a speech nominating McCarthy before the second round of voting, Jordan said he believed McCarthy was the right guy for the job and encouraged Republicans to “rally around him.”

But hardliners said they were not backing off their opposition — and, in fact, expect the opposition to grow.

“We are done with Kevin McCarthy,” said Rep. Bob Good, with Rep. Matt Gaetz echoing similar thoughts.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Gentle Grizzly | January 3, 2023 at 7:02 pm

“Tune in tomorrow…”

America wants you to step aside, Mr. McCarthy. Do it for the children.

Morning Sunshine | January 3, 2023 at 7:14 pm

so what happens if we cannot elect a speaker? Is congress stalled? Dare I hope?

What is better than no McCarthy? No one!

    healthguyfsu in reply to Morning Sunshine. | January 3, 2023 at 9:20 pm

    What kind of mental contortionism does it require to think that would be a good thing?

    The one branch outside of SCOTUS that the right has some opportunity in is stalled out. Do you really think that bodes well?

    CommoChief in reply to Morning Sunshine. | January 3, 2023 at 9:22 pm

    Maybe delayed but stalled is pretty accurate. Sooner or later there will be vote to select someone. Lots of backroom deals, promises and threats going down tonight in DC.

    Functionally, yes.

    My understanding is that they can’t consider legislation (although I believe there are some ’emergency’ provisions for individual items but I think those are HEAVILY limited in the subjects they can be used on), and that you can’t swear in new members of the House without a Speaker.

    Considering the likes of McCain, Romney, McConnell and Boehner were foisted on us by the GOPe, the GOPe can’t be too surprised we don’t want another McLoser in Kevin! McCarthy.

While it would be great to have a 25 vote margin, it is best, in the long run, getting it correct.

At least we know how many members of Congress are willing to stand up against the machine. It ain’t many.

    henrybowman in reply to geronl. | January 3, 2023 at 7:34 pm

    Stand up against it?
    You are seeing “the machine’s” membership list enumerated in real time.

    Colonel Travis in reply to geronl. | January 3, 2023 at 7:36 pm

    Exactly. The entire city needs to be burned to the ground and we start over, and that won’t happen. We’ll see the continued decline back into the Eurotrash tyranny we fled 400 years ago. And everyone can shout Donald Trump and DeSantis all day long and it neither of them can do jack shit, if by a miracle, they are ever elected.

Jake tapper is such an a$$

For reference, the longest ever quest to elect a Speaker was in 1856 and required 133 votes over 2 months.

    Paula in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 7:58 pm

    Those were the good old days.

      Yup, and a prelude to the Civil War. Amazing, but Americans from the North and South had more in common with each other than Americans on either side of the “blue and red” do today.

      All this meshugas is a prelude to the breakup of America.

      And given how shadowy and corrupt and perverted half the nation has gotten or has submitted to a culture of perversion and weirdness – and how intact the American values are in the other half – this is probably a best case scenario.

      The weird and fascistic Kathy Hochul and the treasonous and corrupt Joe Biden are perfect symbols of the we’d leave behind.

      The likes of PDJT and Ron De Santis are the shining ray of sunlight we’d be going to, leaving the left to its own, and the rino to the left.

    BobM in reply to Olinser. | January 4, 2023 at 9:55 am

    In the 1st century of the nation, it was arguable who held the more power, the president or the House speaker. The executive branch was still tiny, the constitutions provisions that all legislation MUST originate in the house was still paid more than lip service, and funding was done year to year instead of large portions entrenched and unchangeable. Harry Turtledove and other alternate history authors have fun with this, positing the House speaker as the acknowledged nation’s leader and the presidential office as largely ceremonial.

Well isnt this special

Mitch McConnell Becomes Longest Serving Party Leader in Senate History

    Olinser in reply to gonzotx. | January 3, 2023 at 7:57 pm

    What’s funny is that McConnell actually has LESS support from Senate Republicans than McCarthy does, but because of how they vote, McConnell was able to ‘win’ with a mere 37 out of 49 votes, while McCarthy is losing with 202 out of 222 votes.

      geronl in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 8:01 pm

      It’s 202 out of 435.

        Olinser in reply to geronl. | January 3, 2023 at 8:04 pm

        Democrats are not in this equation. Any Republican that got elected Speaker only through Democrat votes would end their political career.

        The point illustrated is that McCarthy actually has a lot MORE support than the POS McConnell, but McConnell sailed through his vote because he only needed a majority of Republicans, while McCarthy is stuck with the math that he needs 218 out of 222 to be Speaker.

        Democrats won’t cross without MAJOR concessions anyway, and if McCarthy were stupid enough to actually negotiate with them I think a YUGE number of Republicans would jump ship on voting for him again.

          Maybe so, but they count in deciding who the Speaker is.

          The caucus leadership is one thing, the Speakership something else altogether.

          CommoChief in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 9:30 pm

          I don’t think many of the members voting for McCarthy envisioned three successive failed votes when they showed up today. It’s possible he gives concessions to the 20 r members tonight to secure their votes.

          McCarthy has already pledged not to rely on d/prog votes to become Speaker both to the r conference and in public. It he did it would be catastrophic for him.

    In other words: the longest slap in the face/betrayal in US Senate history.

    The damage to our country done by McConnell rivals Fauci’s.

    wendybar in reply to gonzotx. | January 4, 2023 at 6:58 am

    Enjoy the fool rubbing our faces in their Trillion dollar spending bill today with Biden. Can only hope for a meteor to crash in Kentucky today.

McCarthy doesn’t have the votes, and has shown NO signs of being able to GET the votes.

The holdouts are on record with what they want guaranteed in order to vote for him, it hasn’t changed. And instead of actually negotiating, McCarthy decided to declare that he had ‘earned’ it, arbitrarily moved into the Speaker office, and ham-fistedly threatened the holdouts.

What a shock that the only vote that moved today was against him.

Either McCarthy negotiates in good faith and actually makes concessions to earn the votes he needs, or he will not be elected Speaker (unless of course the Democrats vote him in – which would spell the end of McCarthy’s political career as a Republican).

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 8:15 pm

    Just for accuracy’s sake, if and when McCarthy does “negotiate” there is absolutely no guarantee that he will do as he promises. When you get used to, as a conservative, being lied to by the Republican leadership, trust is the first thing to go.

    Subotai Bahadur

      DudeAbides in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | January 3, 2023 at 9:37 pm

      I think that is why he is basically done at this point. After his recent behavior, even if McCarthy said he were going to give them everything they wanted, I think they would just not believe him.

      McCarthy has really shot himself in the foot with his behavior the last couple days, if you asked me last week I would have said that he would be elected, after today, I will be shocked if he is elected.

    He’s showing what a nothing he is by not stepping aside. A great man would under the circumstances.

They’d have got it done on the 1st vote if Pelosi had remained speaker until the new R speaker was elected.

I have yet to see any of this never McCarthy folk enumerate a single complaint against McCarthy other than “I HATE HIM!”.

If you don’t like him get your own candidate if you can’t do that stop weaving a welcome wagon for Democrats to retain the house.

Stop weakening the speakers power we need to use it.

This is making us look ridiculous.

Democrats did not do this in 2020, and there is fantastic reason they didn’t (it is a horrible idea).

Just look at what AOC says about Pelosi; why is our side less mature than AOC?

    Danny in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 8:26 pm

    By the way the house speaker has been selected by plurality before and it is being made clear that is what the list of insurgents have in mind.

      CommoChief in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 9:40 pm

      You are way off base on this issue. Why would the 20 members currently opposing McCarthy be in favor of changing the rules from majority to a plurality? That makes zero sense as they couldn’t successfully oppose him without their 20 votes being necessary for his election as Speaker.

      The only people looking embarrassed are McCarthy and a few of his sycophants. McCarthy is viewed by many in and out of DC as a candy ass squish, card carrying member of the DC establishment. That he can’t find 218 r members of the HoR who trust him enough to support him as Speaker is his own fault.

      Losers make excuses when they lose. Winners, even during their rare defeats, accept responsibility.

        Danny in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 1:51 pm

        As far as 99% of people are concerned they couldn’t pick McCarthy or any other congressional Republican out of a lineup unless police wrote their names on their foreheads.

        What has been made to look ridiculous is the Republican Party as a whole.

        What has been defeated is the Republican Party.

        That they put it in writing that they would be fine with Jeffries as speaker says a lot.

        In practice it takes wielding political power to keep Republican defections in the house; no such power existing because we lack a house speaker and Democrats only needing 5 votes per legislation…..

        This brinksmanship is not justifiable.

        If they want a better speaker they had at least 2 months since the election to recruit a viable house speaker (as in one who isn’t backing Kevin McCarthy), and if they had a single serious bone in their bodies they would have been searching for him long before that.

        In our system the way you win is you put up your own candidates including for house speaker.

    Olinser in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 9:14 pm

    Oh look.

    Another RINO concern troll whining that we have to ‘unify’. Funny how those calls for ‘unity’ only work in one direction – when they need us to hold our noses and support whatever RINO trash they need elected.

    We heard no such calls for ‘unity’ in 2020 when Trump was up for election.

    We heard no such calls for ‘unity’ in the 2022 election when candidates won their primaries. No, then it was all publicly whining about ‘candidate quality’ and openly attacking any candidate that wasn’t GOPe approved.

    We heard no such calls for ‘unity’ when Cheney and Kizinger were out making fools of themselves and the Republican party for participating in that Jan 6th farce.

    We’re not playing this ‘unity’ BS game anymore.

    The goalposts haven’t moved here. The holdouts have made very clear and unambiguous requirements for their votes, NONE of which are shocking, and McCarthy simply refuses to negotiate on them.

    Either McCarthy will negotiate or somebody else NOT named McCarthy will negotiate and we can ‘unify’ behind them.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 9:15 pm

      You left out that your favorite dissenter, Trump himself, has called for unity behind McCarthy.

      Danny in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 9:29 pm

      In no place in that screed did you produce something you don’t like about McCarthy, or explain why you wouldn’t have your own candidate for the post, or well anything else.

      You just want to see the Republican Party destroyed because you are convinced that us being unable to select a house speaker will somehow be a great case for 2024. Your idea is insane, and that is your idea if it wasn’t you would have produced exactly what is wrong with McCarthy.

      McCarthy has made absurd concessions he really shouldn’t have already. The idea of term limits for congress is a nutcase idea because guess what?

      YOU WOULD NEED TO AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

      I am really sick of seeing adults pretend they failed to pass 5th grade civics.

        Dr.Dave in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 10:10 pm

        So what? We need new leadership that’s not part of the uniparty.

        Milhouse in reply to Danny. | January 4, 2023 at 12:30 am

        They know it would require an amendment. That’s what they want a vote on. An amendment to introduce term limits. And yes, it would require 2/3 of the house, so it would be bound to fail, but they still want to hold the vote, so why not let them?

          Danny in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2023 at 1:46 pm

          Off the top of my head

          “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

          In other words he has no authority to do that at least not without Chuck Schumer’s consent.

          The demand was just trolling; demand something they know he can’t deliver and use that as an excuse. It is bad behavior.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2023 at 3:18 pm

          In other words he has no authority to do that at least not without Chuck Schumer’s consent.

          Huh?! He (or whoever ends up speaker) doesn’t need Schumer’s consent for anything. Whoever controls the house agenda is entitled, at any time, to hold a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment. If it fails to get 2/3, it fails. If it gets 2/3 of the votes, the speaker will then send it to the senate, and if it gets 2/3 there too then it will be sent to the states. Schumer doesn’t get a say in the matter unless and until it gets to him.

      Danny in reply to Olinser. | January 3, 2023 at 9:31 pm

      By the way what is wrong with another candidate?

      If you can’t get your own candidate get out of the way. No House Speaker has never been an American thing.

      Ius Liberum Veto is a tradition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not America.

      gonzotx in reply to Olinser. | January 4, 2023 at 1:17 am

      Give him a break, he’s been busy rearranging the furniture in the office.

      Nancy left it a mess and Frank is there dusting

    txvet2 in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 9:17 pm

    “”I have yet to see any of this never McCarthy folk enumerate a single complaint against McCarthy other than “I HATE HIM!”.””

    You didn’t look very hard.

    “” “We offered Kevin McCarthy terms last evening that he rejected,” said Gaetz. “We’ve sought a vote in a first quarter of the 118th Congress on term limits. He refused. We wanted a budget from the Republican Study Committee that balances on the floor in the first quarter. He refused. We wanted the border plan that the Texas delegation put together on the floor. He refused.” “”

      Danny in reply to txvet2. | January 3, 2023 at 9:26 pm

      So they demanded he produce something into law that would require not only having the presidency and the senate but would require changing the Constitution of the United States.

      They also demand he produce things that would require the senate and presidency with fillibuster proof margins.

      Have you ever heard of a concept called trolling?

        txvet2 in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 9:39 pm

        Yes, you do it well. Anyway, you asked, I answered. The fact that you don’t like the answer is irrelevant. And, since his word is worthless anyway, it’s just as well he refused to consider any of them. Onward and upward.

          Danny in reply to txvet2. | January 4, 2023 at 1:42 pm

          Thanks for confirming you have no problems with anything McCarthy has ever done in the past otherwise you would have produced the dam issue.

          By the way if you want to go with the trolling done by never McCarthy they also demanded that they get to pick all the committee assignments.

          They demand 2 Republicans to trigger a no confidence vote

          So no they are not making reasonable demands; and demanding term limits for congress isn’t reasonable it would require changing the constitution and would make us look like nutcases.

          If their goal is to have Democrats keep the house and retain a majority of it in 2024 they are doing a fine job.

        CommoChief in reply to Danny. | January 3, 2023 at 9:48 pm

        Hold the votes, get the d/prog on record as voting against a balanced budget and term limits. There are a number of purple CD held by d/prog that could easily swing on those and similar on the recorded votes on issues ordinary people overwhelmingly want.

          Exactly! “This is what we stand for.” However, with the national debt so high, at current interest rates interest on the debt may make it impossible to ever have a balanced budget again in the history of the country.

          healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 12:51 am

          You assume the average voter actually pays attention to voting records of their representatives.

          They will vote for whoever gives them the cliff’s notes that they like the best from whatever source they trust. We are a low info country.

          healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 12:53 am

          jb,

          The budget hasn’t really been balanced since FDR.

          The accounting tricks of Newt that Clinton took credit for just did a couple of good things while moving around some money from social security etc to make the budget look balanced. Those good things like welfare reform were a move in the right direction but that budget was doomed to become unbalanced all over again.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 6:18 am

          healthguyFSU

          The average voters time and again poll in favor of both term limits and a balanced budget. Holding an an up/down vote forces members to make clear choices.

          They can choose to vote no and face the easy line of attack in their next election or vote yes and hope the Senate and POTUS bail them out.

          On the other hand several Red and Purple State Senators would face the same choice. 23 d/prog in Senate are up for re-election in 2024, many from Red States. So maybe it would be Biden last holding the bag, though he is up for re-election as well…

          Who knows it just might pass. At a minimum a very simple contrast would be created that is easily explained to less involved or aware voters in the next election cycle.

          Danny in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 1:54 pm

          The term limits would as I pointed out to Milhouse require Chuck Schumer in the senate.

          Having that as a demand was in order to make it clear they were trolling not negotiating in good faith.

          Here is the text of the constitution on the process of changing the constitution

          “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

          Note the both houses, that includes the senate.

          The balanced budget would also be self defeating because we ran major deficits every year under Trump.

          Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | January 4, 2023 at 3:22 pm

          No, Danny, all they’re asking for is a house vote on the amendment. They know it won’t pass the house, and will therefore never get anywhere near the senate. They’re OK with that.

        Milhouse in reply to Danny. | January 4, 2023 at 12:32 am

        No, they didn’t demand he produce those things; they demanded that he have the house vote on those things. The constitutional amendment would surely fail. The rest of the items might pass the house, but would surely fail in the senate. They know that, but they still want the speaker to do what is in his hands, which is to hold the vote. Why are they wrong?

    Allow me to enumerate come complaints about Kevin! McCarthy:

    He’s not a leader, he’s a hack.
    He’s part of the corrupt GOPe machine, or he wouldn’t be where he is now.
    He’s likely compromised by his corrupt past.
    He’s in bed with swamp pollster Frank Lund.
    He’s endorsed by Paul Ryan.
    He’s endorsed by John Boehner.
    He’s so dumb, he he had an extramarital affair with then-congresswoman Renee Ellmers.
    He aligned himself with Liz Cheney against Trump in 2020.
    He blamed Trump for Pelosi’s plot on January 6.
    His voice is higher pitched than Pelosi’s.

    And the number 1 complaint about Kevin! McCarthy as GOP Speaker in 2023: he’s just another Paul Ryan and Boehner.

      He’s likely compromised by his corrupt past.

      Liar. He has no corrupt past.

      He’s so dumb, he he had an extramarital affair with then-congresswoman Renee Ellmers.

      Liar.

      He aligned himself with Liz Cheney against Trump in 2020.

      Liar.

      Most of the rest of your list are either lies too, or mere meaningless blather.

        Normally, I would remove this post because it’s clearly attacking a reader/commenter and name-calling, but . . . it gets tricky when I have to leave clear lies up and remove the rebuttal. Sigh. Decisions, decisions.

          A deep flaw in the process. If you’re going to let this be a pro-Trump propaganda blog, you leave the lies and remove the rebuttals, and eventually you lose eyeballs. There are a couple of people who have been pushing you very hard in that direction. The “attacks” and “name-calling” are, (in most cases, not all) a clear result of frustration by people who see the same lies repeated endlessly day after day, even after they have been rebutted many times, with no reaction from you. It’s a tough job to balance between legitimate debate and pointless arguing, and it’s destroyed more than one blog. I could name a couple of specific very popular comments sections that were just shut down over exactly this problem.

          Solution? I don’t know. I haven’t seen anybody come up with one outside of just shutting down, and nobody wants that, even the liars. I know you can’t be a content moderator with expertise in every subject that comes up, but if you leave the lies, you have to leave the rebuttals, as long as they’re to the point. Maybe bleep out the “naughty parts”?

      You really get under someone’s
      Wrinkly scaly skin don’t you?

      Love it

      So he’s allowed the privilege to call people names
      Every. single, day….interesting… not…

      Maybe the medication shortage is taking a toll on him

      He probably could pass over in El
      Paso , Pick a bunch up in Mexico

      Just a suggestion

        healthguyfsu in reply to gonzotx. | January 4, 2023 at 1:19 am

        Pot meet kettle

        What? I don’t understand how you can seem to aspire to being the most ill-informed and mean-spirited commenter at LI.

        Why would you seek that distinction? It’s a mystery to me. (and no, I don’t “hate” you for it; I just think you are sad. Or maybe I am just sad because you used to be such a great and fun commenter here.).

      Failing to come up with something real that would disqualify him just confirms to me that this squabble is petty and stupid and that it is designed as a suicide capsule.

      By the way I have yet to see anyone come up with the answer to the question of why they didn’t find their own viable candidate? Two months since the election and if they actually wanted to stop him more time before that…..

      Jim Jordan has made it clear he does not want the job and that he is supporting McCarthy for the job.

      I also should repeat my question

      Remember what AOC said about Pelosi?

      Remember that AOC had the maturity not to have the pissing match after her personal attacks on Pelosi?

      Why can’t we have people with the maturity to put the cause first?

Oh no!

Anyway…

What a mess. Why not listen to Jordan? He will be best at Judiciary.

McCarthy will not be a leader like Pelosi. She was an autocrat, even concerning the Squad (which she agreed with), whereas he will have to share power among a more diverse caucus. He knows it. He will not stand in the way of the Republican oversight.

What do the holdouts offer that is different in practical terms? They should be more transparent.

What will be will be. What a mess.

Sorry but these people are idiots.

Let’s nominate someone who doesn’t want it because he knows it’s an awful job. Jordan is too smart to take such a lousy dead end position.

If they want to vote against McCarthy so bad, then they should nominate themselves. The truth is that McCarthy is not the best person for the job, but the job is also the worst. Getting a narrow majority to all vote together is a thankless, lousy task rife with opportunities for your opposition to swipe at all of your “failures” when the party does what we just saw. Senators are hard enough to get a majority…it’s like herding cats in the 2yr rep House and that goes for both parties. (Stop and think about some of the whack jobs in both parties that have served in the 2 yr house over the years.)

    healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 3, 2023 at 9:17 pm

    You can DV me but you know I’m right. SOTH is a terrible job…hence Jordan’s refusal to take it.

    Why don’t you tell me why you think I’m wrong? Oh that’s right…all you have is “BUT TRUMP”…oh wait you don’t even have that as he has endorsed McCarthy as well!

Oh and the surprise no votes and the no votes in later rounds are just clout chasers, so they can be on record for voting against him at least once. Once they knew it was over, they snagged some campaign bait while the getting was good.

    Technique in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 3, 2023 at 10:19 pm

    Oh my how things have changed.

    I remember not so long ago, you huffing and puffing about just letting it go and that people were all wound up about nothing, but here we are.

    Ghostrider in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 3, 2023 at 10:26 pm

    Maybe, the Republican caucus should ask Frank Lutz to host a Town Hall or better yet, a Focus Group at Kevin and Frank’s apartment with all 20 super MAGA supporters to find out what exactly the 20 holdouts want to support Kevin?

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Ghostrider. | January 3, 2023 at 10:37 pm

      I say nominate someone who isn’t a congress critter. Nothing says the SotH has to be a current member of congress.

        There are, again, rumbles of Trump. I doubt they’ll come to fruition.

          CommoChief in reply to txvet2. | January 4, 2023 at 6:20 am

          DJT would hate the job of Speaker IMO. Lots of herding cats v making executive decisions.

          txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | January 4, 2023 at 12:56 pm

          Oh, Trump wouldn’t touch that bucket of worms with a telephone pole, but that doesn’t stop a few of the cultists from dreaming.

        Pick Newt Gingrich, to serve until the Republicans can decide on someone in their caucus that they will all vote for.

        wendybar in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 4, 2023 at 7:06 am

        Thomas Massie volunteered. He would be perfect for the job. He isn’t in Congress anymore, and he would be fair.

          CommoChief in reply to wendybar. | January 4, 2023 at 8:11 am

          Massie was just re-elected in Nov to another term in the HoR. There is no flipping way he will become Speaker in this environment for the simple reason that he would oppose the crazies and grifters. Love the guy as a member and would be happier if we had a majority like him but he ain’t gonna get elected Speaker. Too honest and too sincere in his beliefs about individual liberty and in his opposition to big govt.

          amwick in reply to wendybar. | January 4, 2023 at 9:08 am

          This is a tweet from JackPosobiec

          Hearing McCarthy team willing to agree to both the provisions Tucker laid out:

          1. Release all files related to January 6 + new Jan 6 Cmte run by GOP

          2. Put Thomas Massie in charge of a new Church committee

          They will have to negotiate somehow. Maybe this is what could help.

This is the kind of thing that makes the GOP look so bad. This should have been settled weeks ago and put to bed. It should have been nothing more than walking in going through procedures voting, prying the gavel out of Pelosi’s claw, and then going for drinks. Should have never happened.

If I was an on the fence GOP congressman, I might jump over against McCarthy. I was listening to an idiot McCathy supporting congressman bitching about how a small minority was holding up the process and how McCathy with already compromising for them. It maybe me burning angry and I hope they hold out to provide that a$$hole wrong. Since McCathy is a bought congressman, why not have 15 Dems jump the fence and vote for him. That will put an end to it. Better yet, say screw it and vote for Jefferies since you will pretty much get the same thing. Stick a fork in it and call it done. Shoot, pick a conservative democrat for S and Giggles and have fun with it.

    Some Dems voting for McCarthy might be the best thing they could do to cut him off at the knees and would not rule it out.

McCarthy needs 217 votes, not 218, and if some D’s decide to leave the chamber or vote “present”, then he needs less. And, no, there won’t be a tie at 217 because the D’s won’t get more than 212 for Jeffries.

The rule is: To win, you need a majority of the votes cast. Which is different than a majority of the total # of seats in Congress. Congress currently has 434 members, not 435, because a D died.

McCarthy could get help from the D’s to win, either with a deal or if they just decide they’d rather have him than, say, Scalise. And, that help doesn’t need to come in the form of any actual votes from D’s for McCarthy. They could simply have some of their members leave the room during the next round of voting. Each D that isn’t in the room, or that votes “present”, gets McCarthy 1/2 a vote closer to the threshold of “majority of votes cast” that he needs to win.

    Having Democrat members absent themselves is clever to get McCarthy in. However, might having the Squad vote for him be more effective smearing?

    CommoChief in reply to Aarradin. | January 4, 2023 at 6:31 am

    It’s a majority of the quorum so votes as present count for the quorum. Unless members depart and/or don’t show up to vote then a successful vote requires a majority of 434.

    Explaining why they skipped out on voting for Speaker is not gonna be easy nor do members usually give up power for nothing. The other angle is the deals made to secure their current votes weren’t based on members not voting. Changed circumstances would require new deals to secure their votes under the new circumstances. You don’t usually get something for nothing in politics, very few freebies from members.

McCarthy is the one that Trump has anointed, endorsed, and enthusiastically supported for Speaker. I’m enjoying the disconnect between what Trump wants and what his most fervent followers will allow.

It does beg the question: how do Trump supporters justify their failure to support Trump’s hand-picked House Speaker? I mean, is it no longer true that his “Word” is law, that he can shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and not lose a single supporter?

The most fervent Trump supporter commenters on LI are openly flouting their godlet’s choice for House Speaker. We have to ask, at this point, how strong is the Trump base if they can’t get behind him on what should be a perfunctory vote?

    healthguyfsu in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 4, 2023 at 1:23 am

    Both lucky and unlucky for moving on in this country…neither Trump nor his cult following have a vote in this race.

    As I said in another thread, their defense mechanism is to acknowledge that they disagree but continue on as if Trump didn’t do anything to the contrary of their “movement”. Thus, it’s an empty acknowledgment.

    I can’t really blame them as they have nothing but Trump left. They’d drop one of these five in a heartbeat and make up swamp conspiracies about them if they so much as looked at Trump funny (or were even rumored to consider running against Trump for POTUS).

    Treguard in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 4, 2023 at 1:36 am

    Honestly, Fuzzy, I’m not sure what I disagree with more. Mr. Trump never could have gotten away with a murder on 5th Ave.

    (I will grant that if the Mainstream Media *reported* that he shot someone on 5th Avenue, his supporters would certainly not believe the report.)

    I also certainly do not think the appointment of House Speak is a perfunctory vote. Would you argue that there was no difference between John Boehner and Newt Gingrich?

      Oh, please. The Speaker vote is always (or has been until today) perfunctory. Are you seriously contending that it is/has not been? If so, I would love to see your evidence.

        Treguard in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 4, 2023 at 1:55 am

        I am, rather, contending that choosing a speaker is, in fact, extremely important. For better or for worse the Speaker of the House is an incredibly important position. Congress, and especially the House, is far too driven by the leader. Congress is not a parliament, but it is acting more and more like one.

        If we expect members of Congress to fall in line behind the leader (Et tu, Liz Cheney?) shouldn’t there be a slam down knock out fight over that said leadership?

        The 3rd, 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 26th, 30th, 31st, 34th, 36th and 68th Congresses all took multiple votes to elect a Speaker.

        It’s been a while but it’ not perfunctory. Perhaps interrupting business as usual is not a bad thing once in a while.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Treguard. | January 4, 2023 at 4:32 pm

      First off, neither Fuzzy nor Trump said he could have gotten away with murder but he sure thought enough about it to say he could do it and not lose any supporters. You realize that is taken from a direct Trump quote in a rally right?

      It’s certainly very telling of what he thinks of your intelligence and moral compass.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

      You wrote: “(I will grant that if the Mainstream Media *reported* that he shot someone on 5th Avenue, his supporters would certainly not believe the report.)”

      Really? And you read that “report” where? You have to know Trump literally said that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose a single voter, right? I mean, he said. it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters/ There is video of him saying this at the link. Watch it because you are seriously ill-informed.

    Mt. Fuji in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 4, 2023 at 9:18 am

    Kabuki Theater. Everything in this country is so broken it’s comical at this point. All three branches of government are broken, but the 4th branch seems to be running like a Swiss Watch.
    It does not matter who is speaker, the plans to ruin this country are baked into the mix. 90% of anyone working in DC is compromised in one form or another, including Saint Trump. I for one am tired of the congo line of cult of personality clowns that continue to drive the USA off a cliff and all the while they are smugly smiling as they count their money while sitting in their opulent mansions.

    Pretty much sums up what I was thinking the other day when I mentioned the total absence of debate here after Trump endorsed McCarthy.

Well, well, well…looks like some people have grown a spine after all. Instead of insisting that he would be speaker and running around like he was ordained he should have listened to some members who were not interested in another Swamp Creature in Cocaine Mitch’s mold. The House has gone up to 2 months without a Speaker. Considering the damage DC has done to our country I’d say that would not be a bad thing.

I don’t understand Jim Jordon nominating the RINO McCarthy.
We the people don’t want a do nothing RINO as Speaker

    txvet2 in reply to gmhunt. | January 4, 2023 at 12:05 pm

    Jordan doesn’t want the job and he doesn’t want to be the tip of the spear. He just wants to get to what he sees as an inevitable result so they can move on.

HT @jacksonboaz_

McCarthy doesn’t have the votes.
Scalise doesn’t have the votes.
Biggs doesn’t have the votes.

There’s only one man who can truly unite the Republican Party…

Neurosurgeon, Nobel Prize winner, and WWII hero GEORGE SANTOS.

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh.

NDconservative | January 4, 2023 at 11:07 am

BOB GOOD DROPS NUKE: ‘IF MCCARTHY HAD FOUGHT AS HARD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS AS HE HAS FOR THE SPEAKERSHIP, WE WOULD BE HAVING A VERY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW’
https://mediarightnews.com/bob-good-drops-nuke-if-mccarthy-had-fought-as-hard-for-the-american-people-over-the-years-as-he-has-for-the-speakership-we-would-be-having-a-very-different-discussion-right-now/

I’ll work to be civil and constructive in response to everyone here.

Healthguyfsu says, “Getting a narrow majority to all vote together is a thankless, lousy task rife with opportunities for your opposition to swipe at all of your “failures””.

In response: Ms. Pelosi managed to do all that with a four-vote majority. What the dissenting Pubs want is a Speaker who has the leadership skills, trust, and gravitas to do for the Pubs what Ms. Pelosi did for the Democrats. Set aside for a moment Ms. Pelosi’s odious politics — what she did was corral a diverse caucus and got them to vote to sustain their majority, each and every time. Now of course that’s easier for the Dems; the Dems understand that in the end they vote as they’re told to vote. It’s part of their DNA.

But the holdout Pubs see Mr. McCarthy in lacking the leadership skills and trust, and that’s why they don’t want him. They understand that in the end he won’t be able to LEAD.

Milhouse is incorrect: while the holdouts want votes (true), the votes themselves aren’t the issue. The demand for these votes is a litmus test to see if Mr. McCarthy will include the Freedom House Pubs in the caucus deliberations, and Mr. McCarthy’s refusal shows that he won’t. He’s not a leader they can trust.

Danny challenges us to name specifics on Mr. McCarthy’s failure on this or that piece of legislation. The specifics are irrelevant; the issue is leadership. Kevin McCarthy can’t get the caucus to rally behind him because some significant number (a number > 5) don’t believe what he says or that he’ll keep his word.

Here again, the Dems are instructive: a good Dem keeps his word. When he’s bought, he stays bought. There’s a certain clarity to that.

Mr. McCarthy doesn’t have that clarity. He’s regarded by some number of his caucus as a weasel, as someone who will say and do whatever it takes at the moment, and then repudiate it all later. You might say, Ms. Pelosi did all that as well, but watch her in action: she always, every day, had the skills to make it look like she was still bought and had stayed bought. Mr. McCarthy can’t do that.

Mr. McCarthy is not a leader. He was acceptable as Minority Leader but Speaker requires a higher level set of skills (as Mr. Gingrich found out). Mr. McCarthy simply doesn’t have those skills.

    “”Here again, the Dems are instructive: a good Dem keeps his word. When he’s bought, he stays bought.””

    Well, there are Manchin and Sinema……

    healthguyfsu in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 4, 2023 at 12:18 pm

    You are right in response to my comment (and yes it’s easier for Dems) but Pelosi never moved up. Gingrich, Ryan, Boehner, etc. they were all tossed aside. I get that many of them are hated among conservatives but that swamp machine spoken about didn’t exactly take care of them did it?

    This is why no one worth a damn wants the job. It’s a one way ticket to either DC purgatory or out of office. McCarthy is not great but it’s a place he can be stuck and handled. 5,10, even 50 reps are not going to change the bloc, even if their most trusted poster child were elected SOTH. If you want real change then more of those type of reps must be elected. The SOTH is not going to change that one way or another. You need about 100 reps united to make any dent.