Image 01 Image 03

House Republicans Fighting Over How to Elect a New Speaker

House Republicans Fighting Over How to Elect a New Speaker

The chaos!!!

Dear House Republicans: Don’t forget how many times the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot because they changed the rules.

Rule changing might do that to the Republicans in the future if the House Republicans change how they elect a House speaker.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan are running for the position.

The winner needs 98% of the Republicans to vote for him.

Neither man has the 217 votes needed to succeed. The number is 217 because of two vacant House seats.

Some members want former Speaker Kevin McCarthy back with the gavel, which will complicate matters.

Need a bigger headache? The House Republicans started fighting over rule changes.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) wants an amendment to temporarily raise the threshold to a 217 House majority, not just within the GOP.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said no way:

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA, sent a letter to colleagues on Tuesday evening calling that proposal “an absurdity on its face.”

He pointed out in a letter to colleagues that the existing rules on removing a speaker — a process which can be triggered by just one member — still means that Republicans’ “choice may be removed by any five of them with a grievance, and every member must accept their decision.”

“This is childish despotism and utter nonsense. Why are we still entertaining it?” he said.

But McClintock offered an “amendment to House GOP rules that would expel a member from the conference if they cast a House floor vote that goes against the conference position on procedural issues like the speaker vote, rules changes and other measures.”

One House Republican lamented, “It’s strangely a worse circumstance than we have now even though it’s well intentioned.”

Scalise and Jordan made their last pitches to the House Republicans on Tuesday night.

The internal election should happen on Wednesday.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It amazes me that folks are somehow surprised that 220 politicians who represent vastly different CD with constituencies that are not clones of each other, as opposed to many d/prog CD, may not agree on a unanimous choice for Speaker on the first vote. Give it a couple days it isn’t a big deal, by Monday we will almost certainly have a new Speaker. Meanwhile the various committees of the HoR can go ahead with their work.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2023 at 9:39 am

    Correct Chief

    I would prefer the “chaos” associated with a consensus vote for SoH than a lockstep Democrat method of installing the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

    But it should be the Republicans who select the SoH without needing Democrats. They would never allow R to select their speaker.

    Our forefathers were brilliant when they created a contentious Republican form of government system that requires consensus as opposed to a democracy.

    We should all relax and let the process work. It’s not like the democrats in the past didn’t have these issues.

    I like Scalise and Jordan.
    Scalise has cancer.
    I don’t know either, but I don’t think either are jerks.
    My GUESS, there will be one vote to see who has the most. Then they will work together.

    Scalise will probably be SoH, but Jordan will be prominent.

Tom McClintock is an idiot. Presumably the constituents of those that McClintock wants to punish are OK with their votes. This just encourages the people to leave the caucus and eventually lead to a third party. Who does he think he is John Wayne?

As for 217 votes, I thought it was already of all members. Otherwise why nominate Jeffries.

I thought they would be voting on it today in Congress. I understand some delay but this seems excessive.

As I type this they are live streaming the caucus meeting. Which means they are pointing a camera at a door, and occasionally someone comes out and says something. WTF?

Scalise won and is now the Speaker. Jordan conceded graciously. Now cnn and msnbc can stop using “Chaos” every time they talk about the House.

    CommoChief in reply to inspectorudy. | October 11, 2023 at 3:39 pm

    Not quite. Scalise got the majority of the votes in the GoP caucus. The floor vote to select the Speaker is still to come. At least one GoP HoR member has already hinted he wouldn’t support Scalise on the initial vote. IMO, Scalise will become the next Speaker but not just yet. Jordan has graciously offered to place Scalise name into consideration which should quell the majority of any dissent in the voting to come.

I love the overheated doom and gloom from the MSM. “Stupid Republicans, leaving the House speakerless just when tensions in the Middle East are flaring up!” Frankly, that’s probably saved us from at least one knee-jerk over-reaction already, it couldn’t have come at a better time. Besides, the legislature is the wrong theatre for this action anway.

What you really need at this time is a president, and nobody at the MSM wants to remind us we are essentially president-less also, which is way more important.

Redpilled liberal Naomi Wolf does, though:

I was struck that President Trump, whom I have been taught to hate, was welcomed incredibly warmly by religious Jews at a speaking event which I attended; these were Jews who remembered Europe, remembered the pogroms, remembered the time when “in every generation they rise up to destroy us”…

…what is so weird and degrading to Jews — and to Americans, and Israelis — about America’s current reaction to the attack on Israel. Under ordinary circumstances, upon hearing of an attack of that kind, the US President would immediately give a resounding speech, emphasizing in the strongest possible terms America’s support for Israel, and would also use language to de-escalate the tensions. We got a statement of “support” on Tuesday the 10th. The President said “when Congress returns” he would ask for other help: “”When Congress returns, I’m going to ask them to take urgent action to fund the national security requirements of our critical partners,” he said.”

Under ordinary circumstances, the White House would not be blithering about for several days, merely phoning Netanyahu over “the holiday weekend,” and then issuing weak, equivocal statements about “any country’s” right to defend itself in general.

Under ordinary circumstances, the Secretary of State would be meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister in Israel the next day. If Israel itself was not safe — the two would meet somewhere — like, now.

It is almost five days after the attack and at last we are treated to a scene of Tony Blinken finally ambling onto a plane. His website explains that he intends to travel to Israel (and then at once to Jordan, sensitively enough) to “condemn terrorism” and “reiterate his condolences.” “The Secretary will reiterate his condolences for the victims of the terrorist attacks against Israel and condemn those attacks in the strongest terms.  The Secretary will also reaffirm the United States’ solidarity with the government and people of Israel.”

Every officially stated purpose of his visit is merely ceremonial and symbolic.

Hamas must be super scared!