Republicans in Disarray

[Res Ipsa]

I understand one of the major sticking points in the proposed House rules affecting support for McCarthy is over how many members are required to trigger a motion to vacate against the Speaker. The MAGA crowd want it to be one. McCarthy came down to five. Moderate Republicans are nervous that is too low. Most recently the threshold required a majority of the House.

Get the popcorn indeed.

For some reason, I thought the anti-McCarthy faction were satisfied with five. McCarthy has made a ton of promises to get votes. I think the problem is too many who don't trust him to deliver.

[Res Ipsa]

And the motion is to adjourn until noon tomorrow. Decided on a voice vote, with only a single voice voting no.

See you tomorrow....

[Res Ipsa]

Imma just be honest here. I have no idea why there’s a split, and why it’s a bad (?) thing if they can’t settle on a Speaker? I’ve never seen anything like this clown show so I just don’t get it, and I don’t even know if this is a bad thing for Americans? I’m genuinely confused by all of this.

- Doc

You're not alone. Nobody has seen this happen in 100 years.

The practical consequence is that the House can do no business -- not even set rules for the session -- until a speaker is elected. Jim Jordan can't start yelling at witnesses in hearings. No one can introduce show bills. They just keep voting until someone gets 218 votes.

Is it good? Is it bad? I have no idea. I think it's probably bad for Relief Society because it shows the emperor has no clothes. They had a great show planned for today to show that they were ready from day one to hit the ground running and rescue America. Starting with eliminating IRS employees. But they couldn't do any of it because they can't even pick a speaker. The mode of governance, especially in the house, has been "never compromise" since at least 2008. Who could have guessed that electing people who don't believe in compromise would be unable to govern?

[honorentheos]

I understand one of the major sticking points in the proposed House rules affecting support for McCarthy is over how many members are required to trigger a motion to vacate against the Speaker. The MAGA crowd want it to be one. McCarthy came down to five. Moderate Republicans are nervous that is too low. Most recently the threshold required a majority of the House.

Get the popcorn indeed.

For some reason, I thought the anti-McCarthy faction were satisfied with five. McCarthy has made a ton of promises to get votes. I think the problem is too many who don't trust him to deliver.

Gaetz has been the most vocal about it, but he also seems the least likely to vote for McCarthy regardless of the concessions he makes. My understanding is five became the tipping point between those who basically want to challenge a Speaker whenever and those who would like more stability. I imagine we will see that motion used if McCarthy actually does get the vote. And it will be used as a Sword of Damocles to keep the Speaker sweating regardless of who ultimately takes the Speaker's gavel.

[Res Ipsa]

For some reason, I thought the anti-McCarthy faction were satisfied with five. McCarthy has made a ton of promises to get votes. I think the problem is too many who don't trust him to deliver.

Gaetz has been the most vocal about it, but he also seems the least likely to vote for McCarthy regardless of the concessions he makes. My understanding is five became the tipping point between those who basically want to challenge a Speaker whenever and those who would like more stability. I imagine we will see that motion used if McCarthy actually does get the vote. And it will be used as a Sword of Damocles to keep the Speaker sweating.

I'm guessing that this would be a rules change, and so would have to be adopted by a majority of Congresscritters. It's hard for me to imagine there's a majority in the house that would vote for a rule that forced a new election for speaker based on 5 out of 435 votes. On the other hand, maybe the Ds would be happy to keep throwing the Relief Society more anchors.

[honorentheos]

Imma just be honest here. I have no idea why there’s a split, and why it’s a bad (?) thing if they can’t settle on a Speaker? I’ve never seen anything like this clown show so I just don’t get it, and I don’t even know if this is a bad thing for Americans? I’m genuinely confused by all of this.

- Doc

You're not alone. Nobody has seen this happen in 100 years.

The practical consequence is that the House can do no business -- not even set rules for the session -- until a speaker is elected. Jim Jordan can't start yelling at witnesses in hearings. No one can introduce show bills. They just keep voting until someone gets 218 votes.

Is it good? Is it bad? I have no idea. I think it's probably bad for Relief Society because it shows the emperor has no clothes. They had a great show planned for today to show that they were ready from day one to hit the ground running and rescue America. Starting with eliminating IRS employees. But they couldn't do any of it because they can't even pick a speaker. The mode of governance, especially in the house, has been "never compromise" since at least 2008. Who could have guessed that electing people who don't believe in compromise would be unable to govern?

Given the Speaker is next in line for the Presidency after the VP, it's kinda meaningful that right now we are seeing the microcosm of Republican-only rule and it looks ugly. But it matters. Whoever wins the Speaker chair is effectively head of the line in our governmental hierarchy. I often contend that the job applicant for President should be someone who has proved they can get the votes, and tomorrow we find out who has what it takes to hammer that out behind closed doors. If they fail the first vote tomorrow, it's an indisputable signal that the Republican party is unable to govern. And frankly that isn't good for the nation until it gets cleaned up.

[honorentheos]

Gaetz has been the most vocal about it, but he also seems the least likely to vote for McCarthy regardless of the concessions he makes. My understanding is five became the tipping point between those who basically want to challenge a Speaker whenever and those who would like more stability. I imagine we will see that motion used if McCarthy actually does get the vote. And it will be used as a Sword of Damocles to keep the Speaker sweating.

I'm guessing that this would be a rules change, and so would have to be adopted by a majority of Congresscritters. It's hard for me to imagine there's a majority in the house that would vote for a rule that forced a new election for speaker based on 5 out of 435 votes. On the other hand, maybe the Ds would be happy to keep throwing the Relief Society more anchors.

Yep. It is part of the rules package that McCarthy has said he'll bring to a vote as soon as the cats are herded. He supposedly has those votes but now that it turns out the cats can't be herded, who knows?

[honorentheos]

For context it is important to consider smooth operation of government engenders stability while this kind of chaos opens the door for intentional destabilizing elements to assert themselves in disproportionate ways. The Weimar Republic didn't disappear overnight...

[Vēritās]

So which side represents the RINOS and the communists?

[honorentheos]

My favorite comment I've seen was someone on Reddit:

"Begun, the clown wars have."

Perfection.