Skip to content

It’s time for Republicans to ask for Democratic help

I'm catching up on the news, and I see that Steve Scalise has dropped out of the race to replace Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House.

I think this is wise, but not for political reasons. As someone who's been through chemotherapy for multiple myeloma, I know that it gets worse as it progresses. Scalise was diagnosed with multiple myeloma a few weeks ago, and while he may feel OK now, in a few more weeks he's likely to start feeling pretty awful. Everyone responds to chemo differently, but I sure wouldn't recommend taking on a stressful new job in the middle of it.

Politically, it's a different story. After winning the Republican nomination for speaker—by a bare 113-99 vote—Scalise eventually concluded that he had no chance of winning the 217 votes necessary to actually become speaker. The problem is that no one else does either. It takes only five votes to torpedo a candidate, and no Republican can come close to winning all but five votes.

So now what? Even Republicans are starting to admit their party is so muddled that they have no choice: they have to ask for help from Democrats. As long as Democrats cast all their votes for their own leader—which is traditional—Republican candidates need 217 votes to win. But if Ds vote present, a Republican can win with only a majority of Republican votes—which Scalise already has. Alternatively, a "Gang of 217" Ds and Rs could get together and agree on a compromise candidate.

Until something like this happens the House is paralyzed. Without a speaker they can't vote on anything—not budgets, not aid to Israel, not so much as a post office renaming. And as long as the House is paralyzed, America is paralyzed. Something has to give.

96 thoughts on “It’s time for Republicans to ask for Democratic help

  1. Murc

    Even Republicans are starting to admit their party is so muddled that they have no choice: they have to ask for help from Democrats.

    They're not actually admitting that yet. They're close, but they're not there yet.

    Let's go to Rep. Mike Rogers, Armed Services Chair:

    “They put us in this ditch along with eight traitors,” the Alabama Republican said, referring to hardline GOP dissidents who toppled Speaker Kevin McCarthy last week. “We’re still the majority party, we’re willing to work with them, but they gotta tell us what they need.”

    That's a hell of a statement. He starts off blaming the Democrats for "putting us in this ditch," and then makes a demand that WE come to THEM and tell them what we need. That's not asking for help. That's an insult, followed by framing the issue as "we expect the Democrats to approach us; it is not for us to approach them."

    I consider myself pretty jaded but even I'm shocked at how the Republicans are essentially demanding the Democratic Party save them from themselves, and the enormous tantrums they're throwing rather than doing what sensible folks would do, which is approach the Democrats with an ask and with concessions, and open negotiations. It's like their brains can just about handle the Democrats asking them for something, but completely shut down at the prospect of needing to ask Democrats for anything at all, and so they have to reframe a situation where they need to do the latter as actually being the former.

    1. D_Ohrk_E1

      GOP representatives on possibility of bipartisanship choice:

      Maria Salazar - "we’re open to anything that’s reasonable."
      Don Bacon - "in the end a bipartisan way may be the only answer because we have 8-10 people that do not want to be part of the governing majority."

      Chip Roy - "Yeah, that’s not gonna happen."

      I think the majority of Rs just don't give a damn about bipartisanship, making the reverse more likely.

      Come to an agreement to elect a moderate Democrat to Speaker with moderate R support with a promise to let Rs keep all but 2 committee chairs, the exceptions being Gym Jordan and James Comer, and letting the Biden impeachment inquiry die on the vine naturally, aka die in committee.

      1. bouncing_b

        The impeachment inquiry is going nowhere. It will only be an embarrassment to them. Not worth being part of what we bargain for.

        I'd say we want two things:
        - Ukraine aid
        - Stick to the debt ceiling deal _they_voted_for_ in May.
        These should be easy for the moderate Rs to agree to. They generally support Ukraine aid, and the majority of Rs voted for the debt ceiling compromie.

        1. Joel

          "- Stick to the debt ceiling deal _they_voted_for_ in May."

          The deal they subsequently reneged on? That deal? You want Ds to play Charlie Brown to the R's Lucy football again? LOL!!

          1. jte21

            Well, that same "treasonous" minority is the one that forced McCarthy to scuttle the debt ceiling deal. The point is, if there is a speaker in place whom they have no power over, and who can actually muster votes to get things done, there's no hostage taking.

          2. KenSchulz

            Yes. The GOP reneged, that deal is dead. When and if the Republicans come with hat in hand, the Democrats need to get more than promises.

            1. bouncing_b

              You're probably right. It's unlikely for all the reasons mentioned above and below.

              But the question here is what possible deal could the Dems make with a few R "moderates" who want to break the lock of Gaetz et al. What could we ask for that they might be willing to give, and that we really want?
              Ukraine and fiscal stability - so Biden could accomplish some things - would be my price.
              Remember we're talking about people who voted for the debt ceiling deal. They hate Gaetz almost as much as we do (maybe more).

        2. different_name

          They need to give up more than that.

          There needs to be some form of power sharing.

          And there needs to be a symbolic smack on the nose, like Pelosi gets her office back, or Gym Jordan wears clown shoes whenever he's on the floor.

          And van Orden is allowed to speak only after showing his AA meeting attendance card.

            1. KawSunflower

              Free copies of the video to all of the Senate pages & access to the live event for those who wish.

              If anyone in either the House or Senate objects to Fetterman's wardrobe, or other instances of lack of decorum, or full business attire, reprimand Jordan, Sinema, & maybe Boebert & Greene. And haven't since ither Rs used foul language either inside the Capitol in shouting matches or outside on the steps? They're a tiresome & sickening bunch of hypocrites. But there are more important issues, so guess your excellent suggestion & any of mine would seem too petty.

          1. D_Ohrk_E1

            Maybe.

            But all of the Republicans who jump ship will lose their jobs so they're already sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the country and to a lesser extent, Democrats.

            IDK how much more you can ask of them.

            1. bethby30

              We could ask them to sacrifice their jobs for our democracy. That is what some Democrats did when they voted for the ACA. Congress expects our kids to risk their lives for our democracy yet a lot of those tough guy Republicans refuse to risk theirs for it.

    2. Altoid

      Deep down they believe that a *numerical* majority who have R after their names entitles them to a *governing* majority and have a hard time accepting that absolutely nothing happens without 217 votes, period. The number of Rs on the roster isn't what counts; it's the number of votes *for* someone or something specific. Their own party divisions have moved us all into a different world, where the numerical majority doesn't mean what it used to or what they want it to. They need to wake up to vote counting.

      Plus, the eminence grise lurks over them and he's dead serious about actively grinding everything to a halt. It's the usual trump MO-- push people to the breaking point, force them to the binary choice of siding with him or opposing him in every conceivable circumstance. He's absolutely desperate to force a chaos caucus speakership, anything to create chaos, slow down the prosecutions (as he thinks), whatever might give him a shadow of a chance of holding on until next November so he can claim he won. It's January 6 by other means for him.

      He could care less about what that would do to members in vulnerable seats, who need to keep their distance from him and for whom Jordan is electoral poison, or to the R majority. It's all about what he thinks might get him past the current jam, for the moment. They all know this. And are getting immense pressure from him and his people. I think that's what Scalise sees.

      The only way out of this that I can see is for a decent-sized group of them, say 20 or 30, to leap off the cliff together as either "Honest-to-God Republicans" who have kept the True Faith, unlike the Jordan faction, or as some kind of informal centrist caucus that will cooperate with the Dems. Something along those lines seems more likely to me than just voting for Jeffries or outright crossing the aisle.

      There's immense pressure on them-- which is their problem because this is the line of work they chose, so no sympathy on that score-- but it's why I think they'll seek safety in numbers. That's after they truly understand that the party label matters not a whit in forcing votes; it's all about getting to 217 right now.

    3. Mitch Guthman

      The Republicans aren’t expressing a need to accept help (in the form of compromise) but rather they seem to be demanding that Democrats submit and surrender to them in the interest of the American people. I personally find the Republicans attitude to be repugnant and totally unacceptable. I hope the Democratic leadership lets the Republicans twist in the wind.

  2. cld

    Conservatives, foundationally, do not believe that anyone but themselves have any legitimacy whatsoever so anything that is, or even seems like, a compromise is contemptible to them.

  3. Justin

    Scalies wears a mask in public due to his illness. No way he can be the face of the Republican Party in congress. I hope we get that shutdown in November and that it lasts a long time. But I suspect we’ll have a deal and by Christmas no one will even remember what happened or notice the cuts. They never do.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      Scalies wears a mask in public due to his illness. No way he can be the face of the Republican Party in congress.

      He might consider switching to a bed sheet.

  4. royko

    I've been saying that if a subset of Republicans want/need to form a governing coalition with Democrats, it should be a true coalition. Those Democrats should have a say in choice of speaker, and they should be considered part of the majority, while Republican hold outs would not. I don't see that happening, but that would be a truly fair compromise. There is no good reason for Democrats to vote for a Speaker that will treat them as a minority party and give them no power.

    As it is, I'm willing to settle for a less reasonable compromise that maintains agreed upon spending levels, keeps the government running through 2025, with no assinine Republican shenanigans, mostly keeping the status quo. I'm not even sure Republicans will offer that.

    1. spatrick

      If we still had actual liberal and "moderate" Republicans around (not just conservatives who don't seem quite so conservative because some Republicans have driven off a cliff) they would have been done weeks ago. Hell, McCarthy probably wouldn't even been elected Speaker if the House was like it was even back in the 1990s.

  5. Yehouda

    Talking about House Republicans should do is a waste of time, because House Republicans stopped regarding "what is the right thing to do" as a guide for their actions long time ago.
    You need to think of them as amoral people acting solely in their own self-interest, without concern with right or wrong.

    1. zaphod

      They have proved this over and over. This is the way I expect they will continue to act. I don't expect that they will prove me wrong.

  6. bbleh

    Until something like this happens the House is paralyzed. Without a speaker they can't vote on anything—not budgets, not aid to Israel, not so much as a post office renaming.

    And big chunks of the House Republicans and of their supporters, and very importantly the multiply-indicted leader of their party, are perfectly fine with that. They don't want the House, or the larger government, to function. And when it doesn't function thanks to their incompetence and sabotage, they turn around and complain that it's bad because it can't function.

    It's really important to understand that a significant fraction of the Republican electorate, and now of their Congressional representatives, have all the maturity and wisdom of a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum. They're smashing things because they want to and that's the end of it. The idea of a functioning government, let alone their working toward one, barely enters their minds at all.

    1. Altoid

      Agree, this paralysis suits a lot of Rs and their voters down to the ground. I think we need to recognize, though, that they're drawing a huge amount of energy for that position from the Mango Mussolini, and it's a little different game for him. It's short-term-- he demands that all members with R after their names have to do what he wants, and what he wants is for them to bring legal actions and investigations of him to a complete stop.

      He sees that there's a numerical majority of Rs in the House, and for him that means they should rule, for his sole benefit. Stasis like we have now is almost as good for him as getting the lock-step caucus he wants-- it gives him the country, the Ukrainians, the Israelis, all as hostages. And he doesn't give a rat's ass about any of them. Which is a strong position for a hostage-taker.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      And big chunks of the House Republicans and of their supporters, and very importantly the multiply-indicted leader of their party, are perfectly fine with that. They don't want the House, or the larger government, to function

      Yes. That was always the risk in not crossing the aisle to support Kevin McCarthy. It's a decision I agree with, as it happens: he had given them no reason over the past year (or before) to think he offered a substantive difference in quality over any other Republican, and he was apparently not willing to give Democrats anything whatsoever in terms of priorities in exchange for their votes. So for Democrats, ignoring a couple centuries of parliamentary precedent simply wasn't tenable.

      Still, here we are, with a whole lot of anarchy-loving Republicans calling the shots.

      1. lawnorder

        I don't think it's correct to say the Democrats followed precedent in voting to oust McCarthy. It's very well established precedent that in an election for Speaker, each party votes for one of its own. However, a motion to vacate is an entirely different animal and there have been so few of those in the history of the US that there is no meaningful precedent.

        I'm not saying the Democrats were wrong to oust McCarthy; he thoroughly deserved it, but that vote didn't "follow precedent".

    1. Austin

      If by “Independent” you mean “totally oblivious to any political news whatsoever,” then you’re correct. Independent really does mean Politically Ignorant in America… anybody else who actually pays any attention to politics develops an opinion pretty quickly.

      1. lawnorder

        One of the reasons people may be informed independents is because they agree with one party on some issues and the other party on others. For instance, I can certainly understand why small government conservatives would be very unhappy with some Republican policy positions, for instance on abortion and on cannabis legalization, without necessarily being enthusiastic about Democratic positions on other issues.

        I've been in that position; I'm not any more because modern Republicans have drifted so far into lunatic territory that I don't agree with them on anything any more, while the Democrats have become much less enthusiastic about using government to interfere in people's personal lives than they used to be.

  7. ProbStat

    If there are 8 Trumpublican Representatives who voted to remove Qevin McQarthy from the Speakership -- and he might very well STILL be the Trumpublican with the most support -- maybe the focus should be on finding 6 Trumpublicans who are willing to vote for Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker, or a slightly larger number to are willing to abstain one way or another to elevate Jeffries.

    Or they could find another Democrat whom the Democratic caucus would unite behind and who could get Trumpublican support.

    That might be an easier task than the Trumpublicans both overcoming internal opposition and finding Democratic support sufficient to elevate one of their own.

    But of course Trumpublican dogma holds that Democrats are Satan incarnate, so it probably can't happen.

  8. Special Newb

    Ah Scalise. If only that guy had better aim.

    And that should tell you all you need to know about my take on the situation.

  9. skeptonomist

    Most individual Republican House members will make the decision whether to compromise with Democrats on the basis of their own chances in the next election, not on the basis of the benefit to the nation or even their own party. Are there enough Republicans in districts carried by Biden, or who would face no credible primary threat, to make up a majority with Democrats? Can they do without the support of the Republican party and its donors? Do they have their own donors who might actually have the interests of the country at heart?

    The pressures may change if there is a shutdown. But anyway the people to keep your eye on are the Republicans in swing districts, not the party leaders and extremists who usually dominate the coverage.

    1. jte21

      In a normal world, those would be reasonable political calculations. But the only primary threat most Republicans face is from the *right*, which discourages any gestures towards bipartisanship or compromise. And independent candidates don't really have any shot in most House districts. If any Rs in Biden districts decide to work with Dems to elect a compromise speaker, they might as well announce their retirement at the same time. They won't be running again.

      1. Altoid

        The situation can be a little different in states that have jungle primaries, like CA's, but then there are the death threats against them and their staffs and families to consider too. In light of the current shit-show, though, it wouldn't be surprising to see at least a few of the ones in marginal or Biden districts back out from running, even this close to the next election. Whether that might then incline them to compromise is anyone's guess. It would only take a handful, a literal handful.

    2. OldFlyer

      So for the vast majority of folks running the most powerful planet on earth, the number one consideration is- “Will this help my reelection ?” Might be okay, except representing Main St has long given way to representing K Street. No problem, just a quick rewrite - “that government of the dollar, by the dollar, for the dollar”

      Yeah! That’s the ticket! We are so screwed 🙁

      1. Yehouda

        "So for the vast majority of folks running the most powerful planet on earth, the number one consideration is- “Will this help my reelection ?”"

        That is the pink-glassesview. Actuallt they are worried about their own and their family safety. That is what is stopping Republicans from cooperating with Democrats, not political considerations.

    3. Doctor Jay

      The only way I see that working if 6 or so, maybe more, Republicans switch caucus, switch parties and get financial support pledged from the DCC. They make Jeffries Speaker, and perhaps they get to veto a couple of things. Jeffries will not agree to the one person motion to vacate, I expect.

      However, it's not time for that. They will have to get a lot more frustrated before that happens. I think it's more likely that they will try Jim Jordan as Speaker than do that.

      1. erick

        Yeah 6 or so Reps in districts Biden won need to realize they are going to lose the next election and decide they want to spend the year they have left actually governing. Go independent and caucus with the Dems. They’ll likely still lose their next election but they can at least maintain some dignity and actually do something for their constituents. They also might still have a future in state politics that way.

  10. J. Frank Parnell

    Is anyone really surprised that the party of narcissistic sociopaths turned out to be full of narcissistic sociopaths?

  11. jte21

    Scalise stepped back because he realized he couldn't get to 217 w/o Dem votes and wasn't willing to take that step. That's the quandary R's are in now: they can't elect a speaker on their own because their caucus is too bitterly divided and they can't approach Democrats about a compromise candidate because anyone who goes along with that is DOA in the next primary (or possibly just dead, given the violent proclivities of the MAGA right). Gerrymandering's a bitch, ain't it?

    This is no way to run a country.

    1. Art Eclectic

      Yeah, they totally did this to themselves. Now that the crazy caucus has taken a scalp, they aren't about to back down. Their dream of burning it all to the ground is just a few weeks away. They were denied a government shut down last time and they won't be denied one again.

      The ultimate problem is the public support. There are enough voters out there who think the country is going to hell in hand basket and needs radical change to keep this cluster going for quite some time.

  12. rick_jones

    In other news, Steve Scalise, the #2 Republican in the House, has announced that he'll be running for Speaker. I fully support his candidacy. It's about time that people with multiple myeloma had some representation in our nation's highest offices.

    https://jabberwocking.com/no-democrats-shouldnt-have-helped-kevin-mccarthy/

    It would seem Kevin’s “full support” didn’t even last two weeks ….

    I think this is wise, but not for political reasons. As someone who's been through chemotherapy for multiple myeloma, I know that it gets worse as it progresses. Scalise was diagnosed with multiple myeloma a few weeks ago, and while he may feel OK now, in a few more weeks he's likely to start feeling pretty awful. Everyone responds to chemo differently, but I sure wouldn't recommend taking on a stressful new job in the middle of it.

          1. rick_jones

            I've seen Kevin cross the proverbial aisle plenty of times and could see the fraternity of cancer making him willing to overlook much.

  13. Joseph Harbin

    Any speaker, whether elected on a party-line R vote or with help from Dems, is doomed if the one-member motion-to-vacate rule stands.

    The rule gives Gaetz et al. effective veto power over any legislation that might pass with D votes (inc. election of speaker). McCarthy was axed for nothing more than allowing a vote on a 45-day CR. Do you think the next guy is going to actually get real business done? What the House needs to do is a) pass a budget, and b) pass an aid package (Ukraine, Israel, maybe Taiwan). No speaker can get those done with R votes alone. If D votes provide the margin, the speaker will lose his job. No sane rep would want the job while Gaetz is effectively calling the shots.

    Getting rid of the rule is the main thing. Then any functionary can get the minimum done. But how do you get rid of the rule? I'm not sure it can be done.

    Normally, the chaos that will ensue would put pressure on the players to work out a compromise. But in this case, the chaos seems to be the point. Who is willing to cede power to avoid chaos & pain when chaos & pain was the goal in the first place?

    1. spatrick

      Big difference the next time is whoever is the next Speaker, if they're elected by Dem votes, they will receive them when the vote on that motion takes place.

      Unlike Kevin McCarthy.

    2. Yehouda

      A possible approach for the Democrats to achieve some of these is to say something like:

      We suggest that we vote for X (a Republican) as a Speaker specifically to pass Y resolution (e.g. help to Ukraine) and then resign, and we call all Republicans that support Y to join.

      At worst, no Republican will join, so Democrats will have a proof that they don't support Y.

      You don't need to worry about this Speaker doing anything else, because you just vacate him in this case. So there is no question of trust.

      Probably good idea to first pass Y in the senate.

  14. Honeyboy Wilson

    Are at least 5 republicans willing to vote with all democrats to elect Liz Cheney the next Speaker? If not, let them continue to twist in the wind a while longer.

  15. Salamander

    The trouble, is, how can Democrats even negotiate with Republicans anymore? Their track record of delivering is ... extremely negative. Democrats could demand equal membership on all or most of the important Committees, leadership of selected ones (Justice, anyone?) ... but those things could not be granted until after the (assumed) Republican Speaker was elected and confirmed.

    And, at that point, he would have zero incentive to follow through. Get what you want and then don't pay. What can Democrats due, sue him?

    No, the Republicans will have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, man up, take personal responsibility.

  16. erick

    There are two problems with this.

    1) Democrats can’t trust Reps to keep any deal

    2) the same thing that is wrong with all “the Dems should have voted for McCarthy” takes. Any Rep who becomes Speaker via Democratic votes is a dead man walking and even more hostage to the lunatic fringe than McCarthy was before.

    1. jte21

      Any Rep who becomes Speaker via Democratic votes is a dead man walking and even more hostage to the lunatic fringe than McCarthy was before.

      Not necessarily, if that bipartisan majority can hold together and protect him/her from vacate motions. The reason Gaetz was able to do what he did was because McCarthy insisted on getting elected with only Republican votes and had to make insane promises, like a one-person motion to vacate, to get there. A consensus Speaker candidate, with enough Dem votes, could theoretically put rules in place that would effectively freeze these idiots like Gaetz out and get business done under regular order.

  17. ruralhobo

    I've been saying the GOP will break into two for so long now I can't take myself seriously anymore, but what else is there? I realize courage fled the House with Kinzinger and Cheney but if thirty members bolt at the same time they should be all right.

    1. jte21

      Yeah, I don't see how the GOP continues as a coherent political organization for much longer. Their Führer is almost certainly going to be stripped of his business assets and then -- eventually -- sent to prison. At that point, someone or some group is going to come along and try to start up a new center-right, reality-based conservative party and banish the batshit MAGA right cultists to the outer rim. That will probably be a generational battle, but one that will have to be fought. There will certainly be pretenders for a long time claiming to be Trump redidivus picking up the (cheap, weathered) MAGA banner, but I don't think they'll get much traction.

      1. Mitch Guthman

        The question is whether the billionaire lunatics who own the Republican Party would ever accept a center right party. And I honestly don’t see that ever happening nor do I see state Republican parties (which are basically more MAGA than anyone) being liquidated in favor of such a transition back to traditional Republican positions.

        But also, the degree of self sacrifice that would be required to return the Republican Party to its roots would be really phenomenal. And not just risking their political careers either. I think there would be a good chance of being murdered by a MAGA-killer. It difficult not to think that Paul Pelosi is very lucky to be alive and I’m not sure if I was a Republican that I’d be willing to gamble on me or my family being so lucky.

  18. Yikes

    However long this takes, my only hope is its long enough so that the general American John Q Public finally realizes that a substantial minority of the Republican party has, as its core belief, the proposition that Government is a joke.

    In the literal sense. As in, "I don't care if Government shuts down."

    And the words "I don't care" in that sentence are also not by way of illustration, or by way of literary emphasis. They. Really. Don't. Care.

    This same group by the way, uses "government" and "liberals" interchangeably. So as far as I can see hatred of liberals is also a fundamental belief.

    The only thing keeping us from absolute disaster is (a) they picked 60% of the population to hate, and (b) at least 75% of the population knows that government needs to function.

    The Nazi's picked like 5% of the population to hate and engaged in quite a bit of pro government popular spending.

  19. n1cholas

    The Democrats should continue voting for Jeffries. If Republicans would like help electing the Speaker, than only about 10 have to cross over and vote for Jeffries. Those 10 could chair committees and have important assignments to keep their chaotic bunch of traitors somewhat-in-line.

    1. Chondrite23

      Mathematically correct, but I think any R who cooperated with the Ds would be savaged. There was a retired Republican house member (sorry I didn’t get his hame) on Steph’s show this morning. He thought that the only way for a coalition like this to succeed would be for a dozen or so members to switch to the Democratic Party and run as Democrats in the next election. I’m skeptical that would work. The Democrats would be skeptical of him and the Republicans would hate him (or her).

      If a dozen or so Republicans switched parties for the good of the country they’d have to expect that their public careers were over.

      For a coalition to work I think the Republicans would have to come from very safe districts. Even that sounds difficult.

      I think we are stuck with the current situation.

    1. Altoid

      But he's got the same problem Scalise had, only upside-down-- apparently at least 55 also secret-balloted that they wouldn't vote for him on the floor, so 217 is out of reach. But Jordan, unlike Scalise, is Mango Mussolini's man, so McHenry decided to recess over the weekend and give Mango and his people a chance to work over the never-Jordanites and make them offers they can't refuse.

      At bottom this has turned into trump's new coup, taking full control of the House R caucus and getting it to hold the country hostage until he gets let out of his legal troubles. And maybe just declare him president by acclamation while they're at it-- why even bother with that silly election crap . . .

  20. Dana Decker

    KD: "Without a speaker they can't vote on anything ..."

    Says who? The Constitution only has this: (Article 1 section 2)

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    That it! There is no mention of the Speaker's or other Officers' powers, duties, or restrictions. It's simply a label attached to one person, AND NOTHING MORE. And don't get me started on what's "implied" because that's the road to ... whatever the hell you want.

    I am NOT interested in what the Speaker's role came to be - since that isn't firmly defined in the Constitution. I've scoured the Internet and pretty much all I read is that the House needs a Speaker - without explaining why. It's presented as a fact. It isn't.

    1. lawnorder

      One of those Constitutional provisions says the House makes its own rules, which it has done. The House's Rules say that nothing except electing a Speaker can be done without a Speaker, including changing the Rules. They're in a Catch-22; they can't change the Rules without a Speaker and they can't get a Speaker without changing the Rules.

      1. Dana Decker

        Thank you for that clarification. I think it's unwise to have it so inflexible and, as you put it, "a Catch-22".

        BUT, I took a superfast scan of the Rules of the House of Representatives (118th Congress, 60k words) and did not encounter any mention of how the Speaker is chosen. There is text about choosing a Speaker pro Tempore and a "list" of pro Tempores, but nothing about how the Speaker chosen. Maybe I missed something but a text search for "Speaker" or "elect" didn't find anything that dealt with choosing a Speaker.

        So where's the Catch-22? Is it in some other set of rules?

        BTW, the Rules are very Speaker-centric. Speaker manages House functions, bill procedures, assignments, and so on. As written in the Rules, it's difficult to do anything without a Speaker. My interest is getting a Speaker, and I don't care how. I'm not seeing things like "a majority of the Representatives present in the chamber" or words to that effect. Just for fun, where is the restriction AGAINST rank voting?

        1. Altoid

          The GPO publishes a downloadable compilation of rules and precedents called _House Practice_. Speaker election is covered in chapter 34. The compilation is a little dated because it was put together in 2011, but the vast bulk of it should still be valid.

          BTW it isn't just the rules. Precedents matter too because in parliamentary law (like in common law, somebody tell SCOTUS) how you do it the first time becomes how it's done-- precedent is considered binding practice, custom has the force of law. So the compilation pulls together both the rules and precedents.

          This should be pretty familiar to anyone with a bureaucratic background. My byzantinely-structured former university system establishes both rules and separate administrative guidelines, and I think federal agencies do something similar. Rules need to be interpreted, and that need butters a lot of bread.

          1. Altoid

            This isn't to say precedents can't be departed from, just that they're overwhelmingly followed if they can be. There were apparently two speaker elections , 1849 and 1856, where the HR went 19 days/59 ballots and 129 ballots respectively without electing one, then passed resolutions allowing plurality election (which would be a really bad precedent for today, but I think not likely to be approved the way things are now).

            There is a "necessary and appropriate" clause in the description of appointed pro tems like McHenry that might give enough wiggle room for emergency appropriations and stuff, if people are inclined that way. But the obvious comeback to that is that it would be a dangerous precedent . . .

            Also, while there's no bar to a non-member being elected speaker, there's never been one and the compilers say that the speaker is "invariably" a member. So it looks like speakers will be members, until they aren't.

              1. Yehouda

                Not obviously, becaue the Republicans would realize that unless they are unified, that what would happen. They don't unify becuase they don't think it hurts, but allowing Jeffries as Speaker would be probably regaqrded as too much for them.
                Not that it is s reason to object to plurality rule.
                Even better would be repeated votes with elimination of bottom candidate(s) and not allowing new ones (will need to follow one or more votes where new candidates are allowed).

        2. zaphod

          Here is information I got from Heather Cox Richardson:

          "Some Republicans are now calling for acting speaker Patrick McHenry (R-NC) to have more powers than simply arranging for the election of a new speaker. But since the Constitution specifies that “[t]he House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker” and McHenry was tapped by former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) alone to replace him in case of an emergency, that’s likely going to be a hard sell."

          I don't know. Sounds to me that there is a lot of wiggle room in the phrase "chuse their speaker". Let them get creative and let the courts decide (eventually).

          But I also realized that the rule that one Member can call for a new Speaker selection is not really a hurdle should a bi-partisan majority emerge. If they were committed to get something done, they could just re-nominate the same guy or gal and be confident that they could re-elect him.

          1. Altoid

            I'm not disagreeing with Richardson, just elaborating-- "chuse" means according to the rules and practices the HR has adopted (which of course they can change by following the right procedures). McHenry is what the rules call an "appointed" pro tem whose main task is to oversee selection of an elected speaker who will then have full authority.

            However, appointeds do have authority to take "necessary and appropriate" actions, which I think could conceivably give him wiggle room for emergency measures, but it would almost certainly have to be approved by the whole House. He could, I think, be granted very limited authority to do very specific things, and that would be all a majority would be willing to grant him anyway. But I agree with her that it's a long shot given the current state of affairs.

            The entire issue in the HR right now is that Rs insist on having an R speaker elected only with R votes, but they can't get 217 of them to agree on anybody. That's it. It's fatal because the winning candidate needs 217 to reach a majority of the HR. Most Rs want to agree on somebody. The few who don't, whatever their reasons, have the whip hand.

            As long as they want to be assholes, and as long as Rs insist that 217 of them have to support one person, everything's broken.

          2. Altoid

            On your last point, I think you're right. Up to today I thought the MTV rule was nuts, but it turns out the HR adopted it in 1837 and it was only changed for a short time under Pelosi.

            It works almost exactly like a no-confidence motion in Parliament, and has the same function-- it confirms a working majority. It can only be a problem for a speaker who doesn't have either control or confidence of a majority for whatever reasons because, as you say, a speaker who does will defeat the motion every time and it's done. So virtually all the time it would be pointless to bring.

            And in fact it's been brought only three times, and one of those was a tactical move by the speaker himself. This is the only time it's actually worked. And would anyone say McCarthy actually *had* the confidence of a majority in the House of Representatives?

      2. Yehouda

        They can easily elect a Speaker with the understanding that this speaker changes the rules and resign. This Speaker cannot decide to stay Speaker, because they can just vacate him/her.
        I already suggested this in a previous thread (no responses).
        The actual Catch-22 is that Republicans want to have excuses not to do anything, to avoid annoying either the MAGA or the sane people.

            1. Altoid

              Change the rules how? To drop the one who comes in last on the previous ballot, as upthread? How would that affect anything in this case, where Ds are solidly behind their candidate Jeffries, and the R caucus has so far voted to nominate Scalise and then Jordan but hasn't been able to assure either one of getting enough votes on the floor to be elected speaker?

              The problem here is not that there are too many candidates; the problem is that Rs don't have enough votes among themselves to elect *any* R as speaker, yet they insist that the speaker has to be an R because (Foghorn Leghorn voice) by God they're the majority party and don't anyone forget, by gum. No rules change is going to address this problem and any rules changes now are vanishingly unlikely, imho.

              No sane R wants to be anywhere near this job if they have to get it with only R votes-- calling it a poisoned chalice is too mild; it's more like putting on a suicide vest and handing off the remote control to Matt Gaetz and company.

              So I expect either madman Jordan and his patron will armtwist and threaten enough Rs this weekend to get elected on Tuesday, or there will finally be a splinter group of about dozen or so Rs, risking death and dismemberment, who seek safety in numbers under an "Honest-to-God Republicans" banner (or something like that) and make a deal with Ds to back one of the splinter group as speaker. Which after the death threats and firebombings of their houses could then devolve into them announcing they won't run in 2024 and backing Jeffries.

              The problem isn't the whole House or its rules, it's the completely, certifiably insane R caucus.

              1. Yehouda

                Replying only to your first paragraph:
                The exact rules are not important, as loong as they end forcing a selection. Dropping the last one(s) and not allowing new ones will force a selection.
                If the last standing candidates have the same number of votes, then each one of them is a Speaker for some short period (e.g. a month), and then vote gain.

                This will force a selection of a Speaker. If Republicans don't unite, then Jeffries will be the Speaker. I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?

                  1. Yehouda

                    The idea is that you get the saner part of the Republicans to join in the change of rules, which should be easier for them to do, because less likely to raise MAGA response.

                    I don't believe they can delay voting a Speaker when there is a plausible candidate. The pro-tempore Speaker is require to take actions towards electing a Speaker. I think really he is already failing to do his job by not scheduling anyway.

                    If Republicans use tricks to delay voting on a Speaker that is agreed by a majority of the House that will be a useful campaign issue against them. So Democrats gain something in this case.

                1. Joel

                  "If Republicans don't unite, then Jeffries will be the Speaker. I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?"

                  LOL! And that will happen coterminus with the first verified report of porcine aviation.

Comments are closed.