This is truly great stuff from National Review's Noah Rothman:
On Tuesday night, the House Administration Committee delivered the news to former speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would have to vacate her “hideaway” office in the Capitol, a small chamber conveniently located closer to where the legislative action takes place. On Wednesday morning, onetime Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer was ordered out of a similar hideaway he had occupied. Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described the moves as an act of “revenge” against Democrats for voting unanimously with eight insurgent Republicans to remove McCarthy from the speakership. “Expect more of this, GOP sources tell us,” he warned.
More petty revenge. Roger that! But the best part is that Rothman defends petty revenge as a sound governing principle:
Democrats voted in lockstep with a faction of the conference that a majority of the majority desperately wants to punish. That’s a fraught prospect given the largely assumed influence the Right’s insurrectionary elements allegedly command among rank-and-file GOP voters, but meting out revenge against the Democrats who aided them isn’t nearly as difficult. This is what Democrats voted for.
NR went all in on the "Biden crime family" stuff a while ago, so perhaps this new look isn't a surprise. They are now fully committed to the Biden conspiracy theory and the lab-leak conspiracy theory, and they've always been committed to Benghazi and Tea Party targeting theories. I think they managed to avoid the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory, but that's about it. They're pretty far down the rabbit hole these days, which is kind of sad for a publication that, notwithstanding my personal differences, has had a pretty distinguished history.
Anyway, back to office politics. Rothman and others need to be clear on the precedent here. Minority parties always vote unanimously against the majority party's candidate for Speaker. There are no exceptions. If Democrats had done otherwise, it would have been unprecedented.
So was unprecedented action called for? Let's roll the tape:
- Kevin McCarthy was one of the first Republicans to make a U-turn on the January 6th insurrection and deny that anything wrong happened.
- McCarthy negotiated a spending level of $1.59 trillion for discretionary programs during the debt ceiling standoff. Within days he reneged on that and demanded a much lower spending level.
- He did the same dozens of times, agreeing on some legislation or other and then immediately reneging under pressure from the MAGA wing of his party.
- He made a handshake deal with President Biden to provide more funding for Ukraine. Practically before he made it back to the Capitol he had reneged on that.
- He promised he wouldn't open an impeachment inquiry without a full vote of the House, and then did it anyway on his own.
- He took a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed 58-1 in the House Armed Services Committee and larded it up with right-wing poison pills that then passed only on a pure partisan vote and never had any chance of passing the Senate.
- At the end, McCarthy offered nothing to Democrats as a token of good faith and even said he didn't expect any of their votes.
McCarthy betrayed Democrats over and over and over. It's hard to see that they owed McCarthy anything, let alone that the circumstances were so unique that Democrats should have broken 200 years of tradition to interfere in the caucus matters of another party.
As a thought experiment, consider the opposite. Suppose 200 Republicans wanted to oust McCarthy and 21 wanted to keep him. But every Democrat voted for McCarthy, keeping him as speaker even though virtually his entire party didn't want him. Would that have been the right thing to do? Or should they simply let Republicans handle their internal issues?
The answer is obvious. And petty revenge is still petty revenge. It's stupid and spiteful and demonstrates a lack of either honor or integrity.
He also blocked Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff from seats on House Intelligence Committee.
And indulged the Freedom Caucus in their absolutely ridiculous and shameful censure of Schiff over his daring to call out Trump's collusion with Russia in sabotaging the 2016 election.
And Ilhan Omar, despite the House Ethics Committee later finding she had done nothing untoward.
"It's stupid and spiteful and demonstrates a lack of either honor or integrity."
That sentence needs a little more meat on the bones. Try this:
"It's stupid and spiteful, which is normal for the Republicans these days, and demonstrates once again a lack of either honor or integrity, in case anybody felt the need for yet another demonstration of that universally recognized truth."
👍👍👍
"Or should they simply let Republicans handle their internal issues"
Not it wouldn't. It would have caused the MAGA part to go ballistic against McCarthy, which would have been very useful for Democrats (and the US in general).
The Democrats really missed an opportunity in this case.
What the idiot from NR writes is plain bulshit as usual. the Democrats didn't _have_ to do it. But it would have been a good political move, because the effect it would have on the Republican party.
They did go ballistic against McCarthy regardless. Why should Dems bail him out without concrete concessions that he was unwilling to give? Do you imagine that McCarthy would have been grateful for their votes? What is the color of the sky in your world?
"They did go ballistic against McCarthy regardless. "
No they didn't. Thet just remove it from the Speaker position.
"Why should Dems bail him out without concrete concessions that he was unwilling to give? "
Because of its effect on the Republican party, as I wrote in my original message. You should try to read more carefully before replying.
"Do you imagine that McCarthy would have been grateful for their votes?"
No, and I don't care, and I don't see why anybody else should care. Any ideas?
"What is the color of the sky in your world?"
From blue to grey and black, depending on the time of the day, and whether it is cloudy or not.
"No they didn't. Thet just remove it from the Speaker position."
What else do you imagine they could do? They aren't authorized to organize a firing squad.
"Because of its effect on the Republican party, as I wrote in my original message. You should try to read more carefully before replying."
I can read just fine, You, on the other hand, wrote a completely unsupported assertion which was easy to understand for it's lack of anything tangible. Now maybe you can explain what this "effect" might be? Anything would be an improvement.
"What else do you imagine they could do? "
They can call him traitor and call for his execution.
They can call for somebody to primary him out.
They can call him pedophile and communist.
They already did these things to other people.
"Now maybe you can explain what this "effect" might be?"
It would have caused the MAGA to attack McCarthy (verbally, at least initially) much more aggessively, more offsensively, and more often than they do now.
That would make them look bad.
Whatever McCarthy would have responded, it would have damaged him too.
They already did attack him.
Are attacking.
Still attacking.
"They already did attack him."
But "gently", comapre to what are capable to.
Think of how Trump attack opponents, they would have tried to emulate it.
This, ColBG is right. He repeatedly reneged on deals. He wasn't trustworthy.
I dunno. They're already fracturing, so it's not clear what more it might have done. And from the Dems' POV it would have validated McQarthy's "scorched-earth" approach to dealing with them: per Kevin's list, he gives them less than nothing, and they bail him out anyway. That would just have led to more of the same. And they'd probably have to do it again and again, because if Dems had been the ones to save him, I doubt Gaetz et al. would have given up.
"I doubt Gaetz et al. would have given up."
This is exactly the point. It would have led to internal fights inside the Republican party.
The Democrats could stop voting for him at any point they think it is politically expedient.
Since he wasn't giving the Democrats anything, what is your play?
"Since he wasn't giving the Democrats anything, what is your play?"
That the way that MAGA would attack McCarthy as a result would do serious damage to the Republican party. I expanded on that in other responses.
Are you daft?
Go check the front page of every major news site. Republicans are already tearing each other apart.
McCarthy's big stage political career is over and he is likely to be primared by some MAGA wacko in the future.
Gaetz has been turned into the House Cruz, the insufferable jerk that nobody likes, and that more than a few in his own party want to see gone.
McHenry is already being lambasted for acting like a petty child.
Primary candidates are either picking sides or showing their contempt for the whole thing and trying to keep as much distance as possible from the mess.
With the various self interested nuts now gunning for the job, with some even throwing Trump's name in the mix, the fighting will continue for a while.
Not to mention that now Republicans will have to defend until the day of the election the fact that they for the first time in history had a Speaker removed, and one of their own party, highlighting that even when in the majority they just can't do shit to govern properly.
This is as close to early Christmas as it gets for Democrats.
On the flip side, had they been dumb enough to do as you suggested, McCarthy may have gotten a few snarky insults thrown his way for a day or two, but then will feel himself untouchable and act accordingly, and within days, a now emboldened McCarthy would have gotten back to the business of sticking it to the Democrats with the full backing of his caucus now that the few troublemakers have been put in their place.
There was absolutely zero upside for Democrats in keeping McCarthy in place. When your rivals are fighting each other the best thing to do is to stay out of it and let them continue.
That's ridiculous.
Please describe how it would have been "very useful". Be specific, use small words. What exactly would Democrats get, or be able to do, by saving McCarthy and/or enraging the the rageheads that rage constantly anyway?
What the actual professionals did was just shine a light on the Republican shit show. Everyone knows they're so incompetent they can't even elect a leader. This hurts them among normal people, everyone can spot incompetence like this.
And that's what this bullshit is all about - attempting to deflect all the attention focused on them demonstrating in realtime how utterly unfit they are for their jobs.
So again, what was the missed opportunity that would be worth a point or so in national elections next year?
" What exactly would Democrats get, or be able to do,"
directly, nothing.
"...and/or enraging the the rageheads that rage constantly anyway?"
That rage would have become much much worse, much louder and much more often. It odesn't look good already, and it will make them look much worse.
"So again, what was the missed opportunity that would be worth a point or so in national elections next year?"
Again, that make the Republican party (mainly the MAGA) behave much worse than they already do, which will make both them and the rest of the Republican party look worse. That may sway some undecided voters to vote against them, or at least not for them.
"That may sway some undecided voters to vote against them, or at least not for them."
This seems a really insubstantial reward to commit the Dems to supporting McCarthy. And after doing it once, how could they stop the next time?
"This seems a really insubstantial reward to commit the Dems to supporting McCarthy. "
It doesn't commit the Democrats. They just vote for him as long as it seems politically expedient, and stop when it doesn't.
Convincing voters is never "insubstanial". That is the main thing Democrats need to think about now, because Trump getting even close to winning is a mortal danger to US democracy.
How does it convince voters when Democrats show they can't get anything through and voted for the guy who blocked their bills?
An underlying assumption is that the MAGA sees cooperation with Democracy as "deadly sin". So if McCarthy stays a Speaker with the help of Democrats, he becomes a real "evil". That will cause them to attack with much more aggressive and offensive language and more often, and these attackes which will put undecided voters of.
It is already looking bad, and this will make it much worse.
I don't believe any voter will hold it against the Democrats for voting for McCarthy once or twice. Do you?
If it is repeating, Democrats will hav eto decide when to stop voting for him.
I doubt all this drama about who's speaker and how a budget gets passed will matter to voters next November. The shitshow that happens in Washington is why many Americans hate politics and tune it out. All this will be old news and when voters go to the polls they'll have newer things to worry about.
The only ones who care will be creatures like us who read and comment at political blogs.
That's not to say what's happening is unimportant. A long shutdown could matter. A budget with big cuts that hurt the economy could matter. No aid to Ukraine will matter immensely in the long run (though maybe not as much to voters).
Bottom line: The substance (budget, Ukraine aid) that Dems are fighting for need to be top of mind for their decision-making. The political ramifications are unpredictable and relatively unimportant for what drives voting next fall.
"I doubt all this drama about who's speaker and how a budget gets passed will matter to voters next November. "
It depends how "dramatic" the "drama" is. Currently it is quite, but if the sound rises voters will hear it.
"Bottom line: The substance (budget, Ukraine aid) that Dems are fighting for need to be top of mind for their decision-making."
If it was clear that one direction leads to better outcome on these issues I would agree. But I think we agree it is not clear at all.
"The Democrats really missed an opportunity in this case."
I think that's debatable. I think it's a different point than if Democrats deserve blame, a claim that's going around and which I reject entirely.
There are lots of what-ifs to consider, and any conjecture about what would have happened is all guesswork. No one knows for sure.
We are in worse shape that we were last week, when everyone expected a shutdown. We have no shutdown, but no budget, no aid to Ukraine, and no speaker. The next speaker is likely to be more radical than McCarthy. Maybe Dems could have done something different? It's an entertaining thought. But instead of voting yes on McCarthy, maybe Dems could have voted no on the CR? They did give in on lack of Ukraine aid. We'd likely be in the middle of a shutdown and there'd be negotiations. All that's going to happen sooner or later, and maybe with a worse outcome. I could have supported forcing the issue, if that had been the decision.
But failing to back McCarthy in yesterday's vote is justifiable, even if the outcome may be worse. If you are going to bail out an adversary in an unprecedented way, you need it to be someone who operates in good faith. McCarthy failed than standard time and again.
" I think it's a different point than if Democrats deserve blame, a claim that's going around and which I reject entirely."
I agree on that. I don't think the Democrats are "to blame". I think they missed a political opportunity.
" If you are going to bail out an adversary in an unprecedented way, you need it to be someone who operates in good faith."
Not obvious. If you can gain something by doing it, the fact that it may help somebody who doesn't deserve it is not a strong argument against it.
It's not that McCarthy needed to "earn" Dems' support. But how could Dems get anything out of backing him? All he's done is betray them and treat them like shit.
A new speaker will need to be elected. Can R's do it on their own? It's hard to see how that happens. It's possible Dems will be needed. Maybe there's a deal to be worked? Who knows.
It's hard to support someone who breaks promises and lies. In my career I was flexible and worked for all kinds. The one boss who was intolerable was the one who broke promises and told lies. I could never believe her and it made it impossible for me to lead a team. I chose to leave. It had been the best job I'd had, and financially it was a decision that hurt. But in retrospect, it was the best career decision I ever made. I have no qualms with Dems saying, No, we're not going to put up with your crap. I think long-run it will pay dividends.
"But how could Dems be assured getting anything out of backing him?"
Whether the Democrats can get anything from him is not the point. The point is that it is sure to cause internal fighting inside the Republican party, much worse than it is now, and that will hurt the Republican party.
" I think long-run it will pay dividends."
I don't see how. Can you expand on that?
You think there isn't any (or at the very most a small amount) internal fighting inside the Republican party right now, today, October 4 (Zombie Day), 2023?
Interesting.
"ou think there isn't any (or at the very most a small amount) internal fighting inside the Republican party right now, today, October 4 (Zombie Day), 2023?"
No, and I didn't even imply it anywhere.
In the message that you reply to, I actually wrote: "."The point is that it is sure to cause internal fighting inside the Republican party, much worse than it is now, .." , which wouldn't make sense if I don't believe there is an internal fightiing now, so strongly imply that there is such fighting.
Was this really that difficult to figure out?
Thanks for telling me you are unable to understand simple English words and sentences without telliing me you are unable to undderstand simple English words and sentences.
"Democrats voted in lockstep with a faction of the conference that a majority of the majority ..."
The ludicrous thing about this line it is relegates the Democrats to doing whatever the majority of the Republicans want to do. It's as if they have no agency at all, but are just there to support policies and procedures they don't support.
The "majority" already has control over committee seating, committee levels, legislation, votes, etc. The "minority" has to wait for table scraps, and anything they get is at the behest of the "majority". If the majority can't get anything done with all that power, that's on them.
And if they need help from the "minority" to accomplish something, THEN THEY NEED TO OFFER AN INCENTIVE> The Democrats likely would have given support in return for Ukraine aid, or a few more seats on a few committees, or a promise of X votes on amendments. But EVEN BEFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE Kevin announced he was offering NOTHING.
Well stated! Thanks.
+1
I confess I had to read that sentence a couple of times to understand it (at least I think I understand it). Which majority (the Republicans?) of which majority (the whole Congress? No, I think he means the mainstream of the Republican party wanted to keep McCarthy).
So he seems to be saying "the Dems have thrown in with Matt Gaetz and co, and that will be bad for them because it's so easy to get revenge."
This seems to me wishful thinking of the first order. The Republicans look like the party of chaos, just as they are heading into an election year where "we can control the chaos!" (at the border, in re the "crime wave" in the cities) is about all they've got to argue for themselves. Even their leader Trump's supposed "appeal" is that he can solve problems easily and simply as a dictator rather than through the messiness of democracy. Well, the Republicans have proved they are the party of chaos and lack of control.
Dems did the right thing. If they tried to game the system by supporting McCarthy, it would be viewed as an inauthentic response to try and score political points. Hands off policy is much better. There are things which you can't control, and by trying to without power, risk making worse.
I am struck by the response of Republicans that Democrats SHOULD have saved their skin. This is the ultimate in refusing to take responsibility. They are the one's who have enabled the Republican Party's growing dysfunction, and yet their only response is that Democrats should not have left this happen. And further, that therefore we Republicans are justified taking revenge on Democrats.
Words fail me.
Have to say, it suggests this is now ingrained in the Republican view of how government works: Republicans make a mess, and Democrats act responsible and clean up the mess, then the Republicans blame the Democrats for things still being messy, and the Republicans take over and make a bigger mess. It's a cycle I'm old enough to have seen go around at least 3 times (Reagan deficits, Bush disaster on all fronts, Trump chaos...)
It's not hard to justify why Democrats did what they did. The even-easier place to put the blame is on McCarthy himself. If he had kept his word on the deal he struck with Biden back in the summer, he no doubt would have faced a motion to vacate. Then Dems might have had reason to negotiate a new deal worth a few votes to let him keep his job. But McCarthy broke his promise, lied to everyone, and blamed Dems. Then he called for the vote yesterday expecting Dems to bail him out. He made one terrible decision after another. He's the guy who deserves the blame for what happened. A terrible leader in a hundred ways.
Correct. Had he given them ANYTHING they could hang their hat on -- even just a handful voting "present" would have been all that he needed -- they probably would have done it. But he didn't. In addition to Kevin's laundry list, he even gave them the back of his hand last Sunday. As I can't remember who said, he dug his own grave.
So now it's all our fault, the Republicans had nothing to do with it? Whatever. Republicans will always be bat shit crazy it seems, but that doesn't mean we should be the enablers. As Hakeem Jeffries put it when asked about Matt Gaetz: "Not my monkey, not my circus".
... a lack of either honor or integrity.
¿Por qué no los dos?
I think the sentence intends to say that they lack them both.
Ah yes, can be read that way, right you are.
But it doesn't require both.
It does neither party any good for the Democrats to rescue the GOP caucus from itself. If some members of the GOP decide they'd prefer to be part of a historic coalition government, they can offer that to the Dems.
The idea that Democrats are supposed to do anyting and everything in their power to rescue the Republicans from themselves is absurd. Especially when Democrats won't get anything in exchange.
"It does neither party any good for the Democrats to rescue the GOP caucus from itself."
Why do you think that voting for McCarthy would have "rescue the GOP causcus from itelf."?
At best, it would have caused sever internal fighting between MAGA and the closer-to-be-sane members, at worst it would just make them look a little more clowinsh.
Why do you think it wouldn't?
What would Democrats gain from supporting him, other than being shown as compliant puppies why still come back to the table even though every promise was renegged upon prior?
I gave a full answer in a different rsponse in thkis thread.
No, you didn't. You gave your opinion with absolutely zero supporting evidencel. You also don't understand counterfactuals, but I think that's because you don't want to.
There is already infighting in the Republican caucus. It took McCarthy 15 ballots to become Speaker for 9 months, and he was the ‘heir apparent’. How many ballots will it take to elect the next Speaker, and how long do you think that one will last? The next sucker will still need the votes of the Freakshow Caucus, and those will come at a price, maybe more than they squeezed out of McCarthy.
" It took McCarthy 15 ballots to become Speaker for 9 months.."
That is infighting, but mild. They would have got much more serious about it if McCarthy stayed as Speaker with the help of democrats. Think about how Trump attack opponents, they would have tried to emulate that.
You contradict yourself. Evidently you don't keep track of what you previously said from one post to the next
One of Rep.Don Beyer's staffers had a pretty good Twitter thread on this:
https://twitter.com/Fritschner/status/1709559909488976279
Is McCarthy dishonest and perhaps a jerk? Sure, but are Democrats certain what comes next is better?
Not their monkey, not their circus.
Well, they know the players better than we do. I think a conclusion of "It can't really be that much worse" is pretty justified once you see all the operational issues in play this year.
And, as I read elsewhere, believing that he is lying to his own caucus and going to make a deal with you is not a solid way forward.
As long as the Republicans are disunited, the Democrats are pretty much able to decide which Republican will be the next Speaker. Obviously, they would prefer to just put Jeffries in the chair, but if they can select a "moderate" Republican and tie some strings to him, "what comes next" may well be better.
Did ppl conspire to leak a virus from a lab? Unlikely.
Did ppl conspire to cover up either a natural spillover or an accidental lab leak? Most definitely.
To this day, the official CCP position is that the virus came from outside of China.
But what I don't get is why you keep citing NR if you find it so disagreeable. Why not switch to The Bulwark?
"Why not switch to The Bulwark?"
..or at least The dispatch.
BTW: How is the virus relevant to the discussion?
I was addressing his statement.
"Did ppl conspire to cover up either a natural spillover or an accidental lab leak? Most definitely."
This from the guy who keeps telling everyone else that he just wants them to have an open mind.
Gotta admit, and I say this without sarcasm, you are absolutely definitely not a troll. Your commitment to your weird cause is clearly wholeheartedly sincere. You should get CRANK tattooed on your forehead.
If you don't mind me asking, why is KD able to post on the issue but then I can't respond in like?
And, why do some of you instantly shift to ad hominem attacks?
It seems Five Parrots in a Shoe has got a thing on this. I think you just need to get used to ignore him.
"Why is KD able to post on the issue but then I can't respond in like?"
Of course you can. You just don't have to do it Every. Single. Time. That's crank behavior. We all, Kevin included, already know what you think on this.
Also, it isn't ad hominem to point out the obvious, which is that you hold to the lab leak theory as a religious creed, and not as a belief subject to evidentiary testing.
This is untrue and if you'd been reading my comments, you'd know this isn't what I think. For forever, I've said I'm leaning 60-40 towards accidental lab leak.
Obviously, you CAN post on the issue, but when you post something that silly you will be called out for it.
You can't "cover up" something that may never have happened. There was a concerted effort to downplay the lab leak possibility, in response to a recklessly irresponsible conspiracy on the right to pretend it was a bio-weapon deliberately unleashed on America by the Chinese government. Given the unpredictability of the then-president, his desperation to find someone to blame for the pandemic, and the irrational bellicose urge to confront China on the part of some of his closest advisors, it was a wise thing to do.
Remember, Republicans can both be the Party of Revenge and the Party of Victimization. Hypocrisy and flip-flopping are core to their being.
👍👍👍
As I said yesterday, either here or elsewhere, I do not expect House Democrats, or any officeholder really, to vote on passion of the moment. So, "I'm really mad at Kevin McCarthy" doesn't cut it. I expect them to consider long term consequences for the country along with consequences for their party and their personal goals.
And speculation about which behavior discomfits Republicans more also does not fit my paradigm, either.
However, "I can't trust Kevin McCarthy" has a very sound basis to it, and a lot longer timeline. Why support someone for Speaker whom you can't negotiate with in good faith? Maybe the next person will be better. They aren't really going to be worse.
So, there's that. There are plenty of House Republicans who think a shutdown would break really badly for them.
McCarthy had 2 days to either make sure he had enough R votes or to cut a deal with the Ds. He did neither and called a vote immediately. If the 'Peter Principle' hadn't already been taken, we might have had something called the McCarthy Principle instead.
+1
However, "I can't trust Kevin McCarthy" has a very sound basis to it, and a lot longer timeline. Why support someone for Speaker whom you can't negotiate with in good faith?
This.
It's tempting to think that, because McCarthy enabled a stopgap budget resolution to pass, he's more likely than a potential successor to allow such a bill in the future. But merely reflecting on his record as Speaker (and as minority leader) suggest there's little substance to such hopes, especially in light of his manifest refusal to give Democrats anything whatsoever in exchange for bucking two centuries of procedural precedent. In other words, it's entirely reasonable to believe that, given a second chance, Speaker McCarthy would allow a lengthy shutdown, or stubbornly block aid to Ukraine, or who knows what else.
There's no easy path forward for House Democrats. They're not responsible for the fact that the other party is devoted to the cause of gravely harming the country.
If Republicans like Rothman are so butthurt that Democrats didn't save them from their own crazies, what does he suggest be done to punish *them*? How about kicking those assholes out of their offices until they agree to behave?
Revenge. Bullies, idiots and children all play this game. It's as infantile as the beginning of time. Along with name calling. Oh, we are speaking of the repulsives. Yes!
The GOP has a majority in the House.
With power, comes responsibility.
They demonstrated none.
And still expect the power.
I am befuddled by what has transpired.
And I am even more confused by the fat that some members are pushing Trump as speaker
Lets be clear about the house rules - from their own rule book
"A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed," states Rule 26 of the Republican conference rules adopted in November."
The question in my mind is could the House change that rule by simple majority or do they need 3/5s or some other fraction of membership?
Rules are adopted by the majority at the beginning of each new Congress. Whether installing a new speaker triggers a re-vote on the rules, I have no idea. I would assume not, so whoever the new leadership is will still need to follow Rule 26. Someone with a more fine-grained knowledge of House parliamentary procedure is free to correct me.
This is a Republican Conference rule, NOT a Rule of the House of Representatives. There is a difference, though the R's tend to treat them as the same. The Rules of the House of Representatives are given a structure in the Constitution and then amplified by the membership. There is a question if they can be changed after the biennial adoption.
But the Republican Caucus Rules belong to them, and they can change them any old time they wish.
They don't need to change that rule to install Trump. The rule requires leadership to step aside under certain circumstances. It says nothing about installing new leaders.
By that Rothman rationale any time the Democrats vote against something Republicans favor they will merit vindictive, petty reprisals because they deserve and knew they were going to get what they deserve but did it anyway so they deserve it even more.
This is more wingnut projection, everything they do is a confession, and this is how they expect others to treat them and they are seriously confused when it usually never happens so they just keep lowering the bar of petty spite.
Wingnut's dog ate his homework, --Obama made me do it,
GOP candidate says he smeared 'fecal matter' on daycare center because of Obama,
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-2665797669/
I suspect that McCarthy's untrustworthiness was less the deciding factor than the fact that he couldn't pass a budget that had any hope of clearing the Senate. There was zero hope he'd do so now. So while the Dems risk getting a Speaker who won't or can't pass a budget, that's better than being certain of having one.
top kevin post ever maybe! good job dude!
AOC's comment is a nice bit of snark
https://x.com/AOC/status/1709612216440217708
"Contrary to how McCarthy’s defenders are behaving, men failing up is not a Constitutionally protected right.
The man made risky decisions and faced the natural consequences of them. I am not his mom, and my job is not to put pool noodles around hard corners for Republicans."
The baffling thing to me is that people are acting like the Democrats did something unusual here.
You always, always vote for the other parties person to not be Speaker and you always vote FOR your parties person to be Speaker! That is the default. That is what one should expect.
If Republicans wanted something other than default behavior from us, they can make an offer. But they didn't. In the absence of a request or bargain, why should we behave any way other than normally? They are the weird ones, not us.
Well, you see, the Democrats made the MAGAt's go after Boehner, um, Ryan, um, McCarthy.... It's all part of a grand conspiracy, that's why they never tried to vacate the chair themselves.
This right here exposes why a lot of us look at the DC political press and its conventional wisdom and agree with Josh Marshall that DC is hard-wired for the Republican party.
It's because virtually all people styled as journalists in DC are corporate spokespeople, and all of them on tv.
Motions to vacate have been rare enough that there really isn't established precedent for them (I suspect they're about to become much more common.). In an election for Speaker, you always vote against any candidate from the other party. That does not necessarily translate to doing the same on a motion to vacate
So here's what puzzles me about this-- didja ever notice how, when the gop talks about how the House works when they run it, they always say "the majority of the majority" always has to have its way no matter what anybody else thinks? And really they mean that a House run by Rs has to pass things with only R votes?
But not now! Now the all-powerful R majority is all pissy that they couldn't pull together that majority made up only of Rs. And some magical presto-changeo makes those evil Demonrats the ones at fault because they didn't pitch in and help make up the majority these Rs wanted. You know, the one that's supposed to be made up only of Rs. Or something.
So color me confused by them now. I guess I just don't understand that R arithmetic.
McCarthy betrayed Democrats over and over and over. It's hard to see that they owed McCarthy anything, let alone that the circumstances were so unique that Democrats should have broken 200 years of tradition to interfere in the caucus matters of another party.
Not only all this but as it turns out, McCarthy put together the CR on Saturday thinking the Dems would vote against it because it didn't include Ukraine funding. Then he could blame them for the shutdown. Only one Dems did so and thus McCarthy's plan blew up in his face and he knew he was fucked politically. That's why he didn't ask Trump or the Dems for any help and had the vote scheduled right away, get it over with. The only surprise was there weren't more Republicans voting against him because I'm sure we could have found more.
Any deal with a duplicitous liar like McCarthy is no deal at all and that's why all the Dems voted against him too.
So if 4 Republicans had changed their mind McCarthy would still be speaker, but it's really the fault of 210 Democrats.
There’s no way the Democrats could trust Kevin to keep his promises.
It would be good if the Democrats could form a coalition with a small number of Republicans, but there are several problems with this idea.
First, the other Republicans and Trump would rip these guys to shreds. They probably couldn’t get reelected.
Second, what would they want? I’m sure the Democrats would be willing to negotiate something like more spending in their districts. However, it doesn’t seem like that is what they want.
Pingback: Murc's law as farce - Lawyers, Guns & Money
Pelosi thing was petty but fuck Steny Hoyer. I laughed when I read that one
Pingback: McCarthy’s Fall and the Inability of the Trump GOP to Govern - updatem