An opportunity for Democrats to prove they are the "bigger" party

[Smoove_B]

Well, if you're going to start mocking me instead of responding with thoughtful counterpoints, I'm going to stop replying to you.

I'm not mocking you; I'm genuinely shocked. I don't regularly interact with anyone that has suggested to me that the Democrats are trying to make the use of incorrect pronouns a felony. I don't interact with anyone that has communicated disdain for AP placement programs (?) being removed? I'm not even aware of that happening or what that means.

I'm aware of trans people killing themselves because they are being told to disappear. I am aware of 12 year old girls being forced to give birth. But pronoun felonies?

But you're right - none of that helps with the current situation in the House. That said, I'm not going to expect the Democrats to capitulate to what passes for "mainstream" within the GOP in 2023 either. I honestly don't know what it's going to take but based on history I'm guessing eventually the Democrats will engage in some type of compromise to allow the GOP to seat someone and shortly thereafter the GOP will proceed to propose and perhaps do awful things, legislatively as we head into 2024. Call it a hunch; I hope I'm wrong.

[gilraen]

I feel like the only response to the original inquiry, if you will, of this thread is: I'm not going to set myself on fire to keep you warm. That's pretty much where the Democrats are with the GOP (and if they aren't, they should be).

[Isgrimnur]

Over the last 15-20 years the Left in the US has turned against Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and the concept of a Color-Blind society, they are refusing to allow advanced-placement programs for students, they hate Capitalism, they are increasingly against sending arms to allied nations to help them defend themselves and they have decided that Transgender Rights are so important that many want to make calling someone the wrong pronoun a felony. I could go on, but if you haven't noticed the Left in the US is also growing more radical over the years you're just not paying attention. These ideas were very rare or non-existent on the Left 20 years ago and yet they are fairly commonplace today. And it's not going to stop anytime soon.

Heck, nowadays the Left can't even agree on how to respond to the Israeli-Hamas conflict and who the bad guys really are.

Let's unpack some of this, because there's stuff in here that seems to come from a place severely to the right of center.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression

they have decided that Transgender Rights are so important that many want to make calling someone the wrong pronoun a felony.

I will be happy to read any sources you can point to with a factual breakdown of that. My searching comes up with this:

False claim Michigan bill would make using a person's wrong pronouns a felony | Fact check

The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill on June 20 that would expand the state’s 35-year-old hate crime law to include protections for sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, physical or mental disability and age. It carries penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The word “pronoun” does not appear in the five-page bill, which is still pending in the state legislature. Nothing in the legislation establishes any sort of structure that, for example, would make it a crime to use “she” when referring to someone who identifies as a man.

“Let me make it plain and simple: This bill does not infringe on anyone’s First Amendment rights, and it most certainly is not a bill that has anything to do with pronouns,” Democratic Rep. Ranjeev Puri, who is one of the bill’s 45 sponsors, said in an email to USA TODAY.

It would allow prosecutors to bring hate-crime charges against those who “maliciously and intentionally” intimidate people because they belong to a protected group.
...
It defines intimidation as a “willful course of conduct” involving “repeated or continuing harassment” that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened or threatened.

That reasonability standard is key, said Republican Rep. Graham Filler, who is one of three GOP members who voted for the bill.

“I think there probably are some people out there who think that using the wrong pronouns is a hate crime,” Filler said. “I don’t think those people would be able to somehow convince a prosecutor to charge” someone.

The bill also specifically allows constitutionally protected activities – such as free speech – and "conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”

the concept of a Color-Blind society

The concept is an awesome idea. But, alas, the concept has met with reality. There are still plenty of examples today where race is a determining factor, even when accounting for other variables, that results in negative outcomes for people of color. I typed in "Race inequality" into Google News. I got some prefilled options:


On which I'm sure I could spend days reading and pulling quotes. However, the research and anecdotes of people being discriminated against because of their color are overwhelming. Hell, I heard a story of such from my programmer. He's a black man originally from Ghana. His name, however, reads as neutral at least, white at best. He has stated that he has seen people visibly shaken up and taken aback when they see him for the first time during job interviews.

You can not mandate a color-blind society. We don't even have a color-blind legal system. If we want to live in a society where All [People] Are Created Equal, at least in the eyes of the law, we have to undo centuries worth of damage that our past has done and continues to do.

they are refusing to allow advanced-placement programs for students

You're going to have to help me with this one, because all the vitriol about AP testing and courses appears to be coming from the right.

they hate Capitalism

I'm a upper-middle class white guy, and I hate Capitalism, based on the results I see today. While the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets smaller, one wonders what Capitalism has to recommend itself. But that's a deep topic deserving of at least one thread to itself.

they are increasingly against sending arms to allied nations to help them defend themselves

If we're talking Ukraine, they're not technically an "Ally". And remember, the Left is not monolithic.

But if we're going with:

Heck, nowadays the Left can't even agree on how to respond to the Israeli-Hamas conflict and who the bad guys really are.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are no good guys here. We have an dispossessed and oppressed minority living in an area where they are denied freedom of movement, and basic societal needs of food, fuel, and medicine can be withheld at a whim by mostly one country's whims. A country that has just suffered, and has suffered, multiple terrorist attacks that have targeted civilians. A country with an autocratic right-wing government that has built settlements illegally, and has let the army stand by while its citizens forcibly dispossess those oppressed people of even more.

And remember, the Left is not a monolith. There are three Muslim representatives, nine Jewish Senators, and 26 Jewish representatives in Congress. What consensus do you think that organization is going to come to?

What do leftist critics of Israel do now?

They marched on the White House to make their demands clear: a Biden-brokered ceasefire — now; the release of hostages held by Hamas militants; more forceful American condemnation of Israel’s bombing of Gaza; and, eventually, major changes to the current Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.

The protestors, gathered Monday afternoon by progressive Jewish American activist organizations, represented various segments of the US political left: Palestinian and Israeli Americans, Jewish and Muslim people, longtime activists, and newer allies sympathetic to a more nuanced position of peace and reform for Israel and Palestine.

Nuance... Now there's a concept that gets lost in soundbites and rabblerousing.

On Monday, 13 progressive members of Congress — not just the Squad — signed on to a resolution calling on the Biden administration to broker an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine and urge de-escalation in order to bring humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.
...
The hearts, minds, and policies they’re trying to change won’t be easily altered. Though most Americans were sympathetic to both Palestinians and Israelis and open to more nuanced solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict, public polling from last week following Hamas’s attack shows Americans, including more Democrats and independents, warming to the Israeli military’s response. This shift is likely driven by a desire to support a nation that has just suffered a massive, graphic, and morally reprehensible attack.

[Holman]

I don't want to dump on Apollo's post because I can understand how a positively-oriented centrist (especially one living in a Red state) could feel that he is pointing out cultural trends that are making American life feel very fraught and uncomfortable.

But I want to endorse Isgrimnur's responses above and reinforce that the feeling of being culturally under threat is almost entirely the result of a right-wing media that wants to produce that effect.

Just a single example that I think stands in for a lot: many conservatives feel that having alternative (self-chosen) pronouns "forced" upon them is a cultural assault. From that feeling it's only a short step to some media outlet claiming that it will be a felony not to respect such pronouns.

But think back to the late-70s/mid-80s period when many women chose "Ms" over "Miss" or "Mrs." We saw the very same reaction, and there were plenty of right-wing outlets arguing that the ERA would criminalize use of the the wrong prefix. This was a huge thing in Phyllis Schlafly's crusade against the amendment. I was only a teenager (and at the time I was Reagan Youth), but I remember being Very Concerned about this possibility.

Where are we now? Some women chose "Ms" while others go with the more traditional "Miss" and "Mrs." We have all become more aware of the meaning of the choices involved, and this has enriched our cultural understanding of gender, but *no one* has *ever* been punished or cancelled or imprisoned for refusing the choice.

It feels silly to have to point this out.

[Isgrimnur]

[Pyperkub]

I largely agree with Dave Allen's point. I feel that some Democrats need to vote "present" if the GOP manages to give a non election-denier a vote on the House floor. Letting the government crash and burn for no purpose other than to make the GOP look bad is a page right out of the GOP MAGA wing's "Tear it All Down" strategy guide and I want no part of that (and it will achieve nothing anyway because the public Doesn't Care).

When Government ceases to function due to GOP meddling it only adds credence to their "The Government is totally incompetent and we'd all be better off without it" messaging, However, this move should not be telegraphed in advance or the GOP will make sure that person never gets a vote on the House floor to begin with. After all, we're going to have a GOP speaker so why not have one we can work with to keep the Government running at the very least? I feel that no Dems backing McCarthy after he put his head on the chopping block to Do the Right Thing in a standoff with the Hard RIght Authoritarian wing of the party was a huge mistake. Time to be the adults in the room, IMHO.

Again, go look at what my congressman posted. Mccarthy was constantly lying about what he would do.

Whether that is him, or his ungovernable party doesn't matter.

The GOP needs leadership which says they will do something and actually does it. It's kind of in the definition of the word.

Find a GOP speaker who can actually show the leadership to be in a leadership position first.

That ain't Mccarthy.

The Democrats have made clear what the simple expectation is, McCarthy rejected it - end Jordan's sham investigation and hold to the debt ceiling deal.

This is not difficult, unless you are in the GOP cult.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[YellowKing]

But I want to endorse Isgrimnur's responses above and reinforce that the feeling of being culturally under threat is almost entirely the result of a right-wing media that wants to produce that effect.

And it's important to note that picking cultural battles is a tactic used by the right to distract you from the horrible acts they're engaging in. While you're busy being outraged by a transgender kid playing on a sports team, or someone saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, you're not being outraged by the fact that they're actively trying to dismantle free and fair elections, trying to get rid of social security, robbing kids of school lunches, and forcing 10-year olds to give birth to their rape baby.

Every culture war hot button is as predictable as a monster of the week episode on The X-Files. It's amazing to me so many people fall for it.

[Isgrimnur]

How's that war over gas stoves going? Do we need to gear up for the war on Christmas late next week?

[Zarathud]

If we old people completely understand what the young people are mad about, then the young punks have failed before they’ve started.

It’s easy to get mad about racists and declare you’re woke to discrimination after Trump has brought the Racists and Nazis and Proudboys out of hiding. The data shows we don’t live in a color blind world, even without police videos.

When right-wing conservative outrage shifted to trans rights, the liberal activists followed. Demanding that other people configure their sexuality and identity to your vision of the world is a recipe to encourage their rebellion. I remember hearing about the scandal during my grandmother’s time when calling an unmarried teacher Mrs. would get you ostracized for being rude and impolite. Or gyrating would change TV coverage of Elvis and the Beatles.

What’s new is the outrage machine of made up stories to drive the profits of conservative media. You can’t be reasonable and be part of the GOP, because the machine needs to eat your face.

[Dave Allen]

Still waiting to hear a reasonable solution to the crisis in the House.

What about an outsider? There was a rousing response to the one vote for John Boehner. He has the experience. He might enjoy a reprise that would be regarded as "unprecedented" as a non-incumbent Speaker.

[Alefroth]

See, you don't have any real answers either.

[hepcat]

How's that war over gas stoves going? Do we need to gear up for the war on Christmas late next week?

Christm….oh, you mean Kwanzaa?

[Unagi]

Still waiting to hear a reasonable solution to the crisis in the House.

What about an outsider? There was a rousing response to the one vote for John Boehner. He has the experience. He might enjoy a reprise that would be regarded as "unprecedented" as a non-incumbent Speaker.

Can I ask you an honest question? Why does it have to be a Republican outsider?

The Speaker of the House is supposed to 'represent' a majority of the House. That's pretty much the whole point. And right now the Democrats can show more unified numbers than the Republicans. Why do we even look at the Republicans as one party that 'holds a majority'? They are split, and that is the problem.


Let's say that all the Democrats agree to an outsider - that's 212 people. What 6 Republicans would join in their vote and support (not just to vote for them, but to support them in a Motion to Vacate too) that candidate?


You couldn't name them, because 6 of them don't exist. I'm not sure even 1 or 2 exist.

[Smoove_B]

You couldn't name them, because 6 of them don't exist. I'm not sure even 1 or 2 exist.

To be fair, they exist in secret. As noted last week, they overwhelmingly voted to remove Jordan as a candidate, but only when no one knows their identity. They're pretty clear (in secret) what's viable but won't vote their conscience in public because of the what it will mean for them (first) and then the party (second). How it impacts the country isn't even being considered, imho.

[Unagi]

You couldn't name them, because 6 of them don't exist. I'm not sure even 1 or 2 exist.

To be fair, they exist in secret. As noted last week, they overwhelmingly voted to remove Jordan as a candidate, but only when no one knows their identity. They're pretty clear (in secret) what's viable but won't vote their conscience in public because of the what it will mean for them (first) and then the party (second). How it impacts the country isn't even being considered, imho.

If there are a small handful of Republicans that would 'super secret' be willing to work with Democrats, that's news to me.
I agree that there are certainly Republicans who want nothing to do with Trump (Jordan) and can't express that in the open, so they -never- will, but that's not the same as Republicans actually being willing to work with Democrats.

"Stickin it to the Libs" is still a thing.

[Smoove_B]

I really do believe there are Super Secret (tm) members of the GOP that would absolutely work with the Democrats, but it would most likely mean they'd lose their seat while handling death threats before, during and after that officially happens. These are individuals that understand a rising tide lifts all boats (to quote a known liberal). But instead they're being overwhelmed by those that are publicly ok with burning "the system" to the ground and stopping all activity and progress. I'm actually seeing it happening now on a local level with small town politics - individuals that are doing everything they can to actually stop things from happening. Not offering solutions, not compromising just flat-out resistance. They're absolute tools, but on the other hand they were voted in.

To malchior's point above, I can absolutely believe foreign nations are looking at the dysfunction and shifting in their seats. Between Tuberville holding up military appointments (even now during what is seemingly the largest military action in years) and now the circus in the House, it's hard to ignore that Congress is (collectively) seemingly incapable of conducting routine business. For me (and others) that's scary. For some, that's the point.

[Dave Allen]

Still waiting to hear a reasonable solution to the crisis in the House.

What about an outsider? There was a rousing response to the one vote for John Boehner. He has the experience. He might enjoy a reprise that would be regarded as "unprecedented" as a non-incumbent Speaker.

Can I ask you an honest question? Why does it have to be a Republican outsider?

Didn't say it did. How about Joe Manchin?

[Unagi]

Okay. So now you are trolling

[Unagi]

Still waiting to hear a reasonable solution to the crisis in the House.

What about an outsider? There was a rousing response to the one vote for John Boehner. He has the experience. He might enjoy a reprise that would be regarded as "unprecedented" as a non-incumbent Speaker.

Can I ask you an honest question? Why does it have to be a Republican outsider?

Didn't say it did. How about Joe Manchin?

I also asked a few other questions.

[malchior]

This is a bit of a rant but I have through through this and I can not get beyond the flawed premise.

So I thought through the basic question and thought through some implications.

Why don't the Democrats vote Present?

The biggest problem here in my mind is that it is extremely anti-democratic. Essentially the argument is that we should have nearly half the voting public go unrepresented in the question of who leads the House and importantly is 2nd in line to the Presidency. That seems like a violation of basic principles to me.

The main argument for it is weak as well. It'll restore a functional government. Mostly because it wouldn't, seating of a speaker in this way means they have legitimacy problems that'll plague them and they'll just be a punching bag for their most extreme members. That math isn't changed by the move.

Another issue is that the argument that the Democrats stepping in is in the best interest of the country is muddy. The evidence we see here is that the GOP is riven with fractures that leave them unable to govern. The Democrats can obviously try to provide leadership but they can't *UNILATERALLY* save the situation. Essentially, it'd just be kicking a crisis can down the road when the crisis can has been kicked down the road for years now. The bill has come due. We can't sweep this under the rug and expect the next crisis not to be worse.

Instead, it probably would be in the best interest to let it play out to make it clear as day to the masses where our problems lie. If the American people decide to spread the blame or blame the Democrats more because the Republicans are a shit show then at least we can work our way towards whatever non-Democratic future awaits us with clear eyes that it probably wasn't going to work no matter what.

So we have to hope a group of Republicans can summon the backbone to do the right thing and form a coalition representing some majority of the people in the electorate. It'd be easier if it were people in purple districts to make this argument work. However, those members will need protection details because some will probably face violence because we can be sure that certain members and a certain Presidential candidate will stoke violence. That's where we are.

[GreenGoo]

Your country is burning to the ground but if only the Dems weren't petty everything would be fine. Plus, pronouns.

The main argument for it is weak as well. It'll restore a functional government. Mostly because it wouldn't, seating of a speaker in this way means they have legitimacy problems that'll plague them and they'll just be a punching bag for their most extreme members. That math isn't changed by the move.

I think you (Apollo) and I have very different views on what a functioning government looks like. How functional was it prior to the speaker position being vacated? Because so far any new speaker put forth has been far worse.

MacCarthy is gone because he never negotiated in good faith and constantly reneged on agreements once he got what he wanted. He's gone because he was bad for governing and bad for the country. Jordan is far worse.

Another issue is that the argument that the Democrats stepping in is in the best interest of the country is muddy. The evidence we see here is that the GOP is riven with fractures that leave them unable to govern. The Democrats can obviously try to provide leadership but they can't *UNILATERALLY* save the situation. Essentially, it'd just be kicking a crisis can down the road when the crisis can has been kicked down the road for years now. The bill has come due. We can't sweep this under the rug and expect the next crisis not to be worse.

Your country is at a crossroads. Compromising is only going to push the problem back a little, and make it that much harder to fix later.

[YellowKing]

I think it's obvious every single day who the "bigger" party is. The one not trying to peddle false claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. The one that puts faith in science and doesn't constantly peddle conspiracy theories. The one that actually attempts to govern, vs making up fake culture war problems. The one that actually has a political platform other than "stick it to the other side." The one not in thrall to a mentally ill mob boss.

[Kraken]

I saw a poll yesterday where about 30% of Republican voters don't want there to be a speaker at all; they want the House to remain paralyzed indefinitely so it can't spend their money. One suspects they haven't thought that through very well. 30% is well short of a majority, but the majority isn't in charge anyway.

[GreenGoo]

I think it's obvious every single day who the "bigger" party is. The one not trying to peddle false claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. The one that puts faith in science and doesn't constantly peddle conspiracy theories. The one that actually attempts to govern, vs making up fake culture war problems. The one that actually has a political platform other than "stick it to the other side." The one not in thrall to a mentally ill mob boss.

I mean, right? That's why there is some vitriol and aggressive responses in this thread. It's the embodiment of many of the issues being grappled with over the last couple of elections (and of course started down this path long before). People have been stressing and struggling to understand what is happening and why, and then we have a thread that's "The earth was the center of the solar system for thousands of years but now we have heresy and unrest. Galileo is the problem".

Ok, terrible analogy, but fun, so I'm leaving it in.

[GreenGoo]

I saw a poll yesterday where about 30% of Republican voters don't want there to be a speaker at all; they want the House to remain paralyzed indefinitely so it can't spend their money. One suspects they haven't thought that through very well. 30% is well short of a majority, but the majority isn't in charge anyway.

Does 30% of Republicans not understand the difference between the House and the IRS?

edit: Not because the IRS spends the money, but because the IRS takes the money and will continue to do so, functional house or no. Felt I needed to clarify.

[Smoove_B]

I saw a poll yesterday where about 30% of Republican voters don't want there to be a speaker at all; they want the House to remain paralyzed indefinitely so it can't spend their money. One suspects they haven't thought that through very well. 30% is well short of a majority, but the majority isn't in charge anyway.

Yeah, but how many of those 30% managed to get their local representative elected? So now you have a House filled with these numbskulls that believe it's their job to function as legislative stopcocks.

[LordMortis]

I saw a poll yesterday where about 30% of Republican voters don't want there to be a speaker at all; they want the House to remain paralyzed indefinitely so it can't spend their money. One suspects they haven't thought that through very well. 30% is well short of a majority, but the majority isn't in charge anyway.

Right up until their medicare and social security doesn't go through and their GI benefits aren't happening and...

I'm all about fiscal responsibility and the democrats do spend too much and the budget and debt are increasing too much IMO, but the viable opposition has been long gone for how long now? The Clinton era? Bush the Younger if you are crazy generous.

[malchior]

I'm all about fiscal responsibility and the democrats do spend too much and the budget and debt are increasing too much IMO

How do figure this is a "Democrats" spending too much problem? How are the Democrats more responsible for spend/levels of debt?

I'd argue it is both parties have generally compromised on a certain level of spending and one party has generally speaking cut taxes/revenues unilaterally when they've had the chance.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Well that's...uh an interesting way to try to explain it. One could accidentally conclude that in those blue years the Democrats had authoritarian control over the budget.

[Kraken]

Democrats try to pay for their initiatives, although creative accounting means they often come up short. More importantly, their spending (esp. under Biden) is meant to uplift the middle and lower classes and invest in the future. Sometimes it misses its mark, and a good deal of money does get wasted. But at least they're doing something positive. Deficits are fine in the service of building infrastructure, educating/training workers, advancing research, improving the environment, etc.

[malchior]

Right but I think most people don't get that most of the Federal budget is not discretionary or aligned solely with "one party". The big swings in the budget are due to agreed upon priorities like SS/Medicare/Military and tax revenue which fluctuate year over year. The deficit jumped this year because of lower tax revenue than expected and higher SS and Medicare expenses. Krugman calls the US government an insurance company with an army and it's a fairly accurate description. So yes Democrats created SS and Medicare but that was a long time ago now. I have a hard time calling that "Democrat spending" after fifty to almost a hundred years of both parties supporting and funding them.

[Alefroth]

Some tropes are very enduring.

[Blackhawk]

As an on-topic aside, asking, "Well, what's your solution, then?" when someone criticizes you is not a legitimate argument. I don't have to have an answer to a question to know when someone else's answer is wrong.

I don't have an answer to the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, but I can tell you that sending in an American landing force to seize control for Israel is a bad idea.
I don't have an answer to the Supreme Court corruption issues, but I can tell you that assassinating them is a bad idea.
I don't have a solution to climate change, but I can tell you that trying to convince everyone to completely stop driving is a bad idea.

Implying that if the person criticizing you doesn't have a better answer then their criticism is invalid is a logical fallacy (although I'm not sure which one - probably a straw man, but I usually guess wrong.)

[GreenGoo]

As an on-topic aside, asking, "Well, what's your solution, then?" when someone criticizes you is not a legitimate argument. I don't have to have an answer to a question to know when someone else's answer is wrong.

I don't have an answer to the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, but I can tell you that sending in an American landing force to seize control for Israel is a bad idea.
I don't have an answer to the Supreme Court corruption issues, but I can tell you that assassinating them is a bad idea.
I don't have a solution to climate change, but I can tell you that trying to convince everyone to completely stop driving is a bad idea.

Implying that if the person criticizing you doesn't have a better answer then their criticism is invalid is a logical fallacy (although I'm not sure which one - probably a straw man, but I usually guess wrong.)

"do better"
"how?"
"I am under no obligation to solve your problems for you"

I actually support your overarching point, but it's not a get out of jail free card either. If you (royal you) aren't willing to engage in problem solving, then say your piece and move on. You've voiced your disapproval, you're on record, so what? And I say this fully aware that my own posts are often nothing but reacting to bad news, with little content.

[Blackhawk]

Not "Do better", as it's the other side of the argument that's saying "Do better."

"I acknowledge that we have a problem, but your solution is not realistic/viable/sane."
then
"My solution sucks? What's your solution?"
then
"I don't have one, but I know yours isn't it."
then
"Well if you can't do better, you have no grounds to criticize mine."

That entire exchange (which has been implied multiple times by the OP) is not reasonable. It's like when someone claims that nobody who isn't a game developer can criticize a game, as they can't do better (something I've seen multiple times.) It's bull.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

[Pyperkub]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

Does zero good - all the Speaker Nominees are being decided in the GOP-only secret votes.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

Does zero good - all the Speaker Nominees are being decided in the GOP-only secret votes.

One of them can approach Democrats to get their votes. Anyone from GOP side that can get a few GOP votes can become the speaker with Democrat's full support.

[Dave Allen]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

Does zero good - all the Speaker Nominees are being decided in the GOP-only secret votes.

One of them can approach Democrats to get their votes. Anyone from GOP side that can get a few GOP votes can become the speaker with Democrat's full support.

Yes. And then the Democrats can hand them the short list I mentioned in post #1. And as someone has already said, this must be done in the dark.