2023 Republican House Follies

[malchior]

Republicans to start off the party right

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spent the first two days of the new year trying to shore up GOP support for his bid to be Speaker by releasing a series of proposals aimed at winning over hard-right detractors who stand to torpedo his ascension.

The part of his proposed changes to House rules that drew the most attention was allowing just five House members to call for a vote at any time on ousting the Speaker; that would render McCarthy beholden to the most extreme members of his caucus, should he get on their wrong side. But buried in the text was another provision that could be highly consequential for the new Congress being sworn in on Tuesday: language that would effectively gut the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), as the independent panel faces pressure to investigate lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

[malchior]

So today we'll find out if McCarthy has enough votes to be speaker - the CW is he *does not* and there will be a potentially lengthy series of votes to distill out how much chaos we will see. That is what is leading to the GOP adopting rules (as above). Some think he'll be Speaker but will make a lot of deals in the next few days which put MAGA in the driver's seat of the agenda.

Greg Sargent at WaPo had a good piece back in the summer about another rule and it turns out he got it right back then and it is buried in the new rules package as well. Here is a relevant snippet about what this means. In essence, the governance and rule of the House has been compromised by the extreme right.

The outcomes? Constant hostage taking and shooting of the hostage by extremists like Andy Biggs (R-Ariz wingnut who has vowed that McCarthy won't be speaker). This is why they hurried up and passed a budget at the end of December. They were worried about the chaos we were about to see and thought the first hostage to be shot would be default of the United States.

Note that some House Republicans such as Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.) have already called for defunding the FBI. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has telegraphed never-ending investigations into Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, in retaliation for any activity that involves Trump.

Even an extreme GOP House would be very unlikely to totally disband the FBI, and an endless Benghazi-like circus would be harassing but not debilitating. But another threat takes the form of a parliamentary maneuver.

Beyer points out that a GOP House majority could reinstate the so-called Holman Rule. This obscure rule — which Republicans revived last time they held the majority, until the Democratic majority ended it — would allow Republicans to use spending bills to try to slash the salary of specific federal officials or eliminate blocks of federal employees, and thus specific programs.

In a little-noticed aside, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) recently floated this idea, without detail. So it’s easy to see this rule being used as a mechanism to try to eliminate Garland’s salary, or the salaries of FBI officials overseeing an investigation involving Trump (or, if this happens, Justice Department officials prosecuting him).

Republicans could also attempt to defund any investigations into Trump, or even defund probes and prosecutions relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. They could do this without the more improbable act of defunding the whole FBI.

Such an effort, of course, would not pass the Senate (if Democrats hold it) and would never get signed by President Biden. But it’s obvious Trump loyalists in the House will force showdowns over this, and if the GOP majority is narrow, those loyalists might be more empowered to succeed.

[pr0ner]

[Smoove_B]

Sounds like it's going as well as everyone expected. It's almost like having a party full of nut-jobs is actually working against them for once.

[Skinypupy]

I'm sure they'll fall in line eventually. It's what they do.

The shit-show in the meantime, however, certainly helps to highlight their complete dysfunction.

[Blackhawk]

I'm sure they'll fall in line eventually. It's what they do.

The shit-show in the meantime, however, certainly helps to highlight their complete dysfunction.

The problem is that the people that it needs to be highlighted for aren't watching.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure they'll fall in line eventually. It's what they do.

Maybe? I can see them begrudgingly supporting McCarthy so they can get to the next phase, but then refusing to support or work with the majority of the GOP unless their terrorist demands are met (as noted above by malchior).

[Jaymann]

"This is what happens when you don't recycle your pizza boxes."

[El Guapo]

TBH I'm kind of excited about the potential chaos, but at the the same time I know that the result is far more likely to be something crazy like speaker MTG than something sane or normal.

[Smoove_B]

TBH I'm kind of excited about the potential chaos, but at the the same time I know that the result is far more likely to be something crazy like speaker MTG than something sane or normal.

MTG fully supports McCarthy - he's going to get her back on committees so she can promote chaos internally.

[malchior]

Sounds like it's going as well as everyone expected. It's almost like having a party full of nut-jobs is actually working against them for once.

This is where I started my thought journey on this. After some gaming it out I think that unless they do something that utterly breaks in obvious ways then the voters won't react. I think they took that away from the midterm. Measured crazy leads to them having more power. They want to walk a "medium crazy" path. That is why they're taking scalpels to rules and using more sophisticated twisting of the sausage making. They know it's a bit of a highwire act. Beyond the true revolutionaries causing chaos they're still plodding along and doing lasting, real damage.

TBH I'm kind of excited about the potential chaos, but at the the same time I know that the result is far more likely to be something crazy like speaker MTG than something sane or normal.

The entertainment factor is somewhat what I am concerned about. People will glom on the outrage channels as the GOP intentionally channels chaos into click bait friendly media bites about how wacky they are. Meanwhile they'll continue to set up systems to consolidate power and cause more dysfunction.

[Kurth]

Is it strange that there’s 3 minutes and counting in this vote and 18 democrats have yet to cast a vote?

[Kurth]

Is it strange that there’s 3 minutes and counting in this vote and 18 democrats have yet to cast a vote?

Oh, is this just a quorum count? That makes more sense.

[Carpet_pissr]

Unless I’m reading it wrong, anyone left-leaning should not be cheering on this speaker chaos.

While maybe typically in-ranks division might delight opponents, in this case it’s lose-lose from what I can tell:
1. McCarthy gets the job…and we get McCarthy. But a very likely nastier version than we’ve known because he had to move RIGHT to get the job. Now he’s compromised, or at least biased by the right nuts.

2. McCarthy loses….and a more ‘pure’ MAGAT is waiting in the wings? More right than MCarthy? No thanks! So now I guess I’m hoping that McCarthy gets it.

3. ??

[Smoove_B]

I think the solid bet is that McCarthy has to get it and he'll do whatever it takes to secure the votes from the fringe lunatics. This will likely undermine his future position, but I'm guessing he'd rather be named the Speaker and then fight whatever battle is next. In short, he'll capitulate to them to gain their support and hope he can wrangle them in the future. Spoiler: he can't.

I don't think anyone else in the GOP is going to get nominated. McCarthy is already a wingnut and trying to get someone even nuttier than he is to appeal to the fringe GOP members will then alienate the so-called "moderates" in the party.

The GOP has really put themselves into quite a position. I'm reminded of the Tea Party takeover, except this time the GOP fringe members are violent, anti-democratic conspiracy theory wackos.

[malchior]

I have to wonder if something "impossible" (read extra hard) is in the middle of the two sides. One guess here is impeaching Biden. The hardliners want a guarantee of a vote perhaps and the less crazy GOPers won't go with it at all (the medium crazy path I postulate is the road they want to take) and they are channeling that disagreement through McCarthy?

[Carpet_pissr]

I would be shocked if it’s something that relatively benign/expected. Delighted, but shocked.

[pr0ner]

I wonder if McCarthy is going to follow through on his "promise" to not give any R who votes against him a committee seat. Not sitting almost 20 Republicans (at the moment) would be a lot of R's not on committees.

[Octavious]

20 short? Woof if that's the case.

[malchior]

I wonder if McCarthy is going to follow through on his "promise" to not give any R who votes against him a committee seat. Not sitting almost 20 Republicans (at the moment) would be a lot of R's not on committees.

I would expect he will only do it if the rules allow him to seat enough Republicans to control the committees or overwhelm the members who only have so much bandwidth that compete with fundraising requirements.

[malchior]

One little editorial note. Fuck reporters who keep focusing on talking about how embarrassing this is for the Republicans. This is wrong. This is embarrassing for *all of us*. The United States is signaling political instability again. This is the type of stuff that in the past was in the orbit of the battling before and after the Civil War.

[Smoove_B]

One little editorial note. Fuck reporters who keep focusing on talking about how embarrassing this is for the Republicans. This is wrong. This is embarrassing for *all of us*. The United States is signaling political instability again. This is the type of stuff that in the past was in the orbit of the battling before and after the Civil War.

Have they started blaming Biden yet? That he's unable to unify the GOP House?

[Octavious]

So Jeffries has more votes? That's got to hurt. I'm only picking up what's going on from random screenshots.

[malchior]

So Jeffries has more votes? That's got to hurt. I'm only picking up what's going on from random screenshots.

Yeah. Jim Jordan is doing his attack dog thing. We know you're in trouble when Jim Jordan is your "voice of reason".

[stessier]

So Jeffries has more votes? That's got to hurt. I'm only picking up what's going on from random screenshots.

Result of the first vote.



Second vote has just begun.

[Isgrimnur]

I guess "House Majority Leader-elect Steve Scalise" didn't quite get his support together.

[Octavious]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

[Defiant]

[stessier]

Pretty easy call with Jordan already at 7 votes.

[Defiant]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

He won't. You need a majority, not a plurality (unless they decide to temporarily change the rules, which they have in the past, but then, IIRC, it was because there were multiple parties in the House and no party had majority).

[Octavious]

Well I meant if some people went total nuts and said screw it I'm voting the other party. I mean I know it won't happen, but one can dream. We'll probably end up with Gym Jordan back here in reality.

[Smoove_B]

The did remove all the metal detectors for the House - maybe they should put them back and see if that helps with the vote?

[Defiant]

BTW, have all the Republicans voting against McCarthy been from the far-right end of the Republican party?

[stessier]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

He won't. You need a majority, not a plurality (unless they decide to temporarily change the rules, which they have in the past, but then, IIRC, it was because there were multiple parties in the House and no party had majority).

Actually, it could happen - but it would be super embarrassing.

Remember: McCarthy does not technically need 218 votes to become speaker. A majority of those present and voting is required to get the speakership, which is usually 218 lawmakers. But if enough people skip the vote or vote “present,” the number of votes required for a majority can drop. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was elected with 216 votes in 2021.

So if it dropped enough where only 212 was needed and the Republicans split enough that the Dems got 212 and the highest Rep was at 211, the Dems would get it.

[Alefroth]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

Then he'd be Speaker until 5 Reps got together and called for another vote.

[Holman]

All 19 Republicans who rejected McCarthy on 1st ballot reject him again on 2nd ballot.

1st ballot, they split.

2nd ballot, all 19 vote Jim Jordan.

Jordan is a known backstabber, and I imagine that this was strategized in advance. His rising to nominate McCarthy on the 2nd ballot sets him up to look like a GOP conciliator when McCarthy proves incapable of a majority.

[Jaymann]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

Then he'd be Speaker until 5 Reps got together and called for another vote.

So 5 Dems could also call for weekly votes.

[Alefroth]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

Then he'd be Speaker until 5 Reps got together and called for another vote.

So 5 Dems could also call for weekly votes.

If I understand it correctly. That's if the rule isn't changed to make it 1.

[pr0ner]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

Then he'd be Speaker until 5 Reps got together and called for another vote.

I don't think the Republican rules packages go into effect with Jeffries as Speaker.

[Alefroth]

So what happens if Jeffries wins?

Then he'd be Speaker until 5 Reps got together and called for another vote.

I don't think the Republican rules packages go into effect with Jeffries as Speaker.

Five is what it is now, isn't it?