House Dem leader: ‘Informal’ discussions underway on speakership mess https://t.co/eRaqRRDnq0
— POLITICO (@politico) October 15, 2023
This piece is sketchy, even by the low standards of Tiger Beat on the Potomac, but… “House Dem leader: ‘Informal’ discussions underway on speakership mess”:
Talks of a possible bipartisan solution to the House Speaker standoff that has created chaos in the Republican caucus are underway, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Sunday.
“There are informal conversations that have been underway. When we get back to Washington tomorrow, it’s important to begin to formalize those discussions,” the New York Democrat said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
When asked what House Democrats might be asking for a deal with House Republicans, Jeffries said his caucus wants “to ensure that votes are taken on bills that have substantial Democratic support and substantial Republican support so that the extremists aren’t able to dictate the agenda.”…
As is customary, all 212 House Democrats have been voting for Jeffries, their leader, for the speakership job. But some centrist Democrats have signaled that they’d be open to making a deal with Republicans, though it’s unclear what that deal would look like.
The goal for Democrats, Jeffries said Sunday, is to ensure that “extremists” don’t run everything.
“The current rules of the House have facilitated a handful of Republicans being able to determine what gets voted on in the House of Representatives and that undermines the interests of the American people. We can change the rules to facilitate bipartisanship and that should be the starting point of our conversation,” he said.
Per (actual) Rep. Jeff Jackson (D), of North Carolina:
… As I write this, there’s some talk that Jordan may just give it a shot anyway, call a floor vote when we come back next week, and kick off another series of speaker votes like the experience from January that we all remember so fondly.
There’s also talk that, if he truly can’t see a path, he’ll step aside. But no one knows who else would have a better shot than McCarthy, Scalise, and Jordan.
Which brings us to the exotic scenarios.
Well Jeff, it only takes five Republicans voting with all the Democrats to elect Hakeem Jeffries as speaker.
That’s true, but those five Republicans would be immediately kicked out of their party and become the target of an avalanche of foaming, seething hatred by members of their former party that would be difficult to overstate. So that feels unlikely.
Ok then, what if a handful of Democrats join all the Republicans to elect a speaker they can both tolerate?This is worth exploring. While it still feels exotic, it’s at least plausible. And frankly, the longer this piano continues to crash down the stairs, the more plausible it becomes.
But imagine, for a moment, that you are running for Speaker. You’re down, say, 10 votes in your own party. So you say to your party, “Hey everyone, I appreciate the support. Looks like we’re almost there. I’m just going to head over to the other party real quick and get the rest of the votes I need.”
Well… suddenly, you’re not down 10 votes anymore. Now you’re down dozens and dozens because you just infuriated your whole party.
This is why McCarthy knew he couldn’t even ask the minority party for some votes. As soon as his party heard about it, he’d be toast. For those saying, “Democrats could have saved him,” my sense is that they are underestimating how massively unpopular that plan would have been within Republican ranks, and how that would have undercut whatever support had come from Democrats.
Also – small note – the government is currently set to shut down in 34 days…
New: A bipartisan solution to the GOP’s leadership problems still sounds farfetched to most. But then, so does Jim Jordan’s prospects of winning next week.
With @jordainc @Olivia_Beavershttps://t.co/9IfnPyDGRe
— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) October 13, 2023
… There’s just one problem with the idea that a temporary compromise could get the House back to legislative business: It has the same issue that plagued the speakership bids of Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise and now Jordan. Right now, no solution has the near-unanimous House Republican support that’s required to pass on the floor.
Which means that, unless Jordan can overcome his skeptics and push to victory on the floor in the next several days, the only way forward might be with Democrats. A group of centrist Democrats wrote to Acting Speaker Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Friday to propose a limited agenda and some perks for the opposing party in exchange for temporarily restarting House business during a time of global crisis.
Some self-described GOP pragmatists have suggested that if Republicans can’t chart a course on their own, they could cut a deal with Democrats to break the 10-day impasse.
“At some point we have to do a bipartisan deal. I mean, they don’t want to acknowledge it, but these guys do not want to govern,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said of his own party’s conservatives.
But as desperation creeps into the GOP while Jordan pushes to lock down the gavel, it’s clear that any attempt to further empower a caretaker speaker would fall short within their own party. McHenry has indicated that his future role as acting speaker is up to his colleagues to settle — even as the Nov. 17 shutdown deadline draws closer and Israel seeks U.S. aid — but his fellow Republicans simply can’t agree on anything…
A new hope…
War for Ukraine Day 599: The Primary Effort, for Now, Remains at Avdiivka
TriassicSands
“…but these guys do not want to govern,”
Well, that’s not exactly true. What they want to do is dictate, which is what passes for “governing” in authoritarian governments.
ETA: Of course, they are incompetent so things won’t go well for the country.
Bruce K in ATH-GR
@TriassicSands: It’s the difference between governing and ruling – the 21st-century GOP, under both Bush the Younger and TFG, have made it clear they’re not interested in the nuts and bolts of governing a nation of almost a third of a billion people in dozens of discrete jurisdictions. They’ve even said that the current chaos is interfering with their ability to rule – using that exact word, “rule”.
The cleanest way forward would be if the Dems could convince half a dozen GOP representatives to outright quit their party, go independent, and caucus with the Democrats. But I’m not sure you’d find half a dozen Republicans in the 118th Congress with that much courage.
lowtechcyclist
Exactly. They want to dictate, but they’d be fuckups when they tried to do that too. Would be nice if the media noticed this.
Would also be nice if the media noticed the extent to which the Rethugs have demonized their opposition, to the extent that they can’t even attempt to reach across the aisle without getting hammered by most of their caucus for it. It would be nice if they stated that this is WHY they give the Rethugs a pass on bipartisanship, and only expect it of the Dems: that the Rethugs have gone batshit crazy in this way.
JoyceH
@Bruce K in ATH-GR: I’m afraid I share you skepticism, but unfortunately that’s the only way I see out of this mess. A coalition would subject the R joiners to the wrath of their base, and I don’t trust any R to keep an agreement anyway. BUT – if they walked firmly across the aisle and actually changed party, they’d have a new base and a party structure to look after them.
lowtechcyclist
@Bruce K in ATH-GR:
That’s why I think it’s more feasible to find 10 GOP representatives who have another commitment or get tied up in traffic, or whatever, and just miss the vote, giving Jeffries a 212-211 win. That way none of them have to actually vote with the Dems, and they can each come up with their own excuses as to why they couldn’t be at the Capitol when the vote took place.
TheDeadlyShoe
@lowtechcyclist: unfortunately then Matt Gaetz just does another motion to vacate because of the extremely dumb rules McCarthy agreed to. You need an actual majority to pass new rules….
David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
Biden was great on tonight’s 60 Minutes (video)
John Revolta
@TheDeadlyShoe: That’s what Jeffries is talking about
The goal for Democrats, Jeffries said Sunday, is to ensure that “extremists” don’t run everything.
“The current rules of the House have facilitated a handful of Republicans being able to determine what gets voted on in the House of Representatives and that undermines the interests of the American people. We can change the rules to facilitate bipartisanship and that should be the starting point of our conversation,” he said.
TriassicSands
@Bruce K in ATH-GR:
Which is why I put “governing” in quotes and said it is what passes for governing in authoritarian governments. I didn’t think a detailed explanation was necessary.
TriassicSands
@TheDeadlyShoe:
Why couldn’t the Democrats immediately change the rules? They could, but they’d have to create a rule that required a super-majority to change speakers.
ETA: Still, I don’t think that is a real solution. The solution lies in a large Democratic majority in the House. ??? Good luck with that.
Brachiator
@Bruce K in ATH-GR:
I don’t see this happening. Republicans don’t want to be Democrats, and the people who voted for them don’t want to see them become Democrats or Independents.
And as you note, the Republicans want to rule, which means blocking the Democrats. The GOP may continue their political civil war for a while. Democrats can offer a resolution, but these efforts will probably be ignored.
One possible bright spot. GOP hard liners would happily shut down the government in November, but I think that the rest of the GOP wants to avoid that outcome. This may create some room for compromise.
TriassicSands
@Bruce K in ATH-GR: @Brachiator:
I wrote the following with a comment above, but decided to post it separately. The last two sentences in the first paragraph agree with Brachiator. (ETA: And much of the second paragraph.)
They have a serious problem. Their terms, as you know, are only 2 years (I’d consider increasing that to 3 years if we had serious campaign finance reform). If they became independents, but began caucusing with Democrats, they might be risking their seats, salary, and perks. One assumes the ones willing to do so would be ones with the best chance of being elected as independents (or less likely as Democrats). Since most Republican representatives really share very little in common with most Democrats, this is a hard sell. So, I don’t think it is only courage, it is also ideology.
They might caucus with Democrats for the purposes of who is Speaker, but I doubt they would cooperate much in solving the serious problems we have. If they were willing to help on health care, personal autonomy, immigration, and LGBTQ+ issues, it would be quite positive. If all it meant was that we could prevent default and keep the government open, it might not be disappointing. One of the wing-nuts dumbest moves is threatening default or shutting down the government. That might result in big Dem gains in the next election, which would, or at least might, be much better, long term, than merely keeping the Speakership in Dem hands.
mrmoshpotato
@lowtechcyclist:
My dog ate my car.
mrmoshpotato
@David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch:
Good to hear, but how stupid were the questions.
ETA – no reflection on President Biden, of course.
I just want to know what asinine crap he had to put up with.
Frankensteinbeck
I think this overstates one key factor: How much hate a Republican would get if Democrats helped him* win. A number of Republicans would bail just because thy could if they were sure there’d be a new speaker, but if it’s a Republican speaker that’s going to be seen as a win for Republicans by all but the bomb throwers.
We’ve already seen that the vast majority of House Republicans are willing to stand up to those. This isn’t the death threat garnering betrayal that electing Jeffries would be. We’ve heard enough stories of “Why aren’t Democrats saving us?” to know Republicans are willing if the terms are right.
Me, I knew Republicans would get sick of this, but it’s actually going faster than I thought. There’s still no telling what desperate option they’ll coalesce around.
*A Republican woman getting a truly powerful job? Yeah, right.
HumboldtBlue
Guys, I… umm… I think I should be speaker.
Can we get a post card writing money thread for that?
I state fair and clear… I will speak, if elected speaker.
Frankensteinbeck
I’ll add: If the sham investigations continue and no major obviously liberal legislation passes, I think the Republican voting base will assume Republicans won.
NotMax
It’s not the Democrats’ burden to do the Republicans’ work for them.
if they go that route, it plays directly into the old chestnut “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties” trope.
Republicans made their bed, let them lie in it (and lie, and lie, and lie…).
piratedan
just considering that Jordan probably wants to go down in flames publicly, to satisfy Trump that he “made the effort” and this would allow Trump to add further reps to his “shit list” for not being sufficiently loyal to him.
So I expect Jordan to put his name up for a full floor vote. Then its even murkier, since the GOP is extremely slow to learn and needs to extend this to create even more unneeded drama, I’m guessing Stefanik will take a shot or even someone else from the relative cheap seats before there’s a move to ask the Dems to take the blame for further GOP dysfunction.
Nina
Is there a rule that the vote for Speaker cannot be anonymous? I have a feeling that if we did that we’d be looking at a landslide for Speaker Jeffries, but it could be sold to Republicans as a way to let Democrats cross the aisle for their dweeb.
Frankensteinbeck
@piratedan:
Yeah, while I think we’ve proven most of the House doesn’t care what Trump wants, Jordan is one of the true followers.
David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
@mrmoshpotato: Scott Pelley was largely sympathetic and supportive. He mentioned his age a couple of times, which in annoying. But other than that it was good.
NotMax
@,a href=”https://balloon-juice.com/2023/10/16/late-night-open-thread-the-red-queens-race-for-the-speakership/#comment-8991269″>Nina
The road of holding anonymous floor votes is NOT one we want to traverse.
(In caucus is an elephant of a different color; it has been reported Jordan fell way short on a secret ballot.)
NotMax
Fix.
@Nina
The road of holding anonymous floor votes is NOT one we want to traverse.
(In caucus is an elephant of a different color; it has been reported Jordan fell way short on a secret ballot.)
Anyway
Feel for the people of NOLA — their next governor sounds horrible.
Tony Jay
@HumboldtBlue:
You could go that route, or just cater to the authoritarian core of the MAGAt Id and declare yourself the Leader without any of that bourgeoise ‘voting’ nonsense.
“Henceforth, I am the Speaker!”
“No you’re not. It’s me. I’m the Speaker!”
“Don’t listen to him. Listen to me, for I am the Speaker!”
“I’m Speaker, and so is my wife!”
“I’m the Speaker, but I’m also the Listener.”
Silence falls and hundreds of beady eyes turn towards this fool.
“I acknowledge my mistake and respectfully withdraw from contention.”
Mai Naem mobile
The special election for David Cicilline’s seat is 11/7. Chris Stewart’s is 11/21. If you had Santos gone and McCarthy resign you would down to just needing two R votes in the 2 weeks between those two elections. There was also supposed to be an R woman who was on maternity leave but whoever she is, I am guessing is back working. This really is a ridiculous way to govern. My political brain says let the R lay in the bed they made and own the whole thing. My pragmatic brain says the Dems should cooperate to help govern.
NotMax
@Tony Jay
“I Speak, therefore I win.”
Closing excerpt from the radio play The Investigator.
Once again recommended for a full listen. Genius production skewering another McCarthy.
//
Geminid
One aspect of this question is the blowback a Republican eould receive for breaking with his caucus and voting for Jeffries. As great as voting to Impeach Trump? I think not. This Speaker question is not as salient as a vote for Impeachment was. It looms large for us right now, and it is important, but I think most Americans don’t care so much about who runs the House even if they should.
As far as Republican party politics go, the Impeachment vote was big, and only 2 of 10 Impeachers made it back to this Congress. Four others retired and four lost primaries. Elections of only two who made it back- Valadeo (CA) and Newhouse (WA)- were made possible by the jungle primary systems of their states.
Assuming that a vote for Jeffries will be say, 80% as big as an Impeachment vote, I think California Reps. Valadeo and Duarte and Newhouse of Washington would probably make it through the primary and have a chance in November. It might even help their chances in November though, and Valadeo and Duarte will need help.
Besides them, I would limit the pool of potential defectors to Republicans ready and/or willing to retire, like Don Bacon (NE).
I think that for any potential defector, political survival will be the issue, and not threats of physical retaliation.
Geminid
@Geminid: Democratic House leadership seems to br saying that thieir minimum demand is a mechanism by which legislation backed by a majority of House members can make it to the floor, obviating the “Hastert rule.” Liberalizng the House rule for petitions to discharge might accomplish that, but here they may run into a chicken/egg problem: a new rules package is not voted on until after a new Speaker is elected. At least, I think that is the case.
Well, I won’t solve this problem no matter how many more cups of coffee I drink. I’ll just note that Democratic leadership and the skilled parliamentarians among their members have been gaming this out ever since January, and I think they’ll do the best that can be done here. I am not too worried about the result.
mrmoshpotato
@David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch: Ok. Good to know. Thanks. :)
H.E.Wolf
She is Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13), first elected in 2022.
She’s a member of the Freedom Caucus, and an election denier: as in, voted NO, post-invasion by insurrectionists, on certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election on Jan. 6, 2021.
She also voted NO on multiple ballots in Jan. 2023 for House Speaker.
nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/04/us/politics/house-speaker-republicans-vote-against-mccarthy.html
There is also evidence, à la George Santos, that she has lied about her personal background.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Paulina_Luna#Disputed_biographical_claims
Ken
This reminds me of the last scene of Spartacus. Well, the next-to-last scene.
Jinchi
The usual way this goes is that the Congresspeople involved swich parties and join the opposition. There’s no being “kicked out” in that situation.
SFAW
@NotMax:
Been awhile since I listened to it. We had the vinyl when I was a kid, no idea if it’s still around.
One thing I noticed today: the cast included John Colicos and James Doohan. Scotty and Kor, together again for the first time!
Timill
@Ken: I am Preem Palver. I am First Speaker.
SFAW
@Timill:
If that’s true, then can you visit
The MuleThe Orange Jackass and “convince” him to go away? Far away?Not that he has an actual “mind” to be modified, of course.
Murc
The impression I have been getting from a LOT of the people pushing this line is they don’t mean “some sort of deal should have been struck.”
What they actually mean is “the Democrats should have seen what was happening, and, without needing to be asked, or making any demands at all, had ten members vote present so Kev could keep being Speaker.”
In other words, Democrats fix it, but in a way that puts the Republicans under no obligation and doesn’t upset them. Just… decide to keep Kev, but in a way that doesn’t ruffle any feathers.
TriassicSands
@Murc:
If McCarthy were remotely trustworthy, keeping him might have been an option. If that were the case, and it wasn’t, it would have been a test for Democrats. Perpetuating the status quo — Kevin McCarthy, a lying, backstabbing, incompetent idiot remaining as Speaker — was not something Democrats should support.
Unfortunately, a competent, honest, reliable Republican candidate for Speaker wasn’t and isn’t yet in the picture. Only the Republicans can solve this and it will take a number of them who are absolutely reliable to set the stage for a functional, if still undesirable, House of Representatives. (Note: I see no scenario in which having the GOP in charge of anything is desirable. Is tolerable even a possibility?)
At this point, the only thing Democrats should accept is an arrangement that guarantees the government stays open and the debt ceiling is raised. I wish I had more (some) confidence in the voters. If the GOP shuts down the government and that resulted in a 2025 (and continuing) significant majority for Democrats there would be serious damage, but the long-term picture might be brighter. However, there is no longer any reason to believe that would happen — especially the continuing part.
Ghost of Joe Liebling’s Dog
As a dog myself (more or less), I support Commander. The House already has more than enough tweeters ; it needs a woofer!
NotMax
@Ghost of Joe Liebling’s Dog
Almost forgotten is that in addition to Fala, FDR had a German (!) Shepherd dog who was banished to Hyde Park for similar infractions of the nipping kind.
Yutsano
@Geminid: Dan Newhouse will not ever vote for a Democrat to be Speaker. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. He will lose the jungle primary. He only won last time because his two opponents were total cranks. And he won’t ever go independent or Democrat. So that’s already a lost cause.
/rant from a constituent
Geminid
@Yutsano: Dan Newhouse won by 32% in 2020. He won by 34% last year, and thzt was after voting to impeach Trump. I think he’ll make out just fine if he doesn’t vote for a Speaker from his own caucus. Independents love that shit, and I bet they outnumber Dems in your district.
I’m not saying Newhouse will vote for someone like Charlie Dent but I would not rule it out either.