205

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told reporters Thursday after a closed-door House GOP meeting that he wants Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to tell Republicans what concessions they’ll have to make for Democrats to help them elect a speaker—underscoring the chaotic race to find a new House leader as Republican options grow short to overcome an intraparty impasse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 114 points 1 year ago

"Look, just tell us what promises we can break in order for you to help us stop looking so bad!"

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago

That's the thing, it's not just a one-and-done vote, anyone who votes for a Speaker will be required to continue to support that Speaker on a bunch if procedural votes. So there are ways to follow up on any deal made. Recall that after the Debt Ceiling thing, the MAGAs were so upset that they stopped voting with Republicans on those procedural votes, and the chamber was almost as paralyzed as it is now. (Funny how they didn't consider that to be working with Democrats, even though they all voted the same way).

There are several concessions that the GOP can make, which would still respect the Speaker's Conservative agenda:

  • give the Democratic supporters better committee assignments, at the expense of Republicans who don't support the Speaker. This may make some key committees a 50/50 split.

  • give the Biden impeachment the up-or-down vote it should have gotten when it started

  • A promise to give certain bills that the Senate sends over an up-or-down vote as well

  • disband Jim Jordan's committee on the weaponization of government, which seems to only be serving to weaponize government.

And, if any of these are not followed through on, Democrats can withdraw their support in those procedural votes and leave the House Speaker powerless to do anything until those needs are addressed. Thus is exactly what the far right has done, but the difference would be that Democrats would be negotiating in good faith, and have a long-term goal of governing, not burning it all down.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

In a world of sense and decorum your idea would work flawlessly. But we aren't in that world.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

I like how the extreme ideas that Republicans are scared of are simple things like "let the House vote on stuff".

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It seems like a key part of Republican strategy recently is for leadership to prevent votes they know will pass, simply because it has Democratic support.

Mitch is a master at this. He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination because he knew that if the whole Senate voted on it, it would pass. And he once fillibustered his own Debt Ceiling bill to prevent a vote because Democrats decided to support it.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Or how almost all of this is predicated on not working with Democrats as their default. Bipartisanship is a sin for them. It's one of the worst things they could possibly consider doing.

McCarthy nullifies those maga clowns months ago by making a deal with the Dems: I won't bring an impeachment inquiry we all know is fucking dumb, if you vote for me when they try to oust me.

All.he had to do, during the shutdown fiasco, is work with the Dems and make that same deal.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The problem with all these points is that the newly minted speaker can just toss those promises out the window as soon as he's sworn in.

That's the problem here. Republicans cannot be trusted at their word.

The only way this works is if all of these items are added to a resolution that acts as a vote and the vote for speakership is bolted on. Procedurally, this isn't possible.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It is kind of is possible, because the Speaker can only conduct business in the House if a majority agrees. There are procedural votes all the time, for things like the agenda for the session, which need this majority.

After the Debt Ceiling vote, the far right had a temper tantrum and stopped voting with McCarthy for a week or so, and nothing could get done until Kevin gave them back their binkie so they would start voting the right way again

Presumably, in any agreement to share power, whatever coalition voted for the Speaker would be expected to keep voting in his favor on those procedural votes, otherwise the whole thing stops. Which also means that the Speaker has some incentive to keep his coalition in his camp. In a typical party-based majority this should be easy, but Matty and Jimmy get mad when you take away their binkies.

[-] Treczoks@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

s/bad/stupid and incompetent/g;

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
205 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4546 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS