Yeah, that's why Democrats let them vote the speaker out in the first place, so the party of loose cannon renegades can come face to face with the consequences of being a party of people who are more interested in being the protagonist than in working together. Surprise surprise, the party committed to being a thorn in the side of federal government isn't able to function as federal government.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
214 points (94.6% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3732 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I feel like this is exactly what the most disruptive members are wanting. Maybe I'm just being cynical and this is way off point, but it feels to me like they want a non-functioning federal government. This entire shit show is the plan. The wrench in the gears.
It's more than "the most disruptive" members of the GOP. It wouldn't take but a handful of reasonable members to vote for Hakeem to get out of this rut. Of course, they probably wouldn't get elected again, even though not doing so will cause serious damage to the country.
I don't expect them to put country over party, just like I don't expect them to put country over their jobs. Too cowardly.
Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the "reasonable" Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?
It's just an insane idea to think anyone would give the opposing political party power rather than literally anyone from their own party. It's not a reasonable ask.
At this point I think we are likely to see Democrats make a deal for extra committee seats in exchange for the last few votes to get a moderate elected, eventually, but there is a zero percent chance a Democrat becomes Speaker.
Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the “reasonable” Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?
You think Democrats would turn down an opportunity to work with Republicans and against progressive members of their own caucus?
Manchin and Senima already have
As a counter-point: every House member goes up for re-election every two years. So lets say the moderate House Republicans vote Jeffries in.
A possible complication: I don't know, does that stupid "anyone can ask to vote you out of office" rule stay in place? In which case, Jeffries probably doesn't last a full year (I think the rule says that once moved, the next item of business has to be the vote. And the disruptors would just keep moving the motion).
Regardless of the vote-him-out situation, Jeffries would still be working with a Republican majority that really doesn't want to be seen working with the Democrats, so I'm not sure how much would actually get done, other than a budget (which, granted, is very important). And then next fall the moderate Republicans are all voted out of office and maybe replaced by more MAGAts.
Is a possible advantage lasting just a few months worth the permanent loss of some Republican moderates? Especially with Biden running for re-election and unlikely to do much that will disrupt his chances?
I'm not good with political math, nor do I know all the possible detailed repercussions, , but it's something to think about.
Maybe but I really think they thought they could hold the position hostage. That moderates would kowtow to their whims rather than not function.
Well, theyre ideology consists of "not what democrats want." They aren't for anything, only against progress or human rights/equality.
To hear them tell it, government is the enemy, incompetent, and worse at anything it attempts. Unless they're in charge and levying it against their opponents, of course.
They're in a race to prove themselves right so they can go "sEe????"
But also hate on brown people
The Israel war really puts that on a back foot. They can't just wait on the shutdown and do nothing. They are being hammered on all sides for our inaction as Israel support is popular in both parties, and it's crystal clear whose fault not getting aid is.
Diehards wont give a shit, but independents do pay attention to dysfunction. The GOP are such a shitshow of gossiping Hyena's, the media is all in on displaying it too, which helps tons.
Yeah exactly, they were handed exactly enough rope to hang themselves
Somebody measured twice and cut that rope once.
Me? I measure 3…4…23 times and cut even more times. It’s embarrassing, really.
They fucked around and found out.
"Why would the democrats do this?"
First time in history the minority party is so strong they can dethrone the speaker and leave the entire GOP in shambles.
Eh. It’s more that the “majority” party is just that weak. And incompetent.
Will the GOP have to expel the renegade caucus to function as a party? Tune in next week to find out, as the Dems take center stage in our new format: Plurality Rules!
Do they actually have a mechanism for that? And given how much influence that group has on their party and their size in it's electorate, who would be expelling who?
There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.
Plus the whole issue here is that there isn't a group of 217 who could govern, unless you include Democrats. Vote out the 8 Republicans who voted out McCarthy and suddenly Democrats have the majority.
There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.
I don't think the Democrats would mind giving a helping hand in such a case.
Short answer is, “yes”, they can expell them from their party. Party leadership isn’t exactly democratic. (Or not necessarily democratic. They could operate by council appointment instead.)
Longer answer is it’s irrelevant- you need a majority of the house to elect a speaker. Expelling them from the party does nothing to change that they too have a vote.
They’d have to have a vote on the floor to impeach and expell the from congress and incidentally, they have to have a speaker to do that
Couldn't they lost their majority if they starts expelling them?
Yes, which is why it won't happen
Now that would be interesting!
I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to understand that they are so totally broken as a party that the only way out of this mess is actually put government over party and vote for a Democratic speaker. Luckily, this only takes a handful of Republicans coming to their senses.
Honestly I think this is what they want. Is the end game to starve the beast, regulatory capture, and every other "let's break the government to show the government doesn't work".
If people think any politician involved directly in this debacle right now is really concerned about how they look, they aren't. Their voters have already swallowed the pill, lined up and pledged undying allegiance.
I think a Democrat speaker would be a horrible idea for democrats. It sounds cool, but it would be bad politically most likely. They could put things up for a vote that they want, but it doesn't give them majority so they can't actually pass anything. It just gives Republicans something to blame (in a very stupid way, but a way that'd work for the politically ill-informed) instead of them getting the blame for all of it.
The only "good" option I think is a republican that is picked by the democrats and concessions saying they'll bring anything to a vote with a certain amount of bipartisan support. Maybe also concessions to vote a certain way for upcoming things, like the budget.
Well, we now know that didn't happen, either.
Yeah, sadly. They managed to select a Christo-fascist. Good stuff...
At this point I think it's more likely for centrists dems to bail out the GOP for zero concessions than any republican to come to their senses.
GOP is a cult, you can't just up and leave a cult.
oh my fucking god please please please please PLEASE stay absolutely fucked to death forever.
Is it Britain that has the vote of no confidence thingy? Let's do that.
What they need is a so-called "constructive vote of no confidence" like in Germany: You cannot just vote one person out, you have to vote a replacement in to remove the old one.
Das a good idea
It's a feature of a lot of parliamentary systems in general. It's honestly nice to have the shake up when things are at a standstill in parliament, even if the sometimes constant elections are annoying at times. It also helps to have more than just two viable political parties, also.
I would love to see a Dem somehow step forward, and for just enough republicans vote to get them in as speaker.
Dems gotta jam a MAGA hat onto Hakim Jeffries and get this shit done!
I like the cut of your jib, but I think I'd much rather see some of the few moderate Republicans in Biden districts eat some crow and vote for Hakim without their beloved political theatre.
This just in! Republicans don't know what to do and can't agree on anything without a figurehead dictating everything. More at 11.