Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Cygnia]

 

[Ranxerox]

Leopards Eat Kevin McCarthy's Face

 

If you can't read the article, that is fine.  The headline pretty much tells the whole story.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

 

[Starlord]

Gaetz voted for Trump for the 7th crapsh...err ballot of the week.

[unclevlad]

And now the clowns have entered the ring.

 

The vote overall was...no change.  Save for the clown vote.  Gaetz voted for Donald Trump.  No one else did.

 

From Stranger in a Strange Land, Jubal Harshaw on Joe Douglas:  He's an honest politician.  Once bought, he stays bought.

 

Of course, in Gaetz' case, Trump didn't have to buy anything, Gaetz gave his political soul away.

 

Reports are that McCarthy is going to try to adjourn the House, but that's likely to be blocked.  

 

Yeah, McCarthy is toast.

[Pariah]

[unclevlad]

And Boebert chimes in.  She blathers so long...for Trump, I assume, but I never heard the name...that multiple members call for order.  

 

EDIT:  Others is showing 2 now.  I expect they're both for Trump but I didn't hear who they were.

 

EDIT 2:  nope, Gaetz was the only one voting for Trump.  Boebert moved away from Donalds to a separate Freedom Caucus member, as did another member from that guy's state, I believe.

 

Basically, no movement.  

 

EDIT 3:  and they're going another round that almost certainly will be utterly pointless.  Right now we're getting the newest rounds of nominating speeches.

[Lord Liaden]

This is a boil lancing itself. It's painful, and it's a disgusting mess, but there's no other way to drain the puss.

[unclevlad]

11 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

This is a boil lancing itself. It's painful, and it's a disgusting mess, but there's no other way to drain the puss.

 

Speaking of pus, C-SPAN just had a camera shot of George Santos...

[Starlord]

17 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Speaking of pus, C-SPAN just had a camera shot of George Santos...

 

 

[unclevlad]

If someone tried to write Santos, the critics would pan him as totally unbelievable....

 

Turned the sound back on for Boebert, as I was curious who she was nominating...Hearn, the guy she voted for last round.  She continued a thread:  no, this isn't broken, this is a good thing, this debate.  That's been repeated several times now.  Like repeating them endlessly will give them greater validity?

 

EDIT:  it's Hern, according to the display.  My bad, I just went with what I expected from the sound.

 

EDIT 2:  the vote's ongoing but the trajectory is the same as the last 2.

 

From the Slate article someone posted before, I think:

 

Quote

And I think we know how this new "Church Committee" (as well as the "Laptop From Hell" committee and the "Lock Up Dr. Fauci" committee and all the rest) will actually unfold. These are not serious people dedicated to good-faith oversight. They're a nihilistic carnival act run by folks who are desperate for attention. We're in for a gruesome train wreck of a congressional session.

 

[unclevlad]

And.....here we go again.  4th round of the day.  The first nominating speech is starting...so my sound is now off.

 

Is this another pointless, fruitless repetition?  The reports are that a deal might be coming closer to happening but it didn't sound like it was set...so...probably.

 

EDIT:  and yet again, the nominating speech for the opposition faction trots out "no this doesn't say we're dysfunctional."

 

And ballot #10 shows...no material change.  There's a shift away from Donalds to Hern, but that's just the MAGATs.  McCarthy's vote total has remained fixed all day, with the exception of one supporter who has been absent.  Report is, he had a medical appointment.  

That kinda goes along with some other reports earlier...if they can't get this done tomorrow, several members have weekend plans...believe one was a wedding.

 

EDIT 2:  <sigh>  at least one more round.  Comments are, there are enough concessions here to draw some votes to McCarthy.  The exact number is unknown but it's believed it won't be enough.  However, if it gets him close, the plan is that'd isolate just a handful of holdouts.

 

 

[unclevlad]

And....that round goes down, with no meaningful changes.  Gaetz formally nominates Trump this time, but again, he's the only one voting for him.

 

A motion to adjourn barely passes.  All the Dems vote Nay, one Rep joins them.  Don't know who yet, but 219-213...that's how narrow things are.  And that's just to let the majority of Republicans continue to cede all the power to the MAGATs via further negotiations.  

 

A note just a few minutes ago:  the staff members of the committees were warned that if there's no rules package by the 13th, they won't get paid.  

[Ternaugh]

Round 11 is done, with no real change. They're now adjourned until tomorrow.

 

An interesting note about simple majorities. The 218 being quoted is for a full House, with everyone voting. We're actually down one representative, as Virginia's Donald McEachin passed away in November after winning re-election, but that doesn't change it from 218. Now, if a congress critter votes "Present", then that vote isn't counted as one that influences the total needed. If enough Republicans vote Present, then it could lower the total needed to elect a Speaker to below the 218 number. Get it to 212 or below, and the new Speaker could be the Democrat.

 

Likewise, in the past, they've sometimes voted to select a Speaker with a plurality of the vote, meaning whomever gets the most votes is Speaker. The Republicans might decide to vote to use this, if they think that they can sway the rest of their party to toe the line--which isn't very likely in this environment. The risk is, once again, that the Democrat could win under this rule.

 

The Speaker doesn't have to come from the House, and there have been several suggestions of going outside for a candidate that could appeal to moderate Republicans and the Democrats, though this is also highly unlikely right now. 

[archer]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

The Speaker doesn't have to come from the House, and there have been several suggestions of going outside for a candidate that could appeal to moderate Republicans and the Democrats, though this is also highly unlikely right now. 

 

Going out on a limb for a couple of potential candidates:

 

1) Paul Ryan - used to be a darling of the Freedom Caucus back before they were only a circus sideshow yet he also managed to appeal to the more moderate members of the House Republican caucus as well. I've always thought his leaving the House had a lot more to do with Trump dragging the party into the gutter and Ryan wanting no part of THAT than any other possible motive.

 

If they reach 30-40 rounds of voting with no significant changes, I wouldn't be shocked to start hearing rumors of a "Draft Ryan" movement. 

 

2) On the other hand, if the Democrats wanted to eventually stop the Republican sideshow for some reason (like raising the debt ceiling this summer to save the government from default), it'd be interesting for them to do a "Draft Liz Cheney" thing.

 

As speaker, she wouldn't be onboard with endless meaningless investigations of pretend "crimes" nor would she be onboard with any "Impeach Biden" movement for no crime at all.

 

She'd be spending all her time trying to keep the Republican crazies in line and likely not have any time left over to promote a real Republican agenda of any sort (whether Trumpism or a more conventional Republicanism). And at worst, if she did manage to reign in their crazies and prevent them from recruiting more crazies to run for office in the 2024 election cycle, that'd only be good for the country in the long run. 

 

If the Democrats block voted for Cheney, they'd only need a couple of disgruntled Republicans to cross over and vote with them. 

 

It'd tie the Republican caucus in knots for the next two years while providing, perhaps, the chance for a couple of pieces of bipartisan legislation to pass like raising the debt ceiling (or getting rid of the whole concept of "a debt ceiling" altogether).

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, archer said:

2) On the other hand, if the Democrats wanted to eventually stop the Republican sideshow for some reason (like raising the debt ceiling this summer to save the government from default), it'd be interesting for them to do a "Draft Liz Cheney" thing.

 

As speaker, she wouldn't be onboard with endless meaningless investigations of pretend "crimes" nor would she be onboard with any "Impeach Biden" movement for no crime at all.

 

She'd be spending all her time trying to keep the Republican crazies in line and likely not have any time left over to promote a real Republican agenda of any sort (whether Trumpism or a more conventional Republicanism). And at worst, if she did manage to reign in their crazies and prevent them from recruiting more crazies to run for office in the 2024 election cycle, that'd only be good for the country in the long run. 

 

If the Democrats block voted for Cheney, they'd only need a couple of disgruntled Republicans to cross over and vote with them. 

 

It'd tie the Republican caucus in knots for the next two years while providing, perhaps, the chance for a couple of pieces of bipartisan legislation to pass like raising the debt ceiling (or getting rid of the whole concept of "a debt ceiling" altogether).

 

Part of me (okay, mainly the contrarian part) would really like to see the Democrats nominate and vote for her, if for no other reason than to watch all the MAGAT heads explode.  Think they could get a half dozen or so Republicans to vote for her?

[archer]

3 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Part of me (okay, mainly the contrarian part) would really like to see the Democrats nominate and vote for her, if for no other reason than to watch all the MAGAT heads explode.  Think they could get 6 Republicans to vote for her?

 

Like I said, it'd depend on whether there was a governmental crisis which only Congress could address (something more traumatic than none of them being paid until after they'd been sworn in by a new Speaker).

 

So with enough time passing and enough unsuccessful votes for Speaker...I think there's a lot of scenarios which become more likely. Like Trump getting indicted by Georgia and again by the DOJ would likely make a number of House Republicans think they'd made a mistake of following McCarthy's lead in forcing Cheney out of her leadership post.

 

I don't think it's something that'd happen in the next couple of weeks. It'd be more of consequence of a months-long train wreck like they had with the Speaker vote in 1856 (if I recall  the date correctly). 

[unclevlad]

54 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

if for no other reason than to watch all the MAGAT heads explode

 

Umm...not in the chamber, please.

 

I mean, all that black, slmy, rotted, zombie brain matter really, really STINKS, and it's a BEAR to clean up.  Let's have some sympathy for the House custodial crew.  

 

(And the clerks and tellers who've had to conduct all these contentious votes.  They've been solid pros throughout.)

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

(And the clerks and tellers who've had to conduct all these contentious votes.  They've been solid pros throughout.)

 

 

Speaking of which, here's probably the only classy thing to happen in that chamber in the past few days.

 

 

 

 

You may also notice that Matt Gaetz is the first one to sit back down. 

[unclevlad]

Yep, saw that.  Was streaming it all afternoon.  Yes, that's probably a sign I need serious therapy.  Mostly turned the sound off for the nominating speeches;  they ranged from "get on with it" for the Jeffries speeches to embarassing for the McCarty speeches, to seriously disgusting for the opposition speeches.  That particular bit was right at the opening of the first nominating speech, for McCarthy, on the last ballot.

 

Oh, and mostly I was playing on the other computer.  (Plus, switching tabs on the browser was fine...the sound continued.)  This has to get done, so it's important.  Seeing the movement from vote to vote might have mattered...if there was any.  And picking up things like Gaetz voting for, then at the end, nominating His Orangeness.  And maybe it had the appeal of a slow motion train wreck.  Like I said, I may need serious therapy.

 

 

[Pariah]

Q: How many Kevin McCarthys does it take to change a light bulb?

 

Spoiler

A: Well, he'd need a House first....

 

[Hermit]

It's Jan 6. The anniversary of the sedition... I would not be surprised if today, of all days, the vote for McCarthy finally went through as a part of a ploy by the Trump delegation to distract folks news wise from the Jan 6 coup attempt's anniversary. The media will be all about it finally going through instead of 'hey, remember when Trump swayed an ignorant mob to try to disrupt a lawful election by besieging Congress?'

[Starlord]

FYI - In 1855, it took 2 months and 133 ballots to elect Nathaniel Banks Speaker of the House.

 

So McCarthy's doing pretty well comparatively.... 

[Hermit]

30 minutes ago, Starlord said:

FYI - In 1855, it took 2 months and 133 ballots to elect Nathaniel Banks Speaker of the House.

 

So McCarthy's doing pretty well comparatively.... 

 

If we're making comparisons to THAT Time line I think I need to win a house in a northern state in the next ten years.

[unclevlad]

McCarthy is going to *just* miss this time...but he's picked up most of the opposition.  Caught at least 2 of em making pretty clearly tough changes.  The final count's 214-211.

 

I think they'll probably get the last couple votes needed today, altho the C-SPAN commentator is reporting that's not expected.  And it may not be easy, as 2 of the 7 voting against are Boebert and Gaetz.

 

EDIT:  from an NYT opinion email about the mess.

 

Quote

Pildes points to the tremendous power of social media and small donor fund-raising as two factors that have increased any single politician’s ability to get vast amounts of attention and money — an incentive structure that has “enabled individual members of Congress to function, even thrive, as free agents.”

 

Or, as Michelle Goldberg put it in her scorcher of a column this week, the people gumming up the works for McCarthy are “crafting brands as much as political careers, meaning they benefit from high drama and have little need to work their way through Republican institutions.” These are people who care more about airtime than policy, Michelle says, and if you’ve watched any cable news this week, it’s easy to see that they’re winning. It’s also reasonable to assume that this is not a one-off event, but rather the beginning of the next stage of institutional breakdown. These incentives are not going away.