Only the Chaos Caucus, aka RINOs, contends that it is a Democrat problem. They love ignoring the old saying, when you point your finger at someone, remember that three more fingers are pointing back at you.
The Democrats do not control the House. Kraven Kevin thinks he does, but the Chaos Caucus has him by the short hairs because he was so greedy for the gavel that he gave them the power to kick him out by a single complaint.
A single Representative (of either party) can make a motion to "vacate the chair". But it requires a majority of the entire House to pass. Likewise, it takes a majority of the entire House to elect a new Speaker. In practice that means no one will make the motion unless they have a majority of votes lined up to pass it.
On the other hand, you're right that so long as Mr McCarthy remains Speaker, what the extremists want is what the House will deliver. But there is a solution, and it is precisely the "motion to vacate."
The cross-party alliance of moderate Republicans and Democrats that joined together to prevent a U.S. default a few months ago will also eventually pass the funding bills. At that time they can use the leverage of their bipartisan majority to strip Kevin McCarthy of his Speakership.
Using the same "motion to vacate" that the Freedom Caucus has been wielding as a threat, they can remove Mr. McCarthy and elect a moderate Republican Speaker, someone like Don Bacon (R-NE), who is committed to govern responsibly.
A network of ordinary citizens has been working to bring this about since January. Everyone who values an orderly functioning House of Representatives is encouraged to pitch in.
What am I missing here? The Republicans have the House majority so the Speaker is going to be a Republican. Don't both parties get to vote on the Speaker or is it just the majority party? Because if both parties have a say, are we really so divided that there weren't enough moderate Republicans along with some Democrats to elect a better Republican Speaker than McCarthy? Someone that the Dems could work with? I hate to think they thought it would be better to to just leave him twisting in the wind. That would seem to be a cynical mistake.
TW, Because of the way the House is organized, its committee structure and expectations of party discipline, the vote for Speaker is almost always strictly party line. That's why what we're urging Democrats to do would require uncommon political courage.
Likewise, it's extremely rare for Representatives to reject the leadership of their own Speaker, because that creates a split in party unity that remains after the vote. So again, moderate Republicans would need uncommon political courage.
But there are two things that can summmon such courage among individual Representatives: 1. Fear of losing the next election (moderates in swing districts), and 2. Threats to the institution itself by radical extremist members.
Both of those factors are currently in place. All that's needed is vigorous public support for taking a bold step. That's where we come in, at www.FeathersOfHope.net
Jerry, Thanks for the clarification and the beacon (Bacon?) of hope. Getting Rs and Ds to compromise on bills that are necessary to the continued functioning of government is one thing. But how realistic is it that enough Democrats, perhaps even elected on an "obstructionist" platform, opposing even some "mainstream" Democratic ideals, would vote for a Republican Speaker, whomever s/he is, to continue Republican policies which a majority of Ds oppose?
You are right that ordinarily Democrats do not vote for a Republican Speaker, David.
But MAGA extremists in the House are not ordinary politicians. They're not just another minority voting bloc like libertarians, or even the Tea Party.
The MAGA faction supports and identifies with January 6 conspirators, and speaks openly and proudly of a coming civil war. Their intent is to obstruct and disrupt, not to legislate. They actively wanted a U.S. debt default, and now they actively want to shutdown the government. They are a threat to the institution itself.
During the marathon voting for Speaker in January, the idea of a bipartisan coalition to elect a compromise candidate was under serious consideration until McCarthy finally made enough concessions to eke out a victory. Now that we've had 8 months of MAGA dominance in the chamber, with their complete disdain for the concerns of other Members, we at FeatherOfHope,net believe the time is ripe to reconsider that option.
Realistic? Who knows? There's surrender and there's resistance.
Jerry, I was certainly not suggesting surrender to fanatical, uncivilized bullies. I only meant to voice my concern and my impression of the likelihood of your being successful. I certainly hope that you prove me wrong.... but I won't be taking any bets.🥴
Yep. I guess it's a coin toss as to whether we get a government shutdown or another Speaker fight. Somehow I can see it being both. Not sure how lucky we'll be with getting the spending bills through, even with the continung resolution.
Shutting the government down has not just one, but TWO bad sides for Republicans- doing it right before an election (before CHRISTMAS, even) never works out for Republicans and the faux impeachment and Hunter Biden investigations will stop (nothing to run to Fox News about!)
And yet they keep using it as a cudgel and a threat. If they would simply work with the Democrats and compromise, I bet they would get more of their agenda accomplished, since the US tilts to the right. But that would be work and acceptance that the federal government has its uses.
The Senate passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee before their recess.
First time that's been done in years.
Democrats are not the problem.
Only the Chaos Caucus, aka RINOs, contends that it is a Democrat problem. They love ignoring the old saying, when you point your finger at someone, remember that three more fingers are pointing back at you.
It is a Democrat problem. They are governing and not trying to eliminate the federal government. When will they get with the program?!?
The Democrats do not control the House. Kraven Kevin thinks he does, but the Chaos Caucus has him by the short hairs because he was so greedy for the gavel that he gave them the power to kick him out by a single complaint.
David, that's not exactly accurate.
A single Representative (of either party) can make a motion to "vacate the chair". But it requires a majority of the entire House to pass. Likewise, it takes a majority of the entire House to elect a new Speaker. In practice that means no one will make the motion unless they have a majority of votes lined up to pass it.
On the other hand, you're right that so long as Mr McCarthy remains Speaker, what the extremists want is what the House will deliver. But there is a solution, and it is precisely the "motion to vacate."
The cross-party alliance of moderate Republicans and Democrats that joined together to prevent a U.S. default a few months ago will also eventually pass the funding bills. At that time they can use the leverage of their bipartisan majority to strip Kevin McCarthy of his Speakership.
Using the same "motion to vacate" that the Freedom Caucus has been wielding as a threat, they can remove Mr. McCarthy and elect a moderate Republican Speaker, someone like Don Bacon (R-NE), who is committed to govern responsibly.
A network of ordinary citizens has been working to bring this about since January. Everyone who values an orderly functioning House of Representatives is encouraged to pitch in.
Learn more here: https://www.FeathersOfHope.net
.
What am I missing here? The Republicans have the House majority so the Speaker is going to be a Republican. Don't both parties get to vote on the Speaker or is it just the majority party? Because if both parties have a say, are we really so divided that there weren't enough moderate Republicans along with some Democrats to elect a better Republican Speaker than McCarthy? Someone that the Dems could work with? I hate to think they thought it would be better to to just leave him twisting in the wind. That would seem to be a cynical mistake.
TW, Because of the way the House is organized, its committee structure and expectations of party discipline, the vote for Speaker is almost always strictly party line. That's why what we're urging Democrats to do would require uncommon political courage.
Likewise, it's extremely rare for Representatives to reject the leadership of their own Speaker, because that creates a split in party unity that remains after the vote. So again, moderate Republicans would need uncommon political courage.
But there are two things that can summmon such courage among individual Representatives: 1. Fear of losing the next election (moderates in swing districts), and 2. Threats to the institution itself by radical extremist members.
Both of those factors are currently in place. All that's needed is vigorous public support for taking a bold step. That's where we come in, at www.FeathersOfHope.net
.
Jerry, Thanks for the clarification and the beacon (Bacon?) of hope. Getting Rs and Ds to compromise on bills that are necessary to the continued functioning of government is one thing. But how realistic is it that enough Democrats, perhaps even elected on an "obstructionist" platform, opposing even some "mainstream" Democratic ideals, would vote for a Republican Speaker, whomever s/he is, to continue Republican policies which a majority of Ds oppose?
You are right that ordinarily Democrats do not vote for a Republican Speaker, David.
But MAGA extremists in the House are not ordinary politicians. They're not just another minority voting bloc like libertarians, or even the Tea Party.
The MAGA faction supports and identifies with January 6 conspirators, and speaks openly and proudly of a coming civil war. Their intent is to obstruct and disrupt, not to legislate. They actively wanted a U.S. debt default, and now they actively want to shutdown the government. They are a threat to the institution itself.
During the marathon voting for Speaker in January, the idea of a bipartisan coalition to elect a compromise candidate was under serious consideration until McCarthy finally made enough concessions to eke out a victory. Now that we've had 8 months of MAGA dominance in the chamber, with their complete disdain for the concerns of other Members, we at FeatherOfHope,net believe the time is ripe to reconsider that option.
Realistic? Who knows? There's surrender and there's resistance.
.
Jerry, I was certainly not suggesting surrender to fanatical, uncivilized bullies. I only meant to voice my concern and my impression of the likelihood of your being successful. I certainly hope that you prove me wrong.... but I won't be taking any bets.🥴
Hope is our last name, David. I'm not a gambler, but our odds are better than you might think..
Thanks for your support.
.
Yep. I guess it's a coin toss as to whether we get a government shutdown or another Speaker fight. Somehow I can see it being both. Not sure how lucky we'll be with getting the spending bills through, even with the continung resolution.
Shutting the government down has not just one, but TWO bad sides for Republicans- doing it right before an election (before CHRISTMAS, even) never works out for Republicans and the faux impeachment and Hunter Biden investigations will stop (nothing to run to Fox News about!)
And yet they keep using it as a cudgel and a threat. If they would simply work with the Democrats and compromise, I bet they would get more of their agenda accomplished, since the US tilts to the right. But that would be work and acceptance that the federal government has its uses.