The Repub gridlock in choosing a Speaker might put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional", but it is a potentially dangerous thing not to have a functioning House.This might take a constitutional amendment, but it is clear that rules regarding Speaker of the House need to change to prevent government paralysis. What would happen if this had …
The Repub gridlock in choosing a Speaker might put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional", but it is a potentially dangerous thing not to have a functioning House.This might take a constitutional amendment, but it is clear that rules regarding Speaker of the House need to change to prevent government paralysis. What would happen if this had been a presidential election year? Insurrectionists such as the "Freedom Caucus" could prevent the Electoral certification process. Could they have used this to keep Trump as president if the Repubs had gotten a majority in the House in 2020?!
The simplest change to the rules would be that the previous Speaker remains as Speaker until the new Speaker is chosen. There would have to be a contingency plan in case the previous Speaker is not able to serve. And there would have to be language to prevent the previous Speaker from impeding the process of electing a new Speaker.
I like that idea, too. But in this case I wonder how well it would work. Pelosi is such a lightening rod for the right that having her still in place as Speaker would give McCarthy an edge in that he would be able to portray himself as the only viable alternative to her. It's an interesting thought.
David Frum, a staunch conservative but, to his credit, one who is viscerally opposed to magatism, opined in The Atlantic today that it will be better for the US if McCarthy is defeated, even if a Republican with even worse views wins the speakership. Frum’s fear is that Dems will cooperate to save McCarthy. Like Frum, I hope Dems don’t do that. Fortunately, Dems still have Pelosi in a position of influence. I think she’ll point Democratic members of the House in the right direction, and I certainly trust her judgment over Frum’s or mine.
McCarthy would be a disaster as Speaker. He has no spine, has already agreed to way too much extortion from the Fascism caucus, and only cares about having the job, not doing the job. But the other Republican offerings are even worse. If any of these clowns ends up Speaker, it will be bad for the country, and the world.
Dems have to try to get some of the less odious Republicans to agree to vote "Present" so Jeffries can take the gavel. But if that happens, I wouldn't want to be him.
Speakers control what comes up for votes, so they can green light bills that benefit corporations. In turn, corporations generously donate to Speakers. Look at how rich corporations have made good ole Mitch. Kevin wants to tap this money tree so badly he's making insane concessions.
That would be grand and would “only” require six Republican votes, as you know. I can’t imagine that there are six Republicans willing to do that but would be very pleased to be proven wrong.
Good idea, and it wouldn't require an amendment. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5: simply says ; "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and all other officers" The party in majority must be a House rule NOT the Constitutional mandate. Logically, the Speaker must be a currently elected member of the House of Representatives (which excludes Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as some have suggested) since it would make no sense to have a Speaker who could not even sit on the floor. and could make no legislation nor vote on any legislation. However, from that one partial sentence any member could hold the Office of Speaker, regardless of Party.
Michael Biales....wise words for dangerous times. As far as I am concerned, I see 'the 20' as enemies of our country, not as leaders who must work with everyone to build up, to heal, to continue to move our country forward. I can not imagine them dealing with world issues with respect and wisdom.
As I watched the voting for the speaker yesterday, I just became terrified at the fact of 20 republican's self -centered ignorance of what it means to participate in the priviledge to govern
Disagree. First, if another Pearl Harbor occurred we would have a Speaker instantly. Second, Congress by design is a 'sausage factory' and the particular 2023 sausage de jure will either be a tird or bratwurst, depending on the fight amongst the GOP chefs. But this is how democracy is supposed to work. Different factions argue their was to consensus as the GOP is forced to do so now. It is a day of reckoning where the GOP factions must finally confront each other's hypocrisy. Good, we should welcome it. Third, no Speaker, no movement towards trashing-dismantling the government. I'd be happy if we had no Speaker, no House of Representatives until September when funding runs out.
That is an interesting point of view, but come September we'd all be screwed. Not that we won't be screwed regarding funding the government come September anyway ...
What about the disruption to the lives of the 435 yet to be sworn in? They aren't sure if the are getting paid. Most freshman are not financially independent. Newbies cannot form offices to conduct constituent services.
And remember the debt ceiling vote comes sooner than appropriations bills. It takes time to work of appropriations properly.
This is way too serious to joke about. Not sure they care, but - until all this is settled - committee staffers won’t get paid. They must have a speaker and a rules package in place by Jan 13 or there are a bundle of financial and legislative consequences.
Meanwhile the newly elected members would not be able to hire staff, which means they wouldn't be able to do constituent service -- probably the most crucial part of a representative's job. I guess you're so privileged that you don't have to think about that?
On the whole, I think what we see on the Democratic side is "democracy playing out." The older, whiter members learning to work with members from various constituencies. Urban members learning to pay attention to the needs of rural and small-town members. The Republican side looks more like a demonstration for a course in Abnormal Psychology.
Yeah I agree Rex, PA and Ohio got surprise Bratwurst, our democracy is not safe until we get Bratwurst but when 'Lying Kevin' McCarthy is too 'liberal' for GOP House the better option is that we have no Speaker so House can do no harm.
Michael--I share your concerns about what various RWNJ's could do (and have done) as a voting bloc in any federal election scenario. But it seems to me that you are right about the (seemingly unsurmountable) barrier of a constitutional amendment. There simply is no Congress until the new one is formally established after an election. And as I read it, House rules require the election of a Speaker before any and all members are sworn into office (incumbents and newbies). The House could change its rules, but any external challenges run into the constitutional provision that each house sets its on rules. And FWIW, I don't foresee any majority coalition of Reps voting to change the current arrangement--after all, it's been a hundred years since the last time "the system didn't work."
True, but it never hurts to try, and sometimes enough people are fed up with the theatrics and with 212 Democrats and up to 40 Republicans, that might just be enough to change the rules (218 yes votes win and we don't need the Senate). I am emailing my Congressman with the suggestion offered earlier that we continue governing with the last Speaker until the new one is elected. After all we (the tax payers) are paying 83.66 per hour plus benefits and staff to each Congressperson (including the lame-brains) I don't know about you but I'd rather spend that money on something more worthwhile than allowing the republican clowns to try to destroy the legislative branch of Government, as they tried with the Executive branch from 2016 to 2020 and succeeded with the Judicial branch.
The Repub gridlock in choosing a Speaker might put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional", but it is a potentially dangerous thing not to have a functioning House.This might take a constitutional amendment, but it is clear that rules regarding Speaker of the House need to change to prevent government paralysis. What would happen if this had been a presidential election year? Insurrectionists such as the "Freedom Caucus" could prevent the Electoral certification process. Could they have used this to keep Trump as president if the Repubs had gotten a majority in the House in 2020?!
The simplest change to the rules would be that the previous Speaker remains as Speaker until the new Speaker is chosen. There would have to be a contingency plan in case the previous Speaker is not able to serve. And there would have to be language to prevent the previous Speaker from impeding the process of electing a new Speaker.
I like that idea!
I like that idea, too. But in this case I wonder how well it would work. Pelosi is such a lightening rod for the right that having her still in place as Speaker would give McCarthy an edge in that he would be able to portray himself as the only viable alternative to her. It's an interesting thought.
She is a powerful and capable woman. That’s why she’s a lightening rod.
Oh, definitely.
And that would likely solve the problem and get him elected. Not that I want him elected, but it would solve the immediate problem.
Plus it will enable staff members to get paid!
David Frum, a staunch conservative but, to his credit, one who is viscerally opposed to magatism, opined in The Atlantic today that it will be better for the US if McCarthy is defeated, even if a Republican with even worse views wins the speakership. Frum’s fear is that Dems will cooperate to save McCarthy. Like Frum, I hope Dems don’t do that. Fortunately, Dems still have Pelosi in a position of influence. I think she’ll point Democratic members of the House in the right direction, and I certainly trust her judgment over Frum’s or mine.
McCarthy would be a disaster as Speaker. He has no spine, has already agreed to way too much extortion from the Fascism caucus, and only cares about having the job, not doing the job. But the other Republican offerings are even worse. If any of these clowns ends up Speaker, it will be bad for the country, and the world.
Dems have to try to get some of the less odious Republicans to agree to vote "Present" so Jeffries can take the gavel. But if that happens, I wouldn't want to be him.
Agree! Kevin wants the position but not the job.
Speakers control what comes up for votes, so they can green light bills that benefit corporations. In turn, corporations generously donate to Speakers. Look at how rich corporations have made good ole Mitch. Kevin wants to tap this money tree so badly he's making insane concessions.
That would be grand and would “only” require six Republican votes, as you know. I can’t imagine that there are six Republicans willing to do that but would be very pleased to be proven wrong.
Good idea, and it wouldn't require an amendment. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5: simply says ; "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and all other officers" The party in majority must be a House rule NOT the Constitutional mandate. Logically, the Speaker must be a currently elected member of the House of Representatives (which excludes Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as some have suggested) since it would make no sense to have a Speaker who could not even sit on the floor. and could make no legislation nor vote on any legislation. However, from that one partial sentence any member could hold the Office of Speaker, regardless of Party.
Yes. Thought the same thing. Keep Pelosi until the republicans get it together.
Michael, I like your thinking. This is ridiculous....a scene out of Shakespeare, but no fun for those of us in the “audience”.
Not Shakespeare, more like Don Quixote, Cervantes
I agree. The first failed vote or 2 was interesting and entertaining. Now it’s infuriating and getting frightening
Michael Biales....wise words for dangerous times. As far as I am concerned, I see 'the 20' as enemies of our country, not as leaders who must work with everyone to build up, to heal, to continue to move our country forward. I can not imagine them dealing with world issues with respect and wisdom.
As I watched the voting for the speaker yesterday, I just became terrified at the fact of 20 republican's self -centered ignorance of what it means to participate in the priviledge to govern
this great nation. God protect us!!!
The 20 are insurrectionists, after all. Yes, very dangerous!
Disagree. First, if another Pearl Harbor occurred we would have a Speaker instantly. Second, Congress by design is a 'sausage factory' and the particular 2023 sausage de jure will either be a tird or bratwurst, depending on the fight amongst the GOP chefs. But this is how democracy is supposed to work. Different factions argue their was to consensus as the GOP is forced to do so now. It is a day of reckoning where the GOP factions must finally confront each other's hypocrisy. Good, we should welcome it. Third, no Speaker, no movement towards trashing-dismantling the government. I'd be happy if we had no Speaker, no House of Representatives until September when funding runs out.
That is an interesting point of view, but come September we'd all be screwed. Not that we won't be screwed regarding funding the government come September anyway ...
What about the disruption to the lives of the 435 yet to be sworn in? They aren't sure if the are getting paid. Most freshman are not financially independent. Newbies cannot form offices to conduct constituent services.
And remember the debt ceiling vote comes sooner than appropriations bills. It takes time to work of appropriations properly.
This is way too serious to joke about. Not sure they care, but - until all this is settled - committee staffers won’t get paid. They must have a speaker and a rules package in place by Jan 13 or there are a bundle of financial and legislative consequences.
Thanks for noting the importance of constituent service. I just posted a comment about that before I saw yours.
Meanwhile the newly elected members would not be able to hire staff, which means they wouldn't be able to do constituent service -- probably the most crucial part of a representative's job. I guess you're so privileged that you don't have to think about that?
Someone tried to convince me yesterday that this is democracy playing out. Not sure why I didn't want to gobble that explanation up.
On the whole, I think what we see on the Democratic side is "democracy playing out." The older, whiter members learning to work with members from various constituencies. Urban members learning to pay attention to the needs of rural and small-town members. The Republican side looks more like a demonstration for a course in Abnormal Psychology.
HA! Yes, Susan, exactly!
Good points, I think, although I’m pretty sure no bratwurst can be found among Republican legislators.
Yeah I agree Rex, PA and Ohio got surprise Bratwurst, our democracy is not safe until we get Bratwurst but when 'Lying Kevin' McCarthy is too 'liberal' for GOP House the better option is that we have no Speaker so House can do no harm.
Michael--I share your concerns about what various RWNJ's could do (and have done) as a voting bloc in any federal election scenario. But it seems to me that you are right about the (seemingly unsurmountable) barrier of a constitutional amendment. There simply is no Congress until the new one is formally established after an election. And as I read it, House rules require the election of a Speaker before any and all members are sworn into office (incumbents and newbies). The House could change its rules, but any external challenges run into the constitutional provision that each house sets its on rules. And FWIW, I don't foresee any majority coalition of Reps voting to change the current arrangement--after all, it's been a hundred years since the last time "the system didn't work."
True, but it never hurts to try, and sometimes enough people are fed up with the theatrics and with 212 Democrats and up to 40 Republicans, that might just be enough to change the rules (218 yes votes win and we don't need the Senate). I am emailing my Congressman with the suggestion offered earlier that we continue governing with the last Speaker until the new one is elected. After all we (the tax payers) are paying 83.66 per hour plus benefits and staff to each Congressperson (including the lame-brains) I don't know about you but I'd rather spend that money on something more worthwhile than allowing the republican clowns to try to destroy the legislative branch of Government, as they tried with the Executive branch from 2016 to 2020 and succeeded with the Judicial branch.
Fay, I certainly agree that we absolutely have to keep trying.
Wow. Thanks. Each new misuse of a procedural loophole forces another legal stipulation into the process to address that abuse. Well played