![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Clown show in DC, part 378
Theoretically, a bill passes the House of Representatives when it has a majority vote. But since the 1990's, starting with Newt Gingrich, every Republican Speaker has mostly followed what's now called the Hastert Rule: a bill can't even be brought up for a floor vote unless it's supported by a majority of the majority party. In other words, a bill might have 70% support in the House, but it can't pass unless it also gets 51% of the Republicans. The current Freedom Caucus feels this doesn't go far enough: any bill that doesn't have enough support to pass the house with only Republican votes shouldn't be brought up for a vote at all. And since there are more members of the Freedom Caucus than the Republican majority margin, this means the half-dozen of them have a veto on anything passing the House (and therefore the Congress).
Nine months ago, McCarthy was unable to win the Speakership without giving away lots of goodies to his extremist fringe: several of them were given prize committee assignments, and there was a rule that any one member of the House could "move to vacate the Speakership" at any time. In other words, the extremists had him by the short hairs and could yank his leash any time they wished.
Last Friday, having tried repeatedly to pass an all-Republican continuing resolution to keep the government functioning and failed because his extremist fringe wanted it to be more extreme, he violated the Freedom Caucus Rule, brought a bipartisan bill to the floor, and it passed easily on a bipartisan basis. We now have another six weeks to pass twelve spending bills -- a difficult task, but possible with good management. This was a step too far for McCarthy's puppet masters: they yanked his leash, hard, and removed him from the speakership, the first time that's happened in Congress's 235 years. Democrats seriously discussed bailing him out, giving him enough votes to keep his Chair, but decided they couldn't trust him either, and voted unanimously for the motion to vacate.
And he says he won't run for the position again, presumably because he didn't enjoy being on a leash. The Freedom Caucus desperately want to get one of their own named Speaker, because McCarthy wasn't extreme enough and they couldn't trust him. Another House Republican, Ralph Norman, says “Since we only have a four-seat majority, we’ve got to stick together, and that’s going to be the dilemma — that we’ll have to come up with somebody that’s a conservative and somebody who will do what they say.” Where "conservative" presumably means very close to Freedom Caucus, if not actually in the Caucus. Unfortunately, most of the Freedom Caucus are loathed and detested by their own party colleagues, which will make it difficult for any of them to get that kind of support.
The problem isn't that McCarthy was uniquely untrustworthy. In a 221-212 House, if they choose any Speaker with Republican-only votes, that Speaker will be in the same position as McCarthy: unable to pass anything without either the Freedom Caucus or the Democrats, unable to pass anything that stands a chance in the Senate without the Democrats, and at risk of losing the Speakership if it works with Democrats.
Which leaves another possibility: they could put up a moderate Republican (yes, there still are some), explicitly on a "bipartisanship" platform, and get enough Democratic votes to outweigh the loss of the Freedom Caucus. Such a Speaker would arguably be exchanging the Freedom Caucus leash for a Democratic leash. But that leash would be held by a large number of centrists who want government to function, rather than a small number of extremists who actively want government to fail, so the leash is much less likely to be yanked.
What would it take to get those Democratic votes? Obviously, you'd have to drop the "any member can move to vacate the chair at any time" rule, or the Freedom Caucus will pull this stunt again every 24 hours. Next on my list would be the Hastert Rule: get rid of that, and a Republican speaker could actually get things done with bipartisan support. Even better, things passing the House would have a realistic chance of passing the Senate (where there's a 1-vote Democratic majority). I'm sure the Democrats would like a couple of committee chairs too; I'm not sure how reasonable a demand that is when the Republicans hold a majority. If they can reach agreement fairly quickly on a moderate Republican Speaker and no "majority of the majority" rule, that would be enough to get the House functioning again, as it will need to do in order to pass twelve appropriations bills in six weeks before the next shutdown. The Freedom Caucus will be enraged, not only at the loss of their veto but at the government not shutting down in November as they'd hoped, but they can go pound sand.
The new Speaker (presumably from a "purple" district where there's a realistic general election), after a year of Actually Getting Things Done In Washington, would have a good chance of getting re-elected to Congress in November 2024, and probably to the Speakership (assuming Republicans still hold the majority). The only down side for such a Speaker would be, of course, the death threats.
Technically, there's no law that the Speaker of the House has to be a member of the House, so they could pick a moderate Republican who's not an elected official at all. Perhaps a recently-retired elected official who's respected by the sane members of both parties.
Nine months ago, McCarthy was unable to win the Speakership without giving away lots of goodies to his extremist fringe: several of them were given prize committee assignments, and there was a rule that any one member of the House could "move to vacate the Speakership" at any time. In other words, the extremists had him by the short hairs and could yank his leash any time they wished.
Last Friday, having tried repeatedly to pass an all-Republican continuing resolution to keep the government functioning and failed because his extremist fringe wanted it to be more extreme, he violated the Freedom Caucus Rule, brought a bipartisan bill to the floor, and it passed easily on a bipartisan basis. We now have another six weeks to pass twelve spending bills -- a difficult task, but possible with good management. This was a step too far for McCarthy's puppet masters: they yanked his leash, hard, and removed him from the speakership, the first time that's happened in Congress's 235 years. Democrats seriously discussed bailing him out, giving him enough votes to keep his Chair, but decided they couldn't trust him either, and voted unanimously for the motion to vacate.
And he says he won't run for the position again, presumably because he didn't enjoy being on a leash. The Freedom Caucus desperately want to get one of their own named Speaker, because McCarthy wasn't extreme enough and they couldn't trust him. Another House Republican, Ralph Norman, says “Since we only have a four-seat majority, we’ve got to stick together, and that’s going to be the dilemma — that we’ll have to come up with somebody that’s a conservative and somebody who will do what they say.” Where "conservative" presumably means very close to Freedom Caucus, if not actually in the Caucus. Unfortunately, most of the Freedom Caucus are loathed and detested by their own party colleagues, which will make it difficult for any of them to get that kind of support.
The problem isn't that McCarthy was uniquely untrustworthy. In a 221-212 House, if they choose any Speaker with Republican-only votes, that Speaker will be in the same position as McCarthy: unable to pass anything without either the Freedom Caucus or the Democrats, unable to pass anything that stands a chance in the Senate without the Democrats, and at risk of losing the Speakership if it works with Democrats.
Which leaves another possibility: they could put up a moderate Republican (yes, there still are some), explicitly on a "bipartisanship" platform, and get enough Democratic votes to outweigh the loss of the Freedom Caucus. Such a Speaker would arguably be exchanging the Freedom Caucus leash for a Democratic leash. But that leash would be held by a large number of centrists who want government to function, rather than a small number of extremists who actively want government to fail, so the leash is much less likely to be yanked.
What would it take to get those Democratic votes? Obviously, you'd have to drop the "any member can move to vacate the chair at any time" rule, or the Freedom Caucus will pull this stunt again every 24 hours. Next on my list would be the Hastert Rule: get rid of that, and a Republican speaker could actually get things done with bipartisan support. Even better, things passing the House would have a realistic chance of passing the Senate (where there's a 1-vote Democratic majority). I'm sure the Democrats would like a couple of committee chairs too; I'm not sure how reasonable a demand that is when the Republicans hold a majority. If they can reach agreement fairly quickly on a moderate Republican Speaker and no "majority of the majority" rule, that would be enough to get the House functioning again, as it will need to do in order to pass twelve appropriations bills in six weeks before the next shutdown. The Freedom Caucus will be enraged, not only at the loss of their veto but at the government not shutting down in November as they'd hoped, but they can go pound sand.
The new Speaker (presumably from a "purple" district where there's a realistic general election), after a year of Actually Getting Things Done In Washington, would have a good chance of getting re-elected to Congress in November 2024, and probably to the Speakership (assuming Republicans still hold the majority). The only down side for such a Speaker would be, of course, the death threats.
Technically, there's no law that the Speaker of the House has to be a member of the House, so they could pick a moderate Republican who's not an elected official at all. Perhaps a recently-retired elected official who's respected by the sane members of both parties.
no subject
no subject
I wondered back in January why they didn't do that instead of paying the bullies, and it seemed like people thought that would be political suicide for the moderate Republicans involved. I wonder if those prospects look better to them now, after all these antics. I'd love to see moderate Dems and moderate Reps come together on a centrist who will get things done.