I think, with huge reservations, that the Democrats should support Steve Scalise for Speaker

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, Scalise is quite far right -- but he is at least a man who thinks and acts with some deliberation. That's important. Jim Jordan would be absolutely hopeless at trying to unite the Republican conference, and that will be crucial to going forward. In other words, Scalise is an unpleasant choice, but Jordan is freaking scary. Yet sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of evils in order to avoid falling into the abyss.

Yet, news seems to suggest that McCarthy allies are working quietly against Scalise. I'm not clear on why.

Jim Jordan, on the other hand, was very definitely a player in January 6. Cassidy Hutchinson has testified he was privy to all of what was going on that day, and that later he worked feverishly to "stop the steal," making entirely baseless claims of election fraud. That would definitely seem to suggest that he is as disinterested in preserving American democracy as Trump is.

So, since the Democrats will never be able to get someone of their own choosing to clutch the gavel, they might be wise to support a nose-holder who will at least keep democracy alive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And the Trump endorsement of Jim Jordan makes it even more important that Scalise get the gavel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, Scalise is quite far right -- but he is at least a man who thinks and acts with some deliberation. That's important. Jim Jordan would be absolutely hopeless at trying to unite the Republican conference, and that will be crucial to going forward.

I side with your "huge reservations." Taking responsibility for installing a quite far right, deliberative, operative capable of uniting an extremely noxious political party is to move forward toward the abyss.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I side with your "huge reservations." Taking responsibility for installing a quite far right, deliberative, operative capable of uniting an extremely noxious political party is to move forward toward the abyss.

Then who would you prefer, and why? (And it would be better if your preference at least had a remote chance of winning the gavel.)

 

[F1fan]

I think a solution could be this: Democrats select 6 Republicans, Republicans select 6 Democrats, these 12 form a committee to select a speaker that is agreeable to both sides, and an agreement is made to keep the congress open and the governmemnt funded through the next election. I would think Republicans would be OK with for the sake of moving on from the chaos.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, the Republicans did nominate Scalise, although Jordan got 99 votes. So it looks unlikely that Scalise will win the speakership, and Jordan even less so. McCarthy clearly wants back in, and he still has an outside shot. Barring one of those three, it is hard to see how anyone can win a near-unanimous vote from the divided Republican caucus. They seem hopelessly deadlocked. It is possible that the MAGA crowd will see their way clear to voting for Scalise, but McCarthy's supporters will likely block him to give their own favorite a chance at returning.

Democrats need to stay out of this. They cannot help anyone into the speakership that will be immune to MAGA control, and MAGA inclusion is pure insanity. In the face of total Republican chaos, the only feasible solution is a form of a temporary unity speaker that is acceptable to Democrats. That can be arrived at without including any MAGA support, but Republicans first need to feel that they have no alternative than a compromise with Democrats. Some of them would obviously die first before agreeing to that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then who would you prefer, and why?

At this point, Hakeem Jeffries. Why? See Key votes.

 

[fantome profane]

At this point, Hakeem Jeffries.

I did hear that there actually is an attempt to get some Republicans to vote for him. I know it is a long shot, beyond a long shot. But it would be funny, and it would serve them right.

 

[F1fan]

I did hear that there actually is an attempt to get some Republicans to vote for him. I know it is a long shot, beyond a long shot. But it would be funny, and it would serve them right.

Those republicans would never hear the end of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did hear that there actually is an attempt to get some Republicans to vote for him.

Best I can tell Jeffries has zero chance of becoming Speaker.

The hope is that by sticking with Jeffries for now, the GOP might be embarrassed/coerced into dropping both Jordan and Scalise in favor of a center-right Republican candidate. (My real hope is that the Democratic Party leadership knows what they're doing. After all, there's always a first time.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

At this point, Hakeem Jeffries. Why? See Key votes.

And so would I, frankly. But one should at least try to be a bit realistic in such situations, and with divisions as they are, what is the likelihood that Jeffries or any other Democrat, could win a vote for Speaker in the House?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And so would I, frankly. But one should at least try to be a bit realistic in such situations, and with divisions as they are, what is the likelihood that Jeffries or any other Democrat, could win a vote for Speaker in the House?

The likelihood is slim to none. The likelihood that some Republican to the left of Jordan|Scalise|McCarthy might somehow find herself or himself as a compromise candidate might be only slightly better. I honestly do not know.

What I believe to be true is this:

• There is still time for political maneuvering.
• The Democratic Party leadership is better informed than I when it comes to such things.
• I would prefer not to capitulate until there is no other option.

And, once again, I honestly don't know.

 

[Copernicus]

Best I can tell Jeffries has zero chance of becoming Speaker.

The hope is that by sticking with Jeffries for now, the GOP might be embarrassed/coerced into dropping both Jordan and Scalise in favor of a center-right Republican candidate. (My real hope is that the Democratic Party leadership knows what they're doing. After all, there's always a first time.)

I agree with your speculation on this point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, Scalise is quite far right -- but he is at least a man who thinks and acts with some deliberation. That's important. Jim Jordan would be absolutely hopeless at trying to unite the Republican conference, and that will be crucial to going forward. In other words, Scalise is an unpleasant choice, but Jordan is freaking scary. Yet sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of evils in order to avoid falling into the abyss.

Yet, news seems to suggest that McCarthy allies are working quietly against Scalise. I'm not clear on why.

Jim Jordan, on the other hand, was very definitely a player in January 6. Cassidy Hutchinson has testified he was privy to all of what was going on that day, and that later he worked feverishly to "stop the steal," making entirely baseless claims of election fraud. That would definitely seem to suggest that he is as disinterested in preserving American democracy as Trump is.

So, since the Democrats will never be able to get someone of their own choosing to clutch the gavel, they might be wise to support a nose-holder who will at least keep democracy alive.

I reluctantly agree for all the reasons you've stated here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From this morning's Washington Post "The Early 202" email ...

House Republicans are ungovernable​

​

House Republicans ate another one of their own. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.) dropped out about 30 hours after Republicans elected him as their nominee for speaker by a bare majority after he was unable to secure the 217 Republican votes he needed.​

Meanwhile, the right wing of the (one-wing) GOP, unable to agree on a Speaker, is also unable to come together on whether to pander to Netanyahu or Trump as ...

Trump blasts Netanyahu for disloyalty: "F**K him"​

In any event, reluctant agreement that Democrats should vote for Scalise might have, been at the very least, premature,

 

[esmith]

Well, it appears Scalise has withdrawn his name

Scalise drops out of race for House speaker

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise has dropped out of the race for House speaker.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, it appears Scalise has withdrawn his name

Yep. I wonder to what extent the focus will shift to Minnesota's Emmer.

 

[Wandering Monk]

OBE (Overcome by Events)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep. I wonder to what extent the focus will shift to Minnesota's Emmer.

And now it appears to be between Jim Jordan and Austin Scott (with McCarthy waiting patiently in the wings). It's hard to keep up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And now it appears to be between Jim Jordan and Austin Scott (with McCarthy waiting patiently in the wings). It's hard to keep up.

Not anymore! Republicans chose Jordan. I cannot see the possibility of a single Democrat getting on board with that, so unless Jordan can garner very nearly every Republican vote (and remember, he lost to Scalise), there's no way.

My opinion, Jim Jordan would be a thoroughly horrible Speaker.