McCarthy has been removed as Speaker of the House.

[tytlyf]

Actually the thread is about...

McCarthy has been removed as Speaker of the House.​

? I can read.
Can you read this statement " So, who will the next Speaker be?"
That's in the OP
My initial post was in response to that. Which I quoted in post #3

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's exactly right. Gaetz had charged that McCarthy could not stay in power without the help of Democrats, but this vote showed that Gaetz could not oust McCarthy without help from Democrats. Republicans need to understand this. They cannot accomplish anything without some support from Democrats. And they can't pass any laws without support from the Senate, the agenda of which is controlled by Democrats, and by a signature from a Democratic president. It's time they learned that our representative democracy cannot function without members of both parties willing to reach compromises.

That's laughable.

Democrats don't compromise. They are just as bad as Republicans.

 

[Bthoth]

There was a vote to accept a motion to vacate -- passed 218 to 212 (I think). Then there was a motion to table that motion, which failed by about the same number. That led to an hour of debate, and the final vote was also about the same.

I did not get the full story. Thanks for the information

 

[We Never Know]

? I can read.
Can you read this statement " So, who will the next Speaker be?"
That's in the OP
My initial post was in response to that. Which I quoted in post #3

Well carry on sunshine. Dont let me cloud your day by sticking to the OP title and relaying what the final vote was.

 

[tytlyf]

Well carry on sunshine. Dont let me cloud your day by sticking to the OP title and relaying what the final vote was.

We had a thread the other day where we talked about who wanted him removed, etc.
My contribution to the thread was a response to the question "who will be the next speaker"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you forget it was Gaetz a republican, that put the motion to remove McCarthy? It was not a democrat vs republican pursuit.

Yes, but only about ten Republicans voted to have him removed. I do not know if this was a wise move on the part of the Democrats.

 

[fantome profane]

The irony is awesome, isn't it?

Irony? Yes I suppose so. But the word I would use is hypocrisy.

 

[Bthoth]

Yes, but only about ten Republicans voted to have him removed. I do not know if this was a wise move on the part of the Democrats.

I prefer dropping out from party politics. That was why I posted what I did to share it was not done by the dems as a party issue.

 

[fantome profane]

Did you forget it was Gaetz a republican, that put the motion to remove McCarthy? It was not a democrat vs republican pursuit.

Yes, your point is?

Btw, if this example doesn’t work, there was another budget vote a few days ago that proposed an extremely conservative budget. The Dems of course voted against it, and Matt Gaetz voted with the Democrats then too.

 

[fantome profane]

In your dreams -- unless, of course, the position remains vacant until after the next election AND we are very lucky.

My dreams are very very different. But I understand your point.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think Tom Emmer will likely be the new house speaker.

Of course McCarthy can vie for the speakership again.

There's nothing stopping him from trying to regain his post.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For flip's sake.

I'm not surprised, but still disappointed. Why did any D's even vote on this?

This was my initial reaction too, but I haven't done a deep dive yet.

 

[We Never Know]

For flip's sake.

I'm not surprised, but still disappointed. Why did any D's even vote on this?

Party wars. Against each other and with the repubs, against themselves.

 

[Shaul]

The next Speaker will be even more constrained by the conservative members. This could also impact spending legislation and give more influence for conservatives before the November 18 deadline.

 

[Callisto]

This was a Republican v Republican production -- Democrats really had nothing to do with it. But the bottom line, as far as I can see, is that Republicans have basically declared that "if one of us tries to work with a Democrat, to be bi-partisan, his butt belongs to Jesus!" That's pretty sad. Decent people, people who genuinely want to solve problems, will always try to find middle ground, to find ways to come together for the good of all -- and Republicans want none of that, it would appear.

This just shows just how genuinely deplorable the current Congress is. Even the GOP's sainted Ronald Reagan was willing to work with the Democrats and famously reached out to Tip O'Neill (Democratic Speaker of the House) during his first term to work out the budget deficit despite often being at each other's throats (politically). Unsurprisingly, they both wanted different things: Reagan wanted to cut Social Security, O'Neill wanted to reverse some of Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy, and so on. Same old song, different singers. But they were willing to get something done, which they did: within a quarter they forged a tax equity act and created a bipartisan committee on Social Security.

Fast forward 40 years and now we have nothing more than packs of jackarses who simply want to create as much havoc as possible and care more about sticking it to the other party than doing their gdamn jobs. The public isn't even an afterthought, we're just collateral damage.

 

[Shaul]

That was a bit weird. I thought that the Democrats would have voted to keep him. They did not like him because he did not deny the MAGA enough so the Democrats voted with the MAGA extremists.

It is also short sighted. Every Republican that is tempted to work with the Democrats will remember how McCarthy worked with the Democrats last week to get the Continuing Resolution passed and the very next week these same Democrats voted en masse to oust him.

 

[We Never Know]

It is also short sighted. Every Republican that is tempted to work with the Democrats will remember how McCarthy worked with the Democrats last week to get the Continuing Resolution passed and the very next week these same Democrats voted en masse to oust him.

Yep. They won't work with the dems for fear of being ousted.
I think McCarthy thought the dems would save him.

 

[Shaul]

Yep. They won't work with the dems for fear of being ousted.
I think McCarthy thought the dems would save him.

I think it is clear that they made the calculus that McCarthy was irreparably damaged and no longer useful. They must think they can get more clarity (i.e. stalemate would suit them fine) from a yet to be determined Speaker. But it is a risky move. If a Republican Speaker candidate comes forth that has genuine broad support the Democrats will face an even harder time.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, but only about ten Republicans voted to have him removed. I do not know if this was a wise move on the part of the Democrats.

If those Republicans hadn't voted to vacate, McCarthy would still be speaker. And you think the Democrats made a bad move? LOL

 

[Bthoth]

Yes, your point is?

I Wrote my reason the the post above. The action was not based on party politics.

Btw, if this example doesn’t work, there was another budget vote a few days ago that proposed an extremely conservative budget. The Dems of course voted against it, and Matt Gaetz voted with the Democrats then too.

A conservative GOP does not side with party only, but the rude will claim a party and skip doing their job.