GOP Clown Show Continues
After two days of futility, a deal is coming together to make futility permanent.
Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein, in a column disguised as a NYT news report (“‘Nobody Is in Charge’: A Ragged G.O.P. Stumbles Through the Wilderness“) get it right:
After two days of chaos and confusion on the House floor, Republicans have made it abundantly clear who is leading their party: absolutely no one.
From the halls of Congress to the Ohio Statehouse to the back-room dealings of the Republican National Committee, the party is confronting an identity crisis unseen in decades. With no unified legislative agenda, clear leadership or shared vision for the country, Republicans find themselves mired in intraparty warfare, defined by a fringe element that seems more eager to tear down the House than to rebuild the foundation of a political party that has faced disappointment in the past three national elections.
Even as Donald J. Trump rarely leaves his Florida home in what so far appears to be little more than a Potemkin presidential campaign, Republicans have failed to quell the anti-establishment fervor that accompanied his rise to power. Instead, those tumultuous political forces now threaten to devour the entire party.
Nowhere was that on more vivid display than the House floor, where 20 Republicans on Wednesday stymied their party from taking control for a second day by refusing to support Representative Kevin McCarthy’s bid for speaker.
The uncertainty continued into the evening on Wednesday. After Mr. McCarthy failed on his sixth attempt to win the leadership position, the House — by a two-vote margin — agreed to adjourn until noon Thursday, a result greeted by hoots and hollers by Democrats hoping to extend his misery late into the night.
“Nobody is in charge,” John Fredericks, a syndicated right-wing radio host and former chairman of Mr. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns in Virginia, said in an interview. “Embrace the chaos. Our movement is embracing the chaos.”
That ideology of destruction defies characterization by traditional political labels like moderate or conservative. Instead, the party has created its own complicated taxonomy of America First, MAGA and anti-Trump — descriptions that are more about political style and personal vendettas than policy disagreements.
This iteration of the Grand Old Party, with its narrow majority in the House empowering conservative dissidents, represents a striking reversal of the classic political maxim that Democrats need to fall in love while Republicans just fall in line.
“The members who began this have little interest in legislating, but are most interested in burning down the existing Republican leadership structure,” said Karl Rove, the Republican strategist who embodies the party’s pre-Trump era. “Their behavior shows the absence of power corrupts just as absolutely as power does.”
Mr. Fredericks, who is typically one of the most aggressive pro-Trump voices in the conservative news media, said that even the former president’s renewed endorsement of Mr. McCarthy on Wednesday would do little to shore up the would-be speaker’s support.
WaPo’s Dan Balz weighs in with “House Republicans’ dysfunction points to more chaos ahead.”
The roots run deep that brought House Republicans to this week’s demonstration of chaos and dysfunction. The problems have been building for years. Now they have been exposed for all to see — to see just how broken the GOP has become. The opening two days of the 118th Congress foreshadow turmoil, frustration and a potential breakdown in governing in the coming two years.
What has been on display is a perfect storm of misjudgment and anti-institutionalism. The failure of House Republicans to properly assess the political climate (and their own vulnerabilities) in the 2022 midterm elections left them with a narrow majority rather than the “red wave” margin they expected. That empowered the band of rebels, whose sole objective, at least for a handful, appears simply to be to blow up both the party and Congress for their own gain.
House Republicans so far are incapable of organizing themselves, as the multiple ballots for a new speaker have revealed. Six times over two days the House voted, and six times Kevin McCarthy, the man who has bent himself in every possible direction to win the speakership, has gone down to defeat. In that time, the California Republican gained not a single additional vote, despite trying concessions, indignation, confrontation, plaintive appeals and occasional brave smiles.
When a new speaker is chosen, McCarthy or someone else, that person will enter the office weakened and compromised, presiding over a majority that is not just fragile but also highly volatile. This is a dangerous combination not just for the party but for the country. The power of the Freedom Caucus rebels, who have demonstrated an insatiable appetite to claim power and extract concessions, means that even the most basic but essential functions of Congress — among them passing a budget and raising the debt ceiling limit to cover previously authorized spending — will be difficult to achieve.
An Achilles’ heel of today’s Republican Party has been its inability to govern when in power. Anti-government antagonism, which has grown steadily over the past decade, has often rendered the party incapable of separating bold political claims and aspirations — repealing the Affordable Care Act, for example — from the grittier but less satisfying work of finding compromise. Many of the new members have come to Washington not to legislate but to stop legislation, to “drain the swamp,” as former president Donald Trump has put it. Performative politics have become more appealing (and often more rewarding, in terms of fame and campaign contributions) than working in the trenches to produce results.
The House has become its own special petri dish, breeding the most virulent strain of what ails the broader party. Two days of ballots that showed the competing factions dug in against one another have given the American people an unsatisfying opening look at what the newly elected House majority is about.
The party as a whole has been torn apart by a variety of factors that have been at work for more than a decade, the rise of the tea party and the grass-roots rebellion against the GOP establishment that shaped the 2010 midterm elections to the destructive impact of Trump and the corresponding estrangement with longtime allies in big business to the weakness of elected officials to stand up against the worst influences threatening the party’s long-term health.
The POLITICO Playbook team take us “Inside McCarthy’s brewing speaker deal.”
After spending the last 48 hours on life support, KEVIN McCARTHY’s bid for the speakership is seeing a potential revival.
Following a rollercoaster of a Wednesday during which the California Republican failed three more times to secure the 218 votes for the gavel, McCarthy and some of his critics finally got in a room and had what both sides are describing as productive conversations.
This morning, after slamming coffee at midnight and working the phones until the wee hours, we have a readout of new concessions McCarthy has offered his critics and where things stand.
NEW CONCESSIONS ON THE TABLE: Here’s what’s being discussed, according to one well-placed source familiar with these talks. And, keep in mind, negotiations are ongoing and fluid:
- A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.
- Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Reps. THOMAS MASSIE (R-Ky.). Who will pick those members? We’re told there is ongoing haggling. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.
- A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. RALPH NORMAN (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.
- Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 yearly appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker. Conservatives also won a concession to carve out any earmarks included in those packages for separate votes, though it’s unclear if they’d be voted on as one package or separately.
The late-night exchange of paper followed anothermajor breakthrough for the GOP leader: The McCarthy-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund reached a deal with the conservative Club for Growth, which had initially signaled opposition to a Speaker McCarthy, to stay out of open House primaries for safe Republican seats. In the past, the two groups often found themselves at war with each other, with CLF pouring in millions to back establishment candidates while the Club endorsed those on the far right. In return for that promise, the Club has dropped its opposition to McCarthy.
While I’m sympathetic to the idea of smaller spending bills that are more targeted rather than the massive omnibus bills that have become the norm, all of this is a recipe for disaster. Governing a narrow majority would have been hard enough under the old rules; it would be impossible under rules literally designed to stymy legislating at every step. Not only would the inmates be running the asylum, the craziest one would have veto power.
Given that there are 20 Republiqans unwilling to support him now, the difference between a 5-member and single-member threshold for a vote on removal is trivial. What’s really stupid is that he doesn’t seem to be able to connect the dots that he’s the poison pill in the vote process. He should remove his name from consideration, let his caucus see that they don’t got a leader, and let them deal with it. He runs the risk of not becoming Speaker, but he’s not going to be Speaker anyway. Or at least not for long under a single-member motion to vacate rule. (If nothing else, I’d be moving for him to vacate every day just for the chaos.)
The problem is that the Terror Caucus (read that on someone’s Twitter this morning and I love it) isn’t in favor of anyone – they’re against everything. Hannity interviewed Boebart last night and tried to nail her down on what she wants and she had no answer except “Kevin is a yucky poo-head” over and over.
McCarthy is negotiating with a bunch of cranky toddlers who have the key ring with the car and house keys and are holding them over a sewer grating. And from the way they’re waving that ring around they’re going to drop them sooner or later.
Does make me wonder: what the hell was he doing for the past two months? Isn’t that when all this negotiation is supposed to take place?
Personally I’m loving it. And major props to the Dems who brought popcorn into the House last night.
So McCarthy isn’t going to make it a year and the Terror Caucasus (great name) is going to spend the next year absolutely burning the whole country down. Wonderful.
@Not the IT Dept.:
Boebert is reveling in the sense of power she gets from being a dimwitted obstructionist.
Perhaps the worst part about this is in the end, the holdouts are going to end up being praised as heroes for securing a “true conservative agenda.” And the only lesson here is that holding out will get you what you want.
Also, its worth noting that for all the talk of the Democrats being led by AOC and the squad, we never saw them so publicly go against their party or torpedo leadership in order to get their wishes.*
* – of course, Conservative media has driven the definition of center so far to the right that delivering on pretty run-of-the-mill liberal agenda items is seen as the most radical leftist wins ever.
@CSK:
Well yeah, but this is why Qevin has to withdraw. Even if he wins, he won’t be able to run an organization full of dimwitted obstructionists. It’s the ultimate in lose-lose situations.
I have listened to every single speech nominating McCarthy. And I have to wonder what planet these people live on? To a person they are all blithely untethered from reality.
Ours is an immensely complex society, and the people at the center of this circus have no business being at the levers of control. They all have demonstrated they lack the honesty, the intelligence, the principles, and the character required.
Democrats should take it upon themselves to nominate a true moderate Republican…say Upton or someone like him…then watch other reasonable Congress-people flock to vote for him and we can all be done with this clown show.
Does the one-member “motion to vacate” mean that any Democrat could call for a vote at any time? Wow that is about the dumbest rule I have heard come down the pipe.
These people showed us what happens when they lose two years ago, now they are showing us what happens when they win.
Steven often talks about how losses have a corrective effect on parties, essentially serving as a feedback loop. But from engineering we know that if a system gets outside of the safe bounds of its control loop those corrective inputs can have the opposite effect than what is expected. You get a runaway feedback loop and the system is going to breakdown and permanently stop working. That’s what’s happened to the Republican State Party in California. And I believe that’s what has already happened to the National Party too, and we are just witnessing the system running away with itself.
Ask yourself, what young idealistic person who wants to get involved in politics and make a difference would say to themselves, “Yeah, the Republicans are the ones who get things done! I want to be part of that”? Or what business interest that wants real, consistent policy changes (as opposed to a one-off that a quick bribe will take care of) is saying, “Yeah, the Republicans are the partners of business and we should get behind them.”?
One thing I’m amazed at is how disciplined the Democrats are during this process. Not just showing up and voting for Jeffries, that’s the minimum. But not using their time to troll and bash the Republicans. Every Republican nominating speech is: Open borders, weaken military, out of control spending, weaponization of government against the people, etc. But Democrats refuse to use their time to rebut. I wonder why. Is it a deliberate strategy to appear calm and normal?
I wonder, are the few moderate Republicans just going to roll over to the Klown Kaucus? I’m guessing yes. If I were one of the few moderates, I would be tempted to get my own Gang of Five and roll a grenade into the midst of this circus.
If there were any sane Republicans left–IF–they would be organizing themselves, approaching the Democrats, and saying, “who would you accept from this group as Speaker, and what would it take?”
The reality is that a Democrat will not be elected Speaker in a Republican-controlled House. But, Democrats could certainly pick from a better option.
What McCarthy is giving up/caving into is going to be disastrous. Utterly, f*cking disastrous.
@Scott:
As Napoleon said: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Why does McCarthy even want the job? He’ll never overcome the humiliation of how he got it.
@Scott: And not just “moderates”. McCarthy is promising a lot of positions chairing subcommittees and sitting on powerful committees to the Freedom Caucus. At some point, members outside of that group who have been waiting in line for those positions for years are going to refuse to be put aside.
How about making something up to allow the House to run without a Speaker? Maybe a group of five representatives can fulfill the function, or something.
Or how about a rotating Speakership?
Or maybe just recess the House until January 2025.
Watching political events I often feel like I’m trapped in Plato’s cave, unable to see reality, only shadows someone displays on the wall. Mostly I only get to see what politicians say about what they’re doing and why. Occasionally I get to see an actual vote. But our political system is awash in money and I seldom get to see what the money is doing.
I’ve seen pundits say the GOP Toons are doing this because they can fundraise individually and therefore play to their base, not the establishment. Is that true? Yes, pols can raise more in small donations than they used to, but are they really independent of the big funders? Or are some of the big funders supporting their little revolt? Well, we got a brief glimpse of reality last night. The Club for Growth (sic) cut a deal. The Club has no vote in the House, how can they deal? Well, apparently both they and McCarthy believe they can exert some level of control over some House members.
And what is the deal? McCarthy’s more “moderate” PAC won’t back “moderate” candidates in open seat primaries against the Club’s candidates. The Club has a reputation for backing primary challenges from the right and will back MAGAs in open seats. Why does the Club support RW nut jobs? Because “moderates” will occasionally bow to reality and fail to support the Club’s agenda.
Dr. T talks about the effect of primaries. Some years ago the so called Club for Growth was notorious for pushing RW primary candidates. I assume they still are, but it’s hard to be sure because the horse race media seldom report what the money is doing. We only get to see the occasional breach, most of the time the money is out of sight, quietly maneuvering beneath the surface. Some elements of the Party claim to be becoming more populist. Is this, as often presented, a revolt against the establishment by the base or is it, like the Tea Party, just a different act by some of the plutocrats? I’d sure like to know what the money is doing.
@CSK:
cue the blond jokes
Well one thing about McCarthy, I am beginning to feel that Madame Truss will not have a total lock on the most humiliated Anglo world political leader.
His spinelessness does not bode well at all for any kind of competence.
Unfortunately this would rather suggest that you all will have an incident in your near future rather resembling the Mini Budget fiasco in overall denouement
I think I shall want to watch what I am holding in dollar rather carefully.
@Kathy:
With a few major exceptions (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), federal spending authority expires Sep 30, 2023. Including the military. I firmly believe that if this goes on for a couple of months, it will turn out that there are a dozen or so Republicans who will decide they don’t care to run again in 2024 who will switch parties. Also that Jeffries will demand that they give him an actual majority, not a minority Speakership, before he takes the job.
@Michael Cain:
I would love to see that, but I don’t think it will ever happen.
But how about simultaneous rounds of voting? Say three at a time. Someone nominates Kevin, say, for rounds 1, 2, and 3. When voting a rep may say: round 1 Kevin, round 2 not Kevin, round 3 present.
I’d say ranked choice voting, but that just means two Democratic nominees instead of one.
@Jen:
Here’s a scary thought, what if McCarthy is “the better option?”
BREAKING NEWS!…Dateline Washington DC
Rep. Donalds gets 5th vote for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives denying McCarthy the Gavel yet again!
Oh the Humanity!!!
Beat me to it!
I’m watching Chip Roy. Supposedly McCarthy made a deal with Club for Growth on financing campaigns. Well, good old swamp dwelling, performance artist Chip received about $100K from CFG last year. We’ll see what happens.
And Matt Gaetz is fundraising off his opposition to “Cavin’ McCarthy”. (Wonder what intern thought that up.)
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1611055038348070912?cxt=HHwWgMC4pbGBz9ssAAAA
@Kathy:..How about making something up to allow the House to run without a Speaker? Maybe a group of five representatives can fulfill the function, or something.
Or how about a rotating Speakership?
The Chicago Cubs tried this 1961-1962. It was called the College of Coaches.
Predictably it led to Chaos.
Maybe the US House of Representatives can call the new Republican leadership
the Council of Chumps.
@Scott: Went for Donalds.
@Not the IT Dept.:..Gaetz…
Gaetz just voted for Trump…
Outcome: Trump gets a vote!
@Mister Bluster:
I just saw the video on ABC. Was that MTG he was sitting next to and giggling with? I thought those two were now deadly enemies.
@CSK: Mutual admiration as performance artists.
@Mister Bluster:
So it would fit the current Republiqan mood just fine.
@Kathy:..So it would fit the current Republiqan mood just fine.
We can only hope that it will take 108 more years for the Republicans to select a speaker…
Finally, a real speech by Katherine Clark nominating Jeffries. Are they tired of the nonsense?
When I consider the issue of whether Lauren Boebert is dumb or not. I think of this old joke.
Bob was visiting a friend in another village . Bob’s friend spots Lenny walking by with a big dumb grin on his face. Lenny, you see, was the village idiot.
“Bob, watch this!” said his friend. “Dmitri, come here, I have a game for you!” Lenny ambled over cheerfully. Friend holds out both hands with a dime in one hand and a nickel in the other. “Pick whichever one you want, Lenny. Whichever is better. You can keep it.”
Lenny considered the coins for a moment. Then, saying, “Well, this one’s bigger,” he scooped up the nickel and pocketed it. With a smirk and a nod, Bob’s friend runs off.
Bob frowns a moment and then says to Lenny. “You shouldn’t let them do that to you. Dimes, though smaller are actually worth twice as much as nickels.”
Lenny smiles back at Bob. “Oh I know, but if I take the dime, they’ll stop doing it.”
What if Boebert was just staying on message? I mean the concessions James reported seem very real attempts to weaken the Speaker position – to undo what Newt Gingrich did. And to also bring back earmarks, which seem corrupt, but play a vital role in making things happen.
Of course, Boebert doesn’t want to talk about that with a reporter. OF COURSE.
He lost a 7th ballot and all his concessions got him nothing. Ha ha ha.
If he has a humiliation kink, this is the best day of his life.
The Q caucus clearly wants a scalp just to have a scalp and demonstrate to all that they can demand a scalp. And all of McCarthy’s concessions are just going to make the next person’s life more difficult, as the Q caucus isn’t going to want to give up what they “won.”
If there are any other goals of the Q caucus, I have no idea. I don’t think we will find out until McCarthy is gone.
In the end, I think it will be Elise Stefanik in the coat room with a candlestick. There was recently an article about her having no principles at all, and while that sounds like a hit piece, I think it might have been prompted by her staff, letting the Q caucus know that she’s ready to deal with them.
I still think the Problem Solvers Caucus could throw a new monkey wrench into things if they had any ambitions. They will never have a better opportunity.
There are roughly 40-60 (they lost a chunk, used to be about 60), evenly divided Republican and Democrat. Not enough to control the chamber, but enough that they can veto any speaker, and if the Dems cross over for the vote, replace the votes of the Q caucus to get to 218.
Not that the most milk toast of the Representatives are likely to engage in a lot of hostage taking, but this is their best moment. They really need someone utterly ambitious and devoid of any convictions to help them.
Again, I think of Elise Stefanik’s recent profile. I’m positive it was a job application, probably with the Q caucus, but she does have no convictions…
@Mister Bluster:
I’d love to see a Republiqan formally nominate Cheeto Benito, and see how many vote against him.
Interesting piece on Amash over at Reason. He’s definitely playing this. But… he’s playing it well.
Start with rational, reasonable reasoning as to why he should have the Speakership…
And finish with a hard punch to the gut…
@Kathy:..nominate Cheeto Benito.
I’m waiting for one of these dimwits to nominate Jesus.
The 9th time will be a charm…it’s their plan.
Boebert kinda’ looks like Vampira.
@Mu Yixiao:
That may be a reason why he wants the Speakership, but the same applies to me and half the people on this blog. The question is – what new does he bring to the table? Has he ever demonstrated any ability to herd the cats? I mean, I get why Reason is all gung-ho on him, since he is literally their highest elected candidate ever, but ultimately his first test would be to get people to vote for him. So far that hasn’t happened.
Ultimately, he voted to impeach Trump and he left the Republican Party. I doubt a single Repub would vote for him as Speaker simply because of that. Given that he is going to lose no matter what, why would a single Democrat vote for him?
@Gustopher:
You are absolutely right that they will never have a better chance, but these “Common Sense, Middle Ground” groups are just for show. They are aggressively non-aggressive.
@Mister Bluster:
That would be a great move. If they don’t specify which Jesús they mean, millions in Mexico and other Latin American countries could claim the post.
*Cringes*
New York Times Pitchbot
@DougJBalloon
One silver lining for McCarthy is that once the number of votes goes over 16, Matt Gaetz will probably lose interest.
@Jen:
Eeuu.
Would the one-member motion-to-vacate rule apply to Democrats as well? If so, why not take turns enacting it every damn day?
What I’ve been pondering lately, as we see the 8th vote that fails to produce a Speaker, is that to function, people have to be willing to bow to the will of the majority, whether that’s a majority of voters, or a majority of their caucus.
And it appears that there are significant numbers of elected Representatives, and voters who put them there, who are not willing to bow to the majority, of anything.
McCarthy is not the guy capable of crushing them, but that’s what they need.
Maybe, and bear with me here, what the Republican Party needs is the House Whisperer?
*ducks*
@Jay L Gischer:
Indeed. The dissidents claim to want to make the House more democratic, and I’m not sure I object to that goal. The Speaker has pretty much dictatorial control over what reaches the floor. However, as I understand it, they want any member to be able to propose an amendment and force an up or down vote on each proposal, This sounds like in practice it would amount to a House filibuster. This exercise is of a piece with the Koch Bro et al trying to establish minority rule, or at least the ability of a small minority to shut down anything.
I see McCarthy lost the ninth vote. Kevin Drum has a chart.
@Scott:
I’d guess it’s just keep powder dry and let the Republicans set themselves on fire.
Why bother shooting them at this point?
Mind, I’m just a half-informed Brit, so take with a load of salt.
Anyone care to educate me: can Dems at some point, and if so when, judge Republicans are so frazzled as to themselves nominate a moderate R and hope to win?
Or even a Dem?
If a Dem, go for minority leader Jeffries or would they put up some old time centrist as a “compromise”?
I mean, this is hilarious stuff, but ultimately the United States of America needs a functioning House of Representatives, for pete’s sake.
And the rest of the world needs a functioning USA, so can at least SOME Republicans just grow up, dammit?
They seem to be able to cycle through this faster with practice. The 10th vote is well underway and McCarthy has already lost 20 GOPs. Is the lady from yesterday going to complain again that the Ds are bringing blankets, popcorn, and booze? That doesn’t sound to me like a criticism of the Ds.
@JohnSF:
What the Republican Party needs is the same thing the United States needs: for the Republican Party to disband and/or be destroyed.
On the first ballot McCarthy got 203 votes. On the tenth he got 200 votes. Not going well, Kevin. You gotta know when to hold ’em; know when to fold ’em.
If Kevin and allies are still negotiating for enough votes, why not adjourn until the votes are secured, instead of keeping up this pointless spectacle? I mean, why didn’t they do that since the first three rounds of pointless spectacle?
@Kathy: I may be wrong but I think any member can ask for a vote. It’s not up to McCarthy. He’s not speaker.
@Kathy: “ I’d love to see a Republiqan formally nominate Cheeto Benito”
Your wish came true.
You know, it seems like there are only two possibilities at this point: Someone other than Kevin who comes in so nutted that the whole session is a farce, or they cut a deal with the Dems. Although that latter possibility is maybe twice as likely as it was yesterday, it’s still incredibly unlikely. So that leaves the first.
Of course I shouldn’t underestimate the Republicans finding a much stupider alternative and charging ahead with it. Maybe elect Bobert?
@MarkedMan:
Oh, then I have to wonder at the many who keep bringing up a vote.
@Scott O:
Hey, he lost another election!
@Kathy: He didn’t lose. It was a rigged election. Nobody had to show ID.
@Kathy: They have to keep voting while they are in session and they can only adjourn if they have a majority agree. The dems and the nuts are fine with embarrassing McCarthy until it is time to leave for a late dinner.