Scalise Drops Out of Speaker Race. What Now?
The clown show still lacks a ringmaster.
WaPo (“House speakership stalled as Scalise withdraws from race“):
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) announced at a Republican conference meeting Thursday night that he is pulling out of the race to become speaker. The announcement came after a day full of lengthy meetings with fellow Republicans that several described as unproductive. Scalise had narrowly edged Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in a Wednesday conference vote to be named speaker-designate but had made little progress getting to the 217 votes he would need in a floor vote to win the gavel.
Yet again, the online version has gone into live-blogging mode, which I suppose is easier than hiring editors. Other bits from scrolling down the page follow. I’ve taken the liberty of arranging them in an order that makes sense.
This is particularly insightful:
After Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) left the room, lawmakers remained to discuss the next steps, with many overwhelmingly saying they must unite for the sake of the country. But as one member pointed out, that means different things to many people.
Quite.
While Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was present in the room, he never addressed the conference, according to multiple people in the room who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about an off-record meeting. But many Republicans consider Jordan as the only viable option and plan to see if he could win in conference Friday morning.
First, Republicans will try again to amend their conference rules and raise the threshold to elect a speaker from a simple majority to 217, the number necessary to win on the House floor. Several members said it will be a fight to amend it, but many believe they would rather have the change so members can elect a speaker behind closed doors and save public embarrassment if a speaker-designate can’t win on the floor, like what would have happened to Scalise.
If that threshold is raised, then the question becomes who can get the necessary 217 votes. Some members believe Jordan won’t get that number, while others say that if he notches even a majority of Republicans, they should go to the floor and vote as their conference rules state. Many Republicans are angry about the drawn-out process and just want to coalesce around any Republican at this point.
But divisions may prevent that from happening.
Ya think? My gut tells me there’s a better chance that Hakeem Jeffries or Nancy Pelosi is the next Speaker than Jim Jordan. He simply has too much baggage for any Republican not in an incredibly safe district to cast a vote for him. But then again:
Rep. Marcus J. Molinaro (R-N.Y.), who is one of a bloc of four New York Republicans who represent relatively competitive districts, told reporters he’s heading into Friday’s speakership vote with an open mind.
“Jim Jordan can certainly earn my support,” Molinaro said.
And:
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) said after the Republican meeting ended that he’s concerned that a Jim Jordan speakership could be weaponized against GOP lawmakers in swing districts. But he added that he intends to support Jordan if he is elected the speaker designate on Friday.
Color me skeptical. He’s so manifestly a worst choice than McCarthy, Scalise, or McHenry that it boggles the mind that anyone thinks there are 218 votes for him.
Oh, and there’s this:
Should Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) continue his quest for speaker, he will have a major problem: supporters of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Scalise backers were furious that Jordan refused to acknowledge the election results Wednesday that nominated Scalise and didn’t give a full-throated endorsement of the majority leader. They think that if Jordan would have clearly gotten behind Scalise, the party would have more easily been unified.
That would seem to be an obstacle.
Rep. Michael Lawler (N.Y.), who is considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House, said his conference was nearing the time to increase the powers of Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.).
“We need to work and elect a speaker,” he said. “If we are somehow unable to get to 217 [votes] in the next 24 to 48 hours, then I think that needs to be looked at so that we can at least be focused on doing the work of the American people.”
Of course, if there are enough votes to do that, why not simply, I don’t know, elect McHenry Speaker?
“People looking for a perfect system should not be looking at the U.S. House right now,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) said after another day passed with Republicans unable to elect a speaker.
Truer words, Dusty. Truer words.
NYT chief Washington correspondent Carl Hulse (“With the World in Crisis, House Republicans Bicker Among Themselves“) adds some context:
Two key U.S. allies are engulfed in vicious wars. A disruptive government shutdown is looming in just over a month. Americans are held hostage overseas by hostile forces. Uncertainty ripples across the country.
House Republicans, meanwhile, are consumed with an extended struggle of personal grievance, petty beefs, political payback and rampant attention-seeking that on Thursday night forced Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana to withdraw as his party’s candidate for speaker. The tumult has sidelined Congress at a critical moment and rendered the Capitol a bastion of G.O.P. dysfunction. The spectacle of their infighting is even more glaring at a moment of international crisis, a fact not lost on Republicans themselves as they remain unable to settle on a speaker who could put the House back in business.
“We are living in a dangerous world; the world’s on fire,” Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said on Thursday after leaving a closed meeting where Republicans groped unsuccessfully for a path out of their stalemate. “Our adversaries are watching what we do — and quite frankly, they like it.”
“I see a lot of threats out there,” he added, referring ominously to the ongoing disarray among his own colleagues unfolding in the Capitol basement. “One of the biggest threats I see is in that room, because we can’t unify as a conference and put the speaker in the chair together.”
In past moments of crisis, such as the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, lawmakers have been able to set aside personal and political differences, if only temporarily, to show a unified front to reassure the country and the world. But there was no sign on Thursday that Republicans were ready to end their bickering despite the press of world events and it was unclear how they could right the ship after Mr. Scalise’s wrenching decision.
While a goodly number of our commenters reject the notion, a large segment of the House Republican caucus—indeed, almost certainly a majority of it—agrees. While they may hold policy preferences you find abhorrent, they mostly want to do the job their constituents elected them to do. Unfortunately, there are enough votes—we can start with the eight who voted (along with every House Democrat) to oust Kevin McCarthy as Speaker without a viable replacement in place—to throw a wrench into any sensible compromise. So here we are.
In my staff meeting yesterday afternoon, as we were presenting some alternatives we had put together for rearranging our academic calendar in event the government shuts down on November 17, sending the civilian faculty home, my boss’s boss, a colonel with very recent Hill experience, expressed his confidence that it was all for naught. With the Israel crisis underway, he was sure the Republican caucus would rally around Scalise and authorize support for Israel and then get to the work of keeping the government open. Alas, it took only a few hours for the first part of that to prove untrue.
And, again, I think the overwhelming number of House Republicans would happy rally around Scalise, McCarthy, McHenry, or any other sane member of their caucus and do just that. There just aren’t enough of them.
As I’ve noted before—along with a few OTB commenters—the obvious solution is for the normies to form a coalition with Democrats to elect a Speaker and get on with the people’s business. I just don’t think that’s possible in the current political climate, as most Republicans would be vulnerable to getting primaried if they voted to do that.
![House Leadership Crisis Continues [Updated]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jim-jordan-weirdo-512x256.webp)
![House GOP Drowning [UPDATED]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/matt-gaetz-reporters-512x256.webp)
![Jordan Backs Patrick McHenry as Super-Temporary Speaker [UPDATED]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/patrick-mchenry-512x256.webp)
There is talk about enough Dems voting present to elect someone, in exchange for rules concessions. But how would any Dem trust a Republican, any Republican to keep their word?
@MarkedMan: In fairness, while McCarthy is an absolute spineless weasel, his failures to keep his word is a function of that spinelessness, not his honesty. That is, I think he fully intended to keep his promises based on his agreements with the crazy wing and then he was forced to renege when the crazy wing added new demands. When any yahoo can call for a recall, they have inordinate power. If a power sharing agreement precluded easy ouster, it would be a lot easier to negotiate in good faith.
@MarkedMan: Taking the Democrats I’ve heard at their word, they were OK with Boehner and Paul Ryan, because while they didn’t like their policies, they could negotiate in good faith. McCarthy wasn’t seen the same way. He broke deal after deal, with both sides. They might have been willing to vote present for a Boehner, under these circumstances.
I used to lament the lack of statesmen amongst politicians, but now I lament the lack of politicians amongst the performance artists and clowns in the GOP caucus. Politicians were at least smart enough to recognize the value of deal making, and the benefit such deals could have for both their political career and – even if inadvertently – the country. The sad state of affairs is that the next man up in the Republican leadership cadre is almost certainly worse than the current occupant. Scalise was no improvement over McCarthy, and Jordan is far far worse than Scalise. (Fortunately, Jordan does not represent my area of Ohio, He’s west of me, over in Wingnuttia.)
What. A. Mess.
Jordan’s unwillingness to acknowledge Scalise as the pick shows just how petty he can be. Is THAT who we need as Speaker? I mean, setting aside all of his baggage.
Everyone is divided up into camps and they’ve all been trained to believe compromise is a dirty word. That makes this a prophecy in action:
What a disaster.
There’s no incentive–none–for Democrats to work with anyone on the Republican side to get them out of this mess. McCarthy made certain that well was poisoned before he left.
McCarthy has done irreparable damage to the Speaker’s office, all in pursuit of what? One can’t even say power because he didn’t really have much, and yielded what little he had very ineffectively.
It doesn’t even matter if most of the conference understands what needs to be done. They’ve allowed the most irresponsible elements of the party (MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, etc.) to run wild and in doing so those people have amassed followings of exactly the types of people you wouldn’t trust to watch a pet rock for you, much less a plant or pet.
I just cannot even with these people anymore.
My congresscritter, Chip Roy, member of the Klown Caucus, was/is a supporter of Jim Jordan. He is the one pushing the 217 behind closed door vote scheme. Knowing Chip as I do (BTW, looking more like Vladimir Lenin every day), he is continually looking to increase his influence behind the scenes and desperately wants to be a player. He was against Scalise before the vote and continued to oppose after the vote. One of the deals he got from McCarthy was to be put on the Rules Committee which controlled what bills went to the floor. He will not want to give that up. That may have been why he opposed Scalise. Scalise may have promised that spot to someone else.
I have not idea how this is going to turn out but the good of the country is not a criteria for these buffoons.
BTW, we need a clock highlighting the amount of time the House has not been in session. Ten days now?
Democracy does work. minority rule within a democracy has its limits.
What? Hang every DEM in DC and any of us who complain about it afterwards? And some people wonder why DEMs and GOPs can’t work together. s//
More seriously:
Yeah, Jordan has been cranking the meth.
At any rate I don’t think God loves me enough to give the scintillating duo of the self avowed rapist and the sexual predator’s enabler as the heads of the GOP.
@OzarkHillbilly: Republicans would do well to nominate Wagner, frankly. I know Ann from long ago, when she was managing the GHW Bush campaign in MO.
@James Joyner: I was thinking more about the deal he struck with the Dems over the budget. Given how quickly he abandoned it you have to assume he never meant to keep his word in the first place.
@Jen:
I wonder how many Republican Reps, a) come from purple states, and b) have open primaries. Cooperating with Dems to save the country might be enough to get them through a primary…
…. nah. There are no principled risk takers left in the Republican Party.
@MarkedMan: My sense, strictly from the outside, is that he made the deal to avert the disaster of defaulting on the debt and then had to make even more concessions to the loonies to get them to go along with keeping the government open—and even that didn’t work. The problem isn’t that he doesn’t intend to keep his promises but that he was in no position to make promises.
@James Joyner: You could be right. It’s just my personal opinion, sans hard evidence, that McCarthy is a perfect example of the modern say-anthing-to-win-the-moment Republican, i.e. no integrity, no values, just opportunism. But it would take cracking his head open and taking a look inside to answer that… something I’m sure many of his colleagues would be happy to OK.
@James Joyner:
@MarkedMan:
Why can’t it be both? I suspect he’s not a particularly skilled politician. It’s not entirely insane to think McCarthy is an untrustworthy liar and incapable of understanding that he was in no position to make those lies work for him.
@James Joyner:
@MarkedMan:
Why can’t it be both? I suspect he’s not a particularly skilled politician. It’s not entirely insane to think McCarthy is an untrustworthy liar and incapable of understanding that he was in no position to make those lies work for him.
There’s a name for Republicans with integrity: ex-Republicans. So any GOP Speaker nominee is going to run up against the trust issue.
An honest man would not be supporting Trump. One cannot be honest and function in Trump’s Party. Not allowed. The rot is at the top.
There might be a Speaker soon if five House Republicans switch parties.
Now this made me laugh (primarily because it is dark humor which fits my normal disposition).
On the idea of having a temporary Speaker with an expiration date (I assume that’s a metaphor):
@Scott:
How about a rotating Speaker? Every GQP member gets a shot at it for one day.
@Scott: I wonder what the equivalent of the Lex Julia will be…
@Scott:
Hitler was named chancellor after winning a plurality. End of elections.
Hamas was elected to a 4-year term in 2005. They are still there, again no more elections.
I rather suspect most GOPs would say, “Nope. Not me. Not now, not ever.”
Scalise may not be saying this publicly, but Drum has experience dealing with the similar health issues that will soon be impacting Scalise in rather uncomfortable ways, and Drum feels that between the real struggle to fight to get enough votes, and dealing with chemo after effects, etc., that Scalise felt it is just not worth it to stay in the mix to be the next speaker of the House.
He also feels that we are getting to a point where the GOP has to huddle with the Democratic members of Congress and get serious about how to move forward.
That being said, the GOP has to understand that the “freedom caucus” members are pretty much the members who are willing to support a 2nd insurrection without giving it a second thought, and they are true believers that the election was stolen from Trump, so they will not be the next speaker of the House.
They are Traitors, the whole lot of them, screw them. The GOP needs to stop coddling them, sit down with Democrats and figure out an acceptable person to support as the next speaker. For pete’s sake, there are over 200 GOP members of the house, and they are not all crazier than a shit house rat and traitors to boot, pick one of them, hash out some conditions that cannot be violated under pretty much any and all circumstances and get the government chugging along again.
@OzarkHillbilly:
The knives are out. These radical Republicans truly believe that their moment, their time, has come. These are true believers. They will engage in whatever treachery it takes to seize power. The old rules – brokering in good faith, honest – do not now apply.
Democrats are playing by rules and norms, Republicans are not.
da@James Joyner: “The problem isn’t that he doesn’t intend to keep his promises but that he was in no position to make promises.”
It’s kind of touching that you have such faith that McCarthy is an honest man forced to break his word by circumstances. Adam Schiff has long told a story in which he and McCarthy flew back from California together, had a long and pleasant conversation on the plane, and as soon as they were back in DC McCarthy told the press that Democrats were so partisan that Schiff refused to talk to him. And when Schiff confronted him on it, McCarthy just shrugged and said that’s politics.
McCarthy seems to be known by everyone on both sides as a liar. Why you’ve decided that you know the real Kevin is a mystery to me…
@wr: I don’t have any claim to “knowing the real Kevin,” who I don’t much like. I just think it’s plausible that, if you’re the kind of guy willing to constantly humiliate yourself to keep power, you’re also the kind of guy who keeps making deals that you’re not in a position to enforce when, inevitably, you’re asked to humiliate yourself some more.
@wr: Agreed, 100%. I find the story told by one Capitol insider on Twitter (maybe a Rep?), that McCarthy’s intent was NOT to strike a deal on the debt ceiling but instead was an attempt to hang the shutdown on the Democrats (which backfired spectacularly when Dems agreed to a deal) a far more believable scenario than McCarthy “doing the right thing.” I’d call him a weasel or snake but at this stage I feel comparing Republicans to animals does the animal kingdom a disservice.
@MarkedMan:
This is huge coordination problem.
Moreover, what will Dem voters prefer, rewarding Rs who helped with a short-term deal, or electing a D to replace them?
@charontwo:
He actually lost his election for the presidency to von Hindenburg (who won an absolute majority). von Hindenburg named him Chancellor.
@James Joyner:
A little American Pragmatism – a thing is defined by what it does. As with the oft debated question of whether W was a liar about WMDs, what the hell difference does it make why McCarthy lied? He lied. He could be expected to lie in future. I’m not interested in unknowable questions about his motivations.
@Charley in Cleveland: Having retired from Cincinnati to Florida for reasons that had nothing to do with politics, I sometimes look at DeUseless and FL politics and question the decision. Then I look at current OH politics and can’t see much difference. Governor DeWine strikes me as having spinelessly conceded to the crazies, rather than embracing them like DeUseless, but the end result is the same.
@Steven L. Taylor: I definitely agree that this involves huge, potentially unsolvable problems, but I’m curious as to what you were thinking when you specifically referenced coordination problems. What type of coordination were you thinking of?
Need to get this posted before the Georgia Representative burns his 15 minutes of fame and drops out…
Who is Austin Scott?
@James Joyner: Indeed – but one should take lesson from his spinelessness and manipulability on the margins.
Democrats backing a return of McCarthy – via presence vote – rather makes some sense. He is manipulatable and if he got in via “Presence” vote of the Democrats (not some outright unity grouping) it would become then a passive weapon. The power (and willingness) to destroy a thing controls it to do the paraphrase of Dune.
One should not expect great gains of course, but in the perspective of the reduction of harm, this could make some sense (else the likely route is ending up with something worse).
While a good portion of your Left side commentators unexamined actual position is the conversion of the heathens, in the good fashion of the true believers in righteous causes, some dirty compromise
@gVOR10: That is actually the oppositve of pragmatism, American or not, although very much the true believer condemnation of the heathen.
Knowing the reason for some acts, if it gives insights into leverage to exploit – morally impure and incorrect as such is – is actual pragmatism.
@James Joyner: this would seem rather likely given the facts in the record. Although displeasing to moralisers.
@Lounsbury:
Morals are a good thing.
And if Republicans hadn’t abandoned morality, they wouldn’t be in meltdown mode, unable to govern, or about to nominate for the presidency a multiply-indicted, insurrectionist daughter-groomer who was recently found liable for rape.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Hindenburg is not a name associated with great things.
@DK: Republicans issues hardly resolve to Lefties ideas of morality, although do rather appear to resolve to their own excess of True Believers with their own morality over pragmatism
Of course morals and moralisers, one should consult the meanings.
@DK:
Morals are codes of conduct generated by religions, religious people will by definition regard morals as “good” if generated by their own religion.
One religions good morals can be another religion’s outrage. For example, Jews typically find Christian ideas about abortion outrageous.
Good lord. Republicans have just nominated Jordan for Speaker.
Because nothing says morals like a Speaker who looked the other way when kids were being abused. How utterly sickening.
@Jen: Can’t find the vote count but like Scalise this is not the house Speaker vote.
And yes, this is worse than Scalise.
Update: Jordan got 124 votes against a nobody. 11 more than Scalise.
He got the Denny Hastert vote.
@Scott:
The Guardian reports Gym got 124, and Scott 81.
ETA: Missed it by that much.
@Scott: Yup, I know this is the nominating vote.
I’m still stunned, although I realize I should not be. I just cannot imagine that this is what they consider leadership. If there isn’t a massive, massive outpouring of disgust from people across the country (which is unlikely as most people are not really paying attention to this), he could possibly win, given the pressures they are under to DO SOMETHING/ANYTHING. It’s disgusting.
A not-so-bright MAGA nutball with a massive chip on his shoulder. I’m sure he’ll be the picture of restrained leadership if he does manage to win. JFC.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/house-speaker-live-updates-scalise-jordan-mccarthy-rcna120243
On NBC Live Update:
So much for seriousness and urgency.
@Scott:
The GQP conference ought to be locked in a small room without food, water, or toilets, until they elect a speaker.
@Scott: The total Republican vote was 208 (152-55-1). Since they have 221 representatives, where are the other 13 Republicans? With no real opposition, this is the best Jordan can do? Seems pretty weak to me.
@Kathy: Somewhere in Gaza City, perhaps.
@charontwo:
My old ethics professors just all had aneurysms.
Morals are social conventions regarding what behavior is praiseworthy and what blameworthy. Think of them as Extreme Etiquette. Religion is one mechanism for convention-forming, but there are many others.
A big part of the problem in America right now is that we’ve lost our consensus on what is moral. MTQ and AOC don’t disagree about the importance of morality; they disagree violently regarding which behavior is moral and which is immoral.
Hi, America!
WTF?
Sure thing!
If Republicans are willing to put for a vote within a week and vote for Medicare For All – or else any Dem who votes for a R speaker can bring that motion to vacate right back up – Democrats would be happy to vote for a Republican!
To paraphrase D-generation X.. If you’re not interested in that, I’ve got 2 words for you.