Highlights: Their third speaker pick in three weeks lasted barely four hours. Now, with their desperation on full display, Republicans are trying again.

The House GOP is convening Tuesday night for its fourth internal huddle of the day as it hears from yet another unwieldy field of candidates to lead its broken ranks. No one has demonstrated the ability to do what the three previous failed speaker hopefuls couldn’t: Unite enough Republicans to land 217 votes on the floor.

Two members of tonight’s five-man field have already run and lost. That includes Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), the second highest vote-getter earlier Tuesday.

There’s little hope for relief among the bitterly divided GOP, where the fruitless search for a speaker has become so miserable that some members even floated a return to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as an “assistant speaker.” (The idea has not been taken seriously inside the conference.)

[M]any Republicans fear they’ve reached the point where no candidate can get 217 votes on the floor.

  • pezmaker
    link
    fedilink
    401 year ago

    I feel like this is exactly what the most disruptive members are wanting. Maybe I’m just being cynical and this is way off point, but it feels to me like they want a non-functioning federal government. This entire shit show is the plan. The wrench in the gears.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      It’s more than “the most disruptive” members of the GOP. It wouldn’t take but a handful of reasonable members to vote for Hakeem to get out of this rut. Of course, they probably wouldn’t get elected again, even though not doing so will cause serious damage to the country.

      I don’t expect them to put country over party, just like I don’t expect them to put country over their jobs. Too cowardly.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        101 year ago

        Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the “reasonable” Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?

        It’s just an insane idea to think anyone would give the opposing political party power rather than literally anyone from their own party. It’s not a reasonable ask.

        At this point I think we are likely to see Democrats make a deal for extra committee seats in exchange for the last few votes to get a moderate elected, eventually, but there is a zero percent chance a Democrat becomes Speaker.

        • @Ensign_Crab
          link
          English
          141 year ago

          Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the “reasonable” Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?

          You think Democrats would turn down an opportunity to work with Republicans and against progressive members of their own caucus?

      • athos77
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        As a counter-point: every House member goes up for re-election every two years. So lets say the moderate House Republicans vote Jeffries in.

        A possible complication: I don’t know, does that stupid “anyone can ask to vote you out of office” rule stay in place? In which case, Jeffries probably doesn’t last a full year (I think the rule says that once moved, the next item of business has to be the vote. And the disruptors would just keep moving the motion).

        Regardless of the vote-him-out situation, Jeffries would still be working with a Republican majority that really doesn’t want to be seen working with the Democrats, so I’m not sure how much would actually get done, other than a budget (which, granted, is very important). And then next fall the moderate Republicans are all voted out of office and maybe replaced by more MAGAts.

        Is a possible advantage lasting just a few months worth the permanent loss of some Republican moderates? Especially with Biden running for re-election and unlikely to do much that will disrupt his chances?

        I’m not good with political math, nor do I know all the possible detailed repercussions, , but it’s something to think about.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      Maybe but I really think they thought they could hold the position hostage. That moderates would kowtow to their whims rather than not function.

    • chingadera
      link
      81 year ago

      Well, theyre ideology consists of “not what democrats want.” They aren’t for anything, only against progress or human rights/equality.

      • @CynicRaven
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        To hear them tell it, government is the enemy, incompetent, and worse at anything it attempts. Unless they’re in charge and levying it against their opponents, of course.

        • chingadera
          link
          21 year ago

          They’re in a race to prove themselves right so they can go “sEe???”

          But also hate on brown people

    • mosiacmango
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Israel war really puts that on a back foot. They can’t just wait on the shutdown and do nothing. They are being hammered on all sides for our inaction as Israel support is popular in both parties, and it’s crystal clear whose fault not getting aid is.

      Diehards wont give a shit, but independents do pay attention to dysfunction. The GOP are such a shitshow of gossiping Hyena’s, the media is all in on displaying it too, which helps tons.