mtutiger

Must be more of that "charm offensive" lol

lol

Well, yah Don, no kidding... it's easier to fundraise off of grievance when you are aggrieved, and it's easier to be aggrieved when you are in the minority. And they'll gladly sacrifice your 50/50 toss-up seat to further that purpose!

As I stated before as well, I think people underestimate the anger that the more "mainstream" GOPers (ie. Fitzpatrick/Bacon/the NYers) have toward those eight for the situation they find themselves in. And I think we see that in being too predisposed on figuring out what those eight want without considering that the eight broke the seal on using that kind of leverage to get what you want in this Congress. Put another way, the assumption is that everyone will just roll over for whatever the eight wants, but after what the eight actually did to create the situation in the first place, it's not clear to me the incentives line up for people to just give the eight whatever they want in this situation.... it was different back in January 2023 when McCarthy did the 15 rounds, it's a different world now. Pretty much in the same boat. I'm mostly ambivalent to how thing plays out.... I do think it'd be interesting if one of the Moderate GOPers took the dive and decided to stand and see about negotiating something with Democrats, but that's not something I expect in our system to happen.

By holdouts are you referring to the eight who ousted McCarthy, or the new cavalcade that's coming out against ever voting for Scalise? That's part of the problem here: there's a lot of people in the holdout camp at the moment, and their "demands" aren't necessarily all coherent or in alignment with other holdouts.

Honestly, his comments above are a decent test for GOP resolve in backing him.... at least for as long as I've been alive, Israel has been a third rail of GOP politics. In a different time, trashing Israel (and personally attacking a Likud Party Israeli PM) would be a career-ender. Particularly if it occurred after an attack like this one. But the more likely result is that he'll either be defended / buttressed or excused for "being taken out of context" or some **** because reasons.

To be honest, I'm not sure.... But setting aside a coalition, which I'd have to see to believe, I do think the path of least resistance, if it didn't hold up the business of the House, would be to just let McHenry do the nuts and bolts and run out of the clock on this Congress. Because there really isn't a ton of evidence that 217 is achievable at the moment for any of these guys.

I've been wrong before too, but honestly I'm not sure that any of the names currently in competition can reach 217 with only GOP votes with this composition of the house. That's not to say that there's gonna be some eventual grand bargain with Democrats for a coalition Speaker, I doubt it, but I suspect the odds that we are in some sort of Purgatory state with a temporary Speaker for the long haul are higher than we think.

If so, we might be waiting for a while before an actual vote!

Maybe some of it's personnel, but I just wonder if the brand isn't really well-suited for this day and age sometimes. I still think their commitment to the facts over sensationalism, relative to the competition, is commendable. But I sometimes feel like they report the news like it's still 2003 and not 2023.

Shot: Chaser:

Nancy Mace... always the star of whatever show is going on her head at any given moment

Also, I think people really underestimate how angry some of these Republicans in Biden districts, or even some of the non-MAGA types, are with the extreme wing of the party after the McCarthy debacle. And how unlikely it ever was they would bend to whatever Gaetz and his crew wanted. That's really why I'm not surprised with this result.... even beyond the Biden District ones, there are a lot of the lower profile, "go along to get along" GOP types (ie. my new rep, Darin LaHood, for instance) who were always going to be out of reach for Jordan.

113-99.... I'm gonna guess that it takes more than one vote to get a Speaker again this time

For something like the bolded to take place (ie. reaching across the aisle), it's basically going to require political hari-kuri to happen... I think that's a big reason why McCarthy wouldn't negotiate for Dem votes last time either, he knew that would be the end of his career beyond the 118th Congress. And really, at least at this point, I don't see the spine to do it from any members. Having said all of that, I do think what these latest machinations tell us is that Jim Jordan is more unlikely than we initially thought... sure, there will be some grinding of teeth from the hardliners who will complain that Kevin shouldn't be a player because he was rejected, but if my math is correct, a unified bloc of 60-80 votes, if they stay unified, is still larger than the 8 GOP members who ultimately voted to oust McCarthy.... that can't just be waved away. And the types of members who are behind McCarthy (motivated I'm sure out of anger for what happened to McCarthy by those 8 members) aren't going to be the most reachable for someone like Jim Jordan. Ultimately, this thing is gonna take a while to sort out...

I'd have to find it, but I saw a tweet earlier today from a political reporter who suggested that McCarthy might still have 60-80 votes in the House. Like, yeah, he may still be dead man walking in the end, but 60-80 votes isn't exactly chicken feed.... like, they are going to have to negotiate something out if 60-80 hold out in favor of McCarthy being reinstated. EDIT:

There's also Option 3, where he's Kanye 2.0.... I think that stock in this discussion is undervalued.

OK. Still would assume that GOP members of Congress who voted to defund Ukraine are proud of their votes and should be able to stand behind it, rather than being excused for it for nebulous reasons.

Correct.... and I wish it were easier for some to see both what is happening in Israel and Ukraine in that broader context versus just playing one off the other (ie. Josh Hawley's statement)

Stan wasn't going off of actual roll call votes in the House whenever he made claims about anything.

Condescend much? Even if Congress has largely operated using Omnibus bills over the past 25 years, why shouldn't elected officials responsible for their "votes"? Even if Ukraine funding was a "show vote", isn't it kinda telling that over half of them decided not to fund?

I, personally, would love to see anyone make the argument to a room of politicians (GOP and Dem) that Israel shouldn't get any funding because, don't worry, the war machine always gets theirs.... They would (with good reason) be laughed and/or jeered out of the room. Because it is a specious and unserious argument that isn't founded in anything concrete. And the same would hold true with Ukraine as well.... if Congresscritters want to vote to cut off aid, they should be made to own that decision, not covered by unserious arguments that hinge on throwaway lines about "the war machine" and whatnot.

Again, I think actual, concrete votes taken in the House of Representatives tell me a lot more than "trust me bro, Ukraine's gonna get money because [insert conspiratorial throwaway line here]"