No Speakership for Scalise so far
So far, in a GOP House vote for Speaker, Scalise hasn’t gotten enough votes. In this case, because of the slim majority the GOP holds, “enough votes” means “near-unanimous.” Only four defections can be allowed.
That’s extremely difficult, and factions are holding back. Some of the holdouts are from the same group that toppled McCarthy, refusing to come on board. But it’s not just that group. There is another problem with Scalise, which is his health. He has multiple myeloma, and although he’s doing well at the moment, that’s a very serious concern for some who would otherwise be supporting him – or at least, that’s what they say.
The longer this goes on the more dangerous it is for the Congressional elections in 2024, because many voters don’t like the idea of disunity, and the MSM and the Democrats can be quite successful at exploiting the “chaos.”
In a gesture of goodwill, Jordan has encourgaed his allies to support Scalise and offered to give his nominating speech on the House floor. But so far those entreaties have done little to help Scalise persuade his skeptics, many of whom say they plan to vote for Jordan.
Seems like this will take quite a while.
I’d like to take these dissidents and treat them harshly (speaking figuratively, of course).
No speaker is better than someone afraid or unwilling to oppose the left.
If there’s no Speaker, who’s going to round up the votes the Dems need to stick us with a few trillion more in debt?
Quite a few here are afraid of a government shutdown out of fear that the Republicans will get blamed for it in the media and lose seats later. But if there’s no Speaker, the shutdown comes eventually, and the media always blames Republicans for everything anyway, including the violence in Israel.
It looks like having no Speaker is going to result in more conservativism than the House GOP can deliver with a Speaker. No legislation or budgets can pass until then, and the House GOP is unable to sell us out to the Dems.
Sure, some of their cronies are not going to get paid with our money. And I’m sure the White House will direct departments to close national parks, stop Grandma’s Social Security checks, and instruct the Dem media to blame Republicans for it all.
And if voters are really such sheep as to fall for it, and if elections really do reflect what the voters want (both, I think, big “ifs”), then the Republic is doomed regardless, and getting a GOP Speaker would just make that doom a little slower and a little more expensive.
Alan Colbo:
Depends how long it goes on, and depends what you mean by “oppose the left.” Both Scalise and Jordan oppose the left. Jordan probably more than Scalise, but he he not get the majority either.
The reality is that the House GOP is mixed in terms of its moderate-to-conservative breakdown.
Melisande:
More conservatism? If you think inaction – and allowing Biden to do things by executive order or by agency action – is conservatism or, more importantly, enables further conservative victory, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
As I have said, if it goes on too long, say hello to a Democratic Congress in 2024. And yes, it makes a big difference, as you will find out when they pass HR1 to end voting safeguards that red states have put in place, pack the Court, and make DC and Puerto Rico states.
@neo: More conservatism? If you think…
I’m certainly willing to answer some of your points, but the last few interactions between us have been more heat than light, and many of them have been dominated by some kind of thinking you attribute to me and then I have to disavow.
I don’t agree with the unspoken premises underlying what you have written after “if you think…”, so no I don’t think that. For example, there is one thing Biden cannot do by executive order or agency action and that is increase government spending. He must have a majority vote of the House for that, and can’t without a Speaker.
There’s some others I’d go into further, like HR 1, but not if the discussion is going to be as unpleasant as last time. I’m happy to share what I think if you want to hear it, and if you’d rather I didn’t express that here just say so now if you would and I’ll respect that.
Rush Limbaugh used to talk about “Operation Chaos,” but the chaos was supposed to be visited on the other side, not one’s own.
I wonder about the stupidity of all this. If McCarthy was the one candidate all Republicans could agree on, what are the odds another, more conservative candidate — or any candidate — could win the same degree of approval.
Isn’t Jim Jordan heading up the committee investigating Biden? He couldn’t do that as Speaker, could he? So why put the impeachment process into disarray just to express anger at McCarthy? And how many people who attack McCarthy for not pushing impeachment forward earlier, supported putting the process at risk with Gaetz’s gambits?
Melisande:
My responses to you are not engendered by some arbitrary animus. I find many of the positions you hold destructive to conservatism. That’s the gist of it. You disagree.
Gaetz may have single handedly given Congress back to the Democrats. I think that, with Republican disunity, we could even wind up with a Democrat Speaker, if all the Dems vote together, which, having a hive mind, they will, and the Republicans vote against each other.
In a recent interview, Scalise talked about how the House could not get legislation passed due to Senate obstructions. A perfect example of the Potomac two step…
He never mentioned promoting single issue bills and never mentioned using the power of the purse. That leads me to see him as unfit for the position.
“New boss… same as the old boss.”
The only direct power that the House actually has is its control of where money shall be spent. Passage of single issue bills would force the democrats into having to defend the voting down of basic funding. For instance, refusing to fund the military. Once established, the House could simply ‘forget’ to fund the Department of Education or more deviously, cut its funding in half.
Obviously House members are well aware of this tactic. Republicans don’t employ it because it would threaten the ‘pork’ they need to gain big $ donor political contributions. In placing their status (being millionaires, money isn’t the motivation) over the good of the country, they’ve demonstrated their unfitness for the office to which they have been elected. Scalise just demonstrated that he’s unwilling to lead the House in using it’s BIG CLUB.
At the beginning of June, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 was passed into law. At the end of July, the CRFB was already cajoling congress to abide by their agreement– pointing out that already congress was looking at passing legislation that “Congress could end up cancelling out all of the FRA savings and then some, leaving us worse off than if we’d done nothing.”
What are these increases? According to the CRFB:
“A number of fiscally irresponsible policies are currently being considered by Congress, including:
New end-runs around discretionary caps – The FRA agreement already came with $500 billion of side deals, yet Senate appropriators are abusing the emergency designation to add $155 billion more. Those changes alone would shrink the FRA’s savings by more than two-fifths.
New tax cuts – The Ways and Means Committee marked up about $1 trillion of tax cuts before the ink was even dry on the FRA. They kept the official costs down by letting the whole bill expire after two years – a budget gimmick as old as time – but the cuts would still cost twice as much as the FRA saved in the first two and a half years.
The State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap – Some House members are advocating for lifting the SALT deduction cap with no suggestion for how to pay for it, a costly and regressive mistake that would undermine the budget and tax code all in one.
Repealing Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) provision – WEP and GPO are meant to prevent double-dipping of Social Security benefits. WEP/GPO aren’t perfect, but repealing them without a replacement would make Social Security less fair, cost $150 billion over a decade, and advance Social Security’s insolvency date by about a year.
Some of these provisions are what triggered Gaetz to force a vote on Speaker McCarthy.
Estimates are just the payment on the national debt will be about $1 trillion in 2027, up from the $720 in 2023 billion this past year.
We Must Not Backslide on Fiscal Responsibility Act
https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/we-must-not-backslide-fiscal-responsibility-act
US Debt clock showing national debt estimates by the CBO, OMB and the US Debt Clock for this day in four years.
These numbers include the deficit reductions of the FRA of 2023, which congress is already ignoring.
At some point we might want to consider doing something. This is as good a time as any.
https://usdebtclock.org/cbo-omb-gop-budget-estimates.html
Melisande:
Does neo have to kiss and make up with you, ask for your forgiveness, or you will refuse to share your wisdom? Interesting how precious must be the hidden gems of your insight.
Damnation! We are so close to having all the answers, but neo is one of those mean girls, so Melisande will keep her secrets. (not, and infinite sarc)
The gang of eight likes their power and will continue to vote with the Democrats to keep it. Pyros approve.
I’ve heard Scalise speak and I wouldn’t vote for him. He sounds “conciliatory” which I see as weakness.
When McCarthy was removed, eliciting much teeth gnashing and panic from the conservative chattering classes, I explained such anxiety was overblown and certainly premature. I explained Gaetz’s stunt in itself would be long forgotten in a few months if the selection of McCarthy’s replacement went smoothly and quickly.
Up until yesterday, that seemed to be happening. Scalise was the establishment choice (but seemingly more acceptable to the dissidents than McCarthy ever was); Jordan was the dissident’s choice, but experienced and respectable enough to satisfy the establishment, should he prevail. Smooth sailing, regardless of the result.
Oh, my naivete!
This impasse needs to end. Now. Scalise won in the conference vote; Jordan graciously accepted his defeat and offered to nominate him on the House floor. That should have been the end of it.
The dissidents are now acting like spoiled children; I don’t think there’s much ‘principle’ left in their motivations. They want attention. Period.
The ‘good’ news (in a macabre sense) is that the Gaza war has pushed this internecine GOP struggle to the back pages…for now. But if they don’t end the impasse and select a Speaker very soon, the Democrat-MSM complex will be able to start exploiting it.
I like Jordan; definitely prefer him. But I think Scalise is way better than McCarthy and completely acceptable as well.
PICK ONE OF THEM!
BREAKING NEWS at just before 8PM Eastern:
Rep. Steve Scalise has decided to drop out of the House Speaker’s race, Axios reports.
(Same notice posted to unthreaded.)
In placing their status (being millionaires, money isn’t the motivation) over the good of the country, [Republican House members] demonstrated their unfitness for the office to which they have been elected.
I think they are still susceptible to being motivated by money. A million ain’t what it used to be.
Sundance said the other day that Jim Jordan is an “anger manager,” i.e. a Kabuki actor. He probably likes Scalise less. As a whole, they are no prize.
SomeDunce said something?
Pyros would rather have Democrats in control of the House than Jordan or Scalise.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It is lost on them.
Jordan Rivers:
And I think very little of Sundance, so there’s that.
Neo: Just curious-why are you dissmissive of The Conservative Treehouse? Or are you literally saying you don’t think about him/it?
I read it from time to time and get the sense of anti-GOPe and globalist agenda, which seem to be a good thing.
“FEC Records show Scalise Took Massive BlackRock Donations”
“FEC records showing Steve Scalise took massive donations from both Google and Facebook. Worse, FEC records show Scalise has been accepting contributions from Blackrock. On Wednesday, National File asked Scalise if he would release the J6 tapes as speaker. Scalise refused to answer.”
https://nationalfile.com/blackrock-steve-fec-records-show-scalise-took-massive-blackrock-donations/
I would like to see the names of any Republican politicians who DON’T get money from Big Tech / Big Business.
The top donors sometimes hedge their bets by covering both parties, but it’s clear they all overwhelmingly favor Democrat policies.
This is not a good report for Scalise.
I wonder if knowledge of Laura Loomer’s news scoop factored into his decision to withdraw?
AesopFan:
It takes a lot of money these days to run a campaign. Very few people can manage it without the big donors.
The question is, what are the donors getting for their money?
General “goodwill” or specific policy positions?