High-Ranking House Republican Wants Democrats’ Help Electing A Speaker

www.forbes.com High-Ranking House Republican Wants Democrats’ Help Electing A Speaker

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told reporters he’s “willing to work” with Democrats, but “they gotta tell us what they need.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told reporters Thursday after a closed-door House GOP meeting that he wants Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to tell Republicans what concessions they’ll have to make for Democrats to help them elect a speaker—underscoring the chaotic race to find a new House leader as Republican options grow short to overcome an intraparty impasse.

You're viewing a single thread.

37 comments

"Look, just tell us what promises we can break in order for you to help us stop looking so bad!"
- That's the thing, it's not just a one-and-done vote, anyone who votes for a Speaker will be required to continue to support that Speaker on a bunch if procedural votes. So there are ways to follow up on any deal made. Recall that after the Debt Ceiling thing, the MAGAs were so upset that they stopped voting with Republicans on those procedural votes, and the chamber was almost as paralyzed as it is now. (Funny how they didn't consider that to be working with Democrats, even though they all voted the same way).
  There are several concessions that the GOP can make, which would still respect the Speaker's Conservative agenda:
  give the Democratic supporters better committee assignments, at the expense of Republicans who don't support the Speaker. This may make some key committees a 50/50 split.
  give the Biden impeachment the up-or-down vote it should have gotten when it started
  A promise to give certain bills that the Senate sends over an up-or-down vote as well
  disband Jim Jordan's committee on the weaponization of government, which seems to only be serving to weaponize government.
  And, if any of these are not followed through on, Democrats can withdraw their support in those procedural votes and leave the House Speaker powerless to do anything until those needs are addressed. Thus is exactly what the far right has done, but the difference would be that Democrats would be negotiating in good faith, and have a long-term goal of governing, not burning it all down.
  
  In a world of sense and decorum your idea would work flawlessly. But we aren't in that world.
  
  I like how the extreme ideas that Republicans are scared of are simple things like "let the House vote on stuff".
  
  It seems like a key part of Republican strategy recently is for leadership to prevent votes they know will pass, simply because it has Democratic support.
  Mitch is a master at this. He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination because he knew that if the whole Senate voted on it, it would pass. And he once fillibustered his own Debt Ceiling bill to prevent a vote because Democrats decided to support it.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  The problem with all these points is that the newly minted speaker can just toss those promises out the window as soon as he's sworn in.
  That's the problem here. Republicans cannot be trusted at their word.
  The only way this works is if all of these items are added to a resolution that acts as a vote and the vote for speakership is bolted on. Procedurally, this isn't possible.
  
  It is kind of is possible, because the Speaker can only conduct business in the House if a majority agrees. There are procedural votes all the time, for things like the agenda for the session, which need this majority.
  After the Debt Ceiling vote, the far right had a temper tantrum and stopped voting with McCarthy for a week or so, and nothing could get done until Kevin gave them back their binkie so they would start voting the right way again
  Presumably, in any agreement to share power, whatever coalition voted for the Speaker would be expected to keep voting in his favor on those procedural votes, otherwise the whole thing stops. Which also means that the Speaker has some incentive to keep his coalition in his camp. In a typical party-based majority this should be easy, but Matty and Jimmy get mad when you take away their binkies.
- s/bad/stupid and incompetent/g;

37 comments