The House of Representatives has drifted leaderless for 12 days since eight of its 221 Republicans ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy. That has held up any legislative action, from debating further aid to Ukraine as it battles a Russian invasion to a statement of support for ally Israel in its war with Hamas.
Republicans on Friday nominated hardliner Jim Jordan for speaker, but it was not clear if the longtime antagonist of party leadership would have the support needed to win a floor vote this week.
McCarthy’s removal was the latest in a series of self-created crises Congress has faced in a year that saw lawmakers bring the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its $31.4 trillion in debt and just two weeks ago narrowly avert the fourth partial U.S. government shutdown in a decade.
That latter move led to McCarthy’s ouster by colleagues angry that the spending bill passed with more Democratic than Republican votes, even though any measure passed by the House needs to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate and be signed by Democratic President Joe Biden to become law.
Some House Republicans voiced frustration and anger that they have gone so long without being able to choose a leader.
Causing a legislative body to be dysfunctional is a very Republican thing. They don’t control the senate or presidency, so they’d prefer for Congress to do nothing at all. Watch, they’ll also scorn democrats later saying “Biden didn’t get anything done!” and “legislative paralysis because of Democrat!” and some voters will happily forget this and believe that.
Generally I wouldn’t disagree with you, but it’s interesting this article doesn’t mention that the entire democratic caucus voted to remove McCarthy.
So yes, this was a Republican effort, but it would not have been possible to put the house in this position without the full support of Democrats. Just interesting this doesn’t mention that at all.
The Democrats didn’t start the process though, a Republican did. And it was only possible because as per of the deal he made to become speaker, they changed it so one House member could start that proceeding while normally it’s half of the House. True, though, Democrats could have let it fail. Not sure what their strategy is - highlight Republican incompetence at the cost of a fu functional House? Pretty clear from last time Republicans can’t/won’t get their shit together enough to elect a Speaker in a short time.
Why wouldn’t they vote against McCarthy? He made a deal then abjectly refused to honor it later. His word is useless so him getting the boot is just desserts.
Why keep a guy in there you can’t at all trust to work with?
Because it leaves the House even more dysfunctional while republicans get their shit together.
IMO, it’s not the Democratic party’s job to not let the Republican party fail in its duties.
Maybe some people will wake up to just how incompetent and unfit Republicans are and vote accordingly.
I see this as mostly a lose lose situation. Upside is maybe the remaining republicans see enough reason to pick a fair centrist instead of cowtowing to another ineffective hard right representative.
My observation is that whenever some obnoxious person leaves as a leader of the House or Senate, they manage to find someone just as bad or worse. Like Yeah! Newt Gingrich is gone. They came up with Dennis Hastert. Boehner is gone, great! They picked Paul Ryan. Trent Lott is out, great! They came up with McConnell. So it’s possible but I doubt they’re changing their strategy.
Fair, but I think that other poster was making the point that if the Democrats were interested in stability they would have abstained.
Right, that’s what I addressed in the second part. It is predictable from how it took weeks and 15 votes last time that the republicans wouldn’t elect a new speaker promptly.