Blowing Out the Speaker

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

50 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Democrats have spent most of the last 30 years saving Republicans from themselves on the Hill, and gotten little to show for it. So perhaps we can be forgiven for throwing up our hands this time and saying not our circus not our monkey’s.Report

    • North in reply to Philip H says:

      Other than saying “clowns” instead of monkeys I agree with you on this and am baffled at the tut-tutting that the Dems should be expected to bail McCarthy out on this.

      “A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants”.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North says:

        The failure mode of “tit for tat” is “blood feud”.

        That’s the argument.

        Personally, I want to see what happens.Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          The outcome of subsidizing weasels like McCarthy is we get more weasels like McCarthy- that’s one heck of a downside. Maybe the next Speaker will view their right wingers with more caution or internalize that if they want some moderate left support they might actually have to offer to pay policy asks for it or, at a bare minimum, ask politely for it.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            I saw Arnie’s name floated earlier today and there was even a reasonable list of reasons that it’d be a good idea to have the Dems nominate him:

            1. Trump hates him (and vice-versa).
            2. He’s as good a Republican as you could ask for.
            3. He’s capable of working with Democrats.
            4. He’s capable of yelling at stupid Republicans.
            5. He’d never agree to it. Never in a million years.

            There’s no downside!Report

        • J_A in reply to Jaybird says:

          It’s not tit for tat. The Dems are not Kingmakers. Gaetz is.

          If the Democratic caucus saves McCarthy today what happens tomorrow? This is not Westminster, where a Sitting Prime Minister that survives a motion to remove him as leader is assured that no other motion can be filed for the next twelve months.

          Even if he wanted to, McCarthy cannot offer anything -valuable or symbolic- to the Democrats. The moment he does, Gaetz will again move to vacate the chair, the Dems would need to save him again, and so on and on until he was gone.

          If McCarthy had survived yesterday’s vote with Democratic support, explicit or implicit, like the Democrats nor showing up or voting present, McCarthy’s only option to remain as Speaker for more than another week would be to run as far away from the Democrats as he could, and show the Freedom Caucus that he had learned his lesson and that he was ready to play by their rules.

          It is not that by not supporting McCarthy the Democrats sacrificed the long term interests of the country for the pleasure of kicking him when he was down. The only two possible outcomes were a motion to vacate Groundhog Day or for McCarthy to become completely and fully beholden to Gaetz and his pals.

          The Republicans need to break the MAGA stronghold on the Party. Every action the Democrats may take to try to help moderate Republicans defeat the MAGA faction will only make it stronger.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to J_A says:

            Oh, please don’t see me as arguing for McCarthy!

            I’m arguing for someone that 125ish Democrats and 125ish Republicans would shrug at being Speaker.

            Not cheer. Not stamp the floor while they do that two finger loud whistle thing.

            Just “yeah, this guy would be adequate”.

            “Why should we compromise?”

            Hey. Don’t feel like you have to. I want to see what happens too.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

              you keep whistling right past the point where there are ZERO Republicans who would align with this plan because they’d ALL be primaried from the Right and thus likely loose their seats. They have NO incentive to risk that. And democrats have few incentives to save them under that set of circumstances.Report

      • Philip H in reply to North says:

        Precisely. Chip Roy can’t lay this at the feet of Democrats when he helped create the ecosystem that brought down McCarthy – whom he never liked anyway.Report

  2. North says:

    Also it’s pretty fishing bold to give a farewell speech to your caucus where you explicitly admitted the Democrats offered to intervene on your behalf but you refused and said you would rather get ousted than “sell your soul” and work with the other party, and then walk out from that speech directly to a press conference and proceed to blame Democrats for not saving you.

    https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1709341271595094177?s=20

    “…And i did it for the good of the conference. The Dems came to me to make a deal. I wasn’t going to make a deal.”

    https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1709341670221775347?s=20

    “I’m not going to sell my soul to Democrats.”Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    Scanning the headlines, about the only silver lining in all this is that it is making visible to low information voters what was previously only discussed among political types like us, that the GOP is a radical insurrectionist force that wants to rule, instead of a political party that wants to govern.Report

    • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      And that is apparently too dumb to do either.Report

      • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

        Not yet on the national level, but they do essentially rule at the state level. How many red state legislatures have the ability to ignore their constituents needs because gerrymandering keeps them safe? For that matter Matt Gaetz is “ruling” in his district by being able to flame throw nationally and still be assured of reelection. They are quite happy to destroy the traditional institutions and assumptions because they don’t actually need them anymore in vast swaths of America to make their vision reality.Report

  4. LeeEsq says:

    McCarthy was the one behind kicking Nancy Pelosi over the hideaway office, so he could take it over himself. Truly a mystery why the Democratic Party did not support him.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/pelosi-vacate-office-capitol-mchenry-interim-speaker/Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Who does the Democratic Party support for Speaker or did they reach the anybody-but-McCarthy point that they’d prefer Gaetz, Trump, or the House in recess until the next election? I can see the cycle of retaliation going on here, but I don’t see the strategic sense in the Democrats getting involved in the Republican’s problems.Report

      • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

        I believe their votes in January were all to Hakeem Jeffries the minority leader, which as I understand is the perfunctory approach of the minority party. It’s hard to see how/why they’d come in to play savior without at minimum the Republicans leading the way with some reasonable offers in exchange.Report

    • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

      What? She’d just had him kicked out of the Speakership, and he retaliated, and that’s proof that she did the right thing? That’s like Russia blaming Ukraine for fighting back.Report

      • J_A in reply to Pinky says:

        She????

        Did Gaetz change [their] pronouns recently?Report

        • Pinky in reply to J_A says:

          Gaetz doesn’t seem the type. Anyway, Lee was talking about Pelosi.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

            It wasn’t Nancy Pelosi’s job – or any Democrat for that matter – to save Kevin McCarthy’s speakership.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

              That’s a non sequitur, but I guess it’s the same non sequitur that Lee proposed. Pelosi cast as many votes against McCarthy as anyone else, then lost her office spot, and Lee is trying to treat that as proof that McCarthy shouldn’t have been trusted.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                Pelosi also cast votes against her predecessors and then allowed them to use the same offices she was just tossed from until they decided to leave. McCarthy tossing her after loosing is sour grapes of the worst kind because it wasn’t her job to save him.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

                Pelosi and literally all the Democrats have always voted against literally every Republican Speaker of the House. Absolutely none of them voted for McCarthy in the first place! That’s how it works!

                “How come Democrats don’t vote for a Republican Speaker of the House?”

                “Probably because they don’t _want_ a Republican Speaker of the House. What sort of silly question is that?”

                The fact that Republicans have themselves introduced a new mechanism to trivially rerun the vote again mid-session does not change that.Report

      • Fish in reply to Pinky says:

        The idea that “Pelosi” and “the Democrats” are responsible for McCarthy’s ouster is certainly a nice bit of fanfic.Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Pinky says:

        I think the issue for McCarthy was Pelosi said she would have his back in case the motion to vacate came up before he agreed to loosening the rules on vacatur. (Not by voting against it, but by voting present)

        And that’s pretty consistent with things she’s long said about thirty or so members of your caucus shouldn’t control majority party organization issues. She has described this as an institutional principle, not in terms of doing any favors for the majority. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t contemplate parties, nor does it contemplate a majority party failing to organize itself which is resolved in other countries by new parliamentary elections.Report

  5. Christopher Bradley says:

    “It might well turn out to be a bad thing for Democrats in the long term as well. 2016 seems like an eternity ago but Democrats would do well to remember the cautionary tale of how a presidential candidate worked to ensure the nomination of her weakest and most incompetent rival. The plan worked too well when the buffoon not only won the nomination from the opposing party but went on to defeat the Democratic candidate and fundamentally change American politics for years to come.”

    LMAO, the lack of conservative self-awareness or even taking responsibility for years of courting the dumbest possible people to support their causes in the name of “freedom” and “liberty” never ceases to amaze me. When something goes wrong or too out of control or, when the people they have been dog-whistling and preaching the gospel of no government to finally start saying the quiet part out loud, oop, let’s just blame Hillary Clinton.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Murc’s law is real:

    1. It is not the job or responsibility of the Democrats to save Republicans from their own follies;

    2. Repeat after me: Republicans have agency too.

    3. We are only in this stupid mess because McCarthy was so desperate to be the Speaker than he caved to a lot of unreasonable demands and while the remainder of the GOP in the House might not be as opnely trolly as Matt Gaetz and the other eight ultras, they are often just as extremely right-wing and showed absolutely no interest in working with Democrats to cobble together a reasonable compromise bill. A reasonable compromise bill is one that would acknowledge Democrats control the Senate and the White House and it takes three to Tango in this case.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is not your mom:

      “Contrary to how McCarthy’s defenders are behaving, men failing up is not a Constitutionally protected right.

      The man made risky decisions and faced the natural consequences of them. I am not his mom, and my job is not to put pool noodles around hard corners for Republicans.”

      https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1709612216440217708?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1709612216440217708%7Ctwgr%5Ed1e7722e599812383e84088a5990d470ab87169f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fballoon-juice.com%2FReport

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      But the Republican-led House *did* produce a compromise bill, with over half the party voting for it, that passed the Senate and was signed by the President.Report

      • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

        That’s true but it’s also what led to McCarthy being removed by his own backbenchers. Maybe it means there were some crumbs of integrity deep down in McCarthy, that he seems to have sacrificed his own speakership to keep the government open (I think he probably just grossly miscalculated), but if the GOP speaker wants Democrat support he needs to secure it at the election stage, which means there also needs to be a quid pro quo at that stage. Instead the GOP has decided to operate on a rule of no votes from Democrats. That was the decision they made in January, when there was opportunity to propose a compromise speaker, with certain benefits to the Democrats if they voted for that person. Had they done that the HFC rule allowing a single member to call on a vote to remove the speaker wouldn’t matter and there wouldn’t have been one in the first place.

        You can’t blame Democrats for refusing to give something for nothing.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

          If you subtract the 10 or so members of the radical Republican toddler caucus, the Democrats have a majority.

          We could just as easily ask why the moderate Republicans didn’t join together with the Democrats in a spirit of centrist bipartisanship and elect Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to InMD says:

          Republicans view all Democratic policy wants as inherently illegitimate. They can offer nothing to Democratic politicians because they think even the merest meekest concession is evil in itself. The Republicans would probably like to kick the Democratic party out of Congress and replace all the Reps and Senators with Republicans even if the citizens voted for a Democratic politician.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

          My point was that Saul is describing the opposite of reality. As to your point, I think that Marchmaine was right about doing something that’s good for the country while smacking down the most dangerous of your opposites. And also, why are we assuming “something for nothing”?Report

          • North in reply to Pinky says:

            Because McCarthy was very public in his statements that the Dems had asked for nothing and he would offer nothing?

            Note, also, that no minority party in the House has voted for the majority party’s speaker in ages. When was the last time it happened? And moderates think it’s somehow on the Dems that McCarthy went down to defeat?Report

            • InMD in reply to North says:

              I would assume the minimum price for some D votes would have been some significant concessions on the spending bill that make it a truly bipartisan compromise budget. Maybe then there would be value to the Democrats in keeping him around for the sake of doing that deal. But it all keeps coming back to the point that not only was there no such deal on offer, there was never any consideration of one. And based on the rules McCarthy agreed to even that might not have been enough to save him, given that ‘moderate’ Republicans have made all sorts of asinine pledges around taxation they’d almost certainly have to violate to go along with it.Report

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                MY said something along the lines that the Dems “should have asks but keep them modest but otherwise be gettable” and I agree with him. It’s all moot, though, because McCarthy never offered anything.

                I have read an interesting thread that Kremlinology’d the 45 days continuing resolution and concluded that McCarthy offered it, the way he offered it, under the assumption that the Dems would vote against it and he could, thus, blame the shut down on them.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to North says:

                MY said something along the lines that the Dems “should have asks but keep them modest but otherwise be gettable”

                The Dems actually did have a bunch of asks. There were apparently quite a few of them constantly reaching out going ‘If we keep you in power, what’s in it for us?’

                https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/03/centrist-dems-mccarthy-speaker-00119626

                The Dems not only didn’t cause this situation, they didn’t just stand there and let it happen. They repeatedly said ‘We have rope here we can throw you, tell us what you’ll give us for it?’, and then answer was, flatly, literally nothing. Blatant, public refusal.

                This isn’t actually stupidity on McCarthy’s part…’making a side deal with Dems’ is what got him into this mess, making more deals is unlikely to make it better. He might have survived that vote, but what happens the next time when it’s 13 Reps voting against him for what he did _this_ time. And then 24? Where does the spiral end?

                So he basically had backed himself into a corner and _couldn’t_ make deals with Dems to get out of it.

                But it makes the complaints that Dems didn’t help _even stupider_…why would they want a Speaker who has politically backed themselves into be unable to make deals with them! How is that in their interests?Report

              • North in reply to DavidTC says:

                My own thinking runs along the same lines as yours. That said, I do think there’s a persuasive argument to be made that McCarthy honestly didn’t expect the Dems to back the 45 day CR and when they did it completely took him by surprise and he was on his backfoot from that point on.Report

          • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

            What would the Democrats be getting?Report

          • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

            I don’t buy the narrative that there were never deals to be made. These are people with a ton of power, much of it invisible. I doubt that we’re hearing even a small portion of the behind-the-scenes conversations that took place. I certainly hope there was more talking than we know about. I don’t mean that in any kind of conspiracy way; I just mean that most of what happens around an office never gets written down.

            As for comparing this to other votes, no, this was a first. This has never happened before. Was Pelosi responsible? Did she have to intervene on McCarthy’s behalf? Whatever the answer, it can’t be based on history, because this was unique. 8 out of 224 Republicans and 210 out of 210 Democrats voted no. Casca was the first one who stabbed Julius Caesar, and the blow wouldn’t likely have been fatal, but you can’t have blood on your blade and deny any responsibility.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

              Hey, Pinky, how many of those Democrats voted for McCarthy the first time around?

              How many Republicans voted for Nancy Pelosi in 2019?

              Congresspeople vote for their own party as leadership. They may squabble within their own party, have different candidates there, but they never, never, never, vote for the other side. EVER. (Oh, I’m sure, back in the old days, maybe some particularly respected Speaker got some cross-party votes that wouldn’t have mattered, but a) those votes wouldn’t have mattered, and b) those days are long over.)

              And the reason this has never happened before is that a party (Specifically, The Republican Party) has never demanded such a low bar to hold the vote again in the rules…a rule change that Democrats also voted against!

              Republicans set up this situation to be able to happen, and then Republicans triggered it. And Democrats voted the way that _almost_ every single person votes: Against being lead by the opposition party.

              And, incidentally, they were not even _asked_ to vote otherwise. You can’t just claim there were mysterious deals to be made…Kevin McCarthy was saying publicly he didn’t need Dems vote.

              The unique stuff was the rule change allowing the vote again, and the Republicans who voted _against_ the current speaker, which was pretty unprecedented.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

              Oh, and plenty of Democrats reached out with deals. McCarthy flatly rejected them: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/03/centrist-dems-mccarthy-speaker-00119626

              He rejected them for various good reasons, too. Namely, someone who is being removed from office because he made deals with Democrats really should not be making more deals with Democrats to stay in power! That’s a very obvious way for him to make his position look illegitimate (1), and create more Republican Congresspeople trying to remove him from power, so he has to pay off even _more_ Democrats to avoid that.

              1) And, honestly, that sort of _is_ illegitimate. Making deals with the other party in order to get them to pass a constituting resolution with certain wanted extras in it is…a reasonable thing to do. It’s politics for politics, the Republicans want A and the Democrats want B, it’s compromise.

              Making a deal to give political concessions in order to _personally stay in power_ is…much less legitimate, and looks basically like bribery. Democrats get B and McCarthy gives that so that he, personally, stays in power.

              Imagine if that had happened at the _start_ of the term. If McCarthy had said ‘Hey, Democrats, vote for me for speaker, and I have a dozen or so Republicans who will join me, and I’ll make sure that _you_ set the agenda’, I have a feeling you wouldn’t be saying ‘Oh, this is great! Sure glad the Dems reached out!’

              Complaining that this _didn’t_ happen is a bit absurd.Report

              • Pinky in reply to DavidTC says:

                You think that’s absurd, I saw someone just yesterday arguing that this thing that happened couldn’t possibly have happened.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

                So your premise is now that when you said ‘I don’t buy the narrative that there were never deals to be made.’, what you were actually saying is ‘I suspect there were secretly deals to be made that _Democrats_ were offering but _McCarthy_ didn’t take them’.

                That, um, doesn’t seem to make sense in the context of everything else you’ve said in this discussion.

                In fact, it’s fairly obvious what you were implying was ‘The Democrats refused to take McCarthy’s deals (And the media did not report this)’. And those are the deals I said were not offered. And they weren’t. You can tell I was talking about those, I immediately explained what I meant by that in the literal the same sentence ‘You can’t just claim there were mysterious deals to be made…Kevin McCarthy was saying publicly he didn’t need Dems vote.’

                That makes it pretty clear that any deals I am talking about not being offered would be ones offered by McCarthy, not any being offered by Democrats, which I, and you also even if you now try to claim otherwise, were completely silent on.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

        Yes – the only two times McCarthy produced bipartisan legislation in the House he had an economic gun being held to his head by the real world. His caucus viewed both as abrogations of the agreements he made to become speaker. They let him have the first one, assuming there would not be a second one.

        I mean – he couldn’t even get the normally bipartisan Congressional Operations appropriation passed so his own members would have staff to fight the democrats.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

          What position are you arguing? Saul said that McCarthy didn’t be bothered to cobble together a compromise bill. I pointed out that he did. You’re describing why he shouldn’t get much credit for it?Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

            The compromise bills he cobbled together – which cost him his job remember – were emergency bills created out of t he dire necessity of his caucus refusing to compromise for normal things. Like funding their own staff. Or funding the DoD. Things that until this congress the GOP and Democrats compromised on routinely. Had he successfully led compromise on those bills we wouldn’t have needed a 45 day CR.

            And again – when he rammed those emergency bills through, his caucus turned on him. He was penalized by his own side for compromise. What is his incentive to try and do it again?Report