Posted on 12/04/2022 1:55:19 PM PST by paltz
What’s clear is that Kevin McCarthy’s math for becoming speaker is looking quite difficult. What’s less clear is who could fill the vacuum and take over if McCarthy (R-Calif.) can’t get the votes.
Five House Republicans have come out firmly against the House minority leader — a number that could be enough to defeat his candidacy in the narrowly GOP-controlled House. But there’s been very little in the way of putting forward an alternative. Part of that could be they simply don’t know who it is, while part of it could be that they want to avoid drawing attention to the would-be usurper ahead of the Jan. 3 vote.
“As you might imagine, those candidates are going to be very hesitant or reluctant to be in any way public,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), who opposes McCarthy’s speaker bid, told CNN.
A potential McCarthy holdout, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), added: “No one has got a clear vote that will get you there. And so we’re having a conversation about what it takes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There are RINOs who will sell us out for committee chairs, etc.
If they vote for Jeffries, they'll be lucky if they even get assigned to a committee. Not gonna happen--213. That's it for Jeffries.
Dan Webster of Florida. He ran against Paul Ryan.
Trump or newt.
It has happened twice before, both times the rules were changed to elect based on a plurality vote. Pretty interesting political fights.
In two instances the House agreed to choose and subsequently did choose a Speaker by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by majority vote. In 1849 the House had been in session 19 days without being able to elect a Speaker, no candidate having received a majority of the votes cast. The voting was viva voce, each Member responding to the call of the roll by naming the candidate for whom he voted. Finally, after the fifty-ninth ballot, the House adopted a resolution declaring that a Speaker could be elected by a plurality. 1 Hinds Sec. 221. In 1856 the House again struggled over the election of a Speaker. Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted a resolution permitting the election to be decided by a plurality. 1 Hinds Sec. 222. On both of these occasions, the House ratified the plurality election by a majority vote.
MTG style nonsense.
Ideally, it would be great if Republicans can elect a dynamic ideologue who can also be a pragmatic administrator as speaker. Gingrich actually came closest to this and the media hated his guts and Republicans tried to oust him later on. But Democrats are allowed to have an ideologue and administrator as Speaker, like Pelosi. The media praises Dems for electing someone as leftists as her but expect Republicans to elect a spineless leader. So once, again. we’re back to square one.
Yep, Trump or Newt. Gains an extra vote as well.
No effin’ RINOs. Not now, not evah! May RINOs and libs roast in liberal hell - eating insects, fake meat, no guns, electric cars, and only NPR and PBS. McCarthy is turtle junior, with even less balls (if possible). If this clown fails ( and he will), the only option is CW-II. Ditch the dork and get a real man (or woman) in there.
Please!!!!!
The Washington Compost doing what they do best...promoting RINOS.
No. Scalise is McCarthy in leg braces.
So now we know where the five pseudo-Republicans are going to place their vote. That will show Kevin McCarthy, all right.
Moral purity is such an expensive commodity.
You never go into battle with the army you want. You are largely stuck with the army you have, and hope it comes through its baptism by fire.
My neighbors cat!
Who could be speaker, if not Kevin McCarthy..
I’d do it but I have morales, pro (before woke) military, support the Constitution AS WRITTEN, hate liberals and anything associated with them, would eliminate Department of Education, NEA, EPA, DHS, TSA and numerous others, wouldn’t fund the DOJ or FBI until completely gutted, demand a balanced budget, pay off the det, eliminate all Unions... I could go on but I probably won’t get the job
Jim Jordan!
218 I sthe number you need if 435 Vote. If there aren’t 435 votes, the number needed shrinks. Check it out.
Anyone who is not a Member.
Perhaps he is the Only One who can get the job but, like most of our Republican official leaders he is not on our side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.