Did Dems make a strategic mistake by not ...

[jgo]

letting McCarthy have the speakership in an earlier ballot (by some not voting), before he made so many concessions? Would it have been better for them in the long run, or not, or a toss-up?

[Ocelot II]

1. No.

He'd have given anything they wanted anyhow.

[question everything]

36. Even if he did not have to concede since 3 - 5 Democrats would vote for him?

His concessions now put the whole county in danger?

[krawhitham]

52. no Dem had to vote for him, just vote present

[durablend]

2. NO

Why do you people keep beating this dead horse?

[AkFemDem]

3. I've thought a lot about this

And personally have come the conclusion there’s nothing they could have asked for that he legitimately would have actually given them. Odds are he will reneg on promises made to the freedom caucus and he certainly would have to the Dems- and there’s something to be said about being the United, unflappable party. I am sure the optics here will benefit them.

[Murphyb849]

4. Not their circus, not their monkeys.

[question everything]

38. Correct, but our country, our defense

[Ms. Toad]

5. I think they should have negotiated a deal before today

to convince a few moderate republicans in safe districts to abstain so Jeffries won with only Democratic votes.

A McCarthy who won his seat only because he made so many concessions to the J6 insurrectionists to get their votes. A McCarthy beholden to those folks is (nearly) the worst of all possible worlds.

[Marius25]

8. There are no moderate Republicans. None.

Democrats cannot trust a single Republican to stay true to any deals.

[ITAL]

17. Depends on moderate means

There are definitely some that aren't completely crazy.

[FoxNewsSucks]

22. Such as?

The "non-crazy" ones are long gone. What remains are the crazy, and those too spineless to stand up to the crazies.

Neither will work with us.

[onenote]

30. Don't hold your breath

I’ve repeatedly asked posters who refer to “moderate” Republicans to identity them and apart from Brian Fitzgerald all I get in response are crickets.

[FoxNewsSucks]

31. Same here. I never expect an answer from someone claiming that.

[Ms. Toad]

44. The folks in the best position to answer that question are the ones who ought to be reaching out

to negotiate a deal - the Democrats in the House.

Fitzpatrick, Womack, Upton, and Joyce would be a start. Members of the Republican Governance Group (the moderate group founded when the House Caucus was taken over by the predecessors to the current right wing nut jobs). It has roughly 35 members.

I don't currently keep close track of anyone beyond my own representatives - so the current Democratic members of Congress who work with these folks would be best suited to know which ones to approach.

[onenote]

50. And the Democratic leadership has adamantly been opposed to negotiating

so maybe they know that there aren't any moderates to negotiate with (apart from Fitzpatrick who is a coalition of one).

Womack: moderate? Opposed to same sex marriage, voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, strongly anti-choice, believes life begins at conception, voted against legislation requiring publication of presidential tax returns (five repubs voted for it, none are currently in Congress). Just the tip of the iceberg of the long list of bills in which he joined with around 200 other Republicans (including the Freedom Caucus members) to oppose legislation supported by Democrats.

Upton -- Not in Congress, no leverage. If he was a serious negotiating partner for any republicans, someone would have nominated him or at least voted for him.

Joyce -- voted 31 times to repeal ACA, strongly anti-choice, "A" rating from the NRA.

So what sort of deal do you think could have been struck with these folks, all of whom have sided with McCarthy and the rest of the Republican caucus, including the Freedom Caucus members on virtually every consequential piece of legislation. Who would become speaker? What would the Democrats get for supporting a anti-choice, anti-gun control, pro-Trump republican?

It boggles the mind to think that some people believe there was a deal to be made that either side could live with.

[Ms. Toad]

51. So your position is that we should support the Republican party putting in the worst of the worst

Rather than try to make a deal that would be less disastrous for the country.

It would be far better to have a McCarthy who is not entirely beholden to Boebert, Gaetz, etc. than one who is.
It woudl be far better to have Jeffries and give some desireable committee positions to Republicans than it is to have a McCarthy who is entirely beholden to Boebert, Gaetz, etc.

We need to be smarter about this and find a way to get the most responsible government we can - not encourage the least. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania managed it - our national leadership should have at least tried.

[onenote]

53. What deal? Please explain. McCarthy already sides with Boebert, Gaetz,

McCarthy was never going to go against his own policy positions -- name something he has compromised with the Democrats on as Minority Leader?

Long before the speaker votes began he had announced the republican agenda for the 118th congress and it was the Freedom Caucus's wet dream.

Apparently you think there are republicans who would support Jeffries as speaker in return for a "desirable" committee position? That's beyond absurd. The speaker doesn't decide committee assignments, each party does. And the repubs still have a majority unless you think a bunch of republicans are going to caucus with the Democrats. And even if that could happen, Jeffries and the Democrats would never give over committee positions to anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-Trump, anti-LBGQT republicans and take away those positions from deserving Democrats.

[Ms. Toad]

54. Gee, maybe you should inform Ohio and PA that what they did was impossible -

and stupid. Since they did exactly what I've been suggesting. In both Ohio and PA cross-party negotiations led to appointing a more moderate speaker than the right wing conservatives wanted. In Ohio, with a super-majority of Republicans, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to appoint a moderate Republican as speaker. In PA, with a simple majority of Republicans, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to appoint a moderate Democrat as speaker.

There are creative ways of getting lots of "impossible" things done when those in power are truly interested making the government more functional.

Frankly, I'm glad to see a little bit of rational thinking return to those governing.

A McCarthy who has promised the moon to those set on destroying Democracy is far more dangerous than one who owes Democrats for his election as speaker.

But the day for those negotations was yesterday, or earlier, before McCarthy promised everything he could possibly promise to the 6 most extreme members of the House.

[onenote]

55. Maybe you should understand that not every situation is the same as every other situation

Name the moderates who would be part of a deal and how that deal would be acceptable to either side.

Just because Ohio and PA, where members of the two parties reflect a broader spectrum than the republican caucus in the House of Representatives, could work out a deal doesn't mean anything remotely like that would have been possible or wise.

Unless of course, you think the Democratic leadership are all fools.

[Ms. Toad]

56. I think that the party primary system

means that people who are elected are often more loyal to the party than to the people who elected them. Unfortunately, that bias sometimes interferes with making decisions that are best for governing.

The Speaker of the House is 2 heartbeats away from the presidency. It is one of the more powerful positions in national government. We should care who holds that position, regardless of whether it is held by a Democrat or a Republican. So taking the position that this is just a Republican mess and we shouldn't help them out of it ignores the reality that if we have an opportunity to influence who holds that position we should use it to make it easier, not harder, to govern.

[Rhiannon12866]

19. +100

[Bev54]

28. If there was such a monkey they would have approached the dems.

It is not up to the dems to get them out of a mess of their own making and no doubt there is little trust.

[Ms. Toad]

35. Depends on whether you want to own the Republicans,

or want a functioning House of Representatives.

It's not about getting them out of a mess. It's about blowing a potential chance to have a Democratic speaker of the hours by agreeing to share some measure of power with people who might vote with the Democrats on some issues.

Personally - I'm more interested in the possibility of a functioning House. The "it's your mess, you fix it" seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Bev54]

37. There is no chance of working with the republicans unless they decide to

That lesson has been well learned by the democrats.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Like the J6 committee didn't function? n/t

[Bev54]

42. Well the only 2 willing to work with them are no longer there are they.

[Ms. Toad]

46. Nine voted with Democrats on the spending bill -

two of whom returned to congress. There is also a Repubican Governance Group made of self-identified moderates (founded when the ultra-conservatives took over the Republican Caucus) which has about 35 members.

[moose65]

34. And which Republicans would that be?

Where are these mythical, unicorn-like creatures?

[liberalmuse]

6. Absolutely not.

You don't make concessions with today's Republicans because they are dishonest, garbage humans. McCarthy will be no more or less of a weak, pathetic POS than he already is and the Republican caucus will still be batshit insane while obstructing and doing everything in their power to harm any American who is not in the 1%.

[onecaliberal]

7. No. We cannot save them. No way.

[70sEraVet]

9. Its much better to be an audience member at a circus --

Than a participant.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

12. In the real world, that's simply not an option.

[RockRaven]

10. And then do the same on the rules package...? And then do the same on the debt ceiling...?

And then do the same on the budget...? And then do the same on... whatever...?

Unless you want to just roll over and give McCarthy everything he wants, out of fear he will make a deal for something even worse than his desires with the nutters on his already-lunatic-party's outer fringe, you have to stop cooperating with him somewhere. Stopping before you start is as good of a spot as any, IMO.

[GenThePerservering]

13. "hands across the aisle" is a delusion.

doesn't work that way with these people.

[roamer65]

14. No.

I think Dems did a great job at showing party unity and composure.

212 votes each and every time for Rep Jeffries.

[bdamomma]

33. We are

the grown-ups. We, Democrats have a strong coalition.

Domestic terrorists are among us, crap.

[rubbersole]

15. There is a long game being played here.

McCarthy can be recalled if one Quack requests it. It isn't good for the country, but 2 years of this shitshow will possibly effectively end the republican's influence on our lives.

[SoCalDavidS]

23. I've Been Hearing That Since 2000

Every election the repub party is on it's last legs.

Sure thing. Half the country is willing to vote for them, so they're not going anywhere.

They literally refused to accept a virus that's killed 10's of Millions worldwide. And still, half the country stood by them.

Time to accept that the future of America is bleak. And even if the repubs destroy the Democracy, they'll still have 10's of Millions of people gladly supporting them, merely because of the (r) next to their names.

[rubbersole]

43. I'm thinking Kansas after Dobbs.

The veneer of respectability is being eroded hourly from the repubs. Some won't ever change. Maybe 30%. Young people are engaged and paying attention. It will get worse before it gets better. Time will tell.

[former9thward]

45. No that is not accurate.

One member can call for a vote but it takes 2/3s to recall. That will never happen.

[rubbersole]

47. Good. Thanks f9w!

[Hortensis]

16. LET him have? You mean vote FOR him?

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2023, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

McCarthy's a RW extremist heading an RW extremist caucus that would toss him out if he cooperated with Democrats for survival. There are no "moderates," only some more hard right on the spectrum than actually extremist.

It takes a "legislative terrorist" like Gym Jordan to make McCarthy look comparatively more desirable, something like the difference between a corrupt anti-democracy criminal who wants to build an empire in his workplace versus another anti-democracy criminal who also does (himself on top) but is willing to blow it up instead.

Important to realize, where others see them as variations of crazy, anti-democracy, corrupt, amoral, treasonous, ranging from hard-core RW to nihilistic, they see themselves as forces for "good," necessary to destroy the "bad" swamp establishment, broken into dysfunctional fighting factions because that's what they are. They're more ruthless, overall seemingly more extremist, and far more numerous counterparts -- enough to have taken over the Republican house caucus, which is essentially without genuine moderating influence -- of the far fewer (maybe 8-12) far-left Democratic members who regard themselves and the 200+ liberal progressive members of the Democratic caucus in much the same way., good v the swamp.

This is what the house GOP's come to, taken over by amoral, irrational and extremist elements. Don't bother being afraid of them in power now. Now the people WE send to DC deal with it. We still have the senate and WH. And house Republicans are also the problem of senate Republicans.

[Gore1FL]

18. It's not the Dem's move to make.

Should McCarthy come hat in hand to the Democrats, I think they should listen. I think the price should be high.

[mercuryblues]

21. JFC are you trying a back-handed

way to blame Dems because republicans can't get their shit together. Seriously?

EYS

[LiberalFighter]

24. And you knew those concessions were going to be made how?

[SoCalDavidS]

25. Quit Blaming The Democratic Party For Doing The Right Thing

Can you imagine the blowback there would have been, if even a single Democrat had decided to support McCarthy?

I for one am glad we remained unified. McCarthy would have laughed in our faces if we had even approached him with an offer.

He obviously knew that he had it in the bag eventually, so the idea he would have entertained even the tiniest overture, is farcical.

[quaker bill]

26. no, remember the Senate

McCarthy can concede all he wants. What comes out will simply die in the Senate, much of it will never even get a vote.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. No. Don't interrupt your opponent while they are making mistakes

The concessions make him weaker, make the R House crazier, which makes the whole Republican Party weaker.

Now if the Democrats pressure McCarthy publicly on any issue and he budges, one of the Gang of 20 will get upset and set off another round of votes for Speaker. Another circus.

Circuses within circuses.

[Takket]

32. +1

the last thing we want to do is let the gop appear as anything other than completely dominated by nutcases on the far right. if they want to go down that rabbit hole with the public, they can have at it.

[onenote]

29. No

Explain how the concessions hurt the Democrats.

[mcar]

41. No

[Hekate]

48. Hell no

[Kennah]

49. If I'm in the GOOP, I'm not trusting Kevin, so the Dems definitely should not trust Kevin