If someone appears to be repeatedly personal, lean towards patience as they might not mean offense. If you are sure, however, then do not deepen the problem by being negative; instead, simply place them on ignore by clicking the unhappy yellow face to the right of their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
So Jordan is shy about 17 votes after the first round. I have no doubt that there are at least some of those votes that were just protest votes that don't have deep-seated objections to a Speak Jordan.
But two of them are from Reps here in South Florida - Mario Diaz Balart and Carlos Gimenez. I suspect it will be hard to flip either of them. IMHO, neither of those guys is concerned about a primary: MDB is basically invulnerable in his seat, and Gimenez is widely rumored not to be too thrilled with the job. Neither is particularly aligned with the Tea Party/House Freedom Caucus faction/family in the GOP, nor do they rely on that faction of the party for their fundraising.
That'll be a big lift for Jordan. They'll be among the last votes he gets (or doesn't), it expect: either he won't flip them, or they'll flip only on the last ballot.
No. of Recommendations: 6
No second vote tonight. The House will reconvene in the morning.
Here's a completely uninformed totally speculative guess: Jordan's whip count didn't improve, and may have worsened, between the first and second vote. If he had flipped a non-trivial number of votes more than the ones who publicly confirmed they were switching, then it would have been in his best interest to call a second vote. Even if it failed, if it showed progress towards getting to 217, it would have strengthened his talks with recalcitrant members overnight. Not having a second vote tonight suggests he's having more trouble picking up enough flips to show movement.
No. of Recommendations: 11
One report stated that one of the blocs voting against him is the NY Republican delegation. Jordan not only voted against Sandy relief but voted against the bill that extended funding and care for first responders for September 11. That might be enough to make 10 of the 11 Republican Representatives from NY votes he will never get. He might get Santos.
Also, during one of the speeches for his Speakership, a reference was made to his wide ranging career, including "the wrestling mat," at which point audible gasps were heard across the House chamber. In general, when trying to sneak a seedy ogre into a position of power in broad daylight on TV, it's generally not wise to remind people of exactly how seedy that person is.
As if his history of collusion for insurrection and defying subpoenas from his own branch of government weren't enough to dislike.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
I heard a few dems proclaim... I respect and can work with Scalise. There are many republican congressmen that I respect and can work with. Jordan is not one of them.
It will be "interesting" if he becomes speaker.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I heard a few dems proclaim... I respect and can work with Scalise.
--------------------
Meaning I can make deal with him, support for speakership now, and ease off the investigations after the elections. Nothing wrong with that, it is how statesmanship works in today's Washington.
Personally I like Jordan, a guy with some fire in his belly, no hidden agenda, tells you what is on his mind. Scalise appears to me as just another go along to get along type of guy. Smooth talker, lowers the temperature, business as usual, and continue the tradition of Republicans mostly getting outmaneuvered by the democrats. A younger version of Mitch McConnell.
No. of Recommendations: 4
BHM:Personally I like Jordan, a guy with some fire in his belly, no hidden agenda, tells you what is on his mind.<?I>
As Boener says, Jordan's never built anything, his career has been taking/ripping things apart, and he doesn't know how to count votes.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Personally I like Jordan, a guy with some fire in his belly, no hidden agenda, tells you what is on his mind.
Even accepting that characterization of him, that's a classic case of "right guy, wrong job." Having "fire in your belly" and being blunt and transparent might be valuable traits for a front-line political warrior - but they're terrible traits in a Speaker of the House. The job of the former is to provide political ammunition and fight political battles to successfully win fights against the opposition party. The job of the latter is to organize and manage the many and often contradictory interests, factions, coalitions, and political needs of a diverse group of hundreds of disparate individuals - so that they can use the collective power of the majority to get things done.
You need a coalition builder, not a warrior, in that role.
No. of Recommendations: 1
As Boener says, Jordan's never built anything, his career has been taking/ripping things apart, and he doesn't know how to count votes. - Lapsody-------------------------
At the end of a 26 year career, I remember John Boener crying in one of his last press conferences. It may have been in the well of the house, I can't recall. But the crocodile tears flowed when he was asked about his greatest accomplishment in his long and storied career. Rather than cite any major legislation that he sponsored or any cause that he championed that benefited his constituents, the only thing worth mentioning was his arranging for the Pope's speech to Congress.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/emotional-john-boehne...An emotional John Boehner recalls Pope Francis' visit... tears at the link
No. of Recommendations: 0
You need a coalition builder, not a warrior, in that role.
-----------------------
Depends on the techniques the coalition builder uses to obtain consensus. And if you are afraid to not reach a consensus, your opponents will exploit that. A good example is the government shutdown game of chicken that gets played periodically and is due up in another 60 days or so.
No. of Recommendations: 2
A good example is the government shutdown game of chicken that gets played periodically and is due up in another 60 days or so.
That is why I said "interesting", because we will see how that plays out. Will Jordan be able to develop any legislation that will pass the senate?
When/if he can not, how is the press and the electorate going to handle that.
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 2
Depends on the techniques the coalition builder uses to obtain consensus. And if you are afraid to not reach a consensus, your opponents will exploit that.
I think this is inconsistent the nature of the position of the Speaker.
We don't have a parliamentary system of government. The Speaker isn't like a Prime Minister, which is also elected by the members of the lower legislative house. Once elected by the Parliament, the Speaker has powers and authority that do not depend on cobbling together a majority of legislators on that issue. That's subject to check, of course - there can always be a vote of no confidence to remove the PM from their office by the legislators. But generally, the PM does not need consensus among their legislators to take action.
The Speaker, by contrast, lacks that formal power. If they don't build a majority in the legislature on any particular issue, then they cannot act. There's no structural delegation of authority or decision-making to the Speaker except on procedural matters. If the Speaker doesn't have a consensus, then neither they nor their party has any power. The Speaker is only as powerful in negotiations as their members are willing to give them that power - through actual consensus, or empowering the Speaker to make choices that don't have consensus support by willing to "go along" with the majority. The inability to get your Members to support a common position is fatal to the exercise of power by your party.
That kind of job typically requires a different skill set than other legislative roles (like, say, chair of the Judiciary Committee). You have to be able to get your Congresscritters to vote together at the end of the day. If you can't, you will lose every negotiation you enter.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It sounds like you are questioning if he can even get a bill to the senate, let alone a bill that could pass the senate?
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 2
It sounds like you are questioning if he can even get a bill to the senate, let alone a bill that could pass the senate?
Depends on the bill. I have no doubt he could get a bill passed that allocated support for Israel right now, for example. But given the way he has approached his election, it's probably unlikely that he can cobble together enough votes to pass a bill out of the House on any matter where his caucus is far more divided - like funding and appropriations bills.
He certainly can't pass a bill that could pass the Senate - though I'm sympathetic to fiscal conservative objections that such a framing isn't neutral. After all, the Senate can't pass a bill that could pass the House, either. Framing the issue as one where the House has to move to where the Senate is, rather than vice versa or that they both have a mutual obligation to pass a bill that neither one is entirely happy with, reflects a certain viewpoint on what the substance of such a bill should be.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Any REPUBLICAN speaker is trapped by the following series of conditions:
1) a 10% portion of the Republican caucus has a militant position on debt when a Democrat is President, fighting any budget that improves healthcare, social services, etc.
2) a 10% portion of the Republican caucus (not necessarily the exact same 10% as #1) has a isolationist, anti-military position when a Democrat is President, except for Israel because -- frankly -- many don't care about Israel per se, they just believe Israel has to exist in order for their doomsday religious prophecies about the Rapture to come true, which by the way involves anyone not tight with Jesus going to Hell. An evangelical "Christian Zionist" is not a friend of any Israeli or Jew.
3) Republicans tend to stick to the Hastert Rule, a parliamentary rule of thumb that says a speaker should not / will not bring legistlation to the floor of the House for a vote unless it gains majority suppport within the speaker's majority party.
4) The House is still operating under rules adopted at the beginning of this Congress that allow one vote to call for the ouster of the speaker and there are at least five Republican Representatives with a proven track record of being willing to exercise that option. It isn't clear if this rule will be changed after selection of a new speaker in this session or if the House will have to live with this threat until the end of the term.
At this point in time,
* the US urgently needs a budget deal to avoid a government shutdown in November
* the US urgently needs to provide additional funding for Ukraine to continue wearing down Russia
* the US urgently needs to provide funding to support Israel and maintain air defense infrastructure
Those are three issues with distinct constituencies within the Republican party who are prone to viewing solutions for each of them as mutually exclusive. An "acceptable" budget solution might include DRASTIC cuts to medicare, SNAP, etc. Or NO support for Ukraine. Or NO support for Israel. Any NO on one of those might trigger rejection by other factions or might trigger rejection by the Democratic-controlled Senate or White House.
Jim Jordan has ZERO ability to find common ground among any of these factions. He is demonstrably part of these zero-compromise factions on many of these issues and has zero history of rational policymaking leadership or compromise. I can't think of a single Republican in the House who seems to want to lead that has any of these skills.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 2
Anyway, the second speaker vote failed (as expected). On net, two more Republicans voted for someone else - a small loss of support, but a loss of support nonetheless.
Jordan's reps say he's going to press forward. No word on when the next vote will be.
No. of Recommendations: 3
any win under 15 rounds will have jim j. proclaim his superior qualifications.
but his pressure, along with Faux News, is making things harder. (where are the bribes!?!)
could it be his medal of freedom, awarded preferentially to those that put trump above nation and morals, is a shining signal of predictable futility ?
having jim jordan is the functional equivalent of no elected chair.
No. of Recommendations: 9
I just watched a story that said the next vote will show even FEWER votes for Jordan. How much do the Republican hold-outs dislike him? According to this story, they KNOW it looks worse for a candidate to LOSE votes over each iteration... So that's EXACTLY what they are organizing to do. There are more people on each round who will flip to "not Jordan" purely to make Jordan look pathetic -- not just for this speakership vote but to cut him down for the future.
The knives are out.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 9
LOL...
Personally I like Jordan, a guy with some fire in his belly, no hidden agenda, tells you what is on his mind.
He has NO AGENDA. He's never done ANYTHING of value as a rep. Useless, nihilistic bomb thrower. The worst.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Republican lawmakers say they have been targeted by intimidation tactics, including death threats, from allies of Jim Jordan as his bid for the US House of Representatives speakership falters.
....by the company he keeps.
