Oct.10

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Wannabe White Knight Dons Armor

We saw this coming a mile away, though we're nonetheless surprised how little time lapsed before he made his move. Yesterday, friendly media members asked former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) if he'd be open to retaking the gavel. And he said:

That's a decision by the conference. I'll allow the conference to make whatever decision; whether I'm speaker or not, I'm a member of this body. I know what history has had, and I can lead in any position it is.

We have read over that last sentence ten times, and even listened to him as he delivered that portion of his remarks, and we still haven't the faintest idea what it means.

The argument for a McCarthy return, which he hinted at and which his supporters have made more assertively, is that when he was canned last week, there was no war in Israel. Now there is, so he needs to return and lead. If you don't think about it too much, it seems to make sense—you know, times of crisis demand a firm hand on the wheel. But if you actually consider the notion more carefully, it makes zero sense. What, exactly, does McCarthy—a guy who was only on the job for 9 months—bring to the table that some other speaker couldn't? It does not take special talent or insight to bring a resolution condemning Hamas, or sending money to Israel, to the floor of the House.

That McCarthy is holding himself out as a white knight would seem to indicate that the House Republican Conference is not rallying around an alternative, and is not going to meet its self-imposed deadline for choosing a new speaker. Consider also these bits of information:

• Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) says Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) isn't healthy enough to be speaker.
• Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) says he's backing McCarthy until McCarthy explicitly drops out.
• Rep. John Duarte (R-CA) wants McCarthy to return as speaker.
• Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) left a Republican meeting, and noted how "broken" things are right now.
• Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) says he will not accommodate the faction that just "kicked us in the shins."
• Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) predicted that "this is going to be a very long road."
• Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) said he won't back anyone until the motion-to-vacate rules are changed.
• Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) said this is not the time to be changing the motion-to-vacate rules.
• Womack, along with Reps. Tim Burchett, Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said they will not support McCarthy.
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said Gaetz is a "vile" person and should be kicked out of the Conference.

These are just a few selected examples. Does this sound like a group where 98% of the members (217 of 221) are ready to unite behind one candidate? Nope, not to us, either.

The last time House Republicans faced this situation, in 2015, it took from September 25 (John Boehner announces his intention to resign) to October 29 (Paul Ryan elected) to reach a resolution. These days, the House Republican Conference appears to be even more divided than it was back then, so maybe it will take even longer. On the other hand, Boehner stayed in place until Ryan was elevated, so the House could continue to function while the process played out.

At present, there are pressing matters before the House, including Israel and the budget, and nobody is really steering the ship, as Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is taking a narrow view of his powers, and has said his only job is to get a new speaker in place. So, maybe this will light a fire under House Republicans and get them to figure out who the next speaker is. Although we actually think it more likely that McHenry will quickly discover that he has most/all of the powers of the speaker when it comes to moving legislation. Sure, some member of the House could object, but would 217 members vote to kill money for Israel or to torpedo the budget based on a dispute about parliamentary niceties? We are inclined to doubt it. (Z)