Scalise Needed to Be Redder

Another day, another speaker. Late Thursday, after little more than a day as speaker-designate, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) concluded that he can't get the far-right supporters of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), which means the votes just weren't there for the Majority Leader to achieve the goal he's worked toward for at least 10 years. So, he withdrew from consideration as the replacement for deposed speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

Like McCarthy before him, Scalise fell on his sword for the Party, even if some members won't appreciate it. In the former case, the Californian sacrificed his speakership to keep the government open and to keep Republicans from getting the blame for a shutdown. In the latter case, the Louisianan did not insist upon a public vote on the floor of the House of Representatives before bowing out, since such a high-profile failure would be bad PR for the GOP.

That said, we're not so sure that holding votes or not holding votes makes all that much difference at this point. Either way, McCarthy was deposed 10 days ago, the House Republican Conference took a week to sort things out, and they don't appear to be close to actually seating a replacement. People will notice that, whether or not it's formally confirmed by a big song-and-dance broadcast on C-SPAN.

So, what is next? The only semi-concrete thing is that there is serious talk about giving Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-NC) additional powers (or, alternately, him just asserting additional powers) so that the House can conduct some business while this whole drama plays out. As we have written from the beginning, when McHenry's special situation was first revealed, you shouldn't dismiss the possibility that the House limps forward with an "Acting Speaker" for weeks or months... or longer.

What about the possibility of Jordan as speaker? After all, he is the only current candidate still standing, which means the path could be clear for him, right? Wrong. Or, at least, we remain very, very skeptical. As we have written many times, he has enormous baggage between his overall extremism, his support for the 1/6 coup and for Donald Trump, his sham committee "investigations," and his pre-political-career scandal at Ohio State. We just don't see how he could get 217 votes.

And if Jordan did not have liabilities enough, there's also a new twist. Reportedly, the Ohioan thinks he's smarter than the average bear, and decided to try to play a little 3-D chess with Scalise. So, Jordan proposed that he would nominate and support Scalise in the first round of balloting for speaker, and if he was not elected, Scalise would drop out and nominate and support Jordan in the second round of balloting. Since there was no chance Scalise would be elected in the first round, it was a hollow and self-serving offer, and one that just served to antagonize Scalise loyalists. "He tried to extort Steve and Steve said 'no,'" said one Republican lawmaker, speaking off the record. "He's a fu**ing snake and disgraceful," said another. "There's zero chance Jim Jordan is speaker after the last 30 hours."

Ok, then what about the return of McCarthy? Throughout the week, it's been reported that he's acting very much like he never lost his job, and doing things that an actual speaker would do, like holding press conferences on the situation in Israel and remaining ensconced at his desk in the speaker's office. What he has not done during that time is lift a finger to help Scalise (or Jordan), or otherwise done anything to help the Republican Conference move forward. Certainly looks like someone who's hanging back, so that he can be called to ride to the rescue. That said, the folks who voted to remove him are still members of the House, and are not likely to have changed their minds about wanting to be rid of him. For McCarthy to be replaced by himself seems more likely to us than for him to be replaced by Jordan... but not much more likely.

The fundamental problem here is that the folks who are gumming up the works are not normal political actors. They see a non-functioning government as a good thing, and not a bad thing. Most of them would probably like to get some money for Israel and for the Department of Defense passed, but they may be able to do that without a speaker in place. And beyond those one or two things, the House can burn, for all they care. They don't care if the Republican Party suffers as a whole because they (other than Lauren Boebert, R-CO) represent safe, ruby-red districts.

There's also another, related dynamic. The foundational proposition of a democracy is that you put forward your best candidate, you take your best shot, and if you lose, you try again the next time. But thanks substantially to Donald Trump, the calculus has changed for many/most Republicans. They feel entitled to win EVERY TIME, and if they don't get the votes, they won't concede (graciously or otherwise) and they won't play nice. The reason that elections for speaker rarely go past the first ballot (as in, not once in a century prior to this year) is that the conference/caucus election is supposed to be THE election. Once a person has been nominated as speaker by their party, everyone in the party is supposed to fall in line, even if that person wasn't a member's preferred choice. But now, the House GOP sees the nomination as merely a suggestion, and the members feel they are free to continue acting as free agents. That attitude, plus the near-zero margin of error, makes it exceedingly difficult to elect a speaker. Fox's Bret Baier, who's pretty dialed in to Republican politics, reported yesterday that, according to what he's hearing, "Jesus of Nazareth could not get 217 votes right now." Probably right; Jesus was a Jew, so there go the votes of Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) right there.

It could be that a dark horse Republican (a dark elephant?) will emerge, and that candidate will be able to get 217 votes. But we struggle to think who that candidate might be, or even come up with a broad outline of their profile. How can you be far-right enough for the Freedom Caucusers but centrist enough to be acceptable to the rest of the Conference? How can you accommodate the needs and demands of 216 different free agents? And why would you even want to try? Any candidate who somehow lands the job will end up taking all kinds of abuse from both colleagues and the general public, will have to fly around the country raising money, and will have to do all of this knowing that they could be fired at any moment if they anger just a handful of their fellow Republican members.

There is one other option, of course, and that would be for the moderate elements of the Republican conference to join with the Democrats to resolve the situation. There are actually, broadly speaking, two ways this could go. The first is that the Democrats could work with the Republicans to change the rules, such that a speaker could be elected with a plurality rather than a majority. It's happened before; at the start of the 34th Congress, the members spent two fruitless months trying to pick a speaker before allowing Nathaniel P. Banks to be elected with a plurality on the 133rd ballot.

There are some problems with this scenario. The first is that the circumstances back then, in 1855-56, were different in terms of partisan politics. Because of the collapse of the Whig Party and the slow emergence of the Republicans, there were at least three distinct "parties" in the House, and maybe four or five. There was no majority. The (temporary) rules change was a response to that, effectively allowing the creation of a faux majority. Today, by contrast, there are just two distinct parties, and one of them is definitely a majority. The distinction between the Democrats (or, alternately, 217 Republicans) voting to change the rules so that, say, Kevin McCarthy can be reelected, as opposed to just voting directly to reelect McCarthy is a thin distinction, indeed.

This brings us to the second problem. Way back in 1855, the members who agreed that a plurality was enough knew that the two leading candidates were both close to the promised land. Banks ended up being elected with 103 votes, but right behind him was his main rival, William Aiken Jr., with 100. Put another way, there were at least 203 members (out of 214) who voted for the rule change knowing that it might just lead to their preferred candidate being elected. Right now, by contrast, the majority party would be playing with fire. If they agree that a plurality is enough, and then no Republican can get 210 votes, that would mean the election of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as speaker, since HIS caucus is actually unified in the way that a caucus is supposed to be.

To summarize, then, if a rule change will definitely allow a Republican to be elected speaker, we don't see why the Democrats would go for it. And if a rule change will not definitely allow a Republican to be elected speaker, we don't see why the Republicans could go for it.

That leads us to scenario two, which is that the Democrats and the more moderate Republicans work together to elect a unity candidate. This is what Jeffries pushed for in an op-ed he published the day after McCarthy's ouster, and it's what he was pushing for yesterday after Scalise threw in the towel.

What would a unity candidate look like? Who knows? It would probably depend on how many Democrats were part of the unity coalition and how many Republicans. We've toyed with various concepts in the last week, but let's do a rundown of some possibilities:

• A Republican Currently in the House: You'd really have to be someone behind the scenes to know which current Republican member would be acceptable to partisans on both sides of the aisle. We have no doubt, however, that the Democrats would insist the person be someone who did not have any role in any sort of efforts to overturn the 2020 election. McHenry fits that bill, and he might well be tolerable to GOP centrists.
  
  
• A Former Speaker: Not including McCarthy, there are five living former speakers. Newt Gingrich is even more toxic than Jordan, so he's out. Dennis Hastert is a convicted sexual predator, which means he can be the Republican nominee for president, but he's not going to be speaker again. Nancy Pelosi is hated too much by Republicans to get crossover votes. That leaves John Boehner and Paul Ryan. We think the former is more plausible, largely because he's further removed from current political squabbles.
  
  
• A Democrat Currently in the House: We cannot imagine that there are even a dozen GOP members willing to hand the gavel over to Jeffries. And they're certainly not giving it to Pelosi, as already discussed. If the minority party is to be handed the speakership, it's going to have to be the Blue Doggiest of Blue Dogs. That pretty much means Jared Golden (D-ME), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) or, maybe, Mary Peltola (D-AK).
  
  
• A Republican Not Currently in the House: If this is the direction things go, it would have to be someone the members believe would behave with integrity, and wouldn't be drawn into partisan squabbles. Perhaps Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH)? Condoleezza Rice, who we've mentioned before? Or, how about... Mike Pence? That may sound loony, but he's presided over the Senate, which is a similar kind of job. And having refused to participate in the 1/6 shenanigans gives him a certain kind of "calling balls and strikes" integrity. It's not like his current vocation of running for president is going anywhere.
  
  
• A Judge: Keeping in mind that the speakership was supposed to be a balls-and-strikes umpire, and not a partisan functionary, the House could return to that notion of the job and go with a current or retired federal judge. Perhaps someone like David Souter or Anthony Kennedy, who were both appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans, but who nonetheless showed an independent streak? Sandra Day O'Connor fits that description, too, but her health is reportedly shaky.
  
  
• A House Functionary: Along the same lines, the members could promote an actual functionary of Congress, like Clerk of the United States House of Representatives Kevin McCumber. Or, if they want someone who is used to telling both sides "no" sometimes, Parliamentarian of the Senate Elizabeth MacDonough.

These really aren't meant to be predictions, per se. The purpose of the exercise is to illustrate that even if some/most Republicans and some/most Democrats decide to work together to try to get a unity speaker in place, it's going to require some creativity to make the deal acceptable to both sides. (Z)

Biden Keeps His Eye on the Ball...

There was some significant Israel-related news out of the White House yesterday. First, although the role of Iran in this past weekend's attacks remains hazy, and although the $6 billion that was to be repatriated under Qatar's supervision had not yet been accessed by the Iranians, the money has been re-frozen, at least for now.

This was described in headlines as a "quiet understanding" between the U.S. and Qatar. We're not sure how quiet it really is, since everyone knows about it. In any case, the money isn't going to be going anywhere anytime soon. The White House believes that Iran is broadly responsible for helping create the conditions that led to the attack, but that the Iranians were not directly involved in the planning, and were caught by surprise when it happened. That's enough to take some action now; a final resolution will wait until later.

In addition, the White House provided some details yesterday as to why there are no current plans to send American soldiers into Gaza to retrieve American hostages. In short, Gaza is pretty tough to navigate, and the known hostages are likely being held in different, and probably hard-to-find locations. Since the Israeli intelligence services just dropped the ball in high-profile fashion, the White House is not willing to take action based on their information right now. Instead, the U.S. is working with the Israeli military, which obviously knows the ins-and-outs of Gaza better, in hopes that the Israeli soldiers can help out.

Based on the information available, this seems reasonable to us. An ill-conceived hostage rescue can be disastrous, both politically and in loss of life. One thinks of Operation Eagle Claw, which is pretty much the textbook example of a hostage rescue gone wrong. If the Biden administration does attempt something, nobody reading this will know about it, of course, until the operation is complete. (Z)

...While Trump Pokes Himself in the Eye

It is not a secret to anyone reading this site, or to anyone who follows U.S. politics, that Donald Trump is all about grievance and score-settling, often in response to the smallest of slights. After Israel was attacked this weekend, Joe Biden stepped to the plate and did what any U.S. president would do for one of the country's closest (and most politically important) allies. In exchange, Benjamin Netanyahu did what any Israeli PM would do and said some nice things about Biden.

Trump can't abide that, and so as we wrote yesterday, the former president went on the attack. He laid into Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. In addition, and we really should have mentioned this in our item, Trump praised the radical anti-Israel political party Hezbollah as "very smart." That is a very, very short distance from praising the Nazis as "very smart."

As a result of these remarks, Trump is being hammered... by Republicans. Virtually every one of the folks who thinks they are running for the Republican presidential nomination said yesterday that it was very wrong to pick right now to attack Netanyahu and/or to praise Hezbollah. For example, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said:

Now is not the time to be doing like what Donald Trump did by attacking Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, attacking Israel's defense minister, saying somehow that Hezbollah were very smart. We need to all be on the same page. Now is not the time to air personal grievances about an Israeli prime minister. Now is the time to support their right to defend themselves to the hilt.

Nikki Haley said, "I don't want to hear how great Hezbollah is." Her fellow South Carolinian, Sen. Tim Scott, noted that Trump must not agree with Psalm 122:6, which instructs people of faith to pray for peace in Israel. That's just in case you forgot which presidential candidate actually reads the Bible, versus which one just uses it for photo-ops. There was only one GOP presidential candidate who backed Trump, and you can surely guess who it was. In case you need a hint, think "Ivekvay Amaswamyray." In addition to the presidential wannabes, there were plenty of Republican members of Congress, and members of the right-wing media, who were none too pleased by Trump's remarks.

We do not think for a minute that Trump damaged himself enough to put the Republican nomination in danger. The general election, by contrast? Maybe he's hurting himself a little here (and with his small margin for error, a little is effectively a lot). Here are the problems we see:

• Antisemites will be happy to hear Netanyahu slurred, but conservative Jews and evangelicals will not. Some of them might start thinking about giving the third-party candidates a look.
  
  
• Trump's response is a particularly clear reminder that, for him, diplomacy is transactional. True, diplomacy is pretty much always transactional. However, the transaction is normally "my country will do [X] for you, and your country will do [X] for us." In Trump's case it is "my country will do [X] for you, and your country will do [X] for ME."
  
  
• Trump's petulant and inappropriate response will stand in contrast to the statesmanlike response of Biden, who is handling things in the same way that all 43 of his pre-Trump predecessors would have. Well, except that louse Millard Fillmore, maybe.

Again, this is not going to be some sort of fatal error. But it was stupid and unforced, and is likely to hurt a bit. Presumably one of Trump's handlers will get to him and tell him to shut his yap. Unfortunately for him, the footage of the remarks is already out there, and we foresee it making a return right around, oh, this time next year. (Z)

Bob Menendez Is in Deep Trouble

On Wednesday, Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) saw his legal problems deepen. On Thursday, it was Sen. Robert Menendez' (D-NJ) turn. In a superseding indictment, the federal government charged the Senator with conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), undertaking, in his official capacity, actions meant to aid the Egyptian government.

The indictment is not short on specifics. For example, there was an incident where the Egyptian military caused injuries to an American tourist named April Corley, while also killing Corley's boyfriend. While the matter was investigated, the Senate put a hold on $300 million in aid that had been earmarked for Egypt. Menendez, then serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took steps to get the hold released. If the price of that was a new Mercedes for Menendez' wife, plus a couple of gold bars, that's a very good return-on-investment indeed.

Menendez was forced to give up chairing the Foreign Relations Committee when he was indicted, per Senate rules, but he's still on the committee, at least for now. The Senate hasn't passed a new organizing resolution removing Dianne Feinstein from her committees and adding LaPhonza Butler to hers. When that happens, which it surely will soon, there has to be serious consideration given to kicking Menendez off Foreign Relations entirely, right? And then, after that, Democrats will have to think long and hard about ejecting him from the Senate entirely. (Z)

My Gift Is My Song: The Great Gig in the Sky

We erred last week, and neglected to put a song in the title of the item about Dianne Feinstein's passing. It was supposed to be "The Great Gig in the Sky," so at least we squeezed it in eventually.

The first hint we gave about last week's theme was: "You you have have to to think think about about it it to to solve solve it it." On Saturday, we added: "[I]f you are turning yesterday's songs over in your head, it's instructive that two of them come from the same album." Here, now, the solution courtesy of reader F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI:

The original vinyl record that featured the song is at least a double double album album; a triple triple triple in one case:

• "The Punk and the Godfather," by The Who, Quadrophenia
• "Turd on the Run," by Rolling Stones, Exile on Main Street
• "F You (An ode to no one)," by Smashing Pumpkins, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
(this is the triple).
• "Pharaoh's Dance," by Miles Davis, Bitches Brew
• "Blackbird" and "Martha My Dear," by The Beatles, both from The Beatles a.k.a. The White Album
• "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II," by Pink Floyd, The Wall
• "Houses of the Holy," by Led Zeppelin, Physical Graffiti
• "Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine," by Bob Dylan, Blonde on Blonde

This was a toughie, and last week's completely stumped me. Both clues were necessary here, and even then, the solution was rather elusive, until something clicked.

We would say "I was stumped until it clicked" is the mark of a properly crafted puzzle. Doable, but not too easy.

Here are the first 10 readers to respond with the correct answer:

1. N.S. in North Hollywood, CA
2. B.C.B. in New York City, NY
3. R.F. in Washington, DC
4. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
5. W.M.H.B. in Salamanca, Spain
6. M.J.S. in Cheshire, CT
7. D.H. in Portland, OR
8. P.L. in St. Louis, MO
9. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
10. J.B. in Waukee, IA

In short, it was a good week for Cheshire, CT.

We get a fair bit of e-mail, of course, and we've heard a few different things about this little experiment. Quite a few folks have written in to say they really like it, and it's a nice way to end the week. We are glad to hear that; it also gives us a little extra challenge that we enjoy, sort of like the preacher in Leap of Faith who makes bets that he can work incongruous phrases like "aluminum siding" into his sermons.

We also hear from folks who like the concept, but who don't have the musical interests, or the musical tastes, necessary to puzzle out the themes. They suggest broadening the concept. We see merit in making things more accessible/inclusive, and so that is actually what we did this week. The headlines do have a commonality, but it's not musical. Our guess is that identifying the commonality is about a 5 of 10 in terms of difficulty. As to a hint, all we can say for now is that we hope this puzzle's not a dud.

And finally, we hear from some folks who think the idea is stupid. We think those folks are in the minority (especially judging by the ratio of e-mails), and we also tend to take the view that if many people like it, and some people do not, the not-likers can just ignore that material. That said, we are open to learning we are in error here.

In view of this, we are considering three potential courses of action, particularly if support for one of them is overwhelming. Those three courses are: (1) stick with the songs, (2) broaden the focus (songs would sometimes still show up, of course), or (3) kill the bit. If you are up for sharing your opinion, a survey is here. If you want to take a guess at this week's non-musical commonality among the headlines, then send your message here. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Soldiers, Churches Show their Civic Spirit

Given the atrocities that came to light this week, a schadenfreude item feels a little inappropriate. So, we're going to table that feature for the week, and instead do a double dose of freudenfreude.

First, a bit of news sent to us by reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA. On Nov. 19 of last year, there was a mass shooting at Club Q in Colorado Springs during a drag show. Five people were killed and 18 injured, and it would have been worse but for the actions of U.S. Army veteran Richard Fierro and active-duty U.S. Navy sailor Thomas James, who helped subdue the gunman. At the time, James issued a statement that read: "I simply wanted to save the family I found. If I had my way, I would shield everyone I could from the nonsensical acts of hate in the world, but I am only one person."

Yesterday, the Navy formally honored James, bestowing upon him the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, which is the service's highest decoration for non-combat-related valor. In its announcement, the Navy explained that the decoration is for "extraordinary reaction to a deplorable and devastating event." James, on receiving his ribbon, said just five words: "Thank you. I am humbled."

Second, something out of California. The Golden State is home to about 12% of the United States' overall population, but has about 33% of its homeless population. Various churches wish to help out by building temporary housing on church property. This movement has acquired a name, "Yes in God's backyard," or YIGBY; an obvious reference to NIMBY ("Not in my backyard"). However, it has nothing to do with GUMBY, dammit.

There is a problem, however. California is known for its heavy-duty regulations, and these various homeless housing projects kept running into zoning laws that slowed progress to a crawl. Yesterday, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed a bill that will allow church groups (and schools) to bypass most of the red tape and to get to work on YIGBY projects quickly. It's estimated that this will open up about 170,000 acres of potential land for this purpose. Perhaps our reading of the Gospels is crude, but this seems to be considerably more in line with the message of Jesus' ministry than things like "Jesus Guns Babies."

We offer these stories as a reminder that while there are definitely some very bad people in the world, there are also a lot of good people, too, trying their best to make this planet a better place. Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger