An opportunity for Democrats to prove they are the "bigger" party

[Smoove_B]

Yes. And then the Democrats can hand them the short list I mentioned in post #1. And as someone has already said, this must be done in the dark.

Because I'm not sure you've picked up on what's happened to the House, let me detail a likely outcome to the scenario you've just floated.

The Democrats provide a list to some secret group of GOP "rebels" with a list of names the Democrats will unconditionally support in the next vote for Speakership.

Somehow beyond all expectations, this person is (1) nominated and then (2) elected Speaker by (presumably) 212 Democrats and 6 or more Republicans.

Immediately after that new Speaker is seated any *one* member of the GOP (like any of the ~215 that presumably didn't vote for this person) now makes a motion to vacate the seat - just like Gaetz did earlier this month - and if that motion gets 216 votes we're back to square zero again as the new Speaker is removed...again.

Can the GOP fix the very poison pill they created? Unknown.

[Isgrimnur]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

Does zero good - all the Speaker Nominees are being decided in the GOP-only secret votes.

One of them can approach Democrats to get their votes. Anyone from GOP side that can get a few GOP votes can become the speaker with Democrat's full support.

One of them approaching the Democrats is worthless, as, unless they win the GOP secret ballots, Patrick McHenry, speaker pro tempore, will not put it up for a vote.

[Isgrimnur]

Some House Republicans demand rule change to prevent another speaker ouster

[Victoria Raverna]

I think right now the Democrats are waiting for a candidate to secretly approach them to get their support.

Does zero good - all the Speaker Nominees are being decided in the GOP-only secret votes.

One of them can approach Democrats to get their votes. Anyone from GOP side that can get a few GOP votes can become the speaker with Democrat's full support.

Yes. And then the Democrats can hand them the short list I mentioned in post #1. And as someone has already said, this must be done in the dark.

Maybe they're doing this. Or the Republicans are still trying to do it without Democrats for now but if they keep failing, they'll deal with Democrats.

[malchior]

Washington Post

This is Republicans’ mess. But it hurts the whole country. Democrats have to help them clean it up.

The best — and, given the three weeks of paralysis, perhaps the only — ways to unfreeze the House involve Democrats doing more than watching Republicans fail. This would require at least some tacit understandings between the two parties, which neither side has seemed eager to develop. That has to change.

One option is to empower the House’s acting leader, Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), to conduct House business while Republicans seek a permanent replacement. Another is for Republicans to bring a different candidate to the floor, one who passes basic reasonableness tests, such as wanting to keep the government running and respecting the legitimacy of the 2020 election results.

Democrats, meanwhile, have not made this easy. They have routinely unanimously backed their leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), for speaker, the point of which is to raise the threshold for the Republican candidate du jour to achieve a majority on the floor. This, in turn, has allowed a small number of GOP radicals to deny a majority to various speaker candidates.

Both sides! Democrats aren't helping! Every solution they offer is the Democrats essentially just enabling the rot. They don't even bother to talk about the counter case of say Republicans working with the Democrats. The 4th Estate is in shambles. They largely hand wave away the issues we talked through and say vote present and just get back to work. Whatever that means. In any case, there are thousands of comments and I'm heartened that it is mostly people mocking the Editorial Board for this nonsense.

[Unagi]

Implying that if the person criticizing you doesn't have a better answer then their criticism is invalid is a logical fallacy (although I'm not sure which one - probably a straw man, but I usually guess wrong.)

argumentum ad ignorantiam - Argument from ignorance / Appeal to ignorance
(in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.

[Victoria Raverna]

[malchior]

Max Boot applying heavy dabs of clown make up.

[Dave Allen]

Max Boot applying heavy dabs of clown make up.

didn't know this - appears Democrats blew that opportunity to be the 'bigger' party.

Can the "motion to vacate" rule be amended?
Wording like, "a 'motion to vacate' can only be made if a 'motion to vacate' has not been passed in the current term."
Wouldn't something like that put the brakes on using it indiscriminately?

[malchior]

They can try write the rule anyway they want. However, the second they try to change it someone will probably make a motion to vacate and maybe we'd go around the loop again. In the end, there are people who want to turn governing into reality tv and they're is little anyone can do to stop them.

[Blackhawk]

didn't know this - appears Democrats blew that opportunity to be the 'bigger' party.

You still seem to be under the impression that said opportunity ever actually existed. It did not. It was never possible.

[Carpet_pissr]

In the end, there are people who want to turn governing into reality tv and they're is little anyone can do to stop them.

Want to?! I think we've been there for a while now.

[Pyperkub]

didn't know this - appears Democrats blew that opportunity to be the 'bigger' party.

You still seem to be under the impression that said opportunity ever actually existed. It did not. It was never possible.

bingo. These hypothetical moderate republicans who don't support the bomb throwers could have voted for Jeffries (that was the only possibility). They have chosen not to for years, not just this time (see Trump Impeachments, Election certification, McCarthy votes in both Jan and Sept, etc.).

ALL the nominees (save for Jeffries) were only determined via GOP-only secret ballots.

Dave appears to be in denial about how bad things are in the GOP right now. The thing is that they are getting worse, not better.

Americans who believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump are more than three times as likely as those who do not believe that the election was stolen from Trump — 46% to 13%, respectively — to agree that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.

If you drill down in the poll, you'll see those numbers of the GOP who believe violence is the only path are going up, not down.