2023 Republican House Follies

[malchior]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

A question as McCarthy is about to lose his 6th vote: Is McCarthy the one that keeps calling for these votes? If so, why? Presumably, if any of the Taliban 20 were going to switch and vote for him, he’d know it. They aren’t, so if he’s the one directing this circus, why keep having these embarrassing votes. It’s not a spectacle that makes him look good at all.

No one is in control. Technically there is no House leadership right now. It's the machine/process/rules playing out. He doesn't have the votes to call for an adjournment with the 20 unless the Democrats agree to it. So they'll put in a day and then vote to adjourn after they let the debacle play out again. They're also in some ways stuck as well. They could agree to adjourn but that just kicks the can down the road. It is possibly better to let it sink in to McCarthy that he can't win these people over. They hate his guts.

[Isgrimnur]

[Kurth]

I think it's pretty clear they're trying to make sure Kevin knows he's not welcome. And the ~20 are reinforcing that by refusing to vote for him, no matter what. Though I am guessing they do have their price. I can only imagine what they want in exchange for a vote, I'm guessing key/critical committee appointments.

The letter from Gaetz calling him a squatter and demanding he be kicked out of the Speaker’s office was the icing on the cake! If he wasn't getting the whole "not being welcome" thing, I would think that would make it pretty clear.

I just don’t know how McCarthy thinks he can bully/bribe these people into anything. They are political arsonists. What’s he going to threaten them with? What’s he going to buy them with? They don’t care about passing signature legislation, and they don’t particularly like to work so they don’t really want plum committee assignments or leadership positions.

[Skinypupy]

Such a dedicated public servant. Truly working to benefit all Americans.

JFC, these people.

[Pyperkub]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

A question as McCarthy is about to lose his 6th vote: Is McCarthy the one that keeps calling for these votes? If so, why? Presumably, if any of the Taliban 20 were going to switch and vote for him, he’d know it. They aren’t, so if he’s the one directing this circus, why keep having these embarrassing votes. It’s not a spectacle that makes him look good at all.

I would think the prudent thing to do would be to not have another vote until there was some kind of material change in the situation. What am I missing?

Name the "moderate" "centrist" Republican you have allegedly heard myths and rumors about in this congress.

Also, it's a group of GOP members who need to be the ones initiating this, not the Dems.

Dems begging a few GOP'ers (*especially* retired GOP'ers) to help them here is not the way to go. It *has* to be the other way around.

What would actually be best for the nation would be for 20 GOP'ers to support Jeffries.

[Isgrimnur]

The House has voted to adjourn until 8 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy has now failed to receive a majority of the vote six times.

[Smoove_B]

[Holman]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

[Zaxxon]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

[Defiant]

How long until Santos just claims to be the speaker, and no one bothers to challenge the claim so they can just get on with things?

[Defiant]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

[El Guapo]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

A question as McCarthy is about to lose his 6th vote: Is McCarthy the one that keeps calling for these votes? If so, why? Presumably, if any of the Taliban 20 were going to switch and vote for him, he’d know it. They aren’t, so if he’s the one directing this circus, why keep having these embarrassing votes. It’s not a spectacle that makes him look good at all.

I would think the prudent thing to do would be to not have another vote until there was some kind of material change in the situation. What am I missing?

Name the "moderate" "centrist" Republican you have allegedly heard myths and rumors about in this congress.

Also, it's a group of GOP members who need to be the ones initiating this, not the Dems.

Dems begging a few GOP'ers (*especially* retired GOP'ers) to help them here is not the way to go. It *has* to be the other way around.

What would actually be best for the nation would be for 20 GOP'ers to support Jeffries.

Yup. The best case quasi-fantasy scenario is for some moderate or independent to be elected speaker. But how does one get from here to there? Presumably there would need to be some negotiation with the individual - would there be some type of power sharing agreement? Would any democrats get committee chairman positions? But if I were a Republican congressman, I would be terrified about such negotiations getting leaked - worst case scenario is that that happens, you get tagged as a RINO, and no agreement happens (or no other Republicans vote for you).

Also it's unclear to me how many Republicans would vote for a Republican supported by democrats. You wouldn't need a lot of them, but you need at least 6 (and that's assuming that all Democrats vote for the Republican in question, which is unlikely). On top of that it'd be a bad look for a Republican to be elected by 6 Republicans and 212 Democrats, so ideally you'd want at least a couple dozen Republican votes.

I think it'd be smart for Jeffries to announce that he's willing to support an independent or moderate speaker, but I'm not sure that he could do much more than that.

[El Guapo]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

I don't mean to overstate their level of strategic planning, but any chance that the real endgame here is to let the impasse go on for a week or longer, and then invite Trump to resolve the dispute? Then Trump reluctantly announces that he's willing to serve if that's what his caucus wants?

[Daehawk]

Dont you have to be elected to the House to be it's Speaker? Just anyone cant just walk in and be speaker can they?

[Pyperkub]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

A question as McCarthy is about to lose his 6th vote: Is McCarthy the one that keeps calling for these votes? If so, why? Presumably, if any of the Taliban 20 were going to switch and vote for him, he’d know it. They aren’t, so if he’s the one directing this circus, why keep having these embarrassing votes. It’s not a spectacle that makes him look good at all.

I would think the prudent thing to do would be to not have another vote until there was some kind of material change in the situation. What am I missing?

Name the "moderate" "centrist" Republican you have allegedly heard myths and rumors about in this congress.

Also, it's a group of GOP members who need to be the ones initiating this, not the Dems.

Dems begging a few GOP'ers (*especially* retired GOP'ers) to help them here is not the way to go. It *has* to be the other way around.

What would actually be best for the nation would be for 20 GOP'ers to support Jeffries.

Yup. The best case quasi-fantasy scenario is for some moderate or independent to be elected speaker. But how does one get from here to there? Presumably there would need to be some negotiation with the individual - would there be some type of power sharing agreement? Would any democrats get committee chairman positions? But if I were a Republican congressman, I would be terrified about such negotiations getting leaked - worst case scenario is that that happens, you get tagged as a RINO, and no agreement happens (or no other Republicans vote for you).

Also it's unclear to me how many Republicans would vote for a Republican supported by democrats. You wouldn't need a lot of them, but you need at least 6 (and that's assuming that all Democrats vote for the Republican in question, which is unlikely). On top of that it'd be a bad look for a Republican to be elected by 6 Republicans and 212 Democrats, so ideally you'd want at least a couple dozen Republican votes.

I think it'd be smart for Jeffries to announce that he's willing to support an independent or moderate speaker, but I'm not sure that he could do much more than that.

The other issue is that the GOP can and will just submarine everything, do nothing and blame it on the Independent + Dems/Moderate + Dems, Especially if it's someone who isn't an elected member of Congress in 2023.

Oh, and if the GOP doesn't like the new speaker, that speaker will be the subject of investigation and harassment (and enough demonization in the the RW media that another Paul Pelosi incident isn't out of the range of possibilities)

This really is a case where the best option is to let the GOP continue to implode, and use other methods to pass the must-pass legislation. Staffers get screwed however, as the House can't pay them without the new rules committee budget.

[El Guapo]

Dont you have to be elected to the House to be it's Speaker? Just anyone cant just walk in and be speaker can they?

My understanding is that there's no rule requiring the Speaker to be an elected House member (though presumably a non-elected person serving as speaker couldn't vote on legislation). I don't know how clear cut that is, though, or whether a non-elected person's eligibility could be subject to challenge.

[Kurth]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

A question as McCarthy is about to lose his 6th vote: Is McCarthy the one that keeps calling for these votes? If so, why? Presumably, if any of the Taliban 20 were going to switch and vote for him, he’d know it. They aren’t, so if he’s the one directing this circus, why keep having these embarrassing votes. It’s not a spectacle that makes him look good at all.

I would think the prudent thing to do would be to not have another vote until there was some kind of material change in the situation. What am I missing?

Name the "moderate" "centrist" Republican you have allegedly heard myths and rumors about in this congress.

They are definitely an endangered species in our current tribal/ultra-partisan era. Measured by the Lugar Center Bi-partisan index, of the top 25 bi-partisan members of the last congress, 12 of the most bi-partisan members were Republicans. After the 2022 midterms, only 5 of those bi-partisan GOP members remain, the others having retired or been primaried out.

But there are still moderate, centrist members of the party.

How about Brian Fitzpatrick from where I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

How about Don Bacon from Nevada?

From my perspective, these are legitimately good options, but my bar isn't really that high: If I were the Dems, I'd be willing to throw in with just about anyone who isn't one of the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2022 Presidential election results.

Also, it's a group of GOP members who need to be the ones initiating this, not the Dems.

Dems begging a few GOP'ers (*especially* retired GOP'ers) to help them here is not the way to go. It *has* to be the other way around.

Agreed. But I would hope the Dem leadership would be sending some messages through back channels that they'd be open to some kind of deal.

What would actually be best for the nation would be for 20 GOP'ers to support Jeffries.

While all of this is likely fantasy land, this is some real magical thinking. Even though it was by the smallest of margins, the Dems lost the House. Why in the world would the GOP voluntarily turn the Speakership over to Hakeem Jeffries?

[Kurth]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

Hello, Representative Young Kim from California's 40th congressional district.

[Zaxxon]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

Hello, Representative Young Kim from California's 40th congressional district.

Voted against Trump's 2nd impeachment. Claimed voter fraud sans evidence. Not a moderate. Try again.

[LordMortis]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

Hello, Representative Young Kim from California's 40th congressional district.

Voted against Trump's 2nd impeachment. Claimed voter fraud sans evidence. Not a moderate. Try again.

Either of those would be nonstarters in my "Best for the nation" approach for finding a "centrist" GOP house member, much less both. Finding the GOP House members who didn't vote to impeach makes the list very short, indeed.

Look like of the survivors of 2022, you get Dan Newhouse or David Valadao as potential members the Democrats could back, assuming no skeletons in their closets and that knowing that I am largely ignorant of their actual opinions on all of the things.

[Zaxxon]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

Hello, Representative Young Kim from California's 40th congressional district.

Voted against Trump's 2nd impeachment. Claimed voter fraud sans evidence. Not a moderate. Try again.

Either of those would be nonstarters in my "Best for the nation" approach for finding a "centrist" GOP house member, much less both. Finding the GOP House members who didn't vote to impeach makes the list very short, indeed.

Look like of the survivors of 2022, you get Dan Newhouse or David Valadao as potential members the Democrats could back, assuming no skeletons in their closets and that knowing that I am largely ignorant of their actual opinions on all of the things.

Better, but still not moderate. First guy signed onto amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, disputing 2020 election. 2nd voted with Trump 97% of the time, and believes climate change doesn't impact droughts.

Radical positions in any rational evaluation.

[dfs]

I feel like the dream scenario is that Democrats find the sanest member of the House GOP caucus (if that exists) and basically say "we'll vote for them for speaker", leading to them getting elected with 212ish Democratic votes plus 6+ Republican votes. Would any Republican be willing to be elected speaker with mostly Democratic votes? Would that person be able to effectively govern?

Any red congress criter that would do this would be signing himself up to be primaried in two years.

Couldn't the Democrats then torpedo McCarthy by implying they were in talks with him and then vote him into Speakership?

I started to think about this at work today and it could be a way to fracture the rethuglicans permanently into two groups the crazies and the craziers. I don't know if the dem's could stomach it, but it might be their best move. Some form of normalcy would sweep the mtg's and her like from holding the sort of power we saw with senator #50 last term.

[Holman]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

I don't mean to overstate their level of strategic planning, but any chance that the real endgame here is to let the impasse go on for a week or longer, and then invite Trump to resolve the dispute? Then Trump reluctantly announces that he's willing to serve if that's what his caucus wants?

Trump wouldn't want the job. It would be too much work, and it would keep him away from the campaign trail.

[LordMortis]

Better, but still not moderate. First guy signed onto amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, disputing 2020 election. 2nd voted with Trump 97% of the time, and believes climate change doesn't impact droughts.

Radical positions in any rational evaluation.

The problem is then what do you get otherwise. It's not reasonable to believe, even in best for the nation circumstances, that you get Democrat Speaker when they are the minority. The majority of the nation vote for radical positioning. McCarthy doesn't want to govern but rather wants to hate the democratic establishment and the people keeping him out of position not only don't want to govern, they don't want a government.

[LordMortis]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

I don't mean to overstate their level of strategic planning, but any chance that the real endgame here is to let the impasse go on for a week or longer, and then invite Trump to resolve the dispute? Then Trump reluctantly announces that he's willing to serve if that's what his caucus wants?

Trump wouldn't want the job. It would be too much work, and it would keep him away from the campaign trail.

Making TFG third in line for the presidency after not not being elected might very well literally mean blood in the streets. So let's hope there is no 3D chess being played here where that outcome hits this timeline.

[Kraken]

Dont you have to be elected to the House to be it's Speaker? Just anyone cant just walk in and be speaker can they?

My understanding is that there's no rule requiring the Speaker to be an elected House member (though presumably a non-elected person serving as speaker couldn't vote on legislation). I don't know how clear cut that is, though, or whether a non-elected person's eligibility could be subject to challenge.

If recruited, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. Just to get that idea out of your heads.

And yeah, the Constitution only stipulates that the whole House shall appoint a Speaker.

[Holman]

Trump wouldn't want the job. It would be too much work, and it would keep him away from the campaign trail.

Making TFG third in line for the presidency after not not being elected might very well literally mean blood in the streets. So let's hope there is no 3D chess being played here where that outcome hits this timeline.

Were it to come to that, I assume the Democratic strategy would be to keep Biden and Harris 1,000 miles apart at all times.

[Zaxxon]

Better, but still not moderate. First guy signed onto amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, disputing 2020 election. 2nd voted with Trump 97% of the time, and believes climate change doesn't impact droughts.

Radical positions in any rational evaluation.

The problem is then what do you get otherwise. It's not reasonable to believe, even in best for the nation circumstances, that you get Democrat Speaker when they are the minority. The majority of the nation vote for radical positioning. McCarthy doesn't want to govern but rather wants to hate the democratic establishment and the people keeping him out of position not only don't want to govern, they don't want a government.

I hear you. My point was solely what I started out stating: moderate GOP member is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist today. All GOP members are radical or long since retired. So everyone needs to stop reframing terminology. That way lies madness, such as this week's framing that McCarthy--election denier, Trump lackey, Capitol riot fomenter--is the moderate option.

#stopit

[Defiant]

Just to be clear, I was talking about the possibility of some of the very new Republican representatives from blue districts (the ones that haven't even been sworn in, so we have no track record to look at) might end up being moderate-ish.

[malchior]

Better, but still not moderate. First guy signed onto amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, disputing 2020 election. 2nd voted with Trump 97% of the time, and believes climate change doesn't impact droughts.

Radical positions in any rational evaluation.

The problem is then what do you get otherwise. It's not reasonable to believe, even in best for the nation circumstances, that you get Democrat Speaker when they are the minority. The majority of the nation vote for radical positioning. McCarthy doesn't want to govern but rather wants to hate the democratic establishment and the people keeping him out of position not only don't want to govern, they don't want a government.

I hear you. My point was solely what I started out stating: moderate GOP member is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist today. All GOP members are radical or long since retired. So everyone needs to stop reframing terminology. That way lies madness, such as this week's framing that McCarthy--election denier, Trump lackey, Capitol riot fomenter--is the moderate option.

#stopit

Exactly. Even if you accepted the impeachment vote was a cynical "political" decision and not an expression of radicalness, the GOP platform which they'll all defend to ridiculous ends itself is one of the most radical in the advanced economies. It is much further to the right than the so-called extreme right parties in Canada, Europe, etc. People need to stop the hope for a moderate national GOP. It doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. They exist in blue states for sure but any GOP member of the house who stood up for decency literally left this year. There are zero left in the House.

[malchior]

Crisis resolved! /sarcasm. Believe it or not this was a big gripe of the rebels. It'd be amazing to watch these "principled" arsonists accept a shady dark money agreement.

CLF & CLUB FOR GROWTH COME TO KEY AGREEMENT IN SUPPORT OF KEVIN MCCARTHY FOR SPEAKER

Statement from CLF President Dan Conston:

“Kevin McCarthy has effectively led House Republicans from the Minority to the Majority and we want to see him continue to lead the party so we can pick up seats for the third cycle in a row.

CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts and CLF will not grant resources to other super PAC’s to do so. CLF has never spent a dollar against a Republican incumbent before and obviously will continue that policy in the future.

CLF will continue to support incumbents in primaries as well as challengers in districts that affect the Majority, which proved to be critical to winning the Majority in 2022.”

[Alefroth]

Putting up a "centrist" candidate that actually spoke out against Jan 6th and getting Dems to cross the line is best for the nation, putting 20 babies in the corner. Neither Dems nor the GOP would go for that though.

Yep. And this, my friends, is why we’re so supremely fucked. Rather than eating popcorn and enjoying watching the GOP clown show embarrass itself and the country, the Dems should be tirelessly working to find a moderate GOP centrist they could all support for Speaker. But I just don’t see that happening.

If you don't see it happening, why should they work tirelessly towards it? Like you, they probably recognize the futility.

[Alefroth]

Name the "moderate" "centrist" Republican you have allegedly heard myths and rumors about in this congress.

Also, it's a group of GOP members who need to be the ones initiating this, not the Dems.

Dems begging a few GOP'ers (*especially* retired GOP'ers) to help them here is not the way to go. It *has* to be the other way around.

What would actually be best for the nation would be for 20 GOP'ers to support Jeffries.

There will always be people who blame the Democrats for the GOP's worst failings.

[malchior]

The House just adjourned again. Apparently the rules wonks are saying the House clerk fudged the adjournment vote. The nays were ahead when time was called, she extended voting, it still looked like the nays were ahead, but she went ahead and announced the yeas won and called it for the day. LOL. Some people are really upset claiming she is siding with the Republicans. That's a hot take. Perhaps she just wants to go home.

[Alefroth]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

I don't mean to overstate their level of strategic planning, but any chance that the real endgame here is to let the impasse go on for a week or longer, and then invite Trump to resolve the dispute? Then Trump reluctantly announces that he's willing to serve if that's what his caucus wants?

Trump wouldn't want the job. It would be too much work, and it would keep him away from the campaign trail.

Making TFG third in line for the presidency after not not being elected might very well literally mean blood in the streets. So let's hope there is no 3D chess being played here where that outcome hits this timeline.

He'd actually be second in line. To be eligible for succession, Trump would have to admit he didn't win.

[El Guapo]

The best explanation I've seen is that Gaetz/Boebert/et al are denying McCarthy the Speakership just to show that they can. He was the presumptive choice for a long time, so taking his scalp shows the power of the New Gang in Town.

If McCarthy steps aside, it will probably go to Steve Scalise. Scalise will be voted in, but he'll know full well that his tenure depends on keeping a very specific set of representatives happy.

I don't mean to overstate their level of strategic planning, but any chance that the real endgame here is to let the impasse go on for a week or longer, and then invite Trump to resolve the dispute? Then Trump reluctantly announces that he's willing to serve if that's what his caucus wants?

Trump wouldn't want the job. It would be too much work, and it would keep him away from the campaign trail.

Making TFG third in line for the presidency after not not being elected might very well literally mean blood in the streets. So let's hope there is no 3D chess being played here where that outcome hits this timeline.

Another reminder that the U.S. has an insane presidential succession scheme that should be changed, incidentally.

[Skinypupy]

[Kurth]

a GOP moderate

Periodic reminder that 'GOP moderate' is an oxymoron.

We might see a few of the new Republicans act moderate, as some were elected in districts that Biden won by over 10 points.

Hello, Representative Young Kim from California's 40th congressional district.

Voted against Trump's 2nd impeachment. Claimed voter fraud sans evidence. Not a moderate. Try again.

Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good! Three days after being sworn in, Young Kim voted to certify the election results, but because she advocated for censuring Trump but wouldn't join the Dems to impeach her party's outgoing, lame-duck President, she's part of the radical right? You've got to be kidding me.

On January 3, 2021, Kim was sworn in to the 117th United States Congress.

On January 6, 2021, Kim voted to certify Joe Biden's Electoral College victory, declining to support Republican-led efforts to contest the results.

On January 13, 2021, Kim voted against the second impeachment of Donald Trump. She said she supported censuring Trump but not impeaching him.

On February 4, 2021, Kim joined 10 other Republican House members voting with all voting Democrats to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her Education and Labor Committee and Budget Committee assignments in response to controversial political statements she had made.

On February 25, 2021, Kim voted against the Equality Act, a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to explicitly include new protections. In a subsequent statement, Kim stated that she believed that all people should be treated with respect and given equal opportunities, but justified her vote on the grounds that the bill "undermines Americans’ religious freedoms, limits protections for people of faith and opens the door to ending the decades-long bipartisan Hyde Amendment."

On February 27, 2021, Kim joined all Republicans to vote against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, citing lack of bipartisanship and criticizing the bill for only having 9% of the funding directly going toward combating COVID-19, with most of the aid not spent until 2022.

Kim is rated among the most centrist of Republican representatives by Govtrack, based on patterns of sponsorship and co-sponsorship of legislation with Democrats. She voted opposite to the majority of the Republican caucus on several key votes, among them the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and a bill to delay spending cuts in Medicare and other services. Kim voted with the majority of the Republican caucus 96% of the time.

As of June 2022, Kim had voted in line with President Joe Biden's stated position 27.3% of the time.

Is Young Kim getting Bernie Sander's endorsement? Probably not. But sure as shit, she seems like a moderate to me, especially in today's GOP.

[Kurth]

Better, but still not moderate. First guy signed onto amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, disputing 2020 election. 2nd voted with Trump 97% of the time, and believes climate change doesn't impact droughts.

Radical positions in any rational evaluation.

The problem is then what do you get otherwise. It's not reasonable to believe, even in best for the nation circumstances, that you get Democrat Speaker when they are the minority. The majority of the nation vote for radical positioning. McCarthy doesn't want to govern but rather wants to hate the democratic establishment and the people keeping him out of position not only don't want to govern, they don't want a government.

I hear you. My point was solely what I started out stating: moderate GOP member is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist today. All GOP members are radical or long since retired. So everyone needs to stop reframing terminology. That way lies madness, such as this week's framing that McCarthy--election denier, Trump lackey, Capitol riot fomenter--is the moderate option.

#stopit

Exactly. Even if you accepted the impeachment vote was a cynical "political" decision and not an expression of radicalness, the GOP platform which they'll all defend to ridiculous ends itself is one of the most radical in the advanced economies. It is much further to the right than the so-called extreme right parties in Canada, Europe, etc. People need to stop the hope for a moderate national GOP. It doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. They exist in blue states for sure but any GOP member of the house who stood up for decency literally left this year. There are zero left in the House.

Come on. That's simply not true. There aren't many. Their numbers are much diminished after the last midterms, but there are still some moderate GOP members of the house. I cited two above that I think have been in office long enough to be considered if we were looking for a moderate GOP Speaker, but there are others. Let's not be hyperbolic.

Also, I don't have a clue what you're hoping for (if hope is actually a thing you do, malchior ). If there's no chance of the GOP swinging back to a more moderate version of itself -- and don't hit me with "the GOP has always been this radical" bullshit -- then what is there? The current GOP is the dictionary definition of dysfunctional. It's not winning elections, except under the narrowest of circumstances. It can't govern. It has no real, binding ideology. It's a husk of a party. This country can't go on like that.

So, unless you have another alternative, I'm going to keep on hoping for a more moderate national GOP.

[Jaymann]

And I'm hoping there's a pony under that pile of horseshit.