• dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably because he went back on the deal that he made with Biden after the Debt Ceiling thing. If he had stuck to that, he might have gotten enough Democrats to vote “present” to have survived the vote.

      But why throw any support to a person you can’t trust?

      • macallik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I think this.

        You can’t even make deals w/ him anymore because he won’t abide by them. On top of that, he has to bend to the most fringe aspects of his party to stay in power so it appers that he’s reaching the same conclusions (impeachment, reneging on his words, etc) as a more conservative speaker, w/ just the semblance of moderate leanings

    • willis936@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a republican problem. They renegged the budget, they caused the shutdown, they ousted their speaker when he swerved to avoid it. The republicans have all the votes they need to not fuck over the constituents. All they have to do is their job. Dems know they won’t do it. Every second republicans are burning political capital.

      • BOMBS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, and they’re wasting the time they have with a majority in the House.

        The Freedom Caucus is acting like a crew of undercover Democrats infiltrated the Republicans Party to sabotage it by acting like caricatures. Like, back in 2010ish, some people that were fed up with Republicans being so rigid would complain by exaggeraing their politics, and these Freedom Caucus dipshits said, “Let’s do that, but for for real.” However, they’re in effect practically helping the Democrats. This is crazy 😮

    • Drusas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is already a speaker pro tempore. The house can decide when it wants to elect another speaker, but business doesn’t just suddenly stop now.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, that’s not true. The only thing the House can do now is elect a Speaker. That’s all the temporary speaker can do, he can’t do anything else.

        • something183786@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The rules of the 118th Congress state that “in the case of a vacancy in the office of speaker, the next member” named on a list submitted by McCarthy to the clerk of the House in January will become speaker pro tempore until a speaker is elected. A House reading clerk announced immediately after the vote that Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina was the first name on McCarthy’s list and therefore was appointed speaker pro tempore.

          “Pending such election, the member acting as speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end,” the rules state. The requirement of a list appears to have originated with the 108th Congress that convened in January 2003.

          After the speaker pro tempore takes over, “presumably, the next order of business would be to choose a speaker,” Green said. He pointed out that “it’s unlikely the House would continue to operate as usual without a new speaker being selected.”

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-removed-house-speaker-what-happens-next/

    • Raging LibTarg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What is the better alternative? What if there isnt a speaker by the time the stop gap measure expires?

      I have this same question too, and - with all due respect - it would be nice if someone had a response other than blaming Republicans and just leaving it at that (I mean, it’s absolutely their fault, but it doesn’t answer the real question).

      It would be nice to know Dems have a plan after taking this action. I’m fairly certain they do, but best I can do now is guess how it might play out. Not reassuring…

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        McCarthy basically spat in the Democrats face and tried to blame them for the shutdown. So Dems told him to eat a bag of dicks.

        • Raging LibTarg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, it was a quintessential FAFO situation there.

          However, what now? We’re still staring down a shutdown very soon. I’d just like to know Hakeem’s got a plan, y’know?

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most Republicans don’t want a shutdown, they know it’s political suicide. McCarthy made a deal with Democrats to avoid a shutdown because most Republicans (privately) pressured him to do so.

        Most Republicans don’t want a shutdown in November, either. They are the majority party so they have the power to choose a speaker who will avert one. So Democrats don’t necessarily need a plan, the process may remain completely outside their control.

        If Republicans end up needing Democratic votes to elect a Republican Speaker, then they will need to offer something to Democrats, because by itself electing a Republican Speaker is not in the interest of Democrats.

        All of the above is already crystal-clear to both parties. The ball is in the GOP majority’s court, they get to choose the next move: work together with the Freedom Caucus or work together with Democrats.