“We must elect this hateful cretin who most of us detest to an important position, otherwise people will say we're dysfunctional” is a hell of a take, I have to say.
I expect they are asking how it came to this. The answer is that they have sat by as their party embraced too many candidates who could only win a majority for them with the support of bigots, crackpots, and gun nuts. I suspect they are looking at JJ and saying, "You clowns got us into this. I'm not voting for your founder to get us out of it." The truth, however, is that they got themselves into this.
They should admit they are not one party, but two, and form a coalition with us.
Well that's not true.
Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the nuts, but Democrats backed them and empowered them, leading to this moment.
Republicans tried to marginalize them, but Democrats propped them up against the overwhelming majority.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly against these people.
Had Democrats not voted to give them voice, they would be marginalized and powerless.
So I really think that we need to see how each of our representatives voted in these roles to hold them accountable for supporting the nuts.
You are falling prey to the logical fallacy that a vote against McCarthy was a vote in favor of his opponents. That's not true but, more importantly, his opponents wouldn't have been members of congress to begin with if Republicans had any integrity.
I'm glad the Dems all voted him out. He lied to us. The problems that leaves for the Republicans are of their own making.
No I'm not making that claim at all here.
Yes, the Democrat vote did align with McCarthy's, opponents and support the extremists, but that's beside the point I'm making here.
The question of vacating the chair was purely about McCarthy and shutting down the chamber. Democrats voted for the shutdown and set the stage for election of a new speaker, and since Democrats are showing no interest in compromise across the aisle, they are requiring Republicans to satisfy the nut jobs.
Democrats could even, if they aren't looking to be part of the solution, just not vote and so allow Republicans to choose a moderate speaker.
So long as Democrats keep voting separately, they are actively setting up the numbers so that the nuts have to be courted.
It doesn't mean a vote against McCarthy is a vote in favor of opponents at all. However It does mean that the voices of the nut Jobs are amplified by the situation it creates.
I believe you are confused about what the Republicans would do if Democrats didn't vote, and also about what the Democrats have offered. In their nominating speech just today, they reminded the Republicans that over 300 members voted bipartisanly for the last CR. Those same 300 could vote for a compromise speaker. Instead, the Republicans nominated Jordan. That left the Democrats no choice but to vote "no."
It's not so that Democrats have no choice but to vote "no," as that's not the process used to elect a Speaker.
Speakers aren't given up or down votes. Instead, members are free to vote last names of candidates *if they choose to*.
So Democrats not only didn't have to vote no, but they COULDN'T vote no.
But mainly, they were free to decline to vote, and so allow Republicans to elect a moderate Speaker without having to seek cooperation of the extremists.
@volkris @angusm
It is true.
Those nuts wouldn't be there at all if the Republicans had any principles. But they knew the nuts were how to get a majority. No Democrat wanted that, much less empowered it. Blaming the victims isn't nice.