Democrats should support moderate Republican speaker of the House

[myata]

Please. Don't be self-rightous to plain d..bness this time around. It backfired before and can backfire again. Easily.

Responsible Republicans did not elect Trump's favorite candidate, though it was closer that I would have liked to see. Still, this your chance to define the agenda that majority of the responsible representatives on both sides can support, and get down to work. For the country, and the world not only for a private vision of your glory to the exclusion of everything and everyone else that can just slip away. Again. Just like that.

Please be thoughtful and responsible. This is a great chance to show to the people that you care, and can work for them, not only your own political agenda.

Your turn. Please.

[robosmith]

Who is the moderate who is running?

[myata]

Jordan was Trump's all out favorite. Republicans did not support him by a very slim majority. Don't blow your chance to work together with mainstream part of GOP and isolate the populists. If you blow it, and the non-smart (sic) zero sum gamble backfires (as it did already), you will have only yourself to blame.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Don't blow your chance to work together with mainstream part of GOP

You blame Democrats for the sins of the Republicans?   

[myata]

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You blame Democrats for the sins of the Republicans?

This is what binary politics does to people ohoh. Do you remember what was it for, the whole thing? They are representatives of the people; who should they work for then? And whose interests have to be of the top priority?

[Aristides]

Unless they change the rule where one person can force a vote, there is no point in supporting anyone. The same actors will do the same thing when they don't get what they want. McCarthy was a moderate but he sold his soul to the crazies to get the job and they turned on him.

 

If Republicans want Democrat support, there will be a price, just like there was for the crazies.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Aristides

[myata]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

If Republicans want Democrat support, there will be a price

How about you show a goodwill; a genuine intent to work for the country and its people, not play partisan zero-sum games for dumb ever? There was a reason they were elected there... forgot?

.. shouldn't the House set those rules? Sure, responsible representatives of the people, regardless of the stripe can set the rule that makes sense for the people, rather than a bunch of marginals. Isn't it how it was supposed to work in the first place? Forgot.

Edited October 12, 2023 by myata

[myata]

And again I have to remind: there was no cooperation from Democrats in electing the first speaker, even when it was absolutely clear that they aren't going to have their Speaker. That was the time to show non-partisan goodwill and responsibility.

By refusing to support a moderate candidate they increased the influence of the marginal crowd. Congrats.

Then, he wouldn't have been tied by the margin's rules and the responsible majorities could work for the country. Why does it seem so hard to get?

It's the zero sum game, right? Chaos on their side (and in the government, as a result) always works best for us? Does it though? Did it?

And if the st...d game tanks - again, and in a very short interval, there won't be anyone else to blame. You know that, right? Because for a citizen far down below it looks pretty much like the same old partisan game at all cost, and primarily at the cost of intelligent and responsible governance, the same one he/she is growing sick of.

 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, myata said:

And again I have to remind: there was no cooperation from Democrats in electing the first speaker, even when it was absolutely clear that they aren't going to have their Speaker. That was the time to show non-partisan goodwill and responsibility.

By refusing to support a moderate candidate they increased the influence of the marginal crowd. Congrats.

Then, he wouldn't have been tied by the margin's rules and the responsible majorities could work for the country. Why does it seem so hard to get?

It's the zero sum game, right? Chaos on their side (and in the government, as a result) always works best for us? Does it though? Did it?

And if the st...d game tanks - again, and in a very short interval, there won't be anyone else to blame. You know that, right? Because for a citizen far down below it looks pretty much like the same old partisan game at all cost, and primarily at the cost of intelligent and responsible governance, the same one he/she is growing sick of.

 

I think Robosmith’s question is valid: Who is this moderate candidate? What compromises is he or she offering?

I agree that the sensible thing to do is negotiate a compromise which accomplishes your most important objectives in light of the composition of the Senate and White House, but I don’t see any Republicans talking about that.

 

What we see on the Democrat side is a very well managed, well organized group.  They certainly have their internal disagreements, but they are uniform in their actions.  This means it is definitely possible for the GOP to reach out to Hakeem Jeffries with a compromise proposal, and they can get his support.  The real question is how many House Republicans can keep their seats if they compromise with Democrats? We saw Liz Cheney go down in flames for simply saying what everyone knew was true.  

Edited October 12, 2023 by Rebound

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, myata said:

How about you show a goodwill; a genuine intent to work for the country and its people, not play partisan zero-sum games for dumb ever? There was a reason they were elected there... forgot?

.. shouldn't the House set those rules? Sure, responsible representatives of the people, regardless of the stripe can set the rule that makes sense for the people, rather than a bunch of marginals. Isn't it how it was supposed to work in the first place? Forgot.

Good will has to work both ways. The Crazies set all kinds of conditions for their support of McCarthy, why shouldn’t the Dems do the same? Their support will mean getting some of the things they want. That isn’t zero sum, it’s the way the US system is supposed to work. Compromises on both sides.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, myata said:

And again I have to remind: there was no cooperation from Democrats in electing the first speaker, even when it was absolutely clear that they aren't going to have their Speaker. That was the time to show non-partisan goodwill and responsibility.

By refusing to support a moderate candidate they increased the influence of the marginal crowd. Congrats.

Then, he wouldn't have been tied by the margin's rules and the responsible majorities could work for the country. Why does it seem so hard to get?

It's the zero sum game, right? Chaos on their side (and in the government, as a result) always works best for us? Does it though? Did it?

And if the st...d game tanks - again, and in a very short interval, there won't be anyone else to blame. You know that, right? Because for a citizen far down below it looks pretty much like the same old partisan game at all cost, and primarily at the cost of intelligent and responsible governance, the same one he/she is growing sick of.

 

Neither McCarthy nor Scalise are moderates. Both voted to not certify the 2020 election.

And McCarthy admitted their sole purpose of a dozen Benghazi investigations which found nothing was to damage Hillary's approval ratings and also backed the fake Biden impeachment inquiry. 

He is a clown.

[CdnFox]

They just fired the moderate.  A little late to be thinking about having a moderate now

[Aristides]

When your mission is to "own the Dems" compromise isn't really an option.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Good will has to work both ways. The Crazies set all kinds of conditions for their support of McCarthy, why shouldn’t the Dems do the same? Their support will mean getting some of the things they want. That isn’t zero sum, it’s the way the US system is supposed to work. Compromises on both sides.

Yes, that's exactly right. McCarthy calculated that it was better for him to appeal to the crazies enough to get their votes than to appeal to a handful of moderate Democrats to secure the same number of votes. The purity test at work. A miscalculation? Probably.

@myata The Democrats should not offer unconditional support to any Republican. They didn't owe it to McCarthy or anyone else. Their support should be conditional. Put up a candidate who is willing to work with them and compromise to get things done and they should be happy to support. That is the way they represent the constituents who voted for them and the policies and priorities that are important to those voters. 

I am absolutely certain that a moderate Republican could gain enough Democratic support to become Speaker. But they don't have any reason to support Scalise or Jordan. 

[myata]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

I agree that the sensible thing to do is negotiate a compromise which accomplishes your most important objectives in light of the composition of the Senate and White House, but I don’t see any Republicans talking about that.

People elected a majority of Republican candidates in the House. This is a fact. You can demonstrate, to the people not your own cheering crowd that you are more intelligent and responsible. That you can see the reality and admit it. Or you can dig the past for an excuse to behave like a spoiled child. Your choice.

And if so, the zero sum game can backfire on you. This has happened before. And on the country, and the wider world, unfortunately. Your responsibility is not to run an organized caucus, cheer loudly for your private cause etc. It was to manage the government with reason and responsibility to the benefit of the people, the citizens. You forgot?

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

People elected a majority of Republican candidates in the House. This is a fact. You can demonstrate, to the people not your own cheering crowd that you are more intelligent and responsible. That you can see the reality and admit it. Or you can dig the past for an excuse to behave like a spoiled child. Your choice.

And if so, the zero sum game can backfire on you. This has happened before. And on the country, and the wider world, unfortunately. Your responsibility is not to run an organized caucus, cheer loudly for your private cause etc. It was to manage the government with reason and responsibility to the benefit of the people, the citizens. You forgot?

It isn't anyones responsibility to look after someone else's spoiled child. Certainly not the Democrats responsibility to look after spoiled child Republicans. The Republicans do have a majority, it is their job to provide a speaker, not the Democrats.  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

But they don't have any reason to support Scalise or Jordan. 

They are not the same. Jordan was a favorite of Trump. Scalise is not. If the Speaker is not elected, the government of the country, not the Republican party can be in a chaos mode. Then the next time they can try Jordan, an open Trump's fan. This is exactly how partisan polarization works: inability to find ways to cooperate by the moderate middle pushes forward the margins and extremes.

As a result, in the reality you will have: a) more radicalized Republican caucus; and b) more chaos in the country. Whose advantage would it work for? Are you sure it would be in the interests of the country? This just may be how the folks outside of politics would see it.

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

The Republicans do have a majority, it is their job to provide a speaker, not the Democrats.  

I thought the job was to govern in the interests of the citizens, all citizens, regardless of the stripe. But sure, it can be the deep forgotten past. Oh well.

Edited October 12, 2023 by myata

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

We saw Liz Cheney go down in flames for simply saying what everyone knew was true.  

I think history will look far more kindly on Cheney than it will Gaetz, Jordan and Co.

[myata]

The responsibility to deal with the Trump's mob is Republicans only. But it doesn't give Democrats a carte blanche to forget about the duty to govern the country. If they would rather not see it this way, the population, a large part of it, certainly does.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

 

I thought the job was to govern in the interests of the citizens, all citizens, regardless of the stripe. But sure, it can be the deep forgotten past. Oh well.

It is both their jobs. No opposition  will give a majority party a carte blanche to do whatever it wants, nor should it.

The Democrats do not have the seats to elect a speaker, the Republicans do. This nonsense is not on the Democrats and they are not responsible for whoever becomes speaker. 

If the Republicans need Democrat support, it is up to them to make the Democrats an offer to get it. Not the other  way around.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Aristides

[myata]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If the Republicans need Democrat support, it is up to them to make the Democrats an offer to get it. Not the other  way around.

This is not how it works but a great excuse (to dig out stuff in the past to justify an entrenched position). Note (again) that population may not see it for such a great excuse as you do for the obvious reasons mentioned earlier.

Parties set their candidates. They vote, once two and so on. They talk between votes, hopefully. And at some point, responsible individuals who think about their duty to the country and consequences, form their opinion: yes we can work together, or no we just can't.

Next, as a citizen (I'm not a citizen of the States but that's what I would expect) I expect and require you to find a way to keep my government working. Because it's my government, not yours, I hope you still remember. And if you decide that it cannot work I would need a darn good reason from you, way better than "it's on them and we don't have to do anything here". Is it really that hard to get?

[Rebound]

41 minutes ago, myata said:

People elected a majority of Republican candidates in the House. This is a fact. You can demonstrate, to the people not your own cheering crowd that you are more intelligent and responsible. That you can see the reality and admit it. Or you can dig the past for an excuse to behave like a spoiled child. Your choice.

And if so, the zero sum game can backfire on you. This has happened before. And on the country, and the wider world, unfortunately. Your responsibility is not to run an organized caucus, cheer loudly for your private cause etc. It was to manage the government with reason and responsibility to the benefit of the people, the citizens. You forgot?

True, but people also elected a majority Democrats to the U.S. Senate and a Democrat to the Presidency. So it’s zany to suggest that, since the Republicans control the House, the U.S. Senate and the White House should do anything they want… especially when the House Republicans can’t even figure out what they want. So now should the Republicans in the House do the bidding of 20 ultra-right Republicans and expect the U.S. Senate and the White House to do whatever 20 ultra-right Republicans say? Because you’re talking about the will of the voters, and it’s not what 20 ultra-right Republicans want. 

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

This is not how it works but a great excuse (to dig out stuff in the past to justify an entrenched position). Note (again) that population may not see it for such a great excuse as you do for the obvious reasons mentioned earlier.

Parties set their candidates. They vote, once two and so on. They talk between votes, hopefully. And at some point, responsible individuals who think about their duty to the country and consequences, form their opinion: yes we can work together, or no we just can't.

Next, as a citizen (I'm not a citizen of the States but that's what I would expect) I expect and require you to find a way to keep my government working. Because it's my government, not yours, I hope you still remember. And if you decide that it cannot work I would need a darn good reason from you, way better than "it's on them and we don't have to do anything here". Is it really that hard to get?

It is how it works. The whole US system of checks and balances requires compromise and compromise is about making deals. If the Republican's in Congress need need help to rein in their crazies then they should ask for it. It is not in the Democrats or the country's best interest for them to just roll over and give the Republicans whatever they want. If the Dems are in a good position here, it is because the Republicans gave it to them and they should take advantage of it to pursue the wishes of the people who elected them. 

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

They are not the same. Jordan was a favorite of Trump. Scalise is not. If the Speaker is not elected, the government of the country, not the Republican party can be in a chaos mode. Then the next time they can try Jordan, an open Trump's fun. This is exactly how partisan polarization works: inability to find ways to cooperate by the moderate middle pushes forward the margins and extremes.

As a result, in the reality you will have: a) more radicalized Republican caucus; and b) more chaos in the country. Whose advantage would it work for? Are you sure it would be in the interests of the country? This just may be how the folks outside of politics would see it.

I thought the job was to govern in the interests of the citizens, all citizens, regardless of the stripe. But sure, it can be the deep forgotten past. Oh well.

IMO, you're putting the onus on the wrong agents in this situation.

Republicans are reaching and stretching further and further right to earn the support of the 11 fringe members of their own party-- people who are demonstrably unwilling to compromise, who are fully willing to break the entire government, and people the rest of the part would like to see further marginalized for the good of the country. They are choosing to reach that direction. Rather than reaching just a little toward the center to pick up that same number of Democrat votes. 

Democrats can't drag them toward the center. They can just be there to compromise in good faith when the opportunities arise. -- That's exactly what happened to pass the continuing resolution. McCarthy reached right again and again and again and STILL couldn't satisfy the chaos caucus. So he reached a little left instead and got all the votes he needed--and then some.  Democrats would vote for a Republican speaker candidate, but it has to be someone they can actually support. Someone who looks for negotiation and compromise as a strength, not a surrender.


--we could probably speculate for days about why so many Republicans have become so radicalized that they don't even consider compromise anymore. We're talking about people who labelled people with unimpeachable conservative bona fides, like Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, RINOs for disapproving of the coup attempt. There's definitely an extreme purity test at play, codified and vitrified. Party uber alles. 

[myata]

52 minutes ago, Hodad said:

--we could probably speculate for days about why so many Republicans have become so radicalized that they don't even consider compromise anymore. We're talking about people who labelled people with unimpeachable conservative bona fides, like Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, RINOs for disapproving of the coup attempt. There's definitely an extreme purity test at play, codified and vitrified. Party uber alles. 

As I said, the responsibility to deal with the lying mob is the Republican's and nobody else's. Of course, they can deal with it in a number of ways: gather will and resolve and isolate the minority of chaos; embrace it and become one with it; take an honest decision and disassociate with insanity, having done all in their power to prevent it. Very hard to argue that.

But in the meanwhile, the country is expecting the government to run and to work. Understand (try to) it's not about what and how you feel, there are other interests too. You don't have to bend over backwards. You don't have to give "everything they want". But you can show goodwill and preparedness to compromise if it is possible. I don't believe most people expect anything less from their representatives.