https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/tom-emmer-house-speaker-nomination-vote-rcna121857
Hoping to end weeks of chaos, House Republicans have chosen Majority Whip Tom Emmer as their speaker-designate. Now comes the hard part: electing him.
Until the Republicans decide to put someone forward who didn't attempt to undermine the election, they aren't serious.
Afaik, Emmer is one of two reps in the group of 9 (now 8, after one guy pulled out of the nomination yesterday) that did not refuse to certify the AZ and PA electors in the 2020 election.
Edit: turns out he did sign the amicus brief encouraging the SC to throw the results though, which is essentially just as bad… yayyyyyyyy -_-
I think you're both right. He did a lot to support the Texas vs Pennsylvania lawsuit to remove valid ballots, but he didn't actually vote to do it. So he supported the overthrow of the election, he just didn't follow through. How the scales balance after those 2 events, I leave up to you!
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Tom Emmer, a leading Republican candidate to be speaker of the House, baselessly said there were “questionable” practices in the 2020 presidential election.
Later, Emmer signed an amicus brief in support of a last-ditch Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out the results in key swing states.
Though he would vote to certify the results on January 6, 2021, the comments and actions show Emmer flirted with some of the same election denial rhetoric as far-right members of the Republican caucus.
Pro: At least he is smart enough to have read the room and was one of the few people running for Speaker that could say they didn't vote for it.
Neutral: Seems to policy-wise be a split between a Bush and Trump era Republican, so he's slightly less bad than a full fledged MAGA, but still pretty bleh on most issues. But we all knew it was going to be a Republican, so we knew most of us wouldn't like whoever it was anyway, but it sadly could have been a number of worse choices.
Con: As a Pennsylvania introvert who loves mail in voting, screw this guy...
Oh yeah, that's not a problem. They were never serious.
I mean, arguably in the 50's or something. But since Reagan it's been a screeching clownwreck of disaster up until this very day.
Were slaves considered Americans at the time? Might have to push the date back a little, I don't think there was ever a time in the country's history that people were more important than oligarchs.
No, but McCarthy was a loon too. This is a return to status quo loondom. Which is marginally better than 'loondom but even worse'.
Someone go poke the Freedom Caucus and whisper "That's not your guy, is it? You shouldn't stand for this."
He's received more votes in every Speaker election since McCarthy was installed on the 15th ballot.
Even if Emmer or someone else wins in the next week or two, how are they going to keep the government open? A win necessarily means a promise to some psychopaths who will either find a way to tank the budget, or I guess just fire the new guy exactly like they did McCarthy.
I don't have much hope for what comes after budget negotiations.
The core problem that needs resolved is that the Freedom Caucus had the power to unseat an Speaker that brought a non-insane budget bill to the floor. If a Speaker is elected and that power is removed, a budget can be proposed and voted on with some Democratic support to make up for the Freedom Caucus being lunatics.
I wonder if Jeffries decides he has has enough of this nonsense, and tells the entire Democratic Caucus to vote "present" just to get it over with. Then he can go to the cameras and talk about how the Republicans are so dysfunctional that they needed Democrats to help resolve their differences.
Why would they bale Republicans out of their own self-inflicted stupidity for nothing in return?
Not criticizing you, but in this context it's bail, like bailing water. Bale is like hay bale.
It doesn't "serve the people" to help right wing extremist bomb throwers into positions of power after they've already attempted to overturn free, democratic elections and tried to install an unelected leader against the will of the electorate.
The they I was referring to were the democrats. Perhaps I could have worded it better.
Because at some point, work needs to get done there. The nutty wing of the Republican party embraces the standoff, they will have no issue leaving the chair vacant past all the deadlines and into next year. At some point, continuing to play the normal partisan game just plays into their strategy.
If Republicans can't agree among themselves, or consent to accepting help from Democrats, then the only thing left is to help them passively.
"Yeah, but everybody already knows that the Republicans are insane and only want to destroy government, so they obviously can't be blamed. Let's blame the Democrats instead!!!"
I wish I lived in the happy little world you do where both sides see the bigger picture and everyone worked together towards a common goal.
The loyal opposition doesn't exist any more. When they embraced Trump, they went scorched earth. Let them sink. With any luck, they'll lose enough support in the next election to lose their majority.
Because he’s forcing the GOP to get its shit together or collapse. And there’s genuinely nothing wrong with that.
The GOP is effectively using hostage tactics, and they have done for decades at this point. That’s all it appears they know how to do. Jeffries is refusing to negotiate with hostage takers, which is the correct course of action in the long run.
"Democrats should bail them out again"
Nope. Remember the orange rapist they cheered into a gruesome idiotic coup attempt? Yeah and Dems should help them?
NO. WE'RE CLOSED. Red state idiot bastards. Don't want to get the shit shocked out of you, quit sticking a knife in the socket. No? BZZZT. This is not that difficult.
They're destroying institutions and defying science. That is their only purpose. They have no other common goals. We should not help them at all.
But part of the Freedom Caucus agenda is to gum up the works. They're not interested in having government function at all. So it's possible that they will never, ever come to an agreement. Should the Democrats throw up 212 for Jeffries indefinitely? Or should they use what power they have to steer the Republicans to some sort of conclusion?
The moment you thought you steered the Republicans will be the last moment before they happily stick a bunch of knives in your back. That is not prejudice, that is experience.
It's folly to think that a democrat reaching across the aisle won't draw back a bloody stump for the effort. A better solution would be five or six republicans in purple districts to negotiate a compromise and vote for Jeffries. The democrats came to govern; It's not their job to save the GOP from the GOP.