Tuesday was the day that two events traditionally take place – at least for the past 100 years. The party in control of the House elects the new Speaker, and the newly elected members get sworn in – with families in the photo ops. Neither took place.
That is because the heir-apparent to the speakership – at least in his own mind – did not get the required number of votes. Leading up to the balloting, it was generally reported that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarty may be five votes short of the request number of 218. In the final days leading up to the vote, there was a speculated increase in the “no” voters. However, no one predicted that 19 House members would vote for Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan instead.
To be perfectly clear, Jordan is in no way in contention for be Speaker. He just represented the protest vote. The House took three votes – and McCarthy lost in all three. In fact, the “no” vote ominously increased to 20.
McCarthy had wanted to keep voting, but virtually every member of the body yelled “yea” to a motion to adjourn until noon the next day.
To understand what may happen in the future, you need to know two things about the election of the Speaker. The Speaker is elected by the ENTIRE body – Republicans, Democrats and independents. And the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House – as long as the person meets the age requirement. There was even silly talk about electing Trump as Speaker – or slightly less silly, former Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Traditionally, each party puts up a candidate for Speaker. Traditionally, the majority party sticks together and defeats the minority party candidate. Not this time. In fact, the Democrat candidate – New York Congressman Hakeem Jefferies — garnered more votes than McCarthy, but not enough to become Speaker.
It is generally reported that McCarthy needs 218 votes to become Speaker – but that is not an absolute. If some members do not show up for the vote – or if they only vote “present” – the number needed goes down.
Knowing that they do not have the votes to elect the Speaker, a few Democrats could vote for McCarthy in the belief that he would be a besieged and ineffective Speaker. And they would not be wrong.
The problem for the Republicans is … if not McCarthy, then who? Who could get the required number of votes? If McCarthy continues to fall short, at some point, a viable name will emerge. But that could be after several more ballots.
The other option is McCarthy — realizing he ain’t ever going to get the required votes – withdraws his candidacy. For all concerned, I think that would be the best option. But then again, I have frequently written my hope that McCarthy would not be the new Speaker. My choice was – and it — Louisiana Congress Steve Scalise.
If McCarthy does get elected Speaker, it may be the result of political skullduggery. What if some Democrats vote for him – or if a bunch of Democrats votes “present.” McCarthy would achieve his ambition, but he would be arguably the least powerful … the least popular … and the least effective Speaker in American history. He could be that anyway.
Facing multiple votes, McCarthy said he would not care if he held the record for the most votes – just as he noted he holds the record for the longest speech in Congress. Why he would brag about that is inexplicable. If he wants to set the record number of votes, the speakership will be in doubt for a long time. That record was set in 1856 with 133 votes over two months.
McCarthy did not wait for the vote. He moved all his files and other “stuff” into the Speakers Office. Some may see that as optimism, but to me, it is arrogance – and another example of why the GOP can do better than McCarthy.
Some see the situation as chaos – and even a failure of democracy. Personally, I see it as democracy in action. Those seeing the chaos then to be those on the left who like certainty in choosing powerful leaders and dominating political discourse. (Hmmm. Why did the January 6th Committee pop into my mind?) We already have too much power-driven policy in Congress. It is reassuring to see some good old fashion political mud wrestling.
So, there ‘tis.