Jorden looses the second vote

When the structure of the House of Representatives was established, it was established with only a narrow margin of the voting members needed to elect a Speaker. This, I think was to make it easy for the assembly to choose a Speaker who most could agree upon would be the best to lead the entire House and not just a partisan side as we see it today. I think it time to go back to that goal.

Both parties need to nominate a leader that both sides think might allow the entire House to function. This will not happen it appears if the Democrat members continually lock step their vote for the same person over and over again from their own party.

So I put it to the Democrats, who do you think would be best to lead the House for both of these parties. If so , please nominate a Republican that you believe will best serve the people of the United States.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

please nominate a Republican that you believe will best serve the people of the United States.

Probably someone we've never heard of.
I was watching some of the show yesterday, and my thought was that one of these never Jordon folks should resign themselves to bite the bullet and be House Speaker even if it costs them re-election. For the good of the country. Maybe determine ahead of time to not run again.

A bit of self sacrifice may be called for.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'll say again, if the GOP aren't coming to the Dems with a compromise, why should it be up to the Dems to fix the GOP's dysfunction?

That said, it sounds like there is some movement to, at least temporarily, elevate McHenry. Although, it also sounds like Jordan is trying to dissuade this move. If he can't be Speaker he doesn't want anyone else to be either.

a reply to: pthena

that would require them to communicate as adults and find a way to agree on something. And when they can't agree on something within their own party, the system is broken. If there aren't mechanisms in place to move past situations such as this, there needs to be. Like DB, it's safer when these idiots aren't doing anything, but things still need to happen, and they can't with turmoil such as this.

Send in the clowns.

I think Jordan would be an excellent speaker. He is very sharp... The Dems most likely do not like him because he is very sharp and can call them out rather quickly.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
When the structure of the House of Representatives was established, it was established with only a narrow margin of the voting members needed to elect a Speaker. This, I think was to make it easy for the assembly to choose a Speaker who most could agree upon would be the best to lead the entire House and not just a partisan side as we see it today. I think it time to go back to that goal.

Both parties need to nominate a leader that both sides think might allow the entire House to function. This will not happen it appears if the Democrat members continually lock step their vote for the same person over and over again from their own party.

So I put it to the Democrats, who do you think would be best to lead the House for both of these parties. If so , please nominate a Republican that you believe will best serve the people of the United States.

It is not up to the Dems to determine a speaker. The people elected the Republicans to govern the House, ergo the decision is up to the Republicans and has NOTHING to do with the Dems. Of course the Dems are going to nominate Jeffries.

To me, the problem is arising because the House is so evenly split right now, you don't have room for differing opinions on one side of the other. And right now the Republicans are struggling to find their way as regular Republicans and MAGA extremist Republicans.

But to put this on the Dems is just silly. The people didn't elect the Dems to run the House.

a reply to: pthenaWhat if the Democrats nominated Liz Cheney. She did show great dislike for Trump, so might this not be a possible candidate that enough of what are called rinos to also vote for?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think Jordan would be an excellent speaker. He is very sharp... The Dems most likely do not like him because he is very sharp and can call them out rather quickly.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he sided with, and continues to side with Trump, in denying the results of a free and fair election. That is 1 tenant in destroying a democracy, to not honor the peaceful transition of power to the person with the most votes. If he took a hard turn away from Trump, and MAGA philosophy in general, I feel a lot more Republicans would vote for him.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I nominate Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio.
Just because.

oh jeeeze .... just put someone in already. gawd ...

a reply to: Threadbare

I know we are at logger-heads on this issue but I just imagine that this ''lockstep'' voting pattern of the Democrats does not leave much for any Republicans to move towards does it? Rather it seems to me that it could, as it is said, '''harden the hearts'' of those who would lean in a more bi-partisan manner

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What if the Democrats nominated Liz Cheney

Maybe. I sure heard a few House Dems praise her.
I'm pretty sure the idea has already been floated.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The dems have smeared Jordan for years now. They call him a pedophile enabler because some grown men, athletes in peak form, were messed with by an old doctor. Who is now, conveniently dead.

Like these MEN couldn't have stopped that old man and made him hurt a little?

And when accused, Jordan said he did report to the head coach, who told him 'leave the gays alone' because that was a big thing then, as now.

And years later, one of the male athlete comes forward. Some victim!

And viola, he is Gym Jordan, and a pedophile (enabler).

I hate these people that do this.

And it tells me, they fear Jordan, and we need to support him.

We voters do! It's the weird eGOP that cant read the room/paid off/kompromised.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I nominate Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio.
Just because.

In 2017 he said

, "I do know there's a level of frustration out there "But we need to work together. [President Donald Trump] has gotten into this tug-of-war with the national media. Now we're six months into his presidency ... and infrastructure improvements, tax changes and healthcare law are not getting covered. They a re dealing with the tweet du Jour ... and [Trump's tweets] certainly don't help."[17]

originally posted by: CanadianLoudMouth

I think it has more to do with the fact that he sided with, and continues to side with Trump, in denying the results of a free and fair election. That is 1 tenant in destroying a democracy, to not honor the peaceful transition of power to the person with the most votes. If he took a hard turn away from Trump, and MAGA philosophy in general, I feel a lot more Republicans would vote for him.

Turn to what? Trump will be the nominee and 70+ million voted for him and will most likely get even more this time. Jordan has backed away from the whole election thing awhile back.

BTW what exactly is MAGA philosophy, I don't really follow it all much.

As to the elections the left played the whole mass mailings extremely well as that worked right into how they do things normally but like gas on a fire with all the mailings. The liberal's term "Grassroots" is just their code word for vote harvesting and they do it very well. Throwing in 10s of millions of extra ballots from people that would not typically vote and you end up with the liberals cashing in big time to see dead brain Biden win with 80+ million votes breaking all records possible.

That is why the right did the whole WTF event because the mass mailings allowed something to happen that has never happened before, and should never again.

a reply to: CanadianLoudMouth

I think you are wrong here. If it was to be a partisan choice, it would not have that margin for decision making. My point being that that margin was set so low so that all members could choose for themselves who to vote for instead of just checking a box by party. The House should not be a battering ream but rather the Peoples House where members serve the people and not the Party. Isn't this why there is even a House instead of just a Senate?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Just let that guy with the bow tie run things. He (the Speaker) is only needed a few days @ year anyway.

a reply to: pthena

Maybe it has, I' haven't heard her mentioned. One might hope that they could at least consider other choices beyond their partisan voting so far.

a reply to: carewemust
He is a cute indiscriminate looking fellow ain't he.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

How can we even know that's the case when the GOP refuses to attempt to make any inroads with the Dems? Until the GOP approaches them with a moderate candidate that's willing to work with them on key issues, we can't say one way or another if they would reject that candidate in favor of Jeffries.