McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…

[Tombs]

Just to summarize, it was fine and dandy when a handful of Republican congressmen voted against McCarthy when he was the nominee, but when a bigger handful oppose Jordan, it's heresy. Is that a correct interpretation of the Speaker of the House election fiasco?

Why would they block Jordan then? They sound like the ones who dislike the infighting.
UNLESS they're really a communist element inside the republican party trying to sabotage actual conservative causes, and rubber stamp the entire DNC agenda.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Just to summarize, it was fine and dandy when a handful of Republican congressmen voted against McCarthy when he was the nominee, but when a bigger handful oppose Jordan, it's heresy. Is that a correct interpretation of the Speaker of the House election fiasco?

We're just asking that people be consistent.

If you support a small minority of Republicans valuing their own principles over the party line, then fine, you can also support the small minority who is now opposing Jordan. But I'd better not have heard you (not you specifically, oze, just anyone in general) blasting Gaetz and co. for undermining the Republican party if you're now going to turn around and defend the holdouts against Jordan. I'd call that hypocrisy.

As for the other side, there are those who agree with Gaetz, because they agree with his principles. Naturally, those folk disagree with the current holdouts against Jordan, not because they have flipped on now think it's wrong to oppose the party line, but rather because they disagree with the reasons that those folks are opposed to Jordan. There's a difference there.

 

[oze]

We're just asking that people be consistent.

If you support a small minority of Republicans valuing their own principles over the party line, then fine, you can also support the small minority who is now opposing Jordan. But I'd better not have heard you (not you specifically, oze, just anyone in general) blasting Gaetz and co. for undermining the Republican party if you're now going to turn around and defend the holdouts against Jordan. I'd call that hypocrisy.

As for the other side, there are those who agree with Gaetz, because they agree with his principles. Naturally, those folk disagree with the current holdouts against Jordan, not because they have flipped on now think it's wrong to oppose the party line, but rather because they disagree with the reasons that those folks are opposed to Jordan. There's a difference there.

I'd actually be fine with either as Speaker. The hypocrisy to which I am referring is for those who cheered the congressmen who blocked McCarthy, but rip away at those who are blocking Jordan. The tone of this thread during the McCarthy votes was positively gleeful after he lost vote after vote; now, not so much. Brings to mind something about a goose and a gander.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'd actually be fine with either as Speaker. The hypocrisy to which I am referring is for those who cheered the congressmen who blocked McCarthy, but rip away at those who are blocking Jordan. The tone of this thread during the McCarthy votes was positively gleeful after he lost vote after vote; now, not so much. Brings to mind something about a goose and a gander.

I guess I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy is?

If those folks who were gleeful when McCarthy couldn't get voted in as speaker are now, in seriousness, condemning holdouts against Jordan for the reason that it harms party unity or something like that, then yes, I would see that as hypocrisy.

But what I'm hearing doesn't seem to be those folks saying "Oh, the Republican holdouts are so horrible to vote against Jordan because they're harming the Republican party by holding out against the majority will" but rather, "Oh look, all those Republicans who a few days ago were whining about Gaetz destroying party unity and voting against the majority of his fellow party members are now happy enough themselves to vote against the majority whenever the candidate for speaker is too conservative for their wishes."

If folks believe in shrinking government, no more foreign spending, and no more compromise with the democrats, then of course those folks would be happy to see McCarthy lose the vote, but then be not-so-happy to see Jordan lose it. It's not because they suddenly now think that all Republicans need to vote in lock-step for the sake of "party unity", it's just a simple matter of them seeing one candidate as being better than the other.

 

[Tombs]

I'd actually be fine with either as Speaker. The hypocrisy to which I am referring is for those who cheered the congressmen who blocked McCarthy, but rip away at those who are blocking Jordan. The tone of this thread during the McCarthy votes was positively gleeful after he lost vote after vote; now, not so much. Brings to mind something about a goose and a gander.

It isn't hypocrisy.

We never wanted McCarthy, we always saw him as part of the good ole boys club that is the element of the GOP that gave us the likes of McCain and Romney. People who are functionally democrats.

The hold out was to demonstrate we won't accept that kind of riff raff anymore and need someone who actually has a spine. The compromise was that he would have a spine, and if he failed to demonstrate it, he would be removed. He bent over and was thusly removed.

 

[BugI02]

Just to summarize, it was fine and dandy when a handful of Republican congressmen voted against McCarthy when he was the nominee, but when a bigger handful oppose Jordan, it's heresy. Is that a correct interpretation of the Speaker of the House election fiasco?

No

It was 'fine and dandy' to vote against McCarthy in order to extract consequences for actions he might take that conservatives did not approve of, and they were quite upfront about their concerns and what actions by McCarthy would trigger the consequences

The bigger 'handful' opposing Jordan have not, to my knowledge, articulated the roots of their opposition to him nor any conditions under which he would become acceptable. I suspect because those concerns are gravy-train, business-as-usual based and would not be a good look, so I don't expect them to admit to anything or provide any conditions for moving forward

 

[Onebad06vtx]

This is sad,they all need fired!
They dont work for us!

 

[Ingomike]

The bigger 'handful' opposing Jordan have not, to my knowledge, articulated the roots of their opposition to him nor any conditions under which he would become acceptable. I suspect because those concerns are gravy-train, business-as-usual based and would not be a good look, so I don't expect them to admit to anything or provide any conditions for moving forward

BINGO!

“If you look at the 20 Republicans that just voted against @Jim_Jordan for Speaker, they all fall into one of three categories:”

“Appropriators: There's an old saying in Congress that there are three parties: Democrats, Republicans, and appropriators. These people make up the bureaucratic industrial complexes and want to be able to continue deficit spending like there's no tomorrow. Of the 20 Jordan No's, seven were members of the House Appropriations Committee: Kay Granger, Mike Simpson, Mario Diaz-Balart, Steve Womack, John Rutherford, Tony Gonzales, and Jake Ellzey.”

“Defense Hawks: Pretty simple category here. These are the people that are scared Speaker Jordan would stop them from being able to give an endless amount of money to Ukraine and other pointless wars in random parts of the globe. Jim Jordan hinted as much that the gravy train to Ukraine would be slowed so now they're denying him the Speakership. Of the 20 Jordan Nos, four are members of the Armed Services Committee: Don Bacon, Carlos Gimenez, Jen Kiggans, and Nick LaLota.”
“Members in Biden-won Districts: This category probably seems to make more sense to you. They represent blue districts therefore they don't want to vote for a conservative like Jim Jordan. But here's the thing: There are several members like Brian Fitzpatrick, David Valadao, and others who also represent blue districts but just voted for him. Do you also really think the average voter in their district even cares who the Speaker is? What the holdouts have in common is that they're all freshmen members of Congress who desperately need K-Street money in order to be re-elected next year: Anthony D'Esposito, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, and Mike Lawler. On top of that, all but two of the 20 Jordan No's submitted earmarks requests for the latest budget. Basically, Jim Jordan is being opposed by members who are a part of the military and bureaucratic industrial complexes, as well as members who need lobbyist dollars to be re-elected.“

Some of the Republicans Who Voted 'No' to Jim Jordan as Speaker May Have Vested Interests to Keep Him Out

redstate.com

 

[Shadow01]

Just to summarize, it was fine and dandy when a handful of Republican congressmen voted against McCarthy when he was the nominee, but when a bigger handful oppose Jordan, it's heresy. Is that a correct interpretation of the Speaker of the House election fiasco?

Not for this conservative. I like a government that isn’t doing anything. They screw up less this way. The longer this goes the more that will be revealed about the players. I’ll take 6-9 months of this personally…

 

[Expat]

One of the opposition was on FNC earlier. He said he would never vote for Jordan because of the way he treated Scalise after he won the Republican nomination.

 

[oze]

Not for this conservative. I like a government that isn’t doing anything. They screw up less this way. The longer this goes the more that will be revealed about the players. I’ll take 6-9 months of this personally…

I'd be right witcha if we could count on the Dems sitting on their collective asses while the Republicans are playing Keystone Kops. But we can't.

 

[oze]

One of the opposition was on FNC earlier. He said he would never vote for Jordan because of the way he treated Scalise after he won the Republican nomination.

Any idea what Jordan "did"?

 

[Expat]

Any idea what Jordan "did"?

No, I had the TV on while doing something else and wasnt listening that closely, if he said

 

[Kdf101]

I will admit I haven’t followed this as closely as I should have. I am not sure why the “rebels” Won’t vote yes. I also don’t care. What o am so tired of with the Republican Party is “purists” of whatever faction, refusing to support someone who could help advance the cause, of what I consider at least, more freedom. It is all or nothing with them. And nothing means we lose again. The democrats are really good at incremental gains towards their goals. The republicans seem to be not good at it. Im Not ther yet, but close to ditching the GOP. A VOTE FOR THEM ALMOST SEEMS AS BAD AS “wasting “ your vote on a third party.

 

[jamil]

There's Stupid and Then There's THIS --> Jamie Raskin Suggesting Liz Cheney for Speaker Goes SO Wrong

twitchy.com

She has about as much a chance to become Speaker as Trump!

 

[Ingomike]

“So why, despite a groundswell of support among conservative voters, have a handful of Republicans decided to tank Jordan’s speakership bid?“

“Don’t take my word for it. Bacon admitted as much when complaining to reporters earlier this week about the “pressure campaign back home” for him to back Jordan as speaker. The Nebraska congressman went on to say the reason he opposed Jordan’s initial speakership bid was to stick it to the few House Republicans who ousted McCarthy and prevented Scalise from becoming speaker.“

“You don’t have a process where I play by the rules and some people can’t — and they get what they wanted, and now I’m supposed to play by the rules,” Bacon whined.“

“So, to recap: A grown man serving in the U.S. Congress is actively defying the will of his voters to spite some of his colleagues.”

If Only Republicans Fought Dems As Much As They Did Their Own Voters

Twenty-two House Republicans joined Democrats in voting against Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, for speaker on Wednesday.

thefederalist.com

 

[DragonGunner]

Jordan awhile back threatened the FBI with taking away funding from them. You take $ away if you want their attention. The FBI wants hundreds of millions of dollars to build new facility. Jordan said no way we should be funding that. Fast forward and Jordan running for speaker. Convince me the FBI isn’t strong arming 20+ republicans with bribes or blackmail.

 

[KG1]

Jim Jordan told his fellow Republicans he will suspend his bid to serve as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and back Republican Patrick McHenry to fill the role on a temporary basis, a lawmaker said on Thursday.

Why not I guess. He loses votes with each vote.

Republican Jim Jordan revives fight after pausing campaign for US House Speaker

Hardline conservative Jim Jordan vowed to continue his floundering bid for speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, after his fellow Republicans abandoned a backup plan to allow the leaderless chamber to resume business.

www.reuters.com

Jordan said he would not seek a third vote to win the post and instead will back a plan to empower McHenry to hold the post until January, according to Republican Representative Jim Banks.

That option, which Democrats have also said they might support, would allow lawmakers to get back to work.

 

[BugI02]

“Don’t take my word for it. Bacon admitted as much when complaining to reporters earlier this week about the “pressure campaign back home” for him to back Jordan as speaker. The Nebraska congressman went on to say the reason he opposed Jordan’s initial speakership bid was to stick it to the few House Republicans who ousted McCarthy and prevented Scalise from becoming speaker.“

So, it's all about them, not America

This is my shocked emoji

 

[KG1]

MTG isn't happy about Jordan's decision.