“House Republicans vote to drop Jim Jordan as speaker nominee.” And to be frank, we should be glad of that. As Representative Pete Aguilar said on Tuesday, elevating Jim Jordan, “a vocal election denier and an insurrection insider to the Speaker of this house” would have been “a terrible message to the country and our allies.” It would have sent a “troubling message . . . that the very people who would seek to undermine democracy are rewarded with positions of immense power.” That said, three weeks into the speakership crisis, I am left wondering: Is a party that can win office but is unable to mediate conflicting personalities, goals, and priorities when they hold a legislative majority, really a party at all?
Tag Archives: House Speakership
“The surprising group of Republicans preventing Jim Jordan from becoming House speaker”
Washington Post offers a nice corrective, noting that it is not clear that the opposition to Jim Jordan is coherent.
- “6 hail from districts Biden won in 2020.”
- “8 belong to a bipartisan group of moderates.”
The rest have all different types of concerns.
House Likely to Pick Speaker This Week. But how or whom remains unclear.
The prospects of going another week without a Speaker of the House seems unlikely given Biden’s determination to support Israel. But as this round-up shows, it remains quite unclear who will emerge or how. Jim Jordan can only afford to lose four House Republicans. Punchbowl reports, however, that Mike Rogers of Alabama is organizing to oppose Jordan, and “[s]ources involved in the effort tell us that there are upwards of 10 lawmakers firmly in the ‘Never Jordan’ camp.” Politico is also reporting on this effort. Meanwhile, the Hill reports on both Jordon’s efforts to invoke the crisis to shore up support and Jeffries claims that informal conversations are afoot on a bi-partisan election of Speaker. The Washington Post’s analysis is here. And for some historical perspective, this article by Joshua Zeitz focusing the New Deal Democrats (1937-1964) is interesting.