Boebert and Republican renegades block speaker election in exchange for demands

Jan 3, 2023

The new session of the 118th Congress stalled today after 19 Republicans blocked the first order of business, seating Nancy Pelosi’s replacement as Speaker of the House.

Kevin McCarthy is the Republican candidate for speaker, Hakeen Jeffries is the Democrat’s candidate. Neither have enough to win, yet.

That means House members were not sworn into office. No committees were seated. No investigations into Hunter Biden got off the ground.

And Colorado U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert helped.

Undoubtably, many of her constituents will be pleased.

Not because her actions threaten to install a (GASP) Democrat as speaker for the next two years. And it does.

Many Republicans are just tired of business as usual in the House of Representatives, and they want change.

Don’t we all?

But will Boebert’s and the demands of others presented to Kevin McCarthy in exchange for their vote really change … anything?

Many Republicans would argue that bartering for votes, which is exactly what’s happening, is part of the problem.

But Boebert insists she is not withholding her support for McCarthy just for plum committee assignments, although she admits her wish list was presented.

She and the other holdouts also demanded a vote on term limits.

Term limits would certainly pass the House with a Republican majority, but with Democrats controlling the Senate and White House, term limits is dead on arrival this session.

Demanding a vote on term limits is little more than virtue signaling. And don’t we get enough of that from the Democrats?

Boebert says the “motion to vacate” is their number one issue. The renegade Republicans are demanding a House rules change so that any one member can make a motion to recall the speaker for any reason at any time.

The Washington Examiner explains:

As the rule currently stands, half of the House GOP would have to vote to bring forward a motion to remove a leader. McCarthy has apparently agreed to lower that number to “less than five,” according to CNN. This may not be enough to appease his most ardent critics, who reportedly want just one member to be able to force a vote on the speaker’s suitability. However, the centrist wing of the GOP has suggested they don’t want to lower the threshold to less than 50.

 

Before the 116th Congress that began in 2019, any member could, in theory, bring forward the motion at any time and force a vote on it. This changed to requiring the approval of the majority of the party bringing forward the motion. Though the option was available, it was only used twice — once in 1910 against Speaker Joseph Cannon (R-IL) and in 2015 when then-Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) tried to use it against Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Neither of the previous motions was successful in ousting the speaker but did weaken their political power.

Wouldn’t the Democrats have a field day with that, and grind Congress to a halt?

This doesn’t sound at all like the change demanded by voters. It sounds like business as usual.

We would urge Boebert to get her grandstanding and virtue signaling out of the way and get to work doing the job to which she was elected.

We certainly don’t begrudge her getting the best deal out of the vote she can for her Colorado constituents.

But, if these actions result in a Democrat taking the speakership and control of which bills get a vote for the next two years, no one will give a damn that she staked it all on a House rule regarding a motion to vacate.

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan is not actually seeking the speakership, he’s just a protest vote. Jordan is expected to head the Judiciary Committee and lead oversight of the Biden administration over the next two years … as soon as a speaker is seated.

Submit a Comment