Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kevin McCarthy Drops Out of House Speaker Race
Shocking development in the race to replace Speaker of the House John Boehner:
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has dropped out of elections for House Speaker, shocking Capitol Hill and raising questions about who can possibly lead the House Republican conference.
Republicans were to meet Thursday at noon to elect a new Speaker. Instead, they received the surprising news from McCarthy.
McCarthy dropped out of the race because he did not believe he could reach the 218 votes needed in a public roll-call vote on the floor later this month to be elected Speaker, according to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who spoke to reporters after the GOP meeting adjourned. Issa said McCarthy gave that message to his colleagues, and that McCarthy did not believe he could unite the conference.
McCarthy had struggled to win over conservatives, and while he was the favorite to win the closed-door vote, conservatives insisted he did not have the votes on the floor to win election.
Upon stepping aside, McCarthy did not give his blessing to either remaining candidate: Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah or Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida. The Hill article quotes a Louisiana congressman who now thinks five of six new candidates might decide to run for Speaker.
Published in General
The odd statement released by Rep. Jones a few days ago brought it to mind.
Perhaps something, perhaps nothing. The Benghazi comments were a tempest in a tea cup, McCarthy could have outlasted the news cycle on that one if he was committed to being Speaker.
That ship has sunk. He sunk it-
Cross party fraternization? Boy that would be a real hazard
That would make him the perfect Republican Speaker.
I like this idea a lot, Don.
The night John Boehner announced his retirement I was at a dinner with Representative Phil Roe who represents a district in East Tennessee. He was asked who would replace John Boehner and he said without hesitation that Kevin McCarthy will be the next Speaker of the House. I was a little disappointed. I was hoping for a “we’ll fight for the most conservative speaker” or “I’ll make my mind up when I hear each candidate’s plan for battling the President who is running roughshod over the Congress.” Now that he is being forced into making a decision, I hope he makes the right one.
Re the “What do they have on Kevin?” question and comments, I have no idea if this was pre- or post-, but there’s this, from a Fox report:
Giving up easily means he was qualified for the job.
That eliminates about, oh, 435 members of the House.
1.) Three speakers in a row with marital infidelities (Gingrich, Livingston, Hassert). I am fine with the GOP making a point not to screw this up again, pardon the pun.
2.) I have no opinion on who the next speaker should be, I find all 3 acceptable, and on those grounds I am sad to see McCarthy go.
3.) McCarthy’s comments on Hilary were of the inartful variety, not the gaffe variety. Hilary shouldn’t be trusted. And since she’s both out of office, and even if she were in office the Democrats in the senate wouldn’t vote to remove, an entirely political investigation of her gross incompetence was perfectly called for. We should give McCarthy credit for doing his job, and chastise the American People for their stupid Caesarism.
I am always amazed at how quickly doctrinaire conservatives are so quick to throw there own kind under the bus the minute we appear to be soft on something. Reminds me how those of us who opposed the Second Iraq war were read out of the Movement by David Frum in National Review.
Kevin McCarthy is a good majority leader and one of the engineers of the 2010 Congress that allowed the Republicans to take back the house. He was one of the ones going out to find quality candidates to run for election and win. The Tea Party helped win, but that was an all hands on deck situation. In later years he helped to lead the party to win greater victories in 2014, and prevented the house from falling in 2012. He should continue to act to help win the congress again in 2016 and for the future.
That being all said, I don’t think he would make a good speaker. He might never make a good speaker. Gone are the days of a Hastert and quiet competence being good enough. We need someone who can articulate a vision of the future contrary to the views of the Democrats. Someone larger than life. Someone with experience in government and a history of delivering victories in elections and in the legislature.
That’s why I am endorsing Newt Gingrich!
In a sane world, this is exactly the outcome one would expected for such a profoundly idiotic statement by “the candidate” for Speaker of the House of Represenatatives of the United States of America.
So, can someone please splain me why this is happening? It simply makes too much sense. This is the republican congressional leadership is it not?
Is Mercury in retro-grade?
Disagree.
While it is true that the *effect* of the benghazi hearings was to weaken Hillary, McCarthy came out and said that it was the *purpose*, a conscious strategy.
That’s going to leave a mark and be used against Republicans all the way through election day 2016.
There is a good opportunity here for fresh leadership. That being said, there is also lots of opportunity to bungle it badly. I’m taking a “wait-and-see” approach.
Reminder: The Speaker of the House is third in the line of presidential succession, right behind VP Biden.
Agree. Hillary had already come out with what was being called a ‘hard-hitting’ ad in which McCarthy was the central figure, the point of which was that the Benghazi hearings were nothing more than a ‘witch hunt’ with the express purpose of derailing Hillary’s candidacy.
Why on earth McCarthy said what he did, I have no idea. Standard rule of thumb is that if your opponent is committing political suicide, there’s no need to intervene.
And although the Dems are thrilled, I’m sure, to see the Republicans in such disarray, I think several of them are rather sorry they won’t have McCarthy to kick around any more, as I think his stupid comment was seen as the gift that would keep on giving in terms of political capital.
Not sure what happens next. Maybe Boehner will be there for ever . . . .
She,
This is what I was thinking when I said it was meant to be. Hillary still has more emails to demonstrate her criminal behavior at State and her perjury in front of Congressional Investigation & the FBI. If this is what it took to get McCarthy out of the running it was a good thing. Hillary will be back behind the eight ball soon. I don’t think Boehner is coming back.
All’s well that ends well.
Regards,
Jim
Well said, BrentB67!
Conservatives: “Trey Gowdy for Speaker!”
Trey Gowdy: “Paul Ryan for Speaker!”
Paul Ryan: “Kevin McCarthy for Speaker!”
Kevin McCarthy: “Paul Ryan for Speaker!”
John Boehner: “Paul Ryan for Speaker, or Boehner for Speaker!”
This is going to end… strangely.
He was “having his feet held to the fire” so he wanted to show that he was fighting and that he was angry about Hillary. This is a job he’s wanted for a very long time and there was an awful lot of pressure. Any of us could say dumb things under the circumstances. It’s one of the many costs to having constant infighting.
He clearly does not understand how ordinary conservatives think. The Republican electorate is making it very, very clear: business-as-usual beltway governance is not selling.
But he could have surely won us California.
That’s why he emphasized the Benghazi thing. It backfired, but I think the intent was clearly to convey precisely the message you suggest he isn’t getting.
The more I hear about, and from Daniel Webster, the more convinced I am that he would make a good Speaker.
I don’t understand this. I don’t say that to bash Webster — I don’t know much about him. But I’ve not seen his appeal (such as it is) explained anywhere. When he ran last time I recall reading that he was decidedly the less conservative choice. And at least his ACU rating backs that up: 72 for 2014 with a lifetime rating of 78.83.
Compared to even Boehner with a lifetime rating of 83.37, or McCarthy at 88.6 (76 for 2014). Not to mention Paul Ryan at 90 (80 for 2014). And that’s not even considering people like Gowdy or Amash.
Not that I take the ACU ratings as absolute. Just an indicator.
I don’t know much about Daniel Webster, except that I think he’s the one who knocked off that loudmouth, left-wing, Neanderthal-looking, Florida Democrat congressman back in 2010.
SoS how does that influence your thoughts on the matter?
I considered it for about a millisecond a while back, but dismissed it because the likelihood of invoking the 25th and ultimately Presidential succession seem less than being hit by lightening.
The succession question is unlikely to matter, but should point to a little more seriousness in considering candidates. Party insiders need to work the back rooms to get a mature, responsible, experienced, visionary leader to step up. It should be as much a priority as the presidential election that’s still over a year away. If Ryan is concerned about needing to spend too much time fundraising, for example, then someone needs to step in and say, “I’ll take that on for you.”
Technically, the Speaker does not need to be a member of Congress. And practically speaking, the GOP will not elect a non-member. Just the same, ideas on my Twitter feed like Romney or Gingrich are just loony.
He is not a strong conservative, but that is not necessarily what we need in a Speaker. The Speakership is more of a procedural position than an ideological one. A good Speaker will allow legislation to come out of the committees and onto the floor for a vote, something Boehner notoriously would not do.
Boehner’s “fall in line or lose your committee seat’ and his backroom deals were what was so infuriating, not his lack of conservatism.
Webster seems like he would be the opposite of that,
I agree. It’s of course highly unlikely that the Speaker becomes President — but it’s unlikely until it happens. Considering that we know of major security breaches by this government, and that nuclear proliferation edges along, it is just a little more than a piece of trivia. Sometimes you have to evaluate something not merely by the likelihood of the event but by the seriousness of the event if it were to occur. Any disaster that would make a Speaker into a President could be our greatest national crisis since the Civil War.
It’s not the primary consideration by any means. But I agree that at the least it probably weighs against choosing a temporary caretaker Speaker, for instance.
I agree that if the House is that desperate for Ryan they should ask him to lead them, not raise funds for them.