- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
With the clock ticking down toward a government shutdown, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz approached a Democratic lawmaker on the House floor this week with a surprising pitch.
Gaetz, who has been threatening Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s speakership almost daily, explained that his rebellion is motivated by a desire to find new leadership that keeps their word, tells the truth, and adheres to regular order – a message that this Democrat described to CNN as “utterly reasonable.”
Gaetz then floated veteran Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma and House GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota as two alternative examples he had in mind, and then attempted to gauge whether this member would be open to supporting an effort to oust McCarthy. The Democrat told CNN there’s been internal discussions about a wide range of potential asks – from power-sharing agreements to policy ideas.
“In the last 48 hours, he’s not just talking to Democrats. I’m talking about like, the furthest left most progressive Democrats to moderates,” the House Democrat told CNN. “He’s a salesman right now.”
I don’t know much about politics but given the situation it sounds to me like he’s just hoping to get someone with a weaker hand into that already extremely tenuous position. Democrats shouldn’t be fooled thinking “but they’re more reasonable”. That person will automatically have a weaker position than McCarthy just because they are the second choice so it won’t matter much who the speaker is just the fact that they have zero room to maneuver. What might make it worthwhile despite this? I wonder whether Democrats can extract some binding commitments like non-reversible rule changes that survive at least for the session in order to secure their votes to oust McCarthy.