McCarthy Loses First 11 Votes!

[Mike]

I have now seen it in multiple places that santos voted three times for maccarthy.......

I have read various reports about this and also about whether Santos has been sworn, so I decided to investigate it a bit further than the news media reports. Some report he has been sworn while others say he couldn't have been sworn because there is no Speaker to do the swearing-in. It appears that the Speaker doing the swearing-in is not necessarily a requirement, other officials could do the job, so Santos may have been sworn already. Who knows at this point?

It seems the swamp is indeed murky!

While the Constitution requires members be sworn before voting, sometimes the Constitution doesn't count. Such as in this vote. I'd like to see that challenged in court to restore what the founders intended.

[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

From [i][House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]

Chapter 33. Oaths

The Constitution requires that every Senator and every
Representative swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the
United States. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3. Rule II clause 1 carries
the same requirement for elected officers. For administration of the
oath to officers, see Officers and Offices. The form of the oath and
the procedure for its administration are regulated by statute. 2 USC

Sec. 25. Form of oath, see 5 USC Sec. 3331 and Manual Sec. 197.
Until a Member-elect has subscribed to the oath, he does not enjoy
all the rights and prerogatives of a Member of Congress. Deschler Ch 2

Sec. 2.1. Members who have not taken the oath are not entitled to vote
or to introduce bills. Manual Sec. 300; 8 Cannon Sec. 3122. However,
un-sworn Members have participated at the beginning of a session in
organizational business, such as the election of the Speaker.

LINKY

[Mike]

It appears McCarthy has lost the 4th vote.

[Dave Grubb]

It appears McCarthy has lost the 4th vote.

I wonder if he is seeing a pattern here?

Added in edit from the NYT:

WASHINGTON — House Republicans began their new majority rule Tuesday with a chaotic and historic debacle, an embarrassing failure to rally around a leader that showcased the difficulties they will face in performing even the basics of governing and their lack of a unifying agenda.

Handed narrow control of the House by voters in November, Republicans squandered the opening hours of the new Congress they could have used to dispel concerns about their capabilities. Instead, they feuded in a disorderly display over who among them should be speaker as the most extreme elements of the new majority repeatedly rejected Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California.

Despite McCarthy’s prominent role in fundraising and delivering the House to Republicans and his backing among most in the party ranks, about 20 Republicans refused to support him and for the first time in a century forced repeated rounds of voting for the speakership. After three flailing attempts at electing a speaker, Republicans abruptly called for the House to be adjourned until noon Wednesday as they scrambled for a way out of their leadership morass. The stalemate meant the usually routine organization of the new House did not occur and its members were not sworn in, nor could any legislation be considered.

The paralysis underscored the dilemma facing House Republicans: No matter the concessions made to some of those on the far right, they simply will not relent and join their colleagues even if it is for the greater good of their party — and perhaps the nation. They consider themselves conservative purists who cannot be placated unless all their demands are met — and maybe not even then. Their agenda is mostly to defund, disrupt and dismantle government, not to participate in it.

It means that whoever emerges from the messy leadership fight will face deep-seated resistance when trying to shepherd spending bills and other measures that are fundamental to governance. Tuesday’s spectacle reflected that House Republicans have grown more skilled at legislative sabotage than legislative success, leaving the difficult business of getting things done to others.

[Mike]

McCarthy has moved backwards, losing 1 vote in each of the past two votes. The Democrat candidate has more votes than McCarthy.

[Dave Grubb]

....and santos moves to another "office":

After a lot of scrutiny on his sitting alone yesterday, George Santos has spent most of the vote in the Republican cloakroom, away from cameras and reporters. He came out briefly to vote for McCarthy.

What a clown show

[FredK]

It appears McCarthy has lost the 4th vote.

Keep swinging soon it'll be number 5.

[Mike]

Here we go again! I see no end to this until McCarthy stands down, and I don't see that happening. This could go on for days.

[Dave Grubb]

With oposition like this maccarthy might get a boost:

More than two dozen right-wing figures released an open letter today urging more Republicans to oppose McCarthy. Among them are former Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina; Ginni Thomas, the wife of the Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas; and Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who helped lead efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

[Mike]

Unless some Democrats decide to vote for McCarthy, he has now lost round 5.

[Mike]

I just watched an impromptu interview with the media swarming Byron Donalds. I don't know if he would make a good speaker or even where he stands politically. But I like this guy!

[Dave Grubb]

From an earlier post:

George Santos has spent most of the vote in the Republican cloakroom

The thought just hit me---these clowns are so partisan they have to have "party" cloakrooms

[Mike]

From an earlier post:


The thought just hit me---these clowns are so partisan they have to have "party" cloakrooms

Our tax dollars at work.

[Honda]

I've been following this thread with interest. I'm a little confused. It seems that some are reveling in the fact that McCarthy can't be elected speaker. However, those that are opposing him are the extreme right of the Republican party. Myself I'm in general disagreement with those on the extreme right including the freedom caucus. So why would it not be a good thing to have a mostly moderate speaker of the house? I guess it could be that those who are Democrats are enjoying the spectacle of the GOPs dysfunction. I can understand that. Maybe I can be enlightened.

[FredK]

Found this in a comment section on Kevin's failure.

How many republicans does it take to fix a problem? No one knows.....it's never happened.

[Dave Grubb]

They should be holding this show in a big tent:

George Santos was just in the back of the House chamber, talking with Matt Gaetz. The conversation looked animated, then Gaetz peeled off and Santos headed back into the cloakroom.