Insanity is electing John Boehner Speaker of House over and over and expecting different results.

[Scuba]

Or any results.

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. They're getting the results they intended with boner, so why change?

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. lol Is it true that...

Question about electing the Speaker of the House?
Somewhere I read that the election of the Speaker
is an open voting process, meaning dems and repubs
can vote across party lines?

And, that the Speaker does not have to be a member
of the House of Representatives, just a member of Congress?

Can anyone confirm if that is in fact the case?
It's my understanding Democrats were mostly
NOT present during the vote for Speaker of the House?

[Action_Patrol]

17. Fact. That is the case.

The Speaker doesn't even have to be a member of Congress. All have been but here's nothing stating they must be.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. Just to clarify...

are all of the questions "the case"?
Or just the case that dems were absent for the vote?

It would be nice to know if the 3rd-Way democrats
rolled over and let the repubs have their way?

[Action_Patrol]

29. The chamber was full. Not sure of roll call

Nobody rolled over. The person with the majority vote becomes Speaker. Majority party naturally gets the most votes.

[djean111]

2. No insanity there at all. Boehner is now free to do what he has been blocked from doing by Reid.

Plus the tea-baggers may have him by the short hairs now, who knows? He has made a point of no bipartisanship, unless the "bipartisanship" is just everything he wanted anyway.

[marmar]

4. I almost wish the Repugs would elect a nut like Louie Louie Gohmert Pyle as Speaker .....

..... just for the entertainment value.

[MADem]

5. The people who elect him are THRILLED with the "results."

The Republicans in the House elected him, because he held and increased their majority, and got them the Senate, too. He has been rewarded for doing his job, in essence.

We don't have a say in the matter, beyond trying to send more Democrats to the legislature. Unfortunately, more of "them" and not enough of "us" were unified in their goal, and that's why they are in the catbird seat, and we're outside looking in.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. Who did the Democrats vote for?

[joshcryer]

8. They didn't.

It's unclear if they expected a different result from that.

[MADem]

11. Dems did their re-electing back in November, two weeks after the election.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/nancy-pelosi-re-elected-house-democrat-minority-leader/

[MADem]

10. Nancy Pelosi.

Each caucus elects their own leadership. The Dems held their election two weeks after the unfortunate results in November.

Pelosi is the minority leader, and--no surprise, really, despite the rumblings in the press (posturing, nothing more)-- Bonehead remains the Speaker.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. In a mature democracy, Pelosi would have been shit-canned for presiding over the

November debacle, imo. Not sure why House Dems decided to stick with her. Her record since 2006 has not been too illustrious, what with 'impeachment off the table' and so on.

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. +1

[MADem]

20. Our democracy is one of the most mature in the world.

Even though it's a "republic."

Pelosi had no challengers. In the link about her re-election I provided in this thread, it noted that she raised a hundred and one million dollars for Dems in two years, the same amount as Bonehead raised--so it's not like she "hated" in most corners. DU is not representative of the greater Democratic community, and it isn't even representative of the "liberal" Democratic community (which was the source of a lot of that money Pelosi raised). DU is something different.

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. So Democrats have NO VOTE for speaker of the House?

is that correct?

I wouldn't want to misunderstand the difference between
caucus votes and the Speaker vote.

This is a teachable moment.
Help us all understand this process better.
You certainly seem to be very knowledgeable.

So how exactly does the Speaker of the House vote work?
To make it simple, a link would be appreciated.

[Action_Patrol]

31. Everyone has a vote

The minority just isn't going to win.

[Cosmic Kitten]

33. Only if they vote partisan, right?

Couldn't they vote for a spoiler?
Or better yet... cross the aisle
and find a bipartisan Speaker?

Or was this just democratic House members
having voter apathy and not showing up to vote?
Were they convinced they couldn't win so they didn't vote?

Sets a great example of how they will
"fight" for the Public on difficult issues.

[Action_Patrol]

36. It really doesn't set up anything.

It's symbolic at best to see what the minority chose as Speaker. It isn't going to matter. The D's don't typically vote for an R. They can literally vote for anyone they want.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. Where has doing things as usual gotten the Democratic Party?

Aside from being marginalized?

[Action_Patrol]

46. You're trying too hard to be upset

It's a show. There's no chance of a surprise vote. The Speaker/majority controls the floor time of the vote.
If it looked to not be going their way, they would just hold the vote open until it did.

[MADem]

49. +1.

An able leader is one who knows the rules backwards and forwards, and who can use those rules to their advantage. It's not all about being the most liberal/conservative member in the bunch--it has everything to do with being able to herd cats (or legislators), and count votes, and exchange favors, and enforce party discipline when needs must.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. "It's a show" That makes more sense.

An explanation that omits the fact that
the Speaker election is determined by an
absolute majority would have
resolved this issue sooner.

The issue of controlling the floor time
and holding a vote open shows us exactly
how and why we get the results we get.

It is a battle of attrition, right?

If no candidate receives the majority of votes,
the roll call is repeated until a majority
is reached and the Speaker is elected.

It's easier to just concede the Speaker position
and end the show early.

It's cynical, but it makes more sense than
saying it's "customary", or pretending that
it's purely a caucus issue that limits
voting outside ones own caucus.
Political expediency is what it is.

[Action_Patrol]

54. But it IS customary

You can get outraged as much as you like but everyone knows the outcome before that vote is even called.
If you're going to get upset about it, following the floor practices of our Legislators is only going to end in an ulcer for you.

[Cosmic Kitten]

59. Well, I think now we are parsing words

We have a mutual understanding.

The fact that it is "customary" to run
the Congress according to business as usual
is exactly the problem the US faces.

The middle-class and working poor are
circling the drain, Democratic leadership
is absolutely absent, and Congress Critters are
holding fast to the comfort of "customary" practices.

Apparently there is NO APPETITE for change
amongst elected Democratic representatives?
Reelecting Pelosi is just insane considering her
complete lack of progress for the party.
Boehner get elected because he's a winner...
Pelosi gets reelected because why?

Thinking that the "practices of our Legislators"
will result in any meaningful change probably is
a masochistic exercise. Where's my Maalox?

[KingCharlemagne]

38. These are good points you raise, especially about fund-raising and about the

'maturity' of our system, by comparison to other countries'. The only ones that are older than ours are the British (and by extension, Canada) and (IIRC) the Swiss. I meant by 'mature' a system that holds party leadership accountable for failures, while rewarding same for successes.

FWIW, I don't 'hate' Pelosi although I expect more of a Speaker\Minority Leader than fund-raising prowess. I certainly do not expect him or her to cut off the Judiciary Chair (Conyers at the time) at the knees by taking impeachment 'off the table'. But, as I think of it, I can think of no other Dem in the House who commands more support than Pelosi. (I would like to put in a pitch for Maxine Waters, my Rep., but AFAIK, she has no aspirations to national party leadership.)

[MADem]

43. Maxine is a "conscience." It's hard to go to upper-tier leadership when one plays that

kind of role--there's just too much necessary compromising that has to happen.

I love Maxine, too--she's tough and smart and she doesn't back down.

We are, all of us, trapped in this money game and Citizens United only made it worse. I would love to see federally funded elections, and--with all this digital bandwidth now available--see each major candidate given a dedicated television station (make the minor ones share a station) where they can blah-blah-blah to their hearts' content. Anyone who wants to know their POV can tune them in, and we can be spared the smarmy, flag-waving, Say Nothing Presidential TV ads.

I can't believe "There's a bear in the woods" won it for Saint Ronnie of Raygun. I mean, really--I was overseas when that ad ran, but I had a VHS and a relative who sent me a couple of tapes of US tv every week, replete with commercials...every time I saw that ad, I thought of the phrase "Do bears shit in the woods?" and I couldn't believe that mess resonated. Amazing how appealing to the lowest common denominator works!!!

Honestly, I kept thinking "That bear is gonna squat and shit!"

[KingCharlemagne]

66. I didn't have a TV back in 1980, so never even knew of that ad. Thanks for

shariing.

A propos of our discussion about American democracy's maturity (or lack thereof), here's what Charlie Pierce had to say on the matter, with reference to Iowa Rep. Steve King:

And Steve King is a corn-country crackpot whom the Republican party must mollify, and to whom every knee must bend, with some regularity, all the way through February of 2016. Any country with a serious political elite would see this as something of a problem for us all.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Steve_King_And_Aaron_Burr

[Mass]

25. Agreed.

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. Each caucus elects their own leadership

So Speaker of the House (SotH) is a partisan election?
House members can ONLY vote for someone in their Party?

How come the Speaker of the House is NOT required
to be a member of the House, only a member of Congress?

Do you have a link to the actual rules for electing SotH?
Where can we all see the rules of the Speaker election?

[Action_Patrol]

27. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution

House members can vote for anyone to be Speaker.

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. Oh, good. Thank you.

As I read that section I see NO reason or limits
hat require members to ONLY vote within their caucus!?!

It appears that the Members as a body "chuse" their speaker collectively?
Kinda contradicts MADem's assertion that there are caucus votes?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Hmmm?
Where were the Dems during this vote?

[MADem]

37. As I said--they already voted--on November 18th.

They voted for Pelosi. I provided a link to their vote.

You can't vote twice.

[Action_Patrol]

40. It didn't contradict anyone.

I work here.
The caucus votes were all done after the elections.
Speaker is voted on and committee assignments are reassigned at the beginning of the new Congress.

[Cosmic Kitten]

45. Great. Is there a primer for public information

regarding this process?

How can Democrats hold anyone accountable
if the misinformation, unwritten "customs"
etc distort the process.

It would be a great community service.

[Action_Patrol]

48. For the election of Speaker,

As well as everything else that takes place via parliamentary procedure, you've got the constitution, Roberts rules of order and House Parliamentarian rules.
It's very convoluted to get a claim of misinformation.

[MADem]

35. The custom and practice is for each caucus to elect their own representation.

Nothing would be gained by demanding a vote on the floor of the House. We don't have the numbers. The GOP--who enforce party discipline way better than we do--would simply do just that. They'd forgo their petty infighting, they'd all vote for Bonehead, and he'd get the gavel for another two years. We'd look like a bunch of nutters, trying to make a Big Stink for no real purpose.

A helpful DUer has provided the Constitutional citation in this thread--that "rule" notwithstanding, that's just not how it is done. Our team already cast their votes back on November 18--we got it done back then, because we lost and we had to get to work on doing a post-mortem.

[Action_Patrol]

41. ^

I was going to type nearly this verbatim.

Strong work.

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. Nothing to be gained, eh?

How about showing us, the VOTERS,
that Democrats are ready and willing
to fight for us?

Seems you think we should shut up...
eat our peas and we're not getting?!?

Maybe the Democratic Party loses because
people are milquetoast dishrags playing to
"custom and practice", walking softly,
and carrying no stick!

I think can see how 3rd-Way is destroying the party.

[MADem]

47. Look, if you don't want to see it for what it is, I can't help you.

I'll be frank with you. When you say things like

Seems you think we should shut up...
eat our peas and we're not getting?!?

and

I think can see how 3rd-Way is destroying the party.

it causes me to believe that you are uninterested in conversation or in actually understanding how the process on the Hill works, and are simply looking for a victim upon whom to lash out.

I have no interest in being your victim, I find your comments both uncivil and representative of an unawareness of the process in practice, so rather than engage in pointless back-and-forth, I will urge you to have a nice day. I've tried to explain to you how it works, and in response, you insulted me. Great job, there.

[Cosmic Kitten]

50. So your explanation is that it's "customary"?

There are no written rules, just "business as usual"?

That hardly seems like an useful explanation.
Had you explained that:

To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast—which may be less than a majority of the full House because of vacancies, absentee Members, or Members who vote "present." If no candidate receives the majority of votes, the roll call is repeated until a majority is reached and the Speaker is elected.

Then it would have made more sense.
As I read the explanation provided by the Office of the Clerk
there is a case to be made that the minority party
can exert influence or extract concessions in the process.
IOW, there could be something to gain.

[MADem]

51. As another poster indicated, you're working too hard at being upset. Have a nice day.

All the information you need is already posted in this thread.

[Cosmic Kitten]

53. You too

Thanks for the chat

[KingCharlemagne]

13. A minor note: nationally in aggregate, Dems received more 'votes' for the

House than did Repukes. IOW, Dems' margins of victory in the districts they won blew out Repukes' margins of victory in the districts they won. In a parliamentary system, Dems would control both the House and Senate.

[MADem]

15. Well, the GOP did a great job of gerrymandering districts to aid their majority.

And it will be awhile before we can fix that fuckup. Our only recourse is to GOTV way better than they do.

[KingCharlemagne]

19. Agreed. The combination of Repuke gerrymandering that created these

quasi-pocket boroughs and piss-poor turnout by Dems (in historical terms) combined to produce the debacle.

[Scootaloo]

58. Here's some tips, MADem

Try to get progressives elected. Stop demanding the Democratic party only make right turns or "stay the course" after several right turns. Stop running weak conservatives against strong conservatives, because that isn't competition, it's capitulation.

[MADem]

62. Here's a tip for you. PLEASE pay attention, because it is a very IMPORTANT tip.

Follow the conversation, please.

I am talking about the ALREADY-ELECTED Republican legislators in the Congress voting for their leadership, I am not talking about "stay the course" or anything of that nature.

My post wasn't about "running" anyone for anything. It was about an internal caucus election by the Republicans--not Democrats--to elect their leader.

Your comments were both derogatory and demonstrated that you weren't following the conversation. My remarks were not about "capitulation." You really should just retract, or at least acknowledge that you are berating me for attitudes I do not possess.

[Scootaloo]

64. I'm telling you how to prevent a repeat of this, later

You seemed confused on the subject back in November.

[joshcryer]

7. That is precisely what they want.

The Republican ideology is to do nothing and to tear down what they can. Until people get this we're going to have a really hard time.

It's ideologically appealing to shut down social welfare and lower taxes. That's all they want to have happen.

The single issue voters will go after choice, gay marriage, etc, and the older will want Medicare and Social Security, so they stay away from it for that reason (while cheering the idea that the kids will have to privatize everything).

[pipoman]

9. Agreed....I would extend this to every entrenched lawmaker...the whole lot of them

They all seem to agree on all of the most important issues. ...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Insanity is re-electing Boehner to the House at all.

After the first time, you'd think people would have learned something.

The reality is that the vast majority of Americans have simply given up on voting as a way to solve any of our problems. The only people bothering to vote any more are hard core partisans and political junkies. It's why, more and more, every election is simply about getting people to bother to vote, because ever smaller numbers of people are actually electing officials.

I think maybe it's time to start microtargeting Republican likely voters to try and win them over to third party candidates as a 'win-win' possible outcome. Drain off Republican votes, and get either an indie or Dem into office. (And I mean real third parties, not the 'Tea Party' which is just an extremist Republican caucus.) Simply targeting Democratic likely voters doesn't do anything to change the numbers of votes for Republicans. We need to convince their voters that their own candidates aren't and won't deliver for them, and cost them voters directly.

[MADem]

21. It's not insane to those who voted for him--and that would be the GOP caucus. They loved what he

did--he kept their majority. As far as they are concerned, he was SUCCESSFUL.

They don't care what we think--the sadder we are, the more they rejoice. They would love to drink our tears!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. I'm not talking about his election as speaker, I'm talking about his election as Rep of OH-08.

And he is NOT delivering for his district.

[MADem]

30. People love a "winner." Even if that winner is no friend to them.

I would bet he's delivered a bit of pork to his district, and that's what helps to keep him in place.

It's very difficult to shift someone in a leadership role, particularly during a non-Presidential contest.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. He hasn't delivered any pork any time lately.

When they got rid of earmarks, they got rid of that excuse to re-elect him.

[MADem]

55. He can still "vote trade." And as Speaker, he's the ultimate broker for that sort of thing.

You vote for the repairs to my highway, and I'll vote for the MILCON at the base in your district...that kind of exchange.

And keep in mind, the Speaker has his paw on a lot of the PAC money. He can tell a legislator "You know, if you don't vote the way I want you to vote, all those donations you got from my PAC, and the PAC of this friend, and that, that you used in your reelection campaign, why, those are gonna go away. And don't even think about fundraising with this group or that, because I'll cut you off at the pass."

It's all about the cash--money does talk. It's why I'd like to see public financing of campaigns.

As for Boehner, he had an overwhelming financial advantage and got almost seventy percent of the vote, so the people of his district apparently agree that he is a benefit to them--and he had a "Constitution Party" third-partyer in the mix, too--if that oddball hadn't been running, he would have been over seventy percent by a couple of points. The Democrat running against him didn't have the money, and he did not have a prayer. It was a foregone conclusion that Boehner would be returned to the House.

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio%27s_8th_Congressional_District_elections,_2014

[Scuba]

56. Interesting, isn't it, how some DU members go to great lengths to defend Republicans?

[MADem]

57. Who, here, is "defending" Republicans? Please be specific if you're going to make charges against

DUers--that kind of thing is UNCIVIL in the extreme.

I''ll await your response.

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. So keeping Pelosi would be INSANE, right?

She's been losing, so why is she minority leader?

[MADem]

60. She has raised as much money--if not more--than Boehner has raised in the last two years.

Democrats--liberal Democrats--have given her over a hundred million dollars. She is the best fundraiser in the House by far.

That's why keeping her is not insane.

Also, she knows the rules of the House and knows how to game them to our advantage. She also knows how to use her whips to keep legislators in line, and she knows how to wheel-and-deal. These skills are learned over the course of a career, they don't come to the fore overnight.

If the Democrats had taken back the House (which was unlikely due to factors also outlined elsewhere in this thread) she would be the Speaker. She had no challengers for her job--she was unanimously re-elected to her position.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. Money, Money, Money

Where's the policies, where's the results?
Where's my check?

How many seats did all that money win
in the last election?

BTW, aren't we done?

[MADem]

63. It is all about the money. I don't particularly like that but I'm not stupid--I see that's how it

works. FWIW, even when the money is even (and Pelosi was a great fundraiser but she doesn't do it alone--the GOP had more pockets and they were deep), with gerrymandered districts the GOP is going to have the advantage.

And yes, we are done, but this was a new topic.

Have a nice day.

[Cosmic Kitten]

65. Oh thanks...

Yes, Pelosi is a grand fund raiser.
Maybe she can retire from Congress
and spend her golden years fundraising
for the Democratic party.

Lets have some new, stronger, assertive leadership.
Those milquetoast democrats are not helping.

She's much better at fundraising than leading the party!
Work to your strengths I say!

[Mass]

23. They do not really have an alternative. Who should be speaker?

The GOP has a majority in the House. Who do you think would do a better job? And it is far from an endorsement of Boehner. I find the guy extremely incompetent, but who would you rather see in his place among the GOP caucus?

[tridim]

28. A non-alcoholic would be a good start. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

67. Drug test Congress and breathalyzers before EVERY vote

Too drunk to drive is too drunk to vote on legislation