MAGA House Members’ Wacko Idea: Trump For Speaker of the House!
[guest post by Dana]
Sure, why not. Crazy is as crazy does:
Texas Rep. Troy Nehls said in a statement Tuesday afternoon his first order of business when the House reconvenes “will be to nominate Donald J. Trump for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
“President Trump, the greatest President of my lifetime, has a proven record of putting America First and will make the House great again,” he said.
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., followed suit in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday evening: “@realDonaldTrump for Speaker.”
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Troy Nehls (R-Texas) have been the most vocal proponents of electing Trump to the speakership, with the former saying Trump is the “only candidate” she is supporting at the moment, and the latter vowing to nominate him.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced the measure to dethrone McCarthy, has also said that “’Speaker Trump’ has a great ring to it.”
While a speaker does not have to be a current sitting member in the House, Trump may be ineligible because of Rule 26 (from the House Republican Conference Rules of the 118th Congress):
A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years’ imprisonment may be imposed.
So, is Trump interested in the position?
“Lot of people have been calling me about speaker, all I can say is we’ll do whatever is best for the country and for the Republican Party…My focus is totally on [the presidency]. If I can help them during the process, I’ll do it. But we have some great people in the Republican Party that could do a great job as speaker,” Trump said.
Of course he’s interested…
If Trump becomes Speaker of the House, the House chamber will be like a Trump rally everyday!!
It would be the House of MAGA!!!
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) October 5, 2023
P.S. Only House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan have announced that they are running for the speaker of the House.
-Dana
Good heavens!
Dana (932d71) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:26 amThis idea of making Trump Speaker of the House has been touted for maybe two years – long before he became ineligible (or required to resign) because of his indictments.
Sammy Finkelman (7661fb) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:43 amAs Paul Montagu noted on an earlier thread, Republican Conference rule 26 prohibits anyone from becoming Speaker who are under indictment. However, I would believe that if enough Republicans wanted Trump to be Speaker, they would overturn that rule. Also, Trump could be exempt from rule 26 since he is not a member of the House of Representatives:
Comedy Gold!
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:54 amThe Gaetz people will block all of these as their demands are extreme. I doubt that even Trump would submit.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:55 amTrump as Speaker fantasy camp.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:55 amThere are probably a dozen Democrats would would vote for someone more to their liking. It might be hard to get the tank & file on board, but it would be easier than what Gaetz demands.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:59 am* who would
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:59 amRip, I still don’t believe that Trump can get around the “indicted for a felony” language, per Rule 2. The Speaker is part of elected Republican leadership, and Trump would have been be elected to the Speakership, just not in the way other representatives got there. Of course, they could change the House rules, but wouldn’t they need a Speaker for that rule-change to happen?
But I think it’s all moot. IMO, Trump won’t throw his hat in because Speaker’s job takes real work, and he’s got other things on his plate.
Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:03 amWon’t happen. Reposted from the last Weekend Open Thread:
So it is highly unlikely that any Democrats will vote for a Republican Speaker (or vice versa). It’s a Republican problem.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:19 amAs I said, Trump as Speaker fantasy camp.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:24 amNo. It’s a Republican Conference rule, not a House rule.
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/5/2023 @ 10:03 amNo.
Trump needs to drop out and focus on defending his indictments.
Especially probably the most dangerous, is the NY civil case that effectively sentenced the Trump company to death in NY.
whembly (5f7596) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:14 amLOL! Highly unlikely. He could always relocate the Trump Organization, Inc. to a more friendly state (or country), like Texas (or the Cayman Islands).
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:22 amI would consider the Federal election subversion, Espionage Act, and Georgia indictments far more dangerous than anything else, since each one of them could end in the loss of his freedom for a theoretical total of nearly 600 years.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:31 amTrump will love being considered but the whole speakership is nonsense until we get a defining election…and a broad majority. It can be a vehicle to throw Ukraine funding into uncertainty…maybe…but otherwise it’s just posturing up to 2024. Few in that body are earning their money and demonstrating leadership.
Trump can’t be distracted from his cases or the swing states. And Trump offers no hope of compromise…just more theater.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 10/5/2023 @ 12:14 pmRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:22 am
He’s got assets in New York. Buildings, golf courses. Turning their entire management over to lawyers could be a license to steal money, like probate.
Trump’s lawyers can be expected to argue against at least the punishment, if Trump will let them.
Trump has left New York and gone back to Mar-a-Lago. He only attended probably so he would have an excuse to ask to delay some other proceeding.
At one point he claimed the judge had knocked out 80% of the case and the judge issued a clarification. (there was some testimony about instructions he had given in 2011 – and the case does not go back further than 2014)
Sammy FInkelman (c5132f) — 10/5/2023 @ 12:35 pmwhembly, demonstrating he’s a rational person, gives the right answer to this idea at #12. Campaigning for President and attending trials gives Trump no time to actually work as Speaker.
When this idea first came up in January, I thought it not that bad an idea. Trump is the leader of his party after all, and this formalizes that relationship. I just can’t visualize Trump doing what the Speaker does.
Appalled (721968) — 10/5/2023 @ 12:38 pmLOL! Highly unlikely. He could always relocate the Trump Organization, Inc. to a more friendly state (or country), like Texas (or the Cayman Islands).
Yeah, but he’d have to leave behind his money and possessions.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:07 pmI think that Trump’s biggest problem is his own big mouth. Eve3ntually, he is going to violate trial rules or otherwise piss off a judge so much that the idea of locking up a Presidential candidate will look better than not doing it.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:09 pmIn the future, people will look back at present times and shake their heads that so many people fell for Trump. Just as we do when looking back at the Salem witch trials. I mean, how could those New Englanders have been so stupid?
norcal (cccc9b) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:13 pmI just can’t visualize Trump doing what the Speaker does.
I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzbhbetwYFU
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:15 pmhttps://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/shooting-the-hostage/
AllahNick grasps the dilemma in the Republican Party.
Emphasis mine.
I see some people here and elsewhere who continue to fit this partisan description, thus letting the crazies win.
norcal (cccc9b) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:21 pmI read that the House passed a separate bill to fund aid to Ukraine before the continuing resolution was passed. So all the Senate would have to do is pass that House bill. Or was that wrong, and they only passed the rule?
I found this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4228785-house-advances-ukraine-aid-
Sammy Finkelman (c5132f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:38 pmafter-leaders-strip-money-from-defense-spending-bill
There is a third path: A full party schism. Leave the party to the hostage takers and form a new one.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:43 pmI actually hope something like that happens.
Sammy Finkelman (c5132f) — 10/5/2023 @ 1:52 pmHow long would a schism persist…maybe until Trump no longer wants to play the part….or maybe one of his sons can assume the role….or Tucker…or Ramaswamy. The right-wing infotainment sphere might tell us how long things go. How long does it remain profitable? One would hope it collapses in disgrace with Trump’s crashing legal affairs, but who knows? If 50% of the GOP stays with “clown car” what happens with the other 50? Do the Democrats win for generations or will the 50% wed to Trump end the honeymoon? Some will say that they will absolutely not leave after 8 years in the run up to 2024…but in a year from now, they will. Maybe.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 10/5/2023 @ 2:18 pmYou need to split the Democratic Party, too.
Sammy Finkelman (c5132f) — 10/5/2023 @ 2:19 pmOuch! Discussing the worst Republicans, AllahNick has this observation:
Emphasis mine.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 3:25 pmAlthough, to read AllahNick these days, I have a prediction: No matter who the GOP candidate is he will unable to vote for them.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 3:40 pmI agree too.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 4:22 pmLOL! Why should we care?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 4:22 pmHow about permanently? Let the Trump deadenders have their party that becomes more and more irrelevant, and create a new moderate conservative party that starts by winning state and congressional elections in 2026 and fields a presidential candidate in 2028.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 4:26 pm@31. We should care because unless there’s a new coalition party of the non-crazies from both sides, a GOP schism would mean the current Democratic Party, including their crazies, will govern for the foreseeable future.
lurker (cd7cd4) — 10/5/2023 @ 4:33 pmWe should care because unless there’s a new coalition party of the non-crazies from both sides, a GOP schism would mean the current Democratic Party, including their crazies, will govern for the foreseeable future.
It’s not something that requires any effort: The moment that partisan Democrats no longer fear that jettisoning their crazies will mean Emperor Trump, they’ll do it too.
After that? Hard to say. Maybe a coalition party in the center for a while, but so long as we have a first-past-the-post electoral system that’s rather unstable. I’d expect a realignment, on different fault lines. Perhaps libertarian-lite versus statist-lite. Right now the two parties are a mixture.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:23 pmCoalition parties rarely work. I can’t think of any that are successful.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:25 pmThose who feel that social issues require government control are generally willing to agree that other things (e.g. money and business) need government control, so long as they get their issues controlled. ANd the flip side is also true.
Right now we have one party that supports [fairly] free economics, but has a sizable contingent that opposes social freedoms. The other party would command the economy from the top, but not only supports radical social freedom, but would use the state to insist on it.
One of the reasons that Trump took over the GOP is that the tension between the social statists and the economic libertarians had reached a peak of tension. The GOP is now realigning to a fully statist party. Which makes two of those.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:29 pmCoalition parties rarely work. I can’t think of any that are successful.
It depends on the electoral system. Ours tends to reward strong differences. If there was a system that favored moderation (like my oft-repeated one-vote, multiple victor system) then a centrist party could work. After all the People are mostly in the center of whatever Overton window is active, but the differentiation that out electoral system reinforces means that we have bimodal representation of a Gaussian population.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:34 pmComedy Gold!
Chuck Schumer on Speaker Trump:
LOL!
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:37 pmThere is no evidence that factions of either the Democrats or Republicans have an interest in working together.
US political parties fantasy camp.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:42 pmThere is no evidence that factions of either the Democrats or Republicans have an interest in working together.
Elected officials? No, they don’t. But they are part of a system that is DESIGNED to avoid the center, when the people who vote have views more towards the center.
People have views like this.
Elected politicians fall into camps, like this.
A centrist party is unstable. It can exist (e.g. the British Liberal Party), but it is never going to control. Then again, a 30 vote centrist party in Congress might have a big effect. Unlike the Brits, though, our system makes that a lot harder.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 5:58 pmSpeaking of other things on Trump’s plate, add another indictment for spilling nuclear secrets to a foreign businessman. This is maddening.
Also, Trump has had five private conversations with Putin, details concealed by Trump.
Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:02 pmTake the current situation, and imaging Biden vs Trump vs a truly centrist party ticket.
Not only would both parties be aghast, they would spend a lot of their time and money to convince voters that the centrist party could not win, or would give the “wrong” side the victory.
“Don’t waste your vote!!! Vote for someone you despise!!!”
Although they probably would try to be less transparent.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:02 pmThis is maddening.
What’s worse is I have a growing feeling we have not yet heard the worst of it.
And part of me expects Biden to have a sleaze eruption as well. Perhaps involving little girls considering how handsy he gets.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:04 pmMr. Kerr has a point, Kevin…
Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:52 pmYou asked why we should care if the GOP splinters, but the Democrats don’t. That’s the question I answered, not whether a third party solution would be viable.
As for the latter question, I agree that in our system, third parties are a long odds proposition. But as anyone with a passing familiarity with probability knows, one out of eleven times the ten to one shot does come in… but only if it takes the field. I’ll bet the Baltimore Orioles are pretty stoked they didn’t just stay home waiting for the oddsmakers to give them a chance in Hell of winning anything.
I’m on record as opposing third parties in our current prisoner’s dilemma. As awful as the Democrats are, I believe they’re a far less dangerous evil than a Trumpist-led GOP. That form of GOP returning to power is a risk I’m unwilling to take. But if sane Republicans were to shed the Trumpists, the currently configured Democrats would become the greater evil. In those circumstances, trying to form a coalition of the sane, however difficult and unlikely, would be a worthy project. What would there be to lose?
lurker (cd7cd4) — 10/5/2023 @ 6:59 pm“I often compare the GOP to a hostage crisis. Populists have taken the party hostage and are forever threatening to shoot it by boycotting elections if conservatives don’t support their preferences.”
It was nevertrumpers like AllahPundit who not only threatened to shoot the hostage by boycotting elections (or voting Democrat) but actually carried out the threat through two election cycles. Now a third. I suppose that’s “good” hostage taking, as opposed to the “bad” kind. I’m sure AllahPundit has this hypocrisy all sorted out in his head.
lloyd (0636c2) — 10/5/2023 @ 8:31 pmNot in this election cycle…..
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:29 pmAs I have made very clear, I see and deal with politics as it is, not as I wish it be. I find the latter to be too speculative and not worth the time spent.
Rip Murdock (840fa1) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:41 pm“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
–G B Shaw
Then there are those who look at things the way they are and ask nothing.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/5/2023 @ 11:07 pmPopulists have not taken the party hostage they have taken it over! Populists are 65% of the party another 20% conservative republicans ;but don’t hate trump. That leaves an ever dwindling 15% never trumpers like here. Check out the lake/robeson primary election for what the future holds. When I hear the word “culture” I reach for my gun! H. Himmler and your average trump voter/
asset (63f3ca) — 10/6/2023 @ 1:06 amJim Jordan taking the early lead for Speaker. The same Jim Jordan who probably had as much advance warning of the J6 Capitol siege as anyone…and who was in close contact with the principals. If the GOP is committed to self destruct, yeah, vote for Jordan. Personally, I think Jordan should also be showing up on Jack Smith’s radar.
AJ_Liberty (76244f) — 10/6/2023 @ 7:02 amAnd unlike McCarthy, whom Trump left to dangle back in January, Trump has now endorsed Jordan.
What I am worried about, though, is that both the Russians and the Chinese are working on hypersonic, long-range Speakers with stealth capabilities, and we are going to be left behind in the international Speaker race.
Anyway ….
nk (e4e01d) — 10/6/2023 @ 7:28 amMeanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s deplorable supporters.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/10/05/hillary_clinton_there_needs_to_be_a_formal_deprogramming_of_the_trump_cult_members.html
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:08 amI cannot see Jim Jordan getting 217 votes.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:10 amComedy Gold!
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:12 amI cannot see Jim Jordan getting 217 votes.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:10 am
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:20 amI would love it if every vote in Congress was by secret ballot. But the lobbyists wouldn’t know who to pay.
Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:23 amUnder that idea the public would have no idea who to hold accountable for the laws that are passed. So much for transparency.
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:26 amWith Trump’s endorsement he’s the man to beat.
Rip Murdock (6afd61) — 10/6/2023 @ 8:29 amIt might be hard to see anyone getting a majority of the votes unless some Democrats decide to make a choice.
But the Democratic leadership probably doesn’t want Republicans deciding who the Democratic leadership is.
There will be a debate on Monday between the three candidates hosted by Fox News
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/06/fox-news-debate-house-speaker/71082325007
Sammy Finkelman (c5132f) — 10/6/2023 @ 12:04 pmThat’s fine as far as it goes, and I agree that the GOP nominating anyone but Trump is an extreme long shot this cycle. But my comment was about the desirability of a unified centrist third party after sensible conservatives have excised the Trumpists from their realm, whenever that may be.
Also, I’m not entirely clear on what you mean by “deal with” and “as it is.” I assume there’s a tacit cost-benefit calculation behind your “deal with” decision, based on the then-current value of “as it is,” right? Specifically, the costs and benefits of action presumably rise and fall with the margin of Trump’s polling lead? So how close would the race have to be for you to expend time/money/interest on one or more of his competitors?
The only candidate of either party I’ve given financial support is Chris Christie, and since he’s the only extant Republican who promises not to vote for Trump, he’s the only I’ll give further support if he miraculously shows signs of life. I know his chances of winning are minuscule, but the reward of his wining would be so huge that the calculation comes out positive. To my mind, that’s dealing with politics as it is, not as I want it to be. How does yours differ?
lurker (cd7cd4) — 10/6/2023 @ 2:03 pm