comment: >
  
  
  a number of them are foreign assets
  
  Considering how many of them voted against aid packages to Ukraine? Most certainly.
context: But as Josh Marshall wrote, this tidy explanation ignores a larger context: Those who are seeking to flex their newfound majority power in the House Republican caucus don’t want government to function. They don’t care that these stunts hurt their party or the country. These stunts are the whole point of being in government. 
  McCarthy’s fatal mistake was his failure to recognize that the right doesn’t care about what he can offer them, because they have no interest in actually using it for anything. They just want his head, and the thrill of going on television to boast about the decapitation. It’s just vibes, all the way down.
  
  Republicans have been in burn it all down mode. They know they are on their way out. But they forgot about the crazy Republicans that want to be popular more than they care about staying in politics and following orders. 
  
  They don’t want policy; they want airtime. >
  
  Starvation Politics, If you don't like if starve it of funding and then call it a failure when it fails. >
  
  Speaking of that, what happened to the lady on the hunger strike? That still going? >
  
  To shreds you say? >
  
  No, not for a long while, by the looks of her >
  
  Republican speaker of the house is a pretty cursed job. 
  You got Newt Gingrich, who was just evil. Then Dennis Hastert, who was a pedo. Then Boehner who was driven to retire and is now a cannabis lobbyist. Then you have Paul Ryan who went from GOP golden child to more or less completely out of politics after he was speaker. >
  
  Such a rich and storied history of bullshit and blind obstruction >
  
  And I'm OK  with that. Let them eat themselves up. Leopards all the way down. >
  
  Enemy of my enemy, and all that. >
  
  The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, but I do like watching them fight. >
  
  They will weaken eachother and then we can go in and finish them both. >
  
  In game >
  
  You want to really humiliate him?  Vote for Jeffries. >
  
  Do you think this is a likely scenario? I can't imagine there's any other decent contenders for the GOP to look to. >
  
  If they can find 6 republicans who want to end this nonsense, and vote for Jeffries. It’s highly unlikely, but one can hope. >
  
  More likely get them to no-show for the vote or just vote present >
  
  It’s also all about McCarthy’s ego. “I alone deserve to be Speaker. I will sell my soul and the country for that title”. >
  
  I wouldn't give into those fascist weirdos either.  Even if it's purely for self-interest I'm glad some Republicans are standing up to the most toxic elements of their party. >
  
  As much as I disagree with Boebert and co. she’s right that McCarthy cannot command his caucus. He doesn’t have a right to be Speaker, it’s not his turn, he’s failed. In the past candidates for Speaker bow out before the first vote to stop the humiliation of continually failing to unite on the House floor. He’s burned, the party has to move on >
  
  And let's remember, in the past McCarthy has done that very thing. After Boehner McCarthy wanted to be speaker. He sat down to allow Ryan to be speaker. >
  
  I think it was Liz Cheney that said given the choice between doing what's right and doing what's best for his political future, McCarthy will choose his political future every time. >
  
  "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy." >
  
  McCarthy isn't even abandoning the procedure. He's just losing the vote over and over again. If Trump was a more effective leader he would privately ask him to step down and threaten to do so publicly the next time. >
  
  Trump hasn't grown emotionally since he was a pre-schooler, though.  The 'demand the thing you want relentlessly until they give in' is a technique he's never seen the need to give up. >
  
  Because Trump is entirely focused on the performance rather than the results as well. Throwing an endless fit looks like a demonstration of strength to idiots, and idiots don't pay attention to what actually happened as a result of that tantrum, so... here we are. >
  
  Trump is all about appearance, not substance. Like a little kid, he's happy as long as the wet rock is shiny and angry when it turns dull because the water evaporated. >
  
  Probably the only time I’ll agree with the likes of Boebert, Gossar and Gaetz. They’re awful humans who get off on watching the world burn. But McCarthy is a spineless, power hungry loser who let these lunatics run wild for years, so I’m all for seeing him humiliated. >
  
  Right?! Where is all this Kevin McCarthy love coming from?
  The Speaker of the House, by definition, has to speak for a majority of the House. He doesn't. It's time for him to accept that. They need to find someone these 20 can support. That's the reality of the situation.
  The establishment Republicans need to view these 20 like another party. They (the establishment Republicans) don't have an outright majority, so they need to negotiate with these 20, and they'll have to make some concessions. That's how these things work.
  Edit: Removed erroneous statement that McCarthy has already been speaker. >
  
  The moment republicans call these 20 a member of another party - is the moment Jeffries becomes house majority leader and democrats are in charge again. >
  
  How would that change the number of votes? >
  
  If the Republicans break..then they aren’t the majority party anymore. Democrats would be. 
  McCarthy is only considered the lead candidate because republicans are the majority party. He’s received less votes than the house minority leader. 
  Arguably Jeffries should be in the speaker office temporarily, not McCarthy…but GOP is the ruling party, so decorum goes to them. >
  
  A majority is half the seats plus one.  Doesn't matter what party they are or are not from. >
  
  Jeffries has held the lead in every vote. 
  The house minority leader is closer to the speakership than the house majority leader. 
  As George W Bush once said. That’s some weird shit. >
  
  Boehner summed up the so-called Freedom Caucus pretty well 6 years ago:
  
  “They can’t tell you what they’re for. They can tell you everything they’re against. They’re anarchists. They want total chaos. Tear it all down and start over. That’s where their mind-set is.” >
  
  Agree with all of that, except the "start over" part. They've not thought that far ahead. >
  
  Boehner gave them too much credit. I think a number of them are foreign assets who want to destroy democracy.