comment: >
  
  It would, except the House gives the minority party much less power than they could expect in the Senate. The majority party in the House basically has complete control of the agenda, as well as the chair for virtually every committee.
context: McCarthy gave Boobert what she asked for. "Just as the Speaker is elected by the whole body, we will restore the ability for any 5 members of the majority party to initiate a vote to remove the Speaker if so warranted," he wrote in a letter to his Republican colleagues on Sunday.
  This is going to be interesting. >
  
  The fact that this will probably backfire horribly on McCarthy should he become the Speaker pleases me. >
  
  In the battle for the soul of the party, the domestic terrorists have won.
  Now they are seizing the power to go along with their moribund philosophical victory.
  It doesn't help that McCarthy is a spineless blowhard more interested in acquiring a new job title than amassing power. He's ensured that he'll be nothing more than a paper tiger, a puppet for whoever manages to actually come out on top within the House of Representatives.
  Agreeing to a concession that allows the caucus to remove him is effectively castration. He is a political eunuch, impotent without someone else to do the real work for him. >
  
  So, as always, it falls to democrats to get real work done. >
  
  It would, except the House gives the minority party much less power than they could expect in the Senate. The majority party in the House basically has complete control of the agenda, as well as the chair for virtually every committee. >
  
  Dem and few moderate gop left in the house can put forth bills together and threatened to oust him if he doesn't bring the bills to a vote. >
  
  Similarly though, couldn't the far right Representatives threaten to oust him if he * does * bring the bill to a vote? 😂 Clown show over here >
  
  Yep, Mccarthy about to be America's fav punchingbag. >
  
  The GOP should take a look at this George Santos guy — his resume says he's the only incoming congressman with experience as Speaker of the House. >
  
  
  It is unclear whether any single offering from Mr. McCarthy at this point would be enough to win over some lawmakers.
  
  With all his concessions -- concessions that are, frankly, over-the-top (e.g. investigate the FBI, CIA, create a commission to investigate a commission) and still not enough to appease his GOP colleagues -- I don't see how he can win.
  Firing up the popcorn maker. >
  
  McCarthy won't be Speaker because he is a feckless idiot and everyone knows it. >
  
  This may be part of the reason they're pushing for all these concessions now and allowing him to take it. A feckless idiot can be turned into a figurehead.
  Just as a comparison, you can say many things about McConnell, but the man is anything but a figurehead. >
  
  That makes sense for the 9 on the letters who are focused on rules changes - they want changes that will lead to a caucus more aligned with their preferred outcomes (e.g.; making it harder for bipartisan and big stuff to happen) and a speaker beholden to / scared of them.
  The other five seem to just be personally against McCarthy. Good hates him because McCarthy didn't call him right after he ousted Riggleman in the primary. Norman hates him because McCarthy wasn't a fan of Norman's proposed campaign agenda. Biggs is running himself. Not sure what Rosendale's beef is, but I've seen speculation that it is early posturing for a Senate run. And I'm assuming Gaetz just likes the attention and chaos. Tough to see any of them agreeing to any concessions.
  He certainly could get there, but I'm skeptical at this point. Mostly because he is a feckless idiot. >
  
  
  Mr. McCarthy attempted over the weekend to deliver the hard-liners a major concession by agreeing to a rule that would allow a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker. Lawmakers opposing him had listed the change as one of their top demands, and Mr. McCarthy had earlier refused to swallow it, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance. But in recent days, he signaled he would accept it if the threshold for calling such a vote were five lawmakers rather than a single member.
  
  Dang, he really wants to be speaker.
  And if he somehow wins, given this concession, he probably won't be one for long. >
  
  Remember the good ol days when the most hated Republicans were the ones screaming the loudest about balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility?  I miss those days. >
  
  Yeah KM won’t be speaker. He’s a piece of shit but the hard right knows that KM could defect to dems, that’s why they rather have someone like MTG or Jim Jordan >
  
  What about Steve Scalise, or that Stepanik person? >
  
  They’re part of the circus too. >
  
  Are there life long benefits to being speaker?  Seems like he wants the title but doesn't want it for long.  Life long security?  Higher pension? >
  
  Good job in private sector after retirement. >
  
  Surrendering to the crazies, should have made the slightly less insane Reps even more opposed to McCarthy. >
  
  That's what reactionary white nationalist insurrectionists are known for, concession acceptance and seeing reason >
  
  He needs to concede…mccarthy >
  
  It's interesting to note how different the Republicans' slim majority in the 219th Congress is from the Democrats' slim majority in the 218th Congress. I don't think there were any major rumors of Pelosi having to give up the gavel, even though she only entered that Congress with an 11 seat majority, barely better than the majority Republicans hold now. 
  I actually predict that someone other than McCarthy takes the gavel tomorrow. Someone more moderate. Maybe even a Dem. Think about it. The most recent omnibus bill passed the Senate. That's the first time since 1994 that the outgoing Congress has passed such a bill when control of Congress is changing. And it didn't just pass. It passed with EIGHTEEN Republican votes. Those 18 Senate Republicans seem to have no faith that the Republican House would be able to negotiate a better bill for Republicans. They were happier with what Pelosi brought them than what they thought the new Republicans would bring them.
  18 Republicans is 36% of all the Republicans in the Senate. If only 2% of Republicans in the incoming House prefer a Pelosi to a McCarthy, then they can join with the Democrats to choose the Speaker. If they actually supported a Democratic speaker, I'm sure Dems would be willing to reward them with important committee roles, greater say in legislation, financial support in upcoming elections, etc. 
  Sure, those five would be condemned by right wing media and other Republicans, but even sheer political calculus may support switching sides. A moderate Republican is weak in the current party. They'll often face a primary challenger, they'll never get great committee assignments, they have no chance at getting nominated to executive roles by Republican presidents. But a moderate Republican who has strong support from Dems has real power.
  Furthermore, some of those Republicans who play the long game may be welcoming of giving up Republican power before a presidential election. If Republicans actually control one House, then if things go poorly in the next few years, Dems can muddy the waters about who deserves the blame. If things go poorly while Dems control the House, Senate and presidency, then Republicans can squarely place the blame on them. If things go well while Republicans only control the House, then Dems will get all the credit. If things go well while Dems control all 3 Houses then you'd think Dems would get all the credit then too. But, if Dems control the House because of the 5 Republican defection, then Republicans can take some credit for things being good. >
  
  I doubt they would join the Democrats given the current atmosphere. Much more likely that they either plan for retirement or believe they can win their seat as an independent. Voting for a Democratic Speaker would end them as Republicans. The consequences would be
  .. dire. >
  
  Even if it truly spells the end for them as Republican politicians, it could allow a brighter future in politics in general. Think about how Liz Cheney and Kinziger suddenly gained a much more prominent national platform for speaking out against Trump. >
  
  You think Cheney or Kinziger run as Independents in 2024? >
  
  I think that there's more to politics than elected positions. They might not be able to win another election, but they could be powerful forces behind the scenes or in the media. >
  
  Hopefully he doesn’t get it >
  
  Watch, the MAGA wing is going to nominate Trump for the speakership. >
  
  McCarthy gave Boobert what she asked for. "Just as the Speaker is elected by the whole body, we will restore the ability for any 5 members of the majority party to initiate a vote to remove the Speaker if so warranted," he wrote in a letter to his Republican colleagues on Sunday.
  This is going to be interesting. >
  
  The fact that this will probably backfire horribly on McCarthy should he become the Speaker pleases me. >
  
  In the battle for the soul of the party, the domestic terrorists have won.
  Now they are seizing the power to go along with their moribund philosophical victory.
  It doesn't help that McCarthy is a spineless blowhard more interested in acquiring a new job title than amassing power. He's ensured that he'll be nothing more than a paper tiger, a puppet for whoever manages to actually come out on top within the House of Representatives.
  Agreeing to a concession that allows the caucus to remove him is effectively castration. He is a political eunuch, impotent without someone else to do the real work for him. >
  
  So, as always, it falls to democrats to get real work done.