The NPR Politics Podcast - Who Wants To Be Speaker Of The House Of Representatives?

Episode Date: October 20, 2023

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) failed to win a majority of votes in the House on his third attempt to become speaker. The Republican conference then decided Jordan will not be their nominee for the role going forward, bringing the chamber back to a now familiar impasse. How will Congress move forward, and will it do so in time to act on President Biden's Oval Office request for more military funding for wars in Israel and Ukraine? This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political correspondent Susan Davis, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.The podcast is produced by Casey Morell and Elena Moore. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hello, this is Tim from Sheboygan, Wisconsin, getting ready to run the Minds of Spain 100-mile ultramarathon in Dubuque, Iowa. Whoa. This podcast was recorded at 2.39 p.m. on Friday, October 20th. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but I'll still be putting one foot in front of the other with a smile for every mile. Okay, here's the show. I feel like our listeners are trying to one-up each other with increasing intensity of their athletic endeavors. That is insane. 100 miles?

No thank you, sir. I mean, good luck, but no thank you. Having played basketball last night for the first time in about a month, I was hard to get out of bed. So doing 100 miles, it's not going to happen. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And for the 18th time this year, the House of Representatives has held a vote to elect a Speaker of the House.

And for the 17th time, they've come up empty. No person having received a majority of the whole number of votes cast by surname, a Speaker has not been elected. That is the sound of a continuous loop that we are now all in. So here's the latest. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who had been Republicans picked to be speaker, did not get enough votes after losing today's vote on the House floor. The Republican members of the House met in private this afternoon to decide if Jordan should keep going. They said no. Here's Jordan afterwards. We we need to come together and figure out who our speaker is going to be. I'm going to work as hard as I can to help that individual so that we can go help the American people. So, Sue, forgive the bluntness here, but what the heck? Like, what now? What next? How are they going to find this person? You know, they really have no idea. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy told

reporters after Jordan failed on the third ballot that they were in, quote, a very bad place right now. And that's a pretty frank admission for someone who is a leader of the party still in many ways. They don't really have a plan. They have no consensus candidate. The only thing they know is that they are asking any Republican who wants to run for speaker to announce their intention by the end of the weekend. Republicans will once again go in behind closed doors on Monday and have a candidate forum and hear from those people and potentially hold an internal party election Monday night to get another nominee and then try to go to the floor on Tuesday and do it all over again. But who's that nominee? How many people are going to get in the race? It's totally up in the air now.

Domenico, how long has this been going on? Way too long. There's a huge dissonance between what's happening in the world and the immense problems that are going on and President Biden seeking a more than $100 billion package for some of those foreign policy challenges. You can't get that without a functioning House. And right now, the Republican Party just is not a functioning party. And you can't have an American democracy without two functioning parties. And right now, one of them just is not. So with Jordan, it seems as though every time he came up for a vote on the House floor, his numbers got worse. Yeah. I mean, Jordan, I had several members tell me from the beginning he could never get to 217. He took a pretty aggressive approach to it. And in the end, I think it ultimately backfired on

him pretty poorly. You know, a lot of members felt like their opposition to Jordan was opening them up to personal attacks. Another congressman said that they had been receiving death threats, that their wives had been receiving death threats, that they didn't feel safe in their homes. That's a really hard way to get someone to vote for you for speaker. Now, Jordan publicly disavowed those attacks, but he was certainly getting help from sort of the conservative media ecosphere. Even people like Fox News host Sean Hannity was putting on television the Republican holdouts and saying, call their offices,

tell them to support Jim Jordan. Members really don't like that. That is not the way that you build consensus. And also, frankly, it had to do with Jordan himself. He's been in Congress a long time, but he represents a faction of the party that quite frankly is an ascendant. It's still an ascendant force in the party. I don't think this sets them back, but they just don't have critical mass yet. That is a more antagonistic, more anti-government, I think is fair to say. You know, they really want to take aggressive steps to really shrink the size of government. And people just didn't like him. They didn't think that he had what it took to be speaker, especially when you consider that the immediate agenda waiting for Congress to act is passing 12 of the annual spending bills, which Jim Jordan regularly tends to oppose, and a pending aid package for Ukraine, for Israel, and other additional spending measures that Republicans not only do they not want to spend more money, but the party's also incredibly divided over the issue of Ukraine in particular. So they're in a mess. It's complete

chaos. And I think that increasingly, Republicans see that their majority could be at risk here. One of the additional no votes today was Brian Fitzpatrick. He's a Republican from the state of Pennsylvania, represents one of the swingiest districts in the country. He's been able to hold on to it time and time again. But he voted against Jordan today. And that tells me something that, you know, Fitzpatrick has seen things happening and looking at this in a way that makes you think that Republicans in competitive races, it does not look good if it looks like you're with a party that doesn't know what to do when they're handed the wheel. Well, and Jordan actively worked with Trump to try to overturn the results of the last election also. Yeah, and that was a factor here because of the, you know, the core 20 that have opposed him, a third of them voted to certify the election. They were not part of the vast majority of Republicans who voted to decertify. So that, yeah, it absolutely was a factor that he was and is still is a very

close ally of Donald Trump. And, you know, frankly, we're going into a presidential election cycle. The House will once again have to preside with the Electoral College and certify an election. And I think a lot of certainly all Democrats and a lot of Republicans have a little bit of a bad taste in their mouth about how Jim Jordan conducted himself then. Yeah. I mean, there was really a bullying backlash with what happened for Jordan. I mean, this is something that we've seen repeatedly over and over again in this age of social media, in the Trump era, where if people don't like you or you haven't gone along with what they want, you're seeing a lot of this sort of ganging up on people on social media, doxing their phone numbers and contact information, even having moved to violence at certain points.

And that's why this became such a difficult issue for a lot of Republicans who are facing these kinds of threats, even referring this stuff to law enforcement. They really drew a line in the sand and said there's no way that they're going to be on board with somebody who's supposed to be on their team issuing these kinds of threats. Can I go back to how we started here, which was Kevin McCarthy agreed to allow just one member of Congress call the question and create the situation where he could be ousted. Then eight Republicans decided they were going to oust him and all the Democrats went along with them. Now those, at least some of those eight Republicans decided they were going to oust him and all the Democrats went along with them. Now, those at least some of those eight Republicans led by Matt Gaetz of Florida, they put out a letter today. I don't even understand exactly what they were trying to do. I think they were trying to urge these people, you know, like punish us, but vote for Jim Jordan.

And obviously it didn't work. No. And I just think it speaks to the how much acrimony is inside House Republicans right now. Like, it's not just about Matt Gaetz. It's not just about Jim Jordan. There is frustration all around. And also, a component here that also really angered members is Steve Scalise initially won the nomination to be their speaker. And he dropped out before it could go to the floor to get a vote. But, you know, a lot of Scalise allies believe that he dropped out because Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan were wink, wink, nudge, nudge behind the scenes undermining that candidacy and trying to make sure that he would not get the votes to be 217. So the anger is going in all directions and in all places. And there isn't really anyone you could point to that might be able to step into the

fray. I would note that Patrick McHenry, who's been serving as Speaker Pro Tem, sort of presiding over this election, there has been some effort to try to encourage him to either run for Speaker or, you know, try to change the rules to maybe bring forward legislation. And he is like, leave me out of this. So you have to want to be speaker to be speaker. And even some of the folks that, you know, might be able to build some level of consensus, like McHenry are saying, I'm not going to do this job. So that's a big problem, too. We're going to take a quick break, and we will be back in a moment. And we're back. And last night, President Biden did something that he has only done once before and that presidents in general don't do all that often, which is address the nation from the Oval Office in prime time.

He's pushing Congress to send more aid to Ukraine and to Israel for their respective wars, among other things. And here was part of his rationale. American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances will keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it's just not worth it. Domenico, why do you think President Biden chose this moment and that room, that setting, that stagecraft to deliver this message? Well, you know, that is the setting that is probably the most serious, the most important that presidents use when they want to get a message across that they feel people need to pay attention to. And this is clearly one, especially with Israel and Hamas, that Biden wanted to sort of balance this line between showing support for Israel and showing empathy for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but also wanting to widen that out to Ukraine in particular,

because that's really fallen off the focus of American news. You don't see it that often anymore or heard or talked about on cable news, for example. And it was the main thing that people talked about for so long. And unlike Israel, Ukraine really needs more supplies, needs more arms, needs more funding because of the fact that they're facing such a big military power in Russia. And, you know, Biden really wanted to be able to say, here is why this is important and why we need to get it done. Unfortunately, we know with the House having its problems the way it is right now, there's almost no chance of that getting done unless they do pick a speaker quickly. Well, and I do think it was interesting that President Biden chose to sort of tie these two things together, to tie Ukraine and Israel together in people's minds as part of

this larger fight. You know, history has taught us that when terrorists don't pay a price for their terror, when dictators don't pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. Tam, and after the speech last night, the White House sent up to Capitol Hill an enormous supplemental spending request that seems to try to get at both Ukraine and Israel and any other number of issues that the White House has prioritized right now. Yeah, it's $106 billion that they're asking for. Interestingly, that is meant to last for a whole year. Just a few numbers, 61 billion of it would go to Ukraine, about 14 billion for Israel. And what's interesting about them asking for one year is it's pretty clear they had previously been asking for three months. It is now clear

to the White House that they are not going to get another bite at the apple in the next year because of all the political instability, because next year is an election year, because there isn't a Speaker of the House, as we've discussed. And another, I think, interesting thing, and Sue, you and I have talked about this, the White House made a point of saying, this is $106 billion, but it's not charity. $50 billion of it would go to the U.S. defense industry. The idea being that these weapons that are being will go into the U.S. stockpile, making the U.S. more ready for whatever comes next. And this had been a sticking point in the speaker election. This was an issue with Jim Jordan. He's been a skeptic of Ukraine aid. A core group of the opposition to him came from the House Armed Services Committee, some members

there who are quite frankly frustrated at their colleagues' opposition and growing opposition to Ukraine aid because they understand that this money is not like a blank check being sent to Ukraine. It's being spent in the U.S. on U.S. defense manufacturers and U.S. defense manufacturing jobs. And that was a holdout, a sticking point for members who frankly didn't trust that a Speaker Jordan would bring that bill to the floor. So one thing I wonder is, you know, the White House has got this $106 billion package and they're sending it up with a fancy cover letter that says, let's do this whole thing together. I don't think Congress has to actually do it all together. Well, Congress can do whatever it wants to do with it. I think that clearly there's going to be an interest in the Senate

to couple all this together. There's much more bipartisan support for Ukraine in the Senate than there is in the House. And usually when you have to do big, ugly, tough votes, and I think a hundred plus billion dollar spending package is a pretty ugly vote for a lot of Republicans who right now are in the middle of a speaker fight in part because they want the party to do more to cut spending. So any additional spending is going to be a politically difficult vote, especially in the House. But you put the popular stuff in with the less popular stuff. And it is notable that Israel aid is now coupled in there. I'd say that package has much more bipartisan support at this time. And also the White House clearly putting border security money in there. That's a huge priority for House Republicans.

Clearly, the intention there is to try to make that such a good incentive to vote for it, that you carry along the stuff you might not fully support. But already, I've talked to lawmakers who say they want to sort of break all this stuff apart and move it individually than one big spending package. Also, big spending packages just are kind of ugly votes. Members don't like to take them. So if they can break it apart, I imagine they might try. But also, that's really hard. And again, none of this can go anywhere in the House until they elect a speaker. And, you know, there's some sense of urgency. And I do think I've talked to members who have an awareness of how small the party looks right now, especially on the world stage with much bigger global events happening.

But I will tell you, I don't frankly feel that members are at the absolute emergency. We have to do this now. And I hesitate to say this, but the next big pressing deadline before Congress is November 17th, which is when the current stopgap runs out and they're back in a shutdown scenario. So the mood coming out of that meeting on Capitol Hill today was we might not have a speaker anytime soon. So I think the White House is going to need to be patient in terms of waiting for this money to be delivered. Wow, we have another month of drama. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but I'm saying it's not impossible. All right, well, we're going to take a break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And it's time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go,

the part of the pod where we talk about the things that we cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. I will go first because mine is actually related to politics. Yes, there's been so much news that we couldn't get to this other news. So I've decided to put it in this section. So as we talked about before, LaFonza Butler was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated with the passing of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. And immediately, there was a question of whether she would run to fill out the full term and run for that seat, or if she would hold the job until the election comes and goes. And other people were already running and competing and had spent a lot of money. But if she had run, it would have totally upended things. So for 16 days, there was a very big question. She has now answered it. She says that, quote, I've spent the past 16 days pursuing my own clarity, what kind of life I want to have,

what kind of service I want to offer, and what kind of voice I want to bring forward. After considering those questions, I've decided not to run for a full term in the U.S. Senate. Knowing you can win a campaign doesn't always mean you should run a campaign, which is a really rare thing for anyone to say. I got to tell you, though, being a temporary senator, knowing that you are not going to run, I think is like the greatest job you could have in Washington. There's so many things you could enjoy doing if you're not running for reelection or not running for election at all and don't have to have that burden. Like the next year is probably going to just be like a fascinating, very interesting time for her that she can translate into a post

Senate career pretty easily. I shed no tears for Senator Butler there. And the great thing is she doesn't have to fundraise. That's what I mean. Like the job without any of the hard parts about the job and all the good parts about the job seems like a pretty good job for a year to fill in. Sue, what can't you let go of? The person I would say I can't let go of this week is a fellow Susan out there in the world. If you have been watching, if you watched back in January and have been watching this week and the past weeks, the roll call votes for Speaker of the House,

they are conducted by a woman named Susan Cole. She's one of the House reading clerks. And because she has been on television so much, she's become a bit of a viral meme. People are talking about her. And a reporter on The Hill, who covers The Hill, ran into her and was chatting with her and asking her about her newfound fame. And she said she doesn't go on social media, so she doesn't see it all.

But her daughters told her. And then her quote is, I'm just Susan! Exclamation point. I think it's clear why I like that quote, but I made me laugh when I saw it and it made me want to make I'm just Susan exclamation point t-shirts because it makes me feel like I'm enough from the Barbie movie. And I think if you're a Susan, you would probably buy I'm just Susan exclamation point t-shirt. So I'm spitballing the idea, but if you see me walking around the office in an I'm just Susan exclamation point t-shirt, you'll know where it came from. You'll

get the joke. I can see the graphics already. Very campaign heavy. It's amazing. Very Jeb exclamation point. Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Yes. That kind of goofy exclamation mark. Yep. Domenico, what can you let go of? Well, I am staying on Capitol Hill and I want to talk a little bit about the difficulty with dating apps and giving you an alternative. And that alternative would be in person with two men who tend to be very good matchmakers. And they're both senators. I'm talking about Chuck Grassley, who has both named Chuck, by the way, Chuck Grassley and Chuck Schumer. Chuck Grassley, the Republican from Iowa, has now apparently had 20 staffers in his office who have gotten married. Wow.

He just attended the 20th marriage. Now, while some people said that this is proof that he's stayed too long in office, he's been married for 69 years. Can you imagine that? Wow. But it's kind of a sweet thing. And if you don't want to have to be on those dating apps, they seem to have an internship. I mean, they seem to have some ability or maybe they can expand out beyond the office and, you know, really set up an E-Chuck, you know, or something like that. E-Chuck Harmony. And what are Chuck Schumer's numbers? Is this like a close competition? As of 2016, there have been 14 Schumer babies, never mind just marriages. And he's set up a lot

of people and he's very known to like really try to spot this out and really set them up. Now, Grassley's may be a little more coincidental. I don't know. But Schumer takes a very active role in trying to find love for these folks. And he will attend their weddings. Schumer loves a wedding and he has attended several of his staffers weddings, too. I mean, it makes sense, though, you know, because Capitol Hill, it's like mainly run by people under 35. So it's a lot of single people in their peak dating years, working long hours like you don't even have time to go on the dating apps and go on a date at night. And they certainly have a lot in common.

And in D.C., they are always asking that question. What do you do? Well, you know, out of the question with them. I work for Chuck. All right, that's it for today. Our executive producer is Mithani Mathuri. Eric McDaniel is our editor. Our producers are Elena Moore and Casey Morrell.

Thanks to Krishna Dev Kalimer, Lexi Schipittel, and Jung Yoon Han. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.