There's something funny about the House Democrats in the "Problem Solvers Caucus" voting unanimously to dump Speaker Kevin McCarthy, which will delay the House for solving problems during a stop-gap period to avoid a government shutdown.
On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough recycled his line from yesterday, suggesting that instead of letting McCarthy be removed from the Speakership, Democrats would have been wise to have sufficient Dems vote "present" to keep McCarthy in office.:
"If Democrats wake up to a Jim Jordan speakership, I mean, who knows? They may be asking questions, like, why didn't a few more of us vote "present?"
But Scarbrough then went after Democrats in the so-called "Problem Solvers Caucus" who could have retained a speaker more accomodating than Jim Jordan.
SCARBOROUGH: We can't expect [Democrat House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries to come out and say, "please vote for Kevin McCarthy."
But if you [begins shouting] are in the Problem Solvers Caucus, a caucus that is meant to protect the institution of the United States Congress, do you not, as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, go, "Hey, guys, why don't we all just vote present on the Democratic side?" We'll keep McCarthy in there, we'll keep him on a short leash, we'll let him know that, if, if, you know -- and, then, suddenly, you have a small group of people that have power! I will say, there were about 12 -- you [Michael Steele] remember when I was there. We had 12, 13, 14 people --
MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and we had a disproportionate amount of power, but we used it wisely. You know: that doesn't work, this works, let's figure out how to compromise.
So the Problem Solvers were actually in a position where they could have saved McCarthy, gone to him and kept him on a short leash.They can say, "you didn't ask us to do this. We're not going to do it again if, if you, if you keep moving forward in a way that's destructive to the institution."
But they didn't do it. So why is there a Problem Solvers Caucus --
STEELE: -- that didn't solve the problem?
SCARBOROUGH: If they just went, whoop!, And let one of the worst crises in recent House history go by 'em?
To balance that out, Scarborough also suggested Republicans might give the majority back to the Dems with a Speaker Jordan! He said:
"It [Republicans] remains a conference that is in deep disarray, and a conference that's trying to figure out its way forward. I've got to say, if they've got any brains in there, and I don't know if they do, but they got to worry about people like Mike Lawler. Is a Jim Jordan speakership going to help or hurt Mike Lawler and other people in swing districts get re-elected so they can stay in the majority next time?"
Lawler is a Republican congressman from New York's Hudson Valley who pulled a huge upset in 2022 by defeating by a narrow margin incumbent Sean Patrick Maloney, then chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. So Scarborough was clearly saying that having Jordan as Speaker would endanger Republicans like Lawler in swing districts, potentially handing the majority back to the Democrats.
Scarborough kept his record intact of managing to mention at every opportunity that he had once been a congressman. Today, he bragged that back then, he was part of a group of about a dozen members who "had a disproportionate amount of power, but we used it wisely." That wise and powerful Joe!
Joe Scarborough paradoxically suggesting that Democrats will regret not keeping Kevin McCarthy as Speaker if it leads to Jim Jordan becoming Speaker, but also suggesting that a Jordan speakership could hand the majority back to the Democrats, was sponsored by Abbvie, maker of Vraylar, Sleep Number, Walmart, Amazon, CVS and Walgreens.
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Morning Joe
10/5/23
6:09 am EDTJOE SCARBOROUGH: [Chuckles] Democrats, if Democrats wake up to a Jim Jordan speakership, I mean, who knows? They may be asking questions, like, why didn't a few more of us vote "present?"
But right now, it [Republicans] remains, remains a conference that's in deep disarray, and a conference that's trying to figure out its way forward.
And I've gotta say, if they've got any brains in there, and I don't know if they do, but they gotta worry about people like Mike Lawler. Is a Jim Jordan speakership going to help or hurt Mike Lawler, and other people in swing districts get re-elected, so they can stay in the majority next time?
. . .
And I know I probably upset some progressives yesterday by saying, you know, maybe you think about protecting the institution, and you keep the guy who's not going to deep six Ukraine funding and don't replace him with Jim Jordan.
But, yeah, we can't expect [Democrat House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries to come out and say, "please vote for Kevin Mccarthy."
But if you [begins shouting] are in the Problem Solvers Caucus, a caucus that is meant to protect the institution of the United States Congress, do you not, as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, go, "Hey, guys, why don't we all just vote present on the Democratic side?" We'll keep McCarthy in there, we'll keep him on a short leash, we'll let him know that, if, if, you know -- and, then, suddenly, you have a small group of people that have power!
I will say, there were about 12 -- you [Michael Steele] remember when I was there. We had 12, 13, 14 people --
MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and we had a disproportionate amount of power, but we used it wisely. You know: that doesn't work, this works, let's figure out how to compromise.
So the Problem Solvers were actually in a position where they could have saved McCarthy, gone to him and kept him on a short leash.They can say, "you didn't ask us to do this. We're not going to do it again if, if you, if you keep moving forward in a way that's destructive to the institution."
But they didn't do it. So why is there a Problem Solvers Caucus --
STEELE: -- that didn't solve the problem?
SCARBOROUGH: If they just went, whoop!, and let one of the worst crises in recent House history go by 'em?
