McCarthy didn't want Dems to save him, but does GOP need them to save the House? ANALYSIS
Sure, Democrats had little reason to trust Kevin McCarthy.
From the House GOP impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden based on, by their own admission, allegations instead of actual evidence … to the fact that under McCarthy's leadership the country most recently came to the brink of a government shutdown and, before that, a credit default that could have shaken the world economy ... to McCarthy's comments on Sunday, blaming Democrats after they helped pass a temporary funding bill to keep Washington open ... on top of McCarthy's changing stance on Trump and Jan. 6 -- add all that up, and there has not exactly been mutual respect or a healthy relationship across the aisle.
But imagine, for a second, that some Democrats put all that aside to consider helping McCarthy survive the motion to oust him on Tuesday:
What could they have asked for? What could they still ask for in exchange for lending Republicans some votes in the ongoing intraparty fight -- with the House now leader-less and conservatives in disarray?
Or the reverse: Imagine, as McCarthy conceded he could have done, that he agreed to make a deal with Democrats to maintain his role and avoid the chaos currently unfolding on Capitol Hill. Imagine that he agreed to rely on their support to reverse some of the changes to the chamber that he allowed in order to win the gavel in the first place -- changes that have fueled the ongoing drama in Washington.
Had that happened ... what could the House now be working on, instead of having to focus on electing a replacement for McCarthy?
On Sunday morning, after the government shutdown was narrowly averted by way of the bipartisan compromise that essentially cost McCarthy his job, prominent Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez acknowledged the possibility of helping him survive but told CNN's Jake Tapper she was against it. "I don't think we give something away for free … It comes at a price. You don't just vote for a Republican speaker for nothing."
Some Democrats in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus say they had been imagining the possibility of working together to save McCarthy -- and hoped to engage McCarthy's team on changes to the rules that govern the House.
For example, what about getting rid of that one rule that allows for a single member to bring up a motion to vacate and sack the speaker, as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., just did to McCarthy?
Or a change to the composition of the powerful Rules Committee? The panel sets the procedures through which key chamber business is conducted and which right now, despite the fact that the House is very narrowly divided, has nine Republican members and only four Democrats.
Some Democrats, we are learning, tried to float some of these ideas and could have been tempted, at least, to cross the aisle and engage with Republicans had the result paved the way for bipartisanship and more functional legislating. Some in House Democratic circles still wonder if they should work with Republicans, without McCarthy, to pursue these changes down the road.
As one senior House aide within the Problem Solvers Caucus put it, "The rules package was written by and for extremists. What if it were written with bipartisanship in mind?"
The goal, in that hypothetical, would not be to change the rules just for the sake of it but to facilitate more bipartisan bills getting through or at least getting a moment in the sun. Changing the rules, could, in theory let bills that have a majority of support get a vote.
Comprehensive immigration reform? A new debt commission? Ukraine funding? Universal background checks on gun purchases?
Everyone in Washington knows the list of bills and subject areas that have widespread public support and bipartisan backing -- but that are too often shelved because of one faction or another in one party or another.
Forget the huge topics. A quick search on Govtrack.us shows a number of bills with large bipartisan support that have not yet moved in the House.
The Social Security Fairness Act of 2023 has 294 co-sponsors (remember a majority in the House is only 218). That means, in this case, 200 Democrats and 94 Republicans have put their name on this bill back it, let alone how many might vote for it, if given the chance. The bill would change Social Security regulations to not punish recipients who receive other benefits, such as "a pension from a state or local government."
Then there's The GUARD VA Benefits Act, with 103 Democrats and 43 Republicans listed as co-sponsors to up the fines for any attempts at defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs around benefits.
Here are two more bills with long lists of bipartisan co-sponsors, both around Medicare -- to make it easier to pay for cancer screenings and to help breast cancer patients.
This is not to say that any of these bills would sail through the House should the rules change, or that they won't still get a vote now under the current rules. But right now, just considering co-sponsors alone, for argument's sake, they do not have a majority of Republicans on board though they do have cross-over appeal.
It was the very notion of relying on bipartisan votes to govern that Gaetz cited publicly this week as his main grievance against McCarthy (even as the speaker insisted Gaetz was driven by personal motives). Gaetz pointed to a recent vote on Ukraine funding that was allowed to go forward, which had the support of a majority in Congress but only a minority of Republicans, as an example of what he called McCarthy's treasonous behavior.
"You cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority, certainly not on something as consequential as Ukraine," Gaetz said on the House floor in the final hours before moving to remove McCarthy.
House Democrats have largely said that McCarthy's team barely engaged in any options to win over their votes.
Maybe he saw the writing on the wall, had already caved or simply did not want to be elected to that role with bipartisan support. Taking Democratic help would have also meant paying a price that maybe he was just simply not interested in, even if he could have kept the gavel.
"I'm not asking for any special deal or anything else," McCarthy said on CNBC ahead of the vote.
Plus, while McCarthy's downfall could have been potentially averted if he had struck deals with several isolated Democrats, plenty of other Democrats weren't exactly eager to help for a whole host of other reasons. Any cooperation on their end could undercut efforts to win back the majority, and members on both sides are always running for reelection.
Still, while McCarthy might be out, no new speaker is yet in. It is possible there is still an opening for other Republicans to work with centrist Democrats on changing the House rules.
Assuming the same hard-line conservatives that demanded the rules be rewritten in the first place -- like how only one member can bring a vote to kick out a speaker -- hold firm, any changes will take bipartisan votes. That is to say, there could be an in, a tiny crack in the door, to let bipartisanship in solely, at first, in the name of making the place more governable.
And if enough members take that opening, who knows what else they could get done?
