House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will again run for Speaker, after narrowly losing the nomination to Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) just days ago.

His challenger will be Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), who filed to run Friday.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Was just looking this guy up:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Scott_(politician)

    He's clearly Conservative on social issues. Most Lemmings here won't like him. But among his "political stances" listed on Wikipedia are:

    • Condemned the Jan 6 violence
    • Attended Biden's inauguration

    Which shows how far gone we really are if "Condemned insurrection against the US Congress" and "Acknowledged the result of a lawful election" are now Political Stances.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy shit. He's not an active traitor and he wants the basics of our government to work. That's the best we're going to get out of the Republicans.

      • silicon_reverie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don't know that I'd go that far when characterizing his record.

        Yes, he ultimately ended up certifying the election, but he also signed the Texas v Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to help throw out millions of votes (despite the suit lacking any sort of standing, and being "constitutionally, legally[,] and factually wrong about Georgia" in the words of Georgia's AG, which rings pretty true when you read the brief). When he did finally vote to certify, the GOP letter he signed very clearly implies things would have gone differently if he had been allowed to vote for the slate of obvious fraudsters that were stopped before they made it to Congress. There was a long line of fundamental safeguards that prevented the illegal toppling of the government, every one of which was stressed to its breaking point (mostly with Austin Scott's help), and any of which could have tipped the scales, but Scott wasn't exactly on the side pushing for Democracy. That said, you're right. At least he did better than Jordan, I guess?

        For the record, Scott's other political stances are:

        • Life begins at conception so abortion at any stage for any reason is murder
        • Pro death penalty
        • Anti gun control
        • Anti same-sex marriage, let alone the raft of other LGBT issues

        So… several decades and a few million voters removed from where the actual American population stands, and farther to the right than even mainstream fiscal conservatives, but that's par for the course these days.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Condemned the Jan 6 violence Attended Biden’s inauguration

      The Right wouldn't support him for being such a traitor to their Confederate cause.

    • insomniac@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      He also supported Texas’ attempt to sue Pennsylvania over the 2021 election like a dumb dumb. He’s only marginally less human garbage than jungle gym but I guess that’s where we’re at.

    • eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So he’s not a traitor, it seems. That’s a significant step above the rest of the republican filth.

  • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To save anyone time, Scott opposes any abortion, women's rights, LGBTQ+ anything of the sort, any gun control, and voted against the violence against women act.

    He does support aid to Ukraine, so there is one, and only one, tic in the "Pros" column.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You're not going to find a hell of a lot of "pros" in the House GOP as a whole. I'll settle for whoever has the least cons. And while this guy may be a discriminatory pig, at the very least he's not a MAGA-loving discriminatory pig. I know that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but from what we've seen from the GOP lately, any step up is noteworthy.

      There's not going to be a "good" GOP candidate. We're just hoping for "least shitty". And someone who hasn't drank the Trump Kool Aid is at least a step up from McCarthy.

      • Conyak@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps I’m missing something but why would you have to settle for any GOP candidate at this point? I mean unless you support the party itself why settle for the best of the worst at all when they don’t have a chance of getting elected with the Q cult refusing to support him?

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because both halves of the party would let the world burn before they voted for a Democrat for speaker. They may not have the first clue who they want, but they can all agree that it won't be a Democrat. It's going to be a Republican, one way or the other. The best we can hope for is "least shitty option", And right now, Austin "I'm only partially bigoted" Scott is the least shitty option that's been put forth.

          • Conyak@lemmy.tf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are 212 Democrat house members and 217 votes are needed to elect a speaker. Getting 5 moderate Republicans to vote with Democrats seems just as plausible to me as getting the Republicans to agree right now.

      • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good points, I missed that when looking him up. Terrible person that at least occupies the same reality. Sometimes I still can't believe this is where we are.

    • eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This might be the best you’ll do when the choice must be made from a menagerie of disgusting traitor filth.

      • silicon_reverie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This might be the best choice

        There are lots of choices that could be made. Off the top of my head, there's the choice to form a consensus government of the middle half so that the essential functions of government are taken care of, like paying for services they've already signed into law, approving military leadership appointments for the hundreds of vacancies in our armed forces, and ensuring that pregnant women and disabled veterans on food stamps don't starve when the "Freedom Caucus" tries to intentionally shut down the government (again) even though the GOP already agreed to spending levels. Because remember, the Senate and White House are both controlled by Democrats, so the only way they can sign something into law is with a consensus involving the other side, and there's actual work to be done.

        Your premise that a divided GOP is required to rely on themselves alone is something they did to themselves by choice over and over again.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Roman Senate under Caligula was less weird – and one of the members was actually a horse.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, it could be worse.

    The guy takes the usual GOP positions on most issues but at least doesn't seem to have drank the MAGA kool-aid in the process. Of all the people they've talked about, this guy by far is the least shitty so far. I'm not saying he's "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but if I had a gun to my head I'd take him over any of the other ones who threw their hat in the ring.

    I'm actually kinda hoping he gets it because (a) he's better than Jordan, (b) nobody else wants the job, and © any other option the GOP were to put forth would likely be significantly worse.

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jordan doesn't have the votes to win the floor vote. He's DOA. What needs to happen is someone from the moderate wing to make a power-sharing deal with the Dems. It's the only way they get the house moving again.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I've been saying that since forever but the problem is, as Republicans, they aren't really interested in getting the House moving, ever. If there were a small cadre of RINOs who were willing to go to the Dems and offer to really work with them to pass bipartisan bills and push through the backlogged daily business like military appointments, they could probably get most of the Dems to agree to elect their candidate, because Dems do want government to succeed. But such a cadre doesn't exist, just the old hardliners and the MAGA deplorables. So the Dems stick with Hakeem Jeffries, because they have nothing to gain for themselves or the country by making it easier for the GOP.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Scalise bowed out late Thursday when it became apparent he would not garner the 217 votes needed to earn the gavel. Internal division and opposition led to his withdrawal, coming just a day after he won the party’s nomination.

    Such a fetid clownwreck.