Anchor Baby Cartoons

Harry Reid's 1993 claim that 'no sane country' would provide birthright citizenship fuels GOP immigration push

Top Republicans are pointing to an impassioned 1993 speech by then-Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, in which the future Democratic Senate majority leader argued that "no sane country" would award citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born on its soil and promoted his own legislation to end the practice here.
President Trump ignited a national debate on the topic this week when, speaking to "Axios on HBO," he announced his intention to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which he called "ridiculous."
In his speech, Reid concurred, although he advocated passing a law to enact the change -- one that would grant citizenship only to the children of mothers in the U.S. legally.
"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right?" Reid said. "Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services."
He continued: "Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

"No sane country would do that, right?"
— Fmr. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on birthright citizenship

Reid reversed his position in 1999 and apologized for his stance, shortly after the union group AFL-CIO, which holds significant political sway nationally and in Nevada, changed its position to support birthright citizenship. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Reid has since called his speech "way up high" on his "list of mistakes," and in 2006 he referred to it as a "low point" of his legislative career.
FORMER US ATTORNEY: TRUMP 'RIGHT ON THE SUBSTANCE' ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, BUT EXECUTIVE ORDER IS WRONG APPROACH
Within hours of the clip surfacing, Republican leaders were quick to highlight Democrats' changing tune on immigration.
"Stopping the flow of illegal immigration used to be a bipartisan issue," GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote on Twitter. "But the Democrat leaders of today want to abolish ICE and open our borders."
Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin reposted an article about Reid's speech.
In terms of giving unwitting political fodder for Republicans on immigration, Reid has some high-profile company. Earlier this month, President Trump gleefully quoted then-Sen. Barack Obama's comments in 2005, when he declared that "we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.” (Obama, in those comments, went on to advocate for providing some legal status for illegal immigrants.)
But not all Republicans are speaking with one voice after Trump's proposal. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., said Tuesday that Trump has no authority to use an executive order to unilaterally resolve the issue, which many legal experts say is controlled not only by the 14th Amendment, but also by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952.
It might be possible, some conservatives argue, for a new law passed by Congress to revise the INA and still comport with the Constitution, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Republicans are advancing the theory that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. within the meaning of that provision, which would give Congress the legal daylight to pass a law codifying Trump's view.
"On substance, I believe President Trump is right on birthright citizenship — the 14th Amendment does not require it," wrote former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy. "I do not believe, however, that the president may change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been in effect for decades, by executive order, as he is reportedly contemplating."
While the new 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court might seem sympathetic to the president's interpretation, the change would mark an apparent, abrupt departure from tradition -- and tradition is what then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cited as a guiding principle when interpreting the Constitution.

Trump's birthright citizenship interview sparks the media reaction he wanted Howard Kurtz

I'll leave it to the legal scholars to debate the fine points, but it’s no accident that one week before the midterms, President Trump says he wants to revoke birthright citizenship.
Sure, he did it in an interview with Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Swan of Axios for the premiere of the website's string of HBO specials. And yes, Trump expressed surprise that the journalists, who had been digging into the issue, knew about his secret plan to move against the practice.
But the president easily could have deflected the question. Presented with the opportunity, he wanted this out there as a pre-election message.
For Trump to speak of eliminating the practice where illegal immigrants can arrange to have babies in this country, and they automatically become American citizens, is very much part of his eleventh-hour push on immigration. At a time when he has been pounding away at the Central American caravan — at least until that narrative was interrupted by terror attacks — birthright citizenship is shrewdly targeted to his base.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told Axios.
When pressed, he said that "you can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order ... It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
The president made this argument: "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits."
That is wrong. As the New York Times points out, "dozens of other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump's advisers often cite."
There is also the not insignificant matter of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to citizens and permanent legal residents.
What's interesting to me is that the right fiercely objected when Barack Obama used his executive power to stop the deportation of the dreamers, saying this was a horrible abuse of presidential authority. They did have a point that Obama was trying to accomplish with a pen what he could not get passed into law, which is why the issue remains unresolved and Trump can threaten to expel younger immigrants unless Congress acts.
But I'm not expecting a whole lot of pushback from conservatives who don't like birthright citizenship. Both parties object to sweeping executive orders when they oppose the policy in question, and justify it as a reasonable exercise of power when a president of their party does it.
One exception is Paul Ryan, who said yesterday in a radio interview: "Well, you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. We didn't like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously, as conservatives, we believe in the Constitution." Of course, it's easier for the House speaker to object because he'll be gone in January.
You can get the flavor of the mainstream media coverage with this CNN on-screen headline: "TRUMP CLAIMS HE CAN DEFY CONSTITUTION, END U.S. BIRTHRIGHT."
Now I understand why many people find the practice unfair, with many illegal immigrants flocking here on temporary visas or through other means to have their babies in U.S. hospitals. And it's worthy of debate. But the constitutional obstacle means it would probably be tied up in lengthy lawsuits.
That doesn't matter for Trump, at least not right now. The president, who recently complained that the media were so busy covering terror attacks that they were interrupting GOP momentum in the midterms, has his eye on Nov. 6. And by making the over-the-top claim that he can easily do this with the stroke of a pen, he guaranteed the kind of coverage he needs to broadcast the issue to his supporters.
Footnote: Trump used an interview with Fox's Laura Ingraham in part to push back at some critics in the media.
The president responded to the Washington Post headline the day after the Pittsburgh synagogue slaughter, "Critics Say Trump Has Fostered the Toxic Environment for the Political Violence He Denounces."
"I was in the headline of the Washington Post, my name associated with this crazy bomber. 'Trump bomber' or something, but I was in the headline when they got him ... They didn't do that with Bernie Sanders ... They didn't do that with President Obama with the church, the horrible situation with the church" in South Carolina, he said.
Ingraham also asked him about GQ correspondent Julia Ioffe, who first blamed Trump for the Pittsburgh massacre and then said on CNN that he had "radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did."
Trump said Ioffe "must be some kind of sick woman."
I still can't believe that Ioffe, who has also worked for the Atlantic and Politico, said that. But she said she was sorry later in Jake Tapper's show, and repeated that on Twitter:
"I clarified and apologized on air, but I'll say it again here. This has been a very emotional and painful time, but I absolutely should not have gone with such hyperbole on the air. I apologize."

Trump's visit to Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue shows he is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism

President Trump’s visit Tuesday to the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh – where an anti-Semitic gunman murdered 11 Jews gathered in prayer Saturday – was an important gesture that symbolized national mourning and unity in the face of a horrific tragedy.
The visit showed President Trump’s deep concern for the welfare of America’s Jewish community and followed a long tradition of presidential visits to the scenes of mass murders and natural disasters. On occasions like this, presidents of both parties have led the nation in mourning terrible losses of American lives.
In another gesture, President Trump ordered that flags at federal buildings around the nation to fly at half-staff this week in respect for the dead at the synagogue. In addition to the 11 Jews who were murdered, six people – including four courageous police officers – were wounded in the attack.
The president’s visit to the Pittsburgh synagogue – accompanied by first lady Melania Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner – drew criticism by some and brought out about 1,000 protesters.

Assigning blame to President Trump for the scourge of anti-Semitism that has infected society for millennia – and scoring political points on the graves of 11 murdered Jews – is reprehensible.

Yet I’m sure that many Americans Jews felt, as I felt, that the visit by President Trump and members of his family was deeply heartening and an acknowledgment that the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history cried out for the presence of our nation’s leader to show that hatred of Jews has no place in our country and is un-American. 
President Trump’s visit was not a surprise at this painful time. He – and the Republican Party as a whole – have always condemned anti-Semitism, supported the Jewish community, and been dependable friends and allies of Israel.
The attack on the Tree of Life synagogue has called forth two very different responses. One is an outpouring of comfort, solidarity, and compassion from Americans of every religion and background. That is the best possible response in the face of the anguish we feel at this sad time.
As an American Jew, who feels pain whenever Jews anywhere are hurt, I am grateful for the sympathy and friendship I have received from non-Jewish friends, neighbors and even strangers on the street in the wake of the mass murder at the synagogue.
President Trump should be acknowledged for the leadership he has shown in his responses to the synagogue attack. His strong statements condemning anti-Semitism demonstrated a true understanding of the nature of the evil that took those precious lives in Pittsburgh.
The president called out anti-Semitism as a poison that “must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears.”
President Trump sent two senior members of his administration, Jason Greenblatt and Avi Berkowitz, to Pittsburgh. In addition, the president and his family members were accompanied on their visit to the synagogue by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer.
Anti-Semitism is an ancient evil that sadly rears its ugly head in many parts of the world. In America, we’ve seen President Trump and the Republican Party loudly and consistently reject anti-Semitism and those who espouse it, including white supremacist fringe candidates who have tried to run for office as Republicans. Such people have no place in the Republican Party.
We’ve seen President Trump implement a pro-Israel agenda that goes beyond the historic diplomatic, intelligence and defense cooperation of our strong and very important strategic alliance with Israel.
President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. embassy there. That’s something that previous American presidents had promised – but never done.
In ways large and small, too many to list, President Trump has deepened and strengthened the U.S.-Israel relationship that is so beneficial to both countries.
This makes it all the more painful and disturbing to see the second response to the Pittsburgh shooting that has filled the mainstream media and social media – a flood of bitter, hateful, politically motivated rhetoric trying to assign the blame for the murder of 11 American Jews to our president. 
Assigning blame to President Trump for the scourge of anti-Semitism that has infected society for millennia – and scoring political points on the graves of 11 murdered Jews – is reprehensible.
Anti-Semitism is not new. It is one of the oldest hatreds in the world and has caused the deaths of millions of people. And it still kills today.
While the attack in Pittsburgh is the largest loss of life in an anti-Semitic attack on American soil, it is not the first such deadly incident. Between 1990 and 2015, a dozen people were killed in six anti-Semitic shooting attacks. And there have been many more anti-Semitic attacks that left American Jews injured, but thankfully still alive.
These terrible attacks did not start when Donald Trump became president. Pretending that he is somehow responsible for anti-Semitism in America makes it much harder to confront hatred of Jews and stop it.
Anti-Semitism is not a feature of the Republican Party or the mainstream right. Nor is it usually found among mainstream Democrats and independents.
Anti-Semitism is incubated at the extremes, where neo-Nazis and leftwing progressive radicals live, and where religious, racial and ethnic prejudice sow hatred against the “other.” Ever since our forefather Abraham proclaimed the One God in biblical times, Jews have been the chief “other” of history. When extremism is on the rise, our community suffers.
When leftwing organizations like Bend the Arc and J Street attempt to blame President Trump for the deaths in Pittsburgh, they contribute to hatred and division precisely when compassion and unity are needed. They should appeal to the best in our community and our country to stand together against hate, not to seek political gain from the murders of Jews.
Sadly, we can’t go back and erase the terrible events that turned the Tree of Life synagogue into a crime scene of death. But we can come together as Americans – Jews and non-Jews alike – to speak with one voice and to act with one purpose: to condemn anti-Semitism in unison and stop it from destroying any more lives.

Border Patrol warns Texas landowners about ‘possible armed civilians’ in area due to caravan: report

The U.S. Border Patrol this week reportedly told Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border to prepare for a possible influx of "armed civilians" on their property as the migrant caravan moves closer to the U.S., a report said.
The Associated Press reported that these civilians say they intend to support the National Guard and Border Patrol to prevent the illegal migrants from crossing into the U.S.
But some see the move as a negative, arguing that the armed civilians' presence would add even more tension should there be a confrontation.
Three activists told the AP they were going to the border or organizing others, and groups on Facebook have posted warnings about the caravan. One said it was “imperative that we have boots on the ground.” Another wrote: “WAR! SECURE THE BORDER NOW!”
President Trump tweeted on Monday, "This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!"
Shannon McGauley, president of the Texas Minuteman militia, told the AP that he already has members at three points of the state's border and expects 25 to 100 more people to arrive in the coming days.
Militia members and volunteers patrolling the border is a practice that has been in place for decades. Usually, the civilians patrol the border and look out for illegal border crossers. Once they spot a trespasser, the civilians usually contact the Border Patrol to apprehend them. (The Border Patrol is the law enforcement branch of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.)
This practice has not been without problems. In 2009, a militia member Shawna Forde killed two U.S. citizens, Raul and Brisenia Flores, during a raid on what she thought was a drug house near the border in Arizona.
Residents in a small Arizona town have posted signs saying these militias are not welcome. One resident told the Arizona Republic that she has an anti-militia sign in her yard because she “wants everybody to be aware that we do not want the militias.”
People from other states have raised money to assist the militias with supplies and equipment. The militias are expected to bring guns and tactical gear, such as bulletproof vests.
Marianna Trevino Wright, a South Texas resident, told the Yucatan Times that she is concerned about the arrival of militias.
"We go about our business here every day in a peaceful manner," she told the paper. "The idea that we could be invaded not by illegal immigrants but by militia groups … is regrettable, and it will end badly."

"We go about our business here every day in a peaceful manner. The idea that we could be invaded not by illegal immigrants but by militia groups … is regrettable, and it will end badly."
— Marianna Trevino Wright, a South Texas resident

The report said it is unclear how many militia members will arrive at the border to face the first caravan, which is currently estimated to include some 4,000 people — mostly citizens of Honduras — who seek to enter the U.S. to improve their economic situation.
The caravan is currently about 1,000 miles south of the border and estimated to be more than a week from arriving there.
President Trump has announced the deployment of 5,000 troops along the border, in a move that has been criticized by some as a pre-election stunt.
Trump told Fox News on Monday that the migrants are "wasting their time" and vowed, "they are not coming in."
Trump spoke to "The Ingraham Angle" hours after the Pentagon announced it would deploy troops to the southern border in what the commander of U.S. Northern Command described as an effort to "harden the southern border" by stiffening defenses at and near legal entry points.
"When they are captured, we don't let them out," Trump told host Laura Ingraham. "We're not letting them out ... We're not catching, we're not releasing. ... We're not letting them into this country."

schumer & pelosi cartoons

McCaskill swipes at Warren, Sanders when asked about 'crazy Democrats'

Speaking exclusively to Fox News on Monday, vulnerable incumbent Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill dropped the names of two high-profile colleagues, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, when asked to identify the "crazy Democrats" from whom her campaign has distanced itself in recent days. McCaskill said she wouldn't call the two "crazy," but noted they had disagreements with each other.
The Missouri senator also sounded some full-throated support for the president's tough talk on the incoming migrant caravan from Central America, as well as the administration's crackdown on what it's called endemic fraudulent asylum claims.
McCaskill unveiled a new radio advertisement last week in which a narrator assured constituents, "Claire's not one of those crazy Democrats."
"The crazy Democrats are people who walk in restaurants and scream in elected officials' faces," McCaskill told "Special Report" anchor Bret Baier. In recent weeks, progressive activists have hounded Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell as they ate dinner, as well as Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
"We have a state senator here in Missouri that actually advocated for the assassination of President Trump. That's a crazy Democrat," McCaskill continued, referring to state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who was censured for her comments last year. "I don't do those things. I am not somebody who thinks that we should ever be uncivil."
When Baier asked if McCaskill had any "crazy" colleagues in the Senate, McCaskill referenced Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, considered a potential 2020 presidential contender.

"I would not call my colleagues crazy, but Elizabeth Warren sure went after me."
— Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

"Well, I would say this," McCaskill replied. "I would not call my colleagues crazy, but Elizabeth Warren sure went after me when I advocated tooling back some of the regulations for small banks and credit unions."
In a fiery speech on the Senate floor earlier this year, Warren blasted Republicans and “far too many Democrats” for "locking arms to do the bidding of the big banks." President Trump signed the bipartisan measure rolling back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which he called a "crippling" web of regulation that decimated the viability of local banks.
McCaskill went on to float Sanders' name, although she didn't specify exactly why: "I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders on a bunch of stuff, um, so I'm not afraid. So I don't know those kinds of things which do separate me, I think, from some of the knee-jerk folks that just are against the president no matter what."
Democrats largely have offered mixed, muted messaging on the caravan, with top Democrats accusing Trump of irresponsible rhetoric or trying to change the subject from topics such as health care.
However, McCaskill was forceful: "I think the president has to use every tool he has at his disposal," she said. "And I --100 percent -- back him up on that. Whether it is turning them back because we are not equipped to handle that many asylum claims into our system -- and by the way that's one of the issues here. ... When somebody comes across the border and they ask us for asylum. The law says we need to hear him, but we're waiting way too long to hear it. We need to hear him right away. So I do not want our borders overrun. And I support the president's efforts to make sure they're not."
Approximately 5,200 U.S. troops will be deploying to the southern border in response to the migrant caravan pushing north through Mexico, U.S. officials told Fox News on Monday.
JEFF SESSIONS ANNOUNCES NEW RULES ON ASYLUM CLAIMS, SAYS MOST CLAIMS ARE FRAUDULENT
The RealClearPolitics (RCP) polling average in Missouri now shows Republican Senate candidate Josh Hawley leading McCaskill by 2 points, based on a new poll released Saturday by the Missouri Scout showing Hawley up by 4 points.
McCaskill, who has fought to portray herself as a mainstream candidate in a state Trump won by double digits in 2016, had consistently but narrowly led in the race earlier this year. Still, she has come under withering attacks from Hawley that she is a "party-line liberal," especially in light of her vote against Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Fox News currently considers the race a toss-up.
"I think the vote against Kavanaugh was going to be tough, no matter what," McCaskill told Baier. "My decision had nothing to do with the allegations that were made against Judge Kavanaugh, or Justice Kavanaugh now. My problem with him was his opinion that he wrote saying that he thinks foreign money should be allowed into ads that influence our elections and that there should be no limits on any contributions to campaigns."
Baier pointed out that McCaskill has voted against both of Trump's Supreme Court nominees, while she backed all of former President Obama's. McCaskill countered that she had voted to approve more than 70 percent of Trump's overall federal judicial nominees.
The Missouri Democrat also equivocated on her decision to support Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid, amid comments by Clinton in New York that appeared to suggest she'd be open to another run at the White House. Trump carried Missouri by double digits.
"It's a hard question," McCaskill replied. "You know, obviously my state disagreed with me on that. I thought she certainly had the breadth and depth of experience that qualified her. But I'd rather look forward and not backward."
McCaskill, standing in front of her campaign bus during the interview, seemed ready for the Nov. 6 elections to come and go. She also appeared hopeful to put the bus behind her, literally: This summer, she attracted widespread criticism for touting her use of a massive, custom RV to tour the state, even as she attempted to hide that she was also using a private plane for travel at the same time.
"I spend a lot of time on it," McCaskill said, referring to the bus. "You know, not just now but for months on end. Can I tell you a secret? I’m a little tired of the bus. I love the people. Hugging strangers. But I've spent a lot of hours on the bus this year."
Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.

McCarthy is favorite to get speaker role if Republicans keep House, but not a shoo-in

Who will be what in the House in the 116th Congress is as muddled as it’s been in decades.
We start today with a look at the GOP leadership contests and scenarios. We’ll evaluate the Democrats later in the week.
Here’s the process. The full House votes for speaker on January 3, 2019. The winning candidate must secure an outright majority of the entire House: at least 218 votes cast by the 435 members. The Democrats will formally nominate one candidate. The Republicans another. But it’s not unusual for members of both parties to cast ballots for someone besides the formal nominees. Plus, the House Speaker doesn’t have to be a member of the body.
The House Democratic Caucus and House Republican Conference will likely meet in late November or early December to select their candidates. Only members who prevailed in the midterm election and will be part of the 116th Congress will take part in this internal election.
Who assumes the speakership in addition to who emerges as the top leaders on both sides of the aisle hinges on which party is in charge - and by how many seats - in the new Congress.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is retiring. For the GOP, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is the odds-on favorite to become speaker if Republicans maintain the majority. But there’s a reason why McCarthy isn't the speaker now.
The California Republican lacked the votes to succeed former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, when he retired three years ago. Remember, the speaker must secure an absolute majority of the entire House. McCarthy far and away held a majority of Republicans. But with the entire House voting, McCarthy appeared to lack just enough votes to become speaker due to a few Republican defections.
This is the problem for McCarthy: Let’s hypothetically say Republicans retain the House with 230 seats. All McCarthy needs in the GOP Conference vote is 116 supporters. One more than 50 percent. However, he’ll need 218 on the floor. McCarthy would likely score a majority of the Republican Conference. But McCarthy’s potential matriculation to the speakership swings on the size of a prospective Republican majority in the 116th Congress.
Factionalism dominated the House Republican Conference after the departure of Boehner. Ryan was the only figure most Republicans could universally embrace – although it took a while for Ryan to come around to wanting the job himself. McCarthy likely has a direct route to the speaker’s suite if the GOP holds the House by a substantial margin. But McCarthy’s chances diminish with each seat Republicans lose next week. McCarthy’s chances of becoming Speaker decline geometrically if Republicans salvage control of the House by just a handful of seats. That’s because there are more than five to six Republicans who would support someone besides McCarthy. In fact, this particular scenario is precisely the situation the Majority Leader faced in 2015.
But McCarthy may have a wildcard tucked into his vest: the possible support of President Trump. It’s unknown if the president would wade into a House GOP leadership contest. During this term, Mr. Trump periodically chirped about what he interpreted as deficiencies with Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken. McCarthy has worked to become the President’s most-trusted ally in leadership. An endorsement by President Trump could be just the boost McCarthy needs.
In a weird way, McCarthy may have a better shot at becoming minority leader than speaker should the GOP lose the House. The House elects the speaker on the floor. The House Republican Conference internally metes out all other leadership positions by a majority vote. For the sake of argument, imagine Republicans lose the House and dip to 212 seats. That means McCarthy - or any other successful candidate – needs the support of only 107 Republicans. Fifty percent plus one.
It may be a little warped, but losing the House could be the best outcome for McCarthy himself.
Why might McCarthy lack the votes? The biggest reason lies with the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Freedom Caucus Leader Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and leader emeritus Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, control about 40-plus votes. That’s enough to deny McCarthy the speakership right there. And guess who’s running for speaker? Jim Jordan.
Many in the Freedom Caucus don’t think the current leadership team has been aggressive enough in efforts to hold the feet of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to the fire over alleged FISA abuse and the Russia probe. Some Republicans also don’t like how the current GOP brass addressed border wall funding. Both issues could be litmus tests in the pending leadership skirmish.
There’s a reason why Jordan appears regularly on cable news and attends most if not all closed-door interviews as part of the Russia investigation. By the same token, there’s a reason why McCarthy recently unveiled a plan to fully fund the border wall. Both lawmakers are trying to court votes.
It’s unclear if Jordan could expand his universe of potential votes much beyond the Freedom Caucus. A lot of rank-and-file House Republicans don’t like the Molotov cocktail political tactics of the Freedom Caucus. That could cap Jordan’s vote total in the sixties to eighties on a good day. That also means Jordan may not command enough votes to win an official leadership race inside the GOP Conference.
But, Jordan and the Freedom Caucus could be kingmakers, whether Republicans are in the majority or minority.
That brings us to House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.
It wasn’t that long ago that many believed Scalise maxed out at the number three position in the House Republican hierarchy. But Scalise now commands extraordinary respect, adulation and sympathy among rank-and-file Republicans after taking a bullet at last year’s GOP baseball practice – and then rallying back to health.
Scalise has made it clear he won’t directly challenge McCarthy. But Scalise could become a key candidate for any leadership position – in the majority or minority – depending on McCarthy’s fate.
This is why the leadership fights could get rather interesting.
Some Republicans may try to court House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, for a spot. After all, it was Brady who navigated the choppy waters of tax reform and put a bill on the president’s desk to sign last year. The Texas Republican delegation remains the largest in the House GOP Conference. Marshalling the unanimous backing of Texas GOPers alone grants a candidate about a quarter of the votes they need in an internal House Republican leadership race.
That’s why other Texans like House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, could also emerge as factors in the leadership matrix.
GOPers widely applaud Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., the chief deputy whip, for his political acumen, granular understanding of House districts and vote-counting skills. The GOP brass leaned on McHenry during Scalise’s prolonged convalescence. McHenry could become either the chairman or top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee in the next Congress. Or McHenry could also be destined for a higher leadership post.
Other names to watch: Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio. Stivers leads the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and GOP re-election efforts this cycle. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is the former speaker of the Utah legislature. The name of Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., surfaces occasionally. Walker chairs the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest bloc of conservatives in the House. Finally, all of the names mentioned above are men. That’s where House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., comes in. That said, the district McMorris Rodgers represents is one which could flip if Democrats successfully ride a wave to the majority.
There are also some darkhorse leadership candidates. Keep an eye on Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio.
All of this is contingent upon which party controls the House and by how many votes. No one knows how this is going to turn out.
We’ll assess the Democrats leadership races next time. And be forewarned. The picture on that side of the aisle is just as confounding.