The explanation that has come closest to convincing me and think is the most likely is that Kevin McCarthy miscalculated twice: (a) he thought that the Democrats in the House would vote against his clean-but-no-Ukraine surprise snap continuing resolution, and (b) he thought that House Democrats would not vote to vacate the chair because they would believe the “I’m lying to my caucus: ultimately I’ll cut the deal you want with you” pitch he made to them, and thus acquiesce in his continued Speakership.
What would the point have been of getting Democrats to block his clean-but-no-Ukraine surprise snap continuing resolution? It is that in the eyes of Kevin McCarthy and company Ukrainians are the new transsexuals: a set of people whom Democrats can be pinned to be seen to support, and that then it will be easy to use the right-wing grifting media Würlitzer to make that support unpopular. Why can Democrats be pinned to publicly support transsexuals (and Ukrainians). Because the Democrats are not monsters. What was supposed to have happened? House Democrats were supposed, in McCarthy’s mind, to have blocked his continuing resolution. And then Republican legislators and the ight-wing grifting media Würlitzer would have gone to town on “the Democrats shut down the government because they care more about Ukrainians than they do about you”. And McCarthy was surprised when the Democrats did not take the bait:
Aaron Fritschner: ‘On Saturday morning we had no idea what was happening. Scalise told the GOP they were moving bills that signaled imminent shutdown. This is what we expected. Then McCarthy suddenly and unexpectedly did an about face and announced a vote on a CR. We didn't know what to make of it. How to interpret this? McCarthy has resisted doing this all along, the wingnuts threatened to kick him out if he did it and he was running every play at their call. My immediate read was he wanted and expected us to vote against the suspension so we would be blamed for a shutdown…. So in this moment, you look to McCarthy for signals—And what signals is McCarthy sending us? Dems: “We would like to read the $200 billion, 71-page bill we've never seen. You promised 72 hours but we'll settle for 90 minutes.” Dems: “well we are going to take that time, but we are satisfied, we'll pass your bill to help you get out of the jam you created for yourself”. McCarthy: “the Democrats wanted to shut down the government and f*ck the troops!”:
It seems clear to me that McCarthy still has the “the Democrats shut down the government because they would rather pay the Ukrainians than pay our troops” talking point he was going to use after the continuing resolution failed, and never figured out what he really wanted to say once it had succeeded and the Senate—over the strong objections of McConnell, Bennet, and a bunch of others—acquiesced.
Why did McConnell think that House Democrats would not vote to vacate the chair? Well, it is what a bunch of Republicans thought—apparently including Gaetz-the-Moron. We have a very weird piece two days ago from Andrew Solender on October 1:
Andrew Solender: Gaetz’s plan to oust McCarthy meets chilly Dem reception: ‘What they’re saying: “I'm not going to follow Matt Gaetz to Peter Luger's Steakhouse,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a member of the Progressive Caucus. Cohen said McCarthy “shouldn't be put out” for putting a bipartisan stopgap funding bill on the floor: “He did the right thing … and I'll definitely vote not to vacate. I expect a good number of Democrats will as well.” Every time we work together, he loses his mind,” Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said of Gaetz…. “I see almost no way that Matt gets most of the Dems,” said one senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Many will vote present if they don't vote No on [House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’] recommendation”…
As Aaron Fritschner (again) writes:
Aaron Fritschner: ‘The supposed “institutional interest” would have us not only put out Republicans' many fires for them, it would have us do so based on our specific belief and trust that *McCarthy is lying [to his own caucus]*. Like, his lying is supposed to be a good thing, and what sells the arrangement for us. A speakership founded upon Democrats' trust that McCarthy will lie to his own guys and not to us is not rational, folks! It isn't sustainable or reasonable and it's no way to run the House. We needed him to give us any reason to help him and he very intentionally did not do so. People say "he couldn't make a deal it would compromise his power" and they're just wrong, that was a solvable problem. He could jave publicly or privately given us a sense the CR was good faith and we were going to get through the omnibus, stave off a shutdown, and help Ukraine. This came down to trust, and that's the word I saw and heard from House Democrats more than any other word. We did not trust Kevin McCarthy and he gave us no reason to. He could have done so (and I suspect saved his gavel) through fairly simple actions. He chose not to do that. Even after all that happened—January 6th, the debt limit crisis, his vengeance against our members, breaking his word to the President, impeachment, empowering the right wing—there were Democrats who were imho willing to help McCarthy if he had given them a reason. He didn't…
As Jack Pitney writes:
Jack Pitney: ‘I thought Dems might vote present to keep McCarthy dangling. But in hindsight, censuring Schiff and bouncing Schiff and Swalwell from the Intel Committee united the Dems in their loathing and contempt for him. They do not see him as honorable or trustworthy—because he isn't…
