January 3rd was the first day of the new session of Congress for 2023. In the fall elections, voters elected a majority of Republicans giving them control of the House of Representatives. As is always the case, the first order of business is to elect a Speaker. The former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is a Democrat and in the minority Party. Republicans must elect their own Speaker for the next two years. This is something that is almost pro forma—in the pre-Trump era at least.
Republicans made history today, Jan 3rd, by not electing a Speaker on opening day. In fact, it has been 100 years since the Speaker was not elected on the first ballot on the first day. Warren Harding was president last time more than one ballot was required.
Voters elected a Republican majority in the Congress because they wanted change. They got change, but not necessarily the kind of change they wanted.
Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican from California, was the minority leader during the last session. He was expected to become the new Speaker. There was not even any speculation in the media that there may be a challenge.
The names of the Members of the House were called in alphabetical order, and each member stated their choice for Speaker. Democrats all voted for Rep. Hakim Jeffries of Ney York as Speaker knowing he would not be elected Speaker. Voting for him was symbolic only. He will be the Minority Leader for the next two years.
A funny thing happened on the way to McCarthy’s coronation. He only received 203 votes—not a majority. Another Republican, Rep Andy Biggs of Arizona, was also nominated and on the first ballot. He received 10 votes. Nine votes went to other Republicans—enough to deprive Kevin McCarthy a majority. So, a second ballot was required. This time, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio was also nominated. McCarthy received 203 votes; Jordan received 19.
If at first (and second) you don’t succeed, try again. In round three, McCarthy actually lost a vote to Jordan. So. another ballot is required. The Republicans adjourned the House until, noon Wednesday to give themselves time to sort this out. The likelihood of the Trump-backed 20 Republicans backing down is slight at best.
Rep. Jim Jordan continues to tell his fellow Republicans he does not want the job. He maintains his support for McCarthy. Perhaps they had a deal.
McCarthy has already given the conservatives almost all that they asked for so that well may be dry. One strategy that is certainly under consideration by the McCarthy wing is to work with Democrats to get enough votes to elect him. One thing Democrats may want from McCarthy is to change the rules, making it easier for them to push their agenda.
It is also likely that deals are being cut for future favors to Republicans from a Speaker McCarthy. It is also quite likely that big contributors of Republican holdouts may pressure those members to vote for McCarthy. It is possible another compromise candidate may emerge, but not likely.
The right-wing hardliners say they are not backing down. Their group includes luminaries like Colorado’s Representative Lauren Boebert, Arizona’s Paul Gosar, and Florida’s Matt Gaetz. They join thirteen other far-right Republicans
Meanwhile, moderate Republicans are talking to Democrats to see if a coalition might be structured to elect a more moderate Republican Speaker with Democratic and some Republican votes if the rules changes do not work. McCarthy said he is not backing down. Noon Wednesday is not very far away.
Stay tuned for the next episode of How Republicans Govern.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Robert Bowen and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Divided Government
In the 2022 elections, voters chose a divided government. Voters elected 222 Republicans to the House of Representatives and 213 Democrats giving Republicans control. They gave a one seat majority (51-49) to Democrats in the Senate. The White House remains in the hands of a Democrat, Joe Biden. The presidential election is not until 2024. The members of Congress for the next two years will be sworn in on Tuesday January 3rd.
By Robert Bowen3 years ago in The Swamp
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in The Swamp
Wild Card Weekend Recap: What Happens Now?
I think I figured out why I love Wild Card Weekend so much. It's because it's the first playoff anything of the calendar year. The NFL season starts in the fall, and once upon a time, the champion was crowned either on or slightly before New Year's. The evolution of the NFL schedule has resulted in the playoffs starting just into the New Year, and currently, the final week of the season falls on the first weekend of the New Year, with Wild Card Weekend coming a week after that. So yes, chronologically, the NFL's Wild Card Weekend serves as the first playoff anything of the calendar year.
By Clyde E. Dawkins2 days ago in Unbalanced
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.