What do the rebel Republicans want?

Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives are enjoying a front row seat and eating popcorn while watching the spectacle being put on by their Republican rivals. In the meantime, they will be able to say that they made history by being part of the first hemicycle in 100 years that needed more than one vote to elect its president. And the irony is that the cause is not even down to a blue gimmick as one would normally anticipate. Conservatives were self-sufficient in blocking Kevin McCarthy's candidacy on as many as three occasions... and who knows how many more. Putting that asisde though, one has to ask themself the question, why are 20 GOP congressmen refusing to put one of their own at the head of the House?

This is not a whim or a tantrum. Dislike of McCarthy has been steadily growing among a number of conservative representatives for his handling of the party's leadership in the House. Some have accused him of putting his personal ambition before that of the party, of being too close to the Establishment to change the status quo, of negotiating "through the back door" with Democrats, of harming conservative candidates he disagrees with in primaries and even in the midterms. These accusations are just in general. Now, let's move on to the specific accusations made by several of the 20 rebels.

"Never Kevin"

First of all, not all fractious representatives were fractious from the beginning. Following McCarthy's nomination in November of last year, five GOP members of the lower chamber announced their absolute "no" vote to support the Californian's inauguration in January. They became known as the "Never Kevin Caucus." The leaders are Andy Biggs - who lost in the party's Nov. 15 nominating ballot but still received endorsements during the first vote in the House - and Matt Gaetz. They were joined by Bob Good, Matt Rosendale and Ralph Norman.

Just three days after the GOP chose McCarthy as its official nominee for president, Biggs again made it clear that he would not help him get the votes the then minority leader lacked. The other four members of "Never Kevin" followed suit. Other currents in the Republican Party, such as the Freedom Caucus, chaired by conservative Representative Scott Perry, expressed reservations about backing McCarthy, but in December they sent him a letter with proposals to back him in the moment of truth.

"Why isn't McCarthy the right Speaker?"

Following the announcement, the five dissidents were adamant in their decision and continued to send messages explaining why McCarthy was not the right person for the job. Biggs himself repeatedly accused McCarthy of "lying in order to maintain power and silence other candidates," including being part of the "Deep State."

"A Weatherman."

For their part, Gaetz and Rosendale described McCarthy on several occasions as "a weatherman," who changes his discourse as it suits him. Instead, they are calling for someone with credibility for all the currents that exist within the Republican Party instead of a leader who puts his personal ambition first and seeks to accumulate the power in his own hands. All five agree on their message of putting someone at the helm who is capable of standing "firm" in the face of pressures and interests.

Another of the points they pushed hardest was to change the rule that regulates the possible removal of the Speaker of the House if the representatives consider that he or she is not performing his or her duties properly. Nancy Pelosi changed the rules so that only leaders could initiate the vote to recall the speaker. Many GOP members called on McCarthy to allow any lawmaker to file a censure motion, or at least to allow a small group of congressmen to do so. Initially, the Californian did not seem at all happy to agree to this request.

Freedom Caucus joins the "no" vote

With the vote looming, McCarthy submitted a document with more than 50 sheets of proposals last Sunday. Among them, it proposed that five representatives could vote to remove the president from office. After studying the document, Scott Perry and eight other congressmen expressed their rejection by issuing a statement in which they announced that they would vote "no" to the nomination. They are Chip Roy, Anna Paulina Luna, Eli Crane, Andy Ogles, Paul Gosar, Andrew Clyde, Andy Harris and Dan Bishop. Perry himself uploaded it to the networks.

The negotiations were now running against the clock in the last few hours. Following the 1st vote, McCarthy now needed to to get at least 10 out of these 14 to change their vote. At the end of the second vote, there were now 19 Republican representatives who refused to support McCarthy, after Lauren Boebert, Mary Miller, Keith Self, Michael Cloud y Josh Brecheen joined in the rejection. In the third, Byron Donalds also voted "no", increasing the number of dissenters to 20.

Floor fights do not bring positions closer together

The floor fights between votes did not seem to help to bring positions closer together. Both sides announced that they intended to hold out until the other side gives in, and again recalled their arguments in conversations with the media and on social networks. In fact, Biggs went so far as to point out that the conversations showed him that MCarthy is unprincipled and willing to sell out anything to gain power. "This is what a McCarthy speakership would look like and would put our country last," he voiced in an interview on The War Room with Steve Bannon.

The Free Caucus members did not look very happy either. Perry denounced in a tweet that McCarthy would have rejected a series of points proposed by them to support him. Among them, he complained that the official candidate rejected all the names they submitted for membership on House committees, even though he had promised "fair and equal representation on committees for all conservatives in the House."

"McCarthy had the opportunity."

In addition, they demanded four specific items, "on concrete policies for the benefit of American people": Support, when presented and their votes were required "(1) A balanced budget, (2) the Fair Tax Act, (3) The Texas Border Plan, and (4) established term limits for Members of Congress." McCarthy also rejected these proposals.

The Californian also did not accept changes in the functioning of the chamber to achieve transparency, such as requiring a two-thirds vote to approve appropriations, which would have to be voted on individually. Second, to allow amendments to any law that would cut spending to be introduced in the House. Finally, they demanded that he "cease his efforts to defeat competitive conservative candidates in open Republican primaries," a reference to his performance with candidates who were not to his liking heading into the midterms. He also discarded this indication.

For all these reasons, Perry concludes that "Kevin McCarthy had an opportunity to be Speaker of the House. He rejected it."