Patterico's Pontifications

10/8/2015

How About Justin Amash for Speaker?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:04 pm



A week ago, The Week ran a piece titled: This 35-year-old Republican congressman could revolutionize the House. He should be speaker. The congressman in question is Patterico favorite Justin Amash. The author offers (and elaborates on) five reasons, which I will cite in bare bones form, and refer you to the piece itself for the meat:

1. Amash is a stickler for House rules who has never missed a vote.

2. Amash personally explains every vote he casts on his Facebook page.

3. He’d make time for lawmakers to actually read the bills they pass.

4. Amash represents a new generation of Republicans — literally.

5. John Boehner does not like him.

Amash had an op-ed about Boehner this past Sunday that is worth reading in full. Quotable:

Speaker Boehner and other Republican leaders have repeatedly favored a “govern by crisis” approach that abandons the regular order of the House. Despite having months to act before legislative deadlines, leaders routinely wait until the last moment to plot a course of action, publicly concede in advance major negotiating points, insist that Republicans have no alternatives, refuse to allow amendments and then criticize colleagues for not voting to avert the crisis leadership caused.

This approach produces constant frustration among representatives in both parties and promotes the partisan finger-pointing that angers Americans at home. Instead of making bipartisan compromises to address long-term issues, Congress constructs desperate, last-minute political deals to obtain the requisite votes simply to clear the immediate impasse.

We could do a lot worse than someone with this sort of clarity.

P.S. Why are you not following me on the Facebook? Fix that now.

107 Responses to “How About Justin Amash for Speaker?”

  1. That first paragraph you quoted reminds me of how Obama handled Iran.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  2. I just want to know why, with a GOP majority, we do not have 12 appropriations bills like we had for 150 years until Harry Reid changed the rules? If we had gone back to traditional rules, Obama would have to veto 12 bills.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  3. Amash’s characterization of Boehner’s performance is apt, alas.

    I hope Ryan will stand for the Speakership. I faxed a letter to his congressional office tonight to urge him to do so.

    Ryan is the only GOP member of Congress who has a national public profile and name recognition. He was thoroughly vetted and oppo-researched as Romney’s Veep nominee in 2012, during which campaign he debated Biden effectively and never made a major blunder or gaffe.

    There are at least a dozen plausible candidates — a herd of largely unknown (to 99% of the American public) dark horses of various levels of experience, cleverness, and projected effectiveness. Can the GOP afford, though, to spend a month, or even two weeks, while they gather their respective supporters, make their pitches, and submit to a circular firing squad until only one remains?

    Yes, there are many politically involved and vocal conservatives who insist that Ryan is a RINO. To support that, they typically point to the fact that Ryan has been part of the House leadership circles for many years now; those opponents argue, in effect, that Ryan is tarred by the Boehner brush. I’m not persuaded by that; I think Ryan, true to his Jack Kemp roots, would prove a genuinely transformational speaker precisely because he’s a policy-wonk first and a logrolling politician second. It’s that which has made Ryan so widely respected as a substantive thinker and legislative mechanic in both chambers on both sides of the aisle. But regardless:

    The benefit Ryan — as a quick consensus Speaker — would bring, with more certainty than any other alternative, is the immediate removal of John Boehner. So those of you who think Ryan might turn into “another Boehner,” I put the question:

    Would you rather keep the actual Boehner until January? Is that how you want the House to be governed during this key run-up to the 2016 presidential election that means everything?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. Why did he help undo the sequestration?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  5. Amash voted against the Ryan-Murray deal. Point in his favor, IMO.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  6. P.S. Why are you not following me on the Facebook? Fix that now.

    Yoda sorry he is, but facebook, I do not!

    Yoda (feee21)

  7. Justin Amash is my congressman.

    I respect his libertarian consistency and his explanation of his votes.

    His downside is that he does not practice the art of the possible. He will vote against the best that is politically possible because it is still sausage. In this way he throws his influence away – the caucus can’t rely on his vote to beat the democrats.

    David Jay (b3e328)

  8. I have three questions: 1.) Who told Boehner to step down, in the first place; 2.) who told him to hang in there when McCarthy threw in the towel; and 3.) who told Boehner to call Paul Ryan.

    That it was Boehner calling – presumably on behalf of the monied interests who pull his strings – makes me suspicious of Ryan. With McCarthy gone, the fat cats are looking for another bag man. They think their man is Ryan. If history teaches us anything, it is that these guys know what they are doing.

    With Obama making new threats on an almost daily basis about shutting down the government, do we really want a consensus building, nice guy like Ryan? I don’t think so. The stakes are too high. With 15 months remaining in Obama’s term, if there ever was a time for a thoughtful, deliberative process, this is it. No jumping the shark, please. Amash sounds good to me.

    ThOR (a52560)

  9. Patterico, I don’t know the answer to your question. I notice you didn’t answer mine. Can you describe for me the real world scenario in which Amash or any other alternative you’d prefer to Ryan actually gets the votes without either delay or bloodbath?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  10. You can follow someone on FaceBook without being a FaceBook member?

    seeRpea (ce512c)

  11. Putting my argument another way: There are 247 Republican members of Congress. Boehner is crippled, but hasn’t been forced out and hasn’t yet stepped down; he’s merely announced his intention to resign, and he’s making noises about staying on through year-end if there’s no clear consensus and decision on a successor (who he assumed would be McCarthy when he triggered this mid-term leadership change).

    So the relevant question is not “Who among all those 247 Republican members of Congress might be my ideal Speaker?”

    Nor “Who, among all those 247 Republican members of Congress, might eventually win the Speakership after a long drawn-out fight that consumes the rest of the fall, during which Boehner, though crippled, would still be Speaker?”

    The question is: For whom will Boehner immediately step aside, who also has a chance of actually getting enough votes?

    I think that’s a one-name list. So I think the alternative to Ryan is now Boehner ’til year-end, then someone who no one now can name or confidently predict, whom most of America has literally never heard of.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  12. It is important to remember where we are and how we got here. In the 6+ years of Obama (8, if you add in the 2008 campaign), not a single Republican in a position of high leadership has had the temerity to stand up to Obama. Not McCain, not Romney, not McConnell, and certainly not John Boehner. I think the reason for this is simple and expressed most aptly by Eric Holder: we are a nation of cowards when it comes to race. A truer statement has never been made.

    This is the story of Barack Obama’s life. Accolades with accomplishment. Fawning. Genuflecting. Coddling of every description. This, of course, is the life of the affirmative action hire. His accomplishment is the color of his skin. Nothing more; nothing less. Of course he has a thin skin, because no one has ever dared confront him. Republicans don’t seem to have figured out that there in no honor in treating any Black man, let alone the president, like a child.

    I would like to see that change. As Ted Cruz so clearly explained, from the outset, Obama’s ostensible opponents throw in the towel before the game even begins. With Ryan we would once again be throwing in the towel. Couldn’t we, for once, find someone, anyone, really, who has the courage to stand up to this out-of-control executive? If we fail in this, the nation will suffer.

    ThOR (a52560)

  13. Patterico, I don’t know the answer to your question. I notice you didn’t answer mine. Can you describe for me the real world scenario in which Amash or any other alternative you’d prefer to Ryan actually gets the votes without either delay or bloodbath?

    Not really. It’s a pipe dream. But I hope eternally for someone who will stop this business-as-usual crap. Cruz does it in the Senate. Time for someone to be the same guy in the House.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  14. Okay, one more.

    Boehner’s people don’t really care who is Speaker. All they care about is ensconcing a Speaker who delivers the goods. To them, Boehner, McCarthy and, I believe, Ryan are all the same. They’re bag men, which is all that matters.

    From a conservative perspective, why should we care which bag man it is? I’m not interested in a symbolic victory. What’s the point, after all, of ousting Boehner is he is simply replaced by another K Street stooge?

    Ted Cruz has done a marvelous job in pointing out how dishonest “show votes” are used to fool unsophisticated conservatives. Are we so unsophisticated that a show vote for Speaker of the House is enough to fool us too?

    ThOR (a52560)

  15. Amash is a great choice, unlike moronic voting patterns of a Rubio, this man gives a darn.
    Ryan should go make cheese as his sausage making lacks quality. What a disaster he has become.

    mg (31009b)

  16. Mr. West could rule that house of poo.

    mg (31009b)

  17. okay, my pipe dream would be Steve Largent.

    more “practical” : Jim Sensenbrenner, Jeb Hensarling ,Doug Lamborn.

    seeRpea (ce512c)

  18. seeRpea (#17), Jeb Hensarling is among those reported to have been twisting Ryan’s arm this afternoon in person. If Ryan won’t stand, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hensarling throw a hat in the ring; he’s among the “plausible” alternatives, but I can’t tell you where or how he gets to the required 218 votes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  19. Th0R (#14): You ask “what was the point of ousting Boehner if he is simply replaced by another K Street stooge?”

    Boehner was not ousted. He still hasn’t been.

    So we know who you don’t like, and why. Would you like to share with us who you do like, and believe to be a plausible candidate to stand for the Speakership, and how that person gets the required 218 votes, assuming Boehner still steps down before year-end, which he might well not?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. Or we could have a coalition government — one in which Boehner’s successor as Speaker has gotten his winning margin of 218 only by virtue of getting some Democratic votes, cast by them either strategically or for a price. How’s that tickle anyone’s fancy?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  21. re #18: that was funny 🙂 . but Rep Ryan really gives off the vibes that he doesn’t want to spend the time or hobnobbing required to be a good Speaker of the House.

    seeRpea (ce512c)

  22. Patterico, you wrote (#13) that “I hope eternally for someone who will stop this business-as-usual crap. Cruz does it in the Senate. Time for someone to be the same guy in the House.”

    I doubt that’s possible: there are just too many members in the House for any one of them, from outside the leadership, to really ever get any traction or that kind of influence. If Cruz himself had chosen to run for, and been elected to, the House, I don’t think he could have had the same impact he’s had even as a junior senator.

    Ryan is a team player. Recall how seamlessly he became Mitt Romney’s running mate, how he ensured that there was never a spark of daylight between them on matters of policy or even style throughout the campaign. He’s not a bomb-thrower at all, he’s the opposite of that.

    But Ryan’s GOP leadership role since this Congress convened (when he shifted to Ways & Means) has not been as Boehner’s key lieutenant or negotiator or dealmaker or strategist. Rather, he’s been almost entirely preoccupied with trying to master Ways & Means and to work effectively from there on the kind of long-term structural legislation (e.g., entitlement reform) that is his career passion.

    We need a Speaker, though, who can manage to herd these cats into a more effective force to oppose Obama and to sharpen the issues for the 2016 election. And I am actually optimistic that when (and if) Ryan takes up the Speakership, his behavior as the new team captain might actually be quite a bit different, in significant and positive ways, than you’d have guessed from his votes cast when he was merely a team player.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. A pox on Facebook.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Beldar, the problem with Ryan is that he doesn’t want the job, doesn’t like the kind of personal wheedling it requires and takes him away from the tax reform he wants to pass. He’s not give it the attention it needs and would delegate the problem to same-old-same-old.

    McCarthy was right. The gauntlet is well and truly thrown and the fight has to happen now. The absolute worst possible outcome is to leave it unresolved and festering into the election.

    I have no idea who it should be, but it should be someone who wants the job and has a plan. That isn’t Ryan.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  25. About time the republican party had a Ali vs. Frazier bout.
    Get a conservative in the position or let the country be given away by the likes of Ryan, and the rest of the fight less rinos.
    If republicans don’t vote for a conservative to be speaker they will lose this next election by huge numbers. People are tired of the republican give away. We have the most butt backwards president and the republicans continue to polish his boner.

    mg (31009b)

  26. Ryan is a squish on immigration. He is better where he is.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  27. How about Trey Gowdy?

    again? ‘No blood for oil?’

    So Trey Gowdy sent a formal letter to Elijah Cummings over the latter’s intolerably and pettily partisan hackwork with regard to the Benghazi Committee (@RBPundit categorizes it as ‘BEASTMODE,’ which is highly accurate). There are a lot of interesting things in this letter. A lot of brutal commentary on Rep. Cummings’ willingness to say one thing in private and another in public, for example. But I found this part about Sidney Blumenthal to be highly entertaining reading:

    “Beyond the pure politics that were occurring at this time, perhaps more disturbing it that at the same time [Sidney] Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing a business interest of his own in Libya that stood to profit from contracts with the new Libyan government – a government that would exist only after a successful U.S. intervention in Libya that deposed Qaddafi. This business venture was one he shared with Tyler Drumheller and Cody Shearer, the authors of the information sent to Secretary Clinton. It is therefore unsurprising that somebody who knew so little about Libya would suddenly become so interested in Libya and push an old friend in a powerful place to action – for personal profit.”

    While Blumenthal and Drumheller have both acknowledged a personal stake in the business venture, known as Osprey Global Solutions, they have downplayed their involvement to the Committee. New documents received by the Committee, however, indicate more extensive involvement than previously known.

    http://moelane.com/2015/10/08/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-libya-trey-gowdy-elijah-cummings-benghazi/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. All the man needs is a decent barber and he’s on his way!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. you have to get past hannity’s filibustering, but Newt offers some good notions,

    http://download.premiereinteractive.com/seanhannity/2015/10/Sean%20Hannity%20-%20Oct%2008%202015%20-%20Hour%201.mp3

    narciso (ee1f88)

  30. apologies I don’t know how to clean up the podcast, a friend gleaned this, in part from Newt

    My advice to the House Republicans would be “Slow Down.” Have day-long sessions where you actually listen to each other, with a sense of humility. Where all of you listen to each other. And try to figure out for the Countries sake, “How Do We Move Foreward?”

    narciso (ee1f88)

  31. here’s another bit,

    It’s a 2 part process…The House, which is exactly according to Constitutional Law the closest to the People, is feeling the greatest heat. It needs to get it’s act together first. It needs to understand that we are in a remarkable, almost revolutionary phase…I mean you don’t get a guy like Donald Trump…like Dr Ben Carson…you don’t get this stuff if the countries happy. I would start with the idea that maybe the House Republicans could stop worrying about the Senate Republicans. Maybe they should draw some lines in the sand to live by, because there are a lot of things that can’t happen in the US Govt if the House doesn’t go along. And then say calmly and pleasantly, “We’re not going to go along.” If I were a member I would never, ever vote for any bill which funded Planned Parenthood…there’s places where you have to start drawing lines and saying calmly “Look, here’s where we are”…

    narciso (ee1f88)

  32. I like Newt. Not always, of course, but if there is any politician that makes me feel like he can herd cats, it’s Newt.

    DRJ (521990)

  33. Newt also knows what he wants to do. It may be different from what he wanted to do yesterday, but at least he knows. Boehner never knew.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. I think Ryan, true to his Jack Kemp roots, would prove a genuinely transformational speaker precisely because he’s a policy-wonk first and a logrolling politician second
    Beldar, that is why Ryan should not be speaker. The speakership is for someone who is a logroller first, last, and always.

    Now is there a principled conservative who is such a logroller?

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  35. @ Col. H (#28): Most of the GOP House members whom I’ve seen quoted in the press in the last 24 hours name Gowdy as the only other GOP member who has a chance to get to 218. I think he is indeed widely respected, but not as deeply respected as Ryan.

    @kish (#36): Boehner was an old-fashioned logroller. He just didn’t perform in that roll consistently or ruthlessly enough at the right times and on the right issues. He was a better opposition leader than Speaker; he lacked both vision and practical streetfighting political will. The governing party needs a logroller and bringer of party discipline, but it’s entirely possible to delegate that role to the whip or majority leader on a day-to-day basis (think Tom DeLay). I agree that Ryan would need someone like that in his leadership team to be effective, but I’m not sure who would be best adapted for that backup role.

    But we do need someone smart enough to figure out an actual strategy for using the power of the purse and other legislative powers more effectively than Boehner and McConnell yet have — there’s got to be more useful and creative means for doing that than any they’ve yet employed. Cruz has an excellent point: GOP congressional leaders have to break out of the current (and increasingly well-entrenched) pattern of Obama winning every fight because he’s able to convert every one of them into a “shut down the government” dispute in which he and the Dems hold all the high cards.

    Boehner’s self-triggered fall — assuming he completes it, which is no longer a sure bet! — is likely to destabilize McConnell between now and November 2016. By “destabilize” I don’t mean that McConnell is likely to resign, though. Rather, I think he’s likely to actually be pushed to more aggressive actions that are genuinely complementary to what the House GOP (under its new leadership) is going to be doing. At least, that’s the path for all my better-case scenarios right now. The new speaker has to satisfy the current insurgents in the House (Liberty Caucus and otherwise), but he will still have to lead the rest — call them the “Boehner establishment Republicans if you wish” and drag McConnell along behind. I think Ryan has the stature and temperament to do that; I doubt any other plausible candidate (Chaffetz, Hensarling, Gowdy, McHenry, Price, McMorris, etc.) could do that.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  36. You had me at #5.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  37. Ways and Means is not small potatoes. It controls the purse strings. Ryan might be more effective there than he would be as Speaker. The way Patton was more effective as the Third Army commander than he would have been as European theater commander.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. Delay, no further…

    Colonel Haiku (0f4bb0)

  39. With Amnesty Czar Louis Guiterrez backing Ryan, I think Ryan should go home and smoke cheese.
    Just another capitulater the progressive rino will slobber over.

    mg (31009b)

  40. President Sanders is what the rino wants as it will give team rino more money for blonde bimbo congressional affairs.
    What a stupid party.

    mg (31009b)

  41. nk (#39): Ways & Means is indeed a powerful position. For many years, two Texans — Chairman Sam Rayburn and Ways & Means Chairman George Mahon (from Lubbock, Texas, my then-home district), effectively ruled the House of Representatives in seamless, invisible tandem.

    But you can’t be a powerful and effective Ways & Means Chairman unless your party has an effective Speaker.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. Does anyone remember Ryan’s Tarp speech? Disgustingly liberal. He should have told Paulsen too eff off.

    mg (31009b)

  43. @ mg (#41): Are you seriously allowing the propaganda of a prominent Democratic congressman to shape your view as to who should be the GOP’s selection as Speaker? I do not think the GOP members who are going to make this decision ought to pay any attention to the Dems’ stated preferences.

    That said: One of the most valid criticisms of Boehner and McConnell collectively is that they’ve put way too few bills on Obama’s desk to veto, and they’ve yet to lead a serious override battle. You actually have to pass stuff through the Senate to pursue that strategy; for reasons I’ve written about in comments on other posts here, and elsewhere, I put most of the blame of the GOP Congress’ ineffectiveness at McConnell’s feet for that reason. If, somehow, the new GOP Speaker could more effectively drag McConnell and the Senate along behind him in finding ways — short of closing the government — to block Obama going forward and to and reverse at least some of what he’s already done, then it might become very important indeed whether that new Speaker does or doesn’t have some credibility and genuine respect on the other side of the aisle, because those are the Democrats in both chambers who we’d have to peel off to override any Obama vetoes between now and Election Day of 2016.

    Regardless, I ask you, like I’ve asked others who are objecting to Ryan as a potential Speaker: Who do you prefer instead, and what’s his real-world path to 218 votes?

    Because until then: It’s more Boehner. How’s that suit ya?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. Time for team rino to cave and put Col. West as speaker. A change in direction is needed and the people up for speaker are amnestyholics. I have no use for any of them.

    mg (31009b)

  45. @ mg (#44): I don’t remember the speech on TARP to which you’re referring. Certainly it’s hard to find anyone from either party who covered him- or herself in glory, with the benefit of hindsight, in connection with TARP and the 2008 financial collapse, and that’s now very old news.

    But if one wants a more recent and more useful reminder of how effective Ryan can be in confronting Democratic memes and tactics and candidates, here’s the 2012 Veep debate between him and Slow Joe Biden, which most conservative viewers thought Ryan won convincingly, and which even most Democrats claimed was no better than a tie for Biden. (Biden, by the way, is unlikely to get any better on the campaign trail now than he was in 2012; the biggest news of the 2012 debate was actually not who won or lost, but that Biden managed to stumble through it without making some spectacular Ford/Poland-1976-type gaffe.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  46. #mg (#46): Okay, retired Col. Allen West is your preferred candidate. Let’s assume, even with no supporting evidence, that he’s interested and willing. Let’s ignore, for the moment, that he’s a former member of the House, not a current member. Constitutionally it’s possible that a non-member can be elected as Speaker, despite the fact that it’s never, ever, happened, or been seriously proposed to have happened, in the history of the Republic. So:

    What’s Col. West’s path to gathering 218 votes in the next week or ten days? Where do those votes come from? (Note: He, like Newt Gingrich, would start out at zero; whereas presumably the other candidates who are, ya know, actually current members can each count on at least his own vote.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. Paul Ryan is a nice man and he has a beautiful family. I hope he decides to put his family first and decline the role of Speaker.

    DRJ (521990)

  48. If the house needs a fresh face, maybe they should wait for Boehners sunburn to heal.
    Howie Carr.

    mg (31009b)

  49. Beldar – After re-reading Patterico’s post I would like to see Amash. Patterico’s 5 reasons look pretty impressive compared to the rest of the flock.

    mg (31009b)

  50. Do you have a favorite, DRJ, or a prediction?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  51. @ mg (#52): Okay. But Amash himself, as it turns out, is supporting Daniel Webster, but he had this this to say about Paul Ryan:

    “I think that Paul Ryan would be a more acceptable candidate than the current leadership team — primarily because he’s not in the current leadership team,” acknowledged Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a member of the House Freedom Caucus. “I believe he’d provide a different approach. But we don’t have him as a candidate right now and we’ve endorsed Daniel Webster.”

    ….
    Like Amash, other members of the Freedom Caucus reiterated their support for Florida Rep. Daniel Webster for speaker when questioned about whether they would be open to Ryan.

    Asked whether the group could support Ryan on the floor, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the caucus, referred to Webster and said: “Nothing’s changed.”

    Regarding Webster: He has a long history in the Florida House of Representatives, but a very short one in the U.S. House of Representatives (only since 2011). If he’s accomplished anything other than giving speeches, I’m unaware of what it might be; I’m unaware of any legislation he’s passed through the House, of any committee or subcommittee or other leadership roles in which he’s influenced other members or “led” anything. And I don’t know of anyone from outside the Freedom Caucus who’s willing to support him, nor even whether those of the Freedom Caucus who had announced that they preferred Webster to McCarthy are still willing, after McCarthy’s withdrawal, to favor Webster over other alternatives to Boehner. So I put Webster in the same category as Chaffetz: Yes, he’s a definite contender, a plausible contender, and someone who can actually claim some support as of today from some identifiable members of the House.

    Assume that Webster has roughly forty votes, though, comprising essentially the entire current membership of the House Freedom Caucus. How does Webster get from there to 218? What chunks or blocks of other GOP members can he attract to his banner, with what arguments or inducements?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  52. Maybe Amash is positioning himself for something. Hard to believe any of these hacks after winning an election and losing the country.

    mg (31009b)

  53. @ mg, I thought of your comment above (#41, urging that Ryan go home and smoke cheese) and grinned when I read this:

    Leaving Capitol Hill Friday afternoon, Ryan declined to comment on his decision.

    “Right now I’m going to make my flight so I can make it home for dinner,” he told reporters. “Sorry guys I’m just going to go. The Packers are at home. They’re going to beat the Rams and cover the spread.”

    He’ll certainly plead guilty to being a cheesehead. 😀 And speaking as someone whose favorite Texas football teams, college and pro, are all cratering this season, I’m envious.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  54. things aren’t mired in stagnation anymore

    at least not right now

    it’s like christmas

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  55. Sorry for your teams, Beldar.
    Wisconsin has good cheese, but I’ll take the cheese from the loon star state.
    http://www.faribaultdairy.com/tourthecaves/

    mg (31009b)

  56. Hastert, without further Delay!

    Colonel Haiku (0f4bb0)

  57. Yep, Mr. Feet (#57), there’s a whole lot of wiggling in the can of worms this week, especially yesterday and today. It’s intriguing! Great political dramatic theater.

    I’ve seen two or three of the Freedom Caucus members quoted today along the same lines as in this CNN report:

    Conservatives do praise many of Ryan’s policy positions, yet are already warning Ryan would need to agree to a series of demands to change House rules and agree to their policy agenda.

    Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate and critic of the Freedom Caucus, said more needs to change than just the man or woman in the chair.

    “At the end of the day, it’s not who we put in that job,” Dent said on CNN. “If we don’t change the political dynamic, the next speaker will suffer the fate that John Boehner did.”

    From earlier in the same report:

    And addressing rumors that he might step down as majority leader, McCarthy told his fellow Republicans he plans to remain in the job, a source in the room said.

    The meeting was centered on the rules and process going forward, members said.

    “We are doing what needs to be done, said Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia. “And Kevin (McCarthy) spoke very eloquently this morning and said, ‘if this causes us to do what we need to do in terms of reforming the rules and the House rules. Then that’s a good thing.”

    Reading between the lines, here’s my speculation about what’s in the works for tonight and this weekend:

    There’s an active effort going on right now to negotiate and draft some written rules changes that will purport to address a great many of the complaints that have been made by frustrated GOP members during the Boehner Speakership. Maybe they’ll craft some new process or create some new position (“Deputy Outreach Whip in Charge of Communication” or whatever). Maybe they’ll change the way amendments are handled, or some provision of voting order and precedence, or some other (arcane to mere mortals) procedural detail. Maybe a study group will be created. Something.

    I’m not saying the changes won’t be substantive, or that this is all cosmetic and political kabuki show. Rather, the changes will be exactly as substantive as the Freedom Caucus’ negotiating clout will justify, given their numbers and practical political influence. They might come up with something quite useful on a forward-going basis. And the Freedom Caucus people will point to them and say, “Look! We’ve gotten this, at our insistence, to change the political dynamic!”

    While those changes are being agreed upon over the coming 24-36 hours, others will continue strong-arming Ryan by all means available (given that he’s back home with his family and probably in selective near-seclusion).

    For very different reasons, everyone, including Boehner, now wants Boehner to step down this month. If they can talk Ryan into serving, I think he’ll be made Speaker by acclamation, or very nearly that, among the entire GOP membership.

    If Ryan continues to refuse, then: More Boehner, until someone else emerges from among the dark horses, which is likely to be a matter of weeks at least, and quite probably months.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. my litmus test for to decide if anything’s changed is what they do with koskinen

    that’s probably wrong of me

    but it’s how i’ll remember this era

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  59. Kemp was Ryan’s idol. When Kemp debated gore, gore said I want to thank you Jack for being the only non racist republican, Kemp’s reply, thank you very much, al. His idol would not even stand up for his fellow republicans.
    As David Byrne sings – same as it ever was.

    mg (31009b)

  60. good old jack

    jump in a shower with a black man at the drop of a hat

    he was the best of us

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  61. I think it’s telling that Ryan didn’t slam the door shut when this first came up. My guess is he is setting the terms.

    Dana (86e864)

  62. ‘won’t get fooled again’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  63. @ Dana (#64): According to the reports I’ve read: He canceled his public appearances and fundraising plans for the weekend. He’s quoted as having told colleagues that over the weekend, he’s going to “think and pray on it.” During today’s big pow-wow he was reportedly a silent observer, with his cards completely at his breast and none on the table, but intensely following the arguments (including many to the effect that he’s essential and irreplaceable). Since that meeting a spokesman has reaffirmed that he “is not running” and that “nothing has changed,” but neither of those statements is particularly Shermanesque, huh?

    Whether he’s simply being arm-twisted, or whether he’s actively bargaining or planning, I have no idea. It might be a combination of both. Arguably his first test as a potential new Speaker would be to maximize the margin by which he is confirmed, and to secure as much by way of advance commitments from each of the various wings of the party.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  64. Otoh trump seems to be ok with ryan, so take that as you will.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  65. Short version: BECAUSE FACEBOOK SUCKS!

    Long version: I refuse to use FB, because I don’t want Suckerberg to peddle my private information to anyone willing to give him a couple of bucks. I was on FB very early, and I noticed a pattern: every time a new TOS came out, it changed default settings to remove privacy protections, and THEN APPLIED THOSE DEFAULTS to existing accounts, thereby exposing the very stuff I didn’t want out there. The third time that happened, I abandoned that account, and haven’t been back.

    bud (30d398)

  66. Ted Cruz, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show today:

    HH: You have an extraordinary amount of influence on the House of Representatives. What do you think they ought to do?

    TC: Well, it has been an extraordinary day. Kevin McCarthy’s dropping out, I think, surprised everybody. And you know, what I think they should do is what I have both publicly and privately urged members of the House to do from the very beginning, which is that they should select as Speaker a strong conservative who will actually honor the promises that we made to the men and women who elected us. There is right now this incredible divide between Washington and the American people, between career politicians in Washington who routinely ignore the promises we made to the American people. And Republican leadership has been doing that over and over again. We need a change.

    HH: Senator Cruz, two names have emerged from an afternoon of phoning around. One of them is your colleague from Texas, Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. The other is Pete Roskam, sub-committee chairman on Ways and Means. Both are able men. Would you rather either of them over an interim or a long period of uncertainty, because it seems to me the House would be crippled that way?

    TC: You know, Hugh, I have long said that I’m going to stay out of House leadership fights, and that’s a decision for the House Republican Conference, so I’m not going to endorse any particular individual. But I will describe the characteristics that I think are important for the next Speaker to have. And the most important characteristic is a fidelity to the promises that were made to give us the majority.

    You know, the people are so frustrated, because we have Republican majorities in both houses, and yet they’re not standing up to Obama. They’re not fighting for the principles that got us elected. In fact, House leadership and Senate leadership are affirmatively funding, facilitating and furthering Barack Obama’s failed liberal agenda. There is this volcanic rage, because we need leaders who stand with us and who do the same thing after they were elected that they said they would do on the campaign trail.

    HH: Now, but you are from Texas, so do you, even without endorsing Jeb Hensarling, do you have an assessment of the chairman’s views?

    TC: Oh, I certainly like Jeb. He’s a friend of mine. He’s a fellow Texan. There are a lot of people I like. I like Kevin McCarthy. He is someone who I like and respect personally. That’s why I’m leaving it to the House members to make this determination.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. I think Ryan will take the position, Beldar. He’s been in Congress awhile and being Speaker woukd make him the head guy. That’s hard to pass up for a politician.

    The best thing about Ryan to me is he really knows how to get under Obama’s skin with his mastery of detail and policy. The bad thing is I doubt Ryan wants to get under Obama’s skin. I hope he surprises me but I’m afraid Ryan is too well-mannered for a leadership position in a divided Washington.

    DRJ (521990)

  68. My choice woukd be Jeb Hensarling.

    DRJ (521990)

  69. Beldar,

    Ryan is a smart man. Acvordingly, if he wants this job, the main thing he’s doing now is trying to convince his wife if she’s not on board. Being Speaker means rarely being home and that’s something he cares about.

    Also, don’t you think he still sees himself as a good VP choice or possibly even a President someday? He might but being Speaker is the culmination of a career, not a steppingstone.

    DRJ (521990)

  70. Dear God,
    Make lightening strike d.c.

    mg (31009b)

  71. DRJ (#72): I don’t think anyone wants to be Veep except as a stepping-stone to POTUS. I do think Ryan is ambitious, but I think he’s more ambitious on behalf of his goals (like entitlement reform) than he is on behalf of himself. But events are conspiring to deny him the luxury of continuing to say “No.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  72. Reading between the lines, I think this is further evidence of a brewing deal:

    Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) called the situation “fluid.” He said Freedom Caucus members were staying focused on their crusade to get any speaker candidate to promise to overhaul how the House operates. They want proportional representation on the influential Steering and Policy Committee and greater say for committee members on who the conference elects as chairman of House panels.
    The committee passed on backing McCarthy when the California Republican was still vying for speaker. Members said that was because McCarthy hadn’t yet convinced the Freedom Caucus he would follow through on promises to change House procedures.

    “For us, we want a conference that empowers the rank and file … this is a fluid situation,” Meadows said. “Nobody anticipated that we’d be where we are right now. I think the best thing to say is that we are behind [Webster] right now.”

    The push from conservatives to return to regular order hasn’t eased since McCarthy bowed out from the race. They insist Ryan would be required to make the same pledges on empowering committees and ending punishments that any other candidate would.

    And Webster said on Friday that he wouldn’t exit the race even if Ryan joins the fray.

    “I want to show the Congress that this is the way we should be running our Congress,” Webster said on CNN. “We need to have a member, bottom-up process. All these things that are now being talked about as reform is something I started off with. Until there is a commitment to do that I’m going to stay in the race.”

    Re-translation of last sentence: “As soon as there is a commitment to [have a member-driven bottom-up process,] I’m going to drop out of the race.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  73. Link for the quote above.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  74. And I’m guessing this list of deal points — from the editors of National Review — is not just wild speculation, but actually a rough summary of some of the moving/coalescing deal parts, leaked as a trial balloon by some of those involved in the negotiations:

    For Ryan to lead House Republicans would require some accommodations. He would have to commit to keeping immigration legislation that most Republicans oppose off the floor, whatever his own opinion of it. He would have to receive assurances from many of the Republicans who vexed Boehner that they will stay with the party on procedural votes, in return for assurances that he will not ride roughshod over them. And with preteens at home, Ryan would surely want to remold the responsibilities of the speakership to involve less fundraising travel.

    IMHO this is coming from too many different and normally disparate sources simultaneously, in too much consistent detail, to be a coincidence. If this would actually get Boehner out of the Speakership by the end of the month, I don’t see anything in this list that ought to be a dealbreaker or impossible to work out.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. Another moving part not mentioned above: If Ryan stands for Speaker and wins, suddenly the Chair of Ways & Means is open. Talk about your potential deal sweetener for someone.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. Ryan is a no go – with tarp and wall sheet bailouts at the top of his accomplishments he is a progressive twit.

    mg (31009b)

  77. The other day Hugh Hewitt stated that the next Speaker has to be an incredible communicator. After his debate performance in 2012, Paul Ryan is disqualified – losing to Joey Plugs? Give me a break!

    I nominate Bill Whittle…he is the most articulate spokesman for freedom & conservative principles on the scene today without the baggage of other commentators

    Horatio (013699)

  78. No child left behind, Medicare Part D, and good old TARP.
    3 reasons riino Ryan is a non starter.
    To get beat by biden was a huge letdown for team mittens.

    mg (31009b)

  79. @ Horatio (#80): I’ve yet to meet Bill Whittle but I agree he’s certainly an articulate spokesman for those topics! It’s true there’s no requirement that the Speaker be someone who is a current member of the House, which is why Gingrich’s name has been circulated. There’s also no requirement that the Speaker have ever been a member of the House, so Whittle could qualify. But if we’re going that far afield, and including people who can’t any of them be assured of even his or her own vote to make up the required 218, then we’re pretty far into the field of fantasy.

    No where in the rules does it say the Speaker has to be alive, either. So: I’m throwing my support to the Ghost of Ronald Reagan. If he cannot or will not serve, I choose the ghost of Mr. Sam Rayburn, who by now surely has realized that his Democratic Party has long since left him behind.

    I just listened to Rep. Jim Jordan, the leader of the Freedom Caucus — who’s thereby entitled to proclaim himself first among anarchists — being interviewed by Chris Wallace on this morning’s Fox News Sunday. I thought he made a terrible impression: He seems assessed with the prerogatives of individual members without any recognition that the structure of the House has, historically and without exception, required a strong Speaker with considerable carrot-and-stick powers in order to achieve any success, regardless of whether that’s success in the service of conservative or liberal policies and causes. He seemed childish, frankly; his supporters may be satisfied with his appearance, but he made no new converts, there being few in the general public right now who are much inclined to sympathize with whining congressmen who can’t get the committee assignments they were counting on (after having done something in their voting sufficient to annoy the Speaker and other members of the House leadership from their party). It sounded like “You’re not the boss of me!” To which the answer is, “That’s true, but the Speaker, whoever that may be at any given time, is the boss of his party in the House, and has got to be able to wield sticks and hand out carrots. As Newt Gingrinch pointed out when interviewed immediately after Jordan, that’s already harder to do than it has been historically because of the abolition of earmarking.

    However, the newsworthiness of the Jordan interview came almost entirely from his answer to Wallace’s first question, when — after a pro forma and unenthusiastic reference to his gang’s endorsement of Daniel Webster when McCarthy was still in the race — Jordan then immediately and without further probing agreed that Paul Ryan would be acceptable to the Freedom Caucus if they got the procedural assurances they’re seeking.

    This supports my speculation that Jordan and, probably, McCarthy are far down the road toward a set of rule & policy changes that will let Jordan and the Freedom Caucus declare victory as they switch their support from Webster to Ryan-by-acclamation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  80. Correction: “He seems assessed with the prerogatives of individual members” –> “He seems obsessed with the prerogatives of individual members ….”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  81. Now I’m listening to Karl Rove insisting that the most important factor in how this plays out is how Ryan feels about the prospect of taking time away from his young family.

    I’m not suggesting that those concerns are trivial, nor that anyone’s being insincere here.

    But in 2012, Ryan’s kids were three years younger than they are now. And he nevertheless agreed to run as Mitt Romney’s Veep nominee. In terms of pressure and responsibility, Ryan’s current job, as chair of Ways & Means, is probably a bigger deal than being Veep; if Romney/Ryan were in office now, Ryan might be bored, frankly. But in terms of raw time commitments, the Veep is the #1 Ceremonial Presence of the Administration, the guy who has to fly to the funeral of the Prime Minister of Bali or whatever. Surely Ryan would have been spending comparable amounts of time away from his family as Veep for the last three years, in other words, to the time he’d now have to spend were he to become Speaker. So while these are indeed valid considerations, I think we already know that Ryan is willing to subordinate them if he believes the opportunity so warrants.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  82. mg, the three items you mention (#81 above) — Medicare part D, TARP, and NCLB — were all enacted with the votes of large majorities of the Republicans then in Congress and a Republican president. Now, I understand that there are many people who think, in hindsight, that those were bad decisions. But whether they were bad decisions at the time or not, I don’t think it’s fair to label someone a “Republican in Name Only” if your only evidence is that he voted the same way almost all the other Republicans did, whether they’re Republicans in name only or from the bottoms of their hearts in a way of which you approve after applying 20/20 hindsight.

    By these standards, only political virgins with no track record at all can be “real Republicans.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  83. all of TARP got paid back

    whereas food stamp’s “stimulus” monies are just effing gone

    happyfeet (831175)

  84. Beldar,

    I kniw you really, really like Ryan. I feel that way about Cruz. Maybe we’ll both get our wish and they will be the GOP’s next leaders.

    DRJ (521990)

  85. mr. ryan and mr. cruz are both exactly where they should be

    not unlike my local chik fil a

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (831175)

  86. I don’t think this is the right time or position for Ryan but it’s a decision for the House members to make, not me. If they want him, then I will support him.

    However, I do think calling people who oppose Boehner “anarchists” is uncalled for and disappointing, and makes it difficult for me to seriously consider anything else that person says.

    DRJ (521990)

  87. If the GOP Presidential primary is teaching us anything, it’s that the days of “waiting your turn” for a leadership position are over. The House is learning that lesson, too.

    DRJ (521990)

  88. @ DRJ (#89): Point taken, re “anarchists.” I ought have said that Jim Jordan can call himself the leader of the anti-Leadership faction, perhaps. He didn’t strike me today as being an anarchist, but he did strike me today as being spectacularly naive — not his substantive positions (about which he said almost nothing in this interview), but rather his grasp of what actually is, or should be, or ever has been, the “regular order” of the House, and the rights and responsibilities of any one of its 435 individual members.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  89. I don’t get the enthusiasm for Ryan. He’s Mr. Bailout, Mr. Kill the Sequester, Mr. Establishment as far as I am concerned. I can see an argument that we’re stuck with him realistically. I can’t see enthusiasm.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  90. Also: I was referring specifically to Jim Jordan and the (amorphous) Freedom Caucus, not to “everyone who oppose[d] Boehner.” It’s quite possible to believe that Boehner ought to resign the Speakership now, without also agreeing with Jordan’s demands to propose more floor amendments than Boehner has permitted.

    I want to see Boehner step down; I don’t want to see the Speakership, as an institution, weakened, and it seemed from Jordan’s comments today that he doesn’t quite understand how essential it is to give the Speaker’s chair (whoever may occupy it at any time) sufficient tools to maintain party discipline.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  91. Patterico (#92): He’s also Mr. Path to Prosperity. You’re judging him on a handful of votes that you disagree with. I’m judging Ryan on his capacity to actually craft and then, with a Republican POTUS, pass into law the legislation most desperately needed. So yes, I’m enthusiastic.

    I’m also really unenthusiastic about Boehner staying on until year-end. And I don’t see any alternative to that except for Ryan.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  92. Also re #92: Is there anyone for whom you could be enthusiastic who could also be described as having a history of being a “team player”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  93. he’s a big kid look what he can do

    john boehner can cry he can drink and screw

    he can shake his gavel up and down

    mommy wow

    he should get gone now

    happyfeet (831175)

  94. Long Beldar Digression. TL/DR version:

    Don’t assume from the fact that Ryan’s been a team player that he’s the team leader, he’ll do exactly the same things the previous team leaders did.

    I’ve almost finished reading Charles Moore’s “Margaret Thatcher: From Grantham to the Falklands,” the first of an anticipated two volumes of her authorized biography. When she was first elected as a Tory Member of Parliament, she was a novelty and, because of her sex, party leaders fast-tracked her. Before long, she was made part of the Conservatives’ shadow cabinet, entrusted by Ted Heath (as head of the Tory party and “Leader of the Opposition”) with education issues — which she found boring. She, rather than being relegated to domestic issues associated with women, wanted to be the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer so she could re-write national tax and spending policies.

    Remind you of anyone?

    But she duly toiled on her assigned subjects, gained more national stature the more publicity she got, earned favors by speaking for other Tory candidates in their districts, etc. — which is to say, she deliberately made herself a team player who reliably did Ted Heath’s bidding. She did stand out, though: That was the period in which the Soviet Red Army newspaper, then Pravda, bestowed upon her the nickname “The Iron Lady,” which she promptly embraced and used to excellent political effect ever after.

    Thatcher became Ted Heath’s successor as Prime Minister in 1974-1975 when he lost the confidence of his party: They faulted him for betraying the principles upon which the Tories had run against the majority Labour Party, and for making a “u-turn” to embrace wage & price controls and big settlements for striking coal miners and other unions. They thought Heath was “giving up the shop” to Labour.

    Remind you of anyone?

    Thatcher was initially considered a dark horse and an extreme longshot to become his successor, more because of concerns that she was too right-wing to keep the House in Tory hands at the next election than because she was a relative young member and the only woman minister in Heath’s shadow cabinet. But she emerged from that Tory leadership crisis with a pretty broad, if shallow, consensus — and proceeded to astonish the UK and the world by not only repudiating Heath’s “u-turn,” but by doubling down on strong conservative principles to present a clear alternative to Labour. When the Tories won in 1979, she became Prime Minister, from which position she transformed British government and society even more fundamentally (given the distance the U.K. has since traveled from its then0near-socialist state) than Reagan’s revolution reversed Carter’s decline and transformed the U.S. shortly thereafter.

    When Thatcher became Heath’s successor, she promptly repudiated quite a few of Heath’s policies, including very specific ones she’d not only voted for, but championed in the Party’s name. And she never disappointed those who’d supported her as PM specifically because of her promise to be a transformational leader on both domestic and international issues. Later, when she was the PM, she ridiculed those who’d predicted that she’d inevitably become a squish with her very famous “the Lady’s not for turning” speech (highly recommended).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. Correction: “that he’s the team leader” –> “that if he’s the team leader,” sorry.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. Also re #92: Is there anyone for whom you could be enthusiastic who could also be described as having a history of being a “team player”?

    No — by definition.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  97. By which I mean: to be considered a “team player” one must vote for the kind of statist crap Ryan has voted for. If someone stands up for the principles that the voters elected them to fight for, they will by definition be considered a non “team player” — with Ted Cruz as Exhibit A.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  98. Ack: Bigger correction: “Thatcher became Ted Heath’s successor as Prime Minister in 1974-1975 when” –> “Thatcher became Ted Heath’s successor as Leader of the Opposition in 1974-1975 when ….”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  99. Sen. Cruz has a vastly better chance of becoming POTUS than he does of ever becoming Senate Majority Leader. That’s okay with me and I’m pretty sure it’s a deliberate choice on his part.

    I’m concerned about having a selection criterion for Speaker of the House, though, which effectively insures that only political virgins are eligible.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  100. Ross Douthit argues in the NYT that “House Republicans need a speaker who’s an ambassador from the Tea Party to the G.O.P.’s K Street/Chamber of Commerce wing, rather than the other way around.” He proposes … Mike Lee from Utah.

    Senator Mike Lee.

    Uh-huh. Tell me, is he going to continue to sit in the Senate while also serving as Speaker? Because that would be a neat trick.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  101. Actually, if you take Douthit’s premise seriously — I don’t, but one could — then Hensarling would be a much better suggestion. But I don’t see John Boehner voluntarily stepping aside for Jeb Hensarling.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  102. Ross Douthat is harvard trash not unlike the cruz we have come to know as ted

    i’ve got a song i ain’t got no melody

    happyfeet (831175)

  103. When does hugh hewitt’s book come out about his act of lovin him some illegals?
    This guy stinks. What a delusional reprobate.

    mg (31009b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1192 secs.