Paul Ryan: Rally Around Me and Maybe I Will Deign to Be Speaker
Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) moved closer to the House speakership Tuesday, telling fellow Republicans that he would consider taking the job if he could be assured that the caucus would stand behind him.
Ryan faced his colleagues — and his political future — at a private evening meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol basement. He said he would be willing to step up and meet the calls to serve, ending weeks of GOP leadership turmoil, as long as disparate factions moved in the coming days to unite around him.
“I hope it doesn’t sound conditional, but it is,” he said, according to members inside the room. He paused after saying the word “conditional,” they said, for effect.
The article makes clear that part of the demands of the Freedom Caucus is a less autocratic Speaker and a return to “regular order”:
Those conservative House members have pushed for a suite of rules changes, ranging from an overhaul of the party’s internal steering committee to a more open process for considering legislation. Ryan, they say, would not be exempt from those demands, which, if adopted, could give the new speaker less control.
It’s not clear to me how these changes would help us get smaller government, and a recent Politico piece (cached link; no links for bullies) citing Justin Amash on this point did not clarify anything for me. In fact, Amash gave a quote that I disagree with: “In some cases, conservative outcomes will succeed. In other cases, liberal outcomes will succeed. And that’s OK.”
No, it’s not.
So it appears that much of the debate will revolve around obscure rules changes that mean little even to a somewhat interested observer. Meanwhile, Ryan wants some promises:
Ryan’s allies say his conditions for becoming speaker are likely to include an understanding that he would have a free hand to lead without a constant fear of mutinous reprisals.
Well, my friend, that depends on how you lead, doesn’t it?
Ding.
Patterico (b286eb) — 10/20/2015 @ 6:51 pmAmnesty in his first month
JD (b3cb62) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:03 pmwow this is a huge gift to mr. the donald if it actually happens
happyfeet (831175) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:03 pmThe comment from Amash was simply meant to explain that a return to regular order doesn’t have a conservative/liberal tilt. It isn’t really that difficult to understand. Regular order means less power centralized in the Speaker’s hands. That is a good thing. Period.
Mark Johnson (a64489) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:07 pmDrudge’s headline and links show Ryan as a Democrat favorite and Obama’s partner on TPP, with lots of quotes on the importance of working with the Adminustration. The only thing missing is the Chamber of Commerce pledging unlimited funds.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:12 pmIt still has to be approved by the National People’s Congress.
nk (dbc370) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:14 pmNot TPP, Ryan’s election as Speaker.
nk (dbc370) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:20 pmHarry Reid is happy about it.
Dana (86e864) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:36 pmThis interesting from NRO: He told his colleagues the issue [immigration] was simply “too divisive” and he wanted to focus on the things on which the conference is in agreement, like border security and internal enforcement, as opposed to a comprehensive bill.
Dana (86e864) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:42 pmIf expressing the ideas of limited conservative governance is considered mutiny, then we are probably done with the GOPE. A gift to Trump.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:48 pmI don’t blame him. He doesn’t want the job,.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/20/2015 @ 7:57 pmSounds like Ryan is about what we have had in the past.
bald01 (f38852) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:01 pmWhere are the pluses? Why are we accepting this step
backwards? Ask Harry Reid to pick someone else for us.
I just want to represent my district without this constant fear of mutinous reprisals from my constituents every two years.
Is that too much to ask?!
Leviticus (028e08) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:19 pmI like Ryan, but on border issues he is a fantasy-based “no borders” libertarian who believes any employer should be able to hire (and bring to the company’s location) anyone in the world, regardless of other considerations.
NOPE.
Mitch (bfd5cd) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:24 pmLeviticus – I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. A better one would be wanting to be able to represent his constituents without the constant fear of a recall petition at every turn.
aphrael (4eae3a) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:46 pmI think there’s a strong element here of someone who is being pestered by repeated requests that he doesn’t want to accede to trying to attach unreasonable conditions in the hope that it makes the requests go away.
aphrael (4eae3a) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:47 pmI will promise to lead you if you promise to not disagree.
JD (34f761) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:48 pmBingo, JD!
felipe (56556d) — 10/20/2015 @ 8:54 pmBRUTUS
Was the crown offered him thrice?
CASCA
nk (dbc370) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:15 pmAy, marry, was’t, and he put it by thrice, every
time gentler than other, and at every putting-by
mine honest neighbours shouted.
It’s no surprise to anyone who regularly reads comments here lately, or comments here and on my own blog from the past, when I again confirm that I’m a fan of Chairman Ryan’s. I won’t reprise my reasoning here; I’ve said everything I have to say on the prospect of him as Speaker at this particular time.
But:
On the subject of the proposed changes being demanded:
I am against them, regardless of who becomes the next Speaker.
One reason I’m so thrilled to see Boehner’s resignation is because I believe the Speaker of the House should be the Representative who is responsible to the entire nation, not just his district, for the results — or lack thereof — achieved by his party in the House.
I believe that is true because of the basic nature and structure of the institution, as a distinct and peculiar part of the dynamic multi-branched government bequeathed us by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution. The House is, has always been, and must always be, the most raucous and internally adversarial branch of our government. Just as every member must run for reelection every two years, and every two years there is a new determination of which party has a majority, so every two years the question is put, by virtue of Article I of the Constitution: Who shall the House elect as its Speaker? That’s usually a formality, or at least not a surprise; but they actually do take, and count, that vote even if the outcome is pretty certain in advance, just like the actually bother to have the Electoral College cast votes every four years.
A Speaker who can’t control his caucus forfeit’s his party’s majority. It’s exactly that damned simple, folks.
(This, by the way, is exactly as true in the U.K.’s House of Commons; and indeed, they then go so far as to dissolve Parliament and hold a new general election. This happens are reliably as death, taxes, and long lines at the National Health Service.)
If the Freedom Caucus has concerns that can be addressed without weakening the institutional power of the Speakership — not any particular Speaker, but all GOP Speakers for the foreseeable future — then I’d be interested to hear that discussion.
But making the Speakership less autocratic — and therefore making the House un-leadable, forfeiting the majority party’s majority — is a spectacularly pernicious idea.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:35 pmI posted just now (#20) before reading any of the comments here.
You guys are way too focused on this particular Speaker’s race. Focus on the institution that’s either being improved or not.
@ Mark Johnson, who wrote (# ): “Regular order means less power centralized in the Speaker’s hands. That is a good thing.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that, since “regular order” is a buzz-word being used to mean very different things by different players right now. But if you are in favor of less power centralized in the Speaker’s hands, I have a question for you:
Will making the Speaker less able to control the GOP Caucus make the GOP majority we sent to the House more effective or less effective in opposing the Democrats in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House? Tell us all, please, how making it harder to reliably deliver 218 GOP votes is a good thing.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:44 pmTL/DR:
Give the Speaker power, but hold him accountable for it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:49 pmnk (#21): I’m impressed.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:55 pmFORE
mg (31009b) — 10/20/2015 @ 9:59 pmPreaching further, from the Constitution, friends & neighbors:
By setting all its members’ term of office at a mere two years, requiring every member to stand for reelection in and by his district so often; by increasing the total number of members with the growing population, the Founders very deliberately intended to ensure that the House would be the most responsive organ of government to changing national opinion between elections.
The Constitution, in other words, makes these the very rascals we’re able to throw out most thoroughly and quickly. The House therefore is the organ of government most capable of serving as an effective and responsive brake when the electorate realizes it’s made a mistake in its choice of a POTUS. Ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls, that’s why the GOP retaking the House in 2010 was such a very big damned deal, a much bigger deal in the biggest of pictures that the GOP retaking the Senate in 2014.
So what we’re seeing right now is exactly what the Founders intended: The House is the canary in the coal mine, the leading indicator (constitutionally) of a big shift in the direction that the electorate wants to see government proceed. This is all to the good; this is change of which I approve. Everyone in the House, for very different and sometimes mutually inconsistent reasons, wants to see Boehner leave by month’s end. Hurrah.
But don’t confuse your frustration over this particular Speaker’s performance for some kind of reason to make a change in the institution of the Speakership.
We don’t need a weak Speaker, but we do need a different Speaker.
The Constitution requires that the House seats be apportioned by population, but the actual number of seats is purely a question of statute. It’s been capped at its 435 since the passage of the very little known and rarely remarked Apportionment Act of 1911. Ponder the fun we could have by re-writing that particular piece of legislation (which is, again, extra-constitutional) the next time the GOP has both chambers of Congress and the White House, effective as of the next two-year election cycle. Shivers!)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/20/2015 @ 10:23 pmIt won’t be long before the republicans come after your guns, boys and girls.
mg (31009b) — 10/20/2015 @ 10:36 pmThe return to regular order is important. Boehner followed Pelosi and Reid’s hostage tacticw, which was to ignore the normal process, then jam a continuing resolution together at the last moment and put a gun to everyone’s head.
Regular order allows one to get incremental things done, through small, targeted holdups that don’t threaten granny with the snowbank.
AFAIK, Ryan is one of those who wants a return to regular order.
As far as the conservatives not getting their way all the time — a faction of one party isn’t going to get that ever. THE GOP IS NOT and never has been A CONSERVATIVE PARTY. The Democrats have become an actual socialist/SJW party, and they are going to pay dearly for that.
There is no need for us to be equally stupid.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 1:02 amHarry Reid is happy about it.
Harry Reid is trolling, just like Pelosi did. They have nothing to lose by setting Republicans against each other.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 1:03 amBeldar–
Considering that the electoral votes are apportioned according to House seats, I cannot see the GOP expanding the number of Congressmen. They tend to do better in small rural states, and won in 2000 ONLY because they won more states. Why would they dilute their advantage there?
Of course, they could try and REDUCE the number of House seats, but that would NEVER pass the House, would be a bad idea in any event — House districts are pretty huge as it is.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 1:10 amThis is nonsense. The American people deserve better than this career hack. The republicans are on track to lose the house, senate and their morals. Pathetic.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 3:10 amThis is a basic move by republicans. Picking another loser.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 3:32 amWay to go.
This is a basic move by republicans.
it sounds like the socialists are ready to step up and make this happen irrespective of what actual republicans want
pelosi wants her some paul ryan pelosi’s gonna get her some paul ryan
happyfeet (831175) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:00 amIt hasn’t been all that long ago that Paul Ryan was front and center in the fight for limited government. He made his bones fighting Obama’s spendthrift policies. I was a fan, I even supported one of Ryan’s former staffers, Chauncey Goss, for Florida’s 19th Congressional District in 2012 largely because of his relationship to Ryan.
Now, I wouldn’t vote for Ryan unless he was running against Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner. Ryan’s metamorphosis demonstrates the need for term-limits. Seems it only takes 4 years to go from TEA Party favorite to establishment shill. It proves that being in Congress, working with others in it, raising campaign money to stay in it, has a predictable effect: the Congressional environment changes people. It changes them into professional office holders who soon come to be more like other professional politicians than like the outsiders who originally come to Washington to change the system.
What happens is the system changes them, just like it changed Paul Ryan, and just like it would change you or me into something we wouldn’t recognize or admire. And the system does it in damn short order.
ropelight (4a79a3) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:53 amThe Freedom Caucus wants a return to Regular Order, which means following the rukes. Doing that would make it harder for the House to pass legislation, which is why folks like Beldar think it’s a bad idea. Why hamstring your side when they control the House?
The answer is obvious. We don’t trust the GOP to pass conservative legislation or to stop the Democrats from implementing their policies, and it’s a good thing if Regular Order makes it harder for the House to pass laws that burden Americans.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:12 amExactly, newt’s advice seems to have gone in vain.
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:17 amI understand your point DRJ, but since Democrats don’t subscribe to the same ethics regular order hamstrings conservatives and hands Democrats opportunities to obstruct GOP policies. Conversely, when Democrats have the majority regular order is summarily ignored if favor of leftist expediency.
Unless Democrats feel the pain again and again which results when their own double standards are turned against them, they’ll never stop abusing authority and play fair. Which, just may be wishful thinking on my part, but we’ll never know unless Democrats have the opportunity to sleep in a bed of their own making.
If Democrats don’t learn, won’t learn, and refuse to discipline themselves then it’s time to face facts: regular order is gone for good. The party in power uses its position without the traditional restraints which have served us well for so long, and which the GOP has no rational choice except to abandon.
ropelight (4a79a3) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:35 amIt is not good for America for either Republicans or Democrats to pass legislation. It is good for America for Republicans to defeat Democrat legislation. Even if the leg-tingling media sycophants of the Kenyan Muslim Communist call them the party of no.
nk (dbc370) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:40 am“Yes, I will marry you if you promise never to say anything (ever) negative about me and if you do I can divorce you and take everything. Sign here please.” — Paul Ryan.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:10 amNo brains
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:14 amNo balls
No fight
No thanks
One of Ryan’s conditions is that he has every weekend free to be with his family. He really shouldn’t be Speaker. These Beltway politicians are pathetic.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:23 amI won’t admit it’s over until they pry the walnut stock out of my hands.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:31 amHe sounds like a man who doesn’t want the job.
Patricia (5fc097) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:33 amWe know he’ll be voted Speaker with the help of democrats, if necessary. I doubt he’ll get the support of 218 republicans if he means what he’s reported to have said. So, basically nothing will change – republicans will stay divided and continue to push only legislation the democrat controlled senate will support and Obama will sign.
crazy (cde091) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:39 amExactly the opposite of how Jack Kemp would have led the House.
crazy (cde091) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:40 amBetween now and January 2017, it will take legislation to block, and eventually to undo, Obama’s executive action power-grabs. It will take legislation to repeal legislation that the Dems have passed. And yes, it will take legislation to keep the government open.
We need a functioning House. And the bigger problem, regardless of whether Boehner stays through 2017 or someone else replaces him, remains in the Senate with Mitch McConnell.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:41 amThe GOP has had control of the House since 2011 and they have done nothing to block Obama. They said they needed the Senate, too, so voters gave them control of the Senate in 2015. Together, they have done nothing but implement policies in favorby Obama and the Chamber of Commerce, while whining they need the Presidency. The GOP’s current policy is to give Obama a clean increase in the debt ceiling.
Enough. It’s better to do nothing than this.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:52 amRyan Statement on GOP Conference (video). Transcript (which I just got via email from Ryan’s mailing list):
I agree with him. I think the required supermajority of his GOP caucus colleagues will too.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:54 amFrom the video, an ad-lib that was omitted in the printed version of the statement that I quoted above (at 3:00, ad lib in italics):
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:00 amand now here comes icahn wanting to build a financial berlin wall around failmerica
happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:18 amFirst, we need to move from being an opposition party to a proposition party.
you can tell he really thought this through cause of how it makes a rhyming noise when you say it out loud
happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:20 amI would like to hear the people who think Ryan is unacceptable to tell us what they think should happen. There are 240 or so GOP members. Do you expect them to go with the demands of, at most, 20% of their fellows? In most democratic systems, the 20% have to go along with the other 80%.
What do you expect to happen? What do you WANT to happen?
Near as I can tell, they have two choices: accept the win they got and STFU, or leave the caucus.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:46 amBeldar (#45)
Exactly.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:47 amRyan is acceptable if the wankers want to vote for him
but his demands are unacceptable I think
he’s such a namby-pamby pickle-poo
asking to change the rules before taking the job is very very deeply and profoundly obama
happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:50 amPaul Ryan stands on the precipice of history. Since Biden isn’t going to run, that puts all Democrat eggs in Hillary’s basket and she’s on the hot seat tomorrow, a sitting duck – under oath – and in front of the Benghazi committee on national TV.
Ryan has the bully pulpit. Anything he says tomorrow about Hillary’s complicity in Benghazi makes the 6 o’clock network news, and FOX can play it all night long – Bill O, Megyn Kelly, Hannity, et al.
This is Ryan’s opportunity to step up and knock Hillary down so hard she never troubles us again. The only question is does he have the balls.
ropelight (4a79a3) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:50 amWhiganosis is in the air.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 10:26 amAnother loss for Americans brought to you by the chamber of commerce and the followers that believe in crimaleins.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 10:30 am#54
I don’t think he does
Angelo (34edfd) — 10/21/2015 @ 10:57 amThis one certainly sounds like an issue:
And it’s especially sad from people supposedly on the same side.
But then, the Democrats rely on this.
And we give it to them.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/21/2015 @ 11:04 amThe use of the word “proposition” strikes me as alarming. It’s as if having lived through the last 2+ decades of hollowing out our industrial base, illegals knocking down wages and costing wrioking people jobs, all while indebting generations yet born, the GOPe has learned nothing. More CoC happytalk nonsense for everyone. Other than spouting nonsense. Proposition like a $2 prostitute in shooting gallery on payday. Everything is up for grabs.
F___ off, Proposition Paul. If you laid down in the 2012 VP debate vs. Ol’Hairplugs instead of pointing out what an embarrassing charade the Man from MBNA is, there’s good reason to think more of the same dive taking is ahead. Obama for the GOPe; he really looks good saying nothing.
Bugg (db3a97) — 10/21/2015 @ 12:15 pmF___ off, Proposition Paul.
this is a most excellent proposition i think
happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/21/2015 @ 1:53 pmThe cult following of Ryan is saddening.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 2:45 pmB&D of conservatives by team rino has exposed how big the one party system truly is.
It is time for a 2nd party…
Kevin M 51,
I would like the candidates to state their positions on the issues and why they are the best person for the job, and then I want the members of Congress to vote for Speaker so we know where everyone stands. I’m tired of the Old Boys Club way of doing things, that includes backroom deals and voting by acclamation. This is the People’s Club and we vote.
I suspect the Freedom Caucus would lose, and badly, but we’d know who stands with who. I’m confident the best people and ideas will win but it may take awhile. I think the people who want backroom deals and voting by acclamation know that, too.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 2:51 pmDRJ (#62), what you describe would hand over the House to the Democrats. The Speaker has never been chosen like that, by either party, ever, and won’t be now. Boehner will be there until January 2017 unless someone else gets 208 votes within the GOP caucus.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/21/2015 @ 3:44 pmAck, typo — 218 votes (50%+ of 435), not 208. Sorry.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/21/2015 @ 3:46 pmMajorities don’t rule. The chamber of crimalien commerce does.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 3:58 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/21/pew-polling-at-least-93-of-gop-electorate-opposes-paul-ryan-on-immigration/
I’ll give Ryan points for acknowledging that they can’t do anything on amnesty while Obama is in office. But the flip side is that he seems hellbent on doing it as soon as Obama is gone. If Hillary wins, why would she be any more trustworthy than Obama?
JD (34f761) — 10/21/2015 @ 4:06 pmIf the GOP caucus can’t agree on a new Speaker, what other choice is there than elections?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 4:31 pmhere is the thing, they are perfectly willing to handcuff themselves, via the Corker bill, push for amnesty, maintain obamacare, let the ‘machinery of death’ continue crushing skulls, but nay any issue of the peasant, that’s inoperative,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 4:40 pmRyan republicans will soon be coming after your guns. They seem to agree with harry, nancy and barracky on everything else.
mg (31009b) — 10/21/2015 @ 4:49 pmThe majority of the Freedom Caucus voted for Ryan but not the 80% that he demanded. Ryan’s move. Let’s see if he’s a man of his word or if he wants to be Speaker more than he lets on.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:39 pmHad occasion to hear Mark Levin this evening replay an interview with Ryan on July 11, 2012 in which Ryan said the plan was to defund huge chunks of financial structure of Obamacare, up to 85%, by using budget reconciliation, which was the same way Obama passed it. And that in fact this was Ryan’s stated plan as chairman of Ways&Means Ryan can be heard saying very forcefully this is exactly his and the leadership’s plan to stop Obamacare. Ryan said this while the hope did control the House but not the Senate. Yet even Since last year when the GOP did take the Senate Ryan has done…NOTHING. Same with the idiocy of Corker’s nonsense about Iran, or “clean” budget increases. Only a complete moron would consider ignoring the Senate’s constitutional mandate to review treaties a good idea, or indebting generations not yet born somehow clean. Becomes clear GOPe likes being part of DC. The longer they stay, the more indifferent they become to who put them there and why. It becomes about process, and money, and getting attaboys from the right people. Dear God, term limits yesterday.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:42 pmAffection and respect for Ryan should not blind us to what he’s doing. He wants power without accountability or responsibility. Washington had enough of that kind of leader already.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:46 pmthe guy what will chair the ways and means committee looks to me like he’s way way way more stalwart than pelosi’s boy ryan
happyfeet (831175) — 10/21/2015 @ 5:59 pm“All of us are representatives of the people—all the people. We have been entrusted by them to lead.”
– Paul Ryan
Wrong. So wrong. I would be bothered by this if I thought he actually believed it. But he is just spouting platitudes. He will make a fine Speaker.
Leviticus (6d9c7e) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:17 pmIf the Rs pick can be confirmed by the Ds, is that really Rs pick? What a bunch of nonsense coming out of the Republicans in Washington. But if that’s what an honest vote produces, go for it. Let the sham that is the Republican party (DC version) be exposed as shills for their opponents. Imagine Obama doing something similar? You can’t. Even if I give you an hour.
East Bay Jay (c65ac0) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:20 pmFor you, Leviticus. I don’t care what Rockwell called it. It’s a picture of our government and us. http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/norman-rockwell–prospector-july-13-1929_i-G-52-5284-LT8IG00Z.jpg
nk (dbc370) — 10/21/2015 @ 6:40 pm