Freedom Caucus: “Support” But Not “Endorsement” for Ryan
A supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus has voted to support Paul Ryan’s bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Paul is a policy entrepreneur who has developed conservative reforms dealing with a wide variety of subjects, and he has promised to be an ideas-focused Speaker who will advance limited government principles and devolve power to the membership. While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding Chairman Ryan’s preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our Conference in due time. We all know that Washington needs to change the way it does business, and we look forward to working with Paul and all our colleagues to enact process reforms that empower individual representatives and restore respect to our institution.
Their internal rules state that they require 80% of their members to agree in order to issue an “endorsement” — which the above is not . . . technically.
It remains to be seen whether Ryan will parse that language finely or not. My guess is, he will not. This will be good enough.
But then, I thought Biden was running.
UPDATE: I think I got one right today:
My statement after a meeting of the House Freedom Caucus: pic.twitter.com/lxmzBrUcms
— Paul Ryan (@PRyan) October 22, 2015
UPDATE: I think I got one right today:
Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:22 pmI think the Freedom Caucus will regret this decision.
Ryan is definitely VichyGOP and cannot be trusted.
WarEagle82 (44dbd0) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:36 pmIt’s about the GOPe team to Ryan, not advancing conservative ideals. He’s telling everyone to shut up and get in line. We’ve been lied to too long and too often about important things.We have no reason to trust Ryan nor the leadership any more now than in the past. We are to going to be treated like rambunctious children being told to shut up and sit dow on a bus ride to an amusement park.No thanks.
Prior comment stands; F___ off, Proposition Paul.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/21/2015 @ 7:39 pmSo, he had to get 80% of the 40-member Freedom Caucus, or all but 8 members of the House, to get an endorsement.
I thought that the need for that kind of unanimous consent went out with the Articles of Confederation. But what do I know? Those 8 or 10 members of the 425-member House think that it’s their way or no way? I’m fine with primarying them.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:16 pmI judge the GOP by the temper of its opponents, on both sides of the aisle. I think Ryan is a fine choice. I have not heard one person name a credible alternative.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:19 pmbecause that’s really the problem, rubber stamping every cursed thing this admininstration has put in place, why do we have a House majority anyways,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:20 pmI would like whatever passes for the Tea Party today (generally not the people who showed up at rallies in 2010) to go form an actual party, resign from the GOP and see how far they get. It has got to be better than staying in the Caucus as a fifth column.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:22 pmI think there’s a typo in that sentence. Let me fix it for you.
The “endorsement” isn’t a motion of the “425-member House”, it’s a motion by the much smaller Freedom Caucus. I agree with your estimate that the supermajority requirement will impede effectiveness more often than it will prevent overreach, but if you’re going to complain about an organization requiring “unanimous consent”, please make sure you’re complaining about the organization that actually instituded the requirement.
CayleyGraph (353727) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:25 pmwhat do you happened to them, Kevin, they saw the establishment crush their candidates, with money, and innuendo, in fact I recall a little kerfluffle or two here, meanwhile the Top Men’s candidate, when facing Obama, the real enemy, did a good Marcel Marceau impression,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:31 pmthis candidate has bought ‘magic beans’ from gutierrez and murray, was treated like a chewed up ragdoll by the solon from scranton,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 8:33 pmNo, Cayley I meant it as I wrote it. A rump of a rump of the majority party of a 435-member body. Those members who cannot get on board should just stop calling themselves Republicans.
Come on out of the closet and declare what they are. File re-election papers as this third party and take it to their voters. Who knows, maybe they win. If they do, THEN they have something to bargain with. As it stands, though, their re-election will be subject to the choices of registered Republicans.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:12 pmI spent a decade in the fevered 3rd-party swamps and I know what some of you still need to learn: ALL political progress is incremental. In the rare occasions where some giant leap occurs (e.g. Obamacare, Roe) it is forever subject to reversal unless the people catch up.
NO longer interested in purists or their fantasies.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:15 pm‘fever swamps’ how they burn down or redefine every institution they come in contact with, how they serve as fifth column to every enemy from the Soviets to the Mullahs, were they fools no they are knaves, Kerry, Biden, Hillary, and Obama, the damage they have wrought will take generations to fix, yet we are told we must work with them,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:21 pm“How dare someone I demand support my positions 100% of the time try to demand a majority of people support him?! That’s so unfair… for some reason! It is, I say! Now, do what I want, while I go praise lifelong Democrat Donald Trump as a true conservative.”
That’s how a lot of Tea Partiers sound these days. Sad really.
Don’t forget, folks: according to FreedomWorks, Ryan has a far more conservative record than Daniel Webster (the guy the Freedom Caucus originally wanted). Food for thought, huh? And ironic, too. Now, if you can find someone even more conservative than Ryan who can win the race, then by all means propose him or her. Odds are you won’t be able to, but hey, give it a try. Otherwise, I suggest that all of you whining about Ryan possibly being Speaker go visit this link and do as Cartman says.
tops116 (d094f8) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:32 pmKevin – can you point us to some of those incremental wins that the current establishment POS have won?
JD (34f761) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:36 pmpardon e moi, but we saw said promises with Boehner twice, I don’t know if Webster would be as good a candidate, but we have seen Ryan has performed at a substandard level.
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:37 pmbut wait we have criminal justice reform, because our crime rate isn’t nearly high enough, and our law enforcement, has too easy a time of it (sarc)
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/21/2015 @ 9:51 pmKevin – can you point us to some of those incremental wins that the current establishment POS have won?
That’s because neither Boehner of McConnell had anything they wanted to win. Ryan has an agenda and maybe even a vision. Now we have to get rid of McConnell, the filibuster and get a sane Republican in the WH.
(note: Trump fails on both counts)
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 11:59 pm*or
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/21/2015 @ 11:59 pmBut how can anyone say that voting in some guy that wants to burn the House down is going to get anyone anywhere? Tantrums feel good, but everyone else says “Jeez, what a brat!”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/22/2015 @ 12:01 amThe republican leadership holds the brat theme all to themselves.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:04 ambill’s wife 2016
eff all republicans, you have ruined this country with your give in attitude.
republicans theme
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:07 amgive it away, give it away now, give it away, give it away now.
or
let me bend over, mizz pelosi, mr reid says rino ryan.
Walnut stock never felt so warm.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:09 amAs ryan and his ilk take over, the 2nd amendment will be in grave danger as these malcontents open the borders to crimaliens the new voters will be out voting conservatives 5-1 if the ryan ilk have their way. And they want your guns. Blows me away republican idiots can’t see this coming. Stupid beltway morons.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:18 amRepublicans govern for the next election not on principal. This really should change.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:23 amThe whole issue the base has is the rigging of the rules and process, which serves to perpetuate the “statist quo.”
Ryan’s demands are right in line with this. Committed conservatives would be fools to go along.
Comity at the expense of needed change is the core of the rot in our government.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:38 amanyone who votes to change the rules for so pelosi’s boy paul ryan has a free hand to wheel and deal our liberty and freedom and prosperity away needs to find another line of work i think
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 5:24 amWell…the naysayers and “let it burn” crew…they kind of sound like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
There is a difference between saying you prefer one person another due to policy, and calling a Republican “no different than” a Democrat. Especially when you look at voting records.
True, looking at voting records takes some work. And it’s much, much easier to come up with silly names or slogans.
Maybe “lazier” is a better term.
But here is the thing. The DNC is counting on the “Purity Brigade.”
And they seldom disappoint.
So, even though it takes work and thought: what is the alternative? Other than love poems to ammunition or e.e. cummings on acid prose?
The Gospel tells us that “blessed are the peacemakers“…but these days, it seems to finish “…because everybody kicks their ass.”
I hope that folks come up with an alternative.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:02 amIt’s almost certain now that Paul Ryan is going to be Speaker – I’m not happy about it but I’m not an outspoken opponent either – I can live with it. However, if Ryan fails to heed the growing conservative demand that self-serving GOP establishment politics is unacceptable and has to change and change immediately – it’s time to build the fence, deport criminal aliens and incarcerate repeat offenders, end ObamaCare, reduce taxes, support the military, demand Russia evacuate Ukraine, protect Israel, go on the offensive against ISIS, reject Muslim immigration to the US, abolish public sector unions, enforce existing laws, and lots more.
Let Paul Ryan begin to address the needs of the American people and he will earn their support. If his leadership extends only to lip service to conservatives and business as usual in Washington he’ll fail and fail miserably, and the nation will have been further enfeebled by his presence.
ropelight (aae124) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:03 amI agree with you, ropelight. I just heard a person on the radio railing about calling their Representative to complain…but could not name their Representative.
Like I said, lazy.
Your approach is better.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:04 amwe won’t have the Luna rebellion till 2096, at this rate, the left is entirely lockstep in it’s goals, if not actively in passive form,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:05 amThat’s the real problem, narciso.
Personally, I would love it if both sides tore down their candidates, 24/7.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:10 amToo often the gop candidates talk a good conservative ball game before the elections, but, once they are in office it is hard to distinguish them from the pelosi’s and reid’s, except for their temprament. No gop leader has the killer instinct of reid, pelosi, shumer, et al. We don’t want to get along; we want to stop the leftward spiral of the US. Whenever there is a compromise, it is always to the left.
It is no surprise that Trump, Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. It would be nice to have representatives of the people leading in dc.
Jim (a9b7c7) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:14 amthe Hammer did, that’s why Texans for Justice worked with Ronnie Earle, and they followed through with Perry and now Paxton, doesn’t matter if the indictment is a pack of lies,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:18 amnarciso, I’m pretty sure the Dems have more to do with the appearance of unified aims than with the reality of it. True, their media sycophants and duck speakers are unified in their pronouncements, but the largest majority of Democrat voters are not content to go along with the lies and deceptions, nor are they stupid enough to go down on a sinking ship.
ropelight (aae124) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:19 amI haven’t seen evidence of this in 20 years, they do proforma protestations, like Shalala, then they follow the party line,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:21 amoh my goodness if pelosi’s boy wasn’t scheming some pretty nasty stuff he’d be fine with the rules as they are
why you need special rules paul
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:24 amnarciso, push your timeline back a few more years and you’ll find quite a few Reagan Democrats. They’re still out there and they’ll still respond to a strong leader with a conservative message. They’ll follow a leader who’ll take them to a better place, a place they want to go, a place the Democrat party denies even exists.
If that’s wishful thinking, well then it won’t be the first time.
ropelight (aae124) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:39 amThe Hill claims he has the votes. We could do worse and I haven’t heard or read any reality-based suggestions of who would be more viable.
Colonel Haiku (8fd90b) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:42 amThe only “vision” I am interested in is limited government. Ryan does not seem to have that vision (see: his voting record) — and any “vision” by a government official that does not involve getting government out of our lives is dangerous.
Maybe reform has to be incremental and maybe it doesn’t. (There are plenty of lurches in history.) I want the Overton window moved.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:46 amWhy, in MY day, Ed in SFV, we didn’t smoke crack… we chewed on broken glass, and we liked it!
Colonel Haiku (8fd90b) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:47 amI’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say here, but if you’re trying to say ObamaCare and Roe are both giant non-incremental lurches of policy towards the left, I think you’re right. If you’re trying to say they’re here to stay, I think you’re right.
Only the other side gets to do non-incremental giant lurches in their favor, though. We must not speak of doing anything like that or we are Very Irresponsible.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:49 amKevin M 7,
I hope the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus will form its own Party. The GOP is the surrender party. If I’m going to lose, at least let me lose trying to win.
By the way, Ryan who needs them, too. He is playing these word games because he needs their votes.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:53 amPaul Ryan found a way to exceed the 140 character Twotter limit.
Sammy Finkelman (6c2cdd) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:11 amRe “giant leaps”: Putting aside specific landmarks (e.g., Obamacare or Roe), but looking at the very biggest of pictures — “Which party suddenly becomes markedly more successful in setting and enacting its agenda” — I think I’ve seen that exactly three times in my lifetime:
The first began on Nov. 22, 1963, with a gunshot in Dallas, and turned into the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It ended with LJB’s presidency.
The second began on Nov. 4, 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President. It ended, roughly, with Iran-Contra in 1986-1987.
The third began on Nov. 4, 2008, when Barack Obama was elected President, and it ended on December 8, 2009, when Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat in MA (thereby depriving the Dems of their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).
Each of these Presidents aspired to be, and I believe were, genuinely “transformational,” in the sense that each had a coherent philosophy and direction that, when successfully imposed through a combination of leadership and then-existing Congressional majority, resulted in major changes in national direction.
It’s not realistic to think that the GOP’s mid-term selection of a different Speaker is, by itself, likely to enable such a transformation. But if he can keep the GOP together long enough to get to the 2016 election, then — depending on whether the GOP can choose a transformational POTUS candidate and retain majorities in both chambers — we might see a giant leap, a transformative government that moves in the direction of more limited government instead of simply ever more government — by January 2017.
Our host wrote (#40):
I agree with the first sentence, but not the second here: I believe, Patrick, you’re probably referring to Ryan’s vote with the House leadership on a series of compromise/stopgap legislative packages in which he was not a major negotiator, plus perhaps a few (Murray-Ryan) in which he had a more significant role. From that, you may indeed accuse Ryan of having the voting record of a Team Player, and that is accurate and fair.
But wow, talk about missing the big picture: No Republican in the last ten-plus years has done remotely as much as Paul Ryan to draft and promote major legislative changes toward more limited government — and specifically, toward reforming the entitlements programs that are the principal means of Dem self-maintenance of political power — than Paul Ryan. No one else has come remotely close in either the House or Senate. I respectfully submit that that is a more important predictor of Ryan’s likely long-term significance as Speaker than the party-line votes he’s cast as a team player (rather than a team captain).
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:28 amI have not trusted Ryan or supported him since he became an amnesty & open borders advocate.
Time for something radical, like a speaker who has not held office nor is beholden to any group of donors.
For any smartalecs who say, “Why don’t you take the job then?”, I say becareful of what you ask for because I would take the job and flush the Establishment before defunding the White House.
PCD (39058b) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:29 amI’d also respectfully submit that everyone in the GOP Caucus, including every blessed member of the Freedom Caucus, knows that my italicized sentence above (#44) is true — which is the reason why their public rhetoric about Ryan and now their indications of support for him are so spectacularly at odds with the nasty comments made about Ryan by others less knowledgeable (including, especially, pundits and commenters in conservative media).
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:34 amYou said yesterday that Speakers don’t have elections, but they have internal elections. If Ryan is so committed to the principles of freedom and limited government, why does he have to rig the game by demanding allegiance before the election?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:49 amMaybe he can’t take criticism. There seems to be a lot of that in the GOP, and not just the politicians.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:51 amyes yes all of this paul ryan person’s special pleadings definitely call his trustworthiness into question
i find it very distasteful and I’m thinking about perhaps making an internet comment on a blog which lays out my opinion on the matetr
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:53 am*matter*
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:53 amWhat about his refusal to work on weekends? The GOP isn’t so strong that it can afford a 5-day-a-week Speaker. Or 4. They take off a lot of Fridays in Congress.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:55 amyes yes that goes straight to doubts I’ve long held about his work ethic specifically and his character more broadly
someday his kids will ask him Daddy when the stakes were so high, why were you such a lackadaisical p.o.s. what flew home every weekend like you thought you were Oprah Winfrey or something
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 9:01 am-wake me when small govt. czar ryan’s great accomplishments do anything. don’t bogart that joint, Beldar.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 10:01 amAll press reports confirm that a “supermajority” of the Freedom Caucus are now committed to vote for Ryan. I have the same interpretation of Ryan’s post-meeting statement as our host suggested in his update to this post: I think he’ll not insist upon unanimity or a formal endorsement to go along with the necessary votes. That the Freedom Caucus has now publicly assured Ryan of a sufficient vote margin to get to 218, whether he has their formal Caucus endorsement or not, is the substance here.
The reservation of a formal endorsement in the Caucus’ name (for all the glory that’s entitled) is a fig-leaf for saving face among its members. The difference between 75% and 80%+ in a 40-member caucus is the difference between 30 votes and 32 votes, after all. So what will happen is that the eight or nine members of the Freedom Caucus who are most desperate to save face will vote against Ryan. The rest will vote for him.
So to those still perturbed by the prospect of Ryan as Speaker: You’re now aligning yourself with eight or nine GOP members of the House against, probably, out of the 247 total GOP members. To you I ask: Who’s the Republican in Name Only?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 11:48 amDRJ, my friend, to respond briefly:
(#47): You ask, “If Ryan is so committed to the principles of freedom and limited government, why does he have to rig the game by demanding allegiance before the election?” That’s not what he’s doing. Rather, he’s gathering the political capital that he — or any Speaker, from either party — must have in order to be an effective Speaker, for without it he cannot wield party discipline, and without party discipline the GOP forfeits its majority. He’s not making backroom closed-door deals; to the contrary, he put his position out in public, on CSPAN, and he’s repeated it again privately (one presumes) in the follow-up meetings he’s had with the Freedom Caucus and other dissident groups.
(#51): You ask, “What about his refusal to work on weekends?” Are you seriously accusing Paul Ryan of laziness? Seriously? By universal consensus in the Congress, in both chambers on both sides of the aisle, he’s been one of the hardest working members of Congress for the last couple of decades. And he isn’t refusing to work on weekends. He’s refusing to travel on weekends. He’s not demanding that there be no homework; he’s not refusing to ever answer the phone or check his email from 5:00 pm Thursday to 9:00 am the following Monday. He’s not averse to work on behalf of the conservative agenda; rather, he’s averse to doing the weekend travel and fundraising that Speaker Boehner has done, and which someone else can do.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 12:05 pmmg (#53): Ryan’s first accomplishment will be to end the power vacuum that has existed since Boehner announced his intention to resign. Compared to a dysfunctional House that can’t cohere at all to oppose Obama and the Democrats, I’ll claim that as a significant accomplishment too. But yes, to the extent you simply mean to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I agree.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 12:11 pmLove pudding.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 12:43 pmRyan’s first accomplishment will be to end the power vacuum that has existed since Boehner announced his intention to resign.
Well, Beldar, many would say that the power vacuum existed long before Boehner resigned, and that was the problem.
I am sure that on more than one occasion I have said something without engaging my brain and regretted it,
but I would like to see people in leadership who have guiding principles that are seen in action when reacting to things,
as when McCarthy had nothing better to say than hurting Clinton politically,
that indicated a very shallow commitment to anything of principle.
Maybe that was totally out of character and it is unfair to judge him by that,
but it is what it is, it is what we have.
That was the problem with Boehner. He often showed a reflex of despising those more conservative.
Maybe Ryan is a victim of media filtering, but I can’t say I can think of things that suggest Ryan has a passion to stand up to the status quo. Yes, he could make Obama look stupid in reference to Obamacare,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/22/2015 @ 1:12 pmbut that is nowhere near enough.
I don’t know enough to be against him, or who I would suggest instead.
Counting McCarthy, at least the last two choices for speaker have seemed to be political creatures devoid of solid principles of listening to their constituents and protecting the country.
I have no reason to think this choice will be any better, until he proves to be.
My point about weekends is a continuation of the point I made on the other thread. It has nothing to do with laziness. It is that Ryan is requiring that his family comes first every weekend, to the exclusion of Speaker duties that might take him away from them. Of course, everyone’s family comes first at times but this is Ryan’s default position. It reminds me of Obama’s rule that he eats on time and alone with his family every night, as Bibi Netanyahu learned the hard way.
I get this doesn’t bother you because you value Ryan’s intellect and you want him plotting tactics and policies, not schmoozing. But fundraising and courting support is part of the job. Not every donor or CEO or head of state will accept Mccarthy or Scalise in lieu of the actual Speaker.
My gut says Ryan isn’t worried about fundraising and schmoozing because he plans to turn that aspect of the job over to the Chamber of Commerce. I’m sure you disagree. Is there anything about Ryan you don’t like? Is there anything you don’t trust him to handle to your satisfaction? I think not, which is why this discussion is pointless.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/22/2015 @ 2:46 pmit’s bread pudding season for sure!
i tried my first of the season from the Boo Coo Roux truck the other day
it did the trick for sure with festive notes of french toast and that real whipped cream what’s not all sugared up
it’s the truck what has the really pretty good gumbo (but the kinda meh muffuletta)
it was parked by the truck what has the really wonderful lobster bisque so it was the pudding that helped me make up my mind
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 2:56 pmfood trucks in chicago are super-expensive for what you get you just have to know that from the git-go
LA had a few like that but Chicago takes it to another level
so usually if I want truck foozles I buy 2 or 3 things just to explore and I hardly ever go to the same one twice (so far – there’s things like the bread pudding or the lobster bisque I can see myself hitting again someday)
my next lunch thing though I wanna do is this – it’s right before you get to jeweler’s row on wabash
it looks like america huh
further down a few blocks is goddess and the baker
we tried going there at like 1 pm or so one day and it was too much of a line and lots of icky hipsters and twizzles so we bailed on it
happyfeet (831175) — 10/22/2015 @ 4:42 pmDRJ, you asked me (#59): “Is there anything about Ryan you don’t like? Is there anything you don’t trust him to handle to your satisfaction?”
There are certainly times when I’ve disagreed with votes he’s taken. If I run through his position on a comprehensive issues checklist — national defense/foreign policy, economics & domestic — I disagree with only a small handful (e.g., his position against SSM).
Regarding that which I trust him to handle to my satisfaction: I’d say I’m quite satisfied with what he’s done as chair of the Budget the Ways & Means Committees. I frankly expect him to continue to play a moving and active role in promoting long-term structural reforms, but he’s now also undertaking an additional set of responsibilities. So like the 218+ members of his caucus who’ll confirm him next Wednesday, I am placing my trust in him to handle the Speakers chair to my satisfaction. It’s a spectacular challenge, but I do indeed have a lot of regard for Ryan’s political skills; I think the manner in which he’s handled this consensus-building is a very clear template for how he’s likely to continue handling the political aspects of the Speakership, so I’m optimistic.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 7:34 pm@ MD [temporarily not] in Philly (#58): I agree with you re Boehner. He was quite often grumpy in public, pettish even. The job requires someone with a strong ego, but I’ve never thought he was a very effective public face for the GOP, and the quality you refer to magnified those problems. He was fundamentally unprepared to run, and probably (in hindsight) always incapable of running, the House in effective tandem with the Senate to challenge Obama with legislation for his veto pen at least twice a week: On Mondays, legislation unrolling Obama’s stuff. On Wednesdays, legislation showing America the different vision the GOP has for America. Make him veto it all, and fight like hell to override them, and take record votes that will go into campaign ads for all the Dems who squirm during each and every one of those votes.
Alas, even had Boehner had the heart and desire for that, McConnell’s too strategically inept to carry his side of the Capitol building. But maybe Ryan can find some ways to twist the old turtle’s tail hard enough to make him stick his neck out, either to bite the enemy or get chopped off. We can hope; but I admit that’s a near-best-case scenario, not a very likely one.
Finally, re whether Ryan has a passion to stand up to the status quo: He has a passion for structural reforms — which are going to include things like means-testing Social Security — that are going to require sweeping changes to the status quo on the very largest of scales.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:03 pmIt’s settled law – ryan makes it a one party system.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:21 pmlooooser. ryan has the passion to cave in, not an ounce of fight in this wimp. Unless you want to bash or demean conservatives.
Chickenshit republican. ryan’s motto- screw conservatives and make love to democrats.
Ryan and his kiss the democrats buttocks disease.
mg (31009b) — 10/22/2015 @ 8:29 pmdisgraceful that we are now a one party obama machine.
I hope you’re right and Ryan doesn’t use his new power to promote TPP and amnesty. Do you agree with him on trade and immigration? You didn’t mention them so I assume you do.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/23/2015 @ 6:49 amTrade and immigration are both important subjects, and I don’t think the short summaries of Ryan and his position in that Breitbart.com article that you linked are quite right. And I’m spectacularly unimpressed by arguments which take the form of “Ryan must be bad because Obama [or random Democrat X] says Ryan is a good guy.” What, Breitbart.com doesn’t understand that the Dems know how to troll? Breitbart.com doesn’t understand trolling?!? C’mon.
Regarding my own positions, I’m generally in favor of free trade agreements that eliminate barriers and tariffs, and I’m generally against provisions in them that seek to impose social or political policies on trading partners (or, backhandedly, on American workers). I think Obama is all about the latter — and that makes him a particularly unsuitable vessel to take the point in such international negotiations, meaning Congress ought to be particularly skeptical about imbuing this particular POTUS with broad authority that ties Congress’ hands (beyond the simplest step, which is the requirement that proposed deals be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments).
As for immigration, I’m most concerned about the constitutional and national security crises created by Obama’s overuse of executive orders and refusal to enforce existing law. Ryan has probably been more willing than I would have been to at least discuss, within his own caucus and with the Democrats, “comprehensive solutions” that would change/reform existing law even before we return to enforcement (or even “best realistic enforcement” of existing law). However, I note that on immigration in particular, Ryan made concessions (I’m not sure how specific) and gave assurances to Freedom Caucus members and other concerned Republicans that he wasn’t going to try to broker a comprehensive immigration “reform” package during this Congress. I interpret that as his acknowledgement that on that issue in particular, he’s willing to sublimate or at least postpone his own inclinations in recognition of the sensitivity of the issue and its potential to trigger another leadership crisis before the 2016 election.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:29 pmSingle best factoid illustrating the failure of the GOP Congressional leadership in both chambers since the 2014 election:
Yesterday, Obama’s veto of the defense authorization bill was on the fifth time in his entire presidency that he’s had to exercise a veto — ten months into a Congress in which the GOP has a clear majority in both chambers.
Fix that problem, and they’d lance the boil of GOP base frustration.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:36 pm“on the fifth time” –> “only the fifth time”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:36 pmThe base is frustrated that the Republican Congress they elected won’t use the tools given to Congress by the Constitution to actually oppose and rein in this out-of-control president. Instead they’ve let the mere threat-and-expectation of an Obama veto control their actions. That’s cowardice, but it also profoundly misunderstands and undervalues the institutional strengths that Congress possessed in the constitutional balance of powers. Boehner and McConnell have both failed, for the most part, to think or act strategically; they’re acting as caretakers, hoping to hang on until a GOP president comes to power to make things easy. That’s why people are disgusted with them; individual issues (like immigration or trade) intensify that disgust, but it’s the larger since of betrayal — rather than of disagreement on particular issues — that needs to be addressed by congressional GOP leaders going forward through the next 12 months.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:45 pm“since of betrayal” –> “sense of betrayal”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:45 pmYou sound like Boehner, et al, Beldar. I don’t think it’s because you are that way, at least I hope you aren’t. I think it’s because you have so much faith in Ryan.
I like Cruz as much as you like Ryan but I don’t trust him or anyone to do the opposite of what they’ve done in the padt. It concerns me that you trust Ryan to change or limit his past positions, without even hearing his promises but simply assuming he’s made them, and that you have to make those assumptions to make him a good fit for the Speakersip.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/23/2015 @ 4:10 pmThat’s why people are disgusted with them; individual issues (like immigration or trade) intensify that disgust, but it’s the larger since of betrayal — rather than of disagreement on particular issues — that needs to be addressed by congressional GOP leaders going forward through the next 12 months.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/23/2015 @ 1:45 pm
Exactly.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/23/2015 @ 5:37 pmAnd they have messed up so long that many of us will not believe anything until we see it,
so they should shut up and do what they promised in Oct. 2014.
And until they do that, we can only have respect for the likes of Cruz and Cotton who have attempted to stick to what they said.
Actually, when it comes to Ryan, immigration alone is enough for me to feel betrayed.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/23/2015 @ 6:56 pmI’ll take Reagan over any President in memory.
That said, he still presided over an ever-expanding government.
That’s not really a knock on him personally, but it is indicative of the systematic problem we face.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:05 amSend that answer to Ted Cruz. He had trouble answering when asked about Reagan’s expansion of government. He admitted Reagan did it and that it was a negative, but it would have been even better if Cruz had added that even the most ardent capitalist and conservative would have trouble resisting liberal systemic pressures in today’s world.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:44 amWhich is why we need conservative government. The combination of liberal education, media, and culture needs counterbalancing, not enabling.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:46 amOne more link, Beldar.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:40 pm