Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Patrick McHenry for Speaker
I call on all representatives, left and right, to vote for Patrick McHenry for speaker.
He has a great name, almost like one of my heroes and avatar, Patrick Henry.
He has incredible sartorial sense that is just unusual enough to make him stand out. The bow ties, the light gray suit instead of the standard-issue navy, the horn-rim glasses with the perfect arc.
He has handled himself well as speaker pro tempore, keeping things running smoothly without overstepping his limited authority. He speaks calmly and with just enough gravitas to command attention. His wry smile makes him seem serious yet approachable.
And he is in the middle of the Republican conference with an 82% on a Heritage Foundation scorecard. He could build coalitions across the breadth of the conference. Yes, I would like a hard-charging conservative like Jim Jordan, but he’s not a realistic choice to work with the moderate Republicans in the conference, and we need their votes every time to get to 217.
[This post started out to be merely humorous, but the more I read about McHenry, the more I think he would make a good speaker.]
Published in Politics
Do his pants have a nice crease?
His khakis look to be creased in this picture.
I’ve supported him for a while already. I think he’s done very well as the interim/pro tem/whatever, and Jim Jordan is more effective on committees where he can eviscerate the left.
But if it can’t be McHenry, it should probably be Jordan.
That’s a very good point. Jordan would have to restrain his natural instinct to go for the jugular, which I love when he is running an investigation, if he were to be an effective speaker.
I heard he is was the author the debt deal that extended the Pelosi spending for another year and giving away one of the few leverage points of the GOP House. The GOP House is in the middle of a long brewing battle–between the deficit hawks and the free-spenders. McHenry is probably with the free-spenders and the Dems are promoting him over Jordon, which makes me skeptical of McHenry.
I do see this on his Twitter account, which makes me smile:
needs to get serious about cutting out-of-control spending and abandon his Green New Deal energy policies to bring prices down for the American people.
I was listening to the Erik Ericson podcast the other day, he stated that all the house appropriations voted against Jordan, I found confirmation of what I suspected reassuring I suppose. Infuriating, but reassuring.
Yes, he was one of the negotiators. He was quite insistent that it was the best deal possible after received a lot of criticism from fiscal hawks.
If we had 240 Republicans in the House, he would not be my first choice. Then we could let the moderates vote no on tough bills and still pass things. They could go home and say how they were independent and opposed the far right of the party. But with 221 Republicans we need virtually everyone to get to 217, and I think he’s he kind of man who could corral everyone from the far right to the middle.
Ted Cruz is right up there too, on the Senate side. Here is a favorite example:
Here are a couple more Heritage Foundation Scorecard stats:
Jim Jordan: 82%
Matt Gaetz: 84%
Link: https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members?
Looks like a young(er) Orville Redenbacher…and that’s enough for me.
At 78% Kevin McCarthy seems to be in the ballpark with these other guys. Doesn’t seem to be that much difference between any of them. Makes me wonder what is the big deal. As Casey Stengel said, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”
Hmm, well, if those ratings are based on actual votes/results, maybe McCarthy is rated higher than he would be if his Democrat Collusion bills had actually passed?
I learned decades ago that most of those ratings weren’t done by people who valued what I valued. Also, there is a lot of room for members of Congress to game the ratings by giving themselves credit for votes that don’t matter.
I can’t find the part where this began to be humorous. It sounds extraordinary flattering. A puff-piece for a politician who will very likely betray his promise and promises.
Who is ‘we’?
Please define ‘moderate Republican’. What is moderate ? What policies? and for bonus points, how do they differ from Democrats?
Why should ‘we’ acquiesce to these so-called “moderates” willing to surrender out of spite?
This morning the WSJ had a front-page headline that called Jim Jordan a hardliner. That kind of name-calling could just as well be applied to any of the so-called moderates who refused to vote for him.
The man can swing a hammer.
Is this an exam?
Yes. You just failed.
[whatever]
I started a thread here once asking a simple question: “What does ‘center-right’ mean?”
If anything. Or can it mean . . . anything?
So y’all seem to be getting your wish. The Gerald Ford of Speakers.
WTF is a “temporary speaker”? My pocket Constitution does not have that.
Would like to see him get as angry about Democrats as he does about Republicans.
So who will control the re-election purse strings? The same group that controls the money now. I can just see the democrat election ads…vote democrat, we get things done!
Gee, why do I sense a pall of everlasting doom?
I am wondering when the O18 committee will form to investigate yesterday’s violent insurrection. I am sure McHenry will get right on it.
Right after they pass their next omnibus spending package and approve a zillion billion dollars of aid to hamas and Ukraine.
FWIW I’m somewhat familiar with the 10th CD of North Carolina. It’s one of the most Republican districts in the state, and I know that it’s fairly conservative. They’ve been sending McHenry to Congress since 2004. He’s won the general elections with a percentage of the votes ranging from 58%-78% of the vote. Seems like his constituents are pleased with the job he’s been doing.
He may be a “moderate” (whatever that means) when compared to figures like Gaetz, MTG, etc., but he’s fairly conservative and appears to take his job seriously, unlike some of those I mentioned.
It appears that the fat lady ain’t sung yet:
I know little about McHenry. Thank you for this insight. The OP was persuasive, and now I’ll have to look into McHenry.
I see the “moderate conservatives” especially those who are fully engaged in Jordan opposition as possible Epstein/Maxwell hostages. I am sure that is not all of them, but certainly could be some of them.
@SteveFast
@stevefast
No Franco, as often as I agree with you, I think that asking what the actual def for moderate Republicans happens to be is a fair question.
For me, personally, a moderate R is someone without racist tendencies, not a homophobe, is fiscally conservative and fully accepts the most essential plank of the platform the Republicans have traditionally stood on, that of being Pro-Life. I’d add in, they should want to eliminate the over ramped “agency” aspect of American life. So getting rid of industry-controlled FDA, CDC, DEI-controlled aspect of Dept of Ed, etc is certainly a worth while endeavor.
A moderate is also aghast about the trans agenda in all its many ramifications.
The traditional idea of Republicans that food stamps are a horrible idea, while banker control over US economy is A-okay, plus corporate welfare programs are never even mentioned is also something a moderate should not be party to.
For others, the term “moderate Republicans” means that we have to go along to get along, so it is a “must” that clinging to a pro-Life stance is an outmoded philosophy that should be abandonned.
Anyway since this term “moderate” has not been defined openly, it really truly needs to be brought out into the open with a full discussion beginning and proceeding until most Republicans have arrived at its meaning. (And I don’t expect others to agree with my internal thoughts on what “moderate” means. So disagree away – as long as the matter can be bought forth and discussed.)