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.
Speaker Ryan?
In the circumstances, Paul Ryan’s conditions for running for Speaker strike me as entirely reasonable. You?
The only condition i found problematic was not working on weekends. Speaker of the House strikes me as a 6.5 day a week gig. I’m unsure about the effectiveness of a man who doesn’t want it badly.
Of course, that may just be the perfect type of person for the chair.
I’m generally in favor of elected representatives taking more time off. I would prefer they take like 9 months off at a time, but weekends is a start.
Yes, we’ve had too much bad compromise in the past. But that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as good compromise. It would lead to a stronger coalition of conservative forces, and the ability to focus our ire more on the left.
If Ryan will agree to a couple of reasonable conservative demands, Ryan should be able to ask for a couple of reasonable, unifying items himself.
They can certainly reject him on those grounds. He’s never made any bones about his family weekend priority.
Neither has he made any bones about his positions regarding budgeting, taxes, immigration, etc–which add up to a pretty clear political economy philosophy.
Eric Hines
Ramesh is saying that Ryan did make such an agreement on immigration, and that the reports that he is trying to do away with the motion to vacate the chair is exaggerated.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425892/ryans-rules-ramesh-ponnuru
I don’t see what the big deal is. He told people want he wants, in advance of taking the job, and he is giving them a veto. That seems fair. If people think Paul Ryan is being mean by setting these conditions, veto him. If people just want to complain about something they didn’t want getting foisted on them, they don’t have that luxury. I have no objection to any of the caucuses vetoing him because I respect it more than whining.
I really think that Tim Huelskamp and his buddies should either retire or go start their own party, which will be smaller than Pat Buchanan’s or Ralph Nader’s.
How many different ways does he have to say “I don’t want that job” before certain folks believe him? Members who want the post run for it not from it. Suddenly this guy is the indispensable man?
If he doesn’t want the job, he’s perfect for it.
I think you have a lot of company in wanting to be unshackled from limited government types. They’re so limiting aren’t they?
If Ryan is the best the republican party has, then it has no credible legitimate claim to existence.
Seems the party is in a tough choice, money or voters.
Outside of Obama and Reid who is pushing this idea? Agree with the others that if the guy doesn’t want it, no harm no foul. There are a couple of representatives who’ve declared their candidacy. Have a vote, the one with the most votes wins.
As it stands, a democrat would have the most votes. No candidate would get the majority required.
So yes, the republicans need to rally behind someone.
Frank, does the speaker ultimately need 51%?
Needs an absolute majority.
The Freedom Caucus would be even more dangerous if all it took was a plurality–they’d be handing the speakership to Pelosi. Fortunately, it takes 218–a majority.
Eric Hines
Is 51% not an absolute majority?
The original point was that Brent’s suggestion that they just put all of the candidates to a vote might not actually result in a new Speaker.
But I still wonder why this simple vote has not taken place: it would at least be a starting point from which to proceed with negotiations on the speakership. I imagine the biggest problem isn’t the Freedom Caucus per se, it’s the many more members who need to appear “hardline” to avoid a primary contender yet also need to please their donor overlords and marginal voters.
Having a vote with multiple Republicans requires those members to actually cast a preference one way or another. Much better for them to reach unanimity behind closed doors.
Depends on what it’s 51% of. My understanding–which could be wrong–is that it takes a majority of members, not a majority of members present.
Eric Hines
As that WWII General said to the Nazi’s terms during the Battle of the Bulge “Nuts”!
Ryan can pound sand.
My memory may not be correct on this, but I believe votes are held continuously until a speaker is chosen. Similar to electing a Pope. Once you start the process, it’s all in.
Under these circumstances one should fear a small minority of Republicans becoming so frustrated that they cut a deal with democrats. Though the nominee would have to be a republican in such a deal in order to have a chance of succeeding, it would poison the entire caucus.
Better to hash it out in advance. There is no downside to waiting, as Boehner is simply the speaker until someone else is chosen.
Good comments, but I am not sure how the democrats muster 218 votes for Speaker Pelosi?
I agree the democrats could weigh heavily in the voting by ensuring the republican of their choosing receives 51%.
For N. Pelosi to take the gavel she would need all of her caucus plus republicans voting for her. I am not sure how she ends up with the gavel simply because one of the republicans running (I believe there are 3 announced) could get over the 218 hurdle.
What am I missing?
And the freedom caucus can deal with Boehner until they are willing to cut a deal.
Hopefully the republicans choose more wisely than the cardinals.
If Ryan does not intend to sell out the base on something major, why is he making this demand?
Brent, the risk with a battle royale is that a Republican to the left of Boehner enters the ring, and Dems thereby help elect a left-leaning Republican.
What demand is he making?
Eric Hines
Doesn’t Ryan already fit that bill?
Recent voting record aside because the Speaker traditionally does not vote unless necessary. Boehner for his legion of misgivings has always in my mind been to the right of Ryan.
This is one of my frustrations in this whole process. If Boehner is the problem how is Ryan the solution?
I’m pretty sure this was trolling on their part.
Ryan has an ego that is unbecoming. Get rid of a rule invented by Thomas Jefferson so he can sleep better? Crikey!
Pounding sand is too tame.
He is one of many in Washington, party being unimportant in this idea, who thinks he can move the levers more better. (Don’t correct me.) Yikes, blast the levers to perdition and let us have a speaker with a pair.