Speaker of the House Thread

[JPhillips]

Wow. McCarthy just dropped out of the Speaker race. I wonder if they'll find another candidate or if Boehner will end up sticking around longer.

[ISiddiqui]

We are well and truly fucked, aren't we?

[JPhillips]

We are well and truly fucked, aren't we?

At least we can take comfort in knowing that both sides are equally to blame for the chaos.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow. McCarthy just dropped out of the Speaker race. I wonder if they'll find another candidate or if Boehner will end up sticking around longer.

By "longer" I figure a few days past the initial end of October is at least conceivable if there was some procedural wonkiness but I can't imagine anything beyond that.

I mean, it's the taint of Boehner that made McCarthy vulnerable as a candidate & inspired opposition in the first place. I imagine you'd see an outright uprising within the party if he suddenly decided to stick around.

Chaffetz is probably the frontrunner, Webster seems less likely to me ... but I wonder if the eventual solution won't be someone that has already passed on the race. I figure another run at Gowdy will be made. I also wouldn't put it past Price (GA) to float himself as a possibility but I don't think anything would come of that.

[Grover]

We are well and truly fucked, aren't we?

I see that McCarthy essentially stated in an interview that the Benghazi Special Committee was created with the intention of tearing Hillary down. Could be why he stepped out of the race?

[JPhillips]

By "longer" I figure a few days past the initial end of October is at least conceivable if there was some procedural wonkiness but I can't imagine anything beyond that.

I mean, it's the taint of Boehner that made McCarthy vulnerable as a candidate & inspired opposition in the first place. I imagine you'd see an outright uprising within the party if he suddenly decided to stick around.

Chaffetz is probably the frontrunner, Webster seems less likely to me ... but I wonder if the eventual solution won't be someone that has already passed on the race. I figure another run at Gowdy will be made. I also wouldn't put it past Price (GA) to float himself as a possibility but I don't think anything would come of that.

I think it has to be a new candidate. Neither Chaffetz nor Webster will be able to get the support of the Boehner backers. Gowdy would win easily, but he certainly doesn't seem to want it.

The problem as I see it is there's no one that wants the job that's acceptable to the far-right and center-right blocks.

[flere-imsaho]

:popcorn:

[ISiddiqui]

Very interesting (and what I hoped would happen):

McCarthy Drops Out Of Speaker Race, Throwing GOP Leadership Into Chaos : It's All Politics : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/08/446889538/mccarthy-drops-out-of-speaker-race-throwing-gop-leadership-into-chaos)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said Ryan was probably the only lawmaker who could get the necessary 218 votes in the caucus. Ryan, however, has already issued a statement that he won't run.

Dent, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the House and a close ally of Boehner, said lawmakers might need to form a coalition with Democrats to find a consensus speaker. Republicans are divided and "anyone with eyes can see it," Dent said.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said Republicans may need a "caretaker speaker" or someone who will be speaker until new elections can be held in January 2017. They'd have to be a senior member who would not run for a full term though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe I'm missing something here but if this recap of the process is correct there really isn't a need for a party candidate to get a majority of the caucus on the first try

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/house-republicans-speaker-vote/

To win the GOP nomination, a candidate needs a simple majority of all House Republicans -- or 125 votes. (That number could change if any House Republicans are absent or opts not to vote in the election.)

Once all the ballots are counted, a representative of the conference will announce the results, along with the vote totals.

If no candidate gets a majority of the conference on the first vote, a second ballot circulates with the names of the top two vote-getters, and a winner is announced after those ballots are counted.

It'd be nice, but from that it isn't really required. A majority will occur on the 2nd ballot (barring an exact tie) no matter what happens in round one.

Pick one, put 'em up against Pelosi on the floor and let it fall where it may. I don't think enough of the 'establishment' members will put their seats at risk back home by letting Pelosi have it by sitting out the main vote.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but in that case, I think there are far more establishment members than Tea Party members. The question is whether the Tea Party members will work with the establishment chosen Speaker.

[flere-imsaho]

From twitter:

Rep. Peter King tells me that members are crying in cloakroom, unable to handle the unrest and confusion. "A banana republic," he says.

And yet these are the same people who are OK with shutting down the government.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, but in that case, I think there are far more establishment members than Tea Party members. The question is whether the Tea Party members will work with the establishment chosen Speaker.

The GOP has (if I do my math right) 49 more seats than the Democrats in the House.

So they can afford plenty of defections/abstentions and still elect a speaker.

But, the split in the GOP was always going to turn this into a lose-lose.

TP members can't support an establishment candidate because a) they'll lose support of their base and, ironically, might get primaried by a moderate and b) plenty of them are pretty ideologically pure. We're talking about the same people who are perfectly fine with shutting down the government to get their way.

Establishment members can't support a TP candidate because it undermines them with their constituency and makes them more open to a TP primary, plus it's increasingly clear that a number of them are fed up with the TP and Boehner on his way out just gave them air cover with his disparaging remarks about the TP.

Like I said before: :popcorn:

[ISiddiqui]

From twitter:



And yet these are the same people who are OK with shutting down the government.

I'm betting the ones who are crying aren't the same ones who are ok with shutting down the government.

[flere-imsaho]

Anyway, it's probably just Boehner who's crying because a) he does that and b) it means he has to be in charge of this mess even longer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, but in that case, I think there are far more establishment members than Tea Party members.

but frequently they lack the balls to do much of anything, that's why they're as much problem as solution in the first place.

The question is whether the Tea Party members will work with the establishment chosen Speaker.

If it's a Boehner clone -- or anyone willing to appease the left -- then the answer is, and should be, no.

[Grover]

If it's a Boehner clone -- or anyone willing to appease the left -- then the answer is, and should be, no.

I don't think they can make anybody else that orange.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think they can make anybody else that orange.

If it worked for Hulk Hogan ...

[ISiddiqui]

but frequently they lack the balls to do much of anything

Isn't that the problem the Tea Party have with them is the exact opposite? They do plenty, but they don't agree with any of it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Isn't that the problem the Tea Party have with them is the exact opposite? They do plenty, but they don't agree with any of it?

Well I wasn't really counting capitulation as "doing something". Splitting a semantic hair most likely {shrug}

[SackAttack]

The GOP has (if I do my math right) 49 more seats than the Democrats in the House.

So they can afford plenty of defections/abstentions and still elect a speaker.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure the "Freedom Caucus" (Tea Party by another name) is close to 50 members. And they will be fucked if they're going to support anybody who isn't willing to burn everything down.

So...the Republicans don't really have enough seats, no, to keep fuckery out of the Speaker's chair without the help of the Democrats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The thing is, I'm pretty sure the "Freedom Caucus" (Tea Party by another name) is close to 50 members. And they will be fucked if they're going to support anybody who isn't willing to burn everything down.

So...the Republicans don't really have enough seats, no, to keep fuckery out of the Speaker's chair without the help of the Democrats.

strictly fwiw I think the number is a little lower than that. I've seen 30 mentioned a couple of times today in articles referencing them. Wiki says its 42 but only lists 38.

[flere-imsaho]

The biggest disappointment with this entire situation, however, is that Democrats lack the troll game to make hay while the sun shines here.

[SackAttack]

strictly fwiw I think the number is a little lower than that. I've seen 30 mentioned a couple of times today in articles referencing them. Wiki says its 42 but only lists 38.

Saying that there are eight fewer functionally insane people in the House of Representatives doesn't do much to change the math.

They can get a candidate without the help of the Freedom Caucus. They can't get him or her elected without the help of the Democrats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saying that there are eight fewer functionally insane people in the House of Representatives doesn't do much to change the math.

You mean ones that aren't willing to toady to the left, gleefully complicit in their attempts to destroy a nation? It's nothing short of a disgrace that there even has to BE a conservative caucus within a party that claims to be conservative. And the insane -- or worse -- are the damned fools who don't see that. Useful idiots at best.

They can't get him or her elected without the help of the Democrats.

Well that shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. The faux conservatives have given them enough help, not that much substantial difference in the two.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm just impressed that after all these years you still haven't lost that fire, Jon. :D

[SackAttack]

You mean ones that aren't willing to toady to the left

That may be true

gleefully complicit in their attempts to destroy a nation?

On the other hand I think you just hit the Tea Party on the head. What exactly is it you don't understand about "burn everything down"? That is exactly what the Tea Party wants. They have this idea that if they destroy everything a glorious new conservative America will rise from the ashes and liberalism will be dead forever.

[albionmoonlight]

To move the discussion from the GOP Primary Thread . . .

[albionmoonlight]

To help Jim, I propose moving the Speaker discussion here: Speaker of the House Thread - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=3058361)

[albionmoonlight]

The Speaker need not be a current member of the House. Probably some good outside the box candidates for the GOP to consider.

[digamma]

Posts moved. The timing of the posts makes it look like albion started the thread later than he did, but oh well.

[albionmoonlight]

Posts moved. The timing of the posts makes it look like albion started the thread later than he did, but oh well.

I will never forgive you for this tarnishing of my good name :mad:

[JPhillips]

First, I had no intention of causing a shitstorm.

Next, it appears Boehner is going at Paul Ryan hard. He says he doesn't want the job, but I expect he'll eventually relent and take it.

[JAG]

Has he stated why he doesn't want the position? For a guy who wanted to be VP but is staying out of the presidential race and refusing to take on the Speaker role, I'm a little curious if he's really satisfied where he is in public life or just doesn't want to take what has to be an awful job.

[digamma]

Gawker is reporting affair rumors for McCarthy.

[Thomkal]

Has he stated why he doesn't want the position? For a guy who wanted to be VP but is staying out of the presidential race and refusing to take on the Speaker role, I'm a little curious if he's really satisfied where he is in public life or just doesn't want to take what has to be an awful job.

Makes me wonder if he has skeletons in his closet. If he had the guts to run for VP, you'd think he'd go for President or anything that would keep him in the public eye.

[albionmoonlight]

Ryan's young. He probably sees the Speakership for the problem it is. The longer he is publicly courted for things like Speaker, etc., and the longer he publicly refuses, the more he becomes all-things-to-all-Republicans.

If I'm Ryan, I am staying out for now. Hoping for a bloody primary with a wounded candidate. The GOP losing to Hillary. Spend time after that taking the high road and using targeted media appearances to stay in the spotlight and provide insightful conservative commentary on whatever the issues of the day are. Then, come 2020 or 2024, the GOP is begging you to take the nomination. It's a high risk strategy, but one he seems smart enough and patient enough to pull off.

[stevew]

Gawker is reporting affair rumors for McCarthy.

Heh, I mentioned that to my brother just guessing... Funny

[JPhillips]

I think Ryan's smart enough to realize that there's no way to effectively lead the far right part of the caucus. The far right thinks the problem is that the leaders haven't fought hard enough, but the problem is the Dems can filibuster and the President can veto. No leader is going to fix that structural issue, so the Speaker is going to continue to get hammered from all sides on the really big issues like the budget and the debt limit.

I don't see any way the speakership does anything but diminish Ryan's standing.

[Abe Sargent]

I'm just impressed that after all these years you still haven't lost that fire, Jon. :D

Well, you know, it's always been burning since the world's been turning.

[cartman]

I wonder if Ryan turns it down, that Boehner doesn't just stay on until after the elections.

[JPhillips]

I wonder if Ryan turns it down, that Boehner doesn't just stay on until after the elections.

I read some speculation of that. Boehner would become invincible if he stayed.

[SackAttack]

I don't see any way the speakership does anything but diminish Ryan's standing.

That is true of any House rep with ambitions beyond being a Congressman at this point. The GOP caucus is ungovernable at this point, and becoming the Speaker means nationalizing your House race next fall - the Democrats solicit campaign contributions for your opponent from all over the country.

If you're looking to springboard from Speaker to the VP slot in 2016, you might be able to use that bully pulpit, but if your long-term political ambitions begin in 2018 or beyond, the Speakership is an albatross.

[albionmoonlight]

The far right thinks the problem is that the leaders haven't fought hard enough, but the problem is the Dems can filibuster and the President can veto.

You saw the same thing from the far left. The folks who wanted a public option as part of the ACA still think that President Obama just didn't want it bad enough. That he could have somehow gotten it passed through sheer force of will.

On the flip side, the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party folks just think that if Boehener and McConnell had just wanted to destroy the ACA a little bit more that somehow the Dems would have just decided to give up on their most significant legislative achievement.

The same voters who would never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never give in seem to think that the other side does not hold its convictions just as strongly.

[flere-imsaho]

On top of what JPhillips & albion said about Ryan, remember he's also Chair of Ways & Means, which is arguably even more important than the Speaker.

[ISiddiqui]

I read some speculation of that. Boehner would become invincible if he stayed.

This needs to be an internet picture - Invincible Boehner!

[QuikSand]

Well, you know, it's always been burning since the world's been turning.

Cut that out.

[stevew]

Ryan is praying on a decision to run, I guess, according to CNN

[flere-imsaho]

Well, you know, it's always been burning since the world's been turning.

Indeed. Given the heat and longevity of his wrath, I've often thought Jon could be mistaken for a New York native. He's often in that state of mind, at least.

[Warhammer]

Indeed. Given the heat and longevity of his wrath, I've often thought Jon could be mistaken for a New York native. He's often in that state of mind, at least.

He certainly does go to extremes.

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking of Invincible Boehner:

And just like that, Boehner's back? - Vox (http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2015/10/9/9484575/mccarthy-gone-bombshell)

I'll admit, I hadn't noticed earlier that Boehner's resignation was conditional on the choice of a replacement. This is further evidence of Boehner's strengths as a leader, as I wrote about before.

More generally, though, it's an even better version of my own strategy for how Boehner could retain the speakership, which involved having the House vote to replace him only after the replacement candidate had secured 218 votes. I'm not saying that Boehner stole my idea and put a classy Keyser Soze spin on it, but I'm not saying he didn't, either.

I don't know if Boehner's trying to remain speaker or not, but the magical part of his position right now is that regardless of anything his colleagues may think about him, he has one thing that nobody else has: John Boehner doesn't need to be elected speaker of the House.

In any event, it may turn out that the most powerful stunt John Boehner ever pulled was convincing his caucus he was giving up his power.

[stevew]

Too much anger can lead to a heart attack ack ack ack ack.

[JPhillips]

Why not? A Ryan pal offered this explanation to me: "Because he's not a f---ing moron."

Fantastic.

[JPhillips]

The Freedom Caucus questionnaire for Speaker candidates is nuts. Not only is it full of policies commitments that would shut down the government, it's full of rules changes that would castrate the Speaker before he starts the job.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000150-49be-d501-ab5d-6dbf7cd70000

[RomaGoth]

Too much anger can lead to a heart attack ack ack ack ack.

You ought to know by now...:cool:

[flere-imsaho]

Not only is it full of policies commitments that would shut down the government, it's full of rules changes that would castrate the Speaker before he starts the job.

Definitely wouldn't make a potential candidate feel like they're movin' up in the world, more like movin' out.

[SackAttack]

The Freedom Caucus questionnaire for Speaker candidates is nuts. Not only is it full of policies commitments that would shut down the government, it's full of rules changes that would castrate the Speaker before he starts the job.

If the Republican Rump really thinks they're going to get that out of the next speaker, they're floatin' in a river of dreams.

[flere-imsaho]

If the Republican Rump really thinks they're going to get that out of the next speaker, they're floatin' in a river of dreams.

Well, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll all go down together.

[JPhillips]

From Kevin Drum.

Paul Ryan is literally being begged to be the leader of the Republican Party. He is Literally. Being. Begged. To be the leader of one of America's two major parties! And he doesn't want it, no how, no way. Because he knows there's a substantial faction of his party that's insane.

That about sums it up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That about sums it up.

In fairness -- and surely you can't object to this observation -- "says the liberal contingent of the FOFC"

Ryan is highly questionable as any sort of conservative, having voted for TARP. That's pretty low on the reliability scale.

[JPhillips]

In fairness -- and surely you can't object to this observation -- "says the liberal contingent of the FOFC"

Ryan is highly questionable as any sort of conservative, having voted for TARP. That's pretty low on the reliability scale.

To some degree, of course.

But, he really is being begged. And he really is refusing the job. And while he wouldn't use the word insane, he's refusing because folks like the Freedom Caucus will make the job impossible. Historically, that's a pretty remarkable set of circumstances.

[flere-imsaho]

In fairness -- and surely you can't object to this observation -- "says the liberal contingent of the FOFC"

So, if I understand this correctly, the liberal contingent of the FOFC and the establishment wing (really the majority) of the GOP in the House are aligned in believing that the Freedom Caucus are insane.

Actually, I can believe that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Historically, that's a pretty remarkable set of circumstances.

I'm not sure what the historical precedence is/isn't for a party to have so much leadership to have abandoned virtually any & all principle for a policy of appeasement.

Ryan is already known to be willing to sell out conservatism, that's been proven. Of COURSE there are people begging him to take the job.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, if I understand this correctly, the liberal contingent of the FOFC and the establishment wing (really the majority) of the GOP in the House are aligned in believing that the Freedom Caucus are insane.

Actually, I can believe that.

Perhaps ... and BOTH are contributing to the destruction of the nation as being fit to exist.

For all my disdain for the left, I hold pseduocons in even greater contempt. Liberals are, in some percentage, honest about their intentions. Frauds that claim to be conservative and yet consistently embrace liberal policies ... there isn't a fire in hell hot enough for them afaic.

[SackAttack]

To some degree, of course.

But, he really is being begged. And he really is refusing the job. And while he wouldn't use the word insane, he's refusing because folks like the Freedom Caucus will make the job impossible. Historically, that's a pretty remarkable set of circumstances.

Thing about Paul Ryan is, whether or not he sees the Freedom Caucus as insane, a look at his own policy offerings suggests that he either approaches insanity from a different angle, or he's a sociopath.

So, I mean, you have the sociopath saying "oh fuck no" to the crazies.

We've been overdue for a while for one of the two major parties to die and be reborn as something else, but the rumors of the GOP's demise have been consistently exaggerated.

At some point, though, fire has to attend smoke, no?

[cuervo72]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/enten-datalab-cruz-1.png

I think that the establishment wing has gone along with a general trending to the right -- or rather the pulling there by the most conservative part of the party. I think many of them are realizing that they are at the point of no return - you either steer the ship back or go all out.

I've been registered R for the past 20 years, but I know I would fail Jon's RINO test. And I think these folks are just too far out there for me. Either the ship starts to head back or I jump off of it.

[Ryche]

The right wing nuts are the RINOs as far as I'm concerned. They might adore Reagan but he wouldn't be conservative enough for them now.

[stevew]

People may be right about Ryan. He may be crazy. But he might just be the lunatic the GOP is looking for

[JonInMiddleGA]

The right wing nuts are the RINOs as far as I'm concerned. They might adore Reagan but he wouldn't be conservative enough for them now.

I have considerable appreciation for Regan's handling of foreign policy. Was he conservative enough domestically to satsify me? Not particularly, no.

[albionmoonlight]

Couple thoughts.

I think that Reagan was very conservative. But he cared more about getting policy implemented than purity. He got the most conservative agenda passed that he could considering how liberal his Congress was. If you put President Reagan with this Congress, it would be a pure Tea Party agenda.

Second, I see a lot of my liberal friends taking glee in the GOP looking so dysfunctional right now. I don't. A weak institutional GOP removes one check from the outsiders who have influence over the party. Both parties have influence groups and outsiders that are to their extreme--generally focused on one particular issue. The party apparatus helps to keep those influences in check. They don't allow any one radical agenda to take hold. With one of the parties showing such weakness as an institutional apparatus, I am afraid that those radical interest groups will have an outside influence on policy going forward.

To paraphrase that line from Black Mirror: Political parties might suck, but they do get the roads built. I am scared as hell of what might take their place. I don't think that they will get the roads built.

[JPhillips]

Political parties might suck, but they do get the roads built. I am scared as hell of what might take their place. I don't think that they will get the roads built.

Funny to pick that example when the GOP can't pass a highway funding bill.

[flere-imsaho]

There's something really wrong when Peter King (not MMQB) and Darrel Issa seem like the reasonable members of the GOP caucus.

Paul Ryan’s Choice: Speaker or Sanity? - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/paul-ryan-s-choice-speaker-or-sanity.html)

Issa:

You get the honor of making a speech before they tar and feather you every day

King:

It’s very difficult for anyone so long as any group thinks they have veto power and they can hijack and blackmail the House,

The irony, of course, is you go back 5 years and that's exactly what these guys were doing.

[Thomkal]

wow conservatives really don't want Boehner around anymore:

These 2 Want to Push Boehner Out of Hill Digs, Big Benefits (http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/09/why-these-2-house-conservatives-want-to-push-john-boehner-off-the-hill/)

[cuervo72]

I have no doubt they are doing this out of spite, but I'm not sure I disagree with them on the premise. If you are no longer part of Congress, why should we be financing your office? Same goes for office space for ex-Presidents, etc.

[Thomkal]

yeah if was pretty clear that it was done because they hate Boehner, regardless of the words about "saving X million" That's just to justify it. It'd be kinda nice actually to hear what Boehner thinks about his party and the Tea Party/conservatives now that he doesn't have to watch what he says for fear of angering/offending them.

[albionmoonlight]

I have no doubt they are doing this out of spite, but I'm not sure I disagree with them on the premise. If you are no longer part of Congress, why should we be financing your office? Same goes for office space for ex-Presidents, etc.

The ex-President thing I can see. There are very few of them out there. And being "ex-President" seems like it comes with enough responsibilities that I can see it being enough of a job that we go ahead and pay for the office and a reasonable stipend.

[JPhillips]

At a minimum the ex-Presidents need to maintain Secret Service protection for life. It would be a national embarrassment for Clinton or Bush to be assassinated.

[flere-imsaho]

It would be a national embarrassment for Clinton or Bush to be assassinated.

Not Carter? You MONSTER!

[JPhillips]

Carter can't be killed. Even brain cancer cowers in fear of his immortality.

[BishopMVP]

At a minimum the ex-Presidents need to maintain Secret Service protection for life. It would be a national embarrassment for Clinton or Bush to be assassinated.Plus it's very relaxed and they're pretty much drivers and personal assistants. It's just an extension of what they always say about the Presidency - it'll age you 20 years, and the salary might be shit, but the perks are great!

[cuervo72]

The ex-President thing I can see. There are very few of them out there. And being "ex-President" seems like it comes with enough responsibilities that I can see it being enough of a job that we go ahead and pay for the office and a reasonable stipend.

If the presidents are of modest means (Truman), yes. But the Bushes or Clintons? I think they'd be able to cover it. What are the offices primarily for, scheduling and arranging their profitable speeches? (Buying art supplies?) :p

(ETA: I think discussing what the role of a former president should be is always interesting. Nixon, obviously, didn't have much of a visible role. Nor did Ford, I don't think. Carter has been active. Reagan had only a couple of years before health essentially forced him into hiding. Bush more or less retired and lent support to his sons. Clinton is active on the speech front but otherwise has gotten out of Hillary's way. Bush has been pretty reclusive.)

[Dutch]

So basically, Republican Presidents retire and Democratic Presidents just yap on and on about the past like Troy Aikman... :)

[flere-imsaho]

So basically, Republican Presidents retire and Democratic Presidents just yap on and on about the past like Troy Aikman... :)

Democratic Presidents continue to contribute to society and Republican Presidents disappear like Trent Dilfer.

[Warhammer]

Democratic Presidents continue to contribute to society and Republican Presidents disappear like Trent Dilfer.

I think I remember GWB on ESPN a few years back, so yeah.