House Leadership Megathread: it's House of Cards but without the monologues

[Torie]

Here is another article about rumblings from the right about McCarthy. None of it is going anywhere in the end, but the right wing types have this physiological need to ineffectually vent on a regular basis.

Not that I am in love with the import-export bank (don't know enough to have a firm opinion, and maybe it's justified since everybody else does it), but I do like the idea of getting stuff to the floor by discharge petition, which is mentioned in the article. In a more perfect world, the centrists of both parties, who believe in problem solving and governance, given who has power over what at any given time, would just negotiate, round up 218 signatures on a discharge petition, and get it done. The extremists on both sides could go pound sand. It would not take long for everybody to settle down after that. Both parties being held hostage by their more ideologically rigid members leads to poor governance almost always. It's time to free both parties from the hostage takers.

[Torie]

"Even if Kevin is elected Speaker [behind closed doors], he can't get 218 [votes] on the floor," a House Republican source said.

Chaffetz is dreaming. There is no way he's going to be elected speaker. Period.

[Torie]

I have updated the OP with a list of all potential Speaker candidates.

Here's an article about the House Freedom Caucus's possible opposition to Paul Ryan, btw. They dislike that budget compromise and his views on immigration, but the real make-or-break deal is their list of suggested procedural reforms to the House. They refuse to support any candidate for Speaker unless they have faith the candidate will return the house to "normal order", introduce proportional representation to the Steering Committee, allow Committees to elect their own leaders, and in general devolve more authority away from the Speaker's office to the Committees and the Members of Congress themselves. If Ryan were to agree to all of that, they would probably support him (but he'd be entering what would basically become a symbolic office)

Ryan is too smart to pay any such ransom, or really make any promises at all. If the Freedom Caucus really wants to hold the Pub conference hostage, I hope there are enough wise and courageous centrists of both parties to cut some kind of deal - for the good of the nation. This is just disgusting.

[Torie]

Here is an article that outlines some of the "problems" with the Freedom Caucus demands. It is not just about procedural niceties that they get to cast a vote on legislation framed the way they want it to be allowed by the rules committee, or that legislative proposals need to go through committee first, and pass there, and so forth. There is substance, and procedures, that essentially would shut the government down unless Obama and the Dems bend over and do with the FC wants, like defund Obamacare, and major entitlement reform, and minor little stuff like that. That is basically why the rest of the Pubs need to tell them to take a hike.

My fantasy is for the moderates to state that if the Freedom Caucus does not follow the will of a majority of the caucus, as to both who is the speaker, and what the rules of the road are, and the agenda is, then who is speaker will become largely moot, because they are going to team up with the Dems and run the House by discharge petition, to keep the government functioning, and passing what the Senate is able to pass, while the rest can just spend their time from now on jacking off. Two can go balls to the wall you know. And in this fight, in the end, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be the Freedom Caucus.

[Torie]

Its starting to look like the best solution for the Republicans is to keep Boehner on through 2016.  Of course, this would all happen again in 2017 so they better start preparing for that.

Yes, by primarying FC members to thin their ranks. There have already been communications to some FC members about that, by those who write the big checks.

[Torie]

Here is an article that outlines some of the "problems" with the Freedom Caucus demands. It is not just about procedural niceties that they get to cast a vote on legislation framed the way they want it to be allowed by the rules committee, or that legislative proposals need to go through committee first, and pass there, and so forth. There is substance, and procedures, that essentially would shut the government down unless Obama and the Dems bend over and do with the FC wants, like defund Obamacare, and major entitlement reform, and minor little stuff like that. That is basically why the rest of the Pubs need to tell them to take a hike.

My fantasy is for the moderates to state that if the Freedom Caucus does not follow the will of a majority of the caucus, as to both who is the speaker, and what the rules of the road are, and the agenda is, then who is speaker will become largely moot, because they are going to team up with the Dems and run the House by discharge petition, to keep the government functioning, and passing what the Senate is able to pass, while the rest can just spend their time from now on jacking off. Two can go balls to the wall you know. And in this fight, in the end, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be the Freedom Caucus.

Until the Republican base en masse rises up against a traitorous Establishment that is siding with Democrats and Obama instead of listening to the voters who put them in office.  Then, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be Establishment Republicans, in primaries across the nation.  And they will deserve it, for violating their mandate.

Splendid. Go for it. Let the voters decide. A good bloodbath might be salubrious for the Pub party (or at least the nation). As Jefferson said, rendering the soil into a more sanguinary state, is sometimes good for the growth of the liberty tree. Unlike Jefferson of course, I hasten to add that my prose here is merely metaphorical.

The more things continue the way they are going, the more I wonder if a bipartisan coalition to run matters might be best. Let's expand the Blue Dog and Main Street Partnership caucuses, until they reach critical mass!  Oh wait - all those gerrymandered maps across the Fruited Plain, rendering hyper partisan CD's.  Damn!

[Torie]

Here is an article that outlines some of the "problems" with the Freedom Caucus demands. It is not just about procedural niceties that they get to cast a vote on legislation framed the way they want it to be allowed by the rules committee, or that legislative proposals need to go through committee first, and pass there, and so forth. There is substance, and procedures, that essentially would shut the government down unless Obama and the Dems bend over and do with the FC wants, like defund Obamacare, and major entitlement reform, and minor little stuff like that. That is basically why the rest of the Pubs need to tell them to take a hike.

My fantasy is for the moderates to state that if the Freedom Caucus does not follow the will of a majority of the caucus, as to both who is the speaker, and what the rules of the road are, and the agenda is, then who is speaker will become largely moot, because they are going to team up with the Dems and run the House by discharge petition, to keep the government functioning, and passing what the Senate is able to pass, while the rest can just spend their time from now on jacking off. Two can go balls to the wall you know. And in this fight, in the end, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be the Freedom Caucus.

Until the Republican base en masse rises up against a traitorous Establishment that is siding with Democrats and Obama instead of listening to the voters who put them in office.  Then, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be Establishment Republicans, in primaries across the nation.  And they will deserve it, for violating their mandate.

Splendid. Go for it. Let the voters decide. A good bloodbath might be salubrious for the Pub party (or at least the nation). As Jefferson said, rendering the soil into a more sanguinary state, is sometimes good for the growth of the liberty tree. Unlike Jefferson of course, I hasten to add that my prose here is merely metaphorical.

The more things continue the way they are going, the more I wonder if a bipartisan coalition to run matters might be best. Let's expand the Blue Dog and Main Street Partnership caucuses, until they reach critical mass!  Oh wait - all those gerrymandered maps across the Fruited Plain, rendering hyper partisan CD's.  Damn!

It's funny how the fact that Gibson, your representative, is a member of the freedom caucus and the main street partnership represents you so well.
- Freedom caucus: your republican bias for everything related to lawsuits, redistricting,...
- Main Street: your political views are moderate and you really despise acts of political terrorism like shutting down the governmemt.

Interesting

Gibson is a member of the Liberty Caucus (libertarian oriented), not the burn the House down Freedom Caucus. Having more competitive CD's which I favor at the margins, along with the dividing of urban and more rural CD's, would help to increase the numbers of the blue dogs and Main Street types.

[Torie]

Blue Dogs are dieing breed with or without swing districts. Maybe some form of PR will bring back rural or Southern white Dems, but I don't see a big push for that...

Some of the New Democrats have potential too. After all, Walberg is in a very marginal CD in MN-01. After the next census, if MN loses a seat, it's slated to get even more marginal for him, based on mapping that Muon2 and I just did. Congresspersons who don't play centrist ball in swing districts, when that ball is clearly in play, might not have that long a half life. Kind in Wisconsin is another, whose district is getting more marginal, and he tends to be centrist. They are out there. With more marginal CD's, there will be more. It's time for the centrists to start asserting themselves. After all, they tend to be more attuned to problem solving in the real world, based on what is reasonably possible.

[Torie]

Here is an article that outlines some of the "problems" with the Freedom Caucus demands. It is not just about procedural niceties that they get to cast a vote on legislation framed the way they want it to be allowed by the rules committee, or that legislative proposals need to go through committee first, and pass there, and so forth. There is substance, and procedures, that essentially would shut the government down unless Obama and the Dems bend over and do with the FC wants, like defund Obamacare, and major entitlement reform, and minor little stuff like that. That is basically why the rest of the Pubs need to tell them to take a hike.

My fantasy is for the moderates to state that if the Freedom Caucus does not follow the will of a majority of the caucus, as to both who is the speaker, and what the rules of the road are, and the agenda is, then who is speaker will become largely moot, because they are going to team up with the Dems and run the House by discharge petition, to keep the government functioning, and passing what the Senate is able to pass, while the rest can just spend their time from now on jacking off. Two can go balls to the wall you know. And in this fight, in the end, the ones getting their heads handed to them on a platter will be the Freedom Caucus.

That would just lead to many of those "moderates" losing primary challenges for cooperating with Nancy Pelosi and expanding the Freedom Caucus.

^^^ this unfortunately

I imagine that Eric Cantor's out-of-nowhere primary loss must have had a profound psychological effect on anyone who could remotely be considered part of the GOP "Establishment"

I am a bit more optimistic. Hopefully over time, if nothing else, it will slowly sink in just how counterproductive the FC's tactics are. Anyway, part of Cantor's problems is that he ignored his district, gave poor constituency service, and didn't get involved in his campaign, blowing Brat off, until it was too late.

[Torie]

Has Ryan given any indication of when he's making a decision?

Not that I have heard. My guess, is that he has said OK, but I don't want to make concessions to the Freedom Caucus.  So until the Freedom Caucus bends over, things drift along. We may end up with Boehner staying in place for the balance of his term. (I suspect a majority of the Pub caucus is not prepared to make any concessions to the hostage takers, so it is not as if a third personality has that much potential to cut the Gordian Knot here.) That might not be a bad thing. Indeed, that might be what Boehner and Ryan have agreed upon. Just a wild guess on my part.

If that is what happens, the Pub primary season for House races might get a lot more interesting. Some forces out there might be motivated to try to cull the Freedom Caucus. Hostage taking in the context of electing a Speaker is just not an acceptable tactic in the minds of some, including me. Vote for the choice of the majority of your caucus, cross lines and vote for the Dem, but don't just refuse to vote at all, or for a third party which has the some effect, so that nobody gets 218 votes.

In a more perfect world, it would be nice if some Dems vote for Ryan to resolve this, but we don't live in a more perfect world apparently. I suspect the Dems favorite Pub for Speaker is in fact Boehner, so it is not as if they have much incentive to end the impasse.

[Torie]

Has Ryan given any indication of when he's making a decision?

Not that I have heard. My guess, is that he has said OK, but I don't want to make concessions to the Freedom Caucus.  So until the Freedom Caucus bends over, things drift along. We may end up with Boehner staying in place for the balance of his term. (I suspect a majority of the Pub caucus is not prepared to make any concessions to the hostage takers, so it is not as if a third personality has that much potential to cut the Gordian Knot here.) That might not be a bad thing. Indeed, that might be what Boehner and Ryan have agreed upon. Just a wild guess on my part.

If that is what happens, the Pub primary season for House races might get a lot more interesting. Some forces out there might be motivated to try to cull the Freedom Caucus. Hostage taking in the context of electing a Speaker is just not an acceptable tactic in the minds of some, including me. Vote for the choice of the majority of your caucus, cross lines and vote for the Dem, but don't just refuse to vote at all, or for a third party which has the some effect, so that nobody gets 218 votes.

In a more perfect world, it would be nice if some Dems vote for Ryan to resolve this, but we don't live in a more perfect world apparently. I suspect the Dems favorite Pub for Speaker is in fact Boehner, so it is not as if they have much incentive to end the impasse.

What's the long term repercussions for the party of Boehner announcing and then retracting his resignation, if that happens? I've got to imagine it's not good.

More interesting question, to me: what happens in January 2017? Say the Dems have an OK, not great year. Maybe they cut down the GOP lead in the House by 10 seats. Freedom Caucus doesn't make any gains, doesn't lose any seats. But now they only need 20 instead of 30 of them to stick together to deny a Speaker who doesn't meet their demands. What changes to make it a fixable problem by then?

The Constitution says you need 218 votes. So either 1) the Freedom Caucus backs off, 2) some Dems are willing to deal, or 3) the Pub caucus gives the Freedom Caucus a substantial pound of flesh. In the new Congress, the default option will not be leaving the existing Speaker in place. So they keep voting until a Speaker is elected.

[Torie]

If that is what happens, the Pub primary season for House races might get a lot more interesting. Some forces out there might be motivated to try to cull the Freedom Caucus.

I think there is no shortage of money and experienced party leaders who would sign onto that, but I really wonder what the message of that campaign would be. It's just way too easy to paint opposition to the Freedom Caucus as being "less conservative" or "more moderate," the same way Modern Orthodox Jews are misleadingly referred to as "less religious" or "less observant" than Haredim.

I would worry that the Freedom Caucus is going to attempt to expand its ranks with more David Brats.

It's not easy, but perhaps the way to go, is that the tactics are just empowering the Dems, and denying the Pubs any chance of governing, or effecting any policy changes that move the ball in the Pub direction, and is in fact costing the party seats. It's the tactics that are nutter, counterproductive, and indeed help advance "the liberal" agenda. Turn the whole thing on its head, and paint the Freedom Caucus as fifth columnists for the liberal Dems. Point out too, that the polls tank for Pubs each and every time the debt ceiling is not raised to pay the bills for spending authorized by law, that has previously been spent. That is just not fiscally responsible, and hurts the economy. In short, some of the goals may be worthy, but the tactics are nutter. It is not about conservative versus moderate, but sane versus nutter.

Oh yes, much if not all of this will go away if a Pub President is elected, but I digress.

[Torie]

Yeah, I mean, I understand the options. I'm just wondering what people might think of how/why/if they wind up being what happens.

For instance, I don't see 2 happening unless Dems really fear that 3 is going to happen otherwise. But I don't really see 3 happening, because it feels like enough of the GOP establishment has caught wise to the fact that they've let the lunatics run the asylum and want to take it back, at least tactics-wise. But I don't see 1 happening either. I don't know how the nut cracks, but I feel like it has to crack, you know?

The nut has to crack, because otherwise the House will be spending two years, taking vote after vote for Speaker. Nothing happens until there is a Speaker.

[Torie]

Yeah, obviously. Any speculation about which of those fault lines are the most vulnerable?

In a new Congress, after things drag on for a week or two or whatever, get some Dems to cooperate, at least to the extent that they will deliver enough votes to elect a very moderate and less partisan Pub like Dent, and then the Freedom Caucus has a choice between Dent or Ryan.

In the meantime, if this all turns out badly, and Boehner remains in place, I can see some Dems running pointing out the that the Pubs are in such chaos, that they cannot elect a Speaker, and to avoid the nightmarish scenarios we have been discussing with respect to the new Congress, the only way to restore order is the have the Dems take over the House. The Dems at least have shown they have the ability to hash out their differences and elect a Speaker. That just might work in some marginal districts.

[Torie]

I suppose it's a possible fourth option that enough moderate Pubs could cross over to support a Democratic Speaker, though I couldn't see them letting it be Pelosi.

Steny Hoyer for Speaker!

[Torie]

I suppose it's a possible fourth option that enough moderate Pubs could cross over to support a Democratic Speaker, though I couldn't see them letting it be Pelosi.

Steny Hoyer for Speaker!

Pelosi will never let Hoyer be Speaker.

Also, Paul Ryan is not going to be Speaker of the House.

Maybe she will reconsider after the 628th ballot.

[Torie]

Mo Brooks (confirmed Freedom Caucus member) has mentioned he is personally concerned that Paul Ryan is too pro-amnesty because his best friend is a hispanic AND a democrat (Luis Gutierrez)

also the Freedom Caucus is said to be very concerned about Paul Ryan due to his endorsement from Harry Reid

The FC Caucus seems dumber than a box of rocks. How shocking - not.

Mo Brooks has certainly been in the news a bit lately. Beyond being way out there beyond the looking glass, he must be an attention whore. He might fit in well right here on Atlas!

[Torie]

They are going to be cutting it awfully close on the debt ceiling.

Surely enough Pubs will vote with the Dems to raise it, right? I don't see what this has to do with the Speaker contretemps.

[Torie]

This still seems unsettled to me. Why would Ryan accept this partial endorsement? He'd be screwed as Speaker of the House if he took it on these terms.

If the FC has 40 members, and one fifth plus one is enough to withhold an endorsement, and if without an endorsement, Ryan would not run, then that means that 9 members of the House Pubs can veto Ryan. LOL. Ludicrous.

[Torie]

Paul Ryan has either signed away most of the powers held by the Speaker, or set himself up for failure when he Freedom Caucus inevitably revolts against him for not giving up those powers

Could you explain please?

Yes, I don't get it either. Ryan per the article has ceded nothing, other than ignoring the FC's stupid rule endorsements. He's saying a majority of the FC is enough for him. Myself, I would take 218 votes, but then I am not Ryan.

[Torie]

"Ryan got the almost-endorsement of the Freedom Caucus by agreeing "in principle" to every single bullet point on the FC's laundry list of procedural demands."

I don't see where he did this in the texts that have been adduced. Of course, the original procedural demands were entwined with substance, and ludicrous themselves. So a list of the procedural demands to which Ryan acceded would be helpful, before we conclude he bent over for them.

[Torie]

Where did Ryan "specifically agree" to that list is my question, which would indeed be worrisome?