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

[Joe Republic]

Adam Kinzinger is the person I'd like to endorse.

No offense, but why?

He has less than five years of legislative experience, no experience in Conference leadership, no experience in the leadership of any Committee, no experience leading any sort of caucus or other congressional group, and he hasn't even served as a whip. He's a newbie backbencher that has literally zero authority, seniority, or experience in any manner whatsoever that would suggest in any way that he could somehow lead a 249-person organization he has absolutely no familiarity with, and somehow do so competently in spite of the fact that the Republican Conference is more fractured and rebellious than at any point in recent history.

I don't mean to single you out but this is just the latest and most egregious example in a constant trend of commentators suggesting increasingly less qualified people as a potential Speaker, as if it was just a popularity contest for a figurehead role and not the single most difficult job in Washington today

Cresent hardy for speaker imo

[rpryor03]

Jim Jordan (Freedom Caucus Chair) says they will "look favorably" on Paul Ryan as Speaker.

[The Mikado]

Adam Kinzinger is the person I'd like to endorse.

No offense, but why?

He has less than five years of legislative experience

That just puts him massively tied for 195th most senior member of the House. Only slightly over 40% of the House predates the 2010 election.

[Bacon King]

Jim Jordan (Freedom Caucus Chair) says they will "look favorably" on Paul Ryan as Speaker.

In the same interview he also reiterated his caucus is still supporting Webster and that the Freedom Caucus absolutely will not under any circumstance support a Speaker who will not agree to their laundry list of procedural demands

[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.

[Ebsy]

[Mehmentum]

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.

[Ebsy]

Congressman Bill Flores of Texas is running for Speaker.

[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.

[cinyc]

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.

[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!

[windjammer]

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

[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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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...

[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.

[bballrox4717]

I really, really wish this leadership fiasco wasn't happening during the presidential election. People need to understand that the Freedom Caucus is inherently undemocratic. They believe that 40 members should be able to block the will of the vast majority of the Republican conference because they're being ignored.

This is just lunacy at the highest level. Nancy Pelosi and every single member of the Democratic minority  gets ignored by the Republican majority in the House almost every single day. Why? Because they lost! Would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats shut down the government and risk a crash of our entire financial system because she disagrees with the House agenda? No!

I think the Freedom Caucus is headlining a major problem that undermines modern democracy: the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution, and Congress as well for that matter, goes out of its way more than most other governing documents on how to protect the minority that isn't in power. It forces change to occur slowly and through compromise.

The underlying issue is that the Freedom Caucus members and other Republican representatives were elected with the mandate not to govern, but to destroy and prevent progressive legislation. Their ideology states that if the president and Congress refuses to enact its agenda, they should rip the government apart piece by piece until it does.

There needs to be a serious reflection between both parties on how Congress got to this point and how to fix it. As long as the Freedom Caucus exists, this problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and it's going to get worse. If the Republicans think Paul Ryan is going to fix it, they're dreaming.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I really, really wish this leadership fiasco wasn't happening during the presidential election. People need to understand that the Freedom Caucus is inherently undemocratic. They believe that 40 members should be able to block the will of the vast majority of the Republican conference because they're being ignored.

This is just lunacy at the highest level. Nancy Pelosi and every single member of the Democratic minority  gets ignored by the Republican majority in the House almost every single day. Why? Because they lost! Would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats shut down the government and risk a crash of our entire financial system because she disagrees with the House agenda? No!

I think the Freedom Caucus is headlining a major problem that undermines modern democracy: the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution, and Congress as well for that matter, goes out of its way more than most other governing documents on how to protect the minority that isn't in power. It forces change to occur slowly and through compromise.

The underlying issue is that the Freedom Caucus members and other Republican representatives were elected with the mandate not to govern, but to destroy and prevent progressive legislation. Their ideology states that if the president and Congress refuses to enact its agenda, they should rip the government apart piece by piece until it does.

There needs to be a serious reflection between both parties on how Congress got to this point and how to fix it. As long as the Freedom Caucus exists, this problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and it's going to get worse. If the Republicans think Paul Ryan is going to fix it, they're dreaming.

It seems like you're not willing to follow all the way through to your conclusion. Why do "both parties" need to reflect on how a small minority of the Republican Party has figured out how to capture the rules in such a way as to hold the whole body (and country) hostage?

[The Mikado]

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.

[Bacon King]

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"

[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.

[anvi]

I tend to harp on this point, but it's for a reason.  In 2009, Senator Grassley refused to vote for the stimulus package even though he said he agreed with 90% of the bill.  Once the establishment GOP takes that kind of posture in governing, it's a little hard to turn around and tell caucuses like the FC that they should compromise for the good of the party.  The establishment GOP made its electoral deal with the devil in order to mount a viable resurgence in 2009-2010, and they got their wish.  Now comes the piper--actually, the piper has showed up quite a few times already.  Leadership doesn't just mean being in power all the time; it sometimes, when one is not in power, requires one to make a choice about whether one will be loyal opposition or sheer opposition, and the standards of that culture, once established, will seep through everything.     

[Blue3]

Beautiful.

Now do they have a graph like that for committees?

[ElectionsGuy]

Tom Cotton wants Dick Cheney to be Speaker

[Bigby]

Tom Cotton wants Dick Cheney to be Speaker

Tom Cotton, please don't make me not like you.

[Brewer]

Tom Cotton wants Dick Cheney to be Speaker

Tom Cotton, please don't make me not like you.

You call yourself a libertarian yet you can fathom Tom Cotton?