Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.
He never said you said it in the first place, just said what he thought you thought.
Regardless of his statement, it'd still be helpful if you clarified anyway. If he's wrong, can't you just prove him wrong by providing a counter-example? That'd prove his impression was incorrect and put an end to it (which still wouldn't make him a liar, just wrong- which are two different things).
You've called both Boehner weak on these grounds, so is it the willingness to work with Democrats at all, even while being historically obstructionist and only doing so under extreme conditions, that automatically disqualifies someone in your eyes? Is Paul Ryan foolish and weak for declining to the role like McCarthy did, or is it because you view McCarthy as unlikely to be obstructionist enough (but not Ryan), or is it something else?
What do you want from a House Speaker?
Or to put it another way, people are less likely to speculate out loud on what your reasoning is if you just state your reasoning.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We need a non politician as speaker. I was thinking someone like George Clooney or Sean Hannity.
Interesting, and I'm going to assume that's a joke.
You really are avoiding making your reasonings known on this one...
You'll loudly say who you don't want, but are avoiding follow-up questions or explanations hard.
Originally posted by Q99
Interesting, and I'm going to assume that's a joke.You really are avoiding making your reasonings known on this one...
You'll loudly say who you don't want, but are avoiding follow-up questions or explanations hard.
Appears you didn't know you don't have to be a representative to be speaker. I guess you're not that wise as you think.
Oh, I know*, but you're still making joking suggestions even within that.
If you'd said Eric Cantor or someone else like that, I'd find it more serious. Plus, you still aren't really explaining your motives for what you want in a speaker in general, be they from the house or elsewhere. I still find that interesting.
And in pure practicality terms, an outsider is generally going to have an even higher problem getting the votes.
*Though, sidenote, knowledge of the ins and outs of congress and wisdom are two separate things. Knowledge is based on whether or not someone has heard something, nothing more. Like upthread where I informed you that there was enough Republicans to get to 240. Did that knowledge affect your wisdom? No, it affected your knowledge base, a different thing.
----
This article goes a bit into what the problem is
Why the Freedom Caucus has so much powerThe House Freedom Caucus, a relatively new group of about 40 Republicans loosely associated with the Tea Party, has an extraordinary amount of power in this process. Any potential speaker needs the support of 218 Republicans on the floor of the House. There are currently 247 Republicans in the House. That’s a large majority but without the Freedom Caucus, no candidate can get to 218.
Ok, simple obstacle right there- anyone that wants to go pure Republican needs this group. Simple, right?
Next step.
Yesterday, Politico published the House Freedom Caucus “questionnaire” which it described as pushing for “House rule changes.” The document does do that. But it also does a lot more. It seeks substantive commitments from the next speaker that would effectively send the entire country into a tailspin.For example, the document seeks a commitment from the next speaker to tie any increase in the debt ceiling to cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
A common talking point for some Republican politicians, but...
Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is extremely unpopular, even among Republicans.
-Note, Donald Trump has talked about *not* cutting them, and suffered no serious backlash for doing so. Which I'm with him on, btw.
So this is something only *some* Republicans are for to begin with.
These programs are sacrosanct to most Democratic members of Congress. There is effectively no chance that President Obama or Senate Democrats — both of whom would need to support such legislation — would agree to “structural entitlement reforms” in the next month under these kind of conditions.The House Freedom Caucus essentially wants to make it impossible for the next speaker to raise the debt ceiling. But that is just the beginning.
Or to put it another way, the House Speaker doesn't have power to force this change, only to do a shutdown over it unless the Democrats blink- and we already know the Democrats are entirely willing to go shutdown on this matter.
So in short, it is making a house speaker sign an "I will do a government shutdown" pledge.
During a presidential race.
And furthermore,
They want to stop all appropriations/do a shutdown unless the Democrats give up on *every* major Obama policy- the ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, amnesty for immigrants, etc..
Which is completely disproportionate to what avoiding a shutdown would be worth, so, again, not a snowball's chance.
to sum up:
The agenda of the House Freedom Caucus makes a difficult job effectively impossible. Agreeing to their demands means presiding over a period of unprecedented dysfunction in the United States.
They require a multi-level written pledge to shut down the government indefinitely in exchange for stuff they can't get.
It's asking any would-be speaker to tie a 100-lbs weight around their ankle before going swimming. It'll never work and everyone aiming for the job knows it.
And you *need* this group to win the job going straight republican.
Unless they abandoned the Freedom Caucus for bi-partisan support, and makes enemies of them FC instead.
Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is extremely unpopular, even among Republicans.Or to put it another way, the House Speaker doesn't have power to force this change, only to do a shutdown over it unless the Democrats blink- and we already know the Democrats are entirely willing to go shutdown on this matter.
So in short, it is making a house speaker sign an "I will do a government shutdown" pledge.
Oops, minor correction- That one is to avoid a debt crisis- which is national economic suicide.
The ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, *and* amnesty for immigrants is in 'exchange' for no shutdown- and offering nothing other than the continued operation of the government in exchange for multiple major policies is not much of a selling point.
So, two separate sets of pledges, neither of which work. That's what anyone who wants the job has to face- it's like Charybdis, threatening to drown anyone who signs.
And on the other side, Scylla- going elsewhere for votes, and thus almost certainly losing people to primary challenges launched in retaliation.
Is there a way through? Perhaps, but no-one seems to see it.
Originally posted by Q99
Oh, I know*, but you're still making joking suggestions even within that.If you'd said Eric Cantor or someone else like that, I'd find it more serious. Plus, you still aren't really explaining your motives for what you want in a speaker in general, be they from the house or elsewhere. I still find that interesting.
And in pure practicality terms, an outsider is generally going to have an even higher problem getting the votes.
*Though, sidenote, knowledge of the ins and outs of congress and wisdom are two separate things. Knowledge is based on whether or not someone has heard something, nothing more. Like upthread where I informed you that there was enough Republicans to get to 240. Did that knowledge affect your wisdom? No, it affected your knowledge base, a different thing.
----
This article goes a bit into what the problem is
Ok, simple obstacle right there- anyone that wants to go pure Republican needs this group. Simple, right?
Next step.
A common talking point for some Republican politicians, but...
-Note, Donald Trump has talked about *not* cutting them, and suffered no serious backlash for doing so. Which I'm with him on, btw.
So this is something only *some* Republicans are for to begin with.
Or to put it another way, the House Speaker doesn't have power to force this change, only to do a shutdown over it unless the Democrats blink- and we already know the Democrats are entirely willing to go shutdown on this matter.
So in short, it is making a house speaker sign an "I will do a government shutdown" pledge.
During a presidential race.
And furthermore,
They want to stop all appropriations/do a shutdown unless the Democrats give up on *every* major Obama policy- the ACA, Iran deal, planned parenthood, amnesty for immigrants, etc..
Which is completely disproportionate to what avoiding a shutdown would be worth, so, again, not a snowball's chance.
to sum up:
They require a multi-level written pledge to shut down the government indefinitely in exchange for stuff they can't get.
It's asking any would-be speaker to tie a 100-lbs weight around their ankle before going swimming. It'll never work and everyone aiming for the job knows it.
And you *need* this group to win the job going straight republican.
Unless they abandoned the Freedom Caucus for bi-partisan support, and makes enemies of them FC instead.
You are silly to think that no one would listen to Clooney or Hannity..they both have interesting idea's.
It's not a matter of being interesting, it's the matter of it being a job that heavily involves procedures and knowledge of how the House works, and which has a lot of power within the house and therefore house members have a reason to want to keep in-house.
You'd get grumblings if a senator got the job, let alone entertainers.
I don't think they could get close to the support, even if it weren't for the Freedom Caucus/Establishment split. Clooney's not going to acceptable to them!
---
Article, largely Op-ed, but has some interesting bits on Ryan
The assumption among many is that Ryan could be a unifying figure, the only one who could bring together the fractious caucus. But not only is there no particular reason to think that’s true, his potential candidacy for Speaker is already dividing the party.Ryan is being promoted by establishment sources like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review, which in itself is being read by the rebels as a reason to reject him. Influential radio host Laura Ingraham tweeted: “Are they talking abt the same Paul Ryan who once lost a VP debate to JOE BIDEN?” She added, “Chaos? Only if you are bought and paid for by the Establishment. Cathartic for most.” “Paul Ryan Is The Absolute Worst Choice For Speaker,” says Brietbart.com, explaining that he’s really a weakling who’ll knuckle under just like John Boehner did.
So there's some rebellion against the idea of Paul Ryan getting the job- interesting using almost the exact same language Time here uses on McCarthy.