Bedlam in the House
- Thread starter Mr. Deez
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Ryan would make a good Speaker. However, I'm not sure why he or frankly anybody would want the job. On paper, it's a great gig - tons of power and prestige. However, John Boehner is walking away from it without any ethical or electoral reasons for doing so. How many times has that happened since we've had a House of Representatives? Probably not many.
Ultimately the Speaker's power comes from his ability to enforce his will with 218 or more votes. The GOP has more than enough votes, but there is so much division within the party that the Speaker can't count on getting a majority on critical votes. Effectively, that makes him a figurehead, but unlike most figureheads, he has the responsibility of someone who has real power. That makes his job an impossible one to perform, and that's they're having a hard time filling the vacancy.
Ultimately the Speaker's power comes from his ability to enforce his will with 218 or more votes. The GOP has more than enough votes, but there is so much division within the party that the Speaker can't count on getting a majority on critical votes. Effectively, that makes him a figurehead, but unlike most figureheads, he has the responsibility of someone who has real power. That makes his job an impossible one to perform, and that's they're having a hard time filling the vacancy.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
According to this, McCarthy quit race without trying to negotiate with the conservatives, and Issa claims he had 200 votes (needs 218)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...atives-who-were-ready-to-deal/article/2573749
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...atives-who-were-ready-to-deal/article/2573749
I wouldn't negotiate with them either. They wanted him to commit to tie the debt ceiling to entitlement reform and still want to use the budget process to defund Obamacare. In other words, they want more government shutdowns in which the GOP has no path to success. Unless they drop that silliness and stupidity, we're not going to see anybody seriously push for the job, because it's unworkable.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
It never ceases to amaze me why republicans/conservatives cannot figure this out while dems/liberals have become masters at it. Sometimes I wonder if it's a difference in philosophical makeup. It's always seemed like the GOP has a lot more politicians who basically say whatever they want to say without a "party filter", whereas it's amazing to listen to one dem after another use the exact same wording on an issue... word for word right down the line. I don't know if that's self-discipline, or maybe it's just that the dem talking points tend to be a lot simpler and more "emotional", and thus easier to understand and express.
Regardless, they need to get it figured out, and fast. There is a lot of political "meat on the bone" where the GOP could win all kinds of public support if it could get its messaging house in order. I'm not holding my breath.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Isn't that more a reflection of the overwhelming support for Planned Parenthood in the media? I don't see them ever taking flack in this area - but I think there's quite a bit of public support for the GOP on this, and even more if they finally get their messaging in order.
That's a great example of the GOP screwing up the message. Why is this not being discussed? Why is the discussion around Obama threatening to veto the defense bill centered on Obama wanting more spending because we've reduced the deficit - and not in reminding everyone that the only reason that happened was because of the enforced "cuts" (which weren't really cuts) that his team proposed and now calls mindless?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I dont think the shutdown is the end of the world. I think they sold it wrong.
The military still goes to work, and still gets paid
Border Patrol & Customs still go to work, and get paid.
Air traffic control still goes to work, and gets paid.
Interest on the debt still gets paid.
The IRS, however, does not go to work.
Nor does Congress.
See, not so hard to spin it as a positive.
In addition to that, I believe that the Rs actually picked up seats in Congress after the last one. A sign a certain amount of voters have caught on.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Further, Webster's ideas are to streamline the process, untie certain paired items and compel everyone to finish the major budgetary matters all in the Spring, as opposed to always having these last moment panics.
Here are some of his quotes/ideas --
To succeed in leading this way, Webster says, it’s all about dealing with major problems up front—rather than waiting until deadlines to handle the nation’s most pressing issues. That means no more crisis to crisis governance, the style of leadership Boehner used to employ. That starts with the appropriations process and getting the government off these wild ride omnibus spending bills and Continuing Resolutions that kick the can down the road.
“The key is to take up the most important issues first. Instead of squandering the first hundred days, if we began with the Appropriations process—we began with the Appropriations process, that’s number one. If you’re an Appropriations Committee member, you’d work day and night,” Webster said.
You’re going to work hard—they do work hard now, but they’re going to have to work harder up front. They’re going to have to produce bills. And as you’re producing them, you’re going to tell the Senate that there’s not going to be any CRs—there’s not going to be any CRs. That’s our position, get ready to negotiate with conferees. Keep pushing and pushing, as the bills come out get ready to go. That’s the Appropriations process—and I think that the earlier you do it, the more opportunity you have to come up with a conference-able bill.
Secondly, Webster says, it’s about taking up reauthorization bills early and then getting them into the best possible shape before sending them to the Senate and eventually to the president.
“Second, there are so many things that run to the edge which are the reauthorizations. They go right to the edge and finally you do a CR there,” Webster said.
Somehow, it’s 10 or 15 or 20 years before you do anything right after all these short term extensions. Instead, we ought to lay out a plan and say okay, here’s the ones we should do right away. Some might take longer. But you lay out a plan and say a three-year plan or a two-year plan and say this is what we can do. We can do the transportation packages like the highway bill and the water bill and we can do some of these other areas—a farm bill—whatever it is, we lay out a schedule and we put that committee to work to do that. And in the end there’s a stick—and the stick is we’re going to enforce the rule. You cannot fund a provision that has not been reauthorized. If you don’t put it in place now, and you wait and say if you don’t get them done by this day and this time, then we’re going to enforce it. And I think that becomes the stick phase to get this done.
Thirdly, Webster said, Congress needs to return to regular order where member bills are taken up in committees and there aren’t new rules written for every bill—like what has happened under Boehner’s leadership—so the process is fair to everyone.
“And then thirdly, you begin with the committees meeting and taking up member bills using the current rules as opposed to meeting and writing rules, passing a rule for one bill, voting on the rule for one bill then taking up the bill and debating that, maybe amendments maybe not depending on how controversial it is and then finally we vote on whatever amendments there are plus the bill,” Webster said.
Instead, you follow the rules that just say the bills that come out of committee, the chairman picks out the important ones and you start with the ‘A’ which I guess would be Agriculture. And you get a bill and as you move through them in alphabetical order, and you get actual bills coming out of committee then you vote them and then you start all over again. You begin running through member bills. Those three things are allowed when you have a plan up front and you have a schedule for all these authorizations that need to take place.
------------------------------
“But it’s really—people talk about regular order,” Webster said. “You combine all of those things, some people talk about regular order on one bill. We’re talking about regular order for the entire session and that’s what it would be.”
Webster aims to have, within 100 days of being elected Speaker should he get the job, most of this done.
“I want to do a good portion of what I just said within 100 days,” Webster said.
He said this should be very easy for members to support, and the only reason anyone hangs on to the old way of doing business is because Boehner’s way was “institutionalized.”
“The reason the other system is easy to hold onto is because it’s been institutionalized,” Webster said. “It’s not just the members, it’s the institution itself. It’s become lethargic and it’s become power-based and it’s become adopted as the status quo. And so, you’re not just fighting individual members in certain positions—you’re fighting the institution itself. But it’s the right thing to do.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ly-one-promoting-a-principles-driven-process/
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There was a time when the Republicans were the party with discipline. Think New Gingrich days. The continued for a decade, at least. I think it was rise of the ultra-conservative right (Tea Party?) that pulled them off message. Of course, to those same far-right politicians/base, they'd say that the mainstream republicans strayed too far left. I'd argue they had been centrist for 30+ years before the Tea Party insurrection.
This brings us to the source of the derision between the factions of the Republican party. My guess is the baby boomers. What happens when you age? We know seniors tend to get more conservative. They also care less what others think of them. As long as they are a significant voting minority, the hard pull to the right the Republican party is feeling won't dissipate. I don't think they care about the future of the party, the perception of them or the politicians they support but are comfortable only with the perception that they are right, regardless of facts.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
Regardless of facts, you are so funny!!!!
BevoBeef
250+ Posts
I had to pick myself off the floor after I fell out of my chair on this point of view. As an unfortunate member of the baby boomers, I can attest to the fact that this perspective is ridiculous. Being a conservative or liberal has nothing to do with growing old and being a Senior. What actually changes as you grow old and are faced with the stark reality of dying is that life becomes more important to you. Along with an increased value with the worth of life is the appreciation that people matter and their lives are so affected by the relationships that they have with each other. As you grow older, the value of life and being alive weighs heavier on your decision making process. As you age and get slower in your decision making, you tend to take the time to reflect back upon your decisions in the past and wander what was it that you thought was so important in the past.
Last edited:
I think there are a lot of factors at play. First, I think the nature of Republicans and Democrats is different. Republicans tend to be individualistic. Their members are usually successful businessmen and usually their own boss, and as such, they don't want to be muzzled or take orders from somebody else. Democrats are usually collectivists. Their members are usually community activists of some kind (regardless of what their day job is), and their success is usually dependent on something they've done as part of a group. (Obviously, old school Democrats were often labor leaders, which would be an extreme example.) Accordingly, they tend to be more willing to speak a coordinated message.
Second, Republicans usually come from occupations that are centered around selling a good or service and therefore making money. Democrats usually come from occupations that are centered around convincing people of ideas and providing information. They're teachers, professors, lawyers, journalists, etc. Obviously, there's an element of persuasion to selling goods and services, but it's not the same game as selling policy ideas. For example, I can convince a jury to award money damages to you, but I wouldn't know the first thing about convincing people to buy your brand of toothpaste. It's a completely different ballgame.
Third, the GOP has a bigger base problem than Democrats do, which makes it more difficult for them to craft a broad message and puts them into conflict with the national party. The national GOP's priority is to build a message for the masses that can win general elections. They want to win the presidency and want to elect reps and senators in swing states and blue states. Your average GOP congressman's priority is to win his own reelection. 90 percent of them are from gerrymandered districts where winning their base is everything. While the national GOP is telling them to say x, because it helps win over independent voters, they are wanting to say y, because it motivates their base at home. It's tough to craft a coordinated message when you've got 240 guys all trying to reach different audiences.
Democrats don't fear their base anywhere near as much. While they're going to make reasonable efforts to keep them motivated, most of them don't have some communist yay-hoo back at home itching to challenge them in their respective primary elections. Accordingly, they can afford to craft a national message for a mass audience.
Fourth, of course, the media doesn't help the GOP and does help the Democrats. If you're a Republican, what's the surest way to attract positive mainstream media attention? Bash your party's leadership and undermine their message. If a Democrat does the same thing, he's usually ignored. Accordingly, while a Republican has a great incentive to screw up his party's message, a Democrat has little or no incentive to do so.
Of course, the media loves Planned Parenthood, and it does what it can to help them. However, it's still possible for Democrats to take flack for backing Planned Parenthood if the GOP can win the argument to the people back home. The problem is that they're losing the argument.
It's not being discussed (at least not by Republicans), because it doesn't feed the narrative that the base wants to hear, which is that the Republican leadership is a bunch of sell-out maggots who continuously take it in the shorts from the Obama Administration. It's a lot easier to just feed a false narrative than it is to convince people on the merits that they're wrong. Furthermore, most people are dumb and don't have the analytical skills to even discuss actual budget numbers. Use a phrase like "percentage of GDP," and most people's eyes glaze over and think, "who's going to start the Boehner sucks chant?"
The problem with shutdowns is mostly (but not entirely) a matter of perception. True, the military and emergency services (mostly) still goes to work, though many of their support services do not, many (including the military) have their pay delayed. (Congress also goes to work and gets paid.) However, it looks terrible, when the nation's political leaders can't iron out their differences enough to even keep government agencies open.
In addition, though the GOP picked up seats in 2014, when was the last time they picked up seats in a presidential election year that followed a shutdown? Most voters know it's not the end of the world, but they still don't like it.
Finally, it does have political consequences, because shutdowns screw with federal employees. They may ultimately end up with a paid vacation during shutdowns (because Congress almost always authorizes back pay to them), but they'd still rather just go to work and get paid on time than deal with the uncertainty of when their next paychecks will show up. I know most Republicans don't give a damn about them, because most federal employees are liberal. However, a large portion of them are non-political public servants, who simply want to go to work and get paid like everybody else, and there are enough of them to matter in some states. If you want to motivate and energize thousands of federal employees in Virginia (many of whom work at the Pentagon and aren't particularly liberal) to turn out to vote Democratic, shutting down the government and screwing with their paychecks is one of the surest ways to do it.
Procedurally, there's nothing wrong with this. However, the bottom line is that the Freedumb Caucus wants more unwinnable confrontations and less compromise with the White House. Whether it's done at the last minute or through regular order is really a moot point. If they get their way, the result will be the same.
Great article putting the Ryan-hatred into perspective.
"Being an institutionalist (someone who doesn’t want to figuratively burn everything down) is tantamount to being a liberal. Believing in prudence, experience, and wisdom once defined being a Burkean conservative; today, those values label you a RINO."
Well said.
"Being an institutionalist (someone who doesn’t want to figuratively burn everything down) is tantamount to being a liberal. Believing in prudence, experience, and wisdom once defined being a Burkean conservative; today, those values label you a RINO."
Well said.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I think the Ryan choice is a good one from the R's. Is he getting a lot of blowback from the Tea Party crowd?
The Freedumb Caucus is supporting him, but not enough to officially endorse him. Overall, their very suspicious of him.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
