• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan for sp

Ryan would be a fool to run for Speaker

  • Total voters
    12
JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,416
Reaction score
38,988
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oup-would-look-favorably-on-ryan-for-speaker/

Jordan's comments came amid an active push by top Republicans to get a reluctant Ryan to run for speaker after Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) surprised his colleagues last week by announcing that he will not run.

Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), also a Freedom Caucus member, called Ryan "a friend" and said that if new candidates enter the race, the caucus will evaluate them. Both Labrador and Jordan said the next speaker should embrace a new process that takes the input of rank-and-file members into greater account.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Born Free said:
Yeah the conservative-freedom-caucus wants their guy (speaker) to do as they say. So they are holding out until they get what they want. And I hope Ryan does not take the position. Before the CFC votes for anyone they have to agree to change the rules of the house or no deal on a vote.
Click to expand...

What house rules would the CFC change?


If Ryan decides to accept the position he'd probably want to get the CFC's "favorability" endorsement in writing because their word means nothing.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

I believe them when they say it's about the process. Daniel Webster will do fine.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Moot said:
What house rules would the CFC change?
Click to expand...

The minority (T-party) wants to be more inclusive in the decision voting process, as it is now the the house majority controls the power of the house. That's an overview, but it is much more complex than that.

If Ryan decides to accept the position he'd probably want to get the CFC's "favorability" endorsement in writing because their word means nothing.
Click to expand...

I believe it's the other way around, the CFC's would want it in writing that Ryan would change the rules to allow them to be more inclusive in the process. That is the holdout now, there are 40 T-Party members of which the new leader will not be able to get the 218 needed without some of the T-Party CDC's breaking ranks and voting for someone that has not signed on to changing some of the house rules. The rules over the years have changed so it's nothing new in changing the rules how the house functions and how the power structure is laid out.

Many are for the rules to change, so it's going to be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Born Free said:
The minority (T-party) wants to be more inclusive in the decision voting process, as it is now the the house majority controls the power of the house. That's an overview, but it is much more complex than that.
Click to expand...
On the face, that sounds reasonable....unless congress ends up spending all their time voting on frivolous partisan bills that only need a small majority to win.


I believe it's the other way around, the CFC's would want it in writing that Ryan would change the rules to allow them to be more inclusive in the process. That is the holdout now, there are 40 T-Party members of which the new leader will not be able to get the 218 needed without some of the T-Party CDC's breaking ranks and voting for someone that has not signed on to changing some of the house rules. The rules over the years have changed so it's nothing new in changing the rules how the house functions and how the power structure is laid out.

Many are for the rules to change, so it's going to be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
Click to expand...


Good point. But whoever takes the position would want some guarantees from the CFC as well. After all, they're the reason no one wants the job.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Chomsky said:
I think whoever takes the job will likely find it's detrimental to their career.

But the big issue: "If not Ryan, then who?"

That's the problem!
Click to expand...

I think Ryan is a great candidate and is possibly one of the few that could pull it off. He seems to be center of the Libertarians and the Republicans.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Born Free said:
Yeah the conservative-freedom-caucus wants their guy (speaker) to do as they say. So they are holding out until they get what they want. And I hope Ryan does not take the position. Before the CFC votes for anyone they have to agree to change the rules of the house or no deal on a vote.
Click to expand...

I really don't think they want someone that will do as they say as much as someone that will at least listen to them. Boner tried to hammer them into submission and that didn't work.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Moot said:
On the face, that sounds reasonable....unless congress ends up spending all their time voting on frivolous partisan bills that only need a small majority to win.





Good point. But whoever takes the position would want some guarantees from the CFC as well. After all, they're the reason no one wants the job.
Click to expand...

No kidding
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

NonoBadDog said:
I really don't think they want someone that will do as they say as much as someone that will at least listen to them. Boner tried to hammer them into submission and that didn't work.
Click to expand...

Not from what I understand, they want the house rules changed to be more inclusive, as it is now all the power is at the top. Boner tried to hammer them and he had the power to do so. They want to change that by changing the rules to make them more inclusive. It's no different than Obamer having to much power with is pen and phone. The rules of the executive branch need to change as well.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

johndylan1 said:
I believe them when they say it's about the process. Daniel Webster will do fine.
Click to expand...

Their positive view of Webster is an attempt to elect an invisible chair. They certainly don't agree with the man, but what they find valuable is his incredible deference to the base membership, thereby neutralizing the very concept of House leadership. This allows the Tea Party crowd to have more power by not having much of a challenge to their positions or an external dialogue about how to play the numbers game with any Democrat (or skeptical Republican) in the House or Senate.

In essence, they want an Andrew Johnson post-impeachment vote.
 
Last edited:
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Fiddytree said:
Their positive view of Webster is an attempt to elect an invisible chair. They certainly don't agree with the man, but what they find valuable is his incredible deference to the base membership, thereby neutralizing the very concept of House leadership. This allows the Tea Party crowd to have more power by not having much of a challenge to their positions or an external dialogue about how to play the numbers game with any Democrat (or skeptical Republican) in the House or Senate.

In essence, they want an Andrew Johnson post-impeachment vote.
Click to expand...

Here's the bottom line. Each representative has an equal responsibility to represent their own constituency. Their job is simple; propose legislation, debate it, amend it in order to build consensus and vote. Heavy handed leadership has removed the ability of members to earnestly debate and represent their constituents, instead using their power to build a coerced party loyalty for political purposes, when they should be focusing on policy that makes the lives of their constituents better.

Leadership isn't pushing members into a corner, leadership is providing a process by which consensus can be built. In a case where there is no consensus the vote should still go on for transparency purposes, putting members on record so that the public can either affirm or reject that position in the next election.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

johndylan1 said:
Here's the bottom line. Each representative has an equal responsibility to represent their own constituency. Their job is simple; propose legislation, debate it, amend it in order to build consensus and vote. Heavy handed leadership has removed the ability of members to earnestly debate and represent their constituents, instead using their power to build a coerced party loyalty for political purposes, when they should be focusing on policy that makes the lives of their constituents better.
Click to expand...

Not it hasn't. Quite the opposite. Over the past several decades, we have actually increased the amount of democracy present within the legislative process and that includes the legislation themselves. Your idea of transparency, summarized as "putting members on record so that the public can either affirm or reject that position in the next election," has been strengthened so much over the past decade that it is becoming one of the defining characteristics of American politics thanks to the proliferation of advocacy organizations and websites dedicated to grading scales and assigning a representative a grade on fidelity to an ideology or issue to the exclusion of anything else. This solipsistic viewpoint of government has become practically a virtue for the Tea Party and may end up becoming the same for the Warren Democrats in a couple years time.

What has been constituted as "heavy handed leadership" is largely coordination with intent to succeed at the end in the face of opposition otherwise equally determined. We've demonized this organized political effort so much and desired greater and greater amounts of "listening to your constituents," that we've gradually eroded our ability to obtain meaningful consensus necessary to institute law or public policy.
 
Re: Conservative Freedom Caucus head predicts group would ‘look favorably’ on Ryan fo

Fiddytree said:
Not it hasn't. Quite the opposite. Over the past several decades, we have actually increased the amount of democracy present within the legislative process and that includes the legislation themselves. Your idea of transparency, summarized as "putting members on record so that the public can either affirm or reject that position in the next election," has been strengthened so much over the past decade that it is becoming one of the defining characteristics of American politics thanks to the proliferation of advocacy organizations and websites dedicated to grading scales and assigning a representative a grade on fidelity to an ideology or issue to the exclusion of anything else. This solipsistic viewpoint of government has become practically a virtue for the Tea Party and may end up becoming the same for the Warren Democrats in a couple years time.

What has been constituted as "heavy handed leadership" is largely coordination with intent to succeed at the end in the face of opposition otherwise equally determined. We've demonized this organized political effort so much and desired greater and greater amounts of "listening to your constituents," that we've gradually eroded our ability to obtain meaningful consensus necessary to institute law or public policy.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The degradation and decline of the American political establishment has been one of the greatest blows to our political institutions. I fervently hope it can be reversed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom