Conservative Lawmaker who voted against Boehner, raps his leadership

One of the conservatives who last week took part in a rebellion against House Speaker John Boehner's re-election castigated the Speaker's leadership style on Monday, calling him "ineffective."

"I can respect the man and certainly the office he holds, but I would be lying if I said I respected his leadership. He simply hasn’t earned it," Representative Rich Nugent, a Republican from Florida, said in a letter to his constituents published online in the Tampa Bay Buzz.

Boehner narrowly survived a challenge last Tuesday from 25 conservative Republicans, including Nugent, in the biggest such intra-party rebellion against a speaker candidate since 1859.

After the vote, Nugent and another rebel were booted off the powerful House Rules Committee in apparent retaliation. But the next day, Boehner hinted at a possible reconciliation, saying he was engaged in a "family conversation" with dissident lawmakers.

However, Nugent made clear on Monday that he was unrepentant. He said he told Boehner in a private meeting that he didn't believe Boehner should be Speaker.

"If you can't lead and you can't deliver, then your own personal political philosophy is pretty much irrelevant," Nugent said in his letter. "There have been far too many occasions over the last four years where the House has been ineffective."

My rep on the other hand has no integrity and is either deluded or lying. Given Mark Sanford’s past he is probably lying. This is text from an email this morning.

Dear Paul,

The recent vote for Speaker was an important one. Our office received a flurry of calls over the past few days, and nearly everyone calling asked me to cast my vote against John Boehner’s re-election as Speaker. I spent much of the day before the vote returning phone calls, and accordingly I hear, understand, and share the frustration expressed over the phone and in the emails and texts I have received - but the ultimate question we all have to ask ourselves in this vote is what can we do about that frustration? Would a vote against the Speaker advance the conservative cause so many of us believe in? Would it advance the perspective of the First District that I am trying to represent in Washington? If you come to believe that the answer to these questions is no and no...then, I think one has to vote accordingly, which for me means that I voted for the Speaker.

Let me explain my reasoning.

I pray now a lot more than I used to before votes. This is not to say that God sanctions my votes, but just that I hope he will grant me the humility to know what I do not know. The Irish prayer captures this sentiment well as it says, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” Despite what some in the media were spinning, the outcome was certain. Republicans were not going to allow Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker. This was not a race wherein the speakership was in question, because there was no real challenger, and that was decided by Republicans back in November. It was also decided by the “candidates” themselves as none ran campaigns for the post that is third in line for the Presidency. When the Republican Conference met to elect leadership in November, there was an opportunity for a more conservative Member to stand up and make a case for himself for Speaker, but this did not happen. In fairness to the process, this was the time to challenge, but out of 245 other potential candidates, no one decided to stand for the post, and at that point, the Republican Conference elected the Speaker. It was not going to reverse itself 60 days later. We may like that, we may dislike that..., but it was reality. Fast forward to a few days before the election for Speaker and now we had a few additional candidates, none of whom committed the time to run a serious race. But that is what it requires. I have actually done this before, and I was a part of the efforts that led to changing Newt Gingrich’s speakership, but it is not the kind of thing that can be casually jumped into in the last 48 hours. The results showed this, as no candidate got more than 12 votes, and Louis Gohmert, whom the media seemed to talk up the loudest, received but three votes.

Which brings me to my second point, that if you go after the king, you had better kill the king (or at a minimum, scare him), because if not then you weaken your hand. Said differently, Ronald Reagan occasionally quoted Teddy Roosevelt and his admonition to speak softly and carry a big stick. When you use force, you need to make it count, because if not, people begin to doubt the validity of your force. If conservatives want to avoid being further marginalized, it is important they not fall into an effort that is so weak that you wind up with only a handful of votes and cannot even force a second ballot. Yet this is exactly what happened, which is why I was suspect of this last minute effort - as were other noted conservatives like Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan, and Mick Mulvaney.

Carrot and stick is the way decisions get made in Washington, and in this regard, the threat of power not expended has far greater effect than power expended that has no impact. In the short time I have been back, I have been rated as one of the most conservative members of the House, so I have no problem with casting outlier votes. That is why I voted against debt ceiling hikes, individual appropriations bills, the massive Omnibus bill that was over 1,600 pages, the Cromnibus bill, and much more, but this vote is viewed personally in a way that votes on ideas are not - which makes being intentional about effect vital on this vote. Conservatives like Ron DeSantis, Raul Labrador, or Matt Salmon voted for the Speaker when they saw that there was no way that this effort would even garner the votes necessary to bring the vote to a second ballot. Their point was that if you cannot even do that you marginalize the conservative vote going forward and I agree. This is not the last battle for conservatives, in fact it is the first of the 114th Congress, and what I am committed to is working with allies in the House and Senate to bring about less government, lower taxes, more liberty, and advances in the rule of law. If fighting a battle you cannot win dissipates your cause’s strength, most would say you would be wise to fight on ground where you can win, and that is what I plan to do.

So in summary, I understand and appreciate conservatives’ frustration with the Speaker, but on this vote, I thought it was vital that we produce a result rather than just the good feeling of trying to do something. In this vein of appreciating why we needed to be particularly studied on plotting a strategy toward victory here, let me offer one more reference point because I have spent a lot of time thinking on this over the last few days. It fits with the idea that those of us who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, and the numbers I was able to find are compelling. Republicans now have their largest numbers in the House since the 1920s, with Boehner at the helm. This in no way excuses the policy choices that leadership makes, but it goes a long way toward watching how history has a way of repeating itself. There have only been three votes for Speaker of the House that have gone to at least a second ballot, in 1917, 1923, and 1931. In those cases, third-party Members were the swing votes. There have also been two times that the House passed a resolution to elect a Speaker by plurality vote rather than majority vote, in 1849 and 1856. The ongoing debate over slavery was a key issue in those races. Past these examples, however, there has not been a Speaker voted out who maintained a majority....ever. In a situation where the current Speaker was in part credited with increasing the majority, history suggested it would be even more unlikely....and that proved true.

I respect the fact that many may see this differently, but I was elected in part on the promise to study what was before me and cast the vote that I thought best advanced the ideals so many of us share.

While Speaker Boehner may not represent those ideals, I believe on this vote with last minute candidacies that represented no real alternatives, voting the other way would diminish the very ideals we share and would like to see advanced in the 114th Congress.

Sincerely,

Mark Sanford

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.