Posted on 10/22/2015 7:10:44 AM PDT by alancarp
From 7-8AM CDT this morning, Congressman Mo Brooks (member of the Freedom Caucus and my own representative here in N. Alabama) was interviewed by local conservative talk radio host Dale Jackson on a variety of subjects, the last of which was Paul Ryan and the race for Speaker of the House.
The following notes are my takeaways from things said by the Congressman this morning.
• The Freedom Caucus (FC) has met with both Daniel Webster and Paul Ryan at this point.
• The FC will not make positional endorsements unless an 80% threshold is reached on any vote.
• Webster has been endorsed for speaker by the FC, having met that 80% threshold. The actual vote tally was not indicated.
• Ryan did not reach that mark - I believe he got a 72% approval from the FC
• There is a bit of a caveat to the Ryan vote: (1) the FC did not consider his publicly-indicated 'demands' or 'requirements'; (2) their vote may have been not just on Ryan specifically, but to rescind their endorsement on Webster and move it to Ryan instead.
• Congressman Brooks indicated that he personally did not vote to endorse Ryan on that basis, as he felt it would have been unfair to Webster to first offer and then pull their endorsement.
On the candidates:
• Brooks had strong words of praise for Webster and the work he had done in Florida as Speaker of the Florida House. Many reforms, many popular actions.
• Acknowledged that both have 'liberal-esque' ratings from the myriad of groups he uses to track such things. • Of major concern to Brooks, noted that Ryan was among the worst regarding illegal immigration (that's no surprise to our members here, of course)
• By contrast, Webster is among the best on the immigration issue, though loses points for some other issues. Generally seemed like his voting record is kinda 'in the middle' on most issues.
• No indication that any other candidates are emerging at this time.
On Paul Ryan specifically: Brooks had a direct conversation with him on some key points of concern, and will be following up with a letter to Ryan in an attempt to confirm in writing the items he believes he heard. They were:
• Ryan believes that no bill involving immigration reform would be worth the time/effort to pass while Barak Obama is still in office.
• Ryan stated that he would not violate the Hastert Rule: he would not bring any bill to the floor without a majority of the Republican representatives in support of it.
NOTE: Dale Jackson usually posts his radio interviews after the fact, so the direct audio (and/or podcast) should be available around lunchtime via @TheDaleJackson on twitter if you'd like to hear the interview for yourself.
DISCLAIMER: I know Webster personally (though haven't seen him for about 25 years or so), so I'm definitely in his camp, though I am much more anti-Ryan. Hopefully y'all will look for the audio and make sure I represented these statements with reasonable accuracy.
While this does suggest that Ryan would not try to push through a pro-immigration bill that would be passable only via the support of Democrats, it nonetheless does not commit Ryan to support any border security measures (or anything else to stop illegals) at any point... even if/when he is Speaker following a (hopefully) Republican Presidential victory in 2016.
Such a declaration, therefore, essentially maintains the status quo, which is a pro-immigration policy that Ryan would tend to favor. The next President could change that policy, of course, but then that President would have to kick-start Congress since a Speaker Ryan would have done nothing in the interim.
The upshot is that with statements like that from Ryan - which Brooks is again trying to get confirmation on - Brooks indicated that he would be inclined to support Ryan for Speaker under these circumstances. He was not asked, nor did he say whether he actually preferred Ryan to Webster, though I believe he did indeed support Webster's FC endorsement.
Note that with a 72% level of support to endorse Ryan within the FC, that could be enough to satisfy Ryan's own requirements - and certainly would be sufficient to get him elected as Speaker even without the FC's full blessing. Thus, it appears that the fix is in unless Ryan himself were to pull the plug for whatever reason.
This is NOT reassuring.
Ryan is no conservative, but there are distinct advantages to him becoming Speaker:
1. There is no consensus on a replacement for Boehner and he stays on without a replacement. Ryan completes the coup. That is a win for conservatives. It’s very important to complete the coup.
2. Ryan’s biggest concern about the job is how it will impact his future Presidential aspirations. I’d say it will significantly and negatively. Ryan is likely trading a pretty boy run at the White House for a temperamental stint as Speaker. Good.
3. He made promises to the Freedom Caucus. Of course they aren’t to be trusted, but that’s not the point. Breaking promises costs political capital. Conservatives, if smart, will extract a high political price for each promise broken.
4. Trying to shore up a GOP coalition means it will be much more difficult to depend on crossing the aisle when trying to pass legislation without GOP consensus. In the House, that means the conservatives. It will now be much more politically difficult to depend on Pelosi to carry anti-conservative legislation.
We were never going to get a conservative Speaker. I think the Freedom Caucus has done much to leverage Ryan. I think this will play out just fine. The Establishment is losing the political capital to prosecute its agenda. Yes, Ryan is their guy but the party’s almost over.
To quote Sen. Cruz, the base is volcanic now. That’s going to be Speaker Ryan’s reality.
If Republican Representatives elect Ryan as Speaker, it will drive more conservatives out of the Party.
It is no wonder that the Republican Party is called the Stupid Party.
Admittedly, that part is probably right, though I do think that politically it’s still the correct thing to do (to push border security through) since the public is behind it... it separates R’s from D’s for sure.
Forget Paul Ryan; he is a liar.
They should have kept Boehner. At least then they could blame the booze.
Tagline...
I hope not. I think its pretty clear now that ‘immigration reform’ invisioned by the likes of Ryan and the rest has very little to do with border security.
I can't say that he's lied about anything... but then he doesn't have to. As noted, if the status quo remains as things stand today, then Ryan gets what he wants and he doesn't have to break any promises. That's my concern.
It may not be reassuring, but it is a practical acceptance of reality. Reality sometimes really is a b.....
Immigration reform, even with Dem support, has no chance of becoming law while O is in office, so why waste time tilting at windmills?
Instead, use what tools you DO have (such as stripping Obamacare through reconciliation) and work hard to present a united front to flip the White House next year.
Strategically, excellent analysis.
The only quibble I have with this is the following:
The time for ‘someday’ is over. The time for waiting is done. Today is the day a conservative should run the conservative party in DC. Not tomorrow.
This should be non-negotiable, in the form of a moratorium on immigration for a period of no less than two years. Full stoppage of H1-Bs, and an acceleration of the visa expiration.
In short, send them all home. All of them, everywhere.
THEN you can have a debate about what immigration reform looks like.
The left should not be allowed to lock in ill-gotten and ILLEGAL gains. Arrest and jail mayors and city councilpeople of sanctuary cities - tomorrow. Prosecute mayors and city managers of sanctuary cities in which illegal aliens have injured, raped, or killed citizens as accessories. In the case of homicide, arrest for voluntary manslaughter.
In short - re-establish the rule of law in the United States. It’s not an unreasonable demand, and any delay in this should be met not with acquiescence, but with force.
His 2012 comments about repealing 85% of Obamacare through reconciliation might qualify as deceptive, at least.
Fair point.
When the ship is in mutiny and the Captain has walked the gangplank, how comfortable can his successor be in continuing the same course?
I was trying to be nice. What I meant to say was “brain dead”.
Ann Coulter’s column today - http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-10-21.html
The following is just about in the middle of her column:
“Two years ago, Ryan bragged to a Catholic radio station: “I actually campaigned with Jack Kemp against a thing called Prop 187.”
“That “thing” was an overwhelmingly popular initiative to prevent illegal aliens from collecting government benefits. It gave Republicans their biggest victory in California in the last 30 years, was supported by a majority of blacks, a majority of whites, a majority of Asians and 31 percent of Hispanics.”
That man doesn’t seem to understand what is meant by self-government under the US Constitution.
Yes and it appears there is nobody else who wants the job that can get 218 votes. I’m not happy about it but I don’t see a conservative getting the Speaker’s position at this time. Its not going to happen.
Not only is the Captain walking the gangplank, the previous XO (Cantor) was knifed.
If Ryan isn’t looking over his shoulder, he’s a fool.
Because.
We’re.
Coming.
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.