Posted on 03/25/2017 3:58:32 AM PDT by cotton1706
Paul Ryan failed miserably in his first important task for the Trump agenda.
Since 2009, the Republicans have campaigned in the elections of 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 that they would repeal and replace Obamacare. One would think that given this history, the Republican leaders, such as Ryan, would have a well thought out plan to repeal Obamacare.
Ryan probably did not believe that Trump would win and was unprepared to lead the fight to repeal Obamacare. Ryan did not support Trump during the primaries and did his best to damage Trump. Moreover, since Trump's election in November, Ryan and the Republican leaders should have been working on a bill to repeal Obamacare to consider immediately after inauguration. But it seemed that Ryan had a plan with little if any input from conservatives. Trump had to step in to force compromises and adjustments to appeal to conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Paul Ryan is no Mikael Gorbachev, if he is lucky he is some low lever USSR attache...
Let me explain. Much like Reagan walked away from the table at Reykjavík, this was a bridge too far to make a deal for PDJT. Frankly whether it was written by Dr Price of the insurance industry, this bill wasn't something in Ryan's heart, compared to Gorbie that wanted a deal. Much like Reykakvik, a deal will be done, it wasn't good enough, and the time value of money ( or their sorry political asses ) will cause all parties to come to the table to fix it.
IMHO Ryan is toast politically, it is only a question of when it happens. He flubbed his 1st apprenticeship, I don't think he has much more a gig as speaker, he just don't know it...
Ryan is a liar.
Ryan is feckless.
Ryan is not leadership material.
Bottom line...Ryan is a loser and a failure (his first failure as Speaker was giving Obama everything he and the Democrats wanted in the budget negotiations.)
The longer he stays in power, the longer this (”Losing!” - not “Winning!”) will go on.
Time to push / force / vote him out as Speaker.
Good point! Yes, the leftists and GOPe always have sneaky, alternate plans.
PS: I suspect that the author, in the quote that I cited, was probably actually saying that Ryan never had any intention of following through on repealing Obamacare but just figured that he would not be called to do so at any point if Trump did not win the election.
The actual bill that he did put forth was most likely written by the same people who wrote Obamacare.
Perhaps, BUT remember that the others who were in the (viable) running for Speaker were just as bad if not worse. Remember also that it's not just the Freedom Caucus/ TRUE Conservatives in CONgress that choose the Speaker. There are actually more RINOs (many of whom falsely call themselves "Conservatives") than there are TRUE Conservatives. Sometimes when you're in the minority in your own Party, you are left with few choices and you have to pick the lesser of all evils. The "Swamp" that Trump needs to drain is just as full (actually, more so) with Republican RINOS as DimocRATS> Especially now since the Dims are in the minority.
+1
I have had to correct far too many "Republicans"/ Trumpies (NOTE: I am NOT anti- Trump!) recently who actually believe that the Dims had 60 votes and had to use them. But then, you have Republican RINO leadership telling the American people day-in/ day- out that this is the "truth."
I am SICK of having to bang my head against the wall with "Republicans" that took everything Paul RINO lied to them about this fiasco .. Hook. Line. Sinker! When the gullible are led to believe (BAAAAAA!) that the good guys (Freedom Caucus) are the bad guys, we are doomed!!
[We are in a WAR for the very survival of this nation.]
Absolutely. Especially after antichrist-spirit Barack Hussein Obama.
nope I hate Schiff , but Gohmert looked a little nutso to me at that time .
It’s ok to criticize these ppl you know ....
They need our critique ! They earn it
Yes, Paul Ryan needs to go, he’s a disgusting individual that would sell out his country for the corrupt establishment that he is a part of.
Paul Ryan got what he and the establishment wanted as I read headlines everywhere about his being an embarrassing loss for President Trump. They WANTED this narrative to slow President Trump’s agenda for Making America Great Again. That was the end game all along with 0bamacare lite.
Dear President Trump,
Do not trust these people ever again and go DIRECTLY to the American people to get these things done so together, we can Make America Great Again.
Sincerely,
CGato
>>Ryan couldn’t get ObamaCare repeal done because the Chamber of Commerce wants to move to single payer to get health care off the corporate books so he made sure to make it unpalatable to House Conservatives.<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As conspiracies go, this is a tasty one.
But my problem is that Ryan may have tanked his future chances (in his own mind!) of ever becoming POTUS.
Ryan is like Bill Clinton. He wants to BE SOMEBODY. No interest in actually DOING ANYTHING.
We had a chance to give him the boot not too long ago and a foolish electorate voted him back in.
Incorrect on both counts.
That's what I thought as well. Lot's of shenanigans going on to try to get it to 60 votes, including the Al Franken recount after recount election, among other shenanigans.
http://www.startribune.com/did-al-franken-really-cast-the-60th-vote-for-obamacare/238733121/
Did Al Franken really cast the '60th vote' for Obamacare?
"Facing a new election year, the GOP has an answer ready to go: U.S. Sen. Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat whose 2008 recount victory over Republican Norm Coleman helped alter the balance of power in national politics.
With the rocky rollout of healthcare.gov, Minnesotans can expect to hear a lot about the symbolic 60th vote; for example, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann recently penned an opinion piece calling Franken “a leading cheerleader and the 60th vote for Obamacare.”
But in a body of 100 senators, Franken is hardly the only contender for the distinction. Not to mention that in the end, the essential finishing touches of the health care law passed the Senate — thanks to some tricky legislative maneuvering — with a mere 56 votes, not 60.
So that voters can better assess the 60th vote claim (Franken prefers to call himself the “second senator from Minnesota”), some math history is in order.
As the disputed 2008 election headed for the courts, Senate Democrats were still two votes shy of a filibuster-proof 60-vote “supermajority.” The late Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter changed that in early 2009 by switching parties, becoming a Democrat. That gave the Democrats control of 59 votes, and sharpened the stakes in Minnesota’s protracted recount.
Franken’s final victory in July 2009 made it 60. But a month later, the health care bill’s most ardent champion, Massachusetts’ Ted Kennedy, died.
Kennedy’s temporarily appointed replacement, Paul Kirk, could just as easily be considered the “60th vote.” Or, just as plausibly, it was Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who held out until the controversial “public option” was jettisoned. Or perhaps more famously, the distinction could go to conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, who held out for a Medicaid provision widely derided as the “Cornhusker Kickback.”
Whoever takes the credit or the blame, the Senate approved the law in December 2009 on a vote of 60-39, the minimum necessary to avoid a GOP filibuster.
But the drama was far from over. In January 2010, Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown to fill Kennedy’s seat. Suddenly, there was no more 60th vote.
The House, then still controlled by Democrats, hadn’t voted on the bill. Any changes in the House version would send it back to the Senate, where the Democrats were back to 59 votes.
And to pass Obama’s signature health care law, the White House still needed to win over centrist and conservative House Democrats with a long list of concerns about abortion funding and the Cornhusker Kickback.
To get around this, the House passed the underlying Senate bill, but only with the understanding that a separate bill would be crafted to address the remaining stumbling blocks. Since those issues were mainly related to taxes, subsidies and other money matters, the Senate was able to pass the second bill under a “budget reconciliation” rule that didn’t require a supermajority. It passed, in March 2010, by a vote of 56-43.
So now perhaps the question should be: Who was the 51st vote? (Repeat until you get to 56.)"
I’m beginning to think to repeal this it would be easier than they are letting on. Simply repeal the meat & potatoes of the bill, that was passed by both houses by a simple majority, and it brings the whole thing down.
They could give it a future deadline. Then we can start over with a more free market approach and give people time needed to switch before the deadline approaches.
CGato
If Ryan had an ounce of integrity and honor, he would resign.
Yes, he turned out to be even worse than Romney as a candidate though we had hoped otherwise. Many don’t know of the Democrat background of his wife. Ryan himself is probably the only Republican that she has ever voted for.
Nehlen did so poorly that Wikipedia cancelled his article.
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.