Looks like the lunatic fringe of the Republican party will continue its scorched earth policies in the House under McCarthy, to the great detriment of the country:
You think John Boehner had a rocky time as speaker of the House? Just wait until you see how his successor fares this fall.
House Republicans are voting on their new leader Thursday, and their choice is scheduled to be ratified by the House on Oct. 29 as the next speaker. But some of the conservatives who badgered Boehner into retirement already have their knives out for his would-be successor, Kevin McCarthy.
Rep. Tom Massie (Ky.) declared that “there is absolutely no way that I think you can vote for McCarthy and go back home and tell your constituents you did the best thing for them.”
Rep. Raúl Labrador (Idaho) had questions about whether McCarthy “is prepared for such a high office.”
And Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.) let it be known that “outside conservative groups are not comfortable at all with picking Boehner’s right-hand man to take the speaker’s spot.”
On the eve of Thursday’s vote, the conservative Freedom Caucus announced that its few dozen members would vote en bloc against McCarthy, complicating his ascent to the speaker’s chair on the 29th.
McCarthy (Calif.) remains the front-runner, but it doesn’t really matter whether the next speaker is him or somebody else — because the next speaker will be leader in title only. Conservatives, far from being placated by Boehner’s ouster, are emboldened: They have plans to bend the entire House to their will.
Defaulting on the federal debt? Not a problem. Shutting the government to defund Planned Parenthood? So be it.
These were a couple of the take-aways from Wednesday’s installment of “Conversations with Conservatives,” a monthly luncheon sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (parent company of the House GOP caucus) and catered by Chick-Fil-A, the fast-food chain owned by religious conservatives. The 10 men on the dais, members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Tea Party Caucus and other conservative factions, might be considered the politburo of the new conservative order in the House.
“The marginalizing of conservatives that’s taken place over the last nine months is just not going to be tolerated anymore,” declared Rep. Andy Harris (Md.).
“We have an opportunity to completely change what’s happening,” announced Labrador.
To seize this “opportunity,” they have presented the three contenders for the speakership — McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster — with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
“Whoever wins tomorrow has three weeks to make those changes,” Labrador said, “and present them to the conference before we even vote on the floor.”
So conservatives could change their votes on the 29th? “Absolutely,” Labrador said.
McCarthy, Chaffetz (Utah) and Webster (Fla.) have sat down with three conservative caucuses, promising them the moon and the stars. That is an imperative: There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority.
Between now and Oct. 29, the speaker-in-waiting had better do what conservatives want. And there are many big items that could come before the House during that time: a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, and transportation and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders’ claims that “we can’t shut down the government,” said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight — “even if we fail.”
Paul Singer of USA Today observed that the conservatives’ description of leadership is more like followership. “You’re asking for a speaker,” he said, who “follows your lead.”
They did not dispute this notion. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) said that “we want a process-focused speaker,” while Rep. Jeff Fleming (La.) said the goal is to give “power to the individual members” so that the speaker no longer is “dictating the agenda.”
Then why doesn’t one of the conservative hard-liners run for the speakership himself?
Labrador’s answer was revealing. “When you’re leading the revolution, you also upset a lot of people,” he said. “It’s very difficult to make change as we have been trying to make and also build a coalition.”
That’s true. It’s harder to build a coalition than to tear things apart. And this is why McCarthy — or whoever the next speaker is — will be no match for emboldened conservatives hell-bent on destruction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/10/07/023d8122-6d3c-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html
You think John Boehner had a rocky time as speaker of the House? Just wait until you see how his successor fares this fall.
House Republicans are voting on their new leader Thursday, and their choice is scheduled to be ratified by the House on Oct. 29 as the next speaker. But some of the conservatives who badgered Boehner into retirement already have their knives out for his would-be successor, Kevin McCarthy.
Rep. Tom Massie (Ky.) declared that “there is absolutely no way that I think you can vote for McCarthy and go back home and tell your constituents you did the best thing for them.”
Rep. Raúl Labrador (Idaho) had questions about whether McCarthy “is prepared for such a high office.”
And Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.) let it be known that “outside conservative groups are not comfortable at all with picking Boehner’s right-hand man to take the speaker’s spot.”
On the eve of Thursday’s vote, the conservative Freedom Caucus announced that its few dozen members would vote en bloc against McCarthy, complicating his ascent to the speaker’s chair on the 29th.
McCarthy (Calif.) remains the front-runner, but it doesn’t really matter whether the next speaker is him or somebody else — because the next speaker will be leader in title only. Conservatives, far from being placated by Boehner’s ouster, are emboldened: They have plans to bend the entire House to their will.
Defaulting on the federal debt? Not a problem. Shutting the government to defund Planned Parenthood? So be it.
These were a couple of the take-aways from Wednesday’s installment of “Conversations with Conservatives,” a monthly luncheon sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (parent company of the House GOP caucus) and catered by Chick-Fil-A, the fast-food chain owned by religious conservatives. The 10 men on the dais, members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Tea Party Caucus and other conservative factions, might be considered the politburo of the new conservative order in the House.
“The marginalizing of conservatives that’s taken place over the last nine months is just not going to be tolerated anymore,” declared Rep. Andy Harris (Md.).
“We have an opportunity to completely change what’s happening,” announced Labrador.
To seize this “opportunity,” they have presented the three contenders for the speakership — McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster — with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
“Whoever wins tomorrow has three weeks to make those changes,” Labrador said, “and present them to the conference before we even vote on the floor.”
So conservatives could change their votes on the 29th? “Absolutely,” Labrador said.
McCarthy, Chaffetz (Utah) and Webster (Fla.) have sat down with three conservative caucuses, promising them the moon and the stars. That is an imperative: There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority.
Between now and Oct. 29, the speaker-in-waiting had better do what conservatives want. And there are many big items that could come before the House during that time: a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, and transportation and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders’ claims that “we can’t shut down the government,” said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight — “even if we fail.”
Paul Singer of USA Today observed that the conservatives’ description of leadership is more like followership. “You’re asking for a speaker,” he said, who “follows your lead.”
They did not dispute this notion. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) said that “we want a process-focused speaker,” while Rep. Jeff Fleming (La.) said the goal is to give “power to the individual members” so that the speaker no longer is “dictating the agenda.”
Then why doesn’t one of the conservative hard-liners run for the speakership himself?
Labrador’s answer was revealing. “When you’re leading the revolution, you also upset a lot of people,” he said. “It’s very difficult to make change as we have been trying to make and also build a coalition.”
That’s true. It’s harder to build a coalition than to tear things apart. And this is why McCarthy — or whoever the next speaker is — will be no match for emboldened conservatives hell-bent on destruction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/10/07/023d8122-6d3c-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html
