There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Well I think that the FC folks need to see that taking down Boehner does not mean that they get their demands met. I think it will take time for that to sink in. They'll see that whoever their preferred person is wont get 100 votes. If you negotiate with them right now, they have a strong hand. In 2-3 weeks, they'll be more primed for a compromise IMO.
Or not. I think they care more about being true to their beliefs than coming up with solutions acceptable to a majority.
What they care about is sticking a knife in the party hierarchy Â
The GOP brass created this themselves. I have no pity for them. At a certain point, people who are marginalized are going to use whatever opportunity they can to fight back.
On the other hand, please identify what part of what he describes the Tea Partiers as demanding is incorrect. Whining that you don;t like him isn't the same as describing where he gets his facts wrong.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this “opportunity,” they 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.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want — and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill 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.”
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
That's pretty crazy. I don't know if I'd call it a coup but it does look a lot like the European or Israeli parliamentary system and the Freedom Caucus is like the crazy junior/fringe coalition partner that has just enough votes to significantly disrupt governance.
I just hope someone talks some sense into these guys. They're so not ready for prime time.
RE: What they care about is sticking a knife in the party hierarchy Â
The GOP brass created this themselves. I have no pity for them. At a certain point, people who are marginalized are going to use whatever opportunity they can to fight back.
I dont necessarily disagree. Now translate this into a Speaker election. Does that mean that they dont allow any Speaker who isnt effectively one of them? Becuase guys like Peter King get to vote too, and he wont vote for that.
I'm wondering to what extent Mitch McConnell's unwillingness to use the "nuclear option" the way Harry Reid did contributes to this mess. True, many of the current Republicans in the Senate excoriated Reid for the tactic. But I don't think that weighed heavily on the minds of the voters in 2014. The Republicans won seats for other reasons. Now the media and the Democrats will scream "hypocrisy" from the mountain tops, but will that resonate with the voters?
With the nuclear option in place, a lot of bottled up legislation would get through the House and Senate. Sure, it will get vetoed and the veto would not be overridden, but it would give the Freedom Caucus the chance to say they passed the legislation.
Without the nuclear option, Boehner basically didn't want to bother to get legislation through the House only to see it die in the Senate. Why bother?
BTW- Ryan is a policy wonk, not a vote counter and arm twister. Speaker is a bad fit for him.
give in to FC demands, or accept compromises with the Democrats to assure a governing majority. That doesn't make
Boehner a traitor. It just means he kept playing Texas Holdem' with starting hands of 7-2 unsuited--no possible way to win.
Congress' own IRA cheerleader. God I can't stand that guy. Fuckin' Long Island, amirite?
Anyway, you're right about that. That's why I can see that Ryan compromise I talked about earlier happening. This thing really just has to kind of run its course. Too many GOP reps are out for blood to get this worked out on such a tight schedule. They need to buy time somehow.
njm, it wasn't as simple a choice as you describe. Â
Reid applied the nuclear option to Presidential appointments, exclusively. Neither side was willing to go that far on votes related to making laws. Both sides are fearful as to what that would mean down the road.
that the Speaker is elected with Dem votes. It's unworkable even if the Dems were willing to play ball.
I just think for the overall chess match, this needs time. If you pick a new Speaker today, the FC is stronger than ever. They took down Boehner and McCarty. But if the caucus sweats it out and the FC are forced to see that their veto power is not the same thing as being the majority within the caucus, thing may start to shift.
Moreover, I think any middle of the party Speaker candidate would be crazy to take the job without getting assurances first on the debt ceiling and other necessary end of year business. Either the caucus commits to raising the debt ceiling or not, but the Speaker's first big move cant be a party revolt and moving a keep-the-lights-on bill with 40 Dem votes.
I challenge either Eric or Buford to tell me which issues on the GOP agenda of the last 20 years weren't straight put of the Conservative handbook.
Again, this entire narrative of Conservatives being pushed out of the GOP is a crock of shit. They have owned the GOP since Reagan. If the GOP has abandoned any branch of the party been the progressives and Libertarians.
Several right wing MOCs against Ryan for Speaker Â
because of his support of TARP/bailouts and purportedly getting people kicked off his committee. Including Louie fucking Gohmert.
Meanwhile, after McClintock quit in September, the FC loses another of its ranks in Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), who says:
Quote:
"The Freedom Caucus has moved away from this primary focus in recent weeks, and for this reason I have stepped back from the caucus," Ribble told the Post-Crescent. "The freedom caucus pivoted their attention to these leadership races and away from policy and I wasn’t interested in making that pivot."
MG - this is why I said patience. I think people will peel off the FC and it will otherwise weaken. Wait a few weeks and a new Speaker gets to "save" the caucus from itself, and in doing so will come in strong and almost certainly with the pre-condition of unity on the debt ceiling. But make the deal today and the FC look like kingmakers.
Jason "Planned Parenthood is the new ACORN" Chaffetz Â
"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.
Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)
But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.
Well, that's that. Or is it?
Quote:
Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.
"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.
Why? Moreover, why is the House GOP creating a select committee to investigate PP? What a desperate, political stunt. Link - ( New Window )
so long as the new leader comes in with an agreement that the FC demands as listed above are all DOA.
Beyond that, as of right now, there are 42 members of the FC by count, of which 36 are named members, after the resignation. There are 247 total Republican members of Congress. The FC and its voting affiliates need to get below 247 minus 218, or 29, before a new Speaker can be confident of getting any bill passed on the House floor with zero FC support.
then you set YOUR conditions which must be agreed to before saying yes. Only an idiot would say yes first, and then ask the FC what it will take to get them on board.
That's really the thrust of my point. Ryan may play coy for several weeks and then take the job. You'll know he's serious if he lists his demands and waits for them to be met.
His demands will only be met if two other sets of conditions exist:
1) The members of the FC give a rats ass how their behavior makes the rest of the Republican Party look; and
2) They actually have any interest in like, you know, governing, and getting things done like keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling so that existing debt can be paid.
I am not convinced that many of them care about either 1) or 2). I am not convinced that a lot of them even understand the implications of not doing (2). Maybe some do. In an interview yesterday, Carson made it very clear that he did not, so why should we assume that all of these guys do?
they dont think that they make the GOP look bad (and I dont have an opinion). Rather they think the establishment is the enemy and disrupting it is inherently good.
As for #2, I think they're going to get that eventually you need a Speaker and they'll heed the notion that their list of demands, representing the wants of 1/5 of the caucus, need to be scaled back if no one else wants them and no one who can get 218 will serve. The FC's tactics are a giant game of chicken. Always have been. This is one of the rare times when the rest of the party can play chicken right back. Boehner will stick around if needed and make sure there is no shut down anyway.
Rubio raises only $8 million for the quarter. Says Walker and Kasich announcing hurt in July, and that
Quote:
The source quoted officials as saying the campaign finished the third quarter strong and raised over $1 million online alone in September. They added that October was the campaign's best month so far.
Seems kind of bullshitty to me. October (which wont be reported until January so donors cant confirm) is the best month so far, just days in?
HRC, Sanders, and Carson raised $20+ million for the quarter.
and Congress has every right to investigate whether laws have been broken. If it finds none have been broken, that does not mean the investigation was unwarranted.
and the Democratic members of the investigative task force have every right to see the full PP tapes, which the Republicans have but denied them, and to have the makers of those tapes testify, which the majority refused to permit.
Or don't you think so?
If they really wanted to solve the problem, instead of just Â
trying for political wailing (and I'm talking both or all sides here), then there's substantive stuff that can be done.
You could limit tissue collection and transfer to researchers to teaching hospitals or state facilities. You could forbid any transfer of money, even for re-reimbursement, so that it is entirely a donation and motivated by altruism. You could set a federal standard or cap for transport/storage so that the reimbursement costs were fixed or capped.
WRT PP, the feds could force them to split into two independent entities that are allowed and not allowed to do abortions and re-direct funding to the non-abortion entity. Or, if the potential baby part distribution is the only issue, you they could just do a public federal audit, publish the results, and then move on.
Nobody really wants to solve the problem; they just want to score points.
The PP stuff is not 99.9% about politics? It is a fascinating topic because it highlights a cognitive dissonance of sorts. It is the twisted pretzel logic.....Baby Parts, Benghazi, etc....
Eventually they will find something somewhere I suppose but it's a continuous witch hunt aimed at pulling the red meat strings of the Right.
RE: Yeah, Boehner now has the luxury of saying... Â
"screw all of you, I am going to pass any bill I think I need using Democratic votes to get my majority."
And that would do nothing but prove conservatives' deepest suspicions of him, and verify that there are not in fact two distinct parties but one ruling class.
So, yeah, he could try that. It would be the ultimate end of the GOP. I'd bet anything on that outcome.
What Weepy should be thinking about is that he's reaping the fruit of overpromising and underdelivering. The RNC has advanced promises to do things. These promises helped them gain a majority. Failing to even attempt to keep those promises has made a lot of people very angry, and the current situation is a consequence of that.
What problem are you addressing? The transfer of tissue to research entities (state/non-profit/for profit pharma) at no profit to the abortion provider? What is that a problem? And why is the "solution" to just have this stuff go certain researchers?
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
Homer, even accepting your premise that an investigation.... Â
can be done in good faith, did you see any parts of the 5-hour grilling of the head of PP. It was rude, embarrassing, anti-intellectual, and phony as a $3 bill. As noted above, there was no attempt to give Democrats equal access to material, and requests to interview the makers of the tapes were ignored.
The first question, out of the blue, was whether PP subsidized activities in the Congo, and she wasn't even given time to explain why she might not know that. A half hour was spent on the size of her salary. A totally phony chart of PP activities, provided by the film makers, was presented to the witness with the claim that it was taken from their data. That was a lie, and all of the numbers were wrong.
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
What problem are you addressing? The transfer of tissue to research entities (state/non-profit/for profit pharma) at no profit to the abortion provider? What is that a problem? And why is the "solution" to just have this stuff go certain researchers?
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
It's not certain researchers; it's certain places that can perform the transfers. Although, the research pool is pretty shallow, which is why this more noise than substanace. Further, you there is no reason no to limit researchers if you wanted. You can put an application and approval system in place or permits, etc. Right now, not every researcher can go out and purchase bioagents for research. There is a vetting process.
You don't think Boehner should use Democratic votes to keep the government from shutting down and raise the debt ceiling? Really?
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
I'm far beyond giving a rat's ass about almost anything Congress does Â
I'm just pointing out to you that what you are suggesting will be the great final seppuku of the Republican party, which is why Weepy hasn't pursued it.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
RE: Homer, even accepting your premise that an investigation.... Â
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
Unless there is substantially defection from the Freedom Caucus Â
Choosing a new speaker and keeping the government open has become increasingly impossible.
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
WHy attack ads? It's Speaker, not a nationally elected position.
Keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling... Â
may not be that difficult, for now. Boehner or a new interim Speaker will end-run the FC and use Democratic votes if necessary. What this all does is make it much more difficult to find someone to take the job more permanently.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Well I think that the FC folks need to see that taking down Boehner does not mean that they get their demands met. I think it will take time for that to sink in. They'll see that whoever their preferred person is wont get 100 votes. If you negotiate with them right now, they have a strong hand. In 2-3 weeks, they'll be more primed for a compromise IMO.
Or not. I think they care more about being true to their beliefs than coming up with solutions acceptable to a majority.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this “opportunity,” they 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.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want — and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill 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.”
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
That's pretty crazy. I don't know if I'd call it a coup but it does look a lot like the European or Israeli parliamentary system and the Freedom Caucus is like the crazy junior/fringe coalition partner that has just enough votes to significantly disrupt governance.
I just hope someone talks some sense into these guys. They're so not ready for prime time.
I dont necessarily disagree. Now translate this into a Speaker election. Does that mean that they dont allow any Speaker who isnt effectively one of them? Becuase guys like Peter King get to vote too, and he wont vote for that.
Then what?
With the nuclear option in place, a lot of bottled up legislation would get through the House and Senate. Sure, it will get vetoed and the veto would not be overridden, but it would give the Freedom Caucus the chance to say they passed the legislation.
Without the nuclear option, Boehner basically didn't want to bother to get legislation through the House only to see it die in the Senate. Why bother?
BTW- Ryan is a policy wonk, not a vote counter and arm twister. Speaker is a bad fit for him.
Boehner a traitor. It just means he kept playing Texas Holdem' with starting hands of 7-2 unsuited--no possible way to win.
Anyway, you're right about that. That's why I can see that Ryan compromise I talked about earlier happening. This thing really just has to kind of run its course. Too many GOP reps are out for blood to get this worked out on such a tight schedule. They need to buy time somehow.
I just think for the overall chess match, this needs time. If you pick a new Speaker today, the FC is stronger than ever. They took down Boehner and McCarty. But if the caucus sweats it out and the FC are forced to see that their veto power is not the same thing as being the majority within the caucus, thing may start to shift.
Moreover, I think any middle of the party Speaker candidate would be crazy to take the job without getting assurances first on the debt ceiling and other necessary end of year business. Either the caucus commits to raising the debt ceiling or not, but the Speaker's first big move cant be a party revolt and moving a keep-the-lights-on bill with 40 Dem votes.
Both of these statements smack of two people just making shit up as they go.
Again, this entire narrative of Conservatives being pushed out of the GOP is a crock of shit. They have owned the GOP since Reagan. If the GOP has abandoned any branch of the party been the progressives and Libertarians.
Meanwhile, after McClintock quit in September, the FC loses another of its ranks in Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), who says:
MG - this is why I said patience. I think people will peel off the FC and it will otherwise weaken. Wait a few weeks and a new Speaker gets to "save" the caucus from itself, and in doing so will come in strong and almost certainly with the pre-condition of unity on the debt ceiling. But make the deal today and the FC look like kingmakers.
Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)
But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.
Well, that's that. Or is it?
"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.
Why? Moreover, why is the House GOP creating a select committee to investigate PP? What a desperate, political stunt.
Link - ( New Window )
Beyond that, as of right now, there are 42 members of the FC by count, of which 36 are named members, after the resignation. There are 247 total Republican members of Congress. The FC and its voting affiliates need to get below 247 minus 218, or 29, before a new Speaker can be confident of getting any bill passed on the House floor with zero FC support.
That's really the thrust of my point. Ryan may play coy for several weeks and then take the job. You'll know he's serious if he lists his demands and waits for them to be met.
1) The members of the FC give a rats ass how their behavior makes the rest of the Republican Party look; and
2) They actually have any interest in like, you know, governing, and getting things done like keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling so that existing debt can be paid.
I am not convinced that many of them care about either 1) or 2). I am not convinced that a lot of them even understand the implications of not doing (2). Maybe some do. In an interview yesterday, Carson made it very clear that he did not, so why should we assume that all of these guys do?
As for #2, I think they're going to get that eventually you need a Speaker and they'll heed the notion that their list of demands, representing the wants of 1/5 of the caucus, need to be scaled back if no one else wants them and no one who can get 218 will serve. The FC's tactics are a giant game of chicken. Always have been. This is one of the rare times when the rest of the party can play chicken right back. Boehner will stick around if needed and make sure there is no shut down anyway.
That will work except in the few times where an FC member is in position to block a floor vote. I don;t think there are many of those.
Seems kind of bullshitty to me. October (which wont be reported until January so donors cant confirm) is the best month so far, just days in?
HRC, Sanders, and Carson raised $20+ million for the quarter.
Or don't you think so?
You could limit tissue collection and transfer to researchers to teaching hospitals or state facilities. You could forbid any transfer of money, even for re-reimbursement, so that it is entirely a donation and motivated by altruism. You could set a federal standard or cap for transport/storage so that the reimbursement costs were fixed or capped.
WRT PP, the feds could force them to split into two independent entities that are allowed and not allowed to do abortions and re-direct funding to the non-abortion entity. Or, if the potential baby part distribution is the only issue, you they could just do a public federal audit, publish the results, and then move on.
Nobody really wants to solve the problem; they just want to score points.
Eventually they will find something somewhere I suppose but it's a continuous witch hunt aimed at pulling the red meat strings of the Right.
And that would do nothing but prove conservatives' deepest suspicions of him, and verify that there are not in fact two distinct parties but one ruling class.
So, yeah, he could try that. It would be the ultimate end of the GOP. I'd bet anything on that outcome.
What Weepy should be thinking about is that he's reaping the fruit of overpromising and underdelivering. The RNC has advanced promises to do things. These promises helped them gain a majority. Failing to even attempt to keep those promises has made a lot of people very angry, and the current situation is a consequence of that.
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
The first question, out of the blue, was whether PP subsidized activities in the Congo, and she wasn't even given time to explain why she might not know that. A half hour was spent on the size of her salary. A totally phony chart of PP activities, provided by the film makers, was presented to the witness with the claim that it was taken from their data. That was a lie, and all of the numbers were wrong.
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Quote:
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
Quote:
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?