Freedom Caucus Votes a Majority in Favor of Ryan, But Not the 80% Majority Needed for Actual Caucus Endorsement

Update: There are two different headlines here. Each is true, but it depends on what you want to emphasize.

WaPo: "Supermajority" of Freedom Caucus to Back Paul Ryan's Speaker Bid

or:

Politico: Freedom Caucus won't formally endorse Ryan

Remember, it takes 80% of the caucus' agreement to move for something like this. Ryan didn't get that.

So there are two stories: A majority did in fact back him, but not 80%. So he does not have the Freedom Caucus' endorsement.

Now, whether Ryan takes that or not, who knows. He may take the opportunity to wash his hands of a job he never wanted in the first place.

...

Ryan said it was a prerequisite for his deigning to serve that he get the endorsement of all conservative groups, and the Freedom Caucus has an 80% threshold for endorsement (that is, 80% of them agree, or no motion goes forward), so they can tank his sorta-kinda bid tonight.

Here's what Ryan had in mind for "reforms" to the motion-to-vacate rules.

Ryan has discussed raising the threshold to bring a motion to vacate to the floor, perhaps by mandating an internal party vote first. He also has suggested stripping it of its privileged status, so 218 votes would be needed to bring it up. He has discussed raising the threshold of passage to a two-thirds majority, but that has lost steam because Democrats then would be needed to remove a Republican speaker.

So essentially his "reform" of the motion-to-vacate is to make it a nullity -- he wants to rule with no chance of anyone objecting.

I can't see the Freedom Caucus agreeing to that. Seems like they'll have to call his bluff.

And I do think it's a bluff: Allah's right, he doesn't want the job (unless they pay him a million dollars per year), so he's asking for the impossible, in hopes that he doesn't get it.

Earlier it was reported that Ryan promised to not support any "immigration reform" as long as Obama's in the White House.

But of course that's just one the several issues the Freedom Caucus wants to pressure establishment Republicans on; others are Obamcare, spending, and so forth.

Look, I don't understand why the Speaker has to be an Establishment figure. When I was talking to an Establishment-oriented guy a couple of weeks back, he just assumed the Speaker had to be an Establishment figure.

When I asked, "Why should the Establishment not give in and permit Daniel Webster the slot?," he didn't have a ready answer, because the possibility hadn't occurred to him.

The fact is, the Establishment demands to be in control, always, and if you challenge them, they call you "obstructionist" and "wacko-birds."

posted by Ace at 07:52 PM

| Access Comments