“I hope it doesn’t sound conditional — but it is,” he said, according to members inside the room. He paused after saying the word “conditional,” they said, for effect.
Paul Ryan, the presumed “savior” of the Republican party laid out his demands…….. to become the “Speaker Savior”. “This is not a job I’ve ever wanted, I’ve ever sought,” he said. “I came to the conclusion that this is a very dire moment, not just for Congress, not just for the Republican Party, but for our country.” Paul Ryan, who has said repeatedly he does not want to be House Speaker, now will consider the position. But only if the all Republican House members, including the hard-line “Freedom Caucus,” agree to a series of demands.
He does not want the job, in other words, THEY want him. THEY NEED him. HE is the ONLY one. And he will do it if:
- He told colleagues he would seek to change the rule allowing a simple majority of the House to remove a sitting speaker. Hes want the Freedom Caucus to agree to rule changes that would vastly limit their power moving forward. Specifically, he wants to eliminate their ability to oust a sitting speaker by making a motion to “Vacate The Chair.” In other words he wants to limit the power of the more conservative wing of the Congress.
- Paul Ryan refuses to agree to anything in advance of being elected speaker. He will not pre-commit to anything the Freedom Caucus wants. He wants the Freedom Caucus to publicly endorse him for speaker anyway. This would require four-fifths of the Freedom Caucus to vote to support him.
- Ryan told fellow Republicans he would only take the position if they respected his desire to spend time with his wife and kids.
The Freedom Caucus has until Friday to decide if it will back Ryan.
I have a question, the top -down approach with no dissension was the reason that the previous speaker was given the “thumbs down”, so why would the Freedom Caucus decide to “double down” on the top-down approach with even MORE restrictions. I am confused, do we send the people to Congress to serve the Speaker or to give voice to the PEOPLE? I somehow think that this will “double down” on the dissatisfaction within the Republican ranks —– in other words the citizens who identify with the “conservative” side of the house. It is always surprising to me that when people find themselves in a hole, instead of climbing out, they continue to dig even further.
Congress has five main functions: lawmaking, representing the people, performing oversight, helping constituents, and educating the public. Congress represents the people of the United States. Members serve their constituents, the people who live in the district from which they are elected. According to the theory of trustee representation, the people choose a representative whose judgment and experience they trust.
In the case of Paul Ryan, he is demanding that the Freedom Caucus or any other Caucus not aligned with him change their representation of their constituents to alignment with HIS thought process. One problem here, where does that leave the people who elected the individual members of the “Freedom Caucus”?
According to the theory of agency representation, the people choose a representative to carry out their wishes in Congress. If the representative does not do what the constituents want, then the constituents “fire” the member by electing someone else in the next election. This does not mean carry out the wishes of Mitt Romney, this does not mean suppression of the voices that are more conservative. The last time the people withdrew their support for someone “high up” on the Republican totem pole occurred with the defeat of Eric Cantor.
Good, Better, Best………. This decision might be the catalyst to a resounding defeat for the Party and not the “unification” under the “only savior” that is being touted. When you speak to only people in your own room, then you only have the opinions of the people in your own room.