It’s nearly time for Nancy Pelosi to name her price. Allow enough Ds to vote for a moderate Republican Speaker to serve in a caretaker role until after the 2016 elections, in return we get clean debt ceiling increases, clean continuing resolutions, and disbandment of the Benghazi witch hunt committee, plus whatever else Pelosi wants.
Have you seen anything of the sort from *them *yet, or only speculation by people as ignorant of the inside dealings as we are?
I almost think Comedy Central execs are walking up and down his street, kicking rocks, and on occasion calling up to his window,
“You know… Its not too late… It’s your choice, Jon. It’s always been your choice…”
Nah. Most people like Trevor. Besides, there’s nothing worse than a guy who retires and then comes back. Just ask a wrestling fan.
Or Brett Favre.
Brett Favre still hasn’t figured that out.
Rich Lowry: “The only Republican who does not want Paul Ryan to become the next House speaker, it seems, is Paul Ryan.”
If that’s the case, chances are Ryan will reluctantly accept the job sometime in the next few days.
My take is, this would be a great thing for the GOP, because it would resolve the leadership dilemma that otherwise threatens to become a long-running soap opera. And it’s bad for the country, for the same reasons.
Because, from my ideological perspective, the most important thing is for the country to see the GOP as it is. If Ryan brings order out of chaos, this teachable moment goes away.
In all likelihood, he’d be able to convince them to not shut down the government in December, but instead appear responsible in order to increase the chances that they can win the White House and hold the Senate next November, at which point they’d be in a position to gut the government as they please.
And ‘as they please’ covers far more ground than most Americans realize, thanks to our ‘both sides do it’ media.
I thought Ryan was unpopular with the Teahadists.
There is no price that can top watching the opposing party destroy itself, specially when you won’t get any of the blame for the fallout. Pelosi could help them now, or take over in 2016.
We may find out pretty soon. Jonathan Chait argues that the Teahadists trust his ideological purity, and because of that, they’d be willing to go along with his tactical judgment for now.
I’m hoping Chait’s wrong, but I’m scared that he’s right.
It is not the job of the Speaker of the House (of either party) to give the minority party whatever they want. Elections have consequences, remember?
It is if you have to beg the minority party to make you speaker.
Like your party eating itself, apparently. But there is no way the GOP doesn’t figure out a way to support one of its own before voting for Pelosi. That stuff is just pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
It’s like this- you’ve got about 40 batshit crazy Republicans who won’t vote for anybody for Speaker who doesn’t intend to burn the place down. They can’t be reasoned with. So if you want a Speaker, you’ll need a few Democratic votes. Those votes will come at a price. Electing terrorists has consequences.
That hasn’t, and won’t happen.
Probably not no, but it has a higher chance of happening than getting someone from the terrorist caucus. We are likely getting Ryan, or Boehner has to stay longer than he hoped.
The election for Speaker of the House is an election, remember. So it will have consequences - you just said so yourself.
What those consequences are will depend on whose votes the winner has to buy, and with what promises.
Looks like Paul Ryan is still saying ‘no.’
It’s almost like a plot point on House of Cards. But people are speculating more and more that Boehner actually may stay on as Speaker because he did say (which a lot of folks ignored in his resignation speech) that he’d step down only after a new Speaker was elected… which may not happen any time soon.
What an odd coincidence that you think both of these things.