This to me is not necessarily good news. Remember the GOP House thinks that Obama is a dictator. I suspect that being a dictator for them is simply any institutional leader who actually does their job.
So while I liked his initial speech quite a bit as did many Democrats, this is an ominous sign.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html?showComment=1446248652208#c6200727783133233423
This is the second ominous sign. The first one is his simply ruling out doing immigration while Obama was President as he is not to be trusted.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-ryan-honeymoon-is-over-already.html
Beyond that he vowed not to bring up immigration until it's something a majority of Republicans support-ie, the famous Hastert Rule again.
He did assure us that while he was applying the Hastert Rule to immigration-it was a quid pro quo he made with the Freedom Caucus to get the job-he wouldn't be applying this to other areas.
But this I am not a dictator stuff doesn't sound promising. We actually want and need a leader in the House.
At least you have to hand it to Mitch McConnell: he's an actual functioning Senate leader. He actually gets some things done even a major criminal reform bill recently where he was able to find common ground between liberals and libertarians on the Right.
That is what leadership is: it is building consensus, agreeing to agree even while agreeing to disagree is always so much easier.
It's like what President Obama said when he asked Hillary Clinton to become his Secretary of State after a very tough campaign between them where both had at times felt the other or at least their supporters went over the line.
Hillary initially demurred-she of course, just wanted to be wooed a little more-that she wanted to go back to the Senate and get things done there, but the President retorted: I want to get to yes.
Those few, simple words are the essence of leadership. A leader is about getting to yes, not digging in one's heals on dogmatic, or sectarian, purist grounds, and getting nothing done.
Ok, so listening to Ryan's words this morning on Face the Nation, I don't know that this sounds like a leader:
"Rep. Paul Ryan says he was not elected speaker to dictate, but to work alongside fellow Republicans to set the House agenda."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/paul-ryan-face-the-nation-215418#ixzz3qFUdJ8xZ
I am sorry, but that's already wrong. he is the Speaker of the whole House not just Republicans. This is the whole problem with the GOP Congress since Newt Gingrich in 1994.
It's why I scorn them as the GOP Congress, rather than just Congress. It should be Congress, full stop, but this is not how the Republicans govern-or don't govern-in the House.
Now in his acceptance speech he had said this:
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
"Ryan also took strides to reach across the aisle, calling for the parties to unite for the sake of their constituents and the country."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html
That sounded promising. But today he was saying he will work 'alongside' his fellow Republicans.
The 'alongside' sounds like he's not going to lead. And why just his fellow Republicans? The Hastert Rule-where everything passes only with a majority of the majority vote is not democracy.
It disenfranchises the minority right at the outset. In a truly functioning House, not every piece of legislation should pass or not pass on a purely partly line vote.
Republicans fail to get it, but even now with their strong House majority, there are 188 Democratic Reps. who were elected by their constituents. Simply disenfranchising them is not democracy.
A Speaker shouldn't be in his or her job just to defeat the other party at every turn but to actually get things done for their constituents and the country.
Newt Gingrich defended the Hastert Rule recently as of course, the Speaker can't let Democrats win and that Democrats didn't do this when they lead the House either.
But the process in teh Tip O'Neil years was very different. Gingrich is simply wrong, Tip or Tom Foley never practiced the Hastert Rule.
Again, it's about getting to yes, that's leadership. Like even now while Republicans don't believe in raising the minimum wage, none of them would claim not to want to see wages go up right?
So why not work with Dems to cut payroll taxes or raise the Earned Income Tax Credit?
"Surely if Ryan were to introduce such legislation an agreement could be found. Maybe the Dems would be willing to consider lowering the corporate tax rate-Charlie Rangel had once made such a proposal-but in exchange the GOP could agree to close the various loopholes that enable many corporations to pay little or not tax currently."
A leader will find such areas of consensus.
But that's just it, The Democrats are the leadership party, the Republicans are the opposition party. Such has been the case since FDR.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/senate-reaches-compromise-on-criminal-justice-reform-214278
So while I liked his initial speech quite a bit as did many Democrats, this is an ominous sign.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html?showComment=1446248652208#c6200727783133233423
This is the second ominous sign. The first one is his simply ruling out doing immigration while Obama was President as he is not to be trusted.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-ryan-honeymoon-is-over-already.html
Beyond that he vowed not to bring up immigration until it's something a majority of Republicans support-ie, the famous Hastert Rule again.
He did assure us that while he was applying the Hastert Rule to immigration-it was a quid pro quo he made with the Freedom Caucus to get the job-he wouldn't be applying this to other areas.
But this I am not a dictator stuff doesn't sound promising. We actually want and need a leader in the House.
At least you have to hand it to Mitch McConnell: he's an actual functioning Senate leader. He actually gets some things done even a major criminal reform bill recently where he was able to find common ground between liberals and libertarians on the Right.
That is what leadership is: it is building consensus, agreeing to agree even while agreeing to disagree is always so much easier.
It's like what President Obama said when he asked Hillary Clinton to become his Secretary of State after a very tough campaign between them where both had at times felt the other or at least their supporters went over the line.
Hillary initially demurred-she of course, just wanted to be wooed a little more-that she wanted to go back to the Senate and get things done there, but the President retorted: I want to get to yes.
Those few, simple words are the essence of leadership. A leader is about getting to yes, not digging in one's heals on dogmatic, or sectarian, purist grounds, and getting nothing done.
Ok, so listening to Ryan's words this morning on Face the Nation, I don't know that this sounds like a leader:
"Rep. Paul Ryan says he was not elected speaker to dictate, but to work alongside fellow Republicans to set the House agenda."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/paul-ryan-face-the-nation-215418#ixzz3qFUdJ8xZ
I am sorry, but that's already wrong. he is the Speaker of the whole House not just Republicans. This is the whole problem with the GOP Congress since Newt Gingrich in 1994.
It's why I scorn them as the GOP Congress, rather than just Congress. It should be Congress, full stop, but this is not how the Republicans govern-or don't govern-in the House.
Now in his acceptance speech he had said this:
"A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith," he added. "Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority."
"Ryan also took strides to reach across the aisle, calling for the parties to unite for the sake of their constituents and the country."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-liked-paul-ryans-acceptance.html
That sounded promising. But today he was saying he will work 'alongside' his fellow Republicans.
The 'alongside' sounds like he's not going to lead. And why just his fellow Republicans? The Hastert Rule-where everything passes only with a majority of the majority vote is not democracy.
It disenfranchises the minority right at the outset. In a truly functioning House, not every piece of legislation should pass or not pass on a purely partly line vote.
Republicans fail to get it, but even now with their strong House majority, there are 188 Democratic Reps. who were elected by their constituents. Simply disenfranchising them is not democracy.
A Speaker shouldn't be in his or her job just to defeat the other party at every turn but to actually get things done for their constituents and the country.
Newt Gingrich defended the Hastert Rule recently as of course, the Speaker can't let Democrats win and that Democrats didn't do this when they lead the House either.
But the process in teh Tip O'Neil years was very different. Gingrich is simply wrong, Tip or Tom Foley never practiced the Hastert Rule.
Again, it's about getting to yes, that's leadership. Like even now while Republicans don't believe in raising the minimum wage, none of them would claim not to want to see wages go up right?
So why not work with Dems to cut payroll taxes or raise the Earned Income Tax Credit?
"Surely if Ryan were to introduce such legislation an agreement could be found. Maybe the Dems would be willing to consider lowering the corporate tax rate-Charlie Rangel had once made such a proposal-but in exchange the GOP could agree to close the various loopholes that enable many corporations to pay little or not tax currently."
A leader will find such areas of consensus.
But that's just it, The Democrats are the leadership party, the Republicans are the opposition party. Such has been the case since FDR.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/senate-reaches-compromise-on-criminal-justice-reform-214278
I thought I'd heard that before the Freedom Caucus agreed to give him their support (I know, it wasn't a binding 80% support), when Ryan spoke with them, that even then he'd agreed not to bring any immigration legislation to the floor while Obama was in office. I thought that was a precondition for their "support." That was long before Ryan's first speech as speaker. Am I wrong? Thus it doesn't surprise me at all that he again stated that the next day or so.
ReplyDeleteRegarding what Ryan does, I think actions will speak louder than words. He's already shown that he's all for saying one thing and doing another: like Boehner's budget deal, that his own staff had a hand in crafting (I understand). Didn't Ryan criticize the deal, but then turn around and vote for it anyway? Wasn't it just a big phony show to attempt to impress the knuckle draggers in the FC?
I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he says. It's all a bunch of crap he's spewing. But I don't even think the knuckle draggers or their rabid drooling constituents will be fooled by it? Why? Because the right-wing-media-industrial complex won't be fooled... or rather they're determined to be enraged and their drooling minions will follow suite, so they'll be suspicious and paranoid ... or at least sow those seeds amongst their followers and listenerships.
This is why I hate politics. It's the worst aspect of it.
I always think of two groups at odds with each other, and the extremists in each group that actually fuel each others needs. It's too the extremists advantage to keep emotions raw and distrust and hatred of the other tribe maximized... so they turn on their own if it looks like there's going to be some sort of peace agreement. I'm specifically thinking of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here... the extremists will go so far as to execute their own if it looks like peach might break out. They cheer discord and provocation and paranoia and fear, because that's the product they're selling.
The one silver lining is it doesn't matter too much anyway at this point as they already have the budget deal and have raised the debt ceiling through early 2017.
DeleteThis is all you can expect from the GOP House in this day and age. Anything we get from here will be pure gravy.
Even if Ryan turns out to be no better than Boehner whatsoever we're still ahead of that last 5 years because we are set through 2017 with the budget funded at higher than sequester levels for the first time since 2011.
"I thought I'd heard that before the Freedom Caucus agreed to give him their support (I know, it wasn't a binding 80% support), when Ryan spoke with them, that even then he'd agreed not to bring any immigration legislation to the floor while Obama was in office. I thought that was a precondition for their "support." That was long before Ryan's first speech as speaker. Am I wrong? Thus it doesn't surprise me at all that he again stated that the next day or so."
ReplyDeleteThat is correct! And I said this myself in this post.
I give him a pass on what he said about the budget deal as this was a quid pro quo that he and Boehner were both in on.
ReplyDeleteI take his criticism of the budget deal as seriously as I take Hillary' criticism of Obama's TPP trade deal.
I'm sure Obama understands exactly why she is doing that.