Paul Ryan

[Updated with Ryan's Statement!] Paul Ryan's Conditions to Serve as Speaker Should Disqualify Him

Irony alert: GOP running aground as it reaches its most zenith of historic power.

|

[11:00 A.M.: This article has been updated with Paul Ryan's remarks to GOP House member on his conditions for standing for the speakership. Scroll to bottom to read in full.]

Are Paul Ryan's preconditions to be serve as—well, technically, simply to run for—House Speaker legitimate?

The first thing you can say is: Give the guy credit for trying to set terms completely to his liking.

Goddammit to hell, but Americans love their junior-varsity versions of Cincinnatus, who serve reluctantly but with an iron hand. "This is not a job I've ever wanted, I've ever sought," says the 2012 GOP candidate for vice president, who is also demanding unanimous backing and more control over his conference.

When Boehner realized he was about to take power, he couldn't help but weep happy tears and channel Gollum from Lord of the Rings, which is never a good look for a politician.

But the simple fact is that Ryan has already indicated that he'd do a half-assed job, so no matter how desperate Republicans may be, they'd do well to come up with someone else to run the House of Representatives. Among his conditions are that the House unite unanimously behind his (s)election and the following (from a statement by his press secretary):

[Ryan] told his colleagues that he encourages changes to our rules and procedures, but he also believes that those changes must be made as a team. They affect everyone, so everyone should have the opportunity for input.

As part of those rules changes, he believes there needs to be a change to the process for a motion to vacate the chair. No matter who is speaker, they cannot be successful with this weapon pointed at them all the time.

He also made clear that family comes first. And a successful speaker must be able to maintain a healthy work-family balance. Less time on the road can be compensated for with a greater focus on communicating our message to the public.

More here.

Yes, give Ryan credit for negotiating the terms of his position before he assumes it. But from a management perspective for any job, you never want to hire a person who is already talking about how everything needs to be done on his terms, especially when his terms don't include any hint of a vision that might actually turn your business around. And however heartfelt, Ryan's work-family balance line is a feint; did he broker the same condition for his potential vice presidency too? Or was he just convinced that he'd never actually have to fill the position?

The primary problem with John Boehner's speakership was not that a bunch of insaniac ideological zealots constantly kept demanding more cuts to programs for widows and orphans or anything else (Jonathan Rauch has a very different point of view on this, and while I don't agree with it, it's one worth considering). It was, as Peter Suderman noted at this site, that Boehner had absolutely zero vision for the large goals that a Republican House should be pursuing. He was like a dog who was just happy sitting in the driver's seat but with absolutely no idea how to operate the engine, much less get to a particular destination.

As a result, he was ready not even to cave per se but just negotiate on whatever the issue of the day was. Whatever Obama or the Dems wanted, just shave 15 percent or 25 percent or 50 percent off and call it a day; alternatively, just give in without negotiating. Sometimes that makes perfect sense, but it's only going to unite a divided party if members understand and share the larger context of an overarching agenda. Boehner was, in short, the consumate big-government conservative, devoid of any real policy agenda other than getting shit done that was kinda-slightly smaller and less awful than what the Democrats proposed. Except, of course, when it came showing how retrograde conservatives could be with social issues. In those case, he could always be expected to denounce things with something approaching enthusiasm.

Paul Ryan is a more serious character than that, but despite his vaunted policy chops, he too suffers from a similar lack of vision. If the Republican Party is actually a party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, it's hard to make sense of Ryan's budget proposals and voting record, which betray an uncomplicated relationship to expanding the size, scope, and spending of government, especially when a Republican is president. He voted for No Child Left Behind, after all, and TARP (on the first vote), The Patriot Act (and its various renewals), invading Iraq, and Medicare Part D. He'll always vote for more military spending because, well, the military can always use more money, right? The Medicare reform plan that the left pillories him for (it would restrain costs far in the future, don't you know, by replacing open-ended payments with a capped annual amount seniors could use to buy insurance) doesn't actually question the wisdom of the state paying for retirees' health care independent of their need or the fundamental unsustainability of the program whether it's "voucherized" or not. Meanwhile the ankle-biters over at Breitbart are aghast that he ever said a kind word about immigrants. Whether they speak for anyone other Rep. Steve King (Hater-Iowa) and the nativist caucus in the House is anyone's guess, but the fact that Ryan was, along with Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor, one of the House's "young guns" tells you he's been keeping bad company.

Perhaps Ryan did more than make demands during closed-door talks with the House Freedom Caucus and other factions within the GOP. Maybe he even unfurled an actual vision for his speakership: Here are the three big things we're going to get done between now and November 2016, that sort of thing. But from press accounts, that sort of talk wasn't in the air. Rather, it was all about how many concessions he could wrangle from a potentially desperate bunch of Republicans.

Historically, the GOP as a national party has really never been more powerful. They control both houses of Congress and a record number of state legislatures and governor's mansions. And yet since 1992, they've only been able to win the majority of one popular vote for president (George W. Bush in 2004). There are a lot of reasons for that, but a big one is that the party, especially in the House of Representatives, has showcased many of the worst elements of a party that claims to be against increasing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government but never actually finds a way to follow through on that, or, as important, to explain the reasons for why it thinks that's a good thing. Instead, voters only see the hypocrisy of small-government conservative types who vote to bail out banktards and pump money into defense spending while decrying powdered-milk subsidies that cost a fraction of the F-35's cost overruns. They see a party that, against a majority of Republicans in national polls, that spends a hell of a lot of time railing against immigrants and gays and the like while a former GOP speakers of the House get married for the 20th time, resign due to phone-sex scandals, and stand trial for paying hush money to victims of sexual abuse. 

The Republicans don't need more power to enact their stated goal of downsizing government. They need a congressional leader who can articulate how they plan to do it and why it would be a good thing. Maybe that person can't be the Speaker of the House but it's certainly not going to be Paul Ryan.

Updated: Here's the text of Paul Ryan's remarks to Republicans.

"Tonight, I shared with my colleagues what I think it will take to have a unified conference and for the next speaker to be successful. 

"Basically I made a few requests for what I think is necessary, and I asked to hear back by the end of the week.

"First, we need to move from being an opposition party to a proposition party. Because we think the nation is on the wrong path, we have a duty to show the right one. Our next speaker needs to be a visionary one. 

"Second, we need to update our House rules so that everyone can be a more effective representative. This is, after all, the people's house. But we need to do it as a team. And it needs to include fixes that ensure we don't experience constant leadership challenges and crisis.  

"Third, we, as a conference, should unify now, and not after a divisive speaker election.  

"The last one is personal. I cannot and will not give up my family time. I may not be able to be on the road as much as previous speakers, but I pledged to make up for it with more time communicating our message.

"What I told the members is, if you can agree to these requests, and I can truly be a unifying figure, then I will gladly serve. And, if I am not unifying, that is fine as well. I will be happy to stay where am, at the Ways and Means Committee.

"Here is how I see it. . . .

"It is our duty to serve the people the way they deserve to be served. It is our duty to make the tough decisions this country needs to get back on track.

"The challenges we face today are too difficult and demanding for us to turn our backs and walk away.  

"Global terror . . . wars on multiple fronts . . . a government grown unaccountable, unconstitutional, and out-of-touch . . . persistent poverty, a sluggish economy, flat wages, and a sky-rocketing debt.

"But we cannot take them on alone. Now, more than ever, we must work together.

"All of us are representatives of the people—all the people. We have been entrusted by them to lead.    

"And yet the people we serve do not feel that we are delivering on the job they hired us to do. We have become the problem. If my colleagues entrust me to be speaker, I want us to become the solution. 

"One thing I've learned from my upbringing in Janesville is that nothing is ever solved by blaming people. We can blame the president. We can blame the media. We can point fingers across the aisle. We can blame each other. We can dismiss our critics and criticism as unfair.

"People don't care about blame. They don't care about effort. They care about results. Results that are meaningful. Results that are measurable. Results that make a difference in their daily lives.

"I want to be clear about this. I still think we are an exceptional country with exceptional people and a republic clearly worth fighting for. It's not too late to save the American idea, but we are running out of time.  

"Make no mistake: I believe that the ideas and principles of results-driven, common-sense conservatism are the keys to a better tomorrow—a tomorrow in which all of God's children will be better off than they are today. 

"The idea that the role of the federal government is not to facilitate dependency, but to create an environment of opportunity . . . for everyone.

"The idea that the government should do less. . . . And do it better. 

"The idea that those who serve should say what they mean and mean what they say. 

"The principle that we should determine the course of our own lives . . . instead of ceding that right to those who think they are better than the rest of us.

"Yes, we will stand and fight when we must. And this presidency will surely require that.  

"A commitment to our natural rights. A commitment to common sense . . . to compassion . . . to co-operation—when rooted in genuine conviction and principle—is a commitment to conservatism.  

"Let me close by saying: I consider whether to do this with reluctance. And I mean that in the most personal of ways.  

"Like many of you, Janna and I have children who are in the formative, foundational years of their lives. 

"I genuinely worry about the consequences that my agreeing to serve will have on them. 

"Will they experience the viciousness and incivility that we all face on a daily basis?  

"But my greatest worry is the consequence of not stepping up. Of some day having my own kids ask me, when the stakes were so high, 'Why didn't you do all you could? Why didn't you stand and fight for my future when you had the chance?' 

"None of us wants to hear that question. 

"And none of us should ever have to.

"I have shown my colleagues what I think success looks like, what it takes to unify and lead, and how my family commitments come first. I have left this decision in their hands, and should they agree with these requests, then I am happy and willing to get to work. Thank you."

For video and more go here.

NEXT: The Constitution's financial terms, part II: Duties, imposts, excises and tonnage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought you were a native English speaker Nick.
    That sub-head is appalling. “as it reaches its most zenith of historic power”?
    What is that even supposed to mean?
    Just because its going up online doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be proofread or edited.

    1. We don’t read the articles, or the subheads, so WDATPDIM.

    2. “its most zenith “

      its like totally apotheosisizing, Ted!

      1. I’m your zenith,
        I’m your fire,
        I’ll change your tire,
        at your desire!

    3. And he has a Ph.D. In English. Wait’ll you hear his opinions on politics.

    4. Serve the people? That sounds familiar.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIufLRpJYnI

    5. Leave him alone, he meant to say “zenithest”.

      Definition: a point directly overhead which is more directly overhead than all other points which are directly overhead.

  2. The question is, do House Republicans want a GOP version of Nancy Pelosi? Sure, she was highly effective despite being an idiot. She got Obamacare passed, but she also decimated her party’s representatives.

  3. its most zenith of historic power

    That had better be a doge joke.

    1. WOW MUCH WRITING SUCH GOOD

    2. The mostest ever!

    3. I skipped the article and went straight for the comments to see if you had commented on this.

      (not that I’d read the article anyway)

      1. I live to serve.

        1. While the rest of us serve to live.

    4. It shouldn’t happen to a doge.

  4. Paul Ryan should be disqualified by virtue of being Paul Ryan (and having two first names instead of a real surname)

    1. Don’t you be dissing Ron Paul.

  5. And the options are?
    If Ryan is the only person that can herd the most GOP cats, then he is the best choice.
    He has to be better than Boehner. If he isn’t, then perhaps the party shouldn’t have shot Boenher in the head until they actually had someone that could replace him.
    Why are they looking at elected Representatives only, anyway? Why not Ann Coulter? Judge Judy? Hell, put Trump in there – let’s see if he can do anything.

    1. If the GOP has no vision of where they want to go, they can at least defend their vision of where they don’t want to go. (Being a charitable fellow, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt – strictly for the purposes of this comment – that they really do believe what they say about smaller government although anybody with two braincells know they’re lying sacks of shit on that count.) The biggest bitch I have about the GOP Congress is that they don’t defend the charge of being a do-nothing Congress unable to get a single thing done by getting out front and pointing out “you’re goddamn right we’re not doing a damn thing, not doing a damn thing is exactly what we’re doing because doing nothing is lots better than doing something. Have you morons ever looked at what kind of shit gets done when we do do something? And you want more of that, you fucking retards?!?!”

      1. You know, I guess that’s really what libertarians are all about – everybody else is talking about what they want the government should do about this, that, or the other problem and I can’t think of a single thing I want the government to be doing or doing more of but I can think of tons of stuff I want the government to stop doing or do a lot less of. I guess the promise to do nothing just doesn’t sell as well as the promise to do something, even when experience should teach you that doing something is almost always doing something incredibly stupid and incredibly expensive that makes everybody worse off.

        1. The media is all aghast that its taking so long to get a new speaker…me, I’m fine.

      2. Have you morons ever looked at what kind of shit gets done when we do do something?

        Yeah, both parties have a history of do-doing way too many things.

    2. And the options are?

      The collapse of the Republican Party, and gridlock like you’ve never seen before?

      The downsides, I’m not sure.

  6. “…but never actually finds a way to follow through on that, or, as important, to explain the reasons for why it thinks that’s a good thing. Instead, voters only see the hypocrisy of small-government conservative types who vote to bail out banktards and pump money into defense spending while decrying powdered-milk subsidies that cost a fraction of the F-35’s cost overruns.”

    Whoop, whoop, whoop… Someone call the big bosses. Nick Gillespie has gone rogue. Nick, if we’re interested in someone who will limit the national security state why don’t we fucking vote for someone who says there going to do so?

    Also, if we are interested in good government my suggestion is that we do what we did in Ca. And effectively remove the Republican Party from government. When I moved out here in 2007 California government was a shit show because Republicans had the ability to stop budget legislation in order to support their corrupt business friends. In 2010 they got booted out of office and things now miraculously get done.

    1. Yes, a power monopoly is a far better way to accomplish what the Party determines is best for the people, right comrade?

      1. Also,

        Whoop, whoop, whoop…

        Are you a juggalo? I’m going to picture you as a juggalo from now on.

      2. I have a set core of political beliefs– distrust of concentrations of wealth and power, a belief that government should provide a basic standard of living, and a robust anti militarism. That said, I have my practical side. So, if the choice is between a political party that is interested in good government (even one that doesn’t share my ideology) and a party interested in promoting stories about the victim hood of rich White men, I’m going with the former. I know, I know… I’m ideologically unclean and probably need a cleansing of holy water from the Republican supply-side Jesus.

        1. An apologist for Stalin and Mao attributing “good government” to the donkeys is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Party.

        2. Maybe say something else about how one-party control somehow isn’t a concentration of power, or how Cambodia was better off without all those intellectuals who tried to keep Pol Pot from getting things done.

        3. The fact that you used the phrase “supply-side” says it all.

        4. You have a set core of stupidity.

        5. distrust of concentrations of wealth and power

          effectively remove the Republican Party from government

          It’s like you’re not even trying any more, man. I guess after the Conquest thread, there’s no where to go but down, huh?

          1. After the Conquest thread, I would have said he couldn’t go any lower.

        6. AmSoc

          “…my suggestion is that we do what we did in Ca. And effectively remove the Republican Party from government.”

          “I have a set core of political beliefs– distrust of concentrations of wealth and power…”

          As Mr. Citizen X alluded to, those statements seem to conflict with one another, and you should probably resolve that. Now, you see Republicans as obstructionists. Imagine if Repubs in Cali were the majority and they wanted to restrict voting to minorities, and the only thing standing in the way was the democrats. You probably wouldn’t see them as obstructionists, and you would realize the benefit of not having one party in total control and being able to violate people’s rights at will.

          1. Oh, MJGreen beat me to it. Darn having to work while reading the forums.

          2. As Mr. Citizen X alluded to

            Please. The preferred nomenclature is “Reverend Dr. Citizen X.”

            1. Dr. Field Marshal President for Life?

              1. Sure, once the coup succeeds.

        7. american socialist|10.21.15 @ 10:31AM|#
          “I have a set core of political beliefs–”

          Yeah, we know:
          “Take all personal property at gunpoint”

        8. I have a set core of political beliefs– distrust of concentrations of wealth and power…

          Aaaaaannnnnddddd you’re a socialist who wants your paradise brought forth by governmental acts.

          Does the cognitive dissonance hurt?

          1. You mean there should be OSHA and an EPA? Yes.

            1. “I am against concentrations of power except when I am not” -AS

    2. I really wish California would leave the Union. I would be willing to pay them to go, so long as they took you with them and cut you off from the internet.

    3. What should have happened with the banks? I hear people say we shouldn’t have bailed them out, but what was the option? Let them collapse and have the FDIC make the depositors whole? If they could have. What if the FDIC could only cover 10 cents on the dollar? I’m pretty sure depositors would have been pissed off. At least bailing them out, got the tax payer off the hook because the banks paid the loan back, and depositor’s were whole. Imagine what would have happen to the economy had the banks been allowed to fail.

      And what is California’s debt today?? California has more problems than the Republicans.

      1. Peanut wisdom says if trillions in deposits had evaporated it would teach the people a lesson for trusting a fractional reserve system.

        Plus gold.

        1. Yes, some libertarians advocated this. But, in the real world, the angry people would have turned to a strong man, not a latter day von Mises or Rothbard. Let’s face it, we libertarians have not been able to articulate reasons for freedom vs. security that are acceptable to the majority of Americans. And perhaps we never can because most humans will always respond favorably to the notion that they can be taken care of with minimal effort on their own part.

        2. Instead banks learned risk doesn’t matter when lending. I’m sure there is no downside to that.

          1. Instead banks learned risk doesn’t matter when lending. I’m sure there is no downside to that.

            Not true. Besides the outright failures like Wachovia, Lehman, and WaMu the survivors have written off over $500 billion in bad loans.

            Bank of America stock is now 30% of its 2007 price for example.

            1. If buying and holding these companies was so attractive why did the government need to get involved? Sounds like the USA screwed a lot of investors out of profit.

              1. Holders have lost their asses.

            2. Re: Peter Caca,

              Bank of America stock is now 30% of its 2007 price for example.

              The “seen”.

              Imbeciles like you always look at the “seen”, and never at the opportunity cost of that money doing something else more productive.

      2. Let them collapse and have the FDIC make the depositors whole?

        Yep. Wasn’t that the plan when the FDIC was created?

      3. Remember that all the assets guaranteeing those loans could also have been similarly devalued. Imagine real estate being 85% what it is today, but all of the 2008 mortgage holders being able to renegotiate their loans for 50 cents on the dollar because they were purchased for 15 cents on the dollar. The winners and loser would have looked different. The banks would have been big losers, the solid citizen who was prepared for a problem would still have been fucked, and the earnest people who had needed everything to go right probably would have made out. Without $3.5T is government handouts.

      4. Re: RobertFI,

        What should have happened with the banks? I hear people say we shouldn’t have bailed them out, but what was the option?

        In the first place, “WE” didn’t do shit. The government gave the banks money in exchange of further control over people’s savings. That’s what happened.

        The option was to do nothing, because NOTHING is what would have happened. Oh, sure, some of the banks would have failed, their assets take over by more robust and better-managed banks (which they DID and DO exist, whether you want to believe it or not). But the end result would’ve been a more robust banking system than what exists today.

        Let them collapse and have the FDIC make the depositors whole?

        The FDIC only guaranteed $250,000. The rest would have to come from the sale of bank assets, just like with any other bankruptcy.

        What if the FDIC could only cover 10 cents on the dollar?

        That would certainly teach you to do a better job vetting the bank you want to do business with. Government-protected or government-secured anything only serves to grow laziness and indulgence.

        1. That would certainly teach you to do a better job vetting the bank you want to do business with

          And to diversify. Always and everywhere, diversify.

      5. “Imagine what would have happen to the economy had the banks been allowed to fail.”

        It would be vastly better because most of all of the rot would be purged.

    4. Stuff gets done and CA is going broke.

  7. Kevin McCarthy tanked the Benghazi investigation on purpose. There, I said it.

    1. A true gaffe on his part. He fucked up and told the truth.

      1. No, one thing you can say about Trey Goudy, he is a straight arrow as can be and tries to run the investigation cleanly.

        Of course, the fact they keep tripping over multiple, varied violations of the law in the attempt to get all the data on what took place leading up to and immediately after Benghazi has been making it difficult.

        I suspect, that the entire attempt to prevent the information being releases, is not because of Benghazi at all, but rather exactly what is taking place now, all the other, none related crimes get exposed along the way.

        Of course, you, Butthead, are just unhappy because folks you already know are criminals, are getting exposed again.

        Kevin McCarthy, knew perfectly well that he was, at least for most members, telling a lie. He was just pissed because he was not getting his reward for kissing Boehner’s butt (you can surely relate to this), so he decided to punish the rest of Republicans by pissing in the well.

        1. Now that other GOP-side individuals have admitted it was a fake scandal its time to fold the tent so Hil-Dog doesn’t show up Lil’ Trey on Thursday.

          She is the bigger bitch of the two.

          1. Palin’s Buttplug|10.21.15 @ 10:41AM|#
            “Now that other GOP-side individuals have admitted it was a fake scandal its time to fold the tent so Hil-Dog doesn’t show up Lil’ Trey on Thursday.”

            Turd:
            ’18-1/2 minutes? So what?’

            1. Biden has announced that he isn’t running for Prez.

              That probably means that Obama has accepted that Hilliary is willing to burn down his glass house if Obama lets the FBI off the leash. We can now expect the FBI investigation to see no evil and the Hill Dog gets away with massive bribery at the highest levels of government.

              Nixon must be spinning in circles. Green energy companies should find a way to tap into that.

    2. Kevin McCarthy lacks the intellect to do anything on purpose!

  8. Looks like it’s back to the Zoolander School for Those Who Don’t Write Good.

  9. What about Louie Gohmert for Speaker?

    Let the full-bore crazy out.

    1. Besides begging the question on Gohmert, what evidence do you have that he or his ideas are crazy? I’m fascinated to hear what a person with Buttplug in their handle has to say.

      1. I’m fascinated to hear what a person with Buttplug in their handle has to say.

        Oh Jesus, you must be new around here. Long story short, you will not be fascinated at all.

  10. Ryan just informed Obama, Reid and Pelosi that family time is more important than being Speaker and as such would cave to their demands just so he could go home and read a bedtime story!

    1. I’d be perfectly happy if he just put all business on hold. There is no requirement to cave, just do nothing. It’s actually easier and less time-consuming.

  11. And however heartfelt, Ryan’s work-family balance line is a feint; did he broker the same condition for his potential vice presidency too? Why would that be necessary? I thought that ceremonial duties leaving you with plenty of time for the family was the attraction of the job. How often is the VP required to fulfill his only constitutional duty of casting a vote in the Senate to break a tie?

    1. As VP, I’m sure he could have “worked from home” and no one would have even noticed.

  12. GOP is crashing and burning? Shocking!

    1. Pretty simple, the establishment “progressive Republicans” would rather trash the party than let the conservatives or limited government folks take over. If they can’t run it, NO one will!

      1. So let the true conservative leader arise.

        Who is it? Daniel Webster? Louie the Lip? Where is that firebrand hiding?

        1. With the current state of the Democrat Party where their #1 candidate for the Presidency might also be facing jail time shouldn’t you be trying to fix your own house instead of gloating that a tree fell on your neighbors ?

  13. If the Republican Party is actually a party of limited government and fiscal responsibility,

    It isn’t and it isn’t, with the exception of a few congressmen and one or maybe two senators. Personally, I don’t think either of those two principles matter to the vast majority of Americans. But then, I’m feeling rather cynical this morning, so maybe it is just me.

    1. The American people have been told by fancy enconomist that you can’t think of government debt the same way you think of household debt because the government can print more money. Unfortunately they don’t tell the people printing more money destroys the value of the American dollar they already have in their pocket.

    2. nah, it’s not just you.

      1. That’s what I thought. Maybe I should spend time soaking in the wisdom of am soc.

        1. That’s not his wisdom you’re soaking in.

  14. nothing like setting up the family as the fall guy for your own failures

  15. Frankly, I’d be happy to see the gavel go to Justin Amash. Or maybe Thomas Massie. But, Amash would be a lot more fun as everyone could watch the Establishment heads that tried to sideline him and then run him out of office explode.

  16. Boehner “was like a dog who was just happy sitting in the driver’s seat but with absolutely no idea how to operate the engine, much less get to a particular destination.” Yes, yes, innocent, dog-like Boehner. Poorly prepared. Simple, unsophisticated. Naive. Just a big, lovable, big-government, social conservative out of his depth.

    Sorry, no. While I appreciate the Hayek-like commitment to assuming the best intentions of those with whom you would disagree, as a practical matter when speaking of politicians – especially those who have outmaneuvered, defeated and disposed of similar competitors to reach the heights of power – the default hypothesis should be that they are liars, power-worshipers, cynical manipulators and generally sociopaths. And with a good chance of being vicious. A few exceptions can pleasantly surprise us now and again, but they are never unsophisticated, never naive.

    That is to say, Boehner knew exactly what he wanted. He is a fraud and a thug.

    1. When he was exposed for colluding with Obama to preserve Obamacare for the masses while exempting the elite members of Congress and their families and staff without paying a penalty from his voters it showed me for once and for all that the whole thing is a scam.

      Government of, by, and for the people isn’t a sham really though, it’s just their definition of the people and mine differ greaqtly.

      1. Why we should pay those people anything anyway is a msytery to me.

        They are allowed legalized front running in the stock market and therer are many people who would pay to have that job with no salary.

  17. Re: updated statement

    Oh pleeeze… Would somebody give this guy a thin wafer and put it on his tongue and then nail his poor body to a cross? That’s what he wants, apparently.

    For the sake of actually not having a government that Danish people point and laugh at, I nominate Nancy pelosi.

    1. For the sake of actually not having a government that Danish people point and laugh at, I nominate Nancy pelosi.

      Ok, you got me, this is hilarious. Whoever’s running the am soc puppet, kudos.

      1. This is what I’m for: not paying your taxes, getting thrown in jail, bitching about how jail isn’t nice. Three simple things, really.

        1. don’t forget about not paying mortgages !

          You’re for that also, right ?

          1. Do I get a laudatory spread in Reason magazine if I do?

            1. Why should you be lauded for doing the basic minimum right thing to do ?

              If you made mortgage payments for a wounded or dead service member’s family or helped their kids go to college, that would be worthy of lauds.

              So, there’s probably not much chance you’re going to get laudatory praise around here.

              Maybe at Salon though, I hear Mao and Lenin are more apreciated there than here.

  18. He’s a scam artist- as are the rest of the government. So why would I care which scam artist becomes house speaker FFS ?

    I don’t care which scam artist finally gets elected president, or which doesn’t, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr “investment advisor with a claimed “near perfect prediction record” [insert advisor name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .

    Why? Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

    Savings plan results 1972-2011: http://onebornfreesfinancialsa…..gspot.com/

    Regards,onebornfree
    Financial Safety Services

    1. YAR, HERE BE CHEMTRAILS MATEY

    2. ARRR MARKETING OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ON THE INTERNET IS REGULATED BY FINRA, MATEY, WE BE SEEING NO DISCLOSURES

      1. YARR, ME INVESTMENT VEHICLE, LIKE A STEEL BEAM, CAN’T BE MELTED, AVAST

    3. “9 times out of 10 the plan grows an average of 8% per year!”

      What about the tenth time?

      “WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THE TENTH TIME!”

      1. The tenth time is when the Ponzi math cuts in, and it shrinks 98% in a day.

      2. YO HO HO, THE TENTH TIME WERE AN INSIDE JOB, IT WERE

        1. I’m still amazed that people try to sell their crap on this forum. The mockery is guaranteed and immediate. Why bother? What do they hope to get out of it?

          1. Well, it’s mostly unselfaware robots (and not just those selling things – see Tony, below). Pirate Truther, on the other hand, is awesome.

    4. I got your investment newsletter just yesterday.

      My question is, what if I don’t know 25 other people who I must mail a copy to within 24 hours or face great personal calamity ?

      1. YAR THEN IT BE KEELHAULIN’ FER YE

  19. The teabagging hillbillies, er freedom caucus, have a problem in that they are obsessed with rooting out RINO heresy to the exclusion of all else. It’s the principal pastime of their slack-jawed voters, who learned to hate Boner almost as much as Obama. Obviously it’s a recipe for moving the party ever rightward, but even the purest of congressmen are at risk of being targeted if they even accidentally display anything but total intransigence. It’s long past the time when the demands of the mouth breathers have become potentially catastrophic, as with the debt ceiling, which like most things they don’t understand. Sometimes I wonder why Republicans let such a thing happen, but then I realize that it’s the rogue talk radio propagandists who are controlling things.

    Without this dynamic, Paul Ryan or someone else could run the House properly, forming coalitions even with Democrats in order to achieve basic governing. But something is really rotten when nobody wants to be one of the most powerful men on earth because the pitchfork-wielding morons relied upon to elevate you from your gerrymandered shithole of a district can never, and don’t apparently want to, be appeased, and will target you for whatever the fat man decides is heresy.

    1. Check out Mr Cosmopolitan from Oklahoma with the fancy words

    2. The limousine liberals, er democratic socialists, have a problem in that they are obsessed with rooting out DINO heresy to the exclusion of all else. It’s the principal pastime of their slack-jawed voters, who learned to hate Obama almost as much as Bush. Obviously it’s a recipe for moving the party ever leftward, but even the purest of congressmen are at risk of being targeted if they even accidentally display anything but total intransigence. It’s long past the time when the demands of the mouth breathers have become potentially catastrophic, as with the debt ceiling, which like most things they don’t understand. Sometimes I wonder why Democrats let such a thing happen, but then I realize that it’s the rogue netroots propagandists who are controlling things.

      Really, this isn’t even that difficult.

      1. And the rest of it is just as easy:

        Without this dynamic, Nancy Pelosi or someone else could run the House properly, forming coalitions even with Republicans in order to achieve basic governing.

        Ahh, yes, when Repubs and Dems came together to pass the bipartisan ACA . . . . Good governance, that.

        1. Obama sincerely tried and was strung along for months. That’s traditionally blamed on his naivete in liberal circles.

          False equivalence betrays a preference for the worse actor.

          1. “Obama sincerely tried”

            Tried to what? Fuck everyone over? Mission accomplished.

            1. Remember when Pelosi put him on mute?

          2. Obama sincerely tried and was strung along for months

            First of all, the President is not a prime minister. He is not head of the legislative branch. Second, sincerity is measured by actions matching words, not the words themselves.

            The Republicans were never going to sign off on single-payer. No way, no how, and no one had any reason to expect otherwise. The individual mandate was also heavily disfavored by Republicans, as were many other “key” provisions of the bill. Waving around that Heritage whitepaper like an edict from God to the Republicans was insincere in the extreme.

            So the President was “strung along” by demanding things he had no reason to expect, telling his opponents what they should believe, and then hoping he could coax some of them to give him what he wanted. That’s not being “strung along”, that’s being a dick.

          3. Like when he sat them down after he was elected and said I won – mandate – sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up? Yeah, he tried real hard.

      2. You need to change debt ceiling to Bernie Sanders being president or something. One of those weirdos told me they’d rather see the whole country burn than Bernie not be president.

        1. There are many issues that could have been put in its place, but the debt ceiling works just fine. Raising it every time we reach it defeats the purpose of having it; if the Democrats “understand” it so well, they should just abolish it.

    3. I also love how you throw democracy under the bus every fucking chance you get. It’s beautiful to behold such a breathtaking lack of self-awareness.

      1. I said the proper way to govern would be for the House to actually take votes on things and see what the majority of House members want. The Hastert rule is the assault on democracy, not the getting rid of it.

        1. The House is a parliamentary body; democracy is the people throughout the country deciding who gets elected and what standards they are held to. It is your contempt for the latter that I am pointing out and mocking.

    4. Tony

      blah blah bad Republicans blah blah bad bad

      Meanwhile his preferred choice for President is under FBI investigation for security crimes and should be for bribery as well.

      I guess his own house is in such sorry shape his only distraction form it is to try and laugh at someone else’s.

  20. “He also made clear that family comes first. And a successful speaker must be able to maintain a healthy work-family balance. Less time on the road can be compensated for with a greater focus on communicating our message to the public.”

    That doesn’t even make when one assumes that “the public” is not all citizens but instead merely his family.

  21. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her

    ??????? —— http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.