Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like the whole party wants him to run to replace John Boehner. Establishment and anti-establishment Republicans alike are warming up to the idea of him succeeding Boehner.
In terms of what a House Speaker is supposed to do, this is a big part of the poll, would Paul Ryan make a good Speaker? Keep in mind, a Speaker is not meant to be partisan. They are free to champion their own causes, but they are not there to shut down debate or keep bills from coming onto the floor (which is where John Boehner has failed).
Does anyone have any analysis to provide? As partisan as I may seem sometimes, I do enjoy some in-depth analysis from members that may even be across the aisle.
As a Republican, I think Paul Ryan has a chance to save face here. He's respected by both the anti-establishment and establishment Republican groups in the house. John Boehner was never very good at trying to be subjective and empathize with both groups. Paul Ryan could probably succeed in that area. He has always seemed like a fair and subjective guy, which is what the very politically charged House needs right now. Paul is also very active with crafting the Congressional budgets (he's the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee). With budget discussions coming up in December, he could really use that to his advantage.
Right now, he is said to be 50/50 on the idea. Ryan has stated that he does not want to quit his position as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which he claims is his dream job. I'm sure a compromise can be made in regards to that. Paul can stay Speaker until this session of Congress is over in 2016, and then he can return to the Ways and Means Committee when someone else suitable is found.
There is a lot riding on Paul's shoulders, but I think he's the best guy for the job at the moment.
It actually doesn't matter who becomes the Speaker of the House, because the issue is not Paul Ryan, or any other candidate; it's the hard-core rejectionist wing of the GOP who view any little departure from their agenda as heresy. Any Speaker is going to have a rough time of it from these refuseniks, who have made the House ungovernable. And unintentionally giving Nancy Pelosi an unusual amount of leverage for the minority party.
The modern "conservative" movement, probably best exemplified by the late William F. Buckley, who founded the journal National Review back in 1955, is characterized, and handicapped by a deep split between the "traditionalists" who base their values upon a series of values grounded in religion and nationalism, and the more-secular free-markets advocacy grounded in the teachings of people such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess and others.
Historically the two have never gotten along very well, so much so that the libertarian movement and party trace much of their roots to a walkout from a national convention of Buckley's campus activist group, Young Americans for Freedom, back in 1969. And much of Congressman Ryan's personal values are drawn from Rand and the Objectivist philosophy.
Personally, I would love to see Ryan installed as Speaker, much more so if Republican gains in the House materialize in 2016 and Ryan adapted a strong stance and parliamentary skills similar to those displayed by Newt Gingrich back in the Nineties -- with the undoing of the bypassing of the Constitution by Obama and his Chicago gangsters as the principal objective, That should then be followed with a "firm line drawn in the sand" against the most militant of the social conservatives who are the "captive embarrassment" chained to those of us who understand that economic, expressionary, and social liberties are unitary and inseparable.
Until the likes of Kim Davis and Rick Santorum are shown to a back-row seat, and made to understand that they can get some help on less-divisive issues from the libertarians, but none whatsoever from the "progressive" Democrats, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan will continue to shoot itself in the foot.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-11-2015 at 12:25 AM..
The modern "conservative" movement, probably best exemplified by the late William F. Buckley, who founded the journal National Review back in 1955, is characterized, and handicapped by a deep split between the "traditionalists" who base their values upon a series of values grounded in religion and nationalism, and the more-secular free-markets advocacy grounded in the teachings of people such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess and others.
Historically the two have never gotten along very well, so much so that the libertarian movement and party trace much of their roots to a walkout from a national convention of Buckley's campus activist group, Young Americans for Freedom, back in 1969. And much of Congressman Ryan's personal values are drawn from Rand and the Objectivist philosophy.
Personally, I would love to see Ryan installed as Speaker, much more so if Republican gains in the House materialize in 2016 and Ryan adapted a strong stance and parliamentary skills similar to those displayed by Newt Gingrich back in the Nineties -- with the undoing of the bypassing of the Constitution by Obama and his Chicago gangsters as the principal objective, That should then be followed with a "firm line drawn in the sand" against the most militant of the social conservatives who are the "captive embarrassment" chained to those of us who understand that economic, expressionary, and social liberties are unitary and inseparable.
Until the likes of Kim Davis and Rick Santorum are shown to a back-row seat, and made to understand that they can get some help on less-divisive issues from the libertarians, but none whatsoever from the "progressive" Democrats, the Party of Lincoln and Reagan will continue to shoot itself in the foot.
That's why Gingrich was so effective. He was laser-focused and kept everyone on the same track. Boehner has never tried to do that.
Paul Ryan has hopes to run for president at some point. Becoming the speaker of the house would most likely ruin that as a future possibility.
Additionally the guys "economic plans" are full of voodoo. *-magic money appears to balance everything. We've seen how well that is working in Kansas.
If you think Ryan's economic plans are full of voodoo explain the numerous quantative easment programs that have taken place under the current regime. $85B month and not much passed through the hands of the average Joe. That is more debt and nothing to show for it other than bankers got paid.
I would like to see Trey Gowdy at the helm but he serves the house better as chair of congressional hearings. SOH would be a waste of his talent.
Anyone with any sense would be a good choice. One who reminds me of a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving[Boner] is a bad choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Paul Ryan a Good Choice for Speakers of the House of Representatives?
