Freedom Caucus won't formally endorse Ryan

[Brian4Liberty]

Freedom Caucus won't formally endorse Ryan (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-freedom-caucus-speaker-215041)
It's not clear whether Paul Ryan will still pursue the speakership.
By Jake Sherman and Lauren French - 10/21/15


The House Freedom Caucus will not endorse Rep. Paul Ryan for speaker, but its leaders say a "super-majority" of the group will support the Wisconsin Republican's candidacy should he decide to continue his bid.

Freedom Caucus rules require 80 percent of members to issue an endorsement. Ryan has said he would not seek the speakership without the backing of all of the major caucuses in the Republican Conference. It's not clear whether this will suffice.

"We tried to reach a consensus but we were not able to reach the 80 percent threshold," said Freedom Caucus board member Raul Labrador of Idaho, referring to the threshold needed to endorse a candidate. "There is some consensus that it's time for us to move forward. We're trying to move forward in a positive way. It's an offer of support."

The Freedom Caucus held three rounds of balloting, but Ryan could not garner four-fifths of the caucus' support. Sources said he got roughly two-thirds the group's support.
...
More: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-freedom-caucus-speaker-215041

Even 2/3 of the Freedom Caucus willing to sell out to the same old GOP establishment...

[William Tell]

This is all but an endorsement if you ask me.


House Freedom Caucus Statement on Chairman Paul Ryan’s Speaker Bid


Washington, D.C. - The House Freedom Caucus issued the following statement regarding Chairman Paul Ryan’s bid for Speaker:
“A supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus has voted to support Paul Ryan's bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Paul is a policy entrepreneur who has developed conservative reforms dealing with a wide variety of subjects, and he has promised to be an ideas-focused Speaker who will advance limited government principles and devolve power to the membership. While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding Chairman Ryan's preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our Conference in due time. We all know that Washington needs to change the way it does business, and we look forward to working with Paul and all our colleagues to enact process reforms that empower individual representatives and restore respect to our institution.”



https://www.facebook.com/freedomcaucus/posts/1066327526734564

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/GZxmdib.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

This is all but an endorsement if you ask me.

https://www.facebook.com/freedomcaucus/posts/1066327526734564

Same old bullsh*t. Even the group that says they stand for principles go out of their way to circumvent their own rules. They set the bar at 80% for an endorsement, and they didn't get that, so instead they come out with this show of support.

[TheTexan]

It's good to see so many congressmen taking Freedom so seriously, so as to support a strong Freedom fighter such as Paul Ryan for this important position

[twomp]

HAHAHHA "Freedom" Caucus!! That's a funny name. Kind of like the "Patriot" Act.

[Mr.NoSmile]

The alternative being do nothing, then nothing happens, then Webster still doesn't gain any traction, and the Caucus continues its reputation of being this fringe group that accomplishes nothing in many people's eyes. In the grand scheme of things, what does Boehner stepping down and McCarthy earn them other than a pat on the back that ultimately gets them nowhere close to getting what they want?

[Slave Mentality]

^yeah like the shit bags have ever "done anything"

[Mr.NoSmile]

^yeah like the shit bags have ever "done anything"

Presumably more than stand around and give the thumbs down to everything and sit on their hands, expecting things to happen. You can stand on principle, but it gets to a point where you have little to show for it. What's this Caucus got at the end of the day besides a title? The fact that some are even backing Ryan shows that there's no strength or unity in their small numbers.

[TheTexan]

The fact that some are even backing Ryan shows that there's no strength or unity in their small numbers.

I think the caucus just needs a bigger tent. Maybe change the name from "Freedom Caucus" to something else, so that it can attract new people, as "Freedom" may rub some people the wrong way.

[Rudeman]

I think the biggest issue was the next step was to go with a bipartisan speaker (Peter King or someone just as bad) and that would have been a disaster.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think the biggest issue was the next step was to go with a bipartisan speaker (Peter King or someone just as bad) and that would have been a disaster.
How come the good guys had to compromise? How come all the rest of the Republicans couldn't have said "OK, fine, Daniel Webster would be acceptable, we guess. Better than Peter King."?

Where is the courage? Where is the commitment? Where is the actual caring about not saddling our children with obscene debts?

Not in the "Freedom" Caucus: that much is clear. Who is in charge of this "Freedom" Caucus anyway?

[Rudeman]

How come the good guys had to compromise? How come all the rest of the Republicans couldn't have said "OK, fine, Daniel Webster would be acceptable, we guess. Better than Peter King."?

Where is the courage? Where is the commitment? Where is the actual caring about not saddling our children with obscene debts?

Not in the "Freedom" Caucus: that much is clear. Who is in charge of this "Freedom" Caucus anyway?

Because they are by far the majority and can do it if they wanted to? You can only force compromise when you have the leverage, I don't think the Freedom Caucus had it. Of course that's frustrating but I think it's wrong to blame the Freedom Caucus. The blame should go where it deserves, on all the other members who aren't willing to support someone like Webster and would rather see a "bipartisan" candidate.

It would be like blaming the few Senators who stopped the Patriot Act because the Freedom Act ended up passing. There's only so much they can do when they are that outnumbered.

[H. E. Panqui]

....webster sucks too!...THEY ALL SUCK!!...GET REAL!!...

...there is a prerequisite to be a gd fool puppet--no threat to this mi$erable exi$ting order--before gaining high public office...people still supporting these gd republicans and democrats--IN ANY WAY--are a HUGE part of the problem..

...gd fools all...:mad:

[Mr.NoSmile]

Because they are by far the majority and can do it if they wanted to? You can only force compromise when you have the leverage, I don't think the Freedom Caucus had it. Of course that's frustrating but I think it's wrong to blame the Freedom Caucus. The blame should go where it deserves, on all the other members who aren't willing to support someone like Webster and would rather see a "bipartisan" candidate.

It would be like blaming the few Senators who stopped the Patriot Act because the Freedom Act ended up passing. There's only so much they can do when they are that outnumbered.

Which makes all the grandstanding feel even more pointless when your achievement is 'I blocked this from happening.' Well, what did you pass? I mean, if it's considered an achievement for a liberty type candidate to just survive a primary battle, then get internet kudos from people, some of whom aren't even in their state, something's wrong. I mean, what else do you have to show for it?

[CT4Liberty]

Which makes all the grandstanding feel even more pointless when your achievement is 'I blocked this from happening.' Well, what did you pass? I mean, if it's considered an achievement for a liberty type candidate to just survive a primary battle, then get internet kudos from people, some of whom aren't even in their state, something's wrong. I mean, what else do you have to show for it?

If you ask me, "I blocked this from happening" is perfectly valid to trumpet and have something to "show for it". We have enough laws on the books that violate my freedoms already, so scoring system should be:

+5 - Repeal exist law
+2 - Block new law
0 - Have nothing get done
-5 - Create new law

So anyone who goes up to trumpet all the laws they got to pass scares the living daylights out of me!!!

And I wish people could actually articulate it well in that manner... explain to people that anything they are "fighting for" probably already has a law on the books for. So they either don't need a new one...or the existing one is just proof that what they are trying to do can't be legislated into existence and they need to figure out how to make the value proposition for it work without a gun to someones head.

[RonPaulMall]

The alternative being do nothing, then nothing happens, then Webster still doesn't gain any traction, and the Caucus continues its reputation of being this fringe group that accomplishes nothing in many people's eyes. In the grand scheme of things, what does Boehner stepping down and McCarthy earn them other than a pat on the back that ultimately gets them nowhere close to getting what they want?

No, the alternative would be to be simply hold the election with the people committed to running without first securing "conditions" from everyone else. You hold the election, and one of them will win. Simple as that. That is the whole reason Boehner delayed the election- because the elites know if they hold the election someone will win. This whole "crisis" is a desperate stall tactic by the elites. All the Freedom Caucus needs to do is say no and demand an election. That's it! They don't have to do anything, and they win. But our side is so freaking pathetic that even "do nothing" is complicated and daunting a task for them to pull off.

Rand needs to step in and make this issue his own.

[Rudeman]

No, the alternative would be to be simply hold the election with the people committed to running without first securing "conditions" from everyone else. You hold the election, and one of them will win. Simple as that. That is the whole reason Boehner delayed the election- because the elites know if they hold the election someone will win. This whole "crisis" is a desperate stall tactic by the elites. All the Freedom Caucus needs to do is say no and demand an election. That's it! They don't have to do anything, and they win. But our side is so freaking pathetic that even "do nothing" is complicated and daunting a task for them to pull off.

Rand needs to step in and make this issue his own.

Right, but if Ryan didn't get the support and they couldn't find a suitable (to them) person that would get enough Republican votes then they would have gone with the bipartisan candidate. Could have easily gotten the Republican votes needed and would have only needed 15-20 Dems.

[RonPaulMall]

Right, but if Ryan didn't get the support and they couldn't find a suitable (to them) person that would get enough Republican votes then they would have gone with the bipartisan candidate. Could have easily gotten the Republican votes needed and would have only needed 15-20 Dems.

I don't know what you mean by the "bipartisan" candidate. Ryan is the only candidate in the race palatable to the Dems because he's the only one they trust to ram through Obama's agenda. Webster actually has a more liberal voting record than Ryan. What they object to about him is his promise to run the House fairly and in Regular Order. Any member that votes for Ryan is a traitor to the Conservative and Libertarian cause, pure and simple. What is the point of forcing Boehner out just to elect Boehner on Steroids as the replacement? This is why Donald Trump is dominating the polls right now.

[Peace&Freedom]

My thoughts:

1) Ryan is indeed Boehner on steroids, and just represents the most handsome face of the establishment. But the fact that he felt the need to meet with the Freedom Caucus prior to the vote, and that the establishment had to turn to him shows how desperate their position was. Ryan likely had to deliver certain assurances to the caucus members to secure the majority support he got.

2) Most of the Caucus members have (rightly or wrongly) decided their point has been made, and the general trend is on their side. Each time the liberty/Tea party guys have had a standoff with the leadership set, their numbers have been growing and their impact has been getting stronger. In the internal discussions it may have been made clear to them there would be no shutdown at this point no matter what they did, so they quit with the victory they could get for now (Boehner/McCarthy kicked out, the establishment publicly embarrassed).

3) If a non-establishment flavored candidate (Rand, Trump, Carson, even Cruz) gets elected, the Caucus will have more influence than at present, adding more pressure to confront the over-spenders, debt-ceiling busters, Obamacare enablers, etc. Or, if Hillary wins, the polarized atmosphere she would create in the next Congress will put more momentum behind confronting her, not less (I expect the GOP to pick up an over 60 seat majority in the Senate in the 2018 mid-term elections if she is President). So either way, the tide is moving in the freedom direction.

[Ronin Truth]

Is informally still on the table?

[jllundqu]

The 'People's House' my ass....

Hang it up folks. The system is broken beyond repair.