Yesterday, the 2012 Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate received an unsolicited endorsement.
Politico.com reports that
Harry Reid just gave Paul Ryan an unwelcome endorsement for speaker.
The Democratic leader offered his surprise backing for Ryan (R-Wis.) to assume the House speakership, saying he hopes Ryan runs and wins the job because he’s a “Paul Ryan fan.”
“He appears to me to be one of the people over there that would be reasonable. I mean look at some of the other people,” Reid said. “I don’t agree with him on much of what he does. I think what he’s done with Medicare and Medicaid, what he’s wanted to do I disagree with. But generally speaking we’ve been able to work with him.”
Indeed, Ryan’s work with Reid lieutenant Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on a two-year budget deal in 2013 remains a bipartisan highlight for a Congress otherwise beset by gridlock. But did Reid hurt Ryan by praising him?
The Nevada Democrat shrugged when asked if he was giving Ryan a kiss of death as the Wisconsin lawmaker weighs a speakers bid amid ever-growing criticism from the right for his policy positions.
“I just speak the truth,” Reid said.
“If it helps him fine, if it doesn’t that’s too bad.”
Okay, so the Senate Minority Leader approves of Paul Ryan becoming the Speaker of the House.
It would seem to me that Dinghy Harry’s is one endorsement that a Republican Leader, who actually wishes to rally the Conservative Base, would not want to have.
Later yesterday, Paul Ryan started his “exploratory campaign” for the position of the Speaker of the House.
The Washington Post reports that
Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) moved closer to the House speakership Tuesday, telling fellow Republicans that he would consider taking the job if he could be assured that the caucus would stand behind him.
Ryan faced his colleagues — and his political future — at a private evening meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol basement. He said he would be willing to step up and meet the calls to serve, ending weeks of GOP leadership turmoil, as long as disparate factions moved in the coming days to unite around him.
“I hope it doesn’t sound conditional, but it is,” he said, according to members inside the room. He paused after saying the word “conditional,” they said, for effect.
Ryan, the 45-year-old chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a 2012 vice presidential nominee, has long resisted pressure to assume a higher-profile role in party leadership. And he signaled Tuesday that his decision to serve was far from assured.
Much depends on what assurances of support he can win from Republican hard-liners. Before entering the evening meeting, Ryan met privately with leaders of the House Freedom Caucus, an influential group that helped push Speaker John A. Boehner out of his post and derailed Majority Leader Kevin O. McCarthy’s bid to succeed him.
That meeting ended without firm commitments, and at the subsequent GOP conference meeting, Ryan made clear he would need a formal endorsement from the Freedom Caucus before moving forward.
In remarks to reporters, Ryan laid out his vision for moving the House GOP from “being an opposition party to being a proposition party” and set terms under which he would assume the speaker’s post. Those terms effectively put the onus on his colleagues to coalesce behind him rather than forcing Ryan to campaign for the job.
“This is not a job I ever sought; this is not a job I ever wanted,” he said. “I came to the conclusion that this was a dire moment.”
Should he agree to assume the speaker’s post, Ryan would once again emerge as a leading force in national politics, three years after serving as his party’s vice presidential nominee and amid mass unrest in GOP ranks.
“If Paul Ryan can’t unite us, no one can. Who else is out there?” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a moderate. “That’d be a sign of utter dysfunction, total madness.”
Ryan’s demands reflect a desire to lead the House GOP as its spokesman and agenda setter without the threat of revolt from the right, halting a dynamic that has dominated the tumultuous speakership of Boehner (R-Ohio), who announced last month that he would leave Congress at the end of October. Another aim would be to delegate some of the job’s travel and fundraising demands so that Ryan could spend enough time with his wife and school-age children.
“My only caution is that he should go very slow and make sure that the whole conference is coming to him,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R). “Don’t underestimate the degree of getting chewed up. We are not like the Democrats right now. They are relatively cohesive. . . . We are a movement in enormous ferment, with enormous anger and enormous impatience.”
Looming over Ryan’s deliberations is a churning frustration among Republicans nationally about the party’s ability to oppose President Obama and a presidential primary field led by anti-establishment outsiders who have made common cause with the House GOP’s right flank.
Those conservative House members have pushed for a suite of rules changes, ranging from an overhaul of the party’s internal steering committee to a more open process for considering legislation. Ryan, they say, would not be exempt from those demands, which, if adopted, could give the new speaker less control.
Ryan’s allies say his conditions for becoming speaker are likely to include an understanding that he would have a free hand to lead without a constant fear of mutinous reprisals.
Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said Ryan wants House conservatives to make clear that they would not seek to “cripple him” from the start.
“He doesn’t have a moral obligation to get Republicans out of the rubble they’ve created for themselves,” Wehner said. “Asking for their goodwill is completely reasonable.”
There’s that word…again.
Why is it always us Conservatives, who are called upon to be “reasonable”, i.e., whether in dealings with the Democrats or the Establishment Republicans, to compromise the Traditional American Values which we hold dear, for the sake of Political Expediency?
Why can’t the Vichy Republicans be “reasonable” and actually start representing the wishes of the Conservative Base, which gave them their phony-baloney jobs?
In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and how we, the Conservative Base of the Republican Party, need to handle the Republican Party leadership, quite well.
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
I believe that the Republican Party is stuck in a cycle in which their desire to protect their own hindquarters and cushy “jobs” have lead to a self-imposed isolation from the very American Citizens who were responsible for their having those cushy “jobs” in the first place.
I believe that average Americans, like you and me, have the power to relieve them of the burden of such a stressful job, and send others to Washington, who will listen to their “bosses”.
Just as Ronaldus Magnus said those 39 years ago, it is time to “let them go their way”.
Cryin’ John Boehner’s “resignation” was a good start.
Until He Comes,