Speaker Possibilities

[WuDrWu]

This really isn't about taking back the House, even though it appears to be more and more likely.

My real question is who should be the next speaker, assuming Pelosi losses her job.

Even if it's another Dem.

I know the GOP is pushing for John Boehner, but I am hoping that the lackluster reception of both his frankly boring appearance and the rehashed and I believe poorly done Pledge to America will lead the GOP to look in a different direction.

So my question to those that pay attention is who do you hope will be the next speaker, and do they have a realistic chance?

Personally, my choice, my ONLY choice is Paul Ryan.

[WuDrWu]

http://lettersinbottles.blogspot.com/2010/03/paul-ryan-next-speaker-of-house.html

Happened across this article. I think this sums up things quite nicely:


Yes, it's controversial and won't be easy to pass, but he's the only person in either party who is seriously addressing the crisis of entitlement reform. No one else is willing to touch it. Paul Ryan is willing to talk about it to anyone who will listen. Most Republicans play it safe with the media and appear on FOX News, Paul is a regular on just about every MSNBC and CNBC program. He isn't just preaching to the choir, he's trying to convince everyone we need to make hard choices.

[RoyalShock]

I'm thinking a different guy with Paul in his name. :yes:

[ISASO]

Paul Ryan works for me. Anyone who will carry a lightning bolt with them to the podium.

[wu_shizzle]

Good luck with getting new leadership, Congress bows at the altar of seniority.

[Maggie]

Look I really like Paul Ryan (as many of you are probably aware) and he would make a fine Speaker but I am not sure he would want the job. Ryan is the ranking Republican member of the budget committee and he sits on the Ways and Means Committee – he can do a lot more good on those committees, if in the majority, than as Speaker.

If the Republicans take over the majority in the House John Boehner will be the next speaker. Sure the guy is a little bland, he is orange, but he is not all bad. Yesterday, he delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (which is a conservative think tank) and some of his ideas were pretty good:

Congressional Reform and "The People's House"

Boehner says that a solution “cannot be reduced to one reform or toolkit of reforms.” Good for him. Instead, he says that a “sustained effort” to enforce the rule of law and the Constitution is needed. He is right about that. Boehner also thinks the House needs to get rid of comprehensive spending bills (which is a great idea). Congress passes about 13 big appropriations bills that fund all of the government except for the entitlement programs. This method of budgeting arguably works in favor of pro-spending interests. A majority is not necessary with respect to specific spending programs. Which means, for example, if the President wants additional funding for one of his pet projects he can veto the entire bill - shutting down a portion of the government, including programs that most congressmen favor, which historically is a pretty big hammer. If Congress broke up these big spending bills into many smaller ones, the balance of power would change. Congressmen would have less incentive to support bloated spending on one program to secure funding for their own programs. There also may be ways to not fund parts of Obamacare with this type of system.

He also focuses on spending cuts, earmarks and committee reform. By Washington standards it is pretty ambitious and a good start. Look the promises are great, but I am wary as well. If they don’t demonstrate a will to follow through with these types of measures they will be held accountable. I like that Boehner is making specific promises but I hope the Republicans aren’t setting us up for disappointment. I hope they are acutely aware, they have been given a golden opportunity, courtesy of our President and the current Congress, and they had better not screw it up this time.

[Maggie]

I'm thinking a different guy with Paul in his name. :yes:

:ohno: ;-)

[Maggie]

I'm thinking a different guy with Paul in his name. :yes:

:ohno: ;-)

By the way Royal, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the DNC is pulling its AD money out of the race in Kentucky. If so, that is a good sign for Rand. There is likely to be two Pauls in Washington.

God help us all.
:)

[RoyalShock]

God help us all.
:)

He is, by sending two Pauls to Washington!

[Maggie]

God help us all.
:)

He is, by sending two Pauls to Washington!

Heh…well, for what is it worth, I thought Paul the Younger did reasonably well Sunday in his debate against Conway. He was short on specifics at times (which is probably a good thing for Rand) but Conway was downright vapid. I learned Mr. Conway wants to go to Washington because he is against “special interests” and for the people of Kentucky. :roll:

One question for Mr. Conway: isn’t the state of Kentucky a special interest? This constant political refrain, made by both sides, about “fighting the special interests” is nonsense. As Kentucky is not coterminous with the entire country, it is, by this definition, a special interest. There’s nothing wrong with being one. A country, after all, is made up of practically nothing but. What good politicians mostly do is assemble temporary coalitions of special interests in order to further the national interest. What bad ones do is pander to particular special interests in order to ensure their own re-election. Conway = card-check; Conway = cap and trade, etc.

I didn’t get the impression that Rand Paul is in anyone’s pocket and he seemed pretty bright. Now if he can avoid getting into philosophical discussions (which are easily taken out of context) about his Libertarian tendencies he should get elected.