Because Rick’s a smart guy. And his analysis of the recent House leadership fight is spot-on:
I can say this until I’m blue in the face, but winning this type of inside-the-Beltway fights means running the right campaign, not the one in your head. It means having a plan, because (also, until I’m blue in the face) a plan beats no plan, every time. It means telling a story that influences your actual targets, not the people who already love you. Sure, talk radio, conservative Twitter, and the activist groups revved themselves up, ran at the brick wall, and slammed into it hard enough to cause a concussion in the last 48 hours, but — as usual when it comes to the DC establishment — conservatives played the game wrong.
But I’ll go further. It’s not enough to have a plan: you have to have a goal-based strategy. Strategy is what you fall back on when your first plan goes pear-shaped, which it will. Plans always go pear-shaped. But if you know what you want to do – and, in this case, I mean something a bit more specific than the basic ‘get rid of John Boehner’ – then you can adapt and overcome, as the military folks like to say.
Alas, they cannot have a Plan, or Strategy, because the moment they try to verbalize would will replace Boehner, the whole thing falls apart. There is NO ONE who is perfect enough for all the “Real Conservatives(TM)” to rally around. Lots of “Boehner Must Go!”, I can’t think of any “This guy would do a better job as Speaker” out there……..
Why is it needed to figure out who replaces Boehner before Boehner is out?
.
That’s arguing over what tone the bell on the cat should be before figuring out how to hang it ’round my neck, eh?
.
No, the first step is building consensus that “Boehner must go, *once we achieve that* we can vote on who should replace him”.
.
Mew
It is needed because Speaker of the House of Representatives is one of the most powerful positions on the planet. Replacing the person holding that spot is never going to be a trivial exercise, particularly if the Speaker doesn’t feel like going anywhere. Enthusiasm will only get you so far; after a point, you need organization.
All true, but is it necessary to pick between replacements before removing the current office holder?
.
Is it necessary to have a replacement for Obamacare before repealing it?
.
Mew
.
.
.
.
.
(substitute “heavily reform” for “repeal” above as needed)
I would submit that the 2013 and 2015 challenges to Boehner suggest that, yeah, starting with a replacement already in mind – one willing to brawl for it – is optimal. 🙂
I agree that the 2013 and 2015 challenges have been pathetic – I view that as a function of the GOP Reps in general being pretty satisfied with the status quo.
.
Where does your “brawler” come from? A freshman? Don’t see it. A long-term back-bencher? Why would a back-bencher upset the apple cart (other than, of course, narcissism .. which is how Boehner got the job in the first place)
.
Until a significant minority of Reps want Boehner out, the best way for those of us who aren’t in the House to change things is to find a suitable primary challenger for him and bust our asses in that primary.
.
Mew
Sigh. verbalize who would…..
“It means having a plan…”
.
So sticking to conservative principles regarding limited gov’t, individual liberty and free markets (while not pulling a Rubio-style flip flop) isn’t a plan? Geez, the contempt that Republicans have for conservatives is equal parts depressing and frustrating. Glad I’m no longer a Republican, or I’d be upset.
A plan is “Go to the store and get doughnuts.”
.
Conservative principles are not a plan.
.
Mew
Technically, you’re right. It’s like saying a foundation is not a building. But principles and convictions determine plans and actions. Not too hard to guess the principles and convictions of the present leadership, eh? But let’s keep the present leadership intact; don’t want to be scary.
I have no idea why you think I like the status quo or am afraid to change it.
.
Otherwise, we appear to agree.
.
Mew
A plan is “make an example out of this worthless #$%^weasel”.
.
Sadly, a majority of Republican Representatives have more affection for the worthless #$^&weasel than for the people they represent. Remember, 60% of registered Republicans wanted Boehner gone.
I am sad that this needs to be pointed out, but “make an example out of this worthless #$%^weasel” is not a plan. Nor is calling Boehner a worthless #$%^weasel worthy of you. Nor have Edmund Burke’s famous words at Bristol ceased to be true with the passage of years.
plan, n
a specific project or definite purpose
.
“Making an example” of Boehner, is in, fact, a plan.
More than that, since he fails to represent the citizens who elected him, it’s an obligation.
.
I’m aware of little evidence that Boehner is worth much. AFAICT, his only successful leadership involves attacking principled conservatives. OTOH, I am aware of a lot of evidence that he’s a $$%$weasel.
If you wish to argue the contrary, present your evidence and your argument.
But don’t argue that it’s somehow beneath me to call scum, scum.
.
I despise Burke for that quote. It is snobbery. It is an expression of hubris. And it is indefensible.
A representative has two obligations:
To represent the citizens he serves.
Within the constraints of the Constitution.
If he fails the first, he is not, by definition, a representative.
If he fails the second, he is acting unlawfully.
Boehner fails both. Consistently. He is, in a phrase, a worthless #$^%weasel.
1. Making an example of someone is not a plan…not by itself, anyway. It is a goal. If that’s your whole plan, then the Underpants Gnomes have you beat. At least they had two of the three steps of their plan figured out.
.
2. You were the one who articulated a position. It’s your responsibility to define the debate. I should warn you before you try, though…we’ll be debating at cross-purposes. You probably think you’re trying to prove that Boehner has been ineffective in office and/or hostile to conservatives. My point, however, was simply that your sort of rhetoric is beneath any mature adult. Now if you want to try and prove me wrong in my assumption that you are a mature adult, go ahead. Throw in a couple of plays on words like “Obummer,” “Piglosi,” and “Dumbocrats” while you’re at it. I mean, really dig deep into the Alinsky playbook. We all know THAT’S what defines “real conservatives” these days — their willingness to play by the Left’s long-standing rhetorical rules.
.
3. Burke’s perspective is the right one. Representatives in Congress do have a duty to represent their constituents — their interests, not their wishes. When the constituents’ interests and wishes are in alignment, wonderful. When the representative thinks they aren’t, he has a choice to make — do what the people want, or what he thinks is best. The people can’t obligate him to vote according to public opinion polls. If the people think he chose wrong, they have a choice to replace their representative with one who better aligns with their interests as they see them. He can’t obligate them to respect his judgment of their interests. (If your view were carried through, you would have to call the Founding Fathers indefensibly hubristic snobs for their original conception of the Electoral College — you know, as a body where the representatives of the people exercised their independent judgment, as opposed to its current existence as the sad little rubber-stamp appendix to the general election process.)
Since I can’t edit my comments, I wanted to post something withdrawing parts of the comment I just posted to Luke — specifically, the last two sentences of #1, and everything in point #2 except for the first three sentences. I wasn’t acting very much like a mature adult there. Those words were unworthy of me.
.
Luke, I’m sure we disagree on plenty of things, but I shouldn’t have insulted you, and I shouldn’t have made the disagreement so personal. I’m sorry.
The “Boehner must go!” doesn’t even necessarily have to be the main objective of such a movement, if 50 or so Conservatives had voted against Boehner on the first Ballot, and promised to do so in the 2nd unless McCarthy and/or Scalise were replaced by say, Jeb Hensarling, or Jim Jordan, then we could’ve gotten somewhere. And there are atleast 30, but probably over a 100 guys who could support Hensarling for some leadership position.
I love how Mulvaney defended his vote for Boehner by saying that Conservatives were going to be marginalized because of this ‘stupid’ revolt. And yet I ask, why would Mulvaney vote for leadership that already plan on marginalizing him with or without his vote?
In truth Mulvaney’s vote wasn’t principled, he wants leadership to grease the tracks for him when he runs for Republican Study Committee Chairmanship.
Many Republican congressmen have complaints about John Boehner. Everyone knows this. If they all got together, they could probably deny Boehner the speaker’s chair. As a sheer numbers game, everyone knows this, too. That being the case, why haven’t they? Why isn’t Boehner gone?
.
The right answer, as usual, is the simple one: because once Boehner’s gone, someone has to take his place. And nobody wants to do that. Being the speaker — not just in leadership, but THE leader — might mean, at some point, that you have to do some things (decisions on spending priorities, negotiations in conference with the Senate, horse-trading with the president) that will prove unpopular with the base. And then it won’t be Boehner’s head they’re calling for anymore. It’ll be yours. Better by far to leave the status quo alone — you get all the benefits of the critic, and none of the unwinnable choices that come with power.
“Better by far to leave the status quo alone.” And this defines the present day Republican party: the defenders of the status-quo, the go-along-to-get-along guys, the “please, please love me MSM” party. Yeah, no wonder conservatives are running their collective heads into a brick wall.
I think, if you read what I wrote more carefully, you will find that my criticism is leveled more at the people who are content to undercut Boehner without providing an alternative. They certainly do not go along (nor get along) with anyone, and couldn’t give a flying fart about the MSM. They refuse to sanction what Boehner is doing, but at the same time, they refuse to step up and do it better. By playing the eternal gadfly, they secure for themselves the best of both worlds — being a member of the establishment while campaigning against the establishment. (Many times, with the right constituent base, that’s a surefire way to remain part of the establishment for life.)
.
If I’m reading your comments right, these are exactly the sorts of people you want to praise — people like Justin Amash and Jim Bridenstine. We do not agree. If they can state with such certainty that Boehner is doing such a terrible job, they must be confident they know how to do it better — or at least, they must be confident there’s a better option somewhere in the caucus, one they could support. So why don’t they step up and place a little money on the line, instead of catcalling the man who chooses to risk rolling the hard ten?
.
Again, the simple answer is the right one. It’s because they don’t want to risk rolling the dice (either on their own behalf or on someone else’s), losing, and being stripped of seniority or committee assignments. Such brave warriors.
Bridenstine actually did put money on the line for Gohmert. He’s a fairly young member so I’d cut him some slack. I agree about Amash though, that dude is a poseur who wants nothing more then to be the next Ron Paul.
Push comes to shove, these guys were a tiny fraction of the GOP caucus. That’s why they were reduced to this stunt, which is all it was.
Any plan for a real leadership change would have happened when the caucus voted last year on leadership. But they simply did not have enough votes to stage a challenge there. The power structure in the House — consisting of the members with the most important jobs that have … y’know … actually responsibility to get stuff done — were not at all with these guys. Neither were the backbenchers who are not interested in getting on the talker circuit.
So it was a publicity stunt.
For my money, this stunt was disloyal — and loyalty is the essential ingredient to party. The party as a whole voted to retain Boehner. If these guys want to continue to derive the (plentiful) benefits of remaining in the party, they should be bound by its decision. That his how legislative parties function.
Two other things piss me off about it: (1) They made a public spectacle that embarrassed the party on its big day; (2) the most they could have hoped for was chaos. i.e. Boehner loses the first round then ???? then the conservatives win! But things could have gone very, very wrong at the ???? stage. How irresponsible!
BTW none of the aforementioned is meant as a defense of leadership in the 112th and 113th Congress. I’m ambivalent on how well they did. The point is that a serious attempt to change leadership happens a certain way. And this week’s nonsense was not at all serious.
Exactly. Just…exactly.
Screw loyalty.
I’ve actively supported the Republican Party for 20-some years. The next time they actually follow through on their endless promises to cut the size and scope of the Federal government will be the first.
So. What exactly are the “plentiful benefits” I’m getting? Because AFAICT, the only things I’m getting is pissed on, and told it’s raining.