It’s pretty disturbing to hear that Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and the rest of The Freedom Caucus are saying they would ‘look favorably’‘ upon the idea of speaker Paul Ryan. Let’s see — Ryan gave us the TARP giveaways, openly campaigned against Tea Partiers in 2014 House primaries, got completely waxed in his 2012 debate with VP (and mental patient) Joe Biden, is so pro-amnesty that Luis Guttierez (D-IL) has endorsed him, and was part of the whole Eric Cantor-Kevin-McCarthy ‘Young Guns’ nonsense that “blessed” us with congressmen like Richard Hudson and David Rouzer.
Jordan, et. al., have been talking about reforming the process in the House and changing up the speaker position. I’ve long been in favor of modeling the speaker — in Raleigh and DC – after the one in the British House of Commons. Basically a “traffic cop” or moderator of debates.
And as far as the process goes, de-politicizing the speaker position and watering it down could help take us back to some sense of transparency and away from the old six-guys-in-a-smoke-filled-backroom environment we’ve been stuck in. I can actually remember a time when you could actually see our government in action on C-Span. Stuff honestly got debated.
But here’s a thought. Instead of hand-picking a candidate for speaker, do this: Hammer out your reforms, and THEN throw the race open to whomever wants to take a crack at it. I have a feeling the crowd will be much smaller with the presence of fewer job perks.
You have until the end of October – when Boehner is supposed to leave. Take your time and do it right. Rushing right into picking Ryan or whomever else The Washington Post wants solves nothing and puts us right back to where we started.