Increase push to get Ryan to run for House Speaker


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The push to nominate Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) to run for the House Speaker position has apparently accelerated.

In all this, Ryan appears uninterested in running. My guess as to why is that he right now has a far more conservative reputation than he deserves, and becoming Speaker would reveal his moderate tendencies to everyone. He does not want this. At the same time, Ryan is more conservative than John Boehner, and would be an improvement.

Update: A Washington Post story today says that Ryan is reconsidering his opposition to running for Speaker.

Share

16 comments

  • Frank

    I share your insights Bob. Luis Gutiérrez supports Ryan. That’s all I need to know.

  • Ed

    Ryan is pro amnesty, pro open borders, a bit (1 or 2 degrees) more conservative than Boehner. Not much of an improvement.

  • Al

    Ryan ran as a Tea Party candidate, but when he was elected betrayed us. The man is a liar and can’t be trusted. I’d love to see a real conservative become speaker, but if we have to have a RINO, at least let it be an honest one with some degree of integrity.

  • At some point we need someone that is willing to work with both sides of party not someone like Boehner who openly hates the conservatives but the same time 40 conservatives aren’t going to do much by themselves but make a bunch of wind. If the best we can get is a financial conservative that understand how truly bad the tax code is and that it needs fixed as well as other entitlements I don’t see that as bad thing.

    The realities are this is still a huge step forward from Boehner and give change of a few other leadership jobs (see the senate) maybe we can get moving in the right direction.

  • Cotour

    ” but if we have to have a RINO, at least let it be an honest one with some degree of integrity.”

    A contradictory and illogical statement if there ever was one. By definition a RINO is duplicitous, is a liar and has NO integrity. This is another example of how the people who live in society by necessity must in general live by a high degree of truth and morality in order to peacefully coexist and they tend to apply the same standard to their politicians. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    This is a natural default assumption but of course it is incorrect and only encourages further weak policy and corruption. The political strategy must be for a group or a key individual to become essential to any vote that comes to be voted on and to ruthlessly extract your pound of flesh in order to advance your positions, all while appearing to be seen as being benevolent and appealing to the public’s softer side . Thats how politics must be practiced, that is reality and because the Republicans in how they tend to practice politics do not do this they fear being perceived as being ruthless and cold by the public and they fail continuously.

    The Democrats do this effortlessly, their philosophy allows it because they are basically socialist and their core philosophy lends itself very well to being perceived as being benevolent because they are very willing to spend other peoples money to create that perception. RINO’s ride the the line and become what they in the end they are, Democrats.

    So the conclusion is? Ryan is also not acceptable.

    Q: Who in the political world is a likable and well spoken Conservative Republican who is ruthless but is likable and in fact is a benevolent leader willing to use high pressure leverage, a sledge hammer and a bloody political bat to accomplish what needs to be accomplished? But remember, he or she needs to be likable :)

    That is who we need as a Speaker.

  • Cotour

    To be clear, that’s a metaphorical “bloody political bat”.

  • pzatchok

    I just want someone who will stop doing everything the left wants.

    I want someone who is not afraid to piss off Nancy (skeletor) Pelosi.

  • Steve

    Couldn’t have said it better. The Left just does what comes naturally to them, after all it is easy to rationalize breaking a few eggs if it is for “the greater good”….

    And the right has been whipped into a fearful cowering everytime the Left media starts calling them names….

    I did just read that Newt was willing to take the job :-)

  • Steve

    Valid points especially about entitlements, but if we compromise on amnesty (again!) that’s the game. We are near a tipping point where we will no longer be able to stop the slide into a Euro-welfare-state and amnesty is the way to make it happen.

    All other political considerations, financial, social, foreign policy, they all hinge on what we do next on immigration and amnesty….

  • Cotour

    Here is an excellent example of a Democrat tagging all Republicans as being heartless monsters, and there are people who will see it in the media and swallow it and digest it as being the absolute truth:

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/11/dnc-chair-republicans-are-saying-yeah-lets-kick-women-out-of-this-country-video/

    This woman needs to be verbally slapped down and a narrative needs to be created that reveals her to be what she actually is, a partisan threat to the sovereignty of America in the interest of promoting the Democrat socialist agenda. In the nicest ( read, nastiest no holds barred) way possible of course. There is no credible and crushing push back to this “delightful” woman.

  • Cotour

    And more. The media is endeavoring to paint Ben Carson with the crazy brush. Now he has said somethings that I do not agree with but for people to believe that he is “crazy” because he said something like this about firearms and Hitlers Germany is a bridge too far :

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/carson-defends-comments-linking-gun-control-holocaust-article-1.2393171

    And here is the proof that what he said is perfectly reasonable about the Jews, the Nazi intent to kill them all, firearms and their ability to counter balance abuse of power.

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005188

    Out of 300 thousand or so Jews that populated the Warsaw ghetto there were about 500 or so Jews that were armed to some degree and those 500 gave the Nazi’s one hell of a hard time. How far would the Nazi’s have been able to go if just 100 thousand of them were armed? (That’s a rhetorical question)

    The media is THEE peoples worst enemy today, and they were empowered by the founders to be just the opposite. And that’s another reason that the right must become more reasonably ruthless and likable.

  • Cotour

    And again.

    Mike Barnacle is driving the Ben Carson crazy train.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/11/ben-carson-gives-new-meaning-to-crazy.html

    Q: How many people in today’s world reading this are willing to sit by while some guy attempts to take over an airliner they are flying on? I guess by barnacles estimation everyone should sit still in their seats and patiently await what some real nut intents to do to them? Another rhetorical question, we all know what the answer would be, the guy would at the minimum have the hell beat out of him by the passengers and duct taped to his seat if not dispatched straight away. And that is as it should be.

    I guess Mr. Barnacle by his own words wouldn’t make a move? Allow his wife and or children to be abused or worse? And does he disparage and admonish Mr. Mintz for his actions attempting to disarm the crazed nut who shot so many in cold blood?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/opinions/mccormack-everly-strouse-heroes/

    I think the New York Post needs the likes of Mr. Barnacle scrapped from their editorial pages.

    And I have already demonstrated that the Nazi’s indeed would have been stopped out or slowed way down if in fact the population that they were exterminating were armed.

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005188

    Ben Carson, not so crazy IMO.

  • Cotour

    Correction, Mike Barnicle writes for the Daily beast.

  • Cotour

    The above correction refers to my original post (which I do not see) in which I originally stated that Mike Barnicle worked for the New York Post. Since I posted it I reworked it and sent it to the Daily Beast and out as a general email to the people in my email list.

    Repost:

    Mike Barnicle of the Daily Beast is driving the Ben Carson crazy train.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/11/ben-carson-gives-new-meaning-to-crazy.html

    Q: How many people in today’s world reading this are willing to sit quietly and patiently by while some guy, any guy, or group of guys attempts to take over an airliner they are flying on? I guess by Barnicles estimation everyone should sit still in their seats and patiently await what some real nut intends to do to them?

    A rhetorical question, we all know what the answer would be, the guy / guy’s would at the minimum have the hell beat out of them by the passengers and duct taped to there seats if not dispatched straight away. And that is as it should be.

    I guess Mr. Barnicle by his own words wouldn’t make a move? Allow his wife and or children to be abused or worse? And does he disparage and admonish Mr. Mintz for his actions attempting to disarm a real crazed nut who shot so many in cold blood?

    (“Oh look Ann, Mike Barnicle says to his wife. There are the towers, I have never seen them from this perspective before. This experience will make for a great article”)

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/opinions/mccormack-everly-strouse-heroes/

    I think the Daily Beast needs the likes of Mr. Barnacle scrapped from their editorial pages, oh wait, he’s just being an obedient Liberal Democrat operative. Forget about Trump I think in the long run they fear Mr. Carson even more.

    And I demonstrate here that the Nazi’s indeed would have been stopped out or slowed way down if in fact the population that they were in the process of exterminating were armed. There were aprox. 500 Jews out of aprox. 300 thousand in the Warsaw ghetto armed to some level who gave the Nazi’s one hell of a hard time. Imagine if 10 thousand were armed? Imagine if 100 thousand were armed? What would the outcome have been then?

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005188

    What was the first and essential thing’s that the Nazi’s did in their attempted march to world domination? Gun registration and then confiscation. The Nazi’s were not stupid, what does that say about Mr. Barnicle and his understanding of history and the correct roll of firearms in a free country?

    Ben Carson, not so crazy IMO, Mike Barnicle, not the brightest bulb, nor the sharpest pencil.

  • D.K. Williams

    Trey Gowdy, my first choice, needs to stay focused on Benghazi, so I can accept Ryan until 2017. He he does well–keep him. If not, replace him.

  • PeterF

    I was a little surprised that Greenblatt brought up the jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto. Technically he was correct, the Jews could not have single handedly prevented the Nazi transgressions. The lesson of the Warsaw ghetto resistance is apparently lost on most people who even remember the event.
    The Jews were the first group to be disarmed.
    The Jews living in Warsaw were not a trained military.
    The weapons they had retained after the confiscations were not standardized. (Several were antiques from the 19th century)
    They were completely surrounded and cut off from the rest of the world in the heart of what at that time was the most powerful army in the world.
    Without resupply, they resisted the Nazis for almost a year.
    They were overrun only after they had exhausted almost all their food and every bullet.
    Then the Nazis rounded them up and sent the to Auschwitz.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *