Showing posts with label scalise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scalise. Show all posts

Friday, August 1, 2014

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals; Update: Two separate bills

Report:NewHousebillonbordercrisiswill

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals; Update: Two separate bills

posted at 10:41 am on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Still waiting for fuller details but Chad Pergram sees some sort of victory for tea partiers in the making. Initially, Boehner wanted to keep his own border bill separate from Ted Cruz’s and Marsha Blackburn’s bill limiting DACA, Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers. Only if House Republicans passed Boehner’s bill, the leadership insisted, would they get a vote on Cruz/Blackburn. But that was no real incentive: Either the House itself would have killed the Cruz/Blackburn bill or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to make DACA part of the ongoing negotiations in Congress was to add it to Boehner’s own bill, as part of the House’s formal offer to Harry Reid. I.e. “one bill, one vote.”

Mission accomplished?

On the other hand:

Chad Pergram’s the only reporter with details on the bill that I’ve noticed but that’s newsy enough that it’s worth flagging now. I’ll update as more details are known. As for the timetable, Pergram says they’re going to at least pay lip service to formal procedure in passing this thing even though they’ll end up ignoring Boehner’s “three-day rule” for posting the text of a bill before it’s voted on. First comes a vote authorizing the House to take up a “same day rule,” then comes the posting of the bill’s text, then comes a meeting of the House Rules Committee followed by a vote of the House on the new rule, and then finally a vote on the bill itself sometime in the late afternoon or early evening. If all goes well, the GOP will have a new message for the August recess — they’ve now formally warned the president that he should go no further than he’s already gone in granting executive amnesty. If he goes ahead and issues a mega-amnesty for adult illegals in September anyway, it’ll look more like outright defiance of the will of one branch of Congress than Congress “refusing to act” or whatever. That might help, however marginally, in the messaging war that follows.

Here’s your thread, just in case you’re following along on C-SPAN today. Updates to follow. One other point in closing in case it’s ambiguous: Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t *repeal* DACA, it would simply close it off to new applicants. That’s a concession to the politics here. The GOP’s willing, however grudgingly, to take on Obama’s executive action, but it fears the “anti-Latino” brand enough that it won’t expel kids who are currently in the program.

Update: Speaking of the messaging war, Becket Adams wonders why congressional Republicans don’t do something bold to stress the urgency of the border crisis and cancel their recess in August. If you want to show that you’re the party that’s more serious about illegal immigration, here’s your chance:

This form of protest, which was first suggested by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, would not only signal to the American public that House leadership gives “a damn” about the crisis, but it also would likely force the White House and the Senate to act on immigration reform (as failure to do so would invite terrible optics ahead of the November midterm elections). Obviously, getting the Obama administration to act on illegal immigration is more important than mere political posturing, the point of the protest being that it may produce a solution to the crisis.

True, it’s a bit “inside the beltway” to talk about so-called “optics” and midterms, but sticking around the city likely won’t hurt the House Republicans. So why not at least consider the idea? It seems like it could be an easy win, one that could hand a much-needed confidence boost to Republican leaders who have likely forgotten what victory feels like.

Update: At least one tea partier is satisfied.

Update: Nope, I’m wrong. The Cruz/Blackburn bill is being split off after all.

Not sure what’s different today from last night. Maybe Pergram’s wrong and Boehner’s agreed to allow a vote on Cruz/Blackburn no matter what; yesterday, Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t have come to the floor unless and until Boehner’s bill passed. Or maybe the House leadership is whipping votes for Cruz/Blackburn too, so that that bill will at least pass the House before it dies in the Senate.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals

Report:NewHousebillonbordercrisiswill

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals

posted at 10:41 am on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Still waiting for fuller details but Chad Pergram sees some sort of victory for tea partiers in the making. Initially, Boehner wanted to keep his own border bill separate from Ted Cruz’s and Marsha Blackburn’s bill limiting DACA, Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers. Only if House Republicans passed Boehner’s bill, the leadership insisted, would they get a vote on Cruz/Blackburn. But that was no real incentive: Either the House itself would have killed the Cruz/Blackburn bill or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to make DACA part of the ongoing negotiations in Congress was to add it to Boehner’s own bill, as part of the House’s formal offer to Harry Reid. I.e. “one bill, one vote.”

Mission accomplished?

On the other hand:

Chad Pergram’s the only reporter with details on the bill that I’ve noticed but that’s newsy enough that it’s worth flagging now. I’ll update as more details are known. As for the timetable, Pergram says they’re going to at least pay lip service to formal procedure in passing this thing even though they’ll end up ignoring Boehner’s “three-day rule” for posting the text of a bill before it’s voted on. First comes a vote authorizing the House to take up a “same day rule,” then comes the posting of the bill’s text, then comes a meeting of the House Rules Committee followed by a vote of the House on the new rule, and then finally a vote on the bill itself sometime in the late afternoon or early evening. If all goes well, the GOP will have a new message for the August recess — they’ve now formally warned the president that he should go no further than he’s already gone in granting executive amnesty. If he goes ahead and issues a mega-amnesty for adult illegals in September anyway, it’ll look more like outright defiance of the will of one branch of Congress than Congress “refusing to act” or whatever. That might help, however marginally, in the messaging war that follows.

Here’s your thread, just in case you’re following along on C-SPAN today. Updates to follow. One other point in closing in case it’s ambiguous: Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t *repeal* DACA, it would simply close it off to new applicants. That’s a concession to the politics here. The GOP’s willing, however grudgingly, to take on Obama’s executive action, but it fears the “anti-Latino” brand enough that it won’t expel kids who are currently in the program.

Update: Speaking of the messaging war, Becket Adams wonders why congressional Republicans don’t do something bold to stress the urgency of the border crisis and cancel their recess in August. If you want to show that you’re the party that’s more serious about illegal immigration, here’s your chance:

This form of protest, which was first suggested by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, would not only signal to the American public that House leadership gives “a damn” about the crisis, but it also would likely force the White House and the Senate to act on immigration reform (as failure to do so would invite terrible optics ahead of the November midterm elections). Obviously, getting the Obama administration to act on illegal immigration is more important than mere political posturing, the point of the protest being that it may produce a solution to the crisis.

True, it’s a bit “inside the beltway” to talk about so-called “optics” and midterms, but sticking around the city likely won’t hurt the House Republicans. So why not at least consider the idea? It seems like it could be an easy win, one that could hand a much-needed confidence boost to Republican leaders who have likely forgotten what victory feels like.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 31, 2014

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes; Update: One more try? Update: Tomorrow

HouseGOPabandonsbordercrisisbill,can’tfind

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes; Update: One more try? Update: Tomorrow

posted at 2:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

Boehner offered to schedule a vote on Ted Cruz’s anti-DACA bill if House conservatives agreed to pass his bill first. No dice. You can understand why: By splitting Cruz’s bill off into a separate bill instead of attaching it to his own, Boehner was setting it up for failure. Either the House would have killed it or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to keep the DACA issue at the center of the border-crisis debate is to make it part of the House leadership’s offer and force Reid and Obama to dig in on it. Evidently Boehner wouldn’t do that.

And so we head to the August recess with no Republican proposal on the table.

Faced with certain defeat, Boehner (R-Ohio) pulled the legislation from consideration Thursday afternoon, according to guidance from leadership advisers. With more than 20 House conservatives opposed, Boehner did not have enough votes from his own Republican ranks because virtually all Democrats opposed the legislation…

With almost no Democratic support, Boehner needed to corral votes virtually entirely from within his own Republican caucus, and he faced a group of House conservatives who worked hand-in-hand with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in plotting their strategy to bring down the legislation in pursuit of a more purely conservative approach.

Democrats blamed Boehner for chasing after conservative votes that were never going to materialize, after he initially proposed a more robust $1.5 billion plan that likely would have drawn some Democratic votes. Instead, as conservatives balked at that price tag, GOP leaders shrank the bill in an effort to grow the Republican vote – while losing Democrats.

“The worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the closing minutes of the debate.

Kay Granger, who helped write Boehner’s bill, said they got to 214 votes, among them conservative stalwart Jeb Hensarling. It’s interesting that Boehner preferred to see the bill tank rather than tweak it by adding in some Democratic proposals in hopes of getting to 218 with help from Pelosi’s caucus. I wonder if that’s because he thought he couldn’t find enough votes there either or because the politics of immigration are so hot right now, with border hawks like me perpetually nervous about the leadership playing ball on amnesty, that he decided failure was more palatable than selling out.

Here’s the leadership’s statement. Read it closely and tell me which line pops out at you.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now without the need for congressional action”? I realize they’re hinting that he can expedite deportations himself, without any action by Congress, but this is not an idea you want to push at a moment when you’re suing the guy for unlawful executive action and your base is frantic that he’s going to unilaterally amnestize five million illegals. In fact, as Gabe Malor says, the House’s failure to pass a bill will be used by O as further evidence that he needs to act alone. “See? Not only can’t the House and Senate agree, even House Republicans can’t agree. I need to step in.” And here’s Boehner all but encouraging him.

But look. Obama already threatened to veto Boehner’s bill even if it passed the Senate, which it wouldn’t have. Nothing substantive was lost here, just a talking point during the recess. Maybe Cruz’s ploy will work and the leadership will come back in September newly willing to add an anti-DACA provision to their own offer. And even if not, Cruz fans can take comfort that he’s well positioned now to carry the anti-amnesty banner in 2016. Much to the horror of Republican establishmentarians, it looks like he’s going to campaign on ending Obama’s amnesties for DREAMers and, inevitably, for adults. You’ll have one candidate in the race running right-ish on this issue.

Update: One last gasp left before the recess?

Update: Hold the phone. There’s a hastily scheduled conference huddle at 3 p.m. Can they get four votes?

Update: The recess is postponed, if just for a day.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes; Update: One more try?

HouseGOPabandonsbordercrisisbill,can’tfind

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes; Update: One more try?

posted at 2:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

Boehner offered to schedule a vote on Ted Cruz’s anti-DACA bill if House conservatives agreed to pass his bill first. No dice. You can understand why: By splitting Cruz’s bill off into a separate bill instead of attaching it to his own, Boehner was setting it up for failure. Either the House would have killed it or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to keep the DACA issue at the center of the border-crisis debate is to make it part of the House leadership’s offer and force Reid and Obama to dig in on it. Evidently Boehner wouldn’t do that.

And so we head to the August recess with no Republican proposal on the table.

Faced with certain defeat, Boehner (R-Ohio) pulled the legislation from consideration Thursday afternoon, according to guidance from leadership advisers. With more than 20 House conservatives opposed, Boehner did not have enough votes from his own Republican ranks because virtually all Democrats opposed the legislation…

With almost no Democratic support, Boehner needed to corral votes virtually entirely from within his own Republican caucus, and he faced a group of House conservatives who worked hand-in-hand with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in plotting their strategy to bring down the legislation in pursuit of a more purely conservative approach.

Democrats blamed Boehner for chasing after conservative votes that were never going to materialize, after he initially proposed a more robust $1.5 billion plan that likely would have drawn some Democratic votes. Instead, as conservatives balked at that price tag, GOP leaders shrank the bill in an effort to grow the Republican vote – while losing Democrats.

“The worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the closing minutes of the debate.

Kay Granger, who helped write Boehner’s bill, said they got to 214 votes, among them conservative stalwart Jeb Hensarling. It’s interesting that Boehner preferred to see the bill tank rather than tweak it by adding in some Democratic proposals in hopes of getting to 218 with help from Pelosi’s caucus. I wonder if that’s because he thought he couldn’t find enough votes there either or because the politics of immigration are so hot right now, with border hawks like me perpetually nervous about the leadership playing ball on amnesty, that he decided failure was more palatable than selling out.

Here’s the leadership’s statement. Read it closely and tell me which line pops out at you.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now without the need for congressional action”? I realize they’re hinting that he can expedite deportations himself, without any action by Congress, but this is not an idea you want to push at a moment when you’re suing the guy for unlawful executive action and your base is frantic that he’s going to unilaterally amnestize five million illegals. In fact, as Gabe Malor says, the House’s failure to pass a bill will be used by O as further evidence that he needs to act alone. “See? Not only can’t the House and Senate agree, even House Republicans can’t agree. I need to step in.” And here’s Boehner all but encouraging him.

But look. Obama already threatened to veto Boehner’s bill even if it passed the Senate, which it wouldn’t have. Nothing substantive was lost here, just a talking point during the recess. Maybe Cruz’s ploy will work and the leadership will come back in September newly willing to add an anti-DACA provision to their own offer. And even if not, Cruz fans can take comfort that he’s well positioned now to carry the anti-amnesty banner in 2016. Much to the horror of Republican establishmentarians, it looks like he’s going to campaign on ending Obama’s amnesties for DREAMers and, inevitably, for adults. You’ll have one candidate in the race running right-ish on this issue.

Update: One last gasp left before the recess?

Update: Hold the phone. There’s a hastily scheduled conference huddle at 3 p.m. Can they get four votes?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes

HouseGOPabandonsbordercrisisbill,can’tfind

House GOP abandons border crisis bill, can’t find 218 votes; Update: One more try?

posted at 2:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

Boehner offered to schedule a vote on Ted Cruz’s anti-DACA bill if House conservatives agreed to pass his bill first. No dice. You can understand why: By splitting Cruz’s bill off into a separate bill instead of attaching it to his own, Boehner was setting it up for failure. Either the House would have killed it or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to keep the DACA issue at the center of the border-crisis debate is to make it part of the House leadership’s offer and force Reid and Obama to dig in on it. Evidently Boehner wouldn’t do that.

And so we head to the August recess with no Republican proposal on the table.

Faced with certain defeat, Boehner (R-Ohio) pulled the legislation from consideration Thursday afternoon, according to guidance from leadership advisers. With more than 20 House conservatives opposed, Boehner did not have enough votes from his own Republican ranks because virtually all Democrats opposed the legislation…

With almost no Democratic support, Boehner needed to corral votes virtually entirely from within his own Republican caucus, and he faced a group of House conservatives who worked hand-in-hand with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in plotting their strategy to bring down the legislation in pursuit of a more purely conservative approach.

Democrats blamed Boehner for chasing after conservative votes that were never going to materialize, after he initially proposed a more robust $1.5 billion plan that likely would have drawn some Democratic votes. Instead, as conservatives balked at that price tag, GOP leaders shrank the bill in an effort to grow the Republican vote – while losing Democrats.

“The worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the closing minutes of the debate.

Kay Granger, who helped write Boehner’s bill, said they got to 214 votes, among them conservative stalwart Jeb Hensarling. It’s interesting that Boehner preferred to see the bill tank rather than tweak it by adding in some Democratic proposals in hopes of getting to 218 with help from Pelosi’s caucus. I wonder if that’s because he thought he couldn’t find enough votes there either or because the politics of immigration are so hot right now, with border hawks like me perpetually nervous about the leadership playing ball on amnesty, that he decided failure was more palatable than selling out.

Here’s the leadership’s statement. Read it closely and tell me which line pops out at you.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now without the need for congressional action”? I realize they’re hinting that he can expedite deportations himself, without any action by Congress, but this is not an idea you want to push at a moment when you’re suing the guy for unlawful executive action and your base is frantic that he’s going to unilaterally amnestize five million illegals. In fact, as Gabe Malor says, the House’s failure to pass a bill will be used by O as further evidence that he needs to act alone. “See? Not only can’t the House and Senate agree, even House Republicans can’t agree. I need to step in.” And here’s Boehner all but encouraging him.

But look. Obama already threatened to veto Boehner’s bill even if it passed the Senate, which it wouldn’t have. Nothing substantive was lost here, just a talking point during the recess. Maybe Cruz’s ploy will work and the leadership will come back in September newly willing to add an anti-DACA provision to their own offer. And even if not, Cruz fans can take comfort that he’s well positioned now to carry the anti-amnesty banner in 2016. Much to the horror of Republican establishmentarians, it looks like he’s going to campaign on ending Obama’s amnesties for DREAMers and, inevitably, for adults. You’ll have one candidate in the race running right-ish on this issue.

Update: One last gasp left before the recess?

Update: Hold the phone. There’s a hastily scheduled conference huddle at 3 p.m. Can they get four votes?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET; Update: McCarthy new majority leader; Update: Scalise wins the whip race

Openthread:HouseRepublicanstovoteon

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET; Update: McCarthy new majority leader; Update: Scalise wins the whip race

posted at 1:21 pm on June 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

The bad news: Kevin McCarthy, the centrist Cantor deputy who’s funded by all the same people who fund his boss, is a near-lock to become the new majority leader. The good news: Once Cantor steps down on July 31st, there’ll be only 12 more legislative days until November, when the caucus will hold another leadership vote for the next term — and this time, conservatives will have time to prepare. The bummer about McCarthy winning today isn’t that he’ll do any damage before the midterms, it’s that it’ll give him a little extra time to consolidate power before the next leadership vote. Maybe a huge conservative turnout in the midterms will convince GOP fencesitters to tilt towards Jeb Hensarling, Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, or whoever emerges as the conservative challenger to McCarthy in the fall.

The real action today is in the whip race. If McCarthy gets elected majority leader, as everyone expects, a vacancy will open up for House majority whip. There are three candidates vying for that — Pete Roskam, McCarthy’s deputy; Steve Scalise, the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee; and Marlin Stutzman, who’s running to Scalise’s right on grounds that he’s a bit too cooperative with moderates like McCarthy and Roskam. Scalise appears to have the most votes banked right now, per WaPo, but not quite enough for a majority. Roskam trails behind him and Stutzman is a distant third — but Stutzman has enough conservative support that he could play kingmaker if Scalise doesn’t win outright on the first ballot. Why might Stutzman throw his support to a moderate like Roskam instead of to a fellow conservative? Strategy:

Scalise’s tenure at the RSC has not been viewed as favorably as that of his predecessor, Jim Jordan, whom tea party faithful viewed as more loyal to their cause. Republican sources who requested anonymity so they could speak candidly on the race said there is concern that if chosen, Scalise would be more cooperative with leaders than they would like. That left the door open for another conservative alternative, Stutzman, who is now splitting the conservative vote. Roskam has expressed confidence that he will make it to the second ballot, and if Scalise beats Stutzman, some sources believe Stutzman voters could defect to Roskam so conservatives can regroup and challenge the whole establishment leadership slate in the next Congress.

In other words, since today’s election means so little in policy terms, why not make it a clean sweep of centrists at the top in Boehner, McCarthy, and Roskam? That’ll give House conservatives something to rally against in November, when the real leadership election takes place. If you elect Scalise now, Boehner and McCarthy will argue in the fall that conservatives already have a representative in a top leadership position and therefore there’s no need to focus on electing a new Speaker or majority leader. On the other hand, if Scalise wins, he’d understand that conservatives will be watching him closely as the chief bulwark against Boehner and McCarthy on things like comprehensive immigration reform. He already has a rap among some righties for being too accommodating with McCarthy. If he doesn’t resist, his time in leadership will be short. He has an incentive to play hardball.

While we wait, here’s Raul Labrador telling Fox News two days ago that he’s “close” to getting the votes he needs to upset McCarthy for majority leader. Uh huh. Exit question: House conservatives are spinning McCarthy’s win as a function of speed, i.e. that when a vacancy opens suddenly in the leadership, naturally a guy who’s already there and has built relationships with the entire caucus can move quickly to line up the votes he needs. You can’t expect righties to put together a serious challenge overnight. Okay, but I feel like there’s a new story in conservative media every week about conservatives quietly lining up votes to oust Boehner as Speaker if he makes any sudden moves on amnesty. If that’s true, why weren’t they better prepared to push someone forward as Cantor’s replacement? Why wasn’t someone — Hensarling, Jordan, whoever — already chatting with people behind the scenes about support in case Boehner suddenly moved on amnesty and the caucus decided to try to remove him? They’ve been talking about replacing Boehner for two years and yet McCarthy seems to have crushed them with 24 hours of gladhanding last week. Hmph.

Update: Via Townhall’s Amanda Munoz, Kevin McCarthy won the majority leader vote:

Still waiting on the whip election, which might produce a surprise.

Update: Raul Labrador went out a class act:

Well done, sir.

Update: Score one win for the conservatives:

This was a three-way race that could well have gone to a second round … but didn’t.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET; Update: McCarthy new majority leader

Openthread:HouseRepublicanstovoteon

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET; Update: McCarthy new majority leader

posted at 1:21 pm on June 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

The bad news: Kevin McCarthy, the centrist Cantor deputy who’s funded by all the same people who fund his boss, is a near-lock to become the new majority leader. The good news: Once Cantor steps down on July 31st, there’ll be only 12 more legislative days until November, when the caucus will hold another leadership vote for the next term — and this time, conservatives will have time to prepare. The bummer about McCarthy winning today isn’t that he’ll do any damage before the midterms, it’s that it’ll give him a little extra time to consolidate power before the next leadership vote. Maybe a huge conservative turnout in the midterms will convince GOP fencesitters to tilt towards Jeb Hensarling, Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, or whoever emerges as the conservative challenger to McCarthy in the fall.

The real action today is in the whip race. If McCarthy gets elected majority leader, as everyone expects, a vacancy will open up for House majority whip. There are three candidates vying for that — Pete Roskam, McCarthy’s deputy; Steve Scalise, the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee; and Marlin Stutzman, who’s running to Scalise’s right on grounds that he’s a bit too cooperative with moderates like McCarthy and Roskam. Scalise appears to have the most votes banked right now, per WaPo, but not quite enough for a majority. Roskam trails behind him and Stutzman is a distant third — but Stutzman has enough conservative support that he could play kingmaker if Scalise doesn’t win outright on the first ballot. Why might Stutzman throw his support to a moderate like Roskam instead of to a fellow conservative? Strategy:

Scalise’s tenure at the RSC has not been viewed as favorably as that of his predecessor, Jim Jordan, whom tea party faithful viewed as more loyal to their cause. Republican sources who requested anonymity so they could speak candidly on the race said there is concern that if chosen, Scalise would be more cooperative with leaders than they would like. That left the door open for another conservative alternative, Stutzman, who is now splitting the conservative vote. Roskam has expressed confidence that he will make it to the second ballot, and if Scalise beats Stutzman, some sources believe Stutzman voters could defect to Roskam so conservatives can regroup and challenge the whole establishment leadership slate in the next Congress.

In other words, since today’s election means so little in policy terms, why not make it a clean sweep of centrists at the top in Boehner, McCarthy, and Roskam? That’ll give House conservatives something to rally against in November, when the real leadership election takes place. If you elect Scalise now, Boehner and McCarthy will argue in the fall that conservatives already have a representative in a top leadership position and therefore there’s no need to focus on electing a new Speaker or majority leader. On the other hand, if Scalise wins, he’d understand that conservatives will be watching him closely as the chief bulwark against Boehner and McCarthy on things like comprehensive immigration reform. He already has a rap among some righties for being too accommodating with McCarthy. If he doesn’t resist, his time in leadership will be short. He has an incentive to play hardball.

While we wait, here’s Raul Labrador telling Fox News two days ago that he’s “close” to getting the votes he needs to upset McCarthy for majority leader. Uh huh. Exit question: House conservatives are spinning McCarthy’s win as a function of speed, i.e. that when a vacancy opens suddenly in the leadership, naturally a guy who’s already there and has built relationships with the entire caucus can move quickly to line up the votes he needs. You can’t expect righties to put together a serious challenge overnight. Okay, but I feel like there’s a new story in conservative media every week about conservatives quietly lining up votes to oust Boehner as Speaker if he makes any sudden moves on amnesty. If that’s true, why weren’t they better prepared to push someone forward as Cantor’s replacement? Why wasn’t someone — Hensarling, Jordan, whoever — already chatting with people behind the scenes about support in case Boehner suddenly moved on amnesty and the caucus decided to try to remove him? They’ve been talking about replacing Boehner for two years and yet McCarthy seems to have crushed them with 24 hours of gladhanding last week. Hmph.

Update: Via Townhall’s Amanda Munoz, Kevin McCarthy won the majority leader vote:

Still waiting on the whip election, which might produce a surprise.

Update: Raul Labrador went out a class act:

Well done, sir.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET

Openthread:HouseRepublicanstovoteon

Open thread: House Republicans to vote on new leadership at 2 p.m. ET

posted at 1:21 pm on June 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

The bad news: Kevin McCarthy, the centrist Cantor deputy who’s funded by all the same people who fund his boss, is a near-lock to become the new majority leader. The good news: Once Cantor steps down on July 31st, there’ll be only 12 more legislative days until November, when the caucus will hold another leadership vote for the next term — and this time, conservatives will have time to prepare. The bummer about McCarthy winning today isn’t that he’ll do any damage before the midterms, it’s that it’ll give him a little extra time to consolidate power before the next leadership vote. Maybe a huge conservative turnout in the midterms will convince GOP fencesitters to tilt towards Jeb Hensarling, Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, or whoever emerges as the conservative challenger to McCarthy in the fall.

The real action today is in the whip race. If McCarthy gets elected majority leader, as everyone expects, a vacancy will open up for House majority whip. There are three candidates vying for that — Pete Roskam, McCarthy’s deputy; Steve Scalise, the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee; and Marlin Stutzman, who’s running to Scalise’s right on grounds that he’s a bit too cooperative with moderates like McCarthy and Roskam. Scalise appears to have the most votes banked right now, per WaPo, but not quite enough for a majority. Roskam trails behind him and Stutzman is a distant third — but Stutzman has enough conservative support that he could play kingmaker if Scalise doesn’t win outright on the first ballot. Why might Stutzman throw his support to a moderate like Roskam instead of to a fellow conservative? Strategy:

Scalise’s tenure at the RSC has not been viewed as favorably as that of his predecessor, Jim Jordan, whom tea party faithful viewed as more loyal to their cause. Republican sources who requested anonymity so they could speak candidly on the race said there is concern that if chosen, Scalise would be more cooperative with leaders than they would like. That left the door open for another conservative alternative, Stutzman, who is now splitting the conservative vote. Roskam has expressed confidence that he will make it to the second ballot, and if Scalise beats Stutzman, some sources believe Stutzman voters could defect to Roskam so conservatives can regroup and challenge the whole establishment leadership slate in the next Congress.

In other words, since today’s election means so little in policy terms, why not make it a clean sweep of centrists at the top in Boehner, McCarthy, and Roskam? That’ll give House conservatives something to rally against in November, when the real leadership election takes place. If you elect Scalise now, Boehner and McCarthy will argue in the fall that conservatives already have a representative in a top leadership position and therefore there’s no need to focus on electing a new Speaker or majority leader. On the other hand, if Scalise wins, he’d understand that conservatives will be watching him closely as the chief bulwark against Boehner and McCarthy on things like comprehensive immigration reform. He already has a rap among some righties for being too accommodating with McCarthy. If he doesn’t resist, his time in leadership will be short. He has an incentive to play hardball.

While we wait, here’s Raul Labrador telling Fox News two days ago that he’s “close” to getting the votes he needs to upset McCarthy for majority leader. Uh huh. Exit question: House conservatives are spinning McCarthy’s win as a function of speed, i.e. that when a vacancy opens suddenly in the leadership, naturally a guy who’s already there and has built relationships with the entire caucus can move quickly to line up the votes he needs. You can’t expect righties to put together a serious challenge overnight. Okay, but I feel like there’s a new story in conservative media every week about conservatives quietly lining up votes to oust Boehner as Speaker if he makes any sudden moves on amnesty. If that’s true, why weren’t they better prepared to push someone forward as Cantor’s replacement? Why wasn’t someone — Hensarling, Jordan, whoever — already chatting with people behind the scenes about support in case Boehner suddenly moved on amnesty and the caucus decided to try to remove him? They’ve been talking about replacing Boehner for two years and yet McCarthy seems to have crushed them with 24 hours of gladhanding last week. Hmph.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)