Jun
17
Time for Paul Ryan to Go
House Speaker Paul Ryan
I am on record as being frustrated with current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), in that sometimes he does things I can get behind, even wholeheartedly applaud, while other times he does things that leave me wondering “What the #&*(! is he thinking?!” Ryan was not my first (or second or third) choice for Speaker when John Boehner left Congress in late 2015, but I cautiously supported him as a potentially unifying figure who could do some good. And he has done some good — just not as much as I would’ve liked.
In April of this year, Ryan announced that he was not only resigning from the speakership but leaving Congress altogether after the November elections (but possibly not until the beginning of next year). No re-election bid. While giving the Speaker credit where it’s due (e.g., tax reform), Ben Shapiro also listed a few things that probably factored into his decision to leave. Subsequent events have indicated that the anticipated “blue wave” is not as inevitable as was thought. But, most of his other points still apply — e.g., “The Base Disliked Ryan – But That’s Because Of McConnell”, “Ryan Never Wanted The Job”, “Ryan’s Priorities Weren’t Backed By Trump Or His Fellow Legislators”, “Ryan Has Young Kids”. I was a bit concerned for the party at this news, yet sympathetic to Ryan’s personal and professional concerns. I figured he’d continue to work with the President, keep things on an even keel, and gracefully leave when he said.
Then, news and opinion pieces began to come out this month (June) that make me wonder where Ryan’s head is at. First, while stressing the need for more data (including the many documents that have been requested but yet to be delivered), he supported Trey Gowdy’s assertion that he’d seen no evidence to support Trump’s claim that the FBI planted a spy in his campaign. Now, I’m not privy to that information, and I certainly respect Gowdy. But, even if they’re correct, one might question the timing. In other words, why would Ryan accept and answer a question on this topic during a press briefing about jobs and the economy? He laughed about it, but he probably should have declined to answer, too.
Conservative Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) put out a strong statement that expressed the frustration he and many fellow Congressmen were feeling.
“It is shameful to see House GOP leadership emphasize support for FBI/DoJ intelligence collection on the Trump campaign.”
When he went on “Lou Dobbs Tonight”, Gaetz commented about not only what was being said re “Russian collusion” but also what wasn’t.
“The House Intelligence Committee stood up and said that there was no evidence of collusion. We need the Speaker to do the same…. Speaker Ryan needs to step up. He needs to join us in a call for a second Special Counsel. And, for goodness sakes, stop defending the FBI’s collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign, when they refuse to give us the documents to show whether or not they broke the law…. [W]e need stronger leadership from our Speaker, supporting the work of those of us who are fightin’ in the trenches to get real answers for the American people.”
The following day, John Dempsey published an opinion piece at Townhall, where he said,
“Don’t fool yourself. Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, doesn’t like President Trump. And he has great disdain for voters who put him in the White House. Ryan [wants to] flip the middle finger to Trump and his supporters [on his way out].”
How does he plan to do this? Noting Trump’s “hardline stance on illegal immigration” that helped get him elected,
“Paul Ryan is quickly writing an amnesty bill that he hopes to bring to the House floor for debate. He is trying to divide the Republican Party between the establishment and Conservatives. Ryan doesn’t gain anything politically, and he has nothing to lose. A politician at the end of their term is more dangerous than drinking Mexican tap water.
… Ryan doesn’t want to help push the Trump agenda, and that is why he’s leaving. However, he can help slow or stop it. The best way to put a stalwart [sic] on Trump’s agenda is to lose at least one of the chambers in November. If Ryan can help make that happen, he will get the last word. This will be a thumb in the eye of the president, and the voters that put him in office. Ryan is writing the amnesty bill to be vindictive….
Putting amnesty on the floor for a vote is a sure fire way to lose voters enthusiasm.
Ryan is placing cheap labor over American labor. His actions are a way to set himself up to line his pockets down the road. Either way, you look at what he is doing, it is about Paul Ryan.”
Now, I don’t know if the animosity between Ryan and Trump is as strong as Dempsey claims, or if Ryan truly “disdain[s]” Trump voters, or if there is actual vindictiveness behind Ryan’s new “amnesty bill”. I certainly don’t want to believe it. I mean, maybe he’s just trying to get another important piece of legislation underway before he leaves. (Plus, I should point out that Ryan isn’t putting this together on his own but with other establishment Republicans.) But, the timing for introducing a hugely controversial bill, one which will indeed likely prove divisive, is suspicious.
Of course, my other problem with it is the reported substance of the bill. According to Breitbart News’s analysis of a leaked draft, it would apply to millions more than just the current 700,000-800,000 known DACA recipients. Applicants would be “eligible for amnesty so long as they meet low educational, work and criminal requirements,** prompting the amnesty to explode in size.” Also, it “would allow the children of temporary foreign guest workers and “anyone who has a ‘contingent nonimmigrant status’” to apply for the amnesty.”
As Kansas Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach told Breitbart,
“[I]t appears to encompass an unlimited number of people, many of whom will claim fraudulently that they meet the minimal requirements to receive the amnesty.”
As per Breitbart’s John Binder,
“[T]he Republican establishment and White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short are attempting to stampede President Trump into the amnesty deal by pushing it through the House and Senate quickly, much like the trillion dollar omnibus spending bill – which did not fund the president’s border wall.”
Even before news of this amnesty bill hit, there was talk of the need for a “leadership shakeup at the top” of the House GOP. Now, though, it appears that many House Republicans have had enough and want Ryan out… ASAP. In fact, Breitbart reported on Friday that there are discussions to file a “motion to vacate the chair”. (Ironically, this very rule was an issue when Ryan was setting terms for him to accept the Speakership in 2015.) Ryan has no plans to step down early and claims he has the support of “a lot of members”. But, according to Rep. Steve King (R-IA),
“From the time that Paul Ryan announced that he would be retiring at the end of this Congress, his juice has been diminished day by day by day. It’s not a personal thing. It’s just a function of how things work. He has less power, less influence, and yet he’s still leading us into this amnesty piece. People are acting like he’s the Speaker of the House who will be deciding who can chair which committees, who can be seated on which committees, and whose bills move forward in the next Congress. But that will not be the case.”
It appears that the prospect of a lame duck Speaker lasting through the rest of the year is increasingly unlikely. As noted by Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle,
“Conservatives across the party have been calling for Ryan to step aside now from the Speakership, with Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) saying in a previous Breitbart News radio interview that Ryan should not be allowed to stay as a lame duck speaker–especially while he’s opposing the president’s agenda on immigration, trade, national security, and more….
President Trump could end all of this now, and put his agenda on a glide path, by calling for a vote in the House on the speakership–asking members to push Ryan out and start anew with somebody who actually stands with him and his agenda.”
Even if it sends the House “into a tizzy”, removing Paul Ryan as Speaker is probably the best thing at this point. (Better for the House to do than for Trump to get involved, though.) His relationship with the Trump White House has been a rocky one, with his and Trump’s personalities, styles, and agendas being quite different. Ryan has continued to cause problems, and he has not been as consistently conservative as many (such as myself) would have liked. (On the other hand, I could say the same about Trump’s inconsistency, and I do agree with Ryan on occasion, such as re tariffs.) This amnesty thing and the way he has handled it is just the last straw. It’s time for Ryan to leave, go spend time with his kids, and start a new chapter in his professional life. I wish him the best.
* Ryan told members of his party that the President supported his amnesty bill. Trump himself said he would not sign “the more moderate” immigration proposal he’d been presented with, indicating he favors Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s more conservative one. (I do, too.) However, a correction later stated that Trump had misunderstood the question and was in fact favorable toward both bills being proposed. For an explanation of the confusion and a comparison of the proposals, go here.
** I have suggested something similar in structure in an earlier blogpost, but my ideas involved many more restrictions than Ryan’s “compromise bill”, beginning with limiting it to just the current DACA enrollees. Also, no automatic citizenship or preferred treatment for green cards.
