An article in the Heritage Foundation publication the Daily Signal advises that Opposing John Boehner for Speaker Could Come With Repercussions. Here are some excerpts from the article by Melissa Quinn:
Conservatives planning to buck the status quo and oppose the reelection of John Boehner as House speaker have received a warning shot. Sources on Capitol Hill say dissenters could be stripped of their committee assignments should they fail to support the two-term speaker.
There haven’t been any public challenges to Boehner, though reports have surfaced that Republicans who vote against him on the floor would be punished.
The process will play out after the Nov. 4 midterm elections when the Republican conference holds a closed-door vote for majority leader, majority whip and conference chair. Those roles are currently held by Kevin McCarthy of California, Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, respectively. . . .
One GOP insider told National Journal there could be between 30 and 40 Republican lawmakers who would vote against Boehner.
In an interview with USA Today, Boehner rejected any suggestion Republicans voting against him in January would face repercussions, and confirmed this in a statement to The Daily Signal.
“I don’t support any such effort,” Boehner said. “It’s not a good idea, and isn’t necessary.”
Assuming Boehner is not referring to his own opposition to his own opposition, it is an interesting phraseology used in an effort to suggest personal innocence. Given his total control of the dynamics, a definitive statement would be “There will be no adverse consequences.” to what we presume would be a collegial challenge. Support him or not, we simply can not see how anyone can put any credence whatsoever in Speaker Boehner’s statement.
We have seen no peculiar talent and vibrancy that Boehner has brought to the office of Speaker at all, much less of the type and caliber needed to thwart the Obamanation. Rather he has either rolled over on important matters providing little or no effective defense of principle or gone back on his political promises. His lines in the sand on domestic matters are as dependable as Obama’s are in matters of foreign policy. He is not inspirational as an advocate for conservatism and protector of the Constitution. His organizational talent and aggressiveness seems focused on protecting his turf and the congressional spoils system.
Our view, argued first in our hallowed corporate meetings by our illustrious senior editor DLH, is that every prospective Republican congressional candidate should be quizzed as to whether they will support Boehner continuing as Speaker. Republican rank and file can deliver a fine army, but how effective will it be if a McClellan is chosen to lead it rather than a Grant?
A New Case for Term Limits
Although it should primarily be a responsibility of Party apparat, Speakers should be willing to employ discipline on matters of key Republican concern. But that is not the same as issuing strong-arm threats to insure one’s election. It is is wrong and another reason for term limits. A mature body politic needs to save the institutions from themselves. The Speaker talent pool should not be dependent on longevity when it is simply from being ensconced in a safe district.
The most recent column from George Will, who we temporarily release from the woodshed after his laxity toward Paul Ryan’s welfare economics, relates anotherargument for term limits that we appreciate. When Will deals with classic political science themes and foundational American history he is at his best.
Will in the article titled A New Case for Term Limits decries the self-marginalization of Congress, and gives credence to term limits as an elixir. He favorably presents the analysis of Professor Greg Weiner that term limits will serve to orient members of Congress not to give up power, indeed reclaim it — because they have it for a limited amount of time.
We would emphasize, implied but not specified by Will in the article, that too many Republicans are just as guilty of throwing away Constitutional responsibility of Congressional power to be used as a check against aggrandizement by the other branches. When the gauntlet was thrown by Ted Cruz over Obama administration usurpation of Congressional powers, elements of his own party, the old bulls McConnell, McCain and Boehner undercut him. Cruz was protecting congressional power, the power of the purse, they were more concerned with the political prospects of protecting their sinecures .
Excerpting the article in the Washington Post:
Congress increasingly attracts people uninterested in reversing its institutional anemia. They are undeterred by — perhaps are attracted by — the fact that they will not be responsible for important decisions such as taking the nation into war. As Congress becomes more trivial, its membership becomes less serious. It has an ever-higher portion of people who are eager to make increasingly strenuous exertions to hold offices that are decreasingly consequential. To solve the braided problems of “a proconsular presidency or a quietistic Congress,” Weiner advocates congressional term limits:
Supposedly, “members of Congress who serve longer are more competent, confident and therefore likelier to stand up to the president.” But “something has gone wrong with Federalist 51’s assumption that members of Congress seek office for power and not perquisites. . . . The privileges of permanent service too gravely swell the stakes of staying” and “supply reasons for serving other than exercising power. . . . Members of Congress who serve for brief periods will have . . . every political reason for taking up the power available to them while they can. . . . Members so situated will be likelier to defend their branch as a branch.”
We agree.
R Mall
