House GOP leaders and their allies retreated on Thursday, backing off efforts to punish conservative rebels who had bucked leadership on a trade vote.
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he was reinstating Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) as a subcommittee chairman, just a week after he stripped him of his gavel for voting against leadership and failing to pay party dues.
And hours earlier, House GOP freshmen balked at a plot to sack their class president, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), for defying leaders amid complaints he’s been ineffective at his job. All the backpedaling was an embarrassment for GOP leaders, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who just a day earlier had publicly endorsed Chaffetz’s decision to strip Meadows’s gavel. Both Meadows and Buck are members of the House Freedom Caucus, whose co-founders cheered Thursday’s developments.
“I think what it really means is that maybe our message is finally getting through some very thick skulls,” said one Freedom Caucus co-founder. “When you have a crisis in a family, you don’t exile people, kick people out. You have to communicate better as a family.”
Throughout the week, Freedom co-founders griped to Chaffetz and GOP leaders about Meadows’s removal as chairman. The message was clear: “This is not helpful.”
But it was a GOP conference rule that ultimately helped Meadows win his job back.
In order for Chaffetz to appoint a new chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, he needed support from a majority of his committee members.
The full panel, however, is stacked with many Freedom Caucus members and their sympathizers, including the group’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio); co-founders Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.); Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa); Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who already experienced some of leadership’s retribution; and Buck, who was targeted by Boehner allies on Thursday.
Those members pressed Chaffetz to reinstate Meadows, threatening to block his efforts to appoint a replacement to lead the subcommittee, GOP sources said.
Chaffetz, also facing an enormous backlash from prominent conservatives like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, waved the white flag on Thursday.
“Ultimately, I believe we both want to do what is best for the country,” Chaffetz said in a statement. “Obviously I believe in Mark Meadows or I would not have appointed him to this position in the first place. It is in the best interest of the Committee to move forward together.”
It was a remarkable reversal. Just day earlier, lawmakers and aides close to GOP leadership had estimated that 200-plus House Republicans agreed with the decisions to mete out punishment to conservatives who voted against leadership on rules votes. And several Boehner allies were urging him to be more aggressive in putting down conservative rebellions in the conference.
But Thursday’s action suggested those estimates may be grossly inflated.
“There are people who are not members of the Freedom Caucus who are standing with us and they understand why we're frustrated, and what they want is principled leadership in Washington, and what Speaker Boehner exhibited this week was not principled leadership,” said a second Freedom Caucus leader.
“He’s only listening to a small group of people who are very vocal around him, who don’t reflect the values of the constituents of the Republican Party.”
It's unclear what Thursday's decision will mean for future political retribution. Speaking to reporters, Boehner only focused on downplaying the divisions within the party..............................."
"The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell is disappointing. But it also provides a welcome moment of clarity: We can finally dispense with the false belief that the Supreme Court will save us from Obamacare. It is perhaps a blessing for the cause of repeal that all eyes will now turn to the presidential candidates and to Congress, whose job it is to repeal Obamacare in full in early 2017. Accountability is no longer divided. The political branches must act.
It is important to note that the Court’s decision had no relationship to the question of Obamacare’s merits. The case was limited to the question of whether the Obama administration is executing the law as written. The Court says it is. The Court also says, “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people.” Indeed, it does. And what was true the day after Obamacare’s passage is equally true today: the law must be repealed.
The reasons are clear: Obamacare consolidates and centralizes money and power to an unprecedented degree. At its core is an (unfixable) individual mandate that requires, for the first time in all of United States history, that private American citizens must buy a product or service of the federal government’s choosing. Its 2,400 pages shift the power over America’s health-care decisions from patients and doctors to bureaucrats and politicians. Instead of offering real reform, it raises health costs, diminishes quality, increases federal spending, raids Medicare, balloons the size of government, and undermines Americans’ liberty.
It was passed as “comprehensive” legislation. It cannot be fixed. It must be repealed — comprehensively.
The citizenry has opposed Obamacare from the start, and yet President Obama and his congressional allies believed the American people would eventually — dutifully — acquiesce. They have not. According to Real Clear Politics, 189 polls have been taken on Obamacare during Obama’s second term. One has found it to be popular; 188 have found it to be unpopular. In the one that found it popular (with 47 percent support), more than three times as many people (31 percent) said it “needs to be repealed in its entirety” as said it “is working well” (9 percent).................."
A list of those urging Boner to nuke liberty would be helpful going forward, but rounding up the usual suspects could be sufficient. Cantoring some in 2016 would be useful.