Analysis: House Freedom Caucus racks up a defeat

"Sand in the Gears: The caucus that says no" is a great analysis of the cost of the House  Freedom Caucus's stubbornness in killing the Republican's replacement of Obamacare.

Before Republicans captured Washington, the unyielding conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus were a nuisance. Now, with the GOP in control of the House, Senate, and White House, they’re a roadblock to success.

There's a simple reason for this: They insist on what cannot be achieved. Anything short of that, such as the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, triggers fierce opposition by the group's thirty or so members. And if they stick together, they can prevent Republican legislation from passing, as they did at least initially in the case of killing Obamacare.

Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • The Weekly Standard could be correct on this, and that the Freedom Caucus will take the Republican Party to total legislative gridlock. But, of course, Trump's theory, as he announced after the bill was withdrawn, is that it is all the fault of the minority Democrats.

  • Trump's a jerk.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Which gets back to your "compromise" point about a week ago, and also your comment that the point applied to both parties. Ryan figured that he could get something through, no matter how ineffective it was, by negotiating between the Republican moderates and the Freedom Caucus. Of course, the Freedom Caucus doesn't negotiate, and the moderates weren't going to vote for something that their governors said would bankrupt their states, while the CBO said 24 million would not be able to afford insurance.

    jnorto brings up that Trump and Pence are essentially the Cullerton of the federal government--i.e. the cry that "if the other party put a few votes on the bill," when, in this case, no effort was made to bargain with the other side of the aisle, which is now chortling that the majority fell on its face.So now they go to their backup plan that once it implodes, the Dems will be begging them for a solution. Not too likely, either. But is the jerk going to call in Pelosi and Durbin and try to negotiate a deal? Also, not very likely.

    The real problems goes back to the Boehner (or maybe Hastert) "rule" that the Rep. caucus will not report a bill unless it has majority support in the caucus, notwithstanding that a deal could have been made with a majority of the House of Representatives as a whole. So long as that's the case, the Rep. caucus is hostage to the Tea Party caucus. That appears to be the point The Weekly Standard is trying to make.

  • In reply to jack:

    It was and is referred to as the "Hastert Rule" and is hyper partisan by demanding a "majority of the majority."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Boehner, though, became better known for wearing the shirt on that "rule."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Although this source distinguishes it by stating that the Boehner rule has the out that if the Senate passes it first, o.k. Obviously doesn't work for a revenue bill.

  • Agreed.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: