Paul Ryan: House Speaker or Party Puppet?

Paul-ryan2Yet another high-ranking politician has sold his integrity.  Or was it, perhaps, only an illusion of integrity to begin with?  Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House of Representatives, officially endorsed Donald Trump last week.  This came as no real surprise, but it must be a disappointment to those who still believed Ryan had enough integrity to stand up for his beliefs, to stand against the racist rhetoric that has become the cornerstone of the Trump campaign.  Ryan is in good company, following the examples set by Chris Christie, Ben Carson and many others who once swore “Never Trump!”

The question burning in my mind is “why?”  What has been promised … or threatened?  In the case of Ryan, most of the pundits speculate that he was given a promise of support for his political agenda in exchange for his endorsement.  There are, however, a few things wrong with this scenario.  First, Ryan is not a stupid man, and he surely understands that a promise made by Trump is as empty as a dry well.  Trump conveniently says one thing today, then tomorrow, with no compunction, denies he ever said it, even when the evidence is placed in front of him.  In the past, Trump has spoken against almost everything on Ryan’s agenda, so there is no reason to assume that he would support it a year from now.  Second, in endorsing Trump, Ryan has undoubtedly further alienated democrats, and likely some republicans in both the Senate and the House, almost ensuring that his agenda will never reach the desk of the president.  Ryan’s effectiveness in the House is nothing to write home about.  During his 13 years in the House, Ryan was the primary sponsor of more than 70 bills or amendments, of which only two were enacted into law.  One, passed in July 2000, renamed a post office in Ryan’s district; the other, passed in December 2008, lowered the excise tax on arrow shafts.  Pretty important legislation, right?

I think there must have been more either promised or threatened than mere support for an agenda.  Trump’s usual way of ‘handling’ his naysayers is to threaten, and I think that was likely the case with Ryan.   In March, Trump said of Ryan: “I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him. And if I don’t, he’s going to have to pay a big price.”  To me, this sounds like a threat.  It reeks of the ‘bull-in-a-china-shop’ rhetoric that we have come to expect of Trump, but it certainly does not sound like the words of a man who is prepared to work toward building a relationship of mutual trust.

The GOP has been scrambling for months in an attempt to ‘unify the party’.  Trump has been a particularly divisive candidate, doing far more to divide than to conquer, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.  I suspect the GOP leaders, Reince Priebus and company, are using every means possible, promises and threats included, to coerce party members to come out in support of Trump in order to ‘unify’ the party, not only for the presidency, but perhaps more importantly for the senate and house seats that will be on the ballot in November.  I strongly suspect that it is a matter of ‘too little, too late’ for either the presidency or the down ballot.

Those who have switched gears, such as Ryan, and endorsed Trump despite their better judgement, have done so half-heartedly, and it shows.  Look at Governor Christie’s face a day or two after his endorsement, and look at Paul Ryan’s face as he announces that he will endorse Trump.  They look physically ill, a result, no doubt, of having sacrificed whatever integrity and dignity they had, whatever honour they spent their lifetimes building.

To his credit, Paul Ryan made a brief speech this morning, condemning rather than condoning Trump’s bombastic attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who will preside in the case against Trump University.  “I disavow those comments. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”  He said he has discussed the tone of the campaign with Trump, but he refused to answer most other questions by the press.  When asked if he now regrets his endorsement of Trump, his reply was “I regret those comments he made.”  Perhaps he still retains a shred of human decency after all, but eventually, I think we can count on Trump to erase even that.

Just as I was putting the final touches on this post, a banner floated across my screen with the following:  “Breaking News!  Sen. Mark Kirk, one of the most endangered Republican senators up for reelection this fall, said Tuesday he will not back Donald Trump for president.”  Finally, there may be hope that not all republicans will fall in with the party line!  But I shall withhold making that assumption until later … we shall see …

15 thoughts on “Paul Ryan: House Speaker or Party Puppet?

  1. Sunday, as I watched Meet the Press, I had a revelation about the Republican Party based on an interview Chuck Todd did with Mitch McConnell. Todd played the recent racist Trump clips for him and asked McConnell if he thought, as a member of the Party of Lincoln, Trump is a racist. McConnell wouldn’t answer the question directly (surprise) but said that he didn’t agree with Trump’s statements. He went on further to say that his main goal was to see a Republican in the White House. This speaks volumes. It appears that the Republicans have decided to back the Republican nominee no matter what garbage he spews or how unqualified he might be. They must believe they can control his actions once he’s in office. This is a sad statement in which we are hearing that the person doesn’t matter as long as they’re in the right party.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Y’know … I really think the party symbols need to be changed. The symbol of the Republican Party really ought to be the jackass, don’t you think? That said, you are quite right. I think I was about 5 years old when I first heard my father say “always vote for the man, not the party”. I still do, and have actually voted republican twice in my life. I’m not sure if this is a trend among the general populace, or merely among the politicos. Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m giving Gary Johnson a good look. Even if he plays the spoiler role, I can say I didn’t vote for a candidate I didn’t respect. I’m still undecided about who to vote for, but I’m very locked in on not voting for Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I looked at Johnson a few days ago, at the request of a friend who, like yourself, isn’t keen on either Trump or Clinton, and I didn’t find a lot to either hate or love. My big concern, however, is that at this point I’m not sure which candidate he would pull votes away from. One pundit suggests probably both. If it were clear that he would pull votes mainly from Trump, I might support him, but I think it’s just too soon to predict. Maybe in a month or two. Let me know what you think once you have looked into his ideology … I respect your opinions, as you’re level-headed.

          Liked by 1 person

          • That’s my predicament as well. He was the Republican governor of New Mexico. He is for small government, reduced military presence in other countries and he’s a known partaker in the magic herb (weed). I only saw him briefly on Meet the Press. I’ve followed his Facebook page and there’s not a lot coming out of it. You’re right, he seems to be apt to pull votes from both sides, although, if Hillary and Bernie kiss and make up, most Democrats will probably vote that way. Is it me or is the smart thing to do to make Bernie her running mate. He can handle domestic policy and she can handle foreign. Maybe I’m naive.

            Liked by 1 person

            • No, it isn’t just you … I think a Clinton/Sanders ticket would be a shoo-in and leave Trump at the starting gate. BUT … don’t look for it to happen. I don’t think Bernie would be willing to play ‘2nd banana’, and I don’t think he is even on Clinton’s short list. Maybe 6 months ago, but I seriously doubt now. Which is really too bad. I’m laying odds, as of today at least, that it will be Julian Castro. I may change that prediction tomorrow, of course. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

                • I actually like Elizabeth Warren for the position, BUT … and don’t get me wrong … I am not a misogynist by any means … but I think a ticket with two women would not fare well and would sway some of the ‘undecided’ voters toward Trump. Otherwise, I’m with you … I think she would definitely give Trump a run for his money!

                  Liked by 1 person

  2. Oh, I think most Republican office holders will fall in line, just as most Bernie supporters will back HRC despite disliking her. However, the racist remarks about Judge Curiel will be Trump’s “47%” moment, the point at which he lost the election in the eyes of the general public.

    Liked by 1 person

    • As of now, I agree with you. But with 5 months left … he could conceivably make an even bigger faux pax and blow the entire election out of the water. It should be an interesting 5 months! Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Liked by 1 person

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s