Here We Go: The Freedom Caucus’ Decision on Paul Ryan

Lo and behold, here’s that potential compromise scenario I imagined. [Paul] Ryan didn’t get the 80 percent of the Freedom Caucus needed for a formal endorsement, but he did get a heavy majority of them. Is that good enough to get him to run? And is it good enough for grassroots conservatives that the group won’t be endorsing him — even though most of its individual members will? . . .

Raul Labrador says they did not get 80 percent to endorse, but a supermajority backs Ryan. Good enough for Ryan?

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) October 21, 2015

support, but not endorse. https://t.co/qpf2HtPage

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 21, 2015

The caucus releases a statement as close to an endorsement as a non-endorsement can be:

“A supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus has voted to support Paul Ryan’s bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Paul is a policy entrepreneur who has developed conservative reforms dealing with a wide variety of subjects, and he has promised to be an ideas-focused Speaker who will advance limited government principles and devolve power to the membership. While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding Chairman Ryan’s preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our Conference in due time. We all know that Washington needs to change the way it does business, and we look forward to working with Paul and all our colleagues to enact process reforms that empower individual representatives and restore respect to our institution.”

I take it this is their way of calling Ryan’s bluff, as best they can, that he won’t serve without a formal endorsement. Is he really going to turn down the Speakership because the FC would “only” provide him with a supermajority? (Read more from “Here We Go: The Freedom Caucus’ Decision on Paul Ryan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.