hoot.smawley
4 hours ago edited
Name one Freedom Caucus leader who has actually built a coalition of GOP votes capable of winning that position. Just one. I’ll wait.

I actually support the goals of the Freedom Caucus and share concerns about Stefanik (and loathed Cheney), but here’s a harsh truth…not one of the members of that caucus has built any kind of base of support that could elevate them to leadership. Not one. They preen for the cameras, they complain to the friendly press, and they do little to nothing to actually lead when it comes to doing the work in Congress, so nobody votes to make them leaders. They’re grandstanders who alienate people, and so the only people with sufficient support to get promoted to leadership are the squishes.

We spend a lot of time trashing Dems, RINOs, and weak-kneed conservatives (deservedly so)…but we also need to ask why the people saying things we want to hear to friendly journalists (cough Gaetz) can’t seem to impress their colleagues enough to get a leadership position. Because that’s actually on the person pursuing the leadership job when they fail to perform. We can’t clear the entire path for them…they actually have to do more than produce a bunch of pithy soundbites in order to get promoted. And until they d0 that, Stefanik is an improvement over Cheney, so she’ll do for now. //

hoot.smawley writeofcenter
2 hours ago edited
There was an observation from Elizabeth Warren (when she first got into office) that at some point politicians have to make a choice between being insiders or outsiders. If you’re an insider, you get to lead and make changes and have authority, but the one rule is that you can never criticize other insiders. If you’re an outsider, you can say and do anything you want, but nobody with the ability to change anything will care what you think and you probably won’t accomplish much. And if you’re not sure which you are, you’re an outsider.

I happen to think there’s a middle ground between those positions…you can have sway and criticize insiders, but only if you’ve actually accomplished something impressive first and demonstrated your value. Usually that means you kept your mouth shut, focused on building smart legislation, did a solid job in your committees, and built up a raft of allies. Then you can start taking the big guys down a few pegs…you put in the work, you earn the respect from enough people that you matter. That way, you shift what qualifies as “inside” and you build your army before going to war.

Problem is that too many of these guys in the Freedom Caucus (especially Gaetz) just came to D.C. to play the R vs. D game and get their faces on camera so they can maybe land a gig on Fox like Chaffetz or Gowdy (two guys who ran their mouths a lot while accomplishing very little that mattered) did. You’re not going to build a winning movement by building around the mouthy malcontents who mainly produce hot air,

I suspect that middle way is going to look an awful lot like Ron DeSantis…who takes a lot of shots at the press and prominent Dems, but doesn’t take shots at his own party even when he disagrees. He stays in his lane and doesn’t alienate potential allies while dismembering adversaries.