Speaker Tom Price?

In Washington, while most are on the sidelines waiting for a very few to negotiate a deal, there are a lot of idle hands. That leaves a lot of time for speculation. Still, today’s hot rumor du jour is not one we haven’t heard all the way down here in Georgia before. And if nothing else, Congressman Tom Price is keeping everyone guessing about his intentions and his future. From National Review’s Robert Costa:

Should a debt deal go sour, the buzz is that Tom Price, a 58-year-old physician from Georgia, may challenge John Boehner for the speaker’s gavel.

“Price is the person we’re all watching,” says an aide close to House leadership. “We know he’s frustrated, but we don’t know much else.”

In an interview with National Review Online, Price won’t speculate about his future, but he acknowledges his growing uneasiness. “My concern is that within our conference, conservatives, who are a majority, don’t have a proper platform,” he says. “That’s true at the leadership table and on the steering committee.”

Read the rest here.


  1. saltycracker says:

    Guess the Republicans we dont have our best leaders in there and it is time to get tough !
    Fortunately after a short term “fix”. the politicians will be there to fix more issues.

    It is called political MSP
    Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

    Meanwhile Obama adds another wack job to his Christmas stocking – Psy Gangham style who wants to kill the American Yankees and their families. Plausible denial on the way from O’s camp.

  2. Ed is Amazing says:

    Another conservative whining about an institution that is supposedly disenfranchising conservatives (this time it is the conservative party, no less!)… :yawnz:

  3. I Miss the 90s says:

    Price doesn’t have the balls to be Speaker.

    Moreover, this idea that conservatives are the majority of the majority should mean even less after this past election. A majority of the American People are not conservatives and they do not want conservative policy coming out of DC. Conservativism not a demographic, it is an political/social movement and conservatives are a minority because their ideas are unpopular or just plain stupid.

      • Ed is Amazing says:

        Which doesn’t matter because
        A) A majority of the votes went to a liberal POTUS and
        II) They are not a majority of the population.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          Well, if you count the number of people who don’t vote as people who don’t really want anything from their government (other than to have nothing to do with it–hence the whole not-voting behavior), I’d say the people who actively expect something from government are quite few. I guess that’s sort of trying to prove a negative. I wish they’d participate in polls so I could know if there’s a pattern there.

          The trick for republicans is how to get those people voting, particularly when the folks they have in charge, like, well, Boehner, don’t offer much alternative to democrats.

          Ultimately the GOP is going to cave and raise taxes without any entitlement reform (or, it’ll be a case of, “we’ll get around to that one of these years, for now let’s just raise taxes.”). This in turn will drive more conservatives to just stay home as there will be no point in voting for republicans (a trend we’re already witnessing), and democrats will continue claim that they have the majority and essentially don’t have to listen to anyone else.

      • xdog says:

        Too many gopers confuse mean-spiritedness, disdain, racism, slander, political nihilism, scientific ignorance, economic confusion and military idolatry with conservatism. If you haven’t noticed, that’s not working.

      • I Miss the 90s says:

        Ed and Xdog both have very good points here.

        I will add that reading a survey result and understanding its meaning are two very different things. While a majority of gallup’s respondents may have said they are conservative does not mean they really are. Most people do not have an ideology. Furthermore, conservativism is not really an ideology. It is a movement (which also means it is temporary).

        • saltycracker says:

          Guess that means liberalism is a bigger movement of some kind 🙂
          Obviously many playing in the doo doo of the movements are not as represented. Evidenced by conservatives that agree to piling on debt or liberals that find all salvation in governments.

          • I Miss the 90s says:

            No. Liberalism is a political philosophy. Progressivism is a movement.

            We do not like big government either, but we understand that it is the only entity that can provide needed public goods. It is also the only entity that can keep people free from the tyranny of the private economy and its actors.

            Conservativism is in crisis because it has no meaning other than its usefulness as a heuristic. Even that is starting to lose meaning though.

            • saltycracker says:

              Didn’t think we’d be going John Locke on PP – Gallup split it up as conservative, moderate, liberal – as bastardized in political terms today….the optimum restrictions and fair taxation to maintain public services, individual freedom and a free market absent tyranny in America is the crisis.

              • I Miss the 90s says:

                All of that is nice, but there is no ‘right’ answer. Ideologues use their systems of values and beliefs to determine what they believe is ‘good’ or what should be. Optimal is an empirical term and the last thing ideologues want to do is face the facts. For example, you might believe taxes are too high. Empirically, however, we know that the optimal rate for upper income earners is higher than what we have now, but lower than under Eisenhower. We know this because revenues for that.bracket increased when Kennedy cut them, but lower when both Reagan and Bush cut them. That is how the word optimal works. Not belief…fact.

                There may or may not be a correct answer to your propositions. As humans we are stilll learning. If we can be certain about anything in politics and economics it is that the stakes are high and belief systems (ideologies) are not the answer. It is one thing to say we should have a free market, but that does not really mean anything. You say ‘the freer the market the freer the people,’ but that is only one type of freedom and only one understanding of the idea. Free market fundamentalism allows slavery…so the old adage about markets and freedom are incomplete or incorrect. It is easy for people, conservatives especially, to forget that most of the ways in which we are not free are the result of private entities/individuals and their agendas.

                Belief is not knowledge…no matter how strongly you believe in something.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Typically when you think that people in government (particularly one as corrupt as ours when it comes to corporate handouts from both sides of the aisle) is practically always a better steward of money than well, yourself—the citizen—folks tend to call that ‘fantasy’, not ‘fact.’

                  But that’s the liberal ideology, right? People are too stupid to spend their money themselves so we gotta take it and filter it through government channels and only then make sure it gets back to them in some form or fashion. Or, as my grandpa used to say, ‘go ’round your arse to get to your elbow.’

                  • I Miss the 90s says:

                    Again, No. That is conservative non-sense used to sell books and keep you watching FoxNews.

                    People are not stupid (well, some are, but that is not the point). The point is that public goods are not offered by the private sector and citizens do not know/understand exactly how their tax dollars are spent. It is public information…but we all have our own jobs and 300million Americans are not all of a sudden going to start sifting through FAADS in their spare time.

                    Private entities do not provide public goods. Why? Private entities are interested in profits…not the well being of the citizenry. The military does not provide a monetary return on our investment every quarter. Neither do police, nor firefighters, nor teachers, nor do researchers at CDC, etc. The ends of our government, like those laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution, probably can not exist as both profitable endeavors and remain just/legitimate. If you do not pay your firefighting bill on time does the fire-station just let your house burn down? What about your military bill? If you do not pay that on time and we are invaded do the troops let your house get shelled? Do hospitals turn emergency visits away because the monthly hospital bill was paid?

                    How many 5cent (pr less) checks do you want to write every month? Like I said before, people are not stupid. There is just alot more that the government does than you realize…and it is not bad. It is all in line with the American notion of limited government and to the ends laid out in our Preamble (mostly).

                    The theme of my posts on this thread has been the common pool resource. Public Goods. The Tragedy of the Commons is a classic example (look it up). How do you solve the dilemna? A government is formed (call it a cartel, call it an association of economic and political interests; they are both forms of government) and rules are established (regulations/laws).

                    As soon as you start privatizing these services you start making them scare and exclusive. That is a fancy way of saying: privatizing government services discriminates against those who can not afford them. The cost per pupil in Fulton county schools is $9538. If you privatize that public good anyone who can not afford that bill can not send their child to school. The public as a whole can…because we are hundreds of thousands of people paying into a system to provide these types of goods.

                    I hate to sound so partisan, but this is what conservatives do not understand. Fox does not invite Nobel Laureates on their shows to explain this. Nor do those right-wing radio hosts. They want you to think that we progressives believe people are stupid and can not wisely spend their own money. It is not a matter of stupidity, it is a matter of ability and justice. No one individual in the US can afford to bank roll our military. We, as a collective, can.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      First of all, I don’t watch Fox news. When they get that pompous a-hole O’Reilly off the air, I might consider it.

                      You talk of the free-market making things scarce and exclusive, but let’s not forget it was FDR who told farmers to plow their crops under. Here we are 70+ years later and farmers are still getting subsidies as a ‘temporary safety net.’ (nothing so permanent as a temporary government program’) We get all sorts of crack-pot ideas from government which usually backfire on the people who pay taxes to implement them. But if a private company blows it, you the consumer, just has to do business with someone else.

                      Second of all, there is no limit to what can be twisted out of the “general welfare” clause of the preamble. 16,000 new IRS agents who were recently hired to make sure everyone goes out and buys insurance from private companies is *not* limited government. General welfare? I can’t think of too many people who will admit quality of life is improved by an IRS agent. In fact, it puts you in an awfully contradictory spot when you decry unbridled capitalism and then democrats come in and force corporatism (facism, if we were being more accurate, which is the merger of corporation and state) on the American people. Do business with big insurance, or else.

                      You equate free-market and slavery.

                      Let me suggest an experiment:

                      Send Wal-mart (just for example) a letter and tell them you’ll never send them another dime and wait to see how long it takes for armed goons in riot gear to bust down your door and demand you do business with Wal-Mart. I imagine you will be waiting for a while. Actually, I imagine that will never happen.

                      Then send the IRS that same letter, tell them you’ll never send them another dime and wait to see how long it takes for armed goons in riot gear to bust down your door and demand for you to pay up. I don’t actually suggest you do that, by the way. This is hypothetical. Just use your imagination and figure out what would happen.

                      The citizens’ relation to government is more akin to slavery, than being able to decide whether or not to do business with Wal-Mart. The free market is only as powerful as people who choose to support it. Government always uses the trump-card of force to bring people back into the fold, whether the people support it or not.

                      In summary, Government = force (George Washington), and Wal-Mart has a customer service kiosk.

  4. Price spokesman Ryan Murphy told Breitbart News he will not challenge Boehner. “Congressman Price is not running for speaker,” Murphy said in an email. “He is focused on real solutions to get America back on track. Those solutions reside in fundamental principles that embrace individual opportunity and economic freedom.”


Comments are closed.