The House Freedom Caucus is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative Republican members of the United States House of Representatives that can be considered the representatives that are most closely in line with the Tea Party movement. The "Establishment" is a term used for Republicans that may or may not be conservative, but place protecting the political party above ethics or doing the right thing with the excuse that doing the right thing is not possible if the party crumbles due to "extreme conservatism." The establishment believes the Tea Party folks are destroying the party, and the Freedom Caucus believes it is saving the GOP (or at least they'd be able to if the establishment would quit being so resistant). So, while the establishment seeks a more moderate Speaker of the House to replace departing and embattled Boehner, the HFC is seeking a more conservative individual like Daniel Webster of Florida.
Strategy and positioning is the game, and sometimes you must lose a little to gain a little, or at least that is how the game used to be played. Those who believe that kind of chess game in politics still exists are delusional. The time for dancing around and trying to be careful went out the door during the last century. The liberal left has increased their war. We are in the Obama era now. The Democrat socialists have thrown all caution to the wind, and the Republican Party has been infiltrated by statists in massive numbers. Interestingly, some of the infiltrators don't realize they are infiltrating. They actually believe they are doing the country some good, and the party some good. They are willing to set aside principles to gain a few votes that the Republican Party would never have chased in the past. They believe they are doing what is best for the party, and therefore it must be good for America. However, the continuous compromises and willingness to lose a little ground with the hope of later gaining some ground that will never be relinquished by the statists is a fairy tale. The line in the sand must be drawn. The right thing to do is not to continue to give up ground. Some may think that chasing after a conservative Speaker is folly. Perhaps it is. But isn't refusing to compromise one's values worth fighting for?
While those that support playing the game as it has always been played believe themselves to be pragmatic, and while the Tea Party believes it is being ethical, I say let's mix it up a little. Let's, as they say, think outside the box.
In Article I of the United States Constitution, Congress is granted the authority to make up its own internal rules. The article also states that it is up to the House to choose its own Speaker. But, if you dissect the House of Representatives' rules, you will notice that the Speaker does not have to be a member of Congress. So, why not pick someone that both sides can stomach, yet sees things from a different perspective because they've been on the outside for a while?
On March 15, 2014, Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs (now on KMET 1490-AM) was on KCAA and welcomed Senator Jim DeMint as the program's guest. Senator DeMint was pushing his latest book, Falling in Love with America Again, and came on the program to promote the book. As a constitutionalist, I could not resist asking him some difficult questions about the Constitution, and to my surprise, he nailed it each time with his answers. He's respected for his work as a Senator, and he's a respected conservative that currently serves as President of the Heritage Foundation. What better choice for Speaker of the House could there be than Senator Jim DeMint? With DeMint in place, the conservatives and Tea Party Republicans would be satisfied, and the GOP establishment would be satisfied (or at least they may perceive it in that way) that the HFC isn't trying to sabotage the party.
Then, perhaps, for just a moment, the two could stop slamming each other, and turn to the real enemy: The socialists of the Democrat Party.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary