ChrisWeigant.com

Can Ryan Save House Republicans From Themselves?

[ Posted Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 – 14:42 UTC ]

Paul Ryan is now being hailed as the savior of the House Republicans. Whether he lives up to that lofty title should quickly become apparent. Changing leaders doesn't change the dynamics of the problem, so for all the praise Ryan is now getting he's still got an almost-impossible task in front of him. No wonder he didn't want the job in the first place. As the new House Republican savior, his main objective is going to be to save House Republicans from themselves.

The constitutional math will not change appreciably between now and the end of next year. The Senate is still going to have 46 Democrats in it, meaning Republicans are still six votes shy of a filibuster-proof majority. Even if Mitch McConnell did what the extremists are now asking for -- getting rid of the legislative filibuster altogether -- there is still a Democrat in the White House. What this effectively means is that the Republicans in the House of Representatives, led by their Tea Party faction, simply are not able to call the shots. They can pass all the bills they like, but if those bills are downright odious to Senate Democrats and President Obama, they will not become law. None of that has changed, no matter who wields the speaker's gavel in the House.

Some Democrats are even hailing Ryan as some sort of sober-minded person who will be much better than the chaos that would have resulted if he had turned the speakership down. As head budget wonk on the Republican side, he has been party to a few bipartisan deals, after all. But so was John Boehner, and it was a major reason why he was essentially forced into resigning. Ryan gave a pep talk to the House Republicans yesterday, about being proactive with legislation rather than just sheerly obstructionist, and by all reports it was received well. But to one faction the word "compromise" is equal to "surrender" -- which might just undermine all that positive talk about getting some things done.

If Republicans had been smart these past few months, they would have worked as hard as they could on "triangulating" Democrats. All they needed to do was convince seven Democrats to support a bill. One of these seven is the president, but the other six could have been enticed from the 46 Democratic senators. Republicans could have tossed a few bones to the Democrats and still gotten an overwhelming amount of their own agenda passed. They have been almost incapable of doing this because of the intransigence of the House Tea Partiers. John Boehner could have just ignored them and added enough inducements to a bill to get 40 or so Democratic House votes, but the Tea Partiers' constant threats to unseat him as speaker meant it would likely have been the end of his House leadership.

But what, really, can Ryan do differently than Boehner? Boehner actually did allow the Tea Partiers about as much leeway as he could manage -- he even allowed them to shut the government down at one point. This dragged on for weeks, until it became patently obvious that Obama wasn't going to give them 100 percent of what they wanted and zero percent of what Democrats wanted. The key takeaway from the shutdown: the Tea Partiers had no "Plan B." There was no endgame. The reason the shutdown ended was that if it had lasted longer, then Social Security checks would not have gone out on time. Republicans love to sneer "only a few parks closed, the essential business of government went on during the shutdown," but this ignores the furor that would have happened if seniors had not gotten their checks on time.

The Tea Partiers still have no Plan B. They all truly believe that if they just clap real hard, Tinkerbell will live. "If we just fight as hard as possible," they tell themselves, "we can win!" This absolutely ignores the constitutional math which clearly states that they cannot win. But the Tea Partiers measure the effectiveness of their speakers on this impossible scale. Anything short of full capitulation by Obama and the Democrats means that the speaker just didn't fight hard enough. So how is Paul Ryan going to square that circular logic?

We've got two major deadlines staring us in the face. Both are entirely self-imposed, since if Congress was actually functional we never would have gotten close to such deadlines before the problems were addressed. But the details of the crises are almost irrelevant. It's the process that is going to matter, because we'll have more of these crises in the future.

Ryan could indeed save the Republicans from themselves. He could do this in a very simple way. He could point out to the House Republican caucus that their beloved "Hastert Rule" isn't as limiting as it first sounds. This Republican-only rule (it's not an actual House rule, it's merely a Republican tradition for the past few decades) states that no legislation will even make it to the floor of the House for a vote unless a majority of the majority agrees with it. But, Ryan could point out, a majority of the Republicans (the majority party) is only around 125 of them (there are currently over 240 Republicans in the House). This means the Tea Party faction (numbering only perhaps 40 or 50) cannot dictate what bills come up for a vote. As long as Ryan is backed by half of his caucus, the Hastert Rule says he can go forward. Hastert never demanded "completely unanimous," he just wanted "a majority" of Republicans.

In this Utopian vision, a majority of Republicans would start making deals with Democrats, and get key legislation passed in a timely manner. As long as the non-Tea Party Republicans stuck together, they could all ignore the "Freedom Caucus" and actually do their jobs.

If all this sounds pretty farfetched, it's because it is. After all, under Boehner the Tea Partiers were allowed to rant and rave right up to (and sometimes beyond) the actual deadlines, at which point emergency legislation was cobbled together to put on Obama's desk. Under the "Ryan as savior" model, these deals would actually be made before the deadline, cutting short the time available for Tea Party grandstanding. So how are the Tea Partiers going to react to that?

In fact, we should run a ChrisWeigant.com contest. Just answer the question: "How long after Paul Ryan is sworn in as speaker will a Republican in the House be publicly quoted calling him a 'traitor'?" I will open the betting with 100 Quatloos (our imaginary currency of choice, here) on "December 12th, 2015." A day after the upcoming budget deadline, in other words. Sounds about right to me. Entries will be accepted right up until Ryan is sworn in.

John Boehner will very likely move to quickly raise the debt ceiling, so that the vote happens before the vote for the next speaker. This will clear the decks for Ryan somewhat, but he's still going to have to hit the ground running. Within a very short time, we'll be able to see if he can keep the Tea Partiers in line or not. John Boehner got tired of even trying, but his premature exit hasn't changed the dynamics in the House at all. It's hard to imagine the Tea Partiers being happy with the same sorts of compromises Boehner tried to put together, but that's Ryan's only real route to success.

If anything points out the difficulty of Ryan's new challenge, it is the fact that party leaders were all but begging him on their knees to step in and save their party. The Tea Partiers, as usual, had no workable Plan B if Ryan hadn't accepted. Perhaps Ryan can save the Republicans from themselves, in an intervention to end all interventions. Perhaps he can break them of their nasty habit, which might be most accurately called "nihilism" at this point. We'll see, in roughly a month's time, whether Ryan can indeed herd the Tea Party cats or not. What's truly scary is everyone involved has been openly admitting that if Ryan can't do it, nobody can. This means that if Ryan fails, things are only going to get worse. A lot worse, most likely.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

33 Comments on “Can Ryan Save House Republicans From Themselves?”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "In fact, we should run a ChrisWeigant.com contest. Just answer the question: "How long after Paul Ryan is sworn in as speaker will a Republican in the House be publicly quoted calling him a 'traitor'?" I will open the betting with 100 Quatloos (our imaginary currency of choice, here) on "December 12th, 2015." A day after the upcoming budget deadline, in other words. Sounds about right to me. Entries will be accepted right up until Ryan is sworn in."

    and so begins the Prediction Market of Triskelion (LTD). I say it's about time we had a quatloo based electronic prediction market!

    http://www.akrychlick.com/new-gallery-1/wq03f319t2vek7cvzwy8swrq2mqkxu

  2. [2] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    Thoughtful and well-focused as usual (i.e., it left me much to think about now and ~ I anticipate ~ while while watching the drama unfold over the next few weeks.) Most evocative/provocative of all was the sixth paragraph's deftly humorous reference to how "They all truly believe that if they just clap real hard Tinkerbell will live." Laughter really can be medicine, to reapply an old cliche. I feel better now. Thanks.

  3. [3] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW,

    You say the Freedom Caucus' constant threats to unseat him [Boehner] as speaker meant it would likely have been the end of his House leadership.

    Please explain the math here because I can't see how such a small minority group could accomplish this.

    It's well known by now that there are currently 36 members of the Freedom Caucus, the group which has been causing most of the trouble. There are 44 members in the Tea Party Caucus and 35 in the Liberty Caucus. They are the three tea party caucuses in the House.

    Across all three groups, there are 81 members out of 247 House Republicans. Even if the three groups voted together, they still would not comprise a majority of the majority and nowhere near a majority of the full House membership of 435. Therefore I cannot see how the Freedom Caucus or any combination of the three tea party caucuses could possibly unseat any Speaker.

    In fact, we should run a ChrisWeigant.com contest. Just answer the question: "How long after Paul Ryan is sworn in as speaker will a Republican in the House be publicly quoted calling him a 'traitor'?" I will open the betting with 100 Quatloos (our imaginary currency of choice, here) on "December 12th, 2015."

    I'll match your 100 Quatloos and place them on December 11th, 2015.

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Incidentally, it was actually Gingrich who invented the so-called Hastert Rule. However, it was promptly renamed when Gingrich left the House in disgrace. (Ironically, it is now Hastert who is confronting disgrace.) Hastert has always maintained that it was not his invention though he did use it.

  5. [5] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Chris:

    OK, so I don't know the actual date (I'm too lazy to look it up, sorry), but the last day before Congress shuts for Christmas will be when the Republicans compromise and the Freedom (from reality) caucus will call him a traitor.

    Reasoning: they will be caught between two groups in their districts: the first will be concerned about their SS checks, and the other will be pounding them on for any sort of compromise - holding out to the last possible moment, crying 'foul' but capitulating will be the best way to save face before going home.

    BTW: Reminds me of Chris Ladd's (GOPLifer) contest on when Trump will drop out - I'm following both :)

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    But to one faction the word "compromise" is equal to "surrender"

    Yea... It's the Demcorat Party faction... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this Utopian vision, a majority of Republicans would start making deals with Democrats, and get key legislation passed in a timely manner. As long as the non-Tea Party Republicans stuck together, they could all ignore the "Freedom Caucus" and actually do their jobs.

    The problem is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to "make deals" with Democrats because their only "deal making" consists of "Our Way Or The Highway"...

    But the GOOD news is that Ryan is the DEMOCRAT PARTY choice for Speaker..

    If Democrats won't work with Ryan, then their hypocrisy will be on full display...

    As it usually is..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The problem is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to "make deals" with Democrats because their only "deal making" consists of "Our Way Or The Highway"..."

    Once again, you are confusing complete capitulation to Republican demands by Democrats with "compromise." It is the Republicans who are completely intransigent, hence the government shutdowns.

    Mopshell wrote:

    "Please explain the math here because I can't see how such a small minority group could accomplish this."

    It is called "the fear of having a tea party member unseat you in a Republican primary."

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, we should run a ChrisWeigant.com contest. Just answer the question: "How long after Paul Ryan is sworn in as speaker will a Republican in the House be publicly quoted calling him a 'traitor'?" I will open the betting with 100 Quatloos (our imaginary currency of choice, here) on "December 12th, 2015."

    I have a corollary bet...

    "How long after Paul Ryan is sworn in as speaker will a Democrat in the House be publicly quoted calling him a 'terrorist' or a 'hostage taker'.."

    THAT has a bigger chance of happening.

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.Once again, you are confusing complete capitulation to Republican demands by Democrats with "compromise." It is the Republicans who are completely intransigent, hence the government shutdowns.

    Sorry, but I am not going to let you re-write recent history..

    The shutdowns occurred because Democrats would not compromise on anything..

    It was Republican capitulation that prevented and stopped the government shutdowns.

    This is documented as fact...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Obama and the Democrats are doing it again by shutting down the US Military because they can't get their way on Gitmo....

    "These are the facts and they are undisputed"
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michlae

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Basically your complaint is, "Republicans won't do what WE want them to do so it's all their fault!!"

    Funny thing is, Republicans say the EXACT same thing about Democrats...

    "And so it goes... and so it goes...."
    -Billy Joel

    :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Changing leaders doesn't change the dynamics of the problem, so for all the praise Ryan is now getting he's still got an almost-impossible task in front of him."

    This sentence is worth running with, especially the "dynamics" and "near impossible" parts.

    It seems to me that Ryan, although he probably doesn't know this, is caught up in a Nash Equilibrium. If you've watched the movie "Beautiful Mind," you know Nash was a mathematician, but even if you paid close attention to the dialog, you wouldn't learn very much about what a Nash Equilibrium is. If you've ever played the game rock:paper:scissors you have an intuitive feel for one type of Nash Equilibrium.

    Basically, a Nash Equilibrium is a non-cooperative game in which all players know the strategic options open to all the other players, and no player can benefit from deviating from their current strategy, which may be pure or a random selection from a set of strategies. Any player in the game is worse off if they change their strategies....even though there may be another mix of strategies that would benefit many, or possibly even all players. That doesn't matter - you can't get there from here, unless individual players cooperate by creating "contracts" to basically jump together. Ah, but making a contract is in fact a strategy, which may hurt any player who has an option to make a contract. Think Tea Party, or Big Money Donors, or any form of ideological purity.

    Back to "So for all the praise Ryan is now getting he's still got an almost-impossible task in front of him." The only way out is chance the "governing dynamics." Something like a war perhaps, or an economic collapse, or just decades long term political drift as countries, ours included slowly evolve in mysterious ways.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    It's rather ironic... Your advice on how Ryan can deal with the Tea Party ALSO applies to how Ryan can deal with the Democrat Party..

    Both factions are equally intransigent and both factions want to push their agenda so much that they ignore ANY possibility of compromise...

    Funny, eh? :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both factions are equally intransigent and both factions want to push their agenda so much that they ignore ANY possibility of compromise...

    For example... Obama and the Democrats would rather shut down this country's military and leave us completely defenseless because they want to push their Gitmo agenda...

    I fail to see any difference in the Demcorat Party's actions and what ya'all accuse the Tea Party of....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    Yet again in OTHER political news :-D Lincoln Chafee just became the second Democrat to drop out of the race for President.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-14

    I have no advice to Ryan except: don't take the job - even if they promise to let you spend time with your wife and kids. The governing dynamics that applied to Boehner will apply to Ryan.

    In the words of Lilly Tomlin: "Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse." Also from Tomlin "We're all in this alone."

  18. [18] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "For example... Obama and the Democrats would rather shut down this country's military and leave us completely defenseless because they want to push their Gitmo agenda.."

    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." - Paul Muad'Dib, DUNE.

    1.) In any case, we will not be defenseless by any means. We face NO military threat in THIS hemisphere. We spend more on defense than the next 13 nations in the world COMBINED. This includes; Russia, China, Britain, France, and Japan.

    2.) Closing Guatanamo was one of Obama's first major campaign promises from his first run for the White House. Something that the Democratic base has been very disappointed about that he has not yet been able to accomplish. You can hardly expect him to give up on it, can you. especially since he was elected on it twice?

    3.) Guantanamo is not the only or major reason the Defense bill was vetoed. It was vetoed primarily because of the way it uses money meant for war spending to avoid automatic budget cuts to military programs, thus violating the sequestration that Republicans originally agreed to, while still leaving domestic programs subject to the cuts. It carves out a "special" exemption for defense only.

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JM - few noticed Chafee was running or that he was a Democrat.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    1.) In any case, we will not be defenseless by any means. We face NO military threat in THIS hemisphere. We spend more on defense than the next 13 nations in the world COMBINED. This includes; Russia, China, Britain, France, and Japan.

    What does the hemisphere matter??

    That's like saying "We face NO military threat from ZOMBIE CLOWNS, so it's OK if we shut down our military.."

    I am also constrained to point out that shutting down the military means our soldiers won't get paid..

    Now, YA'ALL seem to think it's a big deal when seniors et al won't get their SS checks...

    But ya'all have NO PROBLEM with forcing a military shutdown and our service men and women won't get paid..

    It's blatant hypocrisy, John... Blatant hypocrisy to further a partisan agenda...

    That's all it is...

    2.) Closing Guatanamo was one of Obama's first major campaign promises from his first run for the White House. Something that the Democratic base has been very disappointed about that he has not yet been able to accomplish. You can hardly expect him to give up on it, can you. especially since he was elected on it twice?

    Yea, and Republicans believed a lot of what THEY believed when the government shutdown happens..

    So what??

    If a Party really REALLY wants something, it's OK to use ANY means to get it??

    " Let's say that somebody has something that I want more than they do, and I take it. Would I—"
    "You would be arrested for that."
    "But what if I really want it? "
    "It's illegal. You'd still be arrested."
    "No, sir, you don't understand, I really do want it more than they do—"

    GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    :D

    It's just like with politicizing tragedies, JM..

    It's OK if Democrats do it but it's the epitome of evil and terrorism when Republicans do it...

    :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put it succinctly, ya'all believe it's PERFECTLY acceptable and even DESIRABLE for Democrats to use threats of shutdowns to push their partisan agenda...

    But.....

    Ya'all ALSO believe that it is the epitome of evil and terrorism when REPUBLICANS use the threats of shutdowns to push THEIR partisan agenda..

    Explain to me how that is NOT blatant hypocrisy...

    If one were to apply YOUR standards to YOUR Democrats, then it's DEMOCRATS who are the "terrorists"...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet again in OTHER political news :-D Lincoln Chafee just became the second Democrat to drop out of the race for President.

    Looks like Bush is also on his way out.. :D

    President Trump anyone?? :D heh

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Trump....

    Trump has instructed his Super PACs to return ALL money to donors....

    He has also challenged Hillary to do the same...

    Now, I *KNOW* how ya'all are against big money in elections...

    So I *KNOW* ya'all support Trump in this.. Right??

    Yea... That's what I thought...

    Trump walks the walk...

    With ya'all.. It's all talk....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-23

    That's another nice sound bite from our Trump a Doodle Dandy, but how can he order an independent, uncoordinated Super Pac to return anything? Anymore than Clinton can. What walk? All talk, on that we can agree.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's another nice sound bite from our Trump a Doodle Dandy, but how can he order an independent, uncoordinated Super Pac to return anything? Anymore than Clinton can. What walk? All talk, on that we can agree.

    He can order the Super PACs to cease using his likeness and quotes and such..

    And he has done so..

    He can "request" his Super PACs cease taking money and return money already donated..

    And he has done so...

    Do you think ANY Super PAC would be ABLE to collect any donations under such circumstances???

    What doesn't Hillary match Trump's actions??

    Why don't ya'all clamor for Hillary to match Trump's actions??

    Because ya'all aren't REALLY against big money, dark money in campaigns..

    Ya'all are just against REPUBLICAN big money and REPUBLICAN dark money...

    Ya'all don't have a problem with big money, dark money for Democrats...

    The facts are clear...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am simply asking ya'all to walk the walk and not just talk the talk...

    Is that wrong??

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, let's face reality..

    If Trump was running for POTUS with a '-D' after his name, ya'all would be all over him like white on rice!

    Ya'all know it's true...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hardly.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hardly.

    I disagree...

    Point 1... Trump's Tax Plan is EXACTLY what Democrats have been clamoring for..

    Point 2... Trump's eschewing of Super PAC and lobbyist money is ALSO exactly what Democrats have been clamoring for..

    If Democrats can overlook Hillary's BLATANT and ONGOING lies and such....

    There is absolutely NO REASON for Democrats NOT to overlook Trump's faults..

    Put another way...

    Trump has a LOT more going for him as a Democrat than Hillary does...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [1] -

    OK, now THAT was funny!

    Heh.

    I still think the best spoof of this Star Trek episode was the South Park version... I can dig up the link if you're interested... "those points of light are suns..."

    Heh.

    Hawk Owl [2] -

    You know, I vacillated between "Tinkerbell" and "Tinker Bell" and although the Disney-approved version seems to be the latter, I went with the former, which was already in my spell-checker....

    But thanks for the kind words!

    Mopshell [3] -

    Those are the first hard numbers I have seen for any of these factions, I have to admit. You also don't allow for what I assume is a significant overlap between these groups.

    12/11/15? Yer on... heh....

    Mopshell [4] -

    Yeah, they got rid of an adulterer as SOTH (Gingrich) to attempt to replace him with another adulterer (Livingston) before agreeing on a pedophile (Hastert). Thank all that's holy that Larry Flynt was keeping them all honest (although his missed the Hastert-diddling-young-wrestlers thing, admittedly...).

    neilmcgovern [5] -

    Yeah, the whole SS checks thing is something the hard-right refuses to admit exists, but it is the true deadline....

    Michale [7] -

    So you're a Ryan supporter? Sure that's not going to backfire on you later?

    Heh.

    Michale [9] -

    1000 Quatloos on that. I'll take that action...

    A GOPer will call him a traitor LONG before a Dem will...

    Michale [10] -

    The shutdowns occurred because Democrats would not compromise on anything..

    It was Republican capitulation that prevented and stopped the government shutdowns.

    BWAH HAH HAH! Thanks for the laugh, pal. Too bad the entirety of America disagrees with you, isn't it?

    John M [18] -

    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
    -Bene Gesserit teachings

    Michale [21] -

    Don't look now, but John Boehner's about to cut a deal with Obama. Should put the budget past the 2016 election. So who caved? We could have had a whole bunch of shutdowns instead....

    [22] -

    Yeah, things don't look especially good for Jeb! right now, do they?

    [23] -

    Bernie Sanders is the only Dem to refuse all PAC money. So what's your reaction to that? I have to applaud Trump, personally, just to let you know the issue appeals across the aisle....

    -CW

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you're a Ryan supporter? Sure that's not going to backfire on you later?

    Heh.

    I am as much a "ryan" supporter as I am an "obama" supporter...

    "If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter!"
    -Eve Arden, GREASE

    :D

    BWAH HAH HAH! Thanks for the laugh, pal. Too bad the entirety of America disagrees with you, isn't it?

    The entirety of America DOESN'T disagree with me..

    The entirety of the Left Wingery disagrees with me.

    Which proves my point.. :D

    Don't look now, but John Boehner's about to cut a deal with Obama. Should put the budget past the 2016 election. So who caved? We could have had a whole bunch of shutdowns instead....

    As usual, Republicans caved because Democrats won't compromise..

    Which is EXACTLY what I said would happen..

    Yeah, things don't look especially good for Jeb! right now, do they?

    Pretty much what I expected.. Jeb is not George..

    Bernie Sanders is the only Dem to refuse all PAC money. So what's your reaction to that?

    Actually, that is not entirely accurate..

    Sanders and Trump are the only two candidates who don't have AFFILIATED Super PACs..

    But each of them DO have UNAFFILIATED Super PACs...

    Trump just cut his unaffiliated Super PACs loose...

    When Sanders follows suit, I'll concede the point..

    I have to applaud Trump, personally, just to let you know the issue appeals across the aisle....

    Sanders pays lip service to the issue... He hasn't walked the walk yet...

    But do you see my point??

    If Trump was running as a Democrat ya'all would be all over him, MUCH more than you are over Hillary..

    It's the power of the almighty -X...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW

    Thank you for your response.

    And yes, the figure of 81 members in all three factions does take significant overlap into account: there are 7 members in all three caucuses and 20 who are members in two of the three. :)

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-30

    Barney as Harry Mudd and Patty and Selma as Stella equals brilliant casting! Send link, I am lazy.

Comments for this article are closed.