NRO: In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of ‘Civil War’ ( among Republicans)..

[JMS]

In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of ‘Civil War’

House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.

In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war” in the ranks.

Cantor’s comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Online that such strong language is inappropriate. In recent days, some conservatives have been upset about the Senate’s version of VAWA, saying that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Cantor’s warning may have had an effect. When the bill came to the floor on Wednesday, only nine Republicans voted against the rule to take up the bill.

Tensions between backbenchers and the leadership, however, are evident. Behind the scenes, House Republicans raised concerns about VAWA throughout the day. Eventually, though, the rule passed, 414–9, and the House plans a final vote on the Senate’s version of VAWA on Thursday.

The nine who voted against the rule include Georgia Senate candidate Paul Broun and potential Iowa Senate candidate Steve King.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341825/closed-door-meeting-cantor-warned-civil-war-katrina-trinko

[twa]

Sweet Freedom....get some

[GibbsFactor]

They need more than a civil war. The way they are acting, they need to be without a seat on the hill for about 4 years.

[Larry]

So, supposedly there's a civil war coming, because some Republicans wanted to prevent having a vote, on a bill that passed, 414-9?

[Bang]

Inevitable, i suppose.

Reminds me of a zen proverb. Paraphrased: "The oak stands rigid and mighty, while the reed is small in his shadow. When the storm comes, the oak's rigidity causes it to topple, while the reed simply bends and stands back up."

You can't be so rigid,, it is against the grain of our ideal. There must be room for compromise. Seems Cantor is perhaps figuring this out.

~Bang

[LadySkinsFan]

So, supposedly there's a civil war coming, because some Republicans wanted to prevent having a vote, on a bill that passed, 414-9?

The passed a rule that the bill would be brought to the floor for real vote.

In the Republican-controlled House, they have to pass a rule to allow a vote on a bill.

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 11:55 AM ----------

Inevitable, i suppose.

Reminds me of a zen proverb. Paraphrased: "The oak stands rigid and mighty, while the reed is small in his shadow. When the storm comes, the oak's rigidity causes it to topple, while the reed simply bends and stands back up."

You can't be so rigid,, it is against the grain of our ideal. There must be room for compromise. Seems Cantor is perhaps figuring this out.

~Bang

What's funny is that a small group of Tea Partiers are messing with the Republican agenda and shutting it down, causing the electorate to put the blame on everything Congress on the Republicans, because the TPers run under the Republican banner. That was smart of the TPers to glom onto the Republican brand instead of having a really minority party themselves.

[greenspandan]

seems like a major flaw in the system if such a relatively tiny minority can prevent stuff from getting done. i understand the need for a fillibuster, but it seems like the tea party is just flat out abusing the system in order to be obstructionists of absolutely everything.

[twa]

Perhaps some Dem officials can grow a spine next

[GibbsFactor]

Wall Street Journal ‏@WSJ

Breaking: Congress passes a far-reaching extension of the Violence Against Women Act. http://wsj.com

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 12:14 PM ----------

seems like a major flaw in the system if such a relatively tiny minority can prevent stuff from getting done. i understand the need for a fillibuster, but it seems like the tea party is just flat out abusing the system in order to be obstructionists of absolutely everything.

The original goal of the tea party was to cut the pork. There's a lot of hogs in there.

[Bang]

Perhaps some Dem officials can grow a spine next

Looks like the sequester may be showing a little of it. at least from O anyway.

We'll see tomorrow. There's a meeting scheduled with Boehner and McConnell.

~Bang

[Predicto]

The original goal of the tea party was to cut the pork. There's a lot of hogs in there.

That original version of the tea party lasted about 15 minutes. Once Obama was elected, it was taken over by social conservatives, and became primarily simple angry right wing populism, Glenn Beck style.

[Mad Mike]

So, supposedly there's a civil war coming, because some Republicans wanted to prevent having a vote, on a bill that passed, 414-9?

A civil war *within* the republican party.

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 07:33 PM ----------

That original version of the tea party lasted about 15 minutes. Once Obama was elected, it was taken over by social conservatives, and became primarily simple angry right wing populism, Glenn Beck style.

IMO that version never really existed. At least not in the altruistic version that was sold. It is the swill that was fed to the tea party from the source of its money through bought and paid for "think tanks". Think profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

[mjah]

That was smart of the TPers to glom onto the Republican brand instead of having a really minority party themselves.

I'd argue it went the other way: Dick Armey and his buddies used their Republican machinery to glom onto the TPers, take over their unaffiliated movement, and drag it into the GOP tent to bolster their sagging brand. It was extremely convenient as a short-term mechanism to let Republicans continue their support of Republican candidates without having to admit that they were still affiliated with the Republican party. All those bandwagoners claiming that the newly assimilated TP wasn't actually an extension of the GOP... those were the good old days.

Long term, they are paying the price. We all are. But short-term it was smart.

[Predicto]

IMO that version never really existed. At least not in the altruistic version that was sold. It is the swill that was fed to the tea party from the source of its money through bought and paid for "think tanks". Think profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

I dunno. I think at first the Tea Party was a Ron Paul thing. Koch and Dick Armey quickly co-opted it, but at first it was pretty sincere.

[JMS]

So, supposedly there's a civil war coming, because some Republicans wanted to prevent having a vote, on a bill that passed, 414-9? ( actually 414-5)

So Larry the violence against women act passed in 1994.. It has been renewed in 2000, and in 2005 each time with broad bipartisan support. This is thus the fourth time it has been passed into law...

The 414-5 vote was from the 2005 vote. This year (yesterday), the bill passed 286-138, with just 87 of 225 Republicans joining all 199 Democrats (one Democrat did not vote).

So the GOP leadership allowed a vote on a bill which they knew their members would not support because they deemed it political suicide to not vote on it. Before they held a vote on this bill, the house first voted on an alternative republican bill which senate republicans supported but was not passed by the democratic senate. This gives them political coverage as the majority of house republicans voted against this act....

So what changed from 2005 where the bill got broad bipartisan support, to 2013 where it barely even got to be voted on? Only three things.... The new bill extended the protections against violence to undocumented immigrants, Native Americans living on reservations, and members of the LGBT community. And for that the GOP held the bill up for more than a year and the majority of house republicans still voted against it.

[Larry]

Well, now, I will observe that I can see an argument that says we shouldn't have laws against violence against <some groups>.

(Me, I can see having laws against what I think of as "hate crimes". My reasoning is that, if some guy gets beat up, that's assault. But, if some gay guy gets beat up because he's gay, then that's terrorism.)

[JMS]

seems like a major flaw in the system if such a relatively tiny minority can prevent stuff from getting done. i understand the need for a fillibuster, but it seems like the tea party is just flat out abusing the system in order to be obstructionists of absolutely everything.

(1) The tea party freshman class of 2010 was the largest freshman class since the New Deal in 1933. 21 new senators and 65 new congressmen.

(2) The violence against woman act which passed yesterday didn't get a majority of republicans in the house ( even as their leadership allowed it to get a vote on the floor )... It barely got a majority of republican senators to support it with 22 of 45 voting against it

---------- Post added March-1st-2013 at 01:16 PM ----------

Well, now, I will observe that I can see an argument that says we shouldn't have laws against violence against <some groups>.

(Me, I can see having laws against what I think of as "hate crimes". My reasoning is that, if some guy gets beat up, that's assault. But, if some gay guy gets beat up because he's gay, then that's terrorism.)

Well the violence against women act is a little different. For example one provision which republicans objected too protected native American women closed a loop hole... If a non native American guy assaulted a native American woman on a reservation by today's law, the guy would not fall under the jurisdiction of either the reservation or non reservation law enforcement. The 2013 bill closed that loophole and gave jurisdiction to the reservation where the crime was committed. The GOP objected to this because they said it created a dangerous precedent. The reason why a federal violence against women act is in place is because in some local jurisdictions violence against married women by their spouses was not illegal.. The VAW act gives funds to investigate incidents, and it provides recourse if local officials decline to prosecute assaults,

I think generally the fact this is the fourth time the bill has been passed into law, in order to understand the GOP objections we need to look at the differences between this bill and the one which passed with wide bi partisan support in 2005. Those three new features of the bill.

[Wrong Direction]

The GOP objected to this because they said it created a dangerous precedent.

I'm sure I could find it online, but what is the supposedly unconstitutional part of this law? I know it's hard to ever vote against something like "violence against women" so it would be nice to know the merits of their arguments.

The reason why a federal violence against women act is in place is because in some local jurisdictions violence against married women by their spouses was not illegal.

Hmm. I wonder if this is a substantial problem.

Both places I'm asking...not trying to pick a fight about this. I'm just curious.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, now, I will observe that I can see an argument that says we shouldn't have laws against violence against <some groups>.

(Me, I can see having laws against what I think of as "hate crimes". My reasoning is that, if some guy gets beat up, that's assault. But, if some gay guy gets beat up because he's gay, then that's terrorism.)

Very good point Larry.

[Mad Mike]

I dunno. I think at first the Tea Party was a Ron Paul thing. Koch and Dick Armey quickly co-opted it, but at first it was pretty sincere.

Chicken or the egg. The way I see it, the Kochs paid for the think tanks, which inspired a "grass roots movement" with the seeds they planted. The Kochs couldn't care less about the Tea Party itself but if that's what it takes for people to get on board their de-regulation and de-taxation plan for greater profits, they are happy to contribute large piles of cash. After all, it's an investment.

[ncr2h]

I'm sure I could find it online, but what is the supposedly unconstitutional part of this law? I know it's hard to ever vote against something like "violence against women" so it would be nice to know the merits of their arguments.

Hmm. I wonder if this is a substantial problem.

Both places I'm asking...not trying to pick a fight about this. I'm just curious.

Which part of the constitution says that it is in the purview of the federal government to make laws regarding violence between 2 people? Is the man in Virginia and the woman in Maryland, and the man's fist stretches across state lines? Why do we need to prevent states from coming up with their own punishment for crimes - and why do we only do this for violence against women and not all crimes?

[LadySkinsFan]

Because domestic violence is pernicious and it was not being taken seriously nor prosecuted. Many times the woman would pull the accusation because of further threats or a persuasive "honeymoon" period, and would be injured again. This bill is to promote justice for women who are battered when local jurisdictions wouldn't do anything about said crimes.

Because in this patriarchal society, it's still okay in some circles to use women as punching bags for whatever reason. Just like it's still okay in some circles to use women as sexual objects whether for pornographic purposes or for paid sex purposes.

[88Comrade2000]

The passed a rule that the bill would be brought to the floor for real vote.

In the Republican-controlled House, they have to pass a rule to allow a vote on a bill.

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 11:55 AM ----------

What's funny is that a small group of Tea Partiers are messing with the Republican agenda and shutting it down, causing the electorate to put the blame on everything Congress on the Republicans, because the TPers run under the Republican banner. That was smart of the TPers to glom onto the Republican brand instead of having a really minority party themselves.

Just wait until next year's elections; the TPers are going full speed into their takeover of the Republican party next year. 2014 should go against the grain and be a big year for the Dems.

[LadySkinsFan]

Just wait until next year's elections; the TPers are going full speed into their takeover of the Republican party next year. 2014 should go against the grain and be a big year for the Dems.

One can only hope. I'm moving to Texas, but while I'm there I hope to move that state to a more purple/blue status.

[twa]

One can only hope. I'm moving to Texas, but while I'm there I hope to move that state to a more purple/blue status.

Rick Perry was a Democrat....we do blue differently