John Boehner resigning from congress

[skinsmarydu]

There would be a strategic angle involved for most of the participants, i.e. try to connect Bush, 'er Jeb to the tarnished Bush past in an effort to knock him out before he fully gets started. However the idea that Saint Reagan would be seen by today's neo-fascist GOP as an amnesty RINO is spot on. Not to mention St. Reagan's tax increases. Odd that many on the far right don't know that even as they clamor to name everything from airports to highways after St. Reagan.

I think there were 16 tax increases?  And amnesty?  He'd be "roasted on a spit in the public square" now. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

See if this rings a bell.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

[Predicto]

This sums the whole story up nicely.

 

 

The Pointless Cowardice of John Boehner

BY JEFFREY TOOBIN

 

The mainstream reaction to the forced resignation of John Boehner as the Speaker of the House has been a kind of weary admiration. He fought the good fight against the extremists in his Republican caucus, the narrative goes, but his solid Midwestern virtues (he’s from Ohio) were ultimately no contest for the extremism of the Tea Party. This interpretation is far too generous to Boehner, whose failures, political and substantive, were due mostly to cowardice. The tragedy of Boehner is that he could have been a great Speaker, even on his own terms, but instead his legacy is one of almost complete failure.

 

.....

 

Boehner [] supported immigration reform, at least in its broad outlines—because he correctly saw that it was good for both his party and his country. And there was no doubt that the reform bill could pass the House, with the support of most Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans as well. But Boehner’s Tea Party colleagues in the House opposed immigration reform. So the choice for Boehner, who controlled the House floor, was clear: pass a historic bill that would be good for the Republicans and for the republic, or appease the extremist elements in his party in hopes of hanging on to his position as Speaker.

 

Boehner caved, refusing to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and he suffered the fate of all those who give in to bullies; he was bullied some more. This year, the fight was over the highway bill, another piece of popular legislation that Boehner himself and a majority of the House (as well as the Senate and the President) supported—as well they might, given that maintenance of roads and bridges represents some of the basic work of government. But again the Tea Party intimidated Boehner into keeping the bill off the floor, depriving the Speaker of another major accomplishment.

 

Boehner adopted an extreme version of the so-called Hastert rule, named for his predecessor as Speaker, Dennis Hastert, who is now under indictment for alleged financial crimes connected to blackmail payments (he has pleaded not guilty). The Hastert rule holds that the Speaker should never allow a vote on a bill unless it’s supported by a majority of the Republican caucus. But Boehner’s approach was to keep bills off the floor that were opposed by a minority of Republicans—the Tea Party caucus, which only numbers about fifty—effectively giving them a veto over the work of the House. Nothing came to the floor without their say-so, so that meant that nothing much came to the floor except for symbolic exercises like votes to repeal Obamacare or to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-pointless-cowardice-of-john-boehner

[Larry]

This sums the whole story up nicely.

 

Ouch. 

 

And, I suspect, pretty accurate. 

 

Although I also have to say that, looking at the GOP, last 10 years or so, that his supposed cowardice may well have been justified.  I think that The Fate of Cantor, among lots of other things, pointed out that the threat of "Go along, or we'll primary you out of office" was a very credible threat, (and still is), no matter a Congressman's seniority or elevation of position. 

[Larry]

BTW, am I the only one who, every time he sees a picture of Boehner, thinks of the judge from My Cousin Vinnie?

[DogofWar1]

BTW, am I the only one who, every time he sees a picture of Boehner, thinks of the judge from My Cousin Vinnie?

 

I generally think either carrot or Jersey Shore, depending on how hungry I am.

[@DCGoldPants]

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has dropped out of the race to be the next speaker of the House.

 

That Benghazi thing did him in. Basically ruined anything the committee will try to do moving forward, and gave Clinton something to focus her attacks on.

 

Now the question is.....who is going to get that gig?

[DogofWar1]

I was just about to come find this thread to post that update.  Definitely did himself in with the Benghazi comment.

[Predicto]

BTW, am I the only one who, every time he sees a picture of Boehner, thinks of the judge from My Cousin Vinnie?

 

 

You mean Herman Munster?  

[Duckus]

Benghazi finally took down a politician. Probably not the one the GOP was hoping.

Hilarious. GOP is a really something else.

[Burgold]

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has dropped out of the race to be the next speaker of the House.

 

That Benghazi thing did him in. Basically ruined anything the committee will try to do moving forward, and gave Clinton something to focus her attacks on.

 

Now the question is.....who is going to get that gig?

Yeah, the question is does it delegitimize all the other witch hunts... even the legit ones?

 

Plus, thinking about the history repeating thing, is anyone really surprised that a guy named McCarthy was helping to orchestrate a which hunt?

[The Sisko]

Somewhere Boehner has got to be just cackling to himself. I hope the Tea Klan gets the furthest far-right nutjob of their dreams to replace him...and let the fun begin. And when we're watching President Hillary get sworn in, you can turn to the far-right nutjobs and say "thank you very much". Poetic justice I'd call it. :-)

[Duckus]

First thing I said when I heard the news was "wonder if it is a man or woman he is having an affair with..." I was just joking. But maybe....

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5616f004e4b0082030a1e0a8

[twa]

Somewhere Boehner has got to be just cackling to himself. I hope the Tea Klan gets the furthest far-right nutjob of their dreams to replace him...and let the fun begin. And when we're watching President Hillary get sworn in, you can turn to the far-right nutjobs and say "thank you very much". Poetic justice I'd call it. :-)

egot

but isn't Hillary already a lock?....or has the talking points changed...

 

I'm still holding out for Col. West ...the negotiations would be more interesting.

[@DCGoldPants]

Kevin McCarthy’s exit from House speaker race sparks search for temporary ‘caretaker’

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/kevin-mccarthys-exit-from-house-speaker-race-spark/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[ZRagone]

There's no such thing as a Reagan Republican anymore. Frankly, Reagan might be considered more liberal than Obama if he ran today.

Only if one were to basically assume that you're picking up the 1980's Ronald Reagan in a time machine, bringing him into the modern age, and not giving him any historical information of context in the time period between. Which is why these kind of comments are a bit ridiculous and head scratching.

The context of the American political reality when Reagan was in office and today is massively different. I'd need to go back and grab my researched numbers again, but in a general sense...Republicans had pretty much lacked control of congress for 50 some odd years when Reagan was in office. They VERY rarely controlled even a single house of congress. Democratic control of the legislature was simply the defacto idea. It was a fait acocompli. As such, the realities for a Republican Presidential candidate at that time was basically "negotiate and compromise with Democrats or never have a chance to get anything done, ever".

This has largely changed since 1994. If memory serves, there's been more Republican control of congress in the past 20 years than there had been in the 80 prior to it. And I believe it may even be the same in terms of control of even one side of congress. Suddenly it's no longer just a given assumption that Democrats are going to control congress so anything you want to do will HAVE to go through them. Now there's a reasonable belief that the Republicans could actually gain control of both houses and then you could govern with a legislature that is actually open to your ideas.

This inherently decreases the incentive to compromise. Previously, during Reagan's presidency, there was a ton of reason to compromise because you had few other options. You could compromise and get something done now or wait 2 years for an election where nothing would really change and you'd be stuck having to compromise or get nothing again. NOW you can compromise to get something OR you can gamble, wait 2 years, and have a reasonable shot of getting control of the congress and getting what you want without compromise.

So Reagan, teleported into today with no knowledge or impact of the natural political changes of the past 20 years would likely be viewed as more liberal. However, Reagan who somehow naturally aged into the modern day...given his generally stated views, political philosophy, and tactics (and reasons for those tactics)...would likely look much closer to most other Republicans today because he'd be functioning within the modern reality of politics.

[Larry]

So, your point is that Reagan didn't really accomplish those things, Congress deserves the credit?

[Predicto]

First thing I said when I heard the news was "wonder if it is a man or woman he is having an affair with..." I was just joking. But maybe....

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5616f004e4b0082030a1e0a8

 

 

We should have known better than to assume McCarthy dropped out because the GOP was embarrassed about how he pulled back the curtain on the Benghazi witch hunt for the world to see.

 

That couldn't have been the reason because today's GOP has no sense of shame.

[twa]

Why was the Benghazi investigation started?

 

here let me help with your heroes opinion

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/boehner-benghazi-investigation-was-never-about-hillary/

 

Boehner: Benghazi Investigation Was Never About Hillary

 

 

[Larry]

Why was the Benghazi investigation started?

As a publicity stunt. A venue for political theater.

Now, if you want to argue that the primary target for said theater was Obama, rather than Hillary?  I could see that.

[mistertim]

 

Why was the Benghazi investigation started?

 

here let me help with your heroes opinion

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/boehner-benghazi-investigation-was-never-about-hillary/

 

Boehner: Benghazi Investigation Was Never About Hillary

 

 

 

Did you expect Boehner to actually come out and confirm what Numbnuts McGee pretty much admitted in his Fox interview? They went straight into all out damage control after he dropped that nugget.

[Burgold]

Yeah, if the House was honest they would investigate the truth of that. Wasting 10's or hundreds of millions of dollars on what the House considered bogus investigations for the purpose of conducting a smear campaign probably ought to be grounds for impeaching/ousting those behind it.

 

Part of me is amazed it ranked as despicable enough to force a candidate to be dropped from consideration as Speaker. Does that suggest there's some hope for Congress' soul?

[twa]

Did you expect Boehner to actually come out and confirm what Numbnuts McGee pretty much admitted in his Fox interview? They went straight into all out damage control after he dropped that nugget.

 

I 'pretty much' expected this reply.

[Predicto]

 

Why was the Benghazi investigation started?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a Thursday.

 

Mondays and Thursdays are the days the GOP media trots out the new "scandal" to keep their base in a perpetual lather of misinformed outrage.  Each scandal gets a couple of days to see if it takes hold of the public imagination.  

 

Then, after Frank Luntz does his focus group research, the GOP media powerbrokers decide whether to stick with pushing the scandal for a while or quietly letting it drop and pretend like they never said anything.  Either way is fine, because the new scandal is only a day off by then.    

 

I'm only kidding a little bit.   

I 'pretty much' expected this reply.

 

 

Good - you still have the ability to recognize reality once in a while.  

[DogofWar1]

So Reagan, teleported into today with no knowledge or impact of the natural political changes of the past 20 years would likely be viewed as more liberal. However, Reagan who somehow naturally aged into the modern day...given his generally stated views, political philosophy, and tactics (and reasons for those tactics)...would likely look much closer to most other Republicans today because he'd be functioning within the modern reality of politics.

 

This is the point though, it's not about what Reagan would be like today with the benefit of XX years, it's the deification of him and his policies of the '80's by politicians of today.  Listening purely to the right, you'd never know that Reagan implemented amnesty for millions or raised payroll taxes (admittedly with a cap and then cuts to other taxes, but still).  A reporter here and there might play the gotcha game regarding Reagan's actual actions, but it's usually played off and deflected.  It's one thing to say "Reagan would be different with the benefit of 35 more years of politics," but another to deify his time as president, and then advocate for policies that are much MUCH farther to the right than some of Reagan's demonstrated policies.  The former isn't often done.  The latter is FAR more often done.

 

 

I 'pretty much' expected this reply. 

 

I mean, I know that you don't like Boehner much, but he is still very much a conservative, a Republican, and he's not going to throw his own party under the bus even if he is on the way out.

 

Loose lips sink ships, and McCarthy, after leading a witch hunt worthy of "his" surname's reputation in Congress, basically torpedoed his own party's witch hunt ship.

 

 

It was a Thursday.

 

Mondays and Thursdays are the days the GOP media trots out the new "scandal" to keep their base in a perpetual lather of misinformed outrage.

 

ACA repeal votes Wednesday and Friday?