*Breaking* John Boehner to resign next month

DiscoGary wrote:

Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:

You are saying all of this surrounded by other conservative posters calling all "libtards" (this term has become ubiquitous on these boards and in the real world. You don't think this suggests a certain amount of meanness and mindlessness?) evil for their political opinions. You yourself have come extremely close to saying that liberals and the politicians they support genuinely want to destroy America. I could tweak everything you just wrote and apply it to a large number of conservatives. The integrity of your arguments would be enormously improved if you could at least acknowledge that this "sound-bite demonization" works both ways. You come off as completely oblivious otherwise.

Any time someone wants to talk issues and ideas I can do it, and so can many people on my side. I do it right here every day. There are many on my side who are not civil but almost no one on the left can discuss issues and ideas in a civil manner. Most their arguments go something like this:

"You're an extreme right-wing racist. You old white men are ruining the country, and when you die off, THEN everything will be perfect. SO DIE!!!"

That's pretty much as deep as the left goes, and that's no exaggeration either.

I can't be ruining anything because none of my ideas are being implemented. Again, all I do is disagree with the disasters occurring in government. I understand that those who disagree with me want me silenced, but how am I destroying the country? No one can answer that question because I'm not.

If anyone would bother to ask me how liberals are destroying the country, I would have no trouble answering... with policies and examples of what's going wrong, where, and why.

You got nothing.

flyover champion wrote:

A couple of things:

1. The Congress should use the power of the purse as leverage against the executive if it does not like what's happening and that's the only option. The Constitution was set up the way it was for a reason. Read the Federalist Papers sometime; the separation of powers is in the Constitution because factions can not practically be eliminated -- so they are given tools to prevent abuse by other factions. I seriously doubt the founders would think that the president is not powerful enough.

- Yes, checks and balances apply, but each branch (executive, legislative, judicial) checks the others. No one branch has absolute power. No one gets everything it wants. Compromise is necessary, or treasonous if you're in the T party.

2. Those who cry about the government shutting down and blame it on the Congress can spin things that way, but I never understood why the Republicans didn't point out that Obama would actually be the one shutting down the government by refusing their budget. It's old news that there's a liberal media bias, but at least try to control the narrative. Instead we get ...

- This is a childish argument that ignores the very real intentions of certain republicans (ted cruz) to shut down the govt. Duh. Also, the debt ceiling showdown is not a normal budget resolution process. Congress has to periodically agree to raise the debt ceiling to pay for the budget or continuing resolutions that THEY passed. Failure to do so results in the govt shutting down, and eventually default. It's all Congress' doing. The president has little to no involvement.

3. The Congress surrenders before they put the screws to anyone to try to get what they want. I don't know how many times the Republicans have announced in advance that they aren't going to fight because they can't win. I think this is a big part of the frustration that voters have. If I went in to buy a car and my negotiating tactic was to start off by telling the salesman that I felt I wouldn't be able to pay less than sticker price I wouldn't be able to get a very good deal.

- If you don't have the votes, you don't get what you want. Still that didn't stop Republicans from trying 50+ times to repeal, defund, but not replace Obamacare, despite the fact they knew they didn't have the legislative votes to pass the legislation, let alone override a certain presidential veto. Looks like they gave it the ole college try tho. Gotta keep the rubes happy and the campaign money coming in.

And, your analogy is off. Suppose you were going to split a new car evenly with two other people. The other two agree they will buy if the dealer goes 5% under list. You say 50% off list, or no deal. You are either walking home, or paying your share of 95% of the list price. Being intransigent over unreasonable and unrealistic expectations is not a winning strategy.

4. If they aren't getting a good deal, put the president's feet to the fire. Ask why he refuses to fund the government so that taxpayer money doesn't go to an organization that rips apart the east among us for profit. Publicize the fact that this "non-profit" somehow not only gets our tax money, but is a huge donor to the Democrats. Why the heck would anyone want to give $500 million per year to any organization that gives money to a political party.

- they don't perform abortions for profit. They don't get government grants, they mainly get medicaid reimbursement for non-abortion services. But, I can definitely understand having an objection to PP. Why would anyone want to give tax breaks for churches or religious organizations either? Many organize to give money to political parties.

But, the Republicans never bring this up and can't bring themselves to play hardball. I'm convinced that they are largely run by out-of-touch consultants who are just professional consultants who get paid no matter what. It's a game for them, and the voters are just a means to an end. Why listen to the annoying/embarrassing rubes who think that ripping apart 50 million babies per year is a winning political issue? After all, most Americans have football to watch, facebook to post, porn and fast food to indulge in -- all in air conditioned comfort, so why should they care about something that might affect their ability to bone who they want, when they want, how they want with no perceived consequences.

- Can't bring themselves to play hardball? What steps are they not taking? Do you believe Boehner was standing in the way of the TP members in the house from really sticking it to Obama and sailing to victory? They don't have the votes to get what they want on most of their issues. They don't have the support of the voters either.

Also, for the guy who claims the Republicans are drifting right, give me a break. I dare you to find a Republican 5 years ago who would consider it hateful to believe that a she-male has some kind of mental issue. Politics isn't going to save this country. Politics are just a symptom of the culture. Until America finds its Christian soul again it is in trouble. In other words, conversion is in order.

- Convert? Why? There's no evidence that self-professed "religious" people are any more moral than secular. You sound like the Taliban. Also, it's interesting your barometer of change is attitudes toward she-males.

Right now I can tell that someone is all maddie-kins because I mentioned the Christian roots of our country. Guess what? Western civilization didn't just happen. It didn't even just spring from Enlightenment philosophy. It grew out of a Christian foundation that put the rights of man at the forefront. You have the luxury of pretending that this isn't so (ironically) because you live in a society which protects the freedoms which were first recognized as rights in Christendom. God help us all; we've certainly had a lot of warning about the evil, self destructive folly in which we've engaged. End of screed I guess.

Lydiard is God wrote:

Well, excrement for brains, the article refers to documents that prove the 'video' story was a beat-up from the start, engineered by Obama and Clinton.

Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech. It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie"

Justin Amash wrote:

Speaker John Boehner's announced resignation from Congress marks the inevitable fall of a speakership marred by internal Republican friction, raw partisanship and loss of influence for our great institution. And the next speaker will suffer the same fate unless he or she approaches the job entirely differently.

It's not that Speaker Boehner isn't conservative enough; it's that he fundamentally misunderstands the role of speaker of the House of Representatives. The speaker's first priority must be to defend the institution on behalf of all Americans. While the speaker may have a role in policy debates, that role cannot trump his obligation to uphold House process.

By not keeping these priorities, Speaker Boehner has failed both as a policy leader and as an institutional leader.

Speaker Boehner and other Republican leaders have repeatedly favored a "govern by crisis" approach that abandons the regular order of the House. Despite having months to act before legislative deadlines, leaders routinely wait until the last moment to plot a course of action, publicly concede in advance major negotiating points, insist that Republicans have no alternatives, refuse to allow amendments and then criticize colleagues for not voting to avert the crisis leadership caused.

This approach produces constant frustration among representatives in both parties and promotes the partisan finger-pointing that angers Americans at home. Instead of making bipartisan compromises to address long-term issues, Congress constructs desperate, last-minute political deals to obtain the requisite votes simply to clear the immediate impasse.

In place of genuine reforms, Republican leaders inundate the public with meaningless show votes. These bills and amendments are often poorly drafted and not intended to become law, but rather to give representatives talking points to bash the other side in the media and in our districts.

In this system, leaders make little effort to persuade congressional colleagues -- or the public -- on the merits of particular legislation. Significant outcomes are predetermined by a few leaders and their close allies, often with the backing of special interests that help write the bills. House rules, adopted by the entire body on the first day of each Congress, are regularly waived to bypass procedural hurdles. Votes for passage of legislation are corralled through fear and intimidation.

Republicans who vote against the wishes of leadership are punished -- leaders bury our bills in committee and urge PACs not to fund our campaigns. Leadership surrogates verbally attack Republican colleagues and, in some cases, actively support primary challenges against them, as they did against me in 2014.

Speaker Boehner and other leaders perpetuate the pay-to-play culture that permeates Capitol Hill, awarding chairmanships and committee spots on the basis of party fundraising, or as they euphemistically call it, "doing your work across the street" at the National Republican Congressional Committee.

With few legislative accomplishments to win public support, leaders depend on high-dollar fundraising to protect their majority and stay in power, and rank-and-file Republicans face increasing pressure to spend their days filling campaign coffers. At late-night conference meetings dealing with the latest legislative crisis, some members even lament that their time would be better spent raising campaign money.

It doesn't have to be this way.

With 435 members, the House of Representatives is meant to represent the interests of all Americans. Each district comprises roughly 700,000 people of diverse backgrounds and political beliefs.

The rules and organization of the House account for its inherent diversity and provide a means through which all ideas can be heard and the will of the people -- restrained by the Constitution and the sound judgment of each representative -- can prevail. But this happens only if leadership respects process. The institution is degraded -- partisan grandstanding proliferates and representatives lose trust -- if rules are followed only when convenient for leaders in the House majority.

With Speaker Boehner's resignation, we have a historic opportunity to change course for the better by electing a speaker committed to upholding the open process that allows the body to reflect the policy preferences of the people.

Under such leadership, there would be no secret deals or voice votes; legislation would move through the normal committee process; and all of us, regardless of party, would be given adequate time to read each bill and an opportunity to offer and vote on amendments.

This is how the House was meant to work -- not as an oligarchy, but as a deliberative body that respects the diversity of its membership.

Under regular order, bipartisanship and compromise flourish. With control over the legislative agenda devolved to committees, subcommittees, and individual representatives, more liberal outcomes are possible, but so, too, are more conservative or libertarian outcomes. No one gets everything he or she wants, but under a fair, deliberative process, we all can respect the results. Most important, the outcomes more genuinely reflect the will of the people.

A mere reshuffling of current leadership won't work. That a promotion of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to speaker is being seriously discussed by leadership allies demonstrates how little they have learned from recent events.

When former Majority Leader Eric Cantor suffered an unprecedented defeat in his primary election last year, the visceral response from many of my colleagues was to advance the next person in line. The majority whip became the majority leader, but little else has changed.

It has been less than a year since the last game of leadership musical chairs, and dissatisfaction keeps growing. We cannot have more of the same. It's time to choose a speaker who will restore respect and order to the House so that we can once again govern as the Constitution intends.