Bedlam in the House

[Mr. Deez]

John Boehner will resign at the end of October. Link.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Who are the early candidates to replace him? The Tea Party crowd must be licking their chops. This combined with Obama's lame duck status can only result in even more gridlock.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[theiioftx]

McCarthy becomes speaker. If only Mitch McConnell would step down as well.....

 

[Joe Fan]

Is McCarthy an actual improvement over Boehner?
He is weak on immigration and enjoys Club For Growth support, although he was a late opponent to to ExIm.

 

[UTChE96]

The Republican establishment must be crapping in their pants right now when they look at the front-runners in the Republican primary. Their impotence and corruption has pretty much led to the downfall of the party. If Trump gets nominated then the establishment has no one to blame but themselves.

 

[theiioftx]

Exactly. No opinion on McCarthy, but anyone taking the position has to know where the pressure is right now from the conservative wing. The reason the outsiders are doing well is because Boehner and McConnell are useless establishment politicians who have only benefited themselves. I expect many of these to be gone in elections to come.

 

[Musburger1]

It's time for Boehner to cash in. I can't see him being employed by Goldman or one of the big banks, but I expect him to be added to the boards of some major corporations or as a consultant to someone in the defense industry. He's licked enough boots to start drawing a few million now.

 

[Bayerithe]

Boehner and McConnell are spineless politicians, entrenched in the establishment, who cave to every whim of the liberal party. Republicans need better leadership who will listen to what the people want.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Boehner and McConnell are spineless politicians, entrenched in the establishment, who cave to every whim of the liberal party. Republicans need better leadership who will listen to what the people want.

I'm now understanding where Trump is getting his support from. There is a subset in the Republican base that seems to think negotiation and compromise are unnecessary. Rather, it they want it they can declare it and it should happen. It's Donald Trump's choir.

 

[Bayerithe]

compromise is one thing, completely bailing on what an entire segment of your party wants is another, without even TRYING. Examples - Amnesty, cromnibus bill

 

[Mr. Deez]

compromise is one thing, completely bailing on what an entire segment of your party wants is another, without even TRYING. Examples - Amnesty, cromnibus bill

What amnesty bill passed, in what sense have they "completely bailed?"

 

[theiioftx]

Not speaking for Bayerithe, but I suspect he is talking about Obama's executive order regarding immigration. SH and the libs think compromise means going along with everything Obama does.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not speaking for Bayerithe, but I suspect he is talking about Obama's executive order regarding immigration.

OK, fair enough. What should they have done?

 

[theiioftx]

They only tried symbolic votes. Most wanted them to leverage the power of the purse to stop or at least derail his executive order.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They only tried symbolic votes. Most wanted them to leverage the power of the purse to stop or at least derail his executive order.

But nobody put forth a plan to do that.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I love Trey Gundy from South Carolina.

Admittedy, what I know about him is limited to youtube and he's more known for skewering government cronnies, e.g. Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi than conservative policies. I think he's very much a moderate.

But man, the dude sure is entertaing during cross examination.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I love Trey Gundy from South Carolina.

Admittedy, what I know about him is limited to youtube and he's more known for skewering government cronnies, e.g. Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi than conservative policies. I think he's very much a moderate.

But man, the dude sure is entertaing during cross examination.

He's a former federal prosecutor, so I'm not too surprised. However, I wouldn't call Gowdy a moderate. He's pretty conservative.

 

[texas_ex2000]

He's a former federal prosecutor, so I'm not too surprised. However, I wouldn't call Gowdy a moderate. He's pretty conservative.

Is he blood in the water? I guess that's what I meant. Today it seems like if you're not blood in the water, you're not really "conservative."

He's always supported and said he liked Boehner (both in the past and right after his resignation...he gave him his nominating speech) and he said he has no interest in the job. I bet it's because he knows herding these zombie cats is a thankless impossible job.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2015/01/06/trey-gowdy-is-not-a-conservative-leader/

He is known for his epic demonstrations of wit during oversight committee hearings. While Gowdy does vote a lot better than Allen West, he’s not by any means a standard bearer when it comes to policy votes. For example, he voted against prohibiting the indefinite detention of American citizens back in July, and his work on immigration has Mark Levin calling him a “RINO.“

But the interesting thing about Gowdy is that for months his supporters have been clamoring for him to run for President, and especially, they have been pushing him to run for Speaker.

This article is older and not about what happened this week, but he put out somewhere else his support for Boehner after his resignation.
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/trey-gowdy-reveals-his-choice-for-speaker-of-the-house

 

[theiioftx]

But nobody put forth a plan to do that.

That was the point of disdain for Boehner and McConnell.

 

[Bayerithe]

They only tried symbolic votes. Most wanted them to leverage the power of the purse to stop or at least derail his executive order.

pretty much this.

the crux of politics is, no one is willing to stick their neck out to do what is right. they want to save face and keep power. this is why people like people like trump (not my favorite, just saying), or want to introduce things like term limits in congress. It's not really any surprise that 3 of the top 5 republican candidates for 2016 right now are not politicians (Trump, Carson, Fiorina)

the GoP demolished the liberals in 2014, not because of any particular powerful message, but the PEOPLE wanted things to change, for them to put some effort in fighting the fight that the people wanted. to slow down the direction in which the liberal congress and Obama were trying to take the country. current GoP leadership fails to recognize this and has resulted in the same results.

perhaps better leadership will reunite the party and get done what needs to get done, because things are too fractured right now.

 

[Mr. Deez]

pretty much this.

the crux of politics is, no one is willing to stick their neck out to do wha t is right. they want to save face and keep power.

Is Boehner really unwilling to stick his neck out, or does he, after 25 years in office know something about when that's a good idea and when it isn't?

He has gone along with multiple government shutdowns over the course of his career. That is sticking his neck out. The problem is that shutdown advocates don't have a strategy to make them succeed. The shutdown occurs, and they freeze like a deer in the headlights. The Democrats and media always blame them, and they immediately lose public support. They present an incoherent message, fold like a cheap lawn chair, and then the shutdown advocates call the leadership spineless.

If you're going to use the power of the purse, you need a comprehensive strategy for doing so. First, you need to do it over an issue on which the public resoundingly agrees with you and not just on a superficial level. Second, you need to anticipate the points Democrats will make and figure out succinct but effective and irrefutable responses, and you need to inoculate the public on those points. That means the public should hear the Democrats' points from you first and your reasons why they're full of it. Why? Because you want them to hear the negatives about your view with your spin, not the Democrats' spin . Third, have one leader who has a strong grasp of policy speak for the GOP. Don't just have random, smack talking politicians saying whatever comes to mind at any given moment. In short, to make it work, Congress has to do it on an issue where they're on extremely solid ground and then seize the narrative. Nobody among Boehner's critics gets this.

the GoP demolished the liberals in 2014, not because of any particular powerful message, but the PEOPLE wanted things to change, for them to put some effort in fighting the fight that the people wanted. to slow down the direction in which the liberal congress and Obama were trying to take the country. current GoP leadership fails to recognize this and has resulted in the same results.

Democrats had a brutal 2014, but if the electorate truly wanted massive change rather than somebody to simply be a check on Obama, two things would be happening. First, Obama would have lost in 2012. Second, Democrats would be taking flack for opposing eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood rather than the GOP taking heat for wanting to eliminate it. That's not happening.

Also, to say that the GOP hasn't slowed down the direction of the liberal Congress and Obama is absurd. The Pelosi-led Congress passed Obamacare, dramatically increased spending, and almost got cap and trade. Since Boehner took over, no new significant programs have been created, and federal spending is actually down. As a percentage of GDP, it's down to pre-Obama levels. If that's not slowing down Obama, I'm not sure what would be. Considering that Boehner was able to do this while only controlling one half of one branch of government, I think the guy deserves a lot of credit. People who are giving him flack have very short memories.

perhaps better leadership will reunite the party and get done what needs to get done, because things are too fractured right now.

What's far more likely to happen is that we'll get a more combative Speaker who will behave like the Tea Party people want him to. He'll play their game for a while, and then he'll discover that there's another chamber on the other side of the Capitol and a President down the street and that he has to play ball with both of them. He eventually will out of necessity, and the Tea Party people will call him a big candy *** and a RINO like they did with Boehner. Until the TPers decide to read the Constitution (particularly the first three articles that explain the powers of the various branches) that they claim to want to follow, I don't see how this cycle changes.

 

[theiioftx]

Is Boehner really unwilling to stick his neck out, or does he, after 25 years in office know something about when that's a good idea and when it isn't?

He has gone along with multiple government shutdowns over the course of his career. That is sticking his neck out. The problem is that shutdown advocates don't have a strategy to make them succeed. The shutdown occurs, and they freeze like a deer in the headlights. The Democrats and media always blame them, and they immediately lose public support. They present an incoherent message, fold like a cheap lawn chair, and then the shutdown advocates call the leadership spineless.

If you're going to use the power of the purse, you need a comprehensive strategy for doing so. First, you need to do it over an issue on which the public resoundingly agrees with you and not just on a superficial level. Second, you need to anticipate the points Democrats will make and figure out succinct but effective and irrefutable responses, and you need to inoculate the public on those points. That means the public should hear the Democrats' points from you first and your reasons why they're full of it. Why? Because you want them to hear the negatives about your view with your spin, not the Democrats' spin . Third, have one leader who has a strong grasp of policy speak for the GOP. Don't just have random, smack talking politicians saying whatever comes to mind at any given moment. In short, to make it work, Congress has to do it on an issue where they're on extremely solid ground and then seize the narrative. Nobody among Boehner's critics gets this.



Democrats had a brutal 2014, but if the electorate truly wanted massive change rather than somebody to simply be a check on Obama, two things would be happening. First, Obama would have lost in 2012. Second, Democrats would be taking flack for opposing eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood rather than the GOP taking heat for wanting to eliminate it. That's not happening.

Also, to say that the GOP hasn't slowed down the direction of the liberal Congress and Obama is absurd. The Pelosi-led Congress passed Obamacare, dramatically increased spending, and almost got cap and trade. Since Boehner took over, no new significant programs have been created, and federal spending is actually down. As a percentage of GDP, it's down to pre-Obama levels. If that's not slowing down Obama, I'm not sure what would be. Considering that Boehner was able to do this while only controlling one half of one branch of government, I think the guy deserves a lot of credit. People who are giving him flack have very short memories.



What's far more likely to happen is that we'll get a more combative Speaker who will behave like the Tea Party people want him to. He'll play their game for a while, and then he'll discover that there's another chamber on the other side of the Capitol and a President down the street and that he has to play ball with both of them. He eventually will out of necessity, and the Tea Party people will call him a big candy *** and a RINO like they did with Boehner. Until the TPers decide to read the Constitution (particularly the first three articles that explain the powers of the various branches) that they claim to want to follow, I don't see how this cycle changes.

Can't really argue with most of what you said, but I think the first comment -about maybe Boehner knows better than us what works and what does not -sums up political feelings today. Republicans and Democrats no longer represent their constituents, they represent themselves. That is why outsiders are leading the polls and why many conservatives want Boehner and McConnell out of leadership positions. I only wish Pelosi and other leading democrats would leave as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think the first comment -about maybe Boehner knows better than us what works and what does not -sums up political feelings today. Republicans and Democrats no longer represent their constituents, they represent themselves. That is why outsiders are leading the polls and why many conservatives want Boehner and McConnell out of leadership positions.

He's no genius, but I do think his experience gives him an understanding of how things work that people with no experience can't possibly know. Furthermore, until someone in the TP crowd can explain how to get around the whole veto problem with fewer than a 2/3 majority, I'm not sure why any Speaker would listen to them.

I only wish Pelosi and other leading democrats would leave as well

Democrats are far more pragmatic nowadays (didn't used to be true). If Pelosi had to give up on some priorities during the Bush years (like ending the Iraq War or raising taxes), most Democrats could understand that.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is McCarthy an actual improvement over Boehner?
He is weak on immigration and enjoys Club For Growth support, although he was a late opponent to to ExIm.

 

[Joe Fan]

Looks like a deal may be in the works
Tom Price as majority leader in trade for not opposing McCarthy as Speaker

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...ible-grand-bargain-in-the-gop/article/2572962

An anti-establishment conservative minority in the GOP had the clout to drive out House Speaker John Boehner, and they also have the power to block the party establishment from replacing Boehner with Kevin McCarthy--a protege of Eric Cantor and the current House Majority Leader.

But conservatives also knew they didn't have a great candidate for Speaker--Raoul Labrador, Jeb Hensarling, Tom Price, and Jim Jordan have all been mentioned, but none of them will run. The Tea Party candidate in the Speaker race at this point is Rep. Daniel Webster, Fla. McCarthy would beat Webster overwhelmingly in a vote within the Republican caucus. But if Tea Partiers are willing to hold out on the House floor, then can block McCarthy's election by keeping him from getting to 218 votes.

So, Tea Partiers have some leverage, but they also couldn't really install their own speaker. When I spoke to House conservatives last week, they made it clear that wanted something in exchange for going along with McCarthy after McCarthy wins the caucus vote. Specifically, they said they wanted a leadership role to go to one of them. It looks like such an offer is taking shape, as Paul Ryan has lined up behind Tom Price as House Majority Leader.

So, fittingly, Ryan could be the peacemaker between the establishment and Tea Party, and other majority leader candidates Cathy McMorris-Rodgers and Steve Scalise could be the losers of this peace.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But if Tea Partiers are willing to hold out on the House floor, then can block McCarthy's election by keeping him from getting to 218 votes.

Of course Pelosi could throw them off by releasing her members to vote for McCarthy anyway. Essentially you'd have a coalition of non-TP Republicans and Democrats running the House. And why wouldn't Pelosi do this? She isn't going to get the speakership back, but she obviously gains power if she can impact the outcome and nullify the TP.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Of course Pelosi could throw them off by releasing her members to vote for McCarthy anyway. Essentially you'd have a coalition of non-TP Republicans and Democrats running the House. And why wouldn't Pelosi do this? She isn't going to get the speakership back, but she obviously gains power if she can impact the outcome and nullify the TP.

Does the minority party get to vote on the Speaker? I didn't realize that. If the Dems truly wanted to eff with the TP'ers they could do so. Then it will be epic gridlock in the House.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Does the minority party get to vote on the Speaker? I didn't realize that. If the Dems truly wanted to eff with the TP'ers they could do so. Then it will be epic gridlock in the House.

SH,

The Speaker is elected by the whole House, so the minority certainly does get to vote. Nobody usually cares how the minority party votes, because it's assumed that they'll vote for their nominee (presumably Pelosi) who mathematically can't win. However, there's no reason why that has to be true. If Pelosi smells blood in the water (meaning the TP is threatening to nominate its own candidate), she could release her members to vote for McCarthy rather than for her. It wouldn't be line regaining the Speakership, but she's become very powerful. McCarthy would owe his Speakership to her, and he'd have to rely on her to pass legislation. She might even be able to hustle a leadership position out of it.

I don't necessarily think it would mean epic gridlock. Obama wants things to move in the last part of his presidency. If he thinks McCarthy can at least keep shutdowns from happening, he'd probably encourage Dems to play ball with him at least to a point. Besides, the TP was organized mostly to screw with him. He'd like nothing more than to screw with them.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A good article that explains negotiation in the context of the GOP division and Boehner's departure..