Boehner Stepping Down as Speaker

[Lhalo]

Well that came out of nowhere.

http://nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/boehner-will-resign-from-congress.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[Jay]

good

[UndertheHalo]

good riddance.  It would be nice if some of the other "career politicians" followed him.

[Spirit]

Quitter 

[mtangelsfan]

I don't think it is good for Republicans at all.

 

Now the hard right is going to have control.  Look for a government shut down for sure now.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Went to a conference a week ago where the keynote speaker was former house member who opted by choice not to go for re-election after his last term.  He was a republican and you could tell that's the side he favored but he made it clear that both sides in Washington are far from perfect and that Boehner (someone he personally knows and worked with) was more or less done as speaker because his own party members were ready to move on.  Some of the other stuff he said wouldn't surprise anyone as far as it being true but it was surprising hearing it from someone who served.      

[Hollyw00d]

I just got a boehner

[the dude abides]

Will it be Speaker Gohmert or Speaker Gowdy come November?

[TobiasFunke]

Cat, what do you mean "his own party members were ready to move on"?

 

Like they were ready to move on from their current stances?

[Hollyw00d]

I think its going to be Speaker Johnson

[Tank]

thank goodness. 

 

it seems like so many of his actions are contrarian simply because he wants to be contrarian.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I mean they were ready for him to step down due to division in their own party as he basically made too many enemies.  The keynote speaker gave a lot of good examples of division within each party and I really wish I had recorded it or had a transcript of everything he said.  To be fair to anyone in politics as much as I imagine it's a nightmare trying to work with people in your own party and the other party this guy made it sound like even more of a ridiculous balancing act.  He talked about the Planned Parenthood issue saying that some republicans would back off cutting funding to PP if some of the higher ups at PP were let go while some of the dems absolutely refused.  He talked about ACA and how some R's didn't want to fully repeal after it was passed but wanted to fix what they perceived to be as things wrong with it but Pelosi said absolutely not because making any changes tells the American public the Dems don't believe in what they passed.  

 

Someone asked him a question if one of the R's was the man for the job to get some major reform (can't remember exactly which) through and he pointed out that the individual wasn't because that person wants to move up.  To appease some of his own party and even the Dems knowing he'd have to work with them should he climb the ladder he couldn't take a hard stance on the issue.  Doing so would basically burn bridges and make enemies in his own party and with Dems all of whom he'd either need their support to move up and/or would need to be able to work with them in the future.  As you imagine in each party there's certain things each representative won't compromise on because that's the big issue to their voters and their biggest concern is getting re-elected.  He said once the house members get elected they have like 6 months to really do work then they go into campaign mode again.  

 

The main thing this guy said is that right now the biggest issue in Washington is there's few if any leaders and there's only managers.  Someone asked him who the R's in Washington thought currently had the best chance at getting the presidential nomination and he said it's a long way off but most aren't afraid that Trump is the person.  He made a joke inferring that they were afraid because he'd be a nightmare to work with but said that once the candidates get whittled down they don't anticipate most supporters of other candidates going to Trump.  Trump has his hardcore fan base but since he's such a divisive candidate he doesn't generally appeal to some of the other R voters.  That said as the guy pointed out anything can change between now and the election.  He said Scott Walker was a guy R's had high hopes for but that he was having issues appealing to the masses being a middle America governor.  He compared him to another candidate during the last election who had the same issues and a few days after the conference Walker dropped out.  

 

The speaker had an agenda just like everyone else but he confirmed what most people believe to be true that politics are ridiculous and it's generally all about getting re-elected.  He said there were three things that could fix the current state of politics the first of which is something bad happening (like 9/11) which brings the parties together and another of which was a legitimate leader being elected and working with both sides.  I don't recall the third thing but he obviously said no one is hoping for a tragedy that brings the country together and his hope was for a legitimate leader getting elected.  For all I know this guy opted not to run again for some scandalous reason but that said it sounded like he didn't miss it because of all the BS involved trying to work with both your own party and the other side.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[Glen]

Dude, just imagine a 9/11 happening under Obama.  It wouldn't bring the parties together at all.  Republicans would have a field day.

 

I look forward to the next guy getting the job talking tough for a while, and then watching the life slowly drain out of him as the realities of the job consume him.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Disagreed.  The majority came together during 9/11 and that's what generally happens during a tragedy.  You'd think after the 2000 election that dems would have been chomping at the bit to go after Bush but the majority didn't at the time use 9/11 as the platform to do it.  There's always fringe elements on the far left/right that will say what they want but the majority don't want to hear it at a time like that and doing so would be political suicide.  After things calm down you'll hear more and more but that's politics as usual as people get fed up with other issues especially as elections draw near.      

 

Regardless hopefully we never test your belief.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[mtangelsfan]

Dude, just imagine a 9/11 happening under Obama.  It wouldn't bring the parties together at all.  Republicans would have a field day.

 

I look forward to the next guy getting the job talking tough for a while, and then watching the life slowly drain out of him as the realities of the job consume him.

 

Link?

[Glen]

Link?

 

 

 

9/11 and Iraq have both been investigated once.  Benghazi has been investigated at least six times.  If another major terror attack happened to the US and a democrat was president, I have no doubt that for a few days or maybe even a week or two there would be some sort of unity.  After that, though, I also have no doubt that the shit would hit the fan.  Republicans have spent the last seven years talking about how unsafe we have been under Obama.  Do you think they'd let that all go?

[Hollyw00d]

Friggin pope

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/john-boehner-resigning-as-speaker/

[mtangelsfan]

9/11 and Iraq have both been investigated once.  Benghazi has been investigated at least six times.  If another major terror attack happened to the US and a democrat was president, I have no doubt that for a few days or maybe even a week or two there would be some sort of unity.  After that, though, I also have no doubt that the shit would hit the fan.  Republicans have spent the last seven years talking about how unsafe we have been under Obama.  Do you think they'd let that all go?

 

"Democrats are morally superior"

 

Seriously, the whole "unsafe" thing didn't happen in a vacuum.  You cannot seperate the fears of today from 9/11.  If you honestly believe that the country wouldn't come together under the same circumstances if Obama were president then I don't know what to say.

[Ray McKigney]

Look at this guy's voting record. Not sure how legit the website is, but if even some of it's true, it's an indication that the guy is owned by corporations.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner.htm

[mtangelsfan]

I don't think anyone is arguing this guy isn't a sold out, washed up, career politician.  I just don't think whoever replaces him will be better (and might be worse)

 

He has been able to hold back the Ted Cruz crazies for the most part.

[Ray McKigney]

I don't think anyone is arguing this guy isn't a sold out, washed up, career politician.  I just don't think whoever replaces him will be better (and might be worse)

 

He has been able to hold back the Ted Cruz crazies for the most part.

 

Yeah, this is unfortunate, but most likely true.

[Jay]

Conservative members of the House have been trying to get rid of Boehner for some time.  He's lost support.

 

Obama likes him though:

 

“John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House, an institution in which he’s served for a long time. He cares about his constituents, and he cares about America,” the president said, adding that he called Mr. Boehner just before the press conference began.

[Ray McKigney]

Now we have definitive proof that Obama is a liar.

[Spirit]

 

 

Obama likes him though:

 

“John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House, an institution in which he’s served for a long time. He cares about his constituents, and he cares about America,” the president said, adding that he called Mr. Boehner just before the press conference began.

 

 

As a Republican, which part of Obama's statement do you not agree with?

[Hollyw00d]

All of it, because a lib said it