Boehner gives up

[Argus]

So John Boehner, the conservative's conservative, has thrown up his arms in despair and surrender and will walk away from his job as speaker, and the congress itself. The job of trying to instill even a modicum of discipline and common sense among the rabble of extremists on the party's far right finally became too impossible for him to take.

There was a time when the speaker had a lot more influence and discipline, at least over his own party's members, but the Tea Party sect owes no allegiance to him or the party. They're beholden to the powerful money men who pour tens of millions into their coffers so they can get elected. Many of the more mainstream Republicans are so terrified of being targeted in primaries by the far right they're doing their best to pretend they're invisible.

The Tea Party mindset reminds me very much of that of politicians from third world countries where democracy has failed, or is failing. The idea of compromise is entirely foreign to their way of thinking. The very word to them is synonymous with defeat, surrender, and betrayal, and any Republican who dares to try to compromise with the Democrats faces certain primary challenges from well-funded Tea Party cultists.

The problem for America is their founding fathers created a strange system with three separate political power bases, in the congress, the senate and the executive branch. They did this to ensure that without compromise, the country was largely ungovernable. The Tea Party rejects that idea. To them it's all about what they want, period. End of story. What you want, what some other guy wants, or state, or region, is utterly without importance. They idea that you get some of what you want, and they get some of what you want, is, to the Tea Party, anathema. They must get ALL of what they want. Period. And they must do so every time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/25/us-usa-boehner-idUSKCN0RP1GT20150925

[bush_cheney2004]

...The problem for America is their founding fathers created a strange system with three separate political power bases, in the congress, the senate and the executive branch.

No..the U.S. Senate is part of Congress, which also includes the House. The third branch of government is the Supreme Court.

The system was designed to make passing legislation very difficult.

"Progressives" can be every bit as intransigent as the "Tea Party".

Edited September 25, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Exegesisme]

No..the U.S. Senate is part of Congress, which also includes the House. The third branch of government is the Supreme Court.

The system was designed to make passing legislation very difficult.

"Progressives" can be every bit as intransigent as the "Tea Party".

Not very difficult, but necessary checks and balances.

[Argus]

No..the U.S. Senate is part of Congress, which also includes the House. The third branch of government is the Supreme Court.

The system was designed to make passing legislation very difficult.

"Progressives" can be every bit as intransigent as the "Tea Party".

The Senate and the House are separate power bases, especially when different parties hold majorities in each.

While I hold "progressives" in very nearly as much contempt as the Tea Party they don't hold anything like the power.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Senate and the House are separate power bases, especially when different parties hold majorities in each.

Neither are "power bases"...that is Canada speak. Both have majority and minority party members that can and do vote independently from party leadership when desired.

[Shady]

Having to deal with Obama would make me wanna resign too. Everything they pass to his desk gets vetoed. Even bills with huge majority support by Americans.

[Argus]

Having to deal with Obama would make me wanna resign too. Everything they pass to his desk gets vetoed. Even bills with huge majority support by Americans.

If you don't compromise you don't get stuff done. Boehner was often unable to compromise due to the intransigence of the Tea Partiers, who preferred to vote against Obamacare, what was it at last count, forty three times, rather than dealing with serious issues.

[Big Guy]

"If you can't stand the heat then get ouit of the fire."

Good move Boehner - there is life beyond politics.

[Shady]

If you don't compromise you don't get stuff done. Boehner was often unable to compromise due to the intransigence of the Tea Partiers, who preferred to vote against Obamacare, what was it at last count, forty three times, rather than dealing with serious issues.

I agree that compromise is important. Obama doesn't compromise. Hence its been 7 years and still no "decision" on keystone. Even though his own state department ok'd the project.

[sharkman]

So John Boehner, the conservative's conservative, has thrown up his arms in despair and surrender and will walk away from his job as speaker, and the congress itself. The job of trying to instill even a modicum of discipline and common sense among the rabble of extremists on the party's far right finally became too impossible for him to take.

There was a time when the speaker had a lot more influence and discipline, at least over his own party's members, but the Tea Party sect owes no allegiance to him or the party. They're beholden to the powerful money men who pour tens of millions into their coffers so they can get elected. Many of the more mainstream Republicans are so terrified of being targeted in primaries by the far right they're doing their best to pretend they're invisible.

The Tea Party mindset reminds me very much of that of politicians from third world countries where democracy has failed, or is failing. The idea of compromise is entirely foreign to their way of thinking. The very word to them is synonymous with defeat, surrender, and betrayal, and any Republican who dares to try to compromise with the Democrats faces certain primary challenges from well-funded Tea Party cultists.

The problem for America is their founding fathers created a strange system with three separate political power bases, in the congress, the senate and the executive branch. They did this to ensure that without compromise, the country was largely ungovernable. The Tea Party rejects that idea. To them it's all about what they want, period. End of story. What you want, what some other guy wants, or state, or region, is utterly without importance. They idea that you get some of what you want, and they get some of what you want, is, to the Tea Party, anathema. They must get ALL of what they want. Period. And they must do so every time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/25/us-usa-boehner-idUSKCN0RP1GT20150925

Sorry, but your view of the situation is rather odd. I'll just pick one, Boehner was certainly no Conservative's Conservative.

Edited September 26, 2015 by sharkman

[Argus]

I agree that compromise is important. Obama doesn't compromise. Hence its been 7 years and still no "decision" on keystone. Even though his own state department ok'd the project.

I'm not about to say anything good about Obama, but there hasn't been an inch of give on the other side of the aisle for many years. I remember when they formed that commission to find a way of reducing the deficit in 2013. Everyone said the mandatory cuts would be so painful for both sides that it would be bound to cause them to compromise. But before there was one meeting the Republican members of the super-committee on deficit reduction trooped down to the lair of a billionaire supporter, knelt, bowed, licked his shiny leather shoes, then swore an oath to not approve one penny of additional taxes. See, the painful cuts to defense were, well, not that important compared to the need to cut taxes on billionaires, particularly the ones who held their leashes and fed them their donation chow.

[Argus]

Sorry, but your view of the situation is rather odd. I'll just pick one, Boehner was certainly no Conservative's Conservative.

I think your definition of conservative is different from mine. As has been noted of late, if Ronald Reagan tried to run for office today he'd be hooted off the stage by Republican 'conservatives' and called a communist.

[Shady]

I think your definition of conservative is different from mine. As has been noted of late, if Ronald Reagan tried to run for office today he'd be hooted off the stage by Republican 'conservatives' and called a communist.

No he wouldn't, that's absurd. But JFK would definitely be rejected by Obama democrats. He'd be considered an evil capitalist pig and a warmonger.

[sharkman]

I think your definition of conservative is different from mine. As has been noted of late, if Ronald Reagan tried to run for office today he'd be hooted off the stage by Republican 'conservatives' and called a communist.

What definition of conservative are you using? I'm talking about conservatives that did not want Obama's agenda to succeed and wanted Boehner to oppose Obama, not work with him. Kind of like the way Dems opposed Bush.

[Argus]

No he wouldn't, that's absurd. But JFK would definitely be rejected by Obama democrats. He'd be considered an evil capitalist pig and a warmonger.

“Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.” Mike Huckabee.

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.” Ronald Reagan.

Reagan also raised taxes 11 times and the debt ceiling 18 times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-reagan/2011/07/19/gIQAuckfOI_print.html

[Argus]

What definition of conservative are you using? I'm talking about conservatives that did not want Obama's agenda to succeed and wanted Boehner to oppose Obama, not work with him. Kind of like the way Dems opposed Bush.

©onservative, to me, is someone who values solid, traditional polices and programs that work and work efficiently, and wants all government to do the same. A conservative is more than willing to pay for what the government needs to do, but doesn't want the government to do what it doesn't need to do unless it can be fully demonstrated that additional things are not only well worth doing, but will help the citizenry more than leaving them with more of their own money. A conservative is careful, pragmatic, solid, dependable and reliable, and doesn't get enthusiastic about every new idea that comes along because he's seen how many of them fail. He thinks long term and big picture.

The Tea Party types are none of the above. They're zealots and ideologues with narrowly focused agendas on hot-button religious/social issues they think they can manipulate, or appealing to people's selfish greed. Many of them are paranoid if not outright delusional in terms of their fear of and distrust in government. Some are borderline anarchists, in my opinion, and almost all of them seem to have no problem using their fundamentalist religious beliefs as a club to beat everyone else with.

And btw, don't mistake religious fanaticism for political conservatism. They're entirely different breeds.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Argus

[sharkman]

“Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.” Mike Huckabee.

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.” Ronald Reagan.

Reagan also raised taxes 11 times and the debt ceiling 18 times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-reagan/2011/07/19/gIQAuckfOI_print.html

I would expect that you don't usually think much of Mike Huckabee, but I guess on at least this point you would agree with him. But he's simply stating an opinion, nothing more. He's probably one of those tea party types, I'd watch who I listen to if I were you!!

Edited September 26, 2015 by sharkman

[sharkman]

©onservative, to me, is someone who values solid, traditional polices and programs that work and work efficiently, and wants all government to do the same. A conservative is more than willing to pay for what the government needs to do, but doesn't want the government to do what it doesn't need to do unless it can be fully demonstrated that additional things are not only well worth doing, but will help the citizenry more than leaving them with more of their own money. A conservative is careful, pragmatic, solid, dependable and reliable, and doesn't get enthusiastic about every new idea that comes along because he's seen how many of them fail. He thinks long term and big picture.

The Tea Party types are none of the above. They're zealots and ideologues with narrowly focused agendas on hot-button religious/social issues they think they can manipulate, or appealing to people's selfish greed. Many of them are paranoid if not outright delusional in terms of their fear of and distrust in government. Some are borderline anarchists, in my opinion, and almost all of them seem to have no problem using their fundamentalist religious beliefs as a club to beat everyone else with.

And btw, don't mistake religious fanaticism for political conservatism. They're entirely different breeds.

You're talking about a Fiscal conservative, and by the looks of it paint any other kind as a zealot. Selfish greed, paranoid, delusional and anarchists, sounds like you've got a case of the vapours! I suggest drinking some herbal tea and taking a nap.

[BubberMiley]

I would suggest trying to form an argument rather than give yet another boring, fake psychological assessment.

[Argus]

You're talking about a Fiscal conservative, and by the looks of it paint any other kind as a zealot. Selfish greed, paranoid, delusional and anarchists, sounds like you've got a case of the vapours! I suggest drinking some herbal tea and taking a nap.

I don't have a problem with social conservatives except when they let their social views outweigh their responsibility to safeguard the core functions of government, which yes, includes making sure government doesn't spend more than it takes in, and does the jobs which need doing. The US has a huge problem with its budget because the Tea Party can't wrap it's mind around anything but spending and tax cuts. It doesn't want either, it wants both - despite the country having a huge debt. It distracts the gullible with extraneous issues like abortion, gay marriage and guns while neglecting their responsibilities as legislators to keep the economic engine going. And btw, their enthusiasm for spending cuts does not extend to things like cutting farm subsidies or the myriad of tax breaks and special programs which enrich big business, just the money which goes to individuals, you know, the poor, the sick, the elderly - the ones good Christians are supposed to look after.

The irony is this is a group formed out of public outrage at government bailouts of Wall Street which has morphed into Wall Street's main protector. if the Tea Party had its way there would be no corporate or business taxes, and no regulations on business. They'd get the money by eliminating all kinds of "entitlements" like pensions and medicair and welfare and education.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I would expect that you don't usually think much of Mike Huckabee, but I guess on at least this point you would agree with him. But he's simply stating an opinion, nothing more. He's probably one of those tea party types, I'd watch who I listen to if I were you!!

He's simply saying what so many others have. Reagan raised taxes and compromised with democrats. Either of those is MORE than sufficient, if he were a senator or congressmen, to get the Tea Party hoping mad and funding a challenger in the primaries.

Really, what the Republican Party needs to do is cleanse itself by giving the top brass the final say on who can be candidates, like in Canada. Then they can disallow all candidates from the far right, and get back to being a conservative oriented party. If the Tea Party want to form their own official party, then let them. Yes, yes, I know that would give the elections to the Democrats, but the rich men who fund the Tea Party would quickly realize that and stop, and this noxious collection of retrograde anarchists would fade back into the hills and backwoods where they came from.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The irony is this is a group formed out of public outrage at government bailouts of Wall Street which has morphed into Wall Street's main protector. if the Tea Party had its way there would be no corporate or business taxes, and no regulations on business. They'd get the money by eliminating all kinds of "entitlements" like pensions and medicair and welfare and education.

Wall Street has even bigger friends in the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Wall Street is American business...public outrage doesn't mean much when the golden geese are involved.

[On Guard for Thee]

I hope they do put a tea party type in Boehner's place, perhaps the likes of Ted Cruz. Then between him and Trump we can actually get some good humor from US tv.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/26/politics/ted-cruz-ayatollah-iran-nuclear-weapons-virgins/index.html

Edited September 27, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[WIP]

"If you can't stand the heat then get ouit of the fire."

Good move Boehner - there is life beyond politics.

There's likely bipartisan agreement to say good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! The corporate right at Forbes notes that he started the fight to defund Planned Parenthood, but likely only intended using it as a rhetorical issue to rail against and appear in synch with anti-birth control nutcases on the far right. Seems the mandatory childbirth lobby decided it was a good idea and wanted to run with it, and backing down or equivocating even a little, started the revolt that would have removed him as speaker if he hadn't resigned.

So, I can't say I feel sorry for a political hack who's "life beyond politics" will no doubt include cashing in his bonus miles from the pharmaceutical lobby and the Keystone pipeline he kept pushing relentlessly for:

Edited September 27, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted image trolling [img=https://therealwithdarylanddevon.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john_boehner_orange_flack.jpg]

[WIP]

I think your definition of conservative is different from mine. As has been noted of late, if Ronald Reagan tried to run for office today he'd be hooted off the stage by Republican 'conservatives' and called a communist.

That depends whether you're talking about the real Reagan or the Reagan myth created after he was out of office.