House Preparing to Toss Boehner
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Time-Immemorial
And the Dema willing to save him!
Hahahahaha, you don't say!?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/john-boehner-democrats/
Flyattractor
Good luck with that.
Time-Immemorial
He's an absolute moron. Needs to be thrown out like the traitor he is.
Flyattractor
But Absolute Moron are almost prerequisite credentials for todays Politician , both Dem and Rino.
Omega Vision
So we're at the point that being willing to compromise is being a traitor? If we think that way, our political system is doomed.
Robtard
Smart move from the Dems. The longer the GOP eats itself, the better chances they have in claiming both house next election.
Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So we're at the point that being willing to compromise is being a traitor? If we think that way, our political system is doomed.
So giving in to everything Obama wants then blaming it on his party is how you see it?
Flyattractor
You find it surprising that LiboDemGressives think basically capitulating to their every demand is what compromise is?
Q99
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So we're at the point that being willing to compromise is being a traitor? If we think that way, our political system is doomed.
Or at least the party who thinks that is doomed.
It is, innately, limiting their options.
If they don't compromise, what happens is they simply get less done, and have a shorter accomplishment list.
Parties with smaller actual representation often accomplish a good deal more, but lack of compromise has basically traded 'doing things they want' in exchange for 'stopping many things the other thing wants.'
Ultimately, I don't think that's going to be a good trade for just about any party.
Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So giving in to everything Obama wants then blaming it on his party is how you see it?
Giving in to everything?
Boehner's the one who said that his congress should be judged on how much it stops (which, btw, is a lot). The phrase 'party of no' is often used to describe the Republican congress under him, and obstructionism has spiked to historical levels.
The only things he's given in on, like the debt ceiling fight and so on, tend to be ones that would be quite damaging to the Republican party if he kept pressing- they're things that were designed never to be fought over in the first place, and which actively harm the country in the fighting, and Boehner is historically unusual in fighting them at all.
In short, you're requiring a higher standard of obstructionism from him than has ever existed in twice your lifetime. Boehner is the most obstructionist Speaker of the House in living memory, and it is still not enough for you. That's not him being easy to give in, that's just him having some limit to how far he can go.
The Democrats worked with George W. Bush far more than the Republicans worked with Obama.
In Bush's term, the number of laws passed ranged from 136 in 2001 up to 313 in 2006.
Since John Boehner took the role of House Speaker, we had 90 in 2011, 60 in 2012, and 57 in 2013
Source / Source
I can't find the numbers for 2014, but in general he's been responsible for there being on average less than half as many laws a year as during the W. Bush administration years.
If obstructionism and not working with the other party is your desire, then Boehner has been delivering in spades.
And the reason he's had to give in the times he has is simple: Because it's always been completely clear there's been nothing in it for the Democrats if they were the ones to give in. Let the debt ceiling be used as a regular bargaining tactic? Congratulations, either the Republicans use it for everything- which we all know they would- and the Democrat's democratically elected representation effectively gets sidelined and you're tossing representation of half the American people out the window- or we actually have a debt default, at which point the country fairly implodes, that'd make the '07/'08 economic crash look small in comparison.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, "Do everything we want or we'll blow both of us up," is not that convincing of a threat since, you know, you're threatening to blow yourself up, and that's pretty much the only thing Boehner's been caving on.
Other stuff, like the Democrats saying, "All right, we'll give you this if you give us that," has been resounding door-to-door 'No' after 'no' after 'no' from both Republican house and senate. The US democratic congress has gotten very little done past the part of Obama's term when he had the majority (and oh how Republicans like to gnash about the Democrats actually having passed a reform when they had a Democratically elected number of votes needed to do so), and most of Obama's actions have been using his other official powers and not through Congress because congress has been a legislative black hole that avoids passing everything it doesn't have to.
Like the numbers above show, it's not 'capitulating to every demand,' but 'being willing to work together on anything at all.'
Time-Immemorial
Literally you are not keeping up with the news.
Boehner is an idiot.
Lestov16
Thanks for catching on. We've been trying to tell you that Boehner and his obstructive GOP Congress were idiots ever since they tried to hold the US economy hostage. At least now you're finally understanding.
Time-Immemorial
Your not getting it, they have not obstructed anything. Go look at everything that has passed. They have pulled a funny on everyone including everyone here.
Bentley
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your not getting it, they have not obstructed anything. Go look at everything that has passed. They have pulled a funny on everyone including everyone here.
So instead of working on a negative politic agenda they actually got some work done?
I guess congratulations are in order.
Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Literally you are not keeping up with the news.
Boehner is an idiot.
I'm not disagreeing that he's an idiot, but he's also preeetty much acted the opposite of what you say for his entire time on the job.
And simply stating your conclusion is not much of an argument.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your not getting it, they have not obstructed anything.
There's been legendary levels of obstructionism, the congress has prided itself in obstructionism, and members of it, including Boehner, brag about how much obstructionism they've done, and try and one-up each other on it. The second stimulus, the veteran jobs bill, heck, the medical reform fight was full of obstructionism-for-the-sake of it (the ACA managed to get done despite it, but it's the last time the Democrats had the power to do so, because with the 'Blue Dog' Democrats and independents they had at the time, they could reach 60. And that was pre-Boehner anyway, you can't really peg that on him).
I did, and then I looked at how much normally gets passed, and oh, hey, it's about half the amount that the Democrats let the Republican pass under Bush- which is not a historic high point in itself.
Again from my previous post:
In Bush's term, the number of laws passed ranged from 136 in 2001 up to 313 in 2006.
Since John Boehner took the role of House Speaker, we had 90 in 2011, 60 in 2012, and 57 in 2013
I'll also toss in that there's been over 50 attempts to appeal or cripple Obamacare to the floor.
Here is an article on how the 113th congress is historically good at not passing bills
Here are the acts of the 114th- the current- US congress. Note how despite most of the year being over, there's 49 of them. And 11 of those are place namings. That's generally what's called 'sitting around and not passing stuff.'
You may have this vague idea that he's letting a lot passed, but all the data I can find says the reality is the opposite, that the entire time Boehner's been in office there's been very low levels of things being passed, and . The senate's more permissive and there's literally record numbers of filibusters there too.
And hey, you shouldn't want so much obstructionism, because wanna know how you get your stuff through? You let some other stuff through in exchange.
Shutting stuff down means you don't get anything passed you want.
But seriously, Boehner letting Obama do whatever he wants? The numbers say almost the exact opposite, he's been a staunch foe of letting President of the United States Barack Obama getting anything through.
You're literally getting what you want from Boehner, someone who will oppose what Obama supports on general principle. This is what that gets you: A deadlock where the congressional Republicans don't get anything done, the congressional Democrats don't get anything done and the Democrats don't get much done but still have presidential orders and the power of all the secretaries of state/defense/etc..
Congratulations Time, this is exactly the congress you asked for doing exactly what you want it to do. The results you have a problem with are caused by the actions you call for.
Time-Immemorial
Your still not getting it.
They said they were going to defund Obamacare, they never did.
Oh and there is this.
Look at these pals, together in the mile high club.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-boehner-first-air-force-one-ride-invite-barack-obama-charleston-119478
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your still not getting it.
They said they were going to defund Obamacare, they never did.
Oh and there is this.
Look at these pals, together in the mile high club.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-boehner-first-air-force-one-ride-invite-barack-obama-charleston-119478 The AFA care act was most likely going through no matter who the speaker was.
And he did try to stop if with everything they could muster...
Also you're demeaning for taking a picture with Obama on their way to visit the South Carolina shooting site and offer condolences?
This level of hate for a person over this type of stuff is kind worrying to me.
Time-Immemorial
No he could have used the power of the purse.
They failed to do so.
Your hate speech means little, its this horrible policy I don't like.
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No he could have used the power of the purse.
They failed to do so.
Your hate speech means little, its this horrible policy I don't like. What do you mean by power of the purse? You mean keep government shutdown?
Also you're the one that posted a picture of them together like it was a bad thing without ignoring the context of why the picture was taken to begin with.
Time-Immemorial
Yes shut it down, who flipping cares anyways.
Flyattractor
The biggest problems with GubMint shut downs is that they keep shutting down The WRONG HALF!
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes shut it down, who flipping cares anyways. A lot of people do... the people who depend on those services to run, the people who got laid off... seriously if the Republicans kept the government shutdown for too long they would have lost a lot of voters. They probably lost some just for doing it to begin with.
Time-Immemorial
I love how scared newjack gets about hearing the word "shutdown."
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love how scared newjack gets about hearing the word "shutdown." What does this statement of yours have anything to do with my statement that continuing the shutdown for too long would have hurt the Republican image and pushing away voters?
Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
A lot of people do... the people who depend on those services to run, the people who got laid off... seriously if the Republicans kept the government shutdown for too long they would have lost a lot of voters. They probably lost some just for doing it to begin with.
How is it always only the REPUBS fault of a Shut Down? How is it that the Demos always get their part in it cut out of the scenario?t
Newjak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
How is it always only the REPUBS fault of a Shut Down? How is it that the Demos always get their part in it cut out of the scenario?t Because whatever fault the Dems played into the shutdown was minuscule to what the republicans did.
The Republicans are the ones who spear headed shutting down the government even though the AFA legally passed through the House and Senate.
Time-Immemorial
And it's bad to shut the government down
You are so pro big government you could not function without them.
Pathetic, learn to think for yourself.
Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
Because whatever fault the Dems played into the shutdown was minuscule to what the republicans did.
The Republicans are the ones who spear headed shutting down the government even though the AFA legally passed through the House and Senate. Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And it's bad to shut the government down
You are so pro big government you could not function without them.
Pathetic, learn to think for yourself.
Oh its far to late for him to ever do that ever again.
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And it's bad to shut the government down
You are so pro big government you could not function without them.
Pathetic, learn to think for yourself. You can laugh all you want. You haven't actually addressed my point which is that the government shutdown had it continued for longer would have looked bad on the Republicans. Perception is important even if you believe shutting the government down is good or bad the perceived notion of of most people is that it is bad because it shutting down services and jobs people need.
Of course it did shut down services and jobs people need but that's a different talk. You also once again are assuming you know how I live my life or what I need in my life. Of course you most likely have used a tremendous amount of government provided services you're just refuse to acknowledge them. Things like public roads and schools.
Time-Immemorial
I don't care what it makes the republicans look like. Have you not figured that out yet? You cling to these party lines like it's your last hope they will save you.
When are you going to think for yourself?
Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
Things like public roads and schools.
The States can handle those just fine with out Big Brudda Gubmint just fine.
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I don't care what it makes the republicans look like. Have you not figured that out yet? You cling to these party lines like it's your last hope they will save you.
When are you going to think for yourself? My comment was in regards to yours about who would care if the government was shutdown.
It had nothing to do about drawing party lines as the Republicans do care if the government is shutdown for too long because it negatively impacts their image to the voters.
It also hurts people that do rely on the government because they have a government job or they receive services from the government. So they probably care about a government shutdown.
Also at this point you continue to judge and make ignorant claims such as thinking for myself or that I look to the parties to save me. You've been doing it so often it's getting annoying because it holds no bearing what I'm saying. You should stop personally attacking me about things you do not know anything about.
Time-Immemorial
Tell me who has been hurt by a government shutdown. Quit pulling claims out your ass. It's getting old.
The government might get things resolved in a shut down and all you care about is some random people that "might be affected" rather then the whole country fixing itself and spring less money in the process.
You haven't proved anything you just think your long posts prove them selves. They don't.
Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Tell me who has been hurt by a government shutdown. Quit pulling claims out your ass. It's getting old.
The government might get things resolved in a shut down and all you care about is some random people that "might be affected" rather then the whole country fixing itself and spring less money in the process.
You haven't proved anything you just think your long posts prove them selves. They don't. I'm sure the 800 000 employees that were given a leave of absence weren't too happy about not getting paid. Or the 1.3 million that didn't know when their next paycheck was coming even though they were allowed to report for work.
Also I'm pretty sure costing 24 billion to prove a point was so very helpful to our economy.
Time-Immemorial
More limbo jumbo, no facts or sources. But let's say I believe you on your word.
Guess what all those people get retroactive back pay.
Obama spent $500,000,000 on a failed Syrian strategy and going to spend another $600 million yet you remain silent on that.
I know what your motives are and your agenda, and it's pathetic.
Omega Vision
From the perspective of other countries, a government shutdown looks like the most idiotic and childish of political stunts.
Boehner is getting forced out right now because he's done his best to keep the crazies in his party in line.
psmith81992
Fox breaking news says Boehner will resign in October. This is great news for conservatives
Bardock42
Originally posted by psmith81992
Fox breaking news says Boehner will resign in October. This is great news for conservatives
Do you think it is great news strategically for conservatives or that it is a win in the sense that they want it, but it'll actually be harmful to them in the long run? Cause I think it will be the latter tbh
psmith81992
Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think it is great news strategically for conservatives or that it is a win in the sense that they want it, but it'll actually be harmful to them in the long run? Cause I think it will be the latter tbh
I think it's the former because Boehner is dicking up the image of conservatives in this country. He's making conservatives seem like the "party of no", when its' really him.
Bardock42
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's the former because Boehner is dicking up the image of conservatives in this country. He's making conservatives seem like the "party of no", when its' really him.
You think he will be replaced with someone more willing to compromise? After all the recent attack came from a wing that wants to say even more "no"
Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's the former because Boehner is dicking up the image of conservatives in this country. He's making conservatives seem like the "party of no", when its' really him.
I'm with Bardock here, I don't imagine Boehner's replacement is going to be a more conciliatory figure. It's quite likely they'll be the opposite.
Time-Immemorial
ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!!!
**** THAT GUY!
I started this movement and it went to the TOP^
Flyattractor
Well he didn't get KICKED OUT! He did what Omeggy and barddy would have wanted. He COMPROMISED!
Or he QUIT!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if he cried?
Bardock42
Apparently your fellow conservative psmith would also prefer more compromise
Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
Apparently your fellow conservative psmith would also prefer more compromise
Oh wait I forgot, the republicans have to compromise and pass bills that Obama just veto's, but Obama does not have to compromise, he just rams executive action down the countries throat. You are a shameful person bardock, and a liar.
Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh wait I forgot, the republicans have to compromise and pass bills that Obama just veto's, but Obama does not have to compromise, he just rams executive action down the countries throat. You are a shameful person bardock, and a liar.
I think the personal attacks are unnecessary.
You shouldn't call someone a liar for disagreeing with you.
Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh wait I forgot, the republicans have to compromise and pass bills that Obama just veto's, but Obama does not have to compromise, he just rams executive action down the countries throat. You are a shameful person bardock, and a liar.
What did I lie about allegedly?
Time-Immemorial
You ignore Obama's uncompromising position and ram rodding executive action down our throats, but then think the republicans have to compromise. If liar is the wrong term I apologize, its being disingenuous.
psmith81992
Originally posted by Bardock42
You think he will be replaced with someone more willing to compromise? After all the recent attack came from a wing that wants to say even more "no" I firmly believe conservative leaders are starting to understand their faults and will replace him with someone better and more open to compromise.
Time-Immemorial
I cant believe we had to put up with Obama's puppet for 5 years.
long pig
Of course he cried. He cried orange tears.
Time-Immemorial
**** BONER!
Lestov16
So let me get this clear, when Boehner was threatening to collapse the country's economy, your complain is he didn't go far enough?
Omega Vision
Not sure what sort of Speaker TI wants. Presumably one who will kick Obama in the nuts as soon as he's sworn in.
Lestov16
Or one willing to collapse the economy to prevent experimental universal healthcare.
psmith81992
Originally posted by Lestov16
Or one willing to collapse the economy to prevent experimental universal healthcare.
Your posts are as hilariously idiotic as TI.
I would be on board with that. Do you have any idea how man youtube hits a video like that would generate?
Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Lestov16
Or one willing to collapse the economy to prevent experimental universal healthcare.
Shutting the government down will not collapse the economy, you been smoking to much now if you really believe that.
Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not sure what sort of Speaker TI wants. Presumably one who will kick Obama in the nuts as soon as he's sworn in.
Boner was a shill, and a played bend over for Obama to many times. He ran on defunding Obama care, and he ended up funding it.
Omega Vision
That's an insane way of looking at things. He funded it because the alternative was to be the guy who goes down in history as the man who destroyed the credibility of the US government. It was a game of chicken, one the Republicans thought they could win.
Time-Immemorial
He was weak and a shill and a drunk and bent over on everything he said he was going to do.
Did you even do that Obama care calculator and see what your premiums and deductibles are going to be?
Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He was weak and a shill and a drunk and bent over on everything he said he was going to do.
It's impressive how I showed you the numbers on how he's the least-permissive speakers on record, but because he has any line where he's willing to stop, you say he lets Obama get away with everything.
We are agreed that Boehner's a fool, but the foolishness was thinking the Republican party would be happy with him for doing 90% of their desires, even ones beyond what anyone in his position had done before, but stopping where he thought going further would hurt the party.
Boehner's a fool for listening to what you wanted, but having limits where he thought it'd be self-destructive to go.
Mine's just fine. And there's the matter that tens of millions more Americans are getting insurance as a result, and it's coming in under budget, and one of the big things it does is slow the rate of rising costs (not lowering costs, but slowing the already-rising costs), and oh yes, once it was passed the Republican party never had the votes to repeal it nor even tried to make deals promising other stuff in exchange for a repeal, and thus whether or not it was repealed was way outside Boehner's control.
Because he had no actual opportunities to defund it, because he doesn't have the power to, because that's not the way congress works.
That's another part of foolishness of Boehner and others like him, and one I've mentioned in other threads- the overpromising.
If you promise stuff that requires a 2/3rd majority, and you don't have a 2/3rds majority with your people, and you aren't willing to do trades to let the other side get some stuff done in exchange for a 2/3rds majority on just-the-one thing, and are in fact deeply opposed to doing that, you are not going to get your 2/3rds majority, and a simple napkin math calculation once the seat counting is done should tell you.
It's not a matter of letting Obama, it's that Boehner never had the power to stop it, and throwing a fit and trying to hold the government's functioning hostage with a shutdown doesn't work because it makes you look bad more than the other side, and trying to threaten with the debt ceiling even less-so be that one is just suicidal, it's a threat that can't actually be carried out without being willing to destroy the country's economy and make one's parties pariahs for the next three generations.
Stopping the ACA was a pipedream. It passed with a supermajority in both houses, got signed by the president, and cleared by the supreme court. Meaning, it has passed every government test and gotten an OK already. In order to stop it, you need to gather more public support and the Republican party isn't willing to do that, or wait for it to happen.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama spent $500,000,000 on a failed Syrian strategy and going to spend another $600 million yet you remain silent on that.
Correction, Time: I'm pretty sure everyone here who posted in that thread, mentioned that we thought that was a failure and a waste. I know I did, and I know you responded to me doing so.
So you're trying to re-write what other people say again.
(And while that is a *definite* mistake and bad move, Republicans have wasted more on similar things, so it's more an argument for another, completely third choice who's not doing Obama's way or the Republican way)
Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
It's impressive how I showed you the numbers on how he's the least-permissive speakers on record, but because he has any line where he's willing to stop, you say he lets Obama get away with everything.
We are agreed that Boehner's a fool, but the foolishness was thinking the Republican party would be happy with him for doing 90% of their desires, even ones beyond what anyone in his position had done before, but stopping where he thought going further would hurt the party.
Boehner's a fool for listening to what you wanted, but having limits where he thought it'd be self-destructive to go.
Mine's just fine. And there's the matter that tens of millions more Americans are getting insurance as a result, and it's coming in under budget, and one of the big things it does is slow the rate of rising costs (not lowering costs, but slowing the already-rising costs), and oh yes, once it was passed the Republican party never had the votes to repeal it nor even tried to make deals promising other stuff in exchange for a repeal, and thus whether or not it was repealed was way outside Boehner's control.
Because he had no actual opportunities to defund it, because he doesn't have the power to, because that's not the way congress works.
That's another part of foolishness of Boehner and others like him, and one I've mentioned in other threads- the overpromising.
If you promise stuff that requires a 2/3rd majority, and you don't have a 2/3rds majority with your people, and you aren't willing to do trades to let the other side get some stuff done in exchange for a 2/3rds majority on just-the-one thing, and are in fact deeply opposed to doing that, you are not going to get your 2/3rds majority, and a simple napkin math calculation once the seat counting is done should tell you.
It's not a matter of letting Obama, it's that Boehner never had the power to stop it, and throwing a fit and trying to hold the government's functioning hostage with a shutdown doesn't work because it makes you look bad more than the other side, and trying to threaten with the debt ceiling even less-so be that one is just suicidal, it's a threat that can't actually be carried out without being willing to destroy the country's economy and make one's parties pariahs for the next three generations.
Stopping the ACA was a pipedream. It passed with a supermajority in both houses, got signed by the president, and cleared by the supreme court. Meaning, it has passed every government test and gotten an OK already. In order to stop it, you need to gather more public support and the Republican party isn't willing to do that, or wait for it to happen.
Its like you have no clue how the speakership works, you know he is the most powerful man in government besides the president and third in line of the office of the president only because their is a VP.
Q99
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's the former because Boehner is dicking up the image of conservatives in this country. He's making conservatives seem like the "party of no", when its' really him.
Just take a look at Time and Fly- They are literally getting on his case for not being party-of-no enough. For him not being able to say 'no' on stuff that happened before he became Speaker, actually (Obamacare).
And they aren't the only ones- Ted Cruz is the same, so are the major Tea Partiers in the House.
I think if they did get a figure more willing to do deals that'd let them get what they want some of the time, it'd be good long-term for them, but I don't see that happening.
I don't think you line up with your party here. I wish you were right, the country just works plum better when there's communication, I just don't think it's likely.
Time-Immemorial
Wait, isn't Obama the party of NO with all his executive orders and vetos?
Ted Cruz isn't even in the house.. Get a grip. He's a senator..what does this have to do with him?
psmith81992
Originally posted by Q99
Just take a look at Time and Fly- They are literally getting on his case for not being party-of-no enough. For him not being able to say 'no' on stuff that happened before he became Speaker, actually (Obamacare).
And they aren't the only ones- Ted Cruz is the same, so are the major Tea Partiers in the House.
I think if they did get a figure more willing to do deals that'd let them get what they want some of the time, it'd be good long-term for them, but I don't see that happening.
I don't think you line up with your party here. I wish you were right, the country just works plum better when there's communication, I just don't think it's likely.
I'm pretty confident I represent the majority of conservatives, whereas the conservative leaders do not.
Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wait, isn't Obama the party of NO with all his executive orders and vetos?
Nope. Executive orders aren't 'nos' to begin with, they're doing stuff (also, he's used less than, but in the same ballpark, as George W. Bush, 216 vs 291. Nothing unusual about number of executive orders one way or another), and Obama hasn't used many vetoes at all- due to the no-compromise, almost nothing reaches his desk. Stuff tends to be either unanimous or fail to get to him.
Barack Obama has used 4. Four vetoes.
Double-digits are normal (Both Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan all had double digit). Triple digits aren't unheard of. The record is over 600.
If the Republicans got their act together and made deals, he'd probably have to have used his veto stamp a lot more, but your champ Boehner has done such a good job at shutting stuff down and avoiding the normal get-stuff-done deals that almost nothing has reached Obama's desk, and he signs almost everything that does.
One, he's someone calling for the exact thing you are, no compromise.
Two, he's reached over to the house and was active in talking to house members during the shutdown.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm pretty confident I represent the majority of conservatives, whereas the conservative leaders do not.
I'm pretty confident that a decade or so ago, you would've been right.
Now, with the tea party, anti-Obama mania, losing moderates due to the party shifting right, and so on? Not so sure.
psmith81992
http://cdn.slowrobot.com/142014032822.jpg
Q99
Hah, good one
Info on the faction that pushed Boehner out, the 'freedom caucus'.
Also a simple info chart on length-of-speakerhood, Boehner's one of the longer lasting, surprisingly.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.