Speaker of the House for 113th Congress

[DeleyanLee]

Who do you think will become the next House Speaker?

Poll to follow momentarily

[Gregg]

Boehner will probably keep the position...due to the good old boy system
Cantor has little appeal.
Ryan would be a good alternative, but I doubt he will make the challenge.

Result: no change

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[blacbird]

Boehner will continue. But there are some bruises. Eric Cantor is transparently ambitious for the job, and I don't think he has much beyond personal gratification involved. He'll shove Boehner onto the subway tracks at the first opportunity. But that won't be this session. Cantor took a hit on the fiscal-cliff vote, and is in no position to contest the Speaker job right now. Nor is anybody else.

Two years from now, who knows? The GOP is in a state of schism at the moment, and how they shake that out over the next term is at the moment indecipherable. Right now, Obama's approval rating is the highest it's been since shortly after his first election, and the approval rating of Congress is as deep in the toilet as I've ever seen it. The House Republican leadership has a tankerload of background work to do to improve that situation.

caw

[nighttimer]

The Boner is the weakest, most ineffectual,impotent Speaker of the House in decades. Rarely do you see a Speaker who can neither control his caucus or his lieutenants on key votes, but Boehner gets punk'd by his own team so often even die-hard Democrats have to feel a little sorry for him.

When they're not laughing their asses off, that is.

He will probably get through the vote with his position, but can anyone tell me why Boehner wants the continued humiliation?

No wonder he's running around telling Harry Reid to "go fuck yourself." The poor dear is under stress. He's probably lighting up an entire pack of cigarettes and smoking them at the same time.

Trying to lead a GOP filled with flakes, nuts, bomb-throwers and radicals is like herding cats. It can be done, but what exactly have you accomplished?

I probably should stop calling John Boehner "the Boner" when "noodle dick" seems so much more accurate.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

The Boner is the weakest, most ineffectual,impotent Speaker of the House in decades.

How soon you forget: Dennis Hastert.

caw

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by blacbird

How soon you forget: Dennis Hastert.

caw

Who?

Hasn't everyone forgotten Denny Hastert?

[Cranky]

Looks like Boehner has kept his seat.

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by Cranky

Looks like Boehner has kept his seat.

Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert nominated former Rep. Allen West of Florida, prompting Democrats to respond with laughter on the other side of the aisle

.

[Gregg]

Amazingly, the Speaker doesn't have to be a Member of Congress.

12 Republicans voted for someone other than Boehner. I wonder what kind of committee assignments they'll (not) get.

[clintl]

On the bright side, Gohmert continues to be a voice of absurdity.

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by Gregg

Amazingly, the Speaker doesn't have to be a Member of Congress.

I did not know that. Learned something new.

[William Haskins]

the republicans have yet to hit rock bottom, so it was a bit too high an expectation that they might make any bold change.

boehner will further exacerbate the political division in washington and look like an oaf doing it. that much is assured.

also assured, of course, is that some silly liberals will continue to refer to him as "boner."

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by William Haskins

boehner will further exacerbate the political division in washington and look like an oaf doing it. that much is assured.

I think Boehner is in an impossible situation. I don't think anyone the GOP installed as speaker would be any better.

The far right minority of the GOP, some 70 or 80 members, have decided they have no interest in governing, and absolutely no intention of compromising on anything. They consider compromise a betrayal and moral failing, and (imo) believe they have God and the right on their side and are the only ones who possess truth and wisdom.

Sure, everybody feels that way to some extent, but they take it to a degree that resembles religious fanaticism. They are constitutionally incapable of doing the business of government, which is no surprise since they despise it so.

Boehner cannot control them and thus cannot even negotiate any more, since he cannot deliver on an agreed bargain.

I would actually feel sorry for Boehner if he were a different man.

(Somebody else said that; I don't remember who.)

[Monkey]

Pelosi was on NPR tonight saying that it was hard to negotiate with the Republicans right now largely because so many of them were anti-government. When you elect people who do not believe in government and want to cut large bits out of it, those people are less interested in making sure that the government runs smoothly. They actually see government shut downs, automatic cuts, and the neutering or outright closing of various programs as desirable outcomes.

How do you negotiate with that?

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Pelosi was on NPR tonight saying that it was hard to negotiate with the Republicans right now largely because so many of them were anti-government. When you elect people who do not believe in government and want to cut large bits out of it, those people are less interested in making sure that the government runs smoothly. They actually see government shut downs, automatic cuts, and the neutering or outright closing of various programs as desirable outcomes.

Here's what I don't understand: Why, if these people are so opposed to "government", do they so desperately want to be part of it? The "Tea Party" may have generated some new adherents to this mantra, but people like California Congressman Darrell Issa have made entire governmental careers out of being opposed to "government."

caw

[Monkey]

From what I can tell, they want to be a part of it precisely so they can hinder it, neuter it, and shrink it as much as possible. Remember the Republican primary debates? Each of them talked big about what parts of government they'd just close down altogether: stuff like the Department of Education. Cause, yanno, fuck free public K-12 education. Let the free market and the religious groups handle it.

Or something.

[Gregg]

I don't think the GOP or the Tea Party is "anti-government".
More likely, they want the Federal government to adhere to the enumerated powers as written in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution.


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Gregg

I don't think the GOP or the Tea Party is "anti-government".

Ask 'em. See what they say.

caw

[clintl]

That is not the end-all and be-all of the Constitution. There have been 27 amendments since then, some of them greatly expanding the role of the federal government well beyond Article 1, Section 8.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by clintl

That is not the end-all and be-all of the Constitution.

Nor was it ever, in the minds of the Founding Dads, the intent of the Constitution. Which is precisely why they included the provision for amendment, and made that process arduous. And a Supreme Court, a non-elected judicial body designed explicitly to pass judgment on Constitutional issues. They wanted the Constitution to be a document of principles guiding the new Republic as it aged into a future unpredictable, but not transparently and ephemerally easy to alter. They never intended it to be an unalterable stone monument to their greatness.

caw

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by William Haskins

the republicans have yet to hit rock bottom, so it was a bit too high an expectation that they might make any bold change.

boehner will further exacerbate the political division in washington and look like an oaf doing it. that much is assured.

also assured, of course, is that some silly liberals will continue to refer to him as "boner."

Also assured, of course, is that some cranky conservatives will continue to take offense to referring to him as "boner."

Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner.
Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner. Boner.
BONER.







"When you begin to go out there and ask people to vote for you, they're probably not going to vote for you if they can't say your name. You know, my name looks like Beener, Bonner, Boner. Thank God it's not Weiner."

~ Speaker of the House John Boehner Boner, Ohio State University commencement speech, 6/15/11

[Jcomp]

I voted for Bose

[Cranky]

Gah. *hides stinking horse corpse in cellar*

Anyhoooooooo --

Re-electing Boehner seems like a weird choice, considering. OTOH, it's vastly preferable to Cantor, IMO. I am hopeful he wasn't re-elected to keep late-night (and thread) comedians in plentiful joke supply. Though I am not sure what else he's going to be able to accomplish. Most things seem to happen despite him, rather than because of him.

[Gregg]

Originally Posted by clintl

That is not the end-all and be-all of the Constitution. There have been 27 amendments since then, some of them greatly expanding the role of the federal government well beyond Article 1, Section 8.

Besides the 16th amendment which gave Congress the power to tax incomes, which amendments greatly expanded the role of the Federal Government?

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Gregg

I don't think the GOP or the Tea Party is "anti-government".
More likely, they want the Federal government to adhere to the enumerated powers as written in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution.


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Regardless of what terms you'd like to put it in, the real-world result is the same.

We've got a thread right now on relief for hurricane Sandy. One would think that actually paying out on the flood insurance that the government made these people buy would be a given. One would think it would be bipartisan. But no, it's been delayed and delayed, and there was pressure not to even pay out on people's flood insurance claims, because, quote "Congress should not allow the federal government to be involved in the flood insurance industry in the first place."

To those people, I say, "Look, assholes, regardless of whether or not you think congress SHOULD have set up flood insurance, fact is, they did. Now pay the fuck up so that people can get their lives back together."

We've seen the same argument with gays in the military. The Republican nominees this time around were unified in their belief that the military should not recognize/support ANY sexual orientation, and to write laws forcing them to recognize same-sex marriage would change that. (The ol' "special privileges" argument.)

Of course, that ignores our current reality, wherein the military actually DOES recognize and support heterosexual norms, by having policies regarding married couples (among other things) in place.

Regardless of how you think things *should* be, we need lawmakers who vote based on how things *are.* If you're refusing to pay out on insurance claims because you don't think congress should have offered insurance, you're ignoring reality and causing real life, actual harm to living human beings based on what you - personally - think the law *should* be.

You are hampering the job of government because you don't think it should be doing the job it's doing. And I don't care if you want to call that anti-government or being a strict constitutionalist or whatnot, when you're making funding and enforcement decisions not based on the actual merits, the actual situation, or the actual needs, but instead on how you think the world "ought" to be, you're being an obstructionist asshole.

And no matter what you call it, it's damned hard to negotiate with someone who would be fine and dandy watching us all go over the cliff, and watching Sandy victims struggle just to get by day-to-day in the aftermath of a hurricane they SUPPOSEDLY had insurance for.