Skip to comments.Congressmen Confirm That Boehner Will Either Resign Speakership Or Be Forced Out
Posted on 01/02/2013 5:08:45 PM PST by drewh
click here to read article
I count eleven GOP-held House seats in the Northeast that, on paper, truly are very competitive for Democrats (NY-02, NY-11, NY-19, NY-22, NY-23, NJ-02, NJ-03, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15), but none of them can be said truly to lean Democrat. The closest would be NY-19 (Gibson) and NJ-02 (LoBiondo), but Gibson won fairly comfortably in spite of the 2012 Obama turnout and LoBiondo is well entrenched in his district. And even if the Democrats won all eleven of these CDs, they’d still fall short of 218.
More like cutting poison ivy with a pair of scissors.
More like cutting poison ivy with a pair of scissors.
Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey are east coast but not New England. Of course, if by "NE" you meant "Northeast", then I suppose they'd count. New Jersey is still solidly RAT statewide probably has more conservatives elected to office now than any time in the last 30 years. There was a time when Chris Smith was pretty lonely, and even he is hardly "conservative" overall aside from being super duper pro-life. Of course I still consider guys like Leonard Lance to be worthless RINOs.
There was a time during the Speaker Pelosi era where it looked like our NY Congressional delegation was going to be wiped away to nothing. I think were down to 2 seats at one point and on the verge of slipping to a single seat. Pretty pathetic considering NY state has over 25 congressional seats. For some odd reason, New York Republicans were able to control the state Senate for years, even when the state went heavily Dem statewide. Wish they were that good at winning congressional races.
Pennsylvania has always been a competitive two-party state when it comes to congressional races, albeit one that leans Dem overall in recent years.
1960 was before my time but it certainly made for an interesting era when Republicans were competitive in New England and Democrats were competitive in the southern bible belt. Probably made national races for control of Congress less predictable. I know RAT Sam Rayburn and Republican William Martin swapped places as Speaker/Minority Leader several times.
The odd thing is that more and more Americans are claiming to be "independent" and identify less and less as Republicans or Democrats, but voting patterns seem to getting more and more partisan. Many states have aligned themselves as "Dem" or "GOP" blocs now, and I've met a ton of voters who just blindly vote for EVERY "D" or EVERY "R" they can find on the ballot (as for me, I've never voted "straight ticket" Republican and never will. Candidates have to EARN my vote)
Speaking of Fwightened, I see none of those House members who opposed plan B and this final much worse bill challenged Bohner to be Speaker, not even the ones that symbolically voted against him wanted to be Speaker. What kind of hero is that.
Sure, they got him to drop plan B, then just passed the much crappier Senate bill to O that gave special tax breaks to Hollywood. Then none of them run for Speaker against him because they dont want the job. I dont see where this is working at all.
In same cases it wont be bad, like O wants gun control and amnesty so those will hopefully die in the senate.
But whenever a huge crisis deadline comes up like all taxes go up, or the Debt limit, or a shutdown, Bohner will just pass whatever the Reid Senate dictates when he cant get House Rs behind him. And they will complain, but no one was willing to step up to the plate.
You are 100% correct. boner is a coward... those under him are even larger cowards... scared to run for speaker. They can be scared into compliance... which was my point.
I seem to remember lots of talk here for the past three years about how Republicans will going to take back the Senate and the WH in 2012. Rush and others were fueling this by claiming that Democrats would not come out and vote.
He was also saying that all the polls were rigged and most Americans naturally sided with Rs over Ds, that was repeated here.
Now it is true that winning lots of House Seats is different than the WH or Senate, that many of these smaller districts are gerry-mandered into either solid D or R. So it is not unlikely that Rs lose a few more House Seats and run the House by a very slim majority in 2016 for Os final years, with him keeping the Senate.
So this means the congress wont function except to pass popular spending bills like this disaster aid bill.
In many cases it wont be bad, like O wants gun control and amnesty so those will hopefully die in the senate. But O will do his best to use executive orders which wont be challenged by new laws.
But whenever a huge crisis deadline comes up like all taxes go up, or the Debt limit, or a shutdown, Bohner will just pass whatever the Reid Senate dictates after he cant get House Rs behind him, which he wont because they cant even agree on what they want.('we want spending cuts, except...')
And they will complain again, but no one was willing to step up to the plate to take his job. That wont happen till Pelosi takes the House back because then opposing everything becomes an election winner again as in 2010.
No, they are scared of being Speaker. Bohner is the goat and they don't want that job. It is very safe and fun for them to vote their No against bills that go into law, and Yes for bills that never do. Most are in safe districts where that works great.
As Speaker you have to worry about races all around the country, not just in deep red states. You think any of them want that headache?
I see the few symbolic votes against Bohner as Speaker didnt scare him much, did you see that pork ridden disaster relief bill he passed with Dem votes? What a pile of crap. Remember the 'we have a spending problem' jingle?
Oh, and Newt who I am no fan of has already come out and said that Rs will lose the upcoming debt limit fight. Pretty easy to picture.
I know I am negative, I didnt buy the 'Romney will win a landslide' talk either.
I missed that.
I thought it was a straight-up $9B for the flood insurance program that some Republicans objected to only because there weren't offsets in other budgetary items. What pork was in this bill?
I think you are right,
Earlier I was watching FNC and they were talking about the pork in the first bill and the Club For Growth against this and a number of House Republicans like Ryan voting against this recent bill, and I came to that false conclusion that it was all in the same final bill.
It looks like this is a scaled down version without the pork that the Senate will automatically pass without the normal procedure. So this is a win not a loss.
As I’ve said before I find it exceedingly unlikely the rats will be gaining House seats in 2014. I know you look at the big picture but I look at it seat by seat.
Basically history says if Obama has 65% approval they will gain 5 seats tops. A repeat of 1998. This is the nightmare scenario. Do you really see that swine having those kinds of numbers? Congressional disapproval will not matter it’s all about the President.
There is only 1 specific seat I worry about right now, California 31 held by Gary Miller, he probably would have lost 2 months ago if he had faced a democrat and not another Republican. Obama won it by 16/17 points, actually it was slightly worse than the 2008 numbers. Cali sucks. That’s the only Republican held seat in either chamber that we start off at a disadvantage in.
Auh2orepublican lists seat in the northeast that are competitive but I doubt most of these will be seeing close races in 2014, only the 3 of the ones in NY did this past election.
We have a decent list of targets, a few Romney districts that quite disgustingly split their tickets. 3 in Arizona that were super close (2 Romney, 1 Obama) giving the rats an unnatural majority in the delegation.
As for the Senate, we need 6, no guarantee, 2012 was a clusterf88k. We have more than enough targets though, early it’s looking good with top candidates in WV, SD and MA if Brown decides to run again.
I admitted you made a good point back then, POTUS and Senate races are far different then House races were districts are crafted by the governors. Ohio generated a few more R seats through redistricting.
A number of Senate races were blown by R party crackpots who were deemed to be purer than their primary competitors, but many of these House R districts are designed to not switch parties if that happens there.
Now that the last crisis is over (the outcome should have been no surprise) we get to look forward to arguing about the next one.
One good sign, MCConnnell and Bohner are telling Dems that nothing will get through the congress, no immigration, no gun control, no VAWA, until the budget and debt limit battles are settled. a great way of putting off gun control till the public forgets about the shooting.
The House will never elect an ex-member as Speaker so the legality or illegality of it will remain academic.
I always thought it was a ridiculous suggestion.
I guess Stockman had the right idea. Pelosi voted for herself again and Boehner didn’t vote so Stockman was the only “present” vote.
If you are going to do a protest why not come up with 1 candidate who is a current member and who is not supporting the Speaker you want removed (Cantor voted for Boehner). All these random votes look silly. GAO Comptroller David Walker? WTF? Walter Jones is mentally ill.
Did you get a load of the DEM protest votes?
McIntyre (scared of 2014) and Lipinski voted for DJ’s Congressman Jim Cooper.
Cooper himself voted for COLIN POWELL!! I bust a gut laughing when I saw that,
Matheson (scared) voted for Dingell
Barrow (scared) voted for his fellow Georgian Lewis.
So that’s 9 GOP votes for someone other than Boehner. 1 present vote and 3 GOP absent including Boehner himself.
5 rat votes against Pelosi and 3 of them absent.
In 1996 4 Republicans voted for Republicans other than Newt and 5 voted present.
I mean 1997.
It shows what a mess congressional Republicans are now. Reduced to nonsense like this.
Last year it was ‘We are going to win easy, America is with us”
Now its :”???? We are mad and confused and mad and don't know what to do. If we cant beat Obama then lets go after Rs symbolically of course”, that is all that is left,
Of course in 2016/2017 Obama moves on and the Dem party will have a vacuum too. He is holding it together now and his successor candidate will probably be white/.
One difference between the protracted coups of 1997 and 2013 was that in 1997 the coup-plotters actually managed to get Newt’s votes below 218 (he was reelected with 216—abstentions and “present” votes lowered the denominator and thus the minimum required) while Boehner got 220 (with 214 required).
Impy, you mentioned “3 GOP absent including Boehner himself,” but I think that there were at least 4 Republican seats that either were vacant or its member didn’t vote. Boehner didn’t vote, Mulvaney and Labrador stayed silent when their names were called, and there was one vacancy: Tim Scott had resigned from the House the prior day (sometime after voting against the tax deal) to accept his appointment to the Senate.
Yes that doesn’t count the vacant seats just people who are current members listed as “not voting”.
Odd that Boehner didn’t vote, Newt didn’t vote in 1997 either.
Traditionally, Speaker candidates don’t vote for Speaker. Pelosi broke with tradition, as usual.
The tradition was both answered “present” rather than not voting at all.
I notice now Boehner has not voted since 2007 when he mimed Nancy and voted for himself. I guess he doesn’t like voting present.
Hastert always voted present as did Gephardt, Foley, and Michel (they have the votes going back to 1991 as I’m sure you know). Newt did so in 1995 but did not vote at all in 1997 (maybe he was hiding).
It seems crass but I would probably vote for myself like Pelosi if I were the party candidate. Maybe even if I were a regular member this year, as a joke.
With all the egos it’s almost surprising no one did.
By tradition, the Speaker of the House abstains on most legislation unless it's a tie-vote or something. That's one of the reasons it was nonsensical rhetoric in the last primary when Newt backers tried to "prove" Newt was "more conservative" than Santorum by pointing out their ACU rating during the last year they served together was something like 92% for Santorum and 100% for Newt. I forget which freeper it was, but they noted Newt probably got that "100%" score from voting for a single piece of legislation that year.
>> It seems crass but I would probably vote for myself like Pelosi if I were the party candidate. Maybe even if I were a regular member this year, as a joke. <<
As I noted, if I was a member of the House this year I'd cast a meaningless protest vote for Allen West. Since it wasn't like he was "challenging" Boehner for the Speakership it wouldn't result in any constitutional questions in the event he's actually "elected" Speaker.
If I was the party caucus leader, sure I'd vote for myself for Speaker. I'm not sure if there's a tradition there or not. They vote to re-elect themselves to Congress when they show up on election day (no doubt Obama voted for himself for President), so why not vote for yourself for Speaker when you're the party caucus choice and/or expected to get the job? I know when there are conclaves for the election of Pope in the Catholic Church, however, it's considered distateful for a Cardinal to "campaign" for the job or vote for himself as Pope. Even when there's 100% consensus on who the next Pope should be, they still won't vote for themselves. I read somewhere that the final ballot for the election of Pope John XXIII was something like 79-1, since he voted for another Cardinal instead of himself.
>> With all the egos its almost surprising no one did. <<
That's what surprises me. Given the ego of many of these Congressmen, I shocked none of them (on the GOP or RAT side) cast protest votes for themselves because they didn't like the party leader. And that's not even going into their fan bases that fed their egos. Adam Andrejewski supporters probably think the position of Emperor of the Universe is beneath Adam's talents. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul's supporters basically consider ANY politician besides them to be an evil constitution-hating tyrant, dontsa know. No wonder these guys are so vain.
You’re right, Speaker candidates traditionally voted “Present” (which would not affect the denominator and, if both candidates so voted, would not affect the vote). Maybe Newt and Boehner withheld their vote instead of voting Present in case they needed to cast a last-minute YEA to go over the top.
As for Pelosi, she voted for herself because she’s a boor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.