For Now, Boehner Stands Tough In Immigration Fight

breitbart.com ^ | 2/25/15 | Jonathan Strong

[cotton1706]

House Speaker John Boehner isn’t following his fellow Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s cave-in yesterday on a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, and the distance between them is becoming more clear.

The Ohio Republican told colleagues he hadn’t spoken to McConnell in two weeks, and while some lawmakers attempted to downplay the rift, the chasm between the two chambers is growing wider.

“In November, people thought Harry Reid was going to be dethroned and the Senate was going to be controlled by Republicans. I’m sad to say that hasn’t happened,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), a key conservative, underscoring the growing enmity between the House and Senate GOP.

Tuesday, McConnell said he would remove language from a DHS funding bill aimed at stopping President Obama from enacting the executive amnesty he announced in November. An unhappy GOP senator describes McConnell’s approach as a “total victory for the Obama position.”

But in addressing his House colleagues Wednesday morning, Boehner did not budge from the House position.

“He said to keep yourselves very flexible for the weekend. It sounds to me like he’s hunkering down. This was his strategy to begin with. He was the one who talked us out of fighting this fight during the cromnibus. So this is his strategy and I’m glad he’s showing some backbone on this,” Salmon said.

Behind the standoff is the real sense that Boehner’s leadership could be on the line if he follows McConnell’s lead.

“This is very, very delicate territory for our leadership,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA).

[CitizenUSA]

Thank you very much for recommending something constructive!

[Yosemitest]

Have you not read (?) The Tea Partier versus The Republican ?
Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 and expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.
And it is Mitch McConnell and BONEHEAD Bohner that is surrendering now.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?


I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[Uncle Miltie]

Pah!

Funny stuff.

[Uncle Miltie]

Boner and McTurtle are incapable of doing the right thing.

They are here to screw Americans’ wages with more cheap labor from Mexico.

Boner and McTurtle have been completely bought by the Chamber of Crony Capitalists.

You know it.

I know it.

They know it.

The press knows it.

They know we know it.

They just want to screw you over.

AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

[Parmy]

Only because he has a certain number of repubs who would vote him out of office if given a chance.

[Uncle Miltie]

The vote will be:

219 for 0bama’s Un-constitutional Amnesty for Lawbreakers, including 31 Republicans and all 188 Democrats

216 for the American People

Boner will express his disappointment, and go drink a toast with the Chamber of Crony Capitalists behind closed doors.

Where is that bar tender when you need him?

[Yosemitest]

To HELL with the bar tender.
It's time for the Cartridge box veto!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Mitch still does not realize he has the majority and how to properly use it.

[Fraxinus]

If we were truly ruled by a uni-party as some claim, then we would not have the present chaos. I know people are frustrated, but “uni-party” claims are clearly wrong on the face of it. Again, a uni-party does not have these internal battles.

It is the leadership of the Republican party refusing to fight for that which they campaigned on that has so many of us referring to the uniparty. The Uniparty claims may be overblown, but many of us have gotten tired of the claims that we will have the fight later, and later never seems to come.

At the same time I believe that an understanding needs to be made that a transfer to a third party would leave Conservatives powerless for at least 2 years.

[Catsrus]

McConnell do the right thing? He’s too busy crushing conservatives.

[sarge83]

Give him time, the Chamber of Crony Fascism will open their checkbooks and Boner will go limp like freshly boiled spaghetti. The GOPE wants amnesty and the country be damned!

[sarge83]

The levers of power in the Republican party are controlled by the McConnells, Boners, and McCain traitors and they are NEVER going to relinquish power or allow any changes except for those that support the liberal agenda. Working within this Titanic of a party is just planning the morning breakfast menu after the ice berg has been hit.

Perhaps it is time Sessions, Cruz and the like start openly talking and planning for a real alternative opposition party and recruiting conservatives away at the national and state levels. Yeah the country is going to be damaged but really at this point will that damage be anymore than what is happening with the democrats and the liberal and gutless Republican parties?

[sarge83]

Right now we are getting guaranteed destruction regardless of which party we vote for. You are just arguing for more of the same insanity we have heard for 30 yrs. The Republicans are crossing the Rubicon of party viability and they are too damned stupid to know what they are even doing.

[sarge83]

Some “conservatives” don’t know it...

[erkelly]

I do not think we can reform the GOP with people like McConnell in the leadership. He has gone on record stating that he hates conservatives (tea party) and intends to destroy our ability to have any influence in the party. And to demonstrate just how far he is willing to go, look at what he did in Mississippi. If we want to reform the GOP, then we need to rid ourselves of the McConnells who will do all that they can to get rid themselves our influence and make us impotent — even if that means voting democrat to get them out. Personally, I would prefer to vote 3rd party, but I can understand the reasoning why a conservative Kentucky republican would elect to make a strategic vote for the democrat; without the McConnells we would have a smaller but more focused influential, and infinitely more powerful Republican majority or a minority as the case may be. Our party, indeed our country, would be better off without Mitch McConnell in office.

[erkelly]

I do not think we can reform the GOP with people like McConnell in the leadership. He has gone on record stating that he hates conservatives (tea party) and intends to destroy our ability to have any influence in the party. And to demonstrate just how far he is willing to go, look at what he did in Mississippi. If we want to reform the GOP, then we need to rid ourselves of the McConnells who will do all that they can to get rid themselves our influence and make us impotent — even if that means voting democrat to get them out. Personally, I would prefer to vote 3rd party, but I can understand the reasoning why a conservative Kentucky republican would elect to make a strategic vote for the democrat; without the McConnells we would have a smaller but more focused influential, and infinitely more powerful Republican majority or a minority as the case may be. Our party, indeed our country, would be better off without Mitch McConnell in office.

[mrsmith]

Actually our congressmen need to VOTE AGINST THE RULE.
Block the bill to fund Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty from coming up for a vote.

It’s the only thing that will work.
Demand it.

[Uncle Miltie]

There is no ACTUAL disunity. The GOPe has a headlock on the party members in the House.

There will be the proper theatrics to make-believe for the conservative base that “we tried”, but there is no doubt as to the outcome.

0bamnesty will be funded with JUST ENOUGH Republican votes so that the rest can decry the horrible thing done to us conservatives!

And then they’ll retire to the cloakroom and toast each other with the Crony Capitalists how they screwed down Americans’ wages one more time with illegal, cheap, imported, Mexican labor.

There is no doubt about the outcome over unconstitutional amnesty for lawbreakers whatsoever, except what sort of theatrics will be shoved down our throats.

[Uncle Miltie]

Mitch knows he has the majority, and intends to expand and extend the government, but with his and his Team A friends’ palms being greased instead of Team B’s palms.

Same game: Screw Americans, take for yourself.

Different day, different team.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yep