Boehner chosen as new Majority Leader

NRO ^ | 2/2/06

[ZGuy]

IT'S BOEHNER, 122-109

[Torie]

Well Bush spends too much (or allows it), no doubt about it, and prescription drugs is a public policy disaster, along with the failure to deal with subsidizing drug research for Canada, Europe and Japan sucks, via in part Bush's stance that we can't put pressure on the house of cards by allowing drug imports from these suspicious sources, because we might all be poisoned to death. But then we had some wars to wage, and 9-11 and Katrina. Events that we wish were had not happen, happen, and they cost money. Such is life.

[demkicker]

When no one else would, Boehner acted years ago to hold liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) accountable for leaking the contents of an illegally-recorded conversation among House leaders. Boehner’s action was taken at great expense to his own self-interest – and his re-election fund, which with FEC approval has financed a lawsuit against McDermott that continues to this day.

Wow.... I'm very impressed!

[onyx]

Thanks. I love reading this stuff.

[FreeReign]

At 300 lbs., he was a HUGE guy.

He was 3 times the size of Madison who weighed ~100 pounds.

Anyway, Taft's weight tended to go up and down.

[onyx]

The yo-yo dieting?

Madison was all of 5'4" --- shortest of all presidents.

[rcrngroup]

When no one else would, Boehner acted years ago to hold liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) accountable for leaking the contents of an illegally-recorded conversation among House leaders. Boehner’s action was taken at great expense to his own self-interest – and his re-election fund, which with FEC approval has financed a lawsuit against McDermott that continues to this day.

Wow.... I'm very impressed!

You're easily impressed!

McDermott continues to hold his seat with impunity as 7th district Representative from Washington state, and the weak-kneed Repubs (perhaps including Boehner, perhaps not) fail to follow through on actions to either censure Jim McDermott or expel him from the House outright. McDermott's not too worried about either consequence happening to him under the Republican majority Congress.

[FreeReign]

The yo-yo dieting?

Yes, low fat yo-yo's.

:)----

[rcrngroup]

All the more reason to reduce spending in order to cover the unforeseen increases. Most of us have to operate a fixed household budget that way! You gotta cut back in some areas in order to cover the hits in other areas. Why should President Bush or a Republican congress excuse themselves from fiscal, balanced budget responsibility. If Boehner will push through spending cuts to scale back the 40% increase over the past 5 years, I will be a true believer in his "fiscal conservatism".

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

That was not the question, Mike. No tense was qualified. It was a simple question--"Who was the last Representative elected".

You have NEVER argued a point successfully as far as I have recorded. Now, you are trying to rewrite the question posed to me. You lose once again.

Should you not be discussing real issues? Why are you delving into this minutia, even attempting to rewrite questions? Get a grip. Get on a thread and post some serious commentary.

[old republic]

I don't think that Boehner is all of that fiscally conservative. He voted for the Medicare entitlement program, which is going result in a large increase in spending. The real problem with our national deficit is non-discretionary spending. (non-discretionary spending means money that the government is required by law to spend) This includes Medicare and Social Security. These are by far the largest portion of the deficit and are growing rapidly. As the Baby Boomers retire we can expect a financial crisis. Social Security is a problem, but Medicare is much more serious of a problem. The Medicare Board of Trustees announced that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2019 in part because of the new prescription drug benefits. That doesn't even include the expected bankruptcy of Social Security and the burgeoning costs of war. Here is a story on the medicare bankruptcy if you are interested. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1294

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Here is the EXACT post:

Repeat: Here is the EXACT post:

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

[Don't_Tread_On_Me_888] Boehner should have been the VP pick in 04 by Bush. He could have been President Boehner in Jan, 09.

[Peach] You'll have to remind me. When was the last time a Representative was elected to the presidency?


397 posted on 02/02/2006 3:34:57 PM EST by Peach

Now, just like Mike, you want to rewrite the question. Why are you two acting like RATs? You know, RATs want to rewrite the Constitution, and rewrite history (like Reagan's history). Now you two, like RATs, want to rewrite Peach's question.

Peach never noted past or present tense. G.H.W. Bush was a Rep. Simple question--simple answer. Peach may have been implying a "current Rep" but she did not say that. As the question was written, a past Rep or a present Rep could be the answer.

Why are you two using up valuable space here discussing the wording of Peach's question? For the record, I knew what Peach was implying. For a bit of fun and humor, I answered correctly, and if Peach was in a good mood, she would have said "you got me. LOL". Nothing says to members debating an issue can't have a little fun with each other. It actually happens all the time here. Look around! Now you two are acting like this is the Iran nuke crisis and the world is rotating around the wording of Peach's question. Did you ever watch Jeopardy? The category is American Presidential History.

The answer is ............. George Herbert Walker Bush.

Ding Ding Ding.............."Who was the last Representative to be elected President."

It is sad when conservatives act like RATs. I know you both are conservatives--you really should stop acting like RATs. Rewriting questions and twisting actual questions into some warped wording to suit your argument is something RATs do, not good conservatives like you.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

See post #731.

Yes, I knew Peach implied that, but I anwered the question directly as posed.

Bush, of course, was VP to Reagan and went from VP to President. He was a Representative from 1967-1971. He was also UN Ambassador, CIA Director, RNC Chairman. Few presidents matched his background/qualifications.

However, in answeering Peach's question, he was indeed the last Representative to be elected president (since past tense or present tense was not used as a qualifier in the question).

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

You did answer. What I'd like to know is who went from being a Representative in the House to President in one fell swoop? Ever happen

LOL! I knew that is what you meant! I was just having a bit of fun with you.

As far as I know, James Garfield was the last Representative to go directly from the House to President.

George Herbert Walker Bush, as I pointed out in answering your original question, was the last president who was a Representative to be elected president.

Anybody else know if there was anybody after James Garfield to go directly from the House to president?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I don't think that Boehner is all of that fiscally conservative.

He was at one time. He was Newt Gingrich's right hand man. He was a true conservative. But like nearly all Republicans, he has moved left over time. Early career enthusiasm to fight for core values and Founding Fathers principles and limited government has been supplanted by CEOS (Career Elected Official Syndrome)--you move left of center to assure yourself of that cushy job with the huge pension.

[thoughtomator]

Thanks for the info. Looks very good excepting immigration. Probably the best we can hope to get at this point in time.

[JTN]

I went from being pretty neutral on Boehner an hour ago, to being pretty darned happy with what I'm learning about him. I need a new tagline.

Personally, I'm disturbed by his very cozy relationship with lobbyists. Boehner once passed out checks from lobbyists on the house floor, and he has passed legislation protecting the student loan industry (by stuffing it into an unrelated bill). I think Shadegg would have been better, but at least it wasn't Blunt.

[gogeo]

He gets my vote for that.

[mississippi red-neck]

Right. Delay and Blunt. Two Republicans whose names are tied to Abramoff. That's all we need, to go from one controversial figure to another.

We never get it.

If we are going to get rid of the politicians in Washington that are less honest than Tom Delay then there wouldn't be enough of either party left to call for a vote in the Senate or the House much less pass a bill nor would there be anyone in the Executive Branch to sign it into law or enforce it.

The Republican leaders the Democrats and the media go after are the ones we need.

They always go after our toughest true conservative leaders, the ones that are the biggest threats to their screwed up agenda.

The ultra stupid Republicans with no backbone are continually letting the Democratic party and the mainstream media pick the House and Senate leaders and we wonder why we can't get the things that are important dealt with and passed in Congress.

[onyx]

You are still incorrect.
You have wasted your time and now I am wasting mine.

The answer is Garfied. James A. Garfield.

[mississippi red-neck]

Plenty

Name some.

Some that are not the usual New England States crowd.

Name some in the executive Branch . I'd be interested,thanks.