Posted on 07/29/2011 6:44:37 AM PDT by RummyChick
House Speaker John Boehner has a new excuse for the dissent within the ranks of the House Republican Caucus he is supposed to lead.
The caucus, Boehner says, has been infiltrated by a cabal that hopes to take the US economy hostage in order to force political concessions from President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Appearing Wednesday on conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham’s,, Boehner acknowledged what every serious economic analyst has already said: that a failure to raise the debt ceiling before the August 2 deadline would be devastating to an already struggling US economy.
So “why,” Ingraham asked, were House Republicans resisting the deal that President Obama has offered—a deal that is ridiculously deferent to Republican demands for cuts to needed domestic programs and for tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
“Well,” Boehner said of the most belligerent members of his caucus, “first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get passed August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment.”
Let’s be clear about what Boehner is saying: he has members of his caucus—perhaps sufficient in number to block resolution of the debt ceiling fight—who would be willing to force the United States to default on its debts. Why? Because they want to create so much economic chaos that the president and Congressional Democrats will sign on for a bad policy that could not otherwise advance.
That’s blackmail. But Boehner’s not concerned about the fact that his lawless colleagues would threaten the good faith and credit of the United States—not to mention the economic stability of their homeland—in order to score political points.
The Speaker’s only concern is that a wrong move might make it harder for him to maneuver politically.
“I don’t think that that strategy works,” Boehner explained to the radio host. “Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis à vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.”
That is sort of reassuring.
Boehner is not a responsible player. But at least he is enough of a hack to fear that his colleagues who have lost touch with economic reality might—if allowed to have their way—create chaos not just for the economy but force a crisis that Ingraham suggested could “be disastrous for the Republican Party.” John Nichols
Yes, I see Boehner leading the GOP sellout with the same deceptive practices by which the $100B cuts this year became $61B then...$300M despite his claims. He’s been serving up the same BS.
Of course Gov. Palin hasn’t written her own alternative bill, but she has been for cuts instead of higher ceilings and with the reality of where the GOP is now, CCB instead of Boehner’s bogus BS. Her national leadership from outside of any political office has been extraordinary and unprecedented.
The last thing the good ol’ boys in DC want to see is her actually being sworn in as president.
“The Senate did vote on CCB you fool. Boehner took it up there as soon as it passed the house. It failed 51-46.”
“That was a week ago. Miss much?”
“BTW, you do realize that the Senate can still vote AGAIN on CCB at any time, and amend it any which way they want, sending it back to the house like you say.”
Fool that I am, YES, I KNEW that, but apparently, YOU did NOT. Maybe you better find a complete idiot to argue with rather than a mere fool like me so you have an even playing field.
Why is nobody demanding Reid step down?
boehner can stay, since he has been taught a lesson by the tea party.
Reid is the one who should be “demand he step down.”
I am not wise enough to know the correct path for Republicans to take. There are good people with different points of view.
My congressman, Steve King, whom I think is one of the brightest minds in congress is against the Boehner plan as it was yesterday. I respect him so much I KNOW he is acting in a highly principled way.
Even SK acknowledges that Boehner is doing his best. They are all good people and let's just pray the right thing will be done. I have no clue what is the right thing to do. This is highly complicated. I trust our Republicans in congress. I do not trust the Democrats and the president.
“let’s try your point again?”
I will type slowly so you can understand. The CCB bill has a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT ATTACHED TO IT WHICH WOULD GO TO THE STATES. The dems could NOT amend THAT. Which is, and WAS, the point.
GET IT?
LOL. I post something and because you didn’t read it, I never posted it! Fabulous, your reality is!
Both my senators voted for it (that is, against tabling.)
It’s not a vote for passage, but the Senate has voted on CCB last week, and it’s the only vote, and the tally isn’t going to be any different this week.
As I stated in 204, the Senate could vote again on it at any time, and could also amend it in any way Reid wanted to and send it back to the House.
Until the 51-46 votes change, none of the handwringing about Boehner “doing something on CCB” means anything.
From your post #204: BTW, you do realize that the Senate can still vote AGAIN on CCB at any time, and amend it any which way they want, sending it back to the house like you say.
Are you confused or did you learn something between post #197 and post #204?
Keep reading. You’ll get it yet.
I'd say, from now til Monday night, Boehner and crew should start reversing some of the compromises, step by step, if there is no movement by the Dem's and call a vote on Monday and let the Dem's be responsible for voting it down, and or put it up for a veto by our beloved.
I believe that the Dem's might be willing to sacrifice Obama at this point.
Just a LITTLE farther to go and maybe he will catch up.
Or maybe not.
I'm going to give you the option to double down on that. =D
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
The Senate can edit, amend and do whatever they like to CCB to get it into a mutually acceptable joint resolution.
Perhaps you're confused with the President having no say?
Send it back with tweaks and call it something else. I really don’t care if the debt limit passes.
We may have to let the system come apart at the seams before we can fix it. Trying to fix a tire while it is going down the road is hard to do.
When they are only talking about cutting the amount of spending increase and no real reductions. There isn’t any hope that they really understand that it is time to change course radically. It’s not sinking in. They are unable to see outside of the box they are in.
The other option is hyper inflation until the economy totally collapses. Do you see any other paths?
We sent the senate the CCB. If it is truly the end of the world, maybe the Senate should reconsider or ask the house to send it to them again?
she subs for Oreilly, discredit enough there.
Perhaps YOU are confused as to what BALANCED BUDGET means. You argue like a snake. But you miss when you try to strike.
Indeed, and sooner rather than later. I hope his office phone and email lines are melting down with responses from outraged Americans.
John, ListenHill,
Mesta said in 193 “First of all, Boehner shouldn’t even be giving the REID senate a second bill, eespecially one that is an opening to ADD crap that THE DEMS IN THE HOUSE WILL VOTE FOR. The first bill the House passed was not voted on in the senate.”
I corrected that misunderstanding in 197 and 204. The Senate can (could) amend whatever they wanted to in the bill, could bring it up again themselves, etc etc.
-
Forked off of that conversation, you guys are trying to chisel the term “vote” to mean exclusively “consider the bill.”
Let’s use your context in YOUR text, and MY context in MY text? A vote on a motion to table is a “vote.” They record it as such.
It is the ONLY vote in the senate so far, and which mesta was unaware of in 193, and it indicates that the bill cannot pass the senate as it is, at any time.
Now you guys may assume that sans another proposal form Boehner, Reid would get panicky and the 51-46 tally would change, but even if it was then voted on without amendment, it would still be a party line vote. ListenHIll just posted a reasonable angle on that, and I suspect JohnG probably agrees somewhat.
But I don’t agree that Obama and Reid are under ANY pressure to do so as the deadline looms. They are stirring up infighting in their enemies and otoh they’d love to have a crisis to capitalize on. They are not concerned about the health of the Republic.
So Boehner is in an unwinnable battle. He has already done what people here demand. And doing nothing placates some and plays into Reid/Obama’s hands. And trying other tricks places him in the same jeopardy plus gets slings and arrows from the TEA party side.
My congressman, Steve King, whom I think is one of the brightest minds in congress is against the Boehner plan as it was yesterday. I respect him so much I KNOW he is acting in a highly principled way.
Even SK acknowledges that Boehner is doing his best. They are all good people and let's just pray the right thing will be done. I have no clue what is the right thing to do. This is highly complicated. I trust our Republicans in congress. I do not trust the Democrats and the president
Have I thought through all possible scenarios? Certainly not! But neither have our politicians. They do think of two scenarios: Money to spend and power to wield, and to hell with thinking of a way to work within the will of the People.
If the votes of the principled few do not matter to passing a debt ceiling, then they should stand on principle. There is no need to show total submission to the communists now in power.
If the Tea Party freshman feel they must sign, then by golly, they should sign. I'll just shut up and sit quietly like a good little Money-Bag should. I quite imagine that is how it will continue to be anyway.
So, in closing, what difference does it make how I think, what I feel, or how many things I have thought out? None. Nada. Zilch. But as long as I am "allowed" to have free speech, I will have my say.
BTW, I highly doubt that boehner is doing his best - for this country, that is. I feel sure he is doing his political best, and I So admire him for it. /sarcasm
You made an honest mistake thinking that the Senate cannot amend CCB, or the wording of the amendment in ccb.
They can. They could also strip the amendment out entirely. They can also choose to disregard it and do nothing.
For now, they chose the latter, but it doesn’t matter.
There’s nothing Boehner can do about any of those until they pass it as is or send something back amended.
She has come up with a brilliant political strategy...mock Tea Partiers.
She accuses us of questioning her Conservative bona fides, and then she turns around and questions our Conservative bona fides.
Well, Laura, it's not as if we've never been burned before. We've been burned time after time after time after time. We are always being asked to support The Republican Party when it comes time for them to get re-elected, but once the elections are over, we're told to shut the hell up.
I guess to put it in language Laura can understand, "Well, ya know, that's just the way it's always been."
I, for one, have had enough of the way it's always been. Maybe Laura enjoys bending over and taking one for the team. I don't.
We helped bring power back to The Republican Party, all we ask and all we deserve is rational explanations as to why we should support Speaker Boehner's plan. Don't go blowing smoke up our skirts and tell us a trillion dollars over 10 years of spending cuts "balances" a trillion dollar check made out to President Clouseau which he gets to spend tomorrow and then come back and demand more next year.
We've shown we are amenable to reasonable and rational explanations. We don't go for boilerplate. We don't go for cliches. We don't go for political double-speak.
Just tell us plain and simple how this deal is good for America.
And don't tell us it's because it will set us up for Republican victories in The House, Senate and White House in 2012. Life holds no guarantees. We don't know what's going to happen 10 minutes from now, let alone a year and a half.
If you don't want our support, just tell us. We'll be glad to step aside and let you keep getting your ass handed to you.
If Laura's book should ever go to a second printing, she should take her likeness of George Washington off the cover. She's no George Washington.
George Washington faced hugely disadvantageous numerical odds. George Washington refused to even read any offers by British Generals to come to a "compromise". George Washington lost battle after battle after battle after battle confident in the knowledge that he was doing so for the greater good. He knew that God watched men's affairs and that, ultimately, God would bless the cause of Liberty and Washington's efforts would prevail.
By all accounts, the very existence of this country is at stake. George Washington wouldn't tell his troops who have been slogging their way through hot, humid swamps in the summer and freezing forests in the winter with little to no food, threadbare clothing and no pay to listen to King George's "plan" to end the hostilities.
And he certainly wouldn't mock them for their efforts.
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.