Posted on 01/02/2013 5:08:45 PM PST by drewh
If it comes down to that... I already have my plan. I pray it NEVER gets to that point... but to stop me from trying to save this once great Republic... they must kill me. I’ll be in good company and I will die with my boots on. Remember Patrick Henry.
LLS
It’s 4 26 PM eastern time.
OK I’ll admit it, you were right.
(You were right)
(You were right)
(You were right)
etc etc
Plan B would have been passed before the Bush tax cuts expired and therefore would have given the rats legitimate claim to smugly say the Republicans agreed with them to raise taxes on "the rich".
The fact that the final deal happened AFTER the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - - the rates returned to Clinton-era rates on New Years day - - means that the legislation contained ONLY tax CUTS. So rather than the rats being able to claim that the Republicans agreed with them to raise taxes on "the rich", now the Republicans can legitinately claim that they CUT taxes for nearly everybody, and it was the rats who engaged in class warfare and sought only to "punish success", etc.
It may seem like a matter of petty semantics, but in the blood war known as politics there is no such thing as petty semantics. Now, any future TV ad that claims the Republicans raised taxes can be easily discredited as a lie. Had Plan B passed, such an ad would be legitimate - - slimy, perhaps, but technically accurate.
What I think is even slimier is offering the African communist scumbag Ubanga $800B in new "revenue" by "closing loopholes and capping deductions". If you take $800B out of private hands and dump it down the government toilet what you are doing is... taking $800B out of private hands and dumping it down the government toilet. Whether you call it a "tax hike" or not, it's still a tax hike.
No. I think the way it turned out was about as good as we could have expected given that the scumbag rats control the White House and the Senate. And the newsrooms.
FRegards,
LH
What’s interesting is the breakdown of who voted for who. When I saw that Justin Amash got precisely 1 vote for Speaker, I figured he probably voted for himself (since his hero Ron Paul isn’t coming back and he seems vain enough to figure that he’s the only one that can be trusted with the Speaker’s gavel).
Not so, however. The RLC sent with an email this morning with the apparent breakdown:
Rep. Justin Amash, MI, voted for Rep. Raul Labrador, R-ID.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine, OK, voted for Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA.
Rep. Paul Broun, GA, voted for former Rep. Allen West, R-FL.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, TX, voted for former Rep. Allen West, R-FL.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, KS, voted for Rep. Jim Jordan, R-OH.
Rep. Walter Jones, NC, voted for former GAO Comptroller David Walker.
Rep. Thomas Massie, KY, voted for Rep. Justin Amash, R-MI.
Rep. Steve Pearce, NM, voted for Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fl, voted for Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA.
Rep. Steve Stockman, TX, voted present.
Rep. Raul Labrador, ID, remained silent when called.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, SC, no vote.
One vote remains unaccounted for.
I would have probably joined Broun and Gohmert in voting for West. It was merely a protest vote though... although technically a non-member can be Speaker (and the Dems go ballistic if West stayed in the chamber as Speaker, whether or not he had voting power makes little difference since the Speaker almost never votes), there was no way it was gonna happen. There hasn’t been a non-member elected as House Speaker in the entire history of this country.
Cantor got more protest votes than West, and while he’s a viable choice for Speaker, I don’t think it would be much of an improvement. A bunch of freepers USED to love Cantor for some inexplicable reason and constantly tout him for higher office, now the thinking seems to be what I said all along... he’s just another timid establishment Republicans.
Biggest “wtf” moment goes to Walter Jones Jr. for voting for David Walker. He’s a maverick alright, though certainly not a conservative. Proof that being anti-establishment doesn’t necessarily make you a good guy since he votes with the Dems far more than most Republicans. I wish they could successfully primary that loose cannon.
The GOP leadership can retaliate against anyone who defects against the Speaker, so it’s not surprising there were only 11 Republicans who didn’t support Boehner. The ones who didn’t vote for him were taking a gamble. The rest are spineless twerps.
Well, this “report” and prediction lasted as long as Louisville being a 14 point underdog last night.
LLS
Newt has a fine way with words. Stay with the strong suit and keep the little lady at home or, at least off camera. Then, let the words do the talking. The endless exposure on Hannity and similar shows just wears out the message.
I’m not surprised that Massie voted for Amash—they’r both Paultards. Well, slightly surprised, since I thought both would vote for Ron Paul.
Stockman voted Present, which is the ultimate symbolic vote, since it would not have prevented Boehner from being elected Speaker (vacancies, absences and members voting Present don’t form part of the denominator, so all Stockman did was reduce the number of votes Boehner needed from 218 to 217).
“... although technically a non-member can be Speaker ....”
That interpretation assumes that when the Framers placed the words “the House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker” in Article I of the U.S. Constitution they were not basing the speakership on the Speaker of the House of Commons of the British Parliament, which most definitely *did* need to be filled by a Member of the House of Commons. The reason that they didn’t write “the House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker *from among their members*” was because it was deemed to be self-evident, since the Speaker is the leader of the House and the leader must come from within the group—had the Framers intended to allow the House to elect a Speaker that was not a member of the body, such a clear departure from parliamentary precedent would have been specifically noted, and they likely would have selected a title other than Speaker. The one instance in the U.S. Constitution where the presiding officer would not be a member of the body he presided was when the Vice President is made, ex officio, the President of the Senate, but he was specifically designated as such in Article I, and the fact that the VP is not a member of the Senate was probably the reason why they didn’t baptize the presiding officer of the Senate as “the Speaker of the Senate.”
No one believes that the Chief Justice of the United States can be someone other than a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and, until a few years ago (when a couple of Republicans upset at Newt Gingrich voted for retired Republicans for Speaker) no one other than a sitting Representative had even received a vote for Speaker. (So, BillyBoy, when you said “there hasn’t been a non-member elected as House Speaker in the entire history of this country,” it was quite an understatement.) I think the theory of the non-member of the House serving as Speaker is an interesting exercise in constitutional analysis, as is the theory that the Governor of New York could be in the line of succession to the presidency (a governor is, after all, an “officer”), but having a non-member serve as Speaker ultimately would be a distortion of the Framers’ original intent.
Oh, and Labrador and Mulvaney also cast “symbolic votes” that reduced the number of votes that Boehner needed:
“Rep. Raul Labrador, ID, remained silent when called.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, SC, no vote.”
With JJJ’s and Tim Scott’s vacancies, Stockman voting Present and Labrador and Mulvaney not voting, Boehner needed not more than 216 votes to be elected Speaker (maybe less, if some Dems voted Present or were absent).
The VP is not part of the Executive branch correct, technically since he receives the Senate oath he is a member of the Legislative branch, correct?
Accepted.
We live in interesting times, and it really sucks for those of us who care about the present and future of the USA.
BTW, I do read everything I post, and delete most of them...
We all do need to take a step back.
Personally, I’m just waiting for the shooting war, now.
While some early scholars considered the VP to be part of the Legislative Branch because he presided over the Senate (and did not head any Executive Branch departments), that is, in my view, simplistic analysis, and not correct. The VP is not a member of either House of Congress—he presides over the Senate, but is not a Senator, and can only vote in case of a tie (but can’t vote, for instance, to get a treaty to 2/3, or to override a veto).
Like the Chief Justice—unambiguously part of the Judicial Branch—being granted by the Constitution with the duty to preside over the Senate in a presidential impeachment trial, the fact that the VP can preside over the Senate on most occasions does not make him a member of the Legislative Branch. The VP acts as president when the president has a disability, and becomes president if there’s a vacancy, making him an Executive Branch officer even if his role is undefined; and since the VP is listed as an Officer of the United States throughout the Constitution he cannot be a member of the Legislative Branch.
Anyhow, that’s my two cents.
PDS??? I thought it was great entertainment(FNC is entertainment) , I have no reason to dislike her. Look at all the gullible that fell into the sucker trap, Trumps too, I must have TDS LOL
You were not one of those suckers who actually believed she was running were you? I don’t recall.
I agree with you there 100% , and there is way too much fighting between Rs and not enough between Dems, in fact none. One side is united and the other divided,.
I was responding to a specific silly statement. I don't blame Palin for the election loss at all, way too many things went wrong there and they didnt involve her.,
They are saying that now anyway, on the Dem channel they are saying that Obama got Rs to help him raise taxes for the first time in 20 years and what a great victory it is.
And the Boo-hoo-hoo side who killed plan B are saying the same thing that Rs went along with a tax increase, so are those on talk radio fueling the fire making sure O and Dems look like the winners,
Defining only a 'partial extension of the expired Bush tax cuts' = 'tax increase' was to make sure that Republicans are seen to lose and O be seen to win. I think it was on purpose on both sides. Note that the new bill makes the tax cuts permanent, the expired one obviously never did.
With many I notice the purpose was not to get a better deal, the purpose seems to have been to blow up the economy out of spite because O won the election.
I read lots of comments mimicking talk radio saying “ The MSM will blame Republicans anyway so they should do the right thing”, and they mean kill any deal that keeps the rates from going up, while claiming they are voting against a tax increase, and let Rs get all the blame because 'they will anyway'.
You see how convenient that would be if it happened? You can hear it : “ Rs only got blamed because of the MSM and low information voters and would have anyway. ”
Only one problem is one main R would have got the blame for everyone's taxes going up and blowing up the economy, Bohner, and he didn't like that idea. Notice no one challenged him.
Gohmert could have run for Speaker,
Heck, a similar battle will be waged over the debt limit very soon, if he thinks its very important he could of stepped up to the plate and taken a risk of running for Speaker.
After all he demanded that Bohner get the blame for taxes going up and the stock market tanking by blocking those bills, doing that would have been way worse for Bohner than just running for Speaker.
If he won he would be able to block any crappy Senate bill on the debt limit that will probably pass, and be the national focal point for the consequences. He would be hero here.
But like the others its too easy just to vote against bills that pass and for bills that don't. No risk there.
I saw some Dems plotting on their channel today about how they will be taking out the remaining NE Republicans to help take back the House, Speaker Pelosi 2015.
For the past few weeks I been challenging freepers in comments here to call their favorite congressman who voted ‘No’ on plan B and talk them into running against Bohner for Speaker. None of them would. Its too safe and warm to play it safe to just vote ‘no’ on bills that pass and ‘yes’ on bills that make it into law, then be setup for National blame.
None of them would step up to the plate and show us how its done. They would rather let Bohner be the goat. This tells you how bad things really are.
No.. The rats on the Democrat channel are lying? LMBO!!
But seriously, the only reason I can figure that the Republicans aren't clapping each other on the back and holding press conferences to laugh and brag about how they snookered the rats into helping them make 98% of the Bush tax cuts permanent without giving up a freaking thing is that they want to act down in the mouth and beaten so they can extract more spending concessions than they otherwise would during the next THREE upcoming "fiscal cliffs".
Maybe at the end of March, after the third "cliff" (the "continuing resolution") is settled, the Republicans will finally drop the act and party like no tomorrow.
Now that is a good strategy that I was thinking my self. That is the irony of the waves of these talking point public opinion battles.
The Debt limit battle as we have seen is very dangerous for either side, but this time Rs can say on TV of course “We gave in on raising taxes and got NO spending cuts in return , so now its time for a fair and balanced approach. Now come on Mr President you cant always have it your way. ”
Its not foolproof (and we sure have fools) , but its a MUCH better argument than Rs had in 2011.
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.