Posted on 01/10/2015 8:12:18 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A coalition of 23 leaders in the conservative movement today urged Speaker John Boehner not to punish Republicans who voted against him for the House’s top job.
Boehner, who removed two of those dissenters from the powerful Rules Committee after the speaker vote, is now rethinking the decision, according to Politico. A total of 25 Republicans did not vote for Boehner.
>>>> The 25 Republicans Who Did Not Vote for John Boehner
“It is unacceptable and disappointing to see that some conservatives are already being punished by you and your leadership team for disagreements over policy and the direction of the conference. This must end immediately,” the 23 conservatives wrote in a letter from the Conservative Action Project.
Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, two Florida Republicans who opposed Boehner, lost their seats on the Rules Committee. Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, said he was being punished for voting for another candidate.
“I’ve already lost the authorship of one bill,” Weber said. “Look it shouldn’t be that way.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who received three votes for speaker, called Boehner a “sore winner” for seeking retribution.
Some of Boehner’s allies want the speaker to take a tough stand after surviving the most divisive speaker election since 1860. That could spell trouble for Reps. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., and Mark Meadows, R-N.C., two subcommittee chairmen.
“We need to get to the bottom of the guys who voted against [procedural motions], and we need to understand why they voted against that, and then we need to know why people voted against the speaker yesterday,” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Politico.
Nunes is reportedly drafting a resolution prohibiting members who vote against the speaker from chairing a subcommittee.
Boehner, however, signaled the punishment might only be temporary.
“We’re going to have a family conversation,” Boehner said at a Wednesday press conference. “Which we had this morning about bringing our team together. And I expect that those conversations over the next couple of days will continue.”
Last week, Boehner’s spokesman told The Daily Caller, “Boehner has said publicly that there will be no retribution for ‘no’ votes.”
Conservatives want Boehner to keep that promise.
“It is incumbent upon you, as the leader of Republicans in the House, to provide unifying and inclusive leadership,” they wrote.
The letter was signed by the following 23 leaders:
Two of the signers, Meese and Dunlop, are affiliated with The Heritage Foundation.
Kabuki theatre by the DNC-run Obama-controlled
criminal-enabling GOP.
How “Obama” of him...yet again.
Bush ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, and yet Reagan seemed magnanimous enough to pick him as his running mate.
(In full disclosure, I also heard that the CFR demanded Reagan pick Bush for his running mate, or they wouldn’t support him.)
I don’t know what is worse?
1). The fact that John Boehner that is pushing the Administrations Socialist agenda through.
2). The fact that ONLY 25 out of a total of 247 Republicans view John Boehner as a problem.
The 25 represent 10% of the Republicans in the House of what we consider conservative.
This means 90% of Republicans in the House agree with John Boehner pushing the Administrations Socialist agenda.
This is after the Obama agenda iwas just over whelmingly rejected in the last election.
In other words we are not being represented by the people we elected. This is a terrible situation.
Just think the Republicans think a drunk, narcissistic, fake tan, currupt politician that pushes the Administration leftists agenda through is the best guy qualified to lead the Republicans, the House of Representatives and our country???
WTF is wrong with these people???!!!!
You’re a mean one, Mr. Squish...
The difference in your example, is that the citizens elected the Representatives who voted against Boehner and short of impeachment, only their constituents can fire them.
Those that ran/voted against Boehner were making a “shot across the bow” message to Boehner and his GOPe gang. Boehner either got the message or didn’t. He knows that there are many more that are similarly minded that did not vote against his Speakership, for whatever reasons.
From what I see, it looks like he did get the message. We will see how far that message is effective.
I don’t think those 222 people who voted for Boehner or were conveniently absent all agree with him. It’s just that the ones who disagreed were probably afraid of being punished.
If Barack starts killing off those 25 million Americans* that Ayers discussed so long ago, then maybe . . . MAYBE . . . they will do something.
*In the interests of proportionality to the U.S. population, Ayers' 25 million would be closer to 40 million today.
Paul Weyrich back in the mid 1990's explained on a TV show he once hosted how VP was vetted & picked. Weyrich was far more privy as to how the system worked behind the scenes than Mike Reagan.
As Weyrich explained it VP is mainly chosen upon uniting the party by getting POTUS elected and as a smooth over maneuver {Determining how many in the party will otherwise walk away} if their choice is not also on the ticket. I like Mike Reagan but he tends to be a Establishment Apologist a lot of times.
I don't believe Reagan or Poppy had much like nor for that matter much trust in each other. Poppy wasted no time dismantling the Reagan Doctorines which he rode into the Oval Office on. The end result was his loss of that office for being a GOP-E POTUS rather than continuing Reagan's course & policies.
Proof? OK here ya go. Poppy's Cabinet and advisers were GOP-E has beens from Nixon/Ford days. Their disastrous policies were much the same as the Ford administration. Those choices and disasters resurfaced again when "W" did likewise.
I believe Reagan chose Bush as his VP to unite the party. Bush’s decisive win in the Michigan primary in May, 1980, demonstrating that he still had voter appeal despite a string of primary defeats, may have convinced Reagan to do so.
Poppy politically & social issues was much closer to Ford than Reagan so yeah that makes sense. Up till then VP didn't really carry that much say or influence in polices except in event of a tie vote in the senate. I think though due to early Alzheimers Bush likely had more influence in Reagan's second term than he otherwise would have had except on possibly Intel issues which is the only other reason I could see other than unity for Reagan picking him.
Afraid of what??? Anyhow, we need bold principled leaders in congress and not lying, corrupt, chicken $hit surrender monkeys.
Both very good points.
Corporate executives are not elected officials in their own right; deputy sheriffs are not elected in their own right, although they are public employees.
Do I really have to finish the point?
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.