• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senior sources suggest that John Boehner will resign Speakership tonight

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
GOP Activist Group Spokesperson Cites ‘Senior Sources’ That John Boehner Will Resign Speakership Tonight | Mediaite

Ron Meyer Jr., spokesperson for the activist group American Majority Action, Appeared on MSNBC with Martin Bashir where he said that he is hearing rumors form reliable sources that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will resign the speakership tonight.

“We need a new Speaker,” Meyer said. “There are serious rumors that at the conference tonight, at 5 o’clock, John Boehner will announce to the conference that he is resigning as Speaker of the House.”

Bashir said he found that hard to believe, to which Meyer replied that he also found it unlikely. Bashir pressed and asked if there was any evidence to back this up or a candidate who is seeking to replace Boehner as speaker. Meyer replied that he thought Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was spearheading this “coup,” but had no evidence to back that up.

“I’m not going to name names, just watch tonight,” Meyer said.

Perhaps a bit premature, but not entirely implausible. Cantor's a mixed bag; he's supportive of military sequestration, which I support, but he's far more likely to be an activist social conservative.
 
What's wrong with being a social conservative?
 
5 pm DC time has come and gone..
 
Boehner never had the faith of the membership of the party and he failed to earn it. In fact, pretty much everything he's done since he took the position has pissed off the base.
 
What's wrong with being a social conservative?

I tend to disagree with social conservatives on basically every domestic policy issue of note? I think a vast majority of their policy prescriptions come from raw emotionalism and wishful thinking substituted for level-headed, reasoned policymaking? I think they're the exact mirror image of the liberal "bleeding hearts" they talk of so much?
 
Eric Cantor as Speaker of the House would be a DISASTER for the GOP. A Jewish de facto head of the GOP who would alienate every moderate Republican. I cannot see him getting it. Perhaps Boehner plans to resign to run again so that people will have a clear choice and not feel like they have to have him if they do not want him.
 
I don't know whether this report is accurate or not. However, Speaker Boehner has proved to be a rather weak and ineffectual leader. His tenure as Speaker has been one of missed opportunities. It has also been one of repeated failures to align the support behind policy solutions (his doomed "Plan B" is just one example).

The problem, of course, is more than just about the Speaker. The recent debacle over relief for Sandy's victims illustrates the kind of “tone deafness” to reality that led the 112th Congress to achieve very little in terms of helping the nation address its big challenges.

As the 112th Congress concluded, Speaker Boehner and his Leadership team found itself caught between a PR crisis associated with its decision to block Sandy-related disaster relief on one hand and just adopted fiscal cliff legislation that contains no meaningful spending-related savings on the other. The PR crisis is not going to win the House Leadership any public support. The latter outcome does not provide credibility on the fiscal responsibility front.

The Speaker and the House Leadership did not arrive at that juncture mainly on account of the President or Democrats. They arrived there mainly as the result of their own choices over the course of the 112th Congress. Near-miss after near-miss suggested a proverbial disaster was looming.

During summer 2011, there was a tangible opportunity for a credible fiscal consolidation package. Had the House Leadership countered with a proposal to split the remaining difference on taxes, the President would have been put in an untenable position of being held responsible for the failure to reach agreement had he rejected the counteroffer. Instead, the House Leadership snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It punted in August .

Some might argue that the House leadership refused to take such an initiative out of principle. That's not an unfair argument. However, one cannot assume that the wisdom or merits of such a choice is self-evident. Such an assumption is another example of flawed leadership, as it shows a lack of need to align support behind one's positions. The public's postion vis-a-vis tax policy in repeated opinion polls may well reflect this failure to align support for a decision.

In any case, following the punt, more than a year was available to develop a credible fiscal consolidation package. The House Leadership failed to develop such a package that could command broad support (particularly among the public). It also failed to develop legislation to implement the Bowles-Simpson plan, widely viewed as credible, as a fallback position. Their seeming assumption: a solution would magically appear. Alas, Washington is not Disneyland. There was no fairy tale ending with meaningful spending-related savings.

In the end, the House adopted legislation to avert the fiscal cliff’s tax-related provisions. That legislation contained no meaningful spending-related savings. The CBO’s verdict? The House voted to increase the nation’s 10-year debt by nearly $4 trillion. The House Leadership's choices are a key reason that such a minimalist package was adopted.

That same tone deafness led the House Leadership to shelve disaster relief legislation. The underlying assumptions were that such a move would inflict no harm, disaster state representatives would be indifferent, and Governor Christie, a Republican governor, would be quiet. All three assumptions were wrong. First, real people continue to suffer. Second, the representatives in disaster-affected states have seen firsthand that suffering and are committed to providing relief. A harsh reaction was to be expected. Third, Governor Christie has demonstrated a penchant to put the interests of his State and constituents ahead of partisan considerations, even during the heat of a Presidential campaign. One could not reasonably have expected that he would be indifferent to the outcome.

CNN reported the following of Governor Christie's remarks today:

Pulling no punches, Christie declared: "Last night, the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. ... It was disappointing and disgusting to watch." He also unapologetically named names: "There's only one group to blame ... the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." He added that the relief bill "just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority."

Chris Christie drops bomb on GOP leaders - CNN.com

The "toxic internal politics" of which the New Jersey governor spoke of is a classic symptom of leadership failure.

In the face of withering criticism, the Speaker reversed himself (ironically, adding to perceptions of weakness that have persistently dogged him). He will now permit a vote on $9 billion in disaster relief on Friday and another vote on $51 billion in disaster relief on January 15.

Nonetheless, his team and he won’t receive credit from the public. Credit will be accorded those who fought tenaciously for a vote, not those who initially blocked it and relented only under harsh criticism. The public understands that had there been little or no criticism of the short-sighted decision to block the aid package, there probably would have been no disaster relief for Sandy’s victims.

In the end, tone deafness to reality has led to suboptimal outcomes and that tone deafness is a reflection, in large part, on the House's Leadership team headed by Speaker Boehner.. Those who understand the lessons of history, or narrower ones of PR, can recognize the avoidable nature of the House Leadership’s predicament. For all its claims of commitment to fiscal responsibility, the House Leadership team failed to realize the kind of deficit savings that were probably attainable. It is also solely responsible for having positioned itself as opposing relief to those who suffered from Sandy’s wrath and inflicting on itself yet another PR disaster.

All said, while there might be worse possibilities as Speaker than John Boehner, the reality is that John Boehner has not demonstrated the kind of effective leadership one would reasonably expect from that position.
 
Don, while I am no fan of Boehner(far from it), I will say that he was saddled with an almost impossible situation. He has to lead both the traditional republicans, who want to lead, and the Tea Party republicans, who want to obstruct. When your own party is strongly divided, there are limits to what you can do.
 
Theres alot of speculation that Boehner will resign but nothing concrete yet. Cantor split with Boehner and Ryan on the cliff vote of course cantor and company didnt win that vote and lost it I may add by a HUGE margin. If there was a coup Cantor got spanked. I think Boehner has more support at this point that Cantor but who knows how the majority feels about him leaving.
I will say this Boehner is an opportunity for the GOP to change its Image with the AMERICAN PEOPLE not the teaparty conservative far right "few". If they choose a far right speaker, which I dont believe they will...it will assure another round of loss's next election.
I said months ago there was a war being waged behind the scenes in the GOP I was right then and it still is raging...
 
Don, while I am no fan of Boehner(far from it), I will say that he was saddled with an almost impossible situation. He has to lead both the traditional republicans, who want to lead, and the Tea Party republicans, who want to obstruct. When your own party is strongly divided, there are limits to what you can do.

I agree with you, Redress, especially with regard to the Tea Party members. Still, the way he handled things more often than not exacerbated his problems. The disaster relief bill is a good example. The House had broken it into two components of $27 billion and $33 billion. He could have allowed a vote on the former option. He didn't and paid a political price today. Now, under intense criticism, he has reversed himself, but the damage is done.

Sometimes, the measure of a leader isn't what he or she accomplished, but what he or she tried to achieve. On that latter aspect, I believe the Speaker has also fallen short. I think one would have seen more from either a Tip O'Neill or Newt Gingrich, both of whom knew how to forge coalitions behind their policy positions.
 
And one last thing, here's something I find troubling. From Politico.com:

Christie said he finally spoke to Boehner Wednesday morning, at which time the speaker told him he was planning to meet with the New Jersey and New York Republican delegations in the afternoon. But without directly commenting on his conversation with the speaker, Christie said he had yet to hear a “substantive credible” reason for not taking up the bill...

“I was called at 11:20 last night by Leader Cantor and told that authority for the vote had been pulled by the speaker. Our delegation asked for a meeting with the speaker at that time. They were refused. I called the speaker four times last night after 11:20 and he did not take my calls."


Chris Christie unleashes anger at Boehner - David Rogers - POLITICO.com
 
I don't know whether this report is accurate or not. However, Speaker Boehner has proved to be a rather weak and ineffectual leader. His tenure as Speaker has been one of missed opportunities. It has also been one of repeated failures to align the support behind policy solutions (his doomed "Plan B" is just one example).
The problem, of course, is more than just about the Speaker. The recent debacle over relief for Sandy's victims illustrates the kind of “tone deafness” to reality that led the 112th Congress to achieve very little in terms of helping the nation address its big challenges.
As the 112th Congress concluded, Speaker Boehner and his Leadership team found itself caught between a PR crisis associated with its decision to block Sandy-related disaster relief on one hand and just adopted fiscal cliff legislation that contains no meaningful spending-related savings on the other. The PR crisis is not going to win the House Leadership any public support. The latter outcome does not provide credibility on the fiscal responsibility front.
The Speaker and the House Leadership did not arrive at that juncture mainly on account of the President or Democrats. They arrived there mainly as the result of their own choices over the course of the 112th Congress. Near-miss after near-miss suggested a proverbial disaster was looming.
During summer 2011, there was a tangible opportunity for a credible fiscal consolidation package. Had the House Leadership countered with a proposal to split the remaining difference on taxes, the President would have been put in an untenable position of being held responsible for the failure to reach agreement had he rejected the counteroffer. Instead, the House Leadership snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It punted in August .
Some might argue that the House leadership refused to take such an initiative out of principle. That's not an unfair argument. However, one cannot assume that the wisdom or merits of such a choice is self-evident. Such an assumption is another example of flawed leadership, as it shows a lack of need to align support behind one's positions. The public's postion vis-a-vis tax policy in repeated opinion polls may well reflect this failure to align support for a decision.
In any case, following the punt, more than a year was available to develop a credible fiscal consolidation package. The House Leadership failed to develop such a package that could command broad support (particularly among the public). It also failed to develop legislation to implement the Bowles-Simpson plan, widely viewed as credible, as a fallback position. Their seeming assumption: a solution would magically appear. Alas, Washington is not Disneyland. There was no fairy tale ending with meaningful spending-related savings.
In the end, the House adopted legislation to avert the fiscal cliff’s tax-related provisions. That legislation contained no meaningful spending-related savings. The CBO’s verdict? The House voted to increase the nation’s 10-year debt by nearly $4 trillion. The House Leadership's choices are a key reason that such a minimalist package was adopted.
That same tone deafness led the House Leadership to shelve disaster relief legislation. The underlying assumptions were that such a move would inflict no harm, disaster state representatives would be indifferent, and Governor Christie, a Republican governor, would be quiet. All three assumptions were wrong. First, real people continue to suffer. Second, the representatives in disaster-affected states have seen firsthand that suffering and are committed to providing relief. A harsh reaction was to be expected. Third, Governor Christie has demonstrated a penchant to put the interests of his State and constituents ahead of partisan considerations, even during the heat of a Presidential campaign. One could not reasonably have expected that he would be indifferent to the outcome.
CNN reported the following of Governor Christie's remarks today:
Pulling no punches, Christie declared: "Last night, the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. ... It was disappointing and disgusting to watch." He also unapologetically named names: "There's only one group to blame ... the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." He added that the relief bill "just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority."
Chris Christie drops bomb on GOP leaders - CNN.com[/URL]
The "toxic internal politics" of which the New Jersey governor spoke of is a classic symptom of leadership failure.
In the face of withering criticism, the Speaker reversed himself (ironically, adding to perceptions of weakness that have persistently dogged him). He will now permit a vote on $9 billion in disaster relief on Friday and another vote on $51 billion in disaster relief on January 15.
Nonetheless, his team and he won’t receive credit from the public. Credit will be accorded those who fought tenaciously for a vote, not those who initially blocked it and relented only under harsh criticism. The public understands that had there been little or no criticism of the short-sighted decision to block the aid package, there probably would have been no disaster relief for Sandy’s victims.
In the end, tone deafness to reality has led to suboptimal outcomes and that tone deafness is a reflection, in large part, on the House's Leadership team headed by Speaker Boehner.. Those who understand the lessons of history, or narrower ones of PR, can recognize the avoidable nature of the House Leadership’s predicament. For all its claims of commitment to fiscal responsibility, the House Leadership team failed to realize the kind of deficit savings that were probably attainable. It is also solely responsible for having positioned itself as opposing relief to those who suffered from Sandy’s wrath and inflicting on itself yet another PR disaster.
All said, while there might be worse possibilities as Speaker than John Boehner, the reality is that John Boehner has not demonstrated the kind of effective leadership one would reasonably expect from that position.

Translation: Boehner is a lilly-livered POS, who consistently lacks core principals gets himself constantly in trouble because he wants to be on all sides of an issue. He should have been ought of there years ago.
 
Translation: Boehner is a lilly-livered POS, who consistently lacks core principals gets himself constantly in trouble because he wants to be on all sides of an issue. He should have been ought of there years ago.

Boehner has plenty of core principles. He was the second-most important author of the Contract With America.

He's just nowhere near as radical as the Tea Party. He's still quite far right.
 
Every time I see Eric Cantor I think he just looks like a dick. The kind of person who I would have enjoyed watching get his ass kicked in 6th grade.
 
Eric Cantor as Speaker of the House would be a DISASTER for the GOP. A Jewish de facto head of the GOP who would alienate every moderate Republican. I cannot see him getting it. Perhaps Boehner plans to resign to run again so that people will have a clear choice and not feel like they have to have him if they do not want him.

I can't stand Cantor, but what does his religion have to do with anything? Or is it your position that the base of the Republican party is anti-semitic?
 
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP is coming to light. Whoever they elect will have no credibility as the party can't decide which discredited ideological talking point to obsess on (abortion, Islam, austerity, Obama's birth certificate), but whatever it is, most Americans find it absurd and irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with being a social conservative?

Social Conservative = Telling Others How To Live Their Lives When It Is None Of Your Business.
 
Social Conservative = Telling Others How To Live Their Lives When It Is None Of Your Business.

And while hypocritically living their lives contrary to the purported values they impose on others. Witness the much divorced Gingrich and his affairs with Congressional interns while moralizing about Clinton and how liberalism is destroying family values.
 
Social Conservative = Telling Others How To Live Their Lives When It Is None Of Your Business.

....unless you have some money or run a business, or are in law enforcement, or are a person of faith in which case the liberals will tell you how to live your lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom