The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Gazoo on January 17, 2014, 03:42:59 pm
-
09/04/2013 2:25 pm EDT | Updated: 09/05/2013 10:48 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- Former aides to John Boehner and other high-level GOP operatives are increasingly convinced that the House speaker will step aside after the 2014 midterm elections, according to interviews with a dozen Republican sources.
All summer, rumors have been swirling around the Hill and K Street that the speaker has had enough and that 2014 would be his last year with the gavel. Then the message went out in July: Boehner (R-Ohio) is not leaving.
Boehner told his inner circle at dinner that there was no truth to the talk, and authorized his people to spread the word around town. A story appeared in Politico the next day, reaffirming Boehner's stated commitment to stay past 2014.
"These inside-the-Beltway parlor games take place every two years. The speaker has made clear publicly he intends to remain in his position in the next Congress," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told HuffPost.
But not everyone close to the 63-year-old speaker is so sure. "He has to say that. He can't not say that. The minute you say [you're leaving], you're done," said one former GOP leadership aide who is part of Boehner's circle. "Everybody around him thinks this is his last term."
Despite the effort by Boehner to tamp down speculation that he will depart the House after the 2014 midterms, multiple cooks in Boehner's kitchen cabinet think the Republican is still strongly considering making his exit just over a year from now.
"I'd be surprised if he did [stay]," said one former senior aide to Boehner, who, like many consulted for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their relationships. (HuffPost spoke to four top former Boehner aides, two current aides, five former leadership aides close to Boehner's inner circle, and a GOP operative on familiar terms with his circle.)
Boehner has plenty of reasons to make this coming year his last, but one may be more compelling than the others: It's not at all clear he could win. His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), is not expected to challenge him, but during the last election a bloc of insurgent tea partyers threatened to derail Boehner's election by depriving him of the 218 votes he needs to hold the gavel. The insurgents pulled back a bit, and Boehner won the speakership with 220 votes. "He barely won the last one and that group of opposition has only grown," said one former leadership aide. "The ones who were in on it and got cold feet basically gave him a reprieve. They won't be willing to do that again."
Only three more tea partyers would need to join the effort to block his next reelection -- hardly a difficult feat,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/john-boehner-retirement_n_3866110.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/john-boehner-retirement_n_3866110.html)
The article is dated.
4 months old...
But somehow with all of the Obama phony scandals it seemed to have gone unoticed.
You have to read the entire article to GET that Boehner is retiring but does not want it made known yet, and why.
This is excellent news. Boehner barely made speaker last vote. And Boehner also has a primary challenger in Ohio.
-
Hope springs eternal...sacking Boehner would be a good start but the Republican meme of "Reince, Fail, Repeat" has got to change as well.
:0001:
-
The assumption that Boehner's departure is imminent has set off a round of jockeying for the positions that would open up. The current power structure includes an ad hoc leadership-in-waiting, consisting of five conservatives who serve as a go-betweens for the leadership and the tea party. Getting the blessing of that group is usually the first step toward getting broader tea party buy-in. According to GOP sources, this group includes Reps. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Tom Price (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.). All but Ryan have chaired the Republican Study Committee, the bloc of arch-conservatives in the House. Much of the speculation has focused on Hensarling, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who is considered a viable candidate for either speaker or majority leader. Price, who lost a leadership race last round to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), is considered a viable challenger to current Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)
This sounds like GOP establishment Cantor is not going to mind missing HIS TURN.
Interesting...
-
He's drunk with the notoriety that comes with the position. If he does step down, it will be because he and his progressive friends think the die is cast and America is irretrievably on it's was down the path to communism.
-
If the article is read. He will step down because of his age. He wants to enjoy life after 22 years. He will step down because he was almost voted out last time. I am not taking up for him but the writing is on the wall, it doesn't matter how democratic lite he is. He is near 70 and would like to hit the upscale golf courses.
-
Will John Boehner retire in 2014?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/will-john-boehner-retire-in-2014/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/will-john-boehner-retire-in-2014/)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/congresspopularity.jpg)
-
"I think I can say, and say with great pride, that we have legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world." -- Mark Twain
-
I don't know much about Hensarling, but think Jim Jordan would be a great Speaker. He conservative, smart, and most of all honest. He also has wisdom, and is a hard worker. Always was.
-
I agree Hap. After the past few months I think it is safe to say the GOP will be getting new leadership. I wish McCain would retire.
-
I agree Hap. After the past few months I think it is safe to say the GOP will be getting new leadership. I wish McCain would retire.
How can you say that? What conservative victories can the Tea Party point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled? The last time they challenged the establishment was the shutdown. The real conservatives numbers appear to me to be dwindling with every Rubio, Cantor, or Ryan that is cast aside. Thank you.
This is a joke. Think about all the leaks you have heard out of the Boehner House that turned out true. There hasn't been many.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-there-are-all-sorts-rumors-of-john-boehner-too/
The Huff Po doesn't have sources. The make them up to try and sow discontent. They want Boehner to think a bunch of people who work for him are leaking to the Huff Po. It ain't happening despite the Huff Po sweatiest liberal wet dream...seemingly shared by many real conservatives.
My inside sources tell me, if Boehner announces he's retiring then the GOP is losing the House.
-
If the article is read. He will step down because of his age. He wants to enjoy life after 22 years. He will step down because he was almost voted out last time. I am not taking up for him but the writing is on the wall, it doesn't matter how democratic lite he is. He is near 70 and would like to hit the upscale golf courses.
When I reach the pinnacle of my success I may not be too anxious to give it up for more leisure time.
-
[[ My inside sources tell me, if Boehner announces he's retiring then the GOP is losing the House. ]]
If the Pubbies hand amnesty to the 'rats, then they ARE going to lose the House.
Hmmm.... could this be why Mr. Boehner may retire? All pre-arranged?
-
When I reach the pinnacle of my success I may not be too anxious to give it up for more leisure time.
And how about when you realize that you've reached as high as God will allow, and that if you continue you'll simply end up becoming a laughingstock, like the washed-up celebrities who keep trying to get back into the "with it" crowd?
-
What conservative victories can the GOPe point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled?
-
[[ My inside sources tell me, if Boehner announces he's retiring then the GOP is losing the House. ]]
If the Pubbies hand amnesty to the 'rats, then they ARE going to lose the House.
Hmmm.... could this be why Mr. Boehner may retire? All pre-arranged?
I don't trust much of anybody anymore. Much less the huffy post.
I also realize the democrats like to play extra dirty and encourage divide and conquer.
We have an IRS attacking dems political opponents. The MSM schtick of attacking the dems opponents via Alinsky style; is very worn and just about nearly does not work at all anymore.
The, 'blame the pubs for Obama's failures' is also very old and ineffective anymore.
There is no way the dems win super majority or any majority again .
The fact of the matter is Boehner barely won speaker last vote.
-
What conservative victories can the GOPe point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled?
They stopped the Oct Obamacare shutdown in Oct. In Dec they passed Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement. last week a 1.1 Trillion spending deal. Wake up.
-
They stopped the Oct Obamacare shutdown in Oct. In Dec they passed Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement. last week a 1.1 Trillion spending deal. Wake up.
and those are good things in your mind???
-
Once-Ler,
So the GOP establishment are dirtbags and the tea party? It seems you dwell and almost relish in the the GOP e and tea party schism. Who do you support?
-
Once-Ler,
So the GOP establishment are dirtbags and the tea party? It seems you dwell and almost relish in the the GOP e and tea party schism. Who do you support?
I support the GOPe because from my point a veiw Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Priebus, and all the leadership is fully awesome. My point is they are winning and the hardcore or real conservatives are marginalizing themselves. There will be no change of leadership if, as I suspect, the GOP adds seats in 2014. If we (meaning the GOPe) fail then you will see new leadership.
-
and those are good things in your mind???
Do I think representatives of all the people getting together and opening the government, agreeing on spending levels and actually passing a budget are good things? Is that a trick question? Of course I think that is a good thing. It's their job. They are supposed to do these things. The voters expect them to do these things.
-
I support the GOPe because from my point a veiw Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Priebus, and all the leadership is fully awesome. My point is they are winning and the hardcore or real conservatives are marginalizing themselves. There will be no change of leadership if, as I suspect, the GOP adds seats in 2014. If we (meaning the GOPe) fail then you will see new leadership.
The GOPe has already failed.
-
:silly: and those are good things in your mind???
My first thought also. Recall the question was: What conservative victories can the GOPe point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled? .
And this is the answer?: They stopped the Oct Obamacare shutdown in Oct. In Dec they passed Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement. last week a 1.1 Trillion spending deal. Wake up.
Any more victories like those and we can just resign ourselves to being Obama's obedient lap dogs.
-
:silly: and those are good things in your mind???
My first thought also. Recall the question was: What conservative victories can the GOPe point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled? .
And this is the answer?: They stopped the Oct Obamacare shutdown in Oct. In Dec they passed Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement. last week a 1.1 Trillion spending deal. Wake up.
Any more victories like those and we can just resign ourselves to being Obama's obedient lap dogs.
Right. Not one of those three things was conservative - unless a person thinks screwing our military veterans to give food stamps and welfare to illegals is conservative. I could take the 1.1 Trillion "spending deal" and slash the hell out of it and not one of us would feel it at all since so much of the spending is payoffs to special interests... and certainly stripping sequestration wasn't a "good deal" - of course if you are down with your kids and their kids being stuck with a bankrupt, third world, banana republic then I guess it's a good deal
-
:silly: and those are good things in your mind???
My first thought also. Recall the question was: What conservative victories can the GOPe point to causing or what bipartisan monstrosity have they stopped or stalled? .
The GOPe would not push conservatism as defined by you. By rat, centrist, and RINO standards...In other words about 90% of voters IMO...the GOPe pushed conservative values and got it passed with rat votes and signed by Obama. Your quite capable of doing your own research. Try reading the responses of Boehner and Ryan to reporters questions and you too can answer your own questions.
I'll get you started...
http://reason.com/24-7/2014/01/14/congress-working-on-11-trillion-spending
Negotiators in the U.S. Congress on Monday unveiled a $1.1 trillion spending bill that aims to prevent another government shutdown while boosting funding levels slightly for military and domestic programs - but not for "Obamacare" health reforms.
http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-trade-offs-1-1-trillion-budget-bill-082250902--finance.html
Dozens of trade-offs in $1.1 trillion budget bill
"The shutdown educated — particularly our younger members who weren't here during our earlier shutdown — about how futile that practice is," said House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "There is a real hard determination now that we will reacquire and use the power of the purse that the Congress constitutionally has been given."
Democrats must accept new money for sexual abstinence education programs they often ridicule, and conservatives can take heart that overall spending for daily agency operations has been cut by $79 billion, or 7 percent, from the high-water mark established by Democrats in 2010. That cut increases to $165 billion, or 13 percent, when cuts in war funding and disaster spending are accounted for. Money for Obama's high-speed rail program would be cut off — a defeat for California Democrats — and rules restricting the sale of less efficient incandescent light bulbs would be blocked.
The Pentagon will get about $6 billion more in war funding than the $79 billion Obama requested. The additional money is helping the Pentagon deal with a cash crunch in troop readiness accounts. Including foreign aid related to overseas security operations, total war funding reaches $92 billion, a slight cut from last year.
So in the $1.1 Trillion spending bill contains increased military spending over sequester, and abstinence education, and the GOPe stopped Obama-rail and Obama's war on lightbulbs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-congress-1-1-trillion-spending-bill/
“I am particularly pleased that this measure contains no earmarks, which were once a pervasive symbol of a broken Washington. Also of note is the fact that we are not providing any new or additional funding for the president’s health care law,” Boehner said in a statement.
No earmarks.
An unmentioned conservative thing the quick passage of the $1.1 Trillion spending bill does is muzzle stupid freshmen representatives who don't understand how little support they have with voters with tactics like shutdowns. It protects all Republicans from their bull-headed obliviousness.
-
Right. Not one of those three things was conservative - unless a person thinks screwing our military veterans to give food stamps and welfare to illegals is conservative.
Can you believe that out of 535 House and Senate members, only 67 Representatives and 26 Senators voted against screwing our military veterans and giving food stamps and welfare to illegals? I don't believe it. I know its much much worse.
Many of them wanted to vote for screwing our military veterans and giving food stamps and welfare to illegals, but they voted against it out of fear that the Tea Party might primary them. Even if the GOPe wins the primary, the seat may go to a rat. You know what the GOPe does to the Senators and Representative who they paid good money to vote as told, but don't? They say "It's OK. We know you're on our team. And they say "Eh?!? we'll pass it without these 8 votes." In other words they are already bought and sold but allowed to vote against screwing our military veterans and giving food stamps and welfare to illegals, because they might become politically vulnerable.
Some of those who voted against it, voted against it on the principle that they didn't get their fair share of the spending in their district or state. In other words the bribe wasn't big enough.
If you factor in single issue representatives and fence sitters who flipped a coin IMO at this time there are really only 6-8 Senators the Tea Party can count on and who knows in the House. That's many less than 3 months ago.
I could take the 1.1 Trillion "spending deal" and slash the hell out of it and not one of us would feel it at all since so much of the spending is payoffs to special interests... and certainly stripping sequestration wasn't a "good deal" - of course if you are down with your kids and their kids being stuck with a bankrupt, third world, banana republic then I guess it's a good deal
Do you think I want to destroy my America? My children's future? I bet your a real people person off the forum too.
In the grand scheme of a $1.1 Trillion spending bill I don't think it screws our military veterans anymore than they are already screwed and I don't think it gives food stamps and welfare to illegals any more than sequester did.
IMO, You could not get elected if your campaign reflected the views I've read on this forum, but if you could get elected, you could not convince enough of the 431 representatives who voted for the $1.1 Trillion bill to jump aboard your idea.
Like Ryan I believe this was the best deal we could pass and it's a step in the right direction. We could have gotten a better bill if we controlled the Senate. We could have won the Senate in 2012. The GOPe has taken the right steps to prevent possible damage to the brand by neophytes. Go GOPe Ed Gillespie!
-
IMO, You could not get elected if your campaign reflected the views I've read on this forum,
Polls show differently. The GOPe are progressive lites that like their slush funds and pay raises. While they still cower to the media political correctness that think true fiscal conservatism is mouthed by wacko birds. Obama's re-election was lining up the vans to vote many times in many states even taking the military towns vote. Bully tactics and cheating made Americas geographics change.
-
Polls show differently. The GOPe are progressive lites that like their slush funds and pay raises. While they still cower to the media political correctness that think true fiscal conservatism is mouthed by wacko birds. Obama's re-election was lining up the vans to vote many times in many states even taking the military towns vote. Bully tactics and cheating made Americas geographics change.
:amen:
-
I'll get you started...
http://reason.com/24-7/2014/01/14/congress-working-on-11-trillion-spending
Gosh, Once-ler, thank you for "gett[ing] me started", though I have no idea on what.
Here's what you said: Try reading the responses of Boehner and Ryan to reporters questions and you too can answer your own questions.
I'll get you started...
Ok, and here is what is at the link:
Congress Working on $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill
January 14, 2014
Negotiators in the U.S. Congress on Monday unveiled a $1.1 trillion spending bill that aims to prevent another government shutdown while boosting funding levels slightly for military and domestic programs - but not for "Obamacare" health reforms.
With a deadline looming at midnight Wednesday for new spending authority, lawmakers will still need a three-day stop-gap funding extension to ensure enough time for passage of the spending bill this week.
Does that even mention Boehner or Ryan? It answers no questions (which I didn't even know I was asking)(but thanks anyway), and merely states that Congress was working on yet another massive budget.
Whoopee! Now I know what was already common knowledge.
Thanks, guy.
Oh, one more thing: that budget you seem so proud of is just a continuation of the poor fiscal policies of both the Dems and their GOPe counterparts. We will have to borrow to finance it which is not in the best interests of the Republic and is most certainly not "Conservative" in any sense, no matter how belligerently and how sarcastically you try to make it otherwise.
-
Does that even mention Boehner or Ryan? It answers no questions (which I didn't even know I was asking)(but thanks anyway), and merely states that Congress was working on yet another massive budget.
You asked what "conservative" stuff the GOPe passed. I suggested you listen to Boehner or Ryan.
-
You asked what "conservative" stuff the GOPe passed. I suggested you listen to Boehner or Ryan.
Well, then, shouldn't you offer some link to THEM showing what is Conservative about a $1.1 trillion budget?
And, no, this is not what you are asking for: Your quite capable of doing your own research.
What you are really saying is I should prove what you are saying. Uh, no. Not your secretary. You claim it, you prove it.
-
I have yet to hear an answer to my legitimate question. What is conservative about screwing the veterans and funding benefits for illegals? I could ask the same about the following as well.
Ryan voted for the $700 billion bank bailout
Voted for the auto industry bailout - one of just 32 Republicans to do so and after Romney's op-ed saying NO!
Medicare Part D (the biggest Medicare expansion in U.S. history)
A massive highway bill that included the “Bridge to Nowhere”
In 2012 the House voted on a stand-alone balanced budget amendment, Paul Ryan was one of four House Republicans voting “no
In 2007 he was one of just 32 Republicans who joined with Democrats to pass the workplace discrimination act.
-
You asked what "conservative" stuff the GOPe passed. I suggested you listen to Boehner or Ryan.
Well, then, shouldn't you offer some link to THEM showing what is Conservative about a $1.1 trillion budget?
And, no, this is not what you are asking for: Your quite capable of doing your own research.
What you are really saying is I should prove what you are saying. Uh, no. Not your secretary. You claim it, you prove it.
Here is the link and the quote again for you to ignore.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-congress-1-1-trillion-spending-bill/
Quote
“I am particularly pleased that this measure contains no earmarks, which were once a pervasive symbol of a broken Washington. Also of note is the fact that we are not providing any new or additional funding for the president’s health care law,” Boehner said in a statement.
-
Here is the link and the quote again for you to ignore.
Negative on that. I saw the quote. Only thing is I, and anyone who is really concerned about our nation's fiscal health, finds it wanting.
No earmarks? So tell me, Once-ler, since you seem to be the expert, how much bloated and unnecessary spending is built into that $1.1 trillion budget? Earmarks? Don't need 'em. They are built into this budget.
But this one I truly love: Also of note is the fact that we are not providing any new or additional funding for the president’s health care law
How great is that? No new or additional funding, but ObamaCare WILL be funded, won't it? And you apparently think that is a good thing.
Uh, no.
-
My goodness, Once-ler, quotes from your own link:
The House passed the so-called “omnibus” spending bill Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 357 to 64, despite objections from some outside conservative groups that the bill undid some of the mandatory spending cuts in the sequester.
“I would rather the Republican leadership come clean and admit that they have surrendered the fight for spending reform. The claims of victory coming out of some of these House offices are insulting to the intelligence of the fiscally conservative grassroots,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, in a statement after the vote.
Here are some things that are – and aren’t – in the massive spending bill:
Oh, Once-ler:
President Obama’s signature legislative achievements, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, get most of their implementation funding
Domestic programs get about $20 billion back in money that would have been cut by the sequester, including an additional $1 billion for Head Start
What a great trade off. Whoopee!
Democrats managed to keep out a Republican provision that would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, but they do lose regulations that would have phased out incandescent light bulbs for more energy-efficient ones
Earmarks, anyone? Oh, that's right. We can't call them that.
Millions of dollars went out to programs that lawmakers took credit for, including research labs and programs, defense facilities, and construction projects like tanks and ships
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/now-that-congress-has-passed-the-omnibus-spending-bill-whats-in-it.php
(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/763x304xSpending-Chart-02.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ph-AI-oW5U.jpg)
-
My goodness, Once-ler, quotes from your own link:
Oh, Once-ler:
What a great trade off. Whoopee!
Earmarks, anyone? Oh, that's right. We can't call them that.
Cincinnatus I've already said I can't prove that the $1.1T spending bill contains conservative elements to you. Your definition of conservatism is not mine, nor IMO a majority of voters. I believe an overwhelming majority of voters including the left, the center, and the right of center RINOs feel quite comfortable with this bill. They see a budget that includes no new taxes, increased military spending, abstinence education funding, stopping Obama-Rail, and a reduction in the rate of growth and can justify in their minds that some conservative elements worked their way into this law. I wasn't really trying to convince you it is conservative, but I felt compelled to explain the non-conservative view to anyone who wants to understand.
My original point was conservatives have been unable to pass legislation. Nobody is buying it. The GOPe does not need conservatives to pass legislation. The warning shot was the Senate immigration bill. The response was epic. A show of force by the right wing culminating in the threat of a government shutdown. Websites. FUNDRAISING, and endless talk radio...and they didn't stop nuthin'. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the SCF, Club for Growth, Rush, Heritage, Hannity, and Red State flexed their muscle for a couple weeks and then failed.
The October shutdown proved to the GOPe that the GOP can't function as a minority party, much less a majority party, if it has to placate the Tea Party, and now the GOPe can't be fooled by a bluff. They have seen the mobilized political power of the right. And the GOPe has given that power due consideration with every bill they passed since Oct 17th. The GOPe just ain't that into you conservatives. Conservatives didn't deliver a promised grassroots uprising to call Senators and Reps to keep the pressure on and provide cover for the Defunders during the shutdown. So Boehner said they "lost all credibility," and then opened the government...like a Boss.
Since then the GOPe has passed stuff and prevented stuff. The are in the game, without the right wing.
Now Boehner is working rapidly to pass immigration reform. In response Mickey Kaus said...
If strong voter opposition makes itself heard again, as it has in the past, the majority of the GOP caucus that Boehner says he needs probably won’t go along with his pro- amnesty “principles.” If that opposition doesn’t materialize, some form of legalization-before-enforcement becomes an inevitability. The coming weeks will tell.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,126957.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,126957.0.html)
I hope for your sake that conservatives do a little better job of working the phones and the emails than they did in October. You are not going to like amnesty when it passes with overwhelming rat support. It will mean Boehner had to give away even more to get enough rat votes to replace conservative advocacy and input.
On a personal note despite my sarcasm, I have enjoyed bouncing my thoughts off you. If you can't accept my sincere recognition that I know you believe what you write, and you believe your ideology is best for our country, then take heart in that I consider you a sharp spokesman for your views and feel it necessary to respond.
:seeya: