Mia Love explains why she voted for John Boehner as House speaker

[katzenjammer]

At first, I was told (by Republicans) that the time to complain, and to try to change Washington, was during the primaries - and after that - shut the hell up and be part of the GOP team. 

Then the tea partiers started challenging incumbents - and I was told that I was being played as a fool by groups that were just taking me for my money - and that most tea party candidates were half-wit dolts that were embarrassing to most sophisticated intelligent establishment Republicans.  (Granted, there were some poor picks - I would submit no more than the establishment routinely foists upon us.)

Now, when we have some representatives that we have actually sent to DC - when they try to do what they promised to do when elected - they are hideous traitors!

It seems as though almost every person here that complains about us "rogues" - always throws in a comment about us stupidly sending our money to people that just use it to live high on the hog and to back dumb-ass candidates that can't win.  I never hear them complain about the tons of money Karl Rove raises - that's OK, I guess. 

We're a new movement, we're learning our way around, we're not "dying", we've learned that money is what greases the gears in DC, we're not going away - no matter how many times we're insulted.  We want a smaller government that doesn't revel in waste and fraud.  We don't want to suck off the government teat and we want to wean those that do.  We want to put everyone that is able - to work - in the private sector!  We want to assume our rightful role as the boss of those politicians and bureaucrats - not the other way around.  We want to be left alone and we want to be masters of our own domain.  We want to adhere to our Constitution.

And we will call you out - no matter what party you belong to!  Yes, the Left is our most pressing enemy at the moment - but we won't defeat them until we get rid of those who party together and kiss each other, slapping on the back - wink, wink - some more lip service will shut the unwashed masses up until after we get re-elected and can go back to gorging and purging at the taxpayer trough!  Nothing will change as long as we have people like that in office - even within our own party. 

Yeah, we're just stupid AND evil.   

EXCELLENT, Alice!!  Brava!!

    

[Luis Gonzalez]

The difference between those of us and the "Establishment" if you will is that we're eager to see more effective measures be used, as the tools the Establishment prefer (compromise and negotiation) have not solved the problem. I think there's a real sense of fear in that camp.

The conservative says "this is a high enough priority that we need to take a bigger risk and push as hard as we can to make this happen." The establishment Republican says "this is too big of a risk that we think could hurt our election chances, so we need to de-emphasize this to appease those who might oppose it."

A classic example is the shutdown. It was the conservative wing that saw Obamacare as enough of a priority to tie it to the budget and was willing to suspend the government's unnecessary operations for a few months if that's what it took to get the Democrats to the table. It was the moderates who caved to the Democrats, paid the laid-off workers for work they didn't do, and got nothing in return. Boehner flip-flopped—and that inconsistency is part of the reason he needed to be replaced.

One at a time:

A: The difference between those of us and the "Establishment" if you will is that we're eager to see more effective measures be used, as the tools the Establishment prefer (compromise and negotiation) have not solved the problem. I think there's a real sense of fear in that camp.

So you are on record as supporting the notion of a government that's governed by a faction which refuses to either negotiate or reach compromises with the other factions of government.

Is that about right?

The conservative says "this is a high enough priority that we need to take a bigger risk and push as hard as we can to make this happen." The establishment Republican says "this is too big of a risk that we think could hurt our election chances, so we need to de-emphasize this to appease those who might oppose it."

Your first sentence pretty much describe how we got Obamacare.

Not the best example of how our government is supposed to work.

A classic example is the shutdown. It was the conservative wing that saw Obamacare as enough of a priority to tie it to the budget and was willing to suspend the government's unnecessary operations for a few months if that's what it took to get the Democrats to the table. It was the moderates who caved to the Democrats, paid the laid-off workers for work they didn't do, and got nothing in return. Boehner flip-flopped—and that inconsistency is part of the reason he needed to be replaced.

Were it not for the disaster that Obamacare has been (Obamacare being the result of A) a refusal by the Democrats to either negotiate or seek compromise with the Republicans, and B) the prioritization of a political agenda and the willingness to risk it and "make this happen" via the enactment of policy) the shutdown would have severely hurt the GOP's chances of achieving what was achieved in the midterms.  Many here want to say that it was the shutdown that won us this election, but there is no proof of that. In fact when you examine the precipitous drop in the approval ratings for Republicans during the shutdown and the period immediately following it, you'll understand why there were concerns about the GOP's performance in November.

The GOP won IN SPITE of the shutdown, not as a result of it.

There's a very famous, very liberal constitutional law expert out there that's been screaming about Obama's approach to the Presidency for months. While he agrees with most of Obama's policies he strongly  suggests that Obama's legacy will be a more Imperial style Presidency. He warns that future Presidents that he doesn't agree with will drive an ideological agenda home just like Obama has.

When you suggest that a Congress run without compromise or negotiation is the way to go here, I shudder because I know what that feels like.

It feels like the past six years.

I don't want an Imperial Presidency and a Congress run by a bunch of people that refuse to negotiate with one another or reach compromises, and I don;t want it from either side.

In fact, the reason you and conservatives are all so frustrated right now, is because that's the exact kind of government we've had for years now.
 
Why would you want to emulate it?

[katzenjammer]

Good comments from all - thanks!  I really believe that most of us here see that America is going the wrong, wrong direction - and we are very concerned about that.  The GOP is a big tent and it's expected that we're not going to agree on how to fix that.  We argue among ourselves because we CARE so deeply!  Some of us concentrate on the cold hard legal issues and some of us get emotional about it. 

It's scary to take on the establishment - and it's damn near impossible to be victorious!  We'll take our little victories whenever we can get them.  You sure won't get them if you don't try.  For a long time, I was guilty of letting the media define things - then I realized their narrative was extremely biased and I realized they had no credibility.  They have the tremendous power to mock and marginalize anyone that threatens their status quo. 

The 2016 campaign has begun and it's going to be a long and trying two years before that all-important election.  We will fight and cry - we'll get mad and say f**k it - and have to walk away from it until we can recharge and jump in again.  I just hope we don't take it to a point where things are said - personal insults and such - that can't be taken back.  That we can remain friends that pretty much want to achieve the same thing, we just can't always agree on how to get there.  That sounds mushy, I know.  I hate mushy.  But I hate seeing people that I care about fight all of the time.

Agreed, my only comment: just be mindful of your definition of "friends."


Consider what Marcus Tullius Cicero said regarding the danger of internal subversion, in a speech to the Roman Senate:

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."

[mountaineer]

Sell out.  Was told to toe the line or lose her job.

She may have been persuaded that no one but Boehner had a chance, so she may as well vote for him.

[musiclady]

I think she is naive and was probably misled as to why she voted the way she did.  Brand new - I could see where the pressure would be intimidating.  I hope she comes away wiser.

That's my take on it too, alice.

[Carling]

That's my take on it too, alice.

So a grown and very accomplished woman is "naive" because she voted for Boehner?  This pretty condescending, isn't it?

[evadR]

Quote from: alicewonders on Today at 10:24:03 AM
At first, I was told (by Republicans) that the time to complain, and to try to change Washington, was during the primaries - and after that - shut the hell up and be part of the GOP team. 

Then the tea partiers started challenging incumbents - and I was told that I was being played as a fool by groups that were just taking me for my money - and that most tea party candidates were half-wit dolts that were embarrassing to most sophisticated intelligent establishment Republicans.  (Granted, there were some poor picks - I would submit no more than the establishment routinely foists upon us.)

Now, when we have some representatives that we have actually sent to DC - when they try to do what they promised to do when elected - they are hideous traitors!

It seems as though almost every person here that complains about us "rogues" - always throws in a comment about us stupidly sending our money to people that just use it to live high on the hog and to back dumb-ass candidates that can't win.  I never hear them complain about the tons of money Karl Rove raises - that's OK, I guess. 

We're a new movement, we're learning our way around, we're not "dying", we've learned that money is what greases the gears in DC, we're not going away - no matter how many times we're insulted.  We want a smaller government that doesn't revel in waste and fraud.  We don't want to suck off the government teat and we want to wean those that do.  We want to put everyone that is able - to work - in the private sector!  We want to assume our rightful role as the boss of those politicians and bureaucrats - not the other way around.  We want to be left alone and we want to be masters of our own domain.  We want to adhere to our Constitution.

And we will call you out - no matter what party you belong to!  Yes, the Left is our most pressing enemy at the moment - but we won't defeat them until we get rid of those who party together and kiss each other, slapping on the back - wink, wink - some more lip service will shut the unwashed masses up until after we get re-elected and can go back to gorging and purging at the taxpayer trough!  Nothing will change as long as we have people like that in office - even within our own party. 

Yeah, we're just stupid AND evil.   

EXCELLENT, Alice!!  Brava!!

    


Spot on, Post of the Day!!!!!

[musiclady]

So a grown and very accomplished woman is "naive" because she voted for Boehner?  This pretty condescending, isn't it?

No.  I don't think it's condescending at all.  Just because you're accomplished and adult doesn't mean you're completely prepared for an entirely new situation.  She's obviously a very mature and strong woman, and she will 'grow' in the job.

The Speaker clearly has the ability to put pressure on the newbies.

My guess is that's what happened here.

[Carling]

No.  I don't think it's condescending at all.  Just because you're accomplished and adult doesn't mean you're completely prepared for an entirely new situation.  She's obviously a very mature and strong woman, and she will 'grow' in the job.

The Speaker clearly has the ability to put pressure on the newbies.

My guess is that's what happened here.

My guess is that she voted as she wanted to vote, and is now being bashed for it because 25 fools didn't secure enough votes for their procedural coup, and are now irrelevant. 

[musiclady]

My guess is that she voted as she wanted to vote, and is now being bashed for it because 25 fools didn't secure enough votes for their procedural coup, and are now irrelevant.

It's rather humorous that you used the word "condescending" in your comment about my opinion of why Mia Love voted the way she did.

Obviously neither of us really knows, do we?  So this is all supposition, from two people who both respect Mia Love.  Right?

But somehow, in your comment you managed to say ridiculously condescending (and nonsensical, IMO) things about 25 people who were sticking up for their principles.

Is that not what you believe our representatives should do?  Do you expect them to be automatons in lockstep with their leaders?  Do you not respect anyone who thinks independently and differently from how you think?  Or disagrees with John Boehner?

That's a pretty revealing post you just wrote, Carling.

[jmyrlefuller]

So a grown and very accomplished woman is "naive" because she voted for Boehner?  This pretty condescending, isn't it?

It's also very well true. After all, this was the first thing she and the other freshmen voted on as members of Congress. There is an inherent naïvete when a person is put in a new situation, no matter what it is—and it's easy for those in power to take advantage of that.

[Carling]

It's also very well true. After all, this was the first thing she and the other freshmen voted on as members of Congress. There is an inherent naïvete when a person is put in a new situation, no matter what it is—and it's easy for those in power to take advantage of that.

So, that smart move would have been for Mia Love to take part in a failed leadership coup in her very first congressional vote?  That seems like a naive way to start her career in the GOP caucus, in my eyes. 

[alicewonders]

My guess is that she voted as she wanted to vote, and is now being bashed for it because 25 fools didn't secure enough votes for their procedural coup, and are now irrelevant.

I read here that right after the vote she said she voted for Boehner to keep Pelosi from winning.  If that is true - she was poorly informed and mistaken. 

From what I've observed, some of these "establishment" politicians have a habit of taking new ones under their wing - raising money for them, networking for them, etc.  The newbie feels beholden and feels like they would be viewed as "ungrateful" if they then turn on the "mentor".  I saw McCain do this with Sarah Palin, McConnell with Rand Paul, etc.  Mia Love may have found herself in a similar situation. 

I'm much more impressed when a newbie doesn't get caught in such a trap, and it's a bit of a letdown to see Love go that route.  Still, I hope she smartens up. 

[Carling]

I read here that right after the vote she said she voted for Boehner to keep Pelosi from winning.  If that is true - she was poorly informed and mistaken. 

From what I've observed, some of these "establishment" politicians have a habit of taking new ones under their wing - raising money for them, networking for them, etc.  The newbie feels beholden and feels like they would be viewed as "ungrateful" if they then turn on the "mentor".  I saw McCain do this with Sarah Palin, McConnell with Rand Paul, etc.  Mia Love may have found herself in a similar situation. 

I'm much more impressed when a newbie doesn't get caught in such a trap, and it's a bit of a letdown to see Love go that route.  Still, I hope she smartens up.

The RCC and GOP leadership spent a lot of time and money helping get her elected, and your idea would be for her to stab those very people in the back on her first vote as a part of that caucus?  Mmmmkay ... fortunately, she's an adult and acted like an adult.

[Carling]

Can you imagine what the liberal media reaction would have been this week if the first move by the first black female GOP rep would be a vote against John Boehner?  Obama and his media would be all over it, how the GOP is fractured, how they aren't welcoming Mia Love, how Love is already being marginalized, etc. etc.

Think, people.  Politics should not be about emotion.

[Bigun]

Can you imagine what the liberal media reaction would have been this week if the first move by the first black female GOP rep would be a vote against John Boehner?  Obama and his media would be all over it, how the GOP is fractured, how they aren't welcoming Mia Love, how Love is already being marginalized, etc. etc.

Think, people.  Politics should not be about emotion.

I frankly don't give a damn what the liebral media reaction would have been! And secondly why do you continually insist that everyone who disagrees with you on anything is acting emotionally? They aren't

[musiclady]

Can you imagine what the liberal media reaction would have been this week if the first move by the first black female GOP rep would be a vote against John Boehner?  Obama and his media would be all over it, how the GOP is fractured, how they aren't welcoming Mia Love, how Love is already being marginalized, etc. etc.

Think, people.  Politics should not be about emotion.

You're right.  It should be about principle.

(Which doesn't include cow towing to the liberal media).

[musiclady]

The RCC and GOP leadership spent a lot of time and money helping get her elected, and your idea would be for her to stab those very people in the back on her first vote as a part of that caucus?  Mmmmkay ... fortunately, she's an adult and acted like an adult.

Your mistake is that being an adult means doing what you're told to do because you're beholdin' to someone.

[alicewonders]

The RCC and GOP leadership spent a lot of time and money helping get her elected, and your idea would be for her to stab those very people in the back on her first vote as a part of that caucus?  Mmmmkay ... fortunately, she's an adult and acted like an adult.

Well, what I would expect of someone that I vote for on the premise that he or she will go to Washington DC and represent their constituents and will not automatically go along with the status quo - is that if he or she is approached by anyone that wants to spend time and money to get them elected - is that they will accept that help with the following condition:  that they will accept that help, but they will vote their own way when the time comes.  That the help comes with no strings attached.  If there isn't an agreement on that up front - then I expect that person to reject that assistance.

[jmyrlefuller]

So, that smart move would have been for Mia Love to take part in a failed leadership coup in her very first congressional vote?  That seems like a naive way to start her career in the GOP caucus, in my eyes.

The smart move would have been to look at things with an outside, skeptical eye.

[katzenjammer]

The biggest mistake that any of us can make is to expect a politician to act in any other way than a politician.

Someone noted upthread that she had a lot of establishment financial support this round that undoubtably put her over the top.  Well of course she is beholden to that support.

We can probably count on one hand (and have a couple of extra fingers) for each chamber, the number of Senators or Representatives that are there to act upon her/his principles and to represent the voters that put them in office.  The rest of them are politicians and will always act like politicians; of course, some of them have mastered the art of telling us what we want to hear every couple of years or so.

[alicewonders]

The biggest mistake that any of us can make is to expect a politician to act in any other way than a politician.

Someone noted upthread that she had a lot of establishment financial support this round that undoubtably put her over the top.  Well of course she is beholden to that support.

We can probably count on one hand (and have a couple of extra fingers) for each chamber, the number of Senators or Representatives that are there to act upon her/his principles and to represent the voters that put them in office.  The rest of them are politicians and will always act like politicians; of course, some of them have mastered the art of telling us what we want to hear every couple of years or so.

Agree with that Katz.  That's why letting someone make a lifetime career out of politics is NOT a good thing!  Term limits - go into office knowing you only have a limited time to make your mark and accomplish what you are there to do.  After a certain amount of time - like a fish - you just start stinking.

[Carling]

Well, what I would expect of someone that I vote for on the premise that he or she will go to Washington DC and represent their constituents and will not automatically go along with the status quo - is that if he or she is approached by anyone that wants to spend time and money to get them elected - is that they will accept that help with the following condition:  that they will accept that help, but they will vote their own way when the time comes.  That the help comes with no strings attached.  If there isn't an agreement on that up front - then I expect that person to reject that assistance.

So, you're saying she didn't represent her constituents by voting for Boehner?  Interesting.  Please expand on this.  Also, typically if you run as a GOP, and accept money from the GOP, you're going to actually caucus with the GOP.  A symbolic vote against Boehner was stupid, and now people like you and the TEA 25 are bashing the Mia Loves of the GOP because she didn't fall for the nonsense.  It's obvious to me that's what is happening.  The TEA 25 and their supporters failed, so they are looking to blame others for their failure.

It's what Democrats do, and I find off-putting and immature.

[Carling]

I frankly don't give a damn what the liebral media reaction would have been! And secondly why do you continually insist that everyone who disagrees with you on anything is acting emotionally? They aren't

I know you don't.  That's why there are many on the right who actually do more than put our fingers in our ears and stomp our feet when things don't go our way. 

[Bigun]

I know you don't.  That's why there are many on the right who actually do more than put our fingers in our ears and stomp our feet when things don't go our way.

People will do what they have been conditioned to do! Like Indians (from the country of India) when they first broke free of the British after hundreds of years of being under their thumb would stand there and let the building burn down around them because there was no one there to tell them what to do!

Many in our country are becoming just like that!