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

[truth_seeker]

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

She may have decided on her own, that she was elected by voters in HER district, not by the 10% of outspoken loud, but narrow representatives who offered the alternative path.

Her position is wise, intelligent, and does not tie her to a shrinking movement, which has failed to advance in 2012, failed in 2014 primaries and midterms, and again failed now in setting the playing field for the term.

A lot of this thing is about image. Online, associations, etc. To be associated with the rebel side is the same as that old "bad boy" image which some gals run to over and over.

James Dean and Marlon Brando once portrayed it. Middle aged women who went with the banker or accountant instead of the bad boys, look back with nostalgia, over the alternate path.

Fundraisers need imagery, so the rebel, the other path are used. Term like GOPe and Rino, repeated often enough take on meanings which often are false. In recent years we have witnessed political figures zoom from one identity to the other at near the speed of light.

Getting wound up by journalists and fundraisers and media entertainers serves their purposes, but not necessarily the purposes of sober minded steady work of government.

Nobody posting here today knows that Mia Loves voting constituency expected or wanted her to go and vote against Boehner. Projections would be only that they "think" they did.

Let her do the job for her district. I applaud her common sense, political maturity, etc.

[Bigun]

She may have decided on her own, that she was elected by voters in HER district, not by the 10% of outspoken loud, but narrow representatives who offered the alternative path.

Her position is wise, intelligent, and does not tie her to a shrinking movement, which has failed to advance in 2012, failed in 2014 primaries and midterms, and again failed now in setting the playing field for the term.

A lot of this thing is about image. Online, associations, etc. To be associated with the rebel side is the same as that old "bad boy" image which some gals run to over and over.

James Dean and Marlon Brando once portrayed it. Middle aged women who went with the banker or accountant instead of the bad boys, look back with nostalgia, over the alternate path.

Fundraisers need imagery, so the rebel, the other path are used. Term like GOPe and Rino, repeated often enough take on meanings which often are false. In recent years we have witnessed political figures zoom from one identity to the other at near the speed of light.

Getting wound up by journalists and fundraisers and media entertainers serves their purposes, but not necessarily the purposes of sober minded steady work of government.

Nobody posting here today knows that Mia Loves voting constituency expected or wanted her to go and vote against Boehner. Projections would be only that they "think" they did.

Let her do the job for her district. I applaud her common sense, political maturity, etc.

Her decision was wise because it agrees with your position and no other reason!  There is no dying movement despite your continued claims of it!

[EdinVA]

If we can just keep doing the same thing long enough, we will eventually get a different result.
Then we will be ok...

[Bigun]

If we can just keep doing the same thing long enough, we will eventually get a different result.
Then we will be ok...

Spot on Ed!  Just wait until next term! Give us just a few more votes! Give us the White house and things will be very different! 

[mystery-ak]

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,158820.0.html
Boehner Retaliation Haunts Republicans Who Defended, Voted for Him


excerpt;
Making matters even more interesting was a statement that newly elected Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) had originally issued to the Washington Examiner. Love—who had not promised constituents ahead of time she’d oppose Boehner—had told the Examiner’s Ashe Schow that she believed a vote for a Republican alternative to Boehner to be a vote, in essence, for Pelosi.

“There were no qualified or notable campaigns for speaker within the Republican Party other than John Boehner,” Love said. “Casting a vote for a candidate who has not actively campaigned and does not have the support to be speaker is an indirect vote for Nancy Pelosi, and I will not vote for Nancy Pelosi.”

Love has been hammered by conservatives in the days since not only for voting for Boehner but also for the argument she made to an Examiner reporter who previously labeled the coup effort against Boehner as “farcical,” which essentially accused the 25 who stood up to Boehner of indirectly supporting Pelosi.

In a lengthy statement since provided to Breitbart News, Love admitted that her original comments to the Examiner were inaccurate and apologized.

  On Tuesday, my vote for elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House was a vote for Republican Party unity, plain and simple. I don’t agree with everything Speaker Boehner has done or said, just as I have differences with many other colleagues. But I still have faith in our party and the American people who elected us to be in charge of both houses of Congress. Coming off a historic election that sent a strong message to Washington, I believe that now is the time to unify our party and our message around a positive reform agenda, not expose unnecessary division with symbolic votes that allow the Democrats and the media to divert the country’s attention away from our accomplishment.  Republicans have substantive differences when it comes to policy and I look forward to having those debates. But I see greater benefit in using our first step to put our best foot forward.

    I regret I misspoke when I said a vote against Boehner was an indirect vote for Nancy Pelosi. I understand now that is not the case. But I take serious issue with those who have hastily claimed I have ‘sold out’ or ‘broken my promises.’ On the contrary, my promise was to give a voice to the issues that are important to Utahns. And I have every intention of keeping that promise, and making them proud.

    I will fight make this country more free, secure, and prosperous no matter who stands in the way – Republican or Democrat. I will spend every day in Congress defending hardworking taxpayers who want Washington to get out of their way. And I will work tooth and nail to make this government more efficient, effective, and accountable to the people.  We can do this as a party, we can do this as a country, and I want to make sure we are all doing it together.

[Carling]

Her decision was wise because it agrees with your position and no other reason!  There is no dying movement despite your continued claims of it!

Wrong.

Her decision was her decision.  At TS said, we don't know what her constituents want, but I'm going to assume she votes in their best interest.  Understanding a vote is not the same as bashing her for her vote, which you and others appear to be doing.

[Carling]

For some reason, I don't think "naive" when I read this.

 

On Tuesday, my vote for elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House was a vote for Republican Party unity, plain and simple. I don’t agree with everything Speaker Boehner has done or said, just as I have differences with many other colleagues. But I still have faith in our party and the American people who elected us to be in charge of both houses of Congress. Coming off a historic election that sent a strong message to Washington, I believe that now is the time to unify our party and our message around a positive reform agenda, not expose unnecessary division with symbolic votes that allow the Democrats and the media to divert the country’s attention away from our accomplishment. Republicans have substantive differences when it comes to policy and I look forward to having those debates. But I see greater benefit in using our first step to put our best foot forward.

    I regret I misspoke when I said a vote against Boehner was an indirect vote for Nancy Pelosi. I understand now that is not the case. But I take serious issue with those who have hastily claimed I have ‘sold out’ or ‘broken my promises.’ On the contrary, my promise was to give a voice to the issues that are important to Utahns. And I have every intention of keeping that promise, and making them proud.

    I will fight make this country more free, secure, and prosperous no matter who stands in the way – Republican or Democrat. I will spend every day in Congress defending hardworking taxpayers who want Washington to get out of their way. And I will work tooth and nail to make this government more efficient, effective, and accountable to the people.  We can do this as a party, we can do this as a country, and I want to make sure we are all doing it together.

[truth_seeker]

Her decision was wise because it agrees with your position and no other reason!  There is no dying movement despite your continued claims of it!

I didn't say "dying." I said "failed to advance." I could have said "lost in approval" and backed it up with many polls, which show a loss of approval for the Tea Party, from a peak in 2010.

Further support for the decline is lack of results in 2012 elections, and in 2014 primaries and midterms, and now in recent House setup elections.

Those are facts.

The whole Tea Party method of operations at this time, is to try to make up for the small size of the chorus, with loud screaming.

Get more members in the choir.

[Bigun]

I didn't say "dying." I said "failed to advance." I could have said "lost in approval" and backed it up with many polls, which show a loss of approval for the Tea Party, from a peak in 2010.

Further support for the decline is lack of results in 2012 elections, and in 2014 primaries and midterms, and now in recent House setup elections.

Those are facts.

The whole Tea Party method of operations at this time, is to try to make up for the small size of the chorus, with loud screaming.

Get more members in the choir.

The TEA Party doesn't have to get more people in the choir because the republican establishment seems very intent on doing that for us!

[EdinVA]

...unify our party and our message around a positive reform agenda, not expose unnecessary division with symbolic votes that allow the Democrats and the media to divert the country’s attention away from our accomplishment.

Unify our party = cave in
Accomplishments? Like allowing amnesty?  Like more debt?  Like obamacare? Like what?
If the media can take your message away, then you have no message.

I would lay odds that she did not write this and was offered a nice shinny position for it to be published in her name.

[Carling]

Unify our party = cave in
Accomplishments? Like allowing amnesty?  Like more debt?  Like obamacare? Like what?
If the media can take your message away, then you have no message.

I would lay odds that she did not write this and was offered a nice shinny position for it to be published in her name.

Yes, because she's either naive or is a moron, right?

  Have fun in your irrelevancy with the TEA 25.  Mia Love and the rest of the grown-ups will take on Obama over the next two years while the back-benchers plot various publicity stunts against the "GOPe."  You guys lost.  Either get in line or take your ball and go home.

[EdinVA]

grown-ups will take on Obama

     

He is just going to veto anything he does not like and you don't have 60% to override, so it is going to be a long boring 2 years

[truth_seeker]

     

He is just going to veto anything he does not like and you don't have 60% to override, so it is going to be a long boring 2 years

It is 2/3 to override a veto, not 60%

And historically with mixed government, bills DID get passed, as a result of mediating and finding mutual benefits. The challenge is finding areas. 

Those compromises are going to be made, like it or not. They were before, and they will again. Reagan prided himself on willingness to do so.

Would you trade Keystone for extending unemployment benefits, or something else?

That quite simply is how politics works, in our system and in others as well.

[EdinVA]

It is 2/3 to override a veto, not 60%

And historically with mixed government, bills DID get passed, as a result of mediating and finding mutual benefits. The challenge is finding areas. 

Those compromises are going to be made, like it or not. They were before, and they will again. Reagan prided himself on willingness to do so.

Would you trade Keystone for extending unemployment benefits, or something else?

That quite simply is how politics works, in our system and in others as well.

OK, you got me - 66.666666666666666666666666666667%, but you don't have 60% either but it really does not matter, he has a phone and a pen so congress is irrelevant.  And that is why the vote for/against Boehner was so important, but we blew it. 

This country has never seen the likes of BO/Reid/Pelosi and the consortium of anti-American.
Reagan had rational people to deal with, granted they were real lefties but rational.
These people the GOP is dealing with have but one goal, political domination no matter the cost.
They have no desire to compromise, only dictate and our continued reluctance to call them out and deal with this is very disturbing.

[aligncare]

I got to say, even though I don't agree with her vote for Boehner, she sounds like one smart cookie. Glad she's on our side.

[Carling]

     

He is just going to veto anything he does not like and you don't have 60% to override, so it is going to be a long boring 2 years

It's 67% to override.  If you're going to chide me, at least know what it takes to override a veto.  Thanks.   

[Carling]

I got to say, even though I don't agree with her vote for Boehner, she sounds like one smart cookie. Glad she's on our side.

Hey, look at this!  A nuanced and measured opinion.  I frankly don't know much about her, other than I find it silly that the same people/posters championing her last week have now turned on her for not doing exactly what they want her to do. 

[jmyrlefuller]

It's 67% to override.  If you're going to chide me, at least know what it takes to override a veto.  Thanks.   

His point stands, whether it's 60 or 67.

[Carling]

His point stands, whether it's 60 or 67.

You do understand the optics of the president consistently vetoing bills that are popular with the American people, regardless of if the votes are there for a veto, right?  At some point, he becomes irrelevant, and the country is pulled more to the right.

I'm not sure you do understand this, though.   Politics is chess, not checkers, and the stupid TEA 25 stunt was checkers.

[jmyrlefuller]

You do understand the optics of the president consistently vetoing bills that are popular with the American people, regardless of if the votes are there for a veto, right?  At some point, he becomes irrelevant, and the country is pulled more to the right.

What difference, at this point, does it make? He's a lame duck with a built-in legacy among his base. Heck, even if he were up for re-election in 2016 he would probably still win, such is his cult of personality. He has no reason to compromise, and no moral inclination to do so.

[Carling]

What difference, at this point, does it make? He's a lame duck with a built-in legacy among his base. Heck, even if he were up for re-election in 2016 he would probably still win, such is his cult of personality. He has no reason to compromise, and no moral inclination to do so.

So, what's your solution?  GOP in-fighting and symbolic publicity stunts, or coming together to put bills on the Dem president's desk that the American people want, but he doesn't, so he'll veto them?  The best part of that is then we get to get Dems on the record two times for voting against popular bills, if they don't vote to override a veto.

Keystone needs to happen ASAP.  Get the bill passed, and the Senate will pass it, too, and make Obama veto it.  Then, gas prices start to rise again, and it's all on Barry and the Dems.

Again, this is chess, not checkers. 

[evadR]

His point stands, whether it's 60 or 67.

EVERYONE knows there are 57 states and it takes 3/4 to overrride.

[alicewonders]

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.

First of all Carling, I'm not bashing Mia Love.  I said I thought she may have been a bit naive.  Before she was elected, I saw her being interviewed and she came across as a tea party type and so I hoped she might be willing to stand up with the others.  She didn't.  No big deal to me. 

This statement of hers sounds very politician-like, a little bit conflictive.  On the one hand, she presents her case of voting for the only qualified candidate running - which is a reasonable thing to do.  But, on the other hand, in the same statement - she says she regrets saying that a vote against Boehner would have been a vote for Pelosi - that she was wrong about that.  Which is it? 

I'm not bashing her, just observing.  I still have high hopes that she will be an asset to the party.  I think it is a great idea to join the Black Caucus in order to reform it from the inside-out.  Her voice is needed there! 

Also - I don't think the "Tea 25", as you call them, were failures.  Quite the opposite.  They garnered more support than anyone has in 100 years to defeat the sitting speaker.  The congressional switchboards received so many calls urging congressman to vote again Boehner that it seemed to shake him up a bit - enough to possibly reinstate those black sheep back onto the committees he kicked them off of.  If it makes Boehner think twice and be aware that "we are watching him" - to the point where he realizes he had better not take this out on these brave souls.....then that is a small victory.  It's a start. 

I don't take a pessimistic view of this, it actually fills me with hope.  Hope of change!

 

[Lando Lincoln]

I got to say, even though I don't agree with her vote for Boehner, she sounds like one smart cookie. Glad she's on our side.

Yes. That is what it is all about, isn't it?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Yeah, we're just stupid AND evil.   

I do not think you are stupid or evil.  I think you are wrong, although I admit you make an understandable and compelling a case for your views.  You're a thoughtful writer and I appreciate the time you take to make your opinion clear.
And I don't think you are wrong about everything.  I share your concern about liberals and democrats.

Were we part ways is political tactics and the reality of what is possible under our Constitution given the American electorate. 

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.

Everyone on this board wants this.  The problem is we represent roughly 30-35% of the voters in the Presidential election and maybe 40-45% in the midterms.  and the rightful bosses of those politicians and bureaucrats think that government should do some things that only government can do.  Like FEMA, USDA, FDIC...ectra.  They also think government needs to do something about healthcare costs even if they don't like Obamacare.  They don't think a government shutdown is the way a minority party should impose it will on the people.