Speaker of the House John Boehner retiring at the end of October.

The idea of McCarthy, Gowdy, Gohmert or a Tea Party posterchild being nominated Speaker disturbs me, but at the same time it means whoever that is would actually have to govern and compromise with POTUS, something the Tea Party does not want.
 
like the one before him

he blocked pretty much everything the President wanted to do through Congress and it still wasn't enough for the fanatics/radicals of the right wing

but i agree, when the Pope pretty much calls almost everything your party stands for wrong, i guess it strikes the bone to some catholics
 
We don't want roadblocks when our guy is POTUS and the other party holds the house and/or senate. It's obstructionism and a terrible evil when it is reversed. We are a funny though predictable lot.
 
BedellBrave said:
We want roadblocks when our guy is POTUS and the other party holds the house and/or senate. It's obstructionism and a terrible evil when it is reversed. We are a funny though predictable lot.
Click to expand...

Well, people SAY they want compromise. Boehner, regardless of his occasional role as "obstructionist-in-chief," wanted to do a grand bargain on entitlement reform and immigration, two things that Americans say that they want. He had a willing partner in the White House and enough votes in the Senate. He was done in by his own caucus. Blocking the other party's agenda is one thing. The Tea Party types in the house have actually blocked meaningful progress towards compromise, over and over. Boehner's Speakership is a casualty of the fact that a small—but numerous enough—chunk of the House Republicans are rewarded by their constituents for cutting off their noses to spite their collective face.
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, people SAY they want compromise. Boehner, regardless of his occasional role as "obstructionist-in-chief," wanted to do a grand bargain on entitlement reform and immigration, two things that Americans say that they want. He had a willing partner in the White House and enough votes in the Senate. He was done in by his own caucus. Blocking the other party's agenda is one thing. The Tea Party types in the house have actually blocked meaningful progress towards compromise, over and over. Boehner's Speakership is a casualty of the fact that a small—but numerous enough—chunk of the House Republicans are rewarded by their constituents for cutting off their noses to spite their collective face.
Click to expand...

That may be, but I think my point still stands. People say they want compromise when they really don't. They want their view to win. I could be wrong. But in general, I don't think so.
 
I was fine with the Grand Bargain which btw was based off of Bowles-Simpson a bipartisan group. Boehner and OBama were going to go through with the grand bargain but the Tea elements wanted nothing to do with it.
 
BedellBrave said:
That may be, but I think my point still stands. People say they want compromise when they really don't. They want their view to win. I could be wrong. But in general, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I think people want the potholes filled. TeaParty unwilling to pay for manpower to fill the proverbial pothole and cut the funds for the macadum. This is all about government regulation and how it effects corporate America dressed up in immigration and abortion.
 
IMO the worst thing that could happen to the Repubs as far as Election 2016 is for one of the most radical TEA baggers to become Speaker. I think Bedell is right at least generally speaking. Most people just want their guy/girl to win, their point of view to get across, etc., but to be fair even as sucky as the Dems typically are I don't think there has EVER been a Congress/party that went into TOTAL obstruction mode as thoroughly as this Repub Congress. They may have a point about Obama's crappy plans, laws, etc., but to me they've crossed the line since day one that they took control. I can only imagine what crappy payback the Dems will employ once they get control of Congress back some day, since we all know the one thing Washington is good at, other than padding their own bank accounts at our expense, is getting payback for crap "the other party" did to them last year, last decade, heck even last century.
 
Are we back to the both sides do it / are to blame?
When in polling fact data says otherwise.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"A very slight plurality wants a candidate who will stick to their positions even if it means not getting things done. By contrast, the poll also finds that Democratic primary voters say by 60-35 that they want a candidate who will make compromises rather than stick to his or her positions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/29/morning-plum-for-republicans-shunning-compromise-is-a-virtue/
 
57Brave said:
Are we back to the both sides do it / are to blame?
When in polling fact data says otherwise.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"A very slight plurality wants a candidate who will stick to their positions even if it means not getting things done. By contrast, the poll also finds that Democratic primary voters say by 60-35 that they want a candidate who will make compromises rather than stick to his or her positions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/29/morning-plum-for-republicans-shunning-compromise-is-a-virtue/
Click to expand...

I guess Obama didn't get that memo.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top