The Speaker Boehner Megathread

[Feoric]

John Andrew Boehner has been the focus of all the news outlets recently, especially today. So let's talk about the guy.

Last night, as we all know, the House passed the so-called Fiscal Cliff bill. But something else happened; rather, something didn't happen. On December 28th, the Senate voted on H.R. 1: Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. It passed, 62-32. Bills, of course, have to pass both Chambers, so it was shuffled along to go through the House.

Well, Boehner did something. After the Fiscal Cliff bill was passed, Boehner announced that the House would recess through the end of the 112th Congress. Well, fine, happy new year. But what about H.R. 1? Well, it couldn't be voted on, since it wasn't called for a vote, and now we're going on recess. The session is over, bye.

"Okay, well...so what?"

Good question! Well, the version of H.R. 1 that passed the Senate was an amended version of the bill. It included the relief package to help the states and victims ravaged by Hurricane Sandy. This did not go over well. At all. Let's calm down, now. It's been over 60 days since Sandy made landfall, and there has yet to be a relief package. The bill easily would have passed if it was moved (even with a majority of House Republicans voting against it), but Boehner killed any chance of that happening last night.

"Wow, that's kinda fucked up. Why did he do that?"

I don't think anyone but Boehner knows the answer for that, but I can share with you the gossip coming from inside the Beltway. Rumor has it that Eric Cantor made some sort of agreement with Boehner, and the agreement was to have the bill be called to a floor vote after the Fiscal Cliff bill was passed. Cantor, in turn, would vote yes on the FC bill. He didn't. He voted against it. In turn, as a final "fuck you" to Cantor (since there is a strong possibility of him not being reelected tomorrow, and you-know-who taking his job), he adjourned the session, killing the bill in the process. If this is true, and I think it is, that was an incredibly shitty thing to do.

The evidence available right now is indicating, to me at least, that this is probably what happened. It's clear that the GOP and the Democrats were united in their animosity towards Boehner, and I can only conclude that it was because they were at least partially in on the Sandy negotiations (along with Chris Christie) and reassured that the bill would be called to a floor vote. However, Boehner had a last minute change of heart when he learned of Cantor's vote and became indignant of the fact that he was trying to usurp him, along with the majority of Republicans trying to oust him as Speaker. This is backed up by the fact that Boehner refused to have further talks or meetings with other Republicans that night, and according to Christie, actually yelling at them telling to essentially shut the fuck up and to leave him alone. Me personally, I think he knows his ass is toast, and is leaving a big mess for Cantor to clean up. Of course, there's no direct proof of this yet (that I'm aware of, at least), so this is mere speculation, but it seems the most likely explanation to me.

The issue of Boehner is connected to a lot of things (Eric Cantor's possible selection as Speaker, the Fiscal Cliff, the Tea Party, the debt ceiling, internal GOP fighting, the Sandy bill, etc), hence the "Megathread" title, so have a ball. To keep the forums tidy, let's try to have all of these things in this thread (minus technical discussions/questions about the FC, keep that in here). I (or someone else) will/should make a new thread for the Debt Ceiling when the deadline approaches. Oh, and no boner jokes.

[Sense-Offender]

ugh. Congress is full of a bunch of petty, childish dickwads.

[The-Great-One]

At 1/2/13 09:38 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: ugh. Congress is full of a bunch of petty, childish dickwads.

Yeah and we voted them in! Isn't that great!

[BrianEtrius]

At 1/2/13 10:43 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

ugh. Congress is full of a bunch of petty, childish dickwads.

Yeah and we voted them in! Isn't that great!

I was watching Lincoln the other night, and if you replace "the 14th amendment" with "budget cuts", you realize Congress really hasn't changed in 150 years.

Besides, the problem with the House is that it's always the montra of "it's everybody else's representative, not mine" that occurs. Tis a shame, really. Now we won't get to see Boehner's horrible tans and crying anymore.

[Warforger]

At 1/2/13 11:16 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: I was watching Lincoln the other night, and if you replace "the 14th amendment" with "budget cuts", you realize Congress really hasn't changed in 150 years.

First off that's a movie, but politics have changed ALOT since then. The 1850's-60's is one of the more interesting periods for me precisely because so much changes in so little time in ways that wouldn't happen since. Both major parties fall apart due to regional ties, 3rd party movements such as the Constitutional Union Party and the Know Nothings pick a considerable portion of the seats in Congress (the Know Nothings even became the 2nd biggest party in the House Of Representatives in 1854). You have in the middle of the whole slavery debate a whole separate movement whose only platform is "fuck Catholics". You have people settling political disputes with a war and you have the rise of a 3rd party to become a 1st party in very little time. You have a party and a President who go off a divergent path from the intentions of the Founding Fathers and going off to create the first strong executive. On top of that in the span of 4 years all the politics that had been established after the ratification of the Constitution were suddenly turned on their head. There hasn't been any period as chaotic since, today's political disputes are nothing in comparison to then. The only way they're worse is the increased use of the Filibuster in the Senate to astronomical levels, back then there would be a couple filibusters in a year, now they're a daily occurrence.

Besides, the problem with the House is that it's always the montra of "it's everybody else's representative, not mine" that occurs. Tis a shame, really. Now we won't get to see Boehner's horrible tans and crying anymore.

I'm surprised Boehner is still around. The guy got caught handing out checks from Tobacco companies on the House Floor back in the 90's right before a vote, that's shit comparable to Bersculoni in the sense that people will still vote for him and worse in the case of Boehner will still elect him.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/3/13 02:32 AM, Warforger wrote: First off that's a movie, but politics have changed ALOT since then.

Actually they have not.

I heard a political analyst, who dabbles in history (wish I could remember the name) say in regards to the fiscal cliff:

Congress represents America. If COngress can;t agree, it's because America can't.

This bodes true for both the cureent few years of gridlock as well as the 14th Amendment. Both of these times in American history the American people were sharply divided. The people being sharply divided gave the respective Congresses political capital, and in some cases the need, to dig in on issues we would consider total partisan hackery at any other time. In the mid 19th Century it was race relations. In the early 21st Century it is the budget (with a stealthy but ever present smattering of race relations).

[Feoric]

The election is happening now, Cantor wasn't nominated. So he's staying after all, which isn't too surprising.

[Feoric]

He's reelected. Yawn. Why can't something interesting happen for once? A Tea Party coup backed by Cantor would have been much more fun.

[Korriken]

At 1/3/13 01:39 PM, Feoric wrote: He's reelected. Yawn. Why can't something interesting happen for once? A Tea Party coup backed by Cantor would have been much more fun.

hang on, growing 2 more hands so i can do a quadruple facepalm over his reelection as house speaker.

seriously, wtf.

[Warforger]

At 1/3/13 12:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/3/13 02:32 AM, Warforger wrote: First off that's a movie, but politics have changed ALOT since then.

Actually they have not.

I heard a political analyst, who dabbles in history (wish I could remember the name) say in regards to the fiscal cliff:

Congress represents America. If COngress can;t agree, it's because America can't.

This bodes true for both the cureent few years of gridlock as well as the 14th Amendment. Both of these times in American history the American people were sharply divided. The people being sharply divided gave the respective Congresses political capital, and in some cases the need, to dig in on issues we would consider total partisan hackery at any other time. In the mid 19th Century it was race relations. In the early 21st Century it is the budget (with a stealthy but ever present smattering of race relations).

Of course there are similarities, but that doesn't mean nothing has changed. Using this logic not much has changed since the creation of Parliament then. In that era the Democratic party passed over its incumbent for re-nomination and then won in a landslide election, there hasn't been a time since when incumbents have been passed over for renomination when they were actively campaigning for it (You could argue this was the case with Woodrow Wilson when he tried running for a 3rd term but he didn't actively campaign because he was stuck to a bed). Yes there's gridlock, but newsflash our type of gridlock is unique because of how retarded the Senate has become with the massive plague of Fillibuster after Fillibuster, theirs was more constructive. Another way politics has changed is that the Liberal wing of the Republican party and the Conservative Wing of the Democratic party are virtually extinguished aside from a few token politicans. Up until the 60's and 70's both parties would field Liberal and Conservative candidates depending on the political climate. That in particular is why our Congress is different than before. Other than that Nixon held a similar position but he was able to get things done, much like how Lincoln did, it wasn't until the 90's when politics became so polarized as they are today, you can just tell by comparing the electoral map of Reagan vs. Clinton, while both presided over huge economic booms from stagnation and had strong foreign policies Clinton never matched Reagan. That's after a single decade. This isn't even mentioning the whole thing about campaign finance. LOTS of things have changed, gridlock was always there but that doesn't it hasn't changed either.

[Feoric]

At 1/3/13 02:33 PM, Korriken wrote: hang on, growing 2 more hands so i can do a quadruple facepalm over his reelection as house speaker.

seriously, wtf.

I'm curious, what's the reason behind your disappointment? I'm really curious to hear what the right thinks of this.

[Ceratisa]

I'm sorry politics were all the same even during Rome. They don't change the lies told change. Back stabbing and theater is all the same. Everyone shames and games.

[Sense-Offender]

At 1/3/13 02:32 AM, Warforger wrote: I'm surprised Boehner is still around. The guy got caught handing out checks from Tobacco companies on the House Floor back in the 90's right before a vote

Yeah, I remember there being a lot of talk about that when he became the speaker.

[Feoric]

At 1/3/13 04:09 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Yeah, I remember there being a lot of talk about that when he became the speaker.

Eh, that's not uncommon. Tom DeLay once left a "15 minute vote" open for several hours as he went around trying to bribe congressman to vote yes with pork projects.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/3/13 02:50 PM, Warforger wrote: Of course there are similarities, but that doesn't mean nothing has changed.

I know the details have changed, but you made the claim that the gridlock in the mid 19th Century was different, and I said that it's not that much different. The specifics are definitely changed, but the grounds that allowed for Congress to be so bitter and so impotent are the exact same ones today, just with different names and different issues.