So will Boehner get to keep his job?

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Serraph105 (27841 posts) -

Predictions? Guesses? Is he the best politician ever? Is he really bad at being Speaker of the House? 

Do you want to see him no longer be Speaker of the House? Is this what you think will happen or just what you wish will happen?

Personally I think we won't see him lose the position of Speaker of the House over this, or if we do it will be someone closer to the Tea Party stances who will get the position.

#2 Posted by playmynutz (5982 posts) -
Keep him in office let's do nothing
#3 Posted by lostrib (35080 posts) -

no idea, but i bet he will cry

#4 Posted by Shadow4020 (1954 posts) -

I have a feeling that nothing will change.

#5 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -
Speaker of the House, keeper of the zoo, ready to delay healthcare for you. . .
#6 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

As long as he keeps the Tea Party nutcases happy, he'll keep his job. The moment he caves and puts a clean CR up for a vote, he's toast.

#7 Posted by Chutebox (36763 posts) -

I love OT :lol:

#8 Posted by Allicrombie (25150 posts) -
In a perfect world, he'd be Cheney's hunting partner. =P
#9 Posted by Solaryellow (467 posts) -
Boehner is not an effective Speaker. When he finally loses the position or leaves office he won't be kept in the same company as Gingrich, Pelosi or O'neill.
#10 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7750 posts) -
I'm sure he'll keep his job.
#11 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
I want he out just cuz of his name.
#12 Posted by Serraph105 (27841 posts) -
Speaker of the House, keeper of the zoo, ready to delay healthcare for you. . .Makhaidos
:lol: this make my whole thread worthwhile.
#13 Posted by Wasdie (49657 posts) -

I hope not.

#14 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -
[QUOTE="Makhaidos"]Speaker of the House, keeper of the zoo, ready to delay healthcare for you. . .Serraph105
:lol: this make my whole thread worthwhile.

I'm trying to rewrite the entire song while picturing Boehner in Thernardier's outfit the whole time. :P
#15 Posted by Aljosa23 (24782 posts) -

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-republican-party-cannot-stand-by-and-let-obama,34074/

#16 Posted by wis3boi (31188 posts) -
In a perfect world, he'd be Cheney's hunting partner. =PAllicrombie
zing
#17 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
He'll be fine. The Tea Party caucus has him right where they want him. He'll keep his position as long as he continues to stay in his place.

And yes, it's hard to argue that he isn't a terrible speaker. He can't keep his caucus in line at all.
#18 Posted by Master_Live (14250 posts) -
He is a terrible Speaker of the House.
#19 Posted by Shmiity (5064 posts) -

John Boner? Here's hoping he does. But I doubt it.

#20 Posted by foxhound_fox (87844 posts) -
I'm not sure if he can keep UP the good work. Did he RAISE himself to the occasion?
#21 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29116 posts) -
He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.
#22 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.chessmaster1989
It begs the question - is there really a difference?
#23 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20838 posts) -
Not if the elderly have anything to say about it.
#24 Posted by wis3boi (31188 posts) -

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.coolbeans90

It begs the question - is there really a difference?

There is definitely a difference.

one smells like shit, the other smells like runny shit
#25 Posted by Randolph (10479 posts) -
John Boehner is a spineless coward.
#26 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

He'll probably be Speaker for a few more years.

On the other hand I don't know if Reid will be Majority Leader for long, maybe he'll even get beat in 2016 or maybe not run for re-election. He has been majority leader for a while now.

I do wonder though, does taking on a big job like Speaker or Majority Leader hurt or help a person's image with their constituents in their home district or state?

#27 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

#28 Posted by Serraph105 (27841 posts) -

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

whipassmt

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

#29 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
Why should he be fired?
#30 Posted by Serraph105 (27841 posts) -
Why should he be fired?AmazonTreeBoa
Well some would say that catering to the tea party wing of his caucus to help them achieve an impossible goal was what ultimately lead to the current government shutdown. Also it's widely believed that if Boehner had simply brought a continuing resolution to the House floor it would have passed with a majority vote despite the fact that it would have heavily relied on democratic votes and 800,000 thousand workers would not currently be taking an unpaid vacation.
#31 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

Serraph105

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

Boehner got stuff done. He reduced Congressional spending and restored the Dornan Amendment.

What did Pelosi really get done when Bush was President? You can say Boehner didn't get much done, but he has a Democratic Senate and President to contend with.

At least Boehner never pulled any of those silly "non-binding troop withdrawal date"attachments to military funding bills that Bush would veto and then Democrats would pass without the time-table. And he didn't meet with Assad against the President's wishes.

#32 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Why should he be fired?Serraph105
Well some would say that catering to the tea party wing of his caucus to help them achieve an impossible goal was what ultimately lead to the current government shutdown. Also it's widely believed that if Boehner had simply brought a continuing resolution to the House floor it would have passed with a majority vote despite the fact that it would have heavily relied on democratic votes and 800,000 thousand workers would not currently be taking an unpaid vacation.

Well America is full of idiots, so it is no surprise that some would say that. It amuses me that the president can come on national TV and say he will NOT negotiate, yet we still have people stupid enough to want to blame the republicans.
#33 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Why should he be fired?Serraph105
Well some would say that catering to the tea party wing of his caucus to help them achieve an impossible goal was what ultimately lead to the current government shutdown. Also it's widely believed that if Boehner had simply brought a continuing resolution to the House floor it would have passed with a majority vote despite the fact that it would have heavily relied on democratic votes and 800,000 thousand workers would not currently be taking an unpaid vacation.

Those workers will probably get backpay though, plus you can't blame all the 800,000 on Boehner, the House has passed bills that would fund part of the government so if the Senate and Obama would accept those bills that 800,000 figure would be quite smaller likely.

That being said perhaps Boehner should bring the Senate vote up for a vote, including allow the House members to make amendments to the bill.

#35 Posted by Master_Live (14250 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

Serraph105

Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House.

 

Oh yeez, she got stuff done with a Democrat Senate and President? No way.

#36 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

#37 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

jimkabrhel

He should allow the CR to come to a vote, but let the House get to Amend it first. Why can't Obama let the House at least repeal the Medical Device Tax from Obamacare, some Democrats (like E. Warren) believe that tax should be repealed. Why tax people's pacemakers and hearing aids? why tax doctors and vets' gloves?

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

#38 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

whipassmt

He should allow the CR to come to a vote, but let the House get to Amend it first. Why can't Obama let the House at least repeal the Medical Device Tax from Obamacare, some Democrats (like E. Warren) believe that tax should be repealed. Why tax people's pacemakers and hearing aids? why tax doctors and vets' gloves?

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds. 

#39 Posted by Master_Live (14250 posts) -

The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement.jimkabrhel

Bullshit, they already altered it to allow Congress staff members to be exempted from this glorious law. Senate democrats have already voted to repealed the medical device tax.
The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. jimkabrhel
Compromised with who? The law was passed on a party line, might as well have pass whatever they thought was best so if it fails they don't have excuses. So for those liberal claiming for a single payer, learn the truth, that wasn't included because maybe only a handful of democrats supported it.

#40 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

jimkabrhel

He should allow the CR to come to a vote, but let the House get to Amend it first. Why can't Obama let the House at least repeal the Medical Device Tax from Obamacare, some Democrats (like E. Warren) believe that tax should be repealed. Why tax people's pacemakers and hearing aids? why tax doctors and vets' gloves?

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

#41 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] He should allow the CR to come to a vote, but let the House get to Amend it first. Why can't Obama let the House at least repeal the Medical Device Tax from Obamacare, some Democrats (like E. Warren) believe that tax should be repealed. Why tax people's pacemakers and hearing aids? why tax doctors and vets' gloves?

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

whipassmt

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

#42 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement.Master_Live

Bullshit, they already altered it to allow Congress staff members to be exempted from this glorious law. Senate democrats have already voted to repealed the medical device tax.
The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. jimkabrhel
Compromised with who? The law was passed on a party line, might as well have pass whatever they thought was best so if it fails they don't have excuses. So for those liberal claiming for a single payer, learn the truth, that wasn't included because maybe only a handful of democrats supported it.

Yes, actually fairly early after Boehner became Speaker the House did successfully repeal some part of Obamacare (it was some paperwork requirement that businesses didn't like), and Obama signed that repeal into law. As for Obama not altering the law, he has numerous times, for instance with the CLASS program and with his recent delay of some part of the law.

As far as Republican opposition forcing Obama to modify the law in 2010 and 2009, The Republicans didn't have the votes to block the law in either house. Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before Brown was elected (and after he got elected they decided they only needed 51 votes to pass Obamacare anyway) and a majority in the House. What held up Obamacare was that it took a lot of time to get Democratic Senators like Landrieu, Lieberman, and Nelson on board and that the House Democrats were divided over the Stupak amendment. As it was I think 34 Democrats actually voted against Obamacare.

#43 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

jimkabrhel

Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And Bush's healthcare plan had the potential to help millions of people and didn't have much potential to harm them, but the Democrats didn't pass that.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

#44 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

He'll stay on power.

He made sure to Gerrymander his voting districts so he'll have a lifetime appointment, just like all the other creeps in the US Congress.

#45 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

whipassmt

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

Boehner got stuff done. He reduced Congressional spending and restored the Dornan Amendment.

What did Pelosi really get done when Bush was President? You can say Boehner didn't get much done, but he has a Democratic Senate and President to contend with.

At least Boehner never pulled any of those silly "non-binding troop withdrawal date"attachments to military funding bills that Bush would veto and then Democrats would pass without the time-table. And he didn't meet with Assad against the President's wishes.

Boehner has done nothing but vote against everything and put forth bills that he knew beyond any doubt would fail.

What exactly has he CONTRIBUTED TO or BUILT other than greater division in the government?

#46 Posted by GreySeal9 (24118 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

whipassmt

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And Bush's healthcare plan had the potential to help millions of people and didn't have much potential to harm them, but the Democrats didn't pass that.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

Who gives a fvck what the Bishops say? They aren't experts on healthcare.

#47 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
He's not very effective as Speaker. But neither is Congress nor the President in their jobs for that matter.
#48 Posted by sSubZerOo (43098 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

whipassmt

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And Bush's healthcare plan had the potential to help millions of people and didn't have much potential to harm them, but the Democrats didn't pass that.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

Wow do you sound like a tool right now.. Bush's policy was killed off on the floor it was never passed.. Made into law, and found CONSTIUTIONAL by the Supreme court.. This isn't even in the same fvcking catagory.. What the Republicans are doing is basically holding the country hostage (again) to force their ideological crusade further.. This is irresponsibility at the highest level.. There should be absolutely NO ARGUMENTS when it comes to this regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.. The fact of the matter is their refusal to cooperate or negotiate.. This isn't negotiation, this is chicken, and we are the car the Republicans are driving towards the cliff. I would hope that regardless of whatever your leanings are, this kind of behavior should not be tolerated because it is costing us all something.

#49 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.coolbeans90

It begs the question - is there really a difference?

There is definitely a difference.

How so? He's currently being led around by the Tea Party portion of this group. I guess with Boehner, as opposed to one from that group directly, there's the hope or potential that he could buck that group's demands. But until that actualizes in some way I'm not seeing much of a difference.