I’m not a huge fan of Boehner, but I do believe he thinks he’s doing the right thing. In that aspect he’s not a total douchebag. I’d rather have him than Cantor who I honestly believe is interested in power and will sacrifice the good of the country to get it.
The Eldritch Realms are quite normal compared to California, where Willie Brown, the Republicans most hated Democrat, actually was elected speaker over Howard Berman of his own party with votes of Republicans. Willie and Nancy are good friends.
Question is why you can’t entertain the notion that Cantor, along with 150 or so others, genuinely believe that the good of the country requires a principled vote against this bill?
Can you give examples where Cantor has supported principles opposing those he supported yesterday where that would help him politically?
The contrived and phony nature of this entire two-year deficit standoff. But this is probably a better subject for another thread.
Boehner looks toasted.
It’s not that we can’t entertain the notion. I’m sure any number of the House GOP members who voted nay did so on principle. It’s that Cantor is the second highest ranking member of the entire caucus.
As far as your second question, it’s pretty much what he’s known for- especially when it comes to spending.
So Boehner’s name will not be put forth if it is determined by the caucus that he might fail?
I would assume not, but hard to say in the current Republican Party. For decades they have been far better than the Democrats at coming together and presenting a unified front - but that facade appears to be cracking deeply right now. Allso hard to say how much Boehner hurt himself with the Sandy Relief vote fiasco. He reversed course quickly enough, but I doubt that will be fondly remembered by anyone when it is time to make hard choices behind closed doors.
It’s hard to consider him anything but one of teh least successful Speakers of modern times, but I think lot of folks in the GOP are terrified at the idea of a Cantor led house, too.
Eddie Munster, then?
Again, there’s enough tea party bashing threads, but they will negotiate now, right? The tax increase fight is over. The “no negotiation” for the tea party members was an outright refusal to raise taxes. Obama now has the tax increases he wanted (or at least ones he compromised on).
The sequester will hit in two months unless the flip side spending reductions are agreed upon. I don’t see where any member of Congress has expressed a refusal to negotiate on the type and quantity of spending cuts.
But again, Boehner’s leadership is one of a paper tiger. How can Obama take him seriously when he comes to the White House and says, “Mr. President, I propose this X, Y, Z package of spending cuts and reforms.” Why does Obama start negotiating when Boehner can’t get his own House behind his proposals?
The only way that would work is if Boehner forms a middle-left coalition with centrist Dems and Republicans which, as I type, seems to be what will happen in the sequester negotiations.
It would be interesting if Boehner retains his speaker-ship by appealing to some democrats and a good chunk of his republicans. I might have some hope for congress if that happens.
That should only come with some promises between him and Pelosi about some compromises.
I seriously doubt this will happen though.
Most political pundits think Boehner being ousted is unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. It isn’t because he’s particularly popular, but because Speakership elections tend to require a lot of campaigning and maneuvering in the caucus. Candidates have to have a lot of meetings, establish a base of supporters, promise people things etc. In Washington this is all closed door and remains secret for roughly 10 seconds after the meeting is over (sometimes word gets out before the meeting has even started.) So what this means is, if a person was trying to build a candidacy they’d traditionally have started after the elections in 2012, usually in early December. We’d all know about it, and we’d also have a good idea how strong each candidate was.
Since no challenger to Boehner materialized, the only way he gets unseated is more of a spontaneous “caucus revolt” which has happened but because of its rarity is not expected.
Boehner’s rise to power was actually a bit of an upset, because it wasn’t considered his "turn."A lot of times it goes Majority/Minority Whip --> Majority/Minority Leader --> Speaker. (This is altered basically based on whether your part is in power, if your party is in power the guy who is majority leader is favored to become speaker when the current speaker some day retires. If your party is out of power, whoever wins the minority leader election is considered the presumptive speaker if your party wins control of the house.)
Boehner sort of “leap frogged” Roy Blunt of Missouri, who had a lot of Washington power and was Majority Whip, to become Majority Leader. Once Boehner had leapfrogged Blunt to become Majority Leader, and the Republicans lost the House in 2008, Hastert basically removed himself from all leadership positions when his party lost the house and later resigned before his term was up (this is typical, it is atypical that Pelosi returned to a position of power after losing the House, most Speakers consider losing the House the end of their political careers, or at least the end of their time in leadership.) With Hastert gone, Boehner easily won Minority Leader having been Majority Leader before, and then became Speaker in 2010.
But all these House offices are the same. You might have rounds of caucus voting until a winner emerges. Once they do, party loyalty demands almost everyone in the party vote for the party’s candidate. Not to do so basically torpedoes your own party and your own interests. Let’s say Cantor challenges Boehner and loses in the Republican caucus. How much sense does it make for them to then vote for Pelosi for Speaker and give procedural control of the House to the Democrats? Makes no sense at all. Nor would it be a particularly stable condition, Speakers do not have a fixed term, and can be voted out at any time during their respective Congress. So Pelosi’s position would be weak, the GOP would be weak, it’d really be an ungovernable mess.
They actually tried to stage a “coup” against Gingrich during his Speakership, and told him he could resign or be voted out. He responded that he would not resign under any circumstance, and if they voted him out he’d throw his support behind Dick Gephardt (Dem) and give the Speakership to the Dems, basically imploding the GOP. The coup-leaders not only stepped down, most subsequently had their balls clipped by Gingrich and lost all power in the House.
It wouldn’t have to work that way. After the new Congress is seated, the GOP will control it 234-201. If 17 Republicans vote for anyone other than Boehner (not Pelosi of course) then it moves to a 2nd ballot where the real campaigning can start. Say those 17 vote for Mitt Romney as Speaker (or 17 different individuals). The vote breakdown would be:
Boehner 217
Pelosi 201
Romney 17
Nobody has a majority and it moves on to the next round. (Plus, only a quorum is needed for voting, so if some of Boehner supporters are absent, then it would take less than 17 defectors)
Then the horsetrading can begin about a coalition government of people who can govern, much like the Brits did in the last parliament. Then a leader will have emerged that can command a consensus.
Boehner was led into a trap by Obama. Basically, the “Fiscal Cliff” bill just passed included everything that Obama wanted…so we are well on the way to a $22 trillion national debt. Its clear-the Democrats will set off a major inflation, and yet, they will be able to point to the Republicans and say, “so what…they approved it”/ But who knows…maybe Obama is right-we can spend our way to prosperity.
On the other hand, if all this spending crashes the dollar (and oil hits $300/bbl.), Obama will have a bit of a hard time.
He’ll have a tough time if we’re invaded by magic unicorns, too.
I doubt Cantor really wants to be Speaker right now. He is in the best position imagnable under the circumstances. He has the power to fling as much poo as he wants and when it hits the fan it all blows back into Boehner’s face. He would be crazy to trade that for stepping into the bullseye. Boehner wll be relected but will end up effectively nuetered by a minority in the GOP caucus that will hamstring his ability to negotiate and by a Dem caucus that now knows he can’t back anything up. The only thing that is a saving grace for him is that he can put a lot of the responsibility for the compromise on the Senate GOP members who overwhelmingly supported it.
Is there any chance that there will be 17 or more republicans who just flat out refuse to vote for Boehner under any circumstances, thus forcing Boehner to seek some Democratic support?
Is there any chance that any Democrats end up voting for him?
Obviously no one thinks Pelosi has any chance, but Boehner winning with Democratic support seems at least possible…
Do you mean are their 17 GOP house members that will vote for Pelosi instead of Boehner? In two words - hell no. Similarly there is no chance that any Democrat will vote for Boehner - why would they when they could elect Pelosi instead?
The only interesting vote is in the GOP caucus room - whoever wins that vote will be elected Speaker.
Not the most bipartisan of links, but some conservatives think they have enough votes to force a second ballot…