With a 247-188 GOP House majority, it would only take 30 GOP defections to deny a House majority to the Speaker candidate favored by the majority for the GOP caucus. And the Dems (I’ve seen Steny Hoyer specifically quoted on this, though my Google-fu isn’t turning it up) are on record as saying they aren’t going to solve the GOP’s problems by voting for one of the GOP candidates for Speaker. Someone’s going to have to get 218 GOP votes.
Things any Speaker could always do, merely by recognizing that he’s the Speaker of the entire House. Boehner sometimes did, yes, but more often did not. That he’s done it again on his way out - again, something he could always do - is not a sign of leadership, or of accomplishment. His resignation did not make it possible, because it was always possible. All he’s done is hand the whacko birds the scalp they’ve always wanted. What did that gain, except to remove what semi-adult leadership was there, impose some organizational turmoil at a critical time, and give the whacko birds even more control than they had before?
The position he was in was largely of his own creation, would you not agree?
Here’s another way to look at his surrender:
He was never outnumbered at all, even in his own caucus, and certainly not within the entire House which he nominally led. He constantly gave in to threats which could never be carried out.
If you can show how the facts lead to a different conclusion, feel free. You’ve already acknowledged that the whacko birds are in control there. So that makes you better than me, well, how?
That’s the important part, you keep insisting he could always do that but the reality is that it would have cost him his job. So no, he actually couldn’t.
Sure. In my county there are a few city council seats up for grabs here and there but mostly they are community college board elections. May not be glamorous but if they are doing the same thing in his district it would be easier and cheaper to add the special election to that than its own election.
It seems that We can break down recent Speakers into two camps - Boehner, Pelosi, and Foley, who had nearly indistunguishable views on sometimes ignoring their own caucuses, and apparently pretty equal records of doing so. Then we have Gingrich and Hastert, who both opposed the idea on principle of ignoring their caucuses. And your complaint is that Boehner should have done that more than any other party leader in recent history? That’s what you’re saying? That Boehner should have been even more aggressive in scheduling votes his party disagreed with, even more than Democratic Speakers have?
I’m not clear on what you mean by his position. Being Speaker of a party that’s currently in a civil war with itself? Yes, he ran for the job. The situation that the GOP is in a civil war? No, he didn’t cause that. Having to resign because he can’t lead a caucus that is like a herd of cats? No, Boehner didn’t create the divisions; I don’t think anyone can unify the Republican caucus today or in the near future.
Sometimes people are just dealt a losing hand. He played his pretty well, but it is unrealistic to think he took good cards and squandered them.
This isn’t about me comparing myself to you. It’s about criticizing your extremely partisan and poorly informed arguments.
Would Kasich want to really step into the situation right now? I would think Kasich’s best move would be to let the seat remain vacant until the general election next year. If he calls for a special election, wouldn’t this be seen as him supporting a candidate that would do well in a low turnout election, essentially supporting the Tea party candidate?
That only affects primary scheduling though. Depending on the current Ohio election laws they could do something like a primary on March 15th when the statewide primary is already schedule and then a special election earlier than November. That sort of threads the needle to avoid Tea Party dominance in a low turnout election while still filling the seat before the normally scheduled general.
I am very far from convinced of that. Certainly he thought so, or feared so, most of the time, but once again, the Speaker is elected by the entire House, and every time he did get challenged, he beat it back easily.
Except that he did.
And none of which had an implacably oppositionist faction in their own ranks, determined to prevent them from getting anything done. But he didn’t always, did he?
No, that he could have and should have beat the nihilists back every time, not just only on occasion when Congress was required to do something. He never got voted out even when it did come to that, did he?
That his pandering to the nihilists emboldened rather than appeased them. How is that not clear?
No, he did not have to resign, and yes, the caucus would not have been so cat-herd-like if they’d had firmer leadership.
And he’s part of the reason.
Then what makes his tenure so uncharacteristically ineffective, by comparison to any other modern Speaker? Have none of the others had to face some restlessness within their caucuses?
If you say so. 
What I’d like to see happen is have the mainstream Republicans say to the Teahadists: “Look, you whack-a-doodles, either you back our man for Speaker or we’ll join with the Democrats and give the gavel back to Pelosi.” Then hold that over their heads for the rest of the session- “You want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. We’ll make Pelosi Speaker.”
It is upper stupidity and counterproductive to make a threat when it is obvious it’s a bluff only.
I wouldn’t bluff. If I was a mainstream Republican, I’d be 1000 times more comfortable with the gavel in Pelosi’s hands than in Louis Gohmert’s. If the TeaNazis want to get pissy, let them.
That is not unrealistic at all, I am a republican on the verge of changing sides right now. I think the wack-a-doodles are far more dangerous that some of the left wing policies I disagree with.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say No.
So Elvis, so you think the next Speaker will be better or worse than Boehner?
It probably won’t make a difference, unless the shouting in the caucus room gets so loud the sane faction says “Fuck you guys, we’re allying with the Dems on this one”. It won’t be one of the nihilists, since they oppose organization and leadership as concepts. If they even had someone with strong enough leadership qualities to get those people to settle down and take their naps, Boehner would likely have gladly handed over the job to him already. And none of the other contenders have many favors owed to them anyway.
So, pretty much more of the same, perhaps with even more frequent ritual votes to repeal Obamacare. How 'bout you?
And we can be sure that you can objectively try to put yourself in the other side’s shoes, right?
You sure about that?
I truly think it is going to get worse. The extremists surely believe that they have taken down a wishy-washy conservative, and will be further emboldened to do whatever the hell it is they want.
No politician can lead (or survive) if one-third of his alleged supporters constantly want to stab him in the back, to say nothing of his political opponents.