Thanks for the kind kitty thoughts. They are sincerely appreciated.

I try to keep up on comments and answering them, because I've long believed that the beauty of blogging is instant feedback and a two-way conversation with readers. It used to be a lot easier and more spirited over on HuffPost, but those days are gone, so I still like to engage here on my site. I still promise to read every comment here, whether I respond back or not. Sometimes it takes me a week or so to get to this, but I strive to meet this goal. Responding should be a normal thing, but when external life intrudes on my blogging, I can fall down on this part of the conversation. I always try to apologize -- and point out that I'm not ignoring people on a whim -- and I try to keep up as best I can.

It is a rough time for me now, and it likely will be for some time to come. I ask everyone's patience for the time being.

-CW

RDN- When I refer to "middle class", I suppose I characterize them as married (maybe more than once), two incomes of some kind and at least .5 children that made it out of the womb alive... no, I half kid, but I do that on purpose because I think we all have a sense of the "middle class". In other words, a class not dependent on food stamps (yet) but driving American-built vehicles (think a truck, a sedan and a mini-van). People that meet this profile conceived the Tea Party (not really a party). There was enough synergy to sustain enough of a grass-roots movement that supports limited government, a revival of Constitutional ethos and a battle against bailing out the "wealthy class".

I didn't quite understand your last question. Sorry, RDN.

[23] Michale wrote:

Michale, I have to disagree with your comparison to DNC and Tea Party attitudes- the origin of the DNC is collectivism whereas the Tea Party comes from a respect of God, family, country. Both motivations come from the ego, but one has intentions outside of the bounds of the historical underpinnings of a free society- where freedom comes from God, not the government itself.

I see right thru the charade played by the DNC and GOP- they really are cut from the same smug cloth. They're like lawyers- heck, they're practically all former practicing attorneys! After a battle in the court room, no matter the winner or loser, they'll go to a fancy restaurant for a meal and cocktails because they're both paid an insane amount of money no matter the outcome. That, in a nutshell, characterizes the DNC and GOP. Remember seeing the photo of Boehner kissing Pelosi? (look it up) The fake enemy crap is just that- fake!

And now you know why I posit our entire country is in need of a Tea Party Conservative Speaker and an outside-the-beltway POTUS. I can think of 4 that would suit me just fine.

BTW, I actually like Webb. Mistake? The other 4 are INSANE!!!

Regards,

babeute

I agree... :D

Michale

Sorry for the late reply to your second well developed and well reasoned post. In one thread! I think the house rule is 3 per month, any further posts should be drivel, snark, YouTube links, unfocused rage, movie quotes or a combination of the above. The spam filter is usually very good at enforcing these ground rules but I see you sneaked a couple of others by!

Your Ground Hog Day analogy is apt in so far as Boehener's job is concerned, but at least Phil was able to enrich his own life, and the life of the town. Like a lot of Bill Murray movies, this one is a sour ball with a very sweet center. If you haven't seen St Vincent, I recommend it.

In closing, you and I actually have a pretty similar take on this topic.

CW-10

I think the Pope's visit likely determined Boehner's timing. There is certainly a lot of press speculation that this was so.

As for the next few comments, your ranting breaks your own cardinal rule. You say you want liberal commenters to acknowledge that "both parties do it" but then you can never quite do the same yourself. How about: "Some Democrats -- and, honestly, some Republicans -- demonize the other party so much that they simply can't be talked to rationally." What do you say? Unless your position is no Republican has ever said anything nasty about any Democrat, that's a more honest way to put things and it also follows your own cardinal rule.

In my defense, I DID say:

Look... All I am saying is that if Democrats (AND Republicans, for that matter) spent less time viciously attacking the other Party and more time getting their OWN house in order, this country might be in better shape than it is right now..

But ya gotta admit, it's a valid point.

Let me echo RD's condolences and appreciation in #21.. Family comes first...

babeute,

Michale, I've been hiding behind my training and half of a doctorate... the other half is permanently being held by the liberal university...

I know a team that could help with that! :D

You make an excellent case for the Tea Party.. The issue, as I see it, is that the Democrat Party wants the GOP to make all the compromises but the DP refuses to make any compromises themselves...

And the Tea Party has evolved into a group that echos the actions of the Democrat Party..

It's been said in these hallowed halls that the Tea Party would rather see the government shut down and run into the ground rather than compromise..

And yet, the TP *LEARNED* that from the Democrat Party! OK that may be a bit of a stretch..

But what is undeniable is that the Tea Party reflects the NO COMPROMISE attitude of the Democrat Party...

It's why we had government shutdowns in the past. Not because the GOP pushed.. The GOP was just doing it's job, the job they were hired to do.. The shutdowns happened because the Democrats refused to compromise..

Of course, it could be logically said that the Democrat Party was just doing IT'S job, the job THEY were hired to do..

And that's where we find ourselves now...

Michale

The Tea Party is a symbol of the middle class frustration with a system that hands out money for votes in the classes above and below it. The middle class is too damn busy raising families and working two jobs for organizing formal political rallies and protests. The Tea Party was born in small communities and reinvigorated the marginalized middle class.

Early on I was intrigued with the populist "vibe" of the TPers, that you're tapping into and so want to explore the notion more with you, if you don't mind.

To me, there are a couple of ambiguities in your above statement. First off, the "middle class" is not monolithic and so has a range of reaction. The central point I think you were referring to though was a sense of reclaiming control of the political levers -- restoring a voice of the people with some practical efficacy.

Second, what the Tea Party originally was in 2009 and 2010 has seemingly been redirected. Perhaps -- perhaps -- it was about reclaiming control (why again are we bailing out large corporations and their shareholders?) but then seemed to be co-opted by either fundraising interests or far-right conservative social interests. To suggest that such social interests were broadly middle class seems a stretch, but I would buy that the initial populist reaction to the '08/'09 bailouts potentially were.

So I'll ask outright: are you suggesting that the many of the Tea Party interests today are actually broadly middle-class? Do you think that they cross the classic battle pundit lines of liberal vs. conservative political outlooks? If so, could you enumerate a few of those interests so we can refer to something concrete to explore your claim from?

Sorry about your cat. The decisions at that point can be consuming (we dealt with this last year), so my best regards.

And frankly quite grateful and impressed that you responded to and caught up with so many of our recent comments. Thanks.

But at the end of your paragraph there, you get a bit too optimistic with "they can write what they like as long as it can survive compromise." That's not possible when ANY compromise is not sufficiently pure enough for the TPers.

The compromise I intended to refer to in that paragraph did not involve the TPers, but rather wrt. the Senate Republicans and the Democrats. IOW, obviously mod./non-TPer Republicans couldn't write anything they wanted, but once they just give up on TP votes, their fiat constraint shifts to the Senate and the House Democrats from more conservative districts (and of course the White House, who can actually be pretty easily moved if the votes are at least somewhat bipartisan in Congress).

I still believe Boehner is in a rather unusual and potentially sustainable catbird seat at the moment, should he choose to exploit it (similar to what you posited). It probably would not be sustainable through the end of the session, but really a few weeks of aggressive action on a moderate Republican agenda that is distinct from both Democrats' and the Freedom Caucus's agendas would be sufficient to disrupt hardened trajectories across both parties. You don't have to kill them, just show that they bleed too.

Thank you for the welcome and some very thoughtful comments. I'd also like to thank Michale for the welcome. Michale, I've been hiding behind my training and half of a doctorate... the other half is permanently being held by the liberal university...

CW, you asked a few questions to which I'd like to reply. I posit that a Tea Party Speaker would speak political volumes (agreeing with you) and that, in itself, is why both Democrats and Republicans wouldn't allow it (or will they?). I've come to the conclusion that we really don't have a two party system. I don't know if you can even call it an oligarchy. It's like professional sports- if someone else will pay you more, loyalty takes a back seat. So, a Tea Party Speaker would speak political volumes, represent the unrepresented (not seen since Reagan is my thinking) and reignite a GOP. It would be to the GOP's benefit, politically, and, more than likely the catalyst and guarantee of a 2016 majority in both houses and the home of the resident bully pulpit occupier. But, after all, they, like you, would rather have Boehner because he keeps the money rolling. Is that why you'd support Boehner? A one-party-scratching-backs system?

I think the Tea Party wants to return to a a representative system- one that even the simplest of simpletons can understand and, gosh darn (Mama Bear), embrace and participate. The Tea Party is a symbol of the middle class frustration with a system that hands out money for votes in the classes above and below it. The middle class is too damn busy raising families and working two jobs for organizing formal political rallies and protests. The Tea Party was born in small communities and reinvigorated the marginalized middle class.

Strategically, the GOP is making a mistake by NOT pushing for a Tea Party Speaker. You said, "There's something to be said for allowing a Tea Partier to lead, just to see what the public thought of what would happen" to which I concur. If saving the union, our way of life, the lone western super power in the world and their own jobs matters, elect a Trey Gowdy or Mark Levin character/leader/mind.

The GOP will have to decide- Stick with the system that has served us and our "counterparts", the DNC, so well? Or, elect a principled Speaker that will revive the GOP, specifically and quite possibly, our system of government and country's future. Unfortunately, I believe that the GOP will cave and follow your advice- bore more years of Boehner...

Again, regards. Having some fun with you and the real minds of our time!

babeute

rdnewman [2] -

That's an interesting point about the Boehner Rule being denounced. Hadn't really thought about that, but you're likely right.

As to your second paragraph, well I did say in the article "This would work well for everyone except John Boehner..."

Interestingly enough (sorry don't have the link handy) I just saw today indications that Boehner will be tackling the debt ceiling before he leaves. So that's at least part of what I called for...

LizM [3] -

I also agree that many Americans would like to see Congress working again. If the GOP would just realize it, they could easily get large chunks of their agenda passed into law -- all but the most extreme measures, in fact. If they peeled off enough Dems in the Senate and House to make up for any votes they'd lose from Tea Partiers, they could get like 75% of the concessions (to the Dems' 25%). It'd be incremental steps towards their policy goals -- something which they just have not been able to manage even with their large majorities.

TheStig [5] -

"Chris Weigant Gambit" -- I'm liking this comment already...

:-)

Do you think that the Pope's visit had anything to do with Boehner's decision? From all reports, this was an event JB had been working to make happen for a long time, so he might have seen it as the capstone to his career. If, as you suggest, his decision was intensely personal, I could see this having an impact.

rdnewman [10] -

I added some paragraph breaks to your comment to display it better, hope you don't mind.

I get the same sense about Boehner you do. While not agreeing with his agenda, I think he truly did want to move it forward and chalk up some incremental victories. The TPers refused to allow him to do this by refusing to back any deal he cut -- even one with 90% GOP advantage built-in. I think Boehner has been massively frustrated and disappointed in this state of affairs for years.

Your price war metaphor was interesting. I agree that the whole battle within the GOP is no longer over issues, it's all about process. Look at the demands they want for the new speaker -- it's all about changing the House rules to allow them to make more noise. There's no big disagreement over strategy, it's all about the tactics. But at the end of your paragraph there, you get a bit too optimistic with "they can write what they like as long as it can survive compromise." That's not possible when ANY compromise is not sufficiently pure enough for the TPers.

I liked your "he who cares the least has the most power." But then, from Dune, "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." It'd be interesting to pit those two against each other to see which wins... my bet would be on Boehner.

Michale [11] -

Somehow, I knew you'd like our newest commenter...

babeute, meet Michale. Michale, babeute. You've now been formally introduced...

:-)

[12] -

OK, your Groundhog Day quote was pretty funny, I have to admit...

But to both you and babeute, if you read that article carefully, it concludes that Boehner following my advice would actually benefit pretty much the entire Republican Party (and the Tea Partiers) with the exception of Boehner himself. Him being a scapegoat could be very constructive for the House Republicans, and the GOP in general.

As for the next few comments, your ranting breaks your own cardinal rule. You say you want liberal commenters to acknowledge that "both parties do it" but then you can never quite do the same yourself. How about: "Some Democrats -- and, honestly, some Republicans -- demonize the other party so much that they simply can't be talked to rationally." What do you say? Unless your position is no Republican has ever said anything nasty about any Democrat, that's a more honest way to put things and it also follows your own cardinal rule.

-CW

First, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but you will be able to post comments instantly from now on. As long as you don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are held for moderation (which can take awhile). Just wanted to welcome you to the site before I addressed your comment.

I do thank you for your thoughtful language, because while you obviously don't see eye-to-eye with me politically, you were respectful throughout -- something I like to see in commenters who disagree with my opinions, I must admit.

My motto is "reality-based political commentary" and I try to keep to that. In doing so, I occasionally defend Republicans against what I consider unfair attacks (see my defense of Sarah Palin, very early on, by way of an example). I also, as I mentioned up front, occasionally give the GOP advice when I think they'll ignore it. I don't have a link to a previous article, but they do exist.

I give this advice freely, while at the same time openly admitting my own bias. You may be shocked to hear it, but I think America works best when both major political parties work in a reasonable fashion. So while there are plenty of liberals who would indeed enjoy the implosion of the Republican Party, I would actually be horrified at the aftermath and wreckage. I don't exactly wish the Republicans well, but neither am I cheering for their ultimate demise.

You ask what I would advise the RNC do about the speakership void. To tell you the truth, I have no freakin' idea at this point. Boehner sticking around and getting a few things done is obviously a short-term answer. Longer term, I really don't know. There's something to be said for allowing a Tea Partier to lead, just to see what the public thought of what would happen. I think Ryan truly does not want the job, and will turn it down within the next 2 weeks. But after that, your guess is as good as mine.

But in the spirit of political discussion, what exactly would a Tea Party speaker accomplish? 100 vetoes? OK, that'd be a strong political statement, but what would it actually change? Having the strongest Tea Partier possible wouldn't change the dynamic in the Senate at all. You could advocate scrapping the filibuster rule entirely (there's nothing to stop McConnell from doing so), but would you abide by the results if the Dems retook the Senate next year?

Having a House that fought as strongly as you suggest would still not change the fact that the White House has a Democrat in it and the GOP doesn't have enough votes in the Senate to put 100 such bills on Obama's desk. Even if they did, all he'd do is veto them and we'd be back to square one.

I've never heard a convincing answer to these questions. What, exactly, does the Tea Party want? Given the constitutional constraints on the GOP's power right now, how would a stronger Speaker change anything?

In any case, thanks again for a respectful comment, and my kindest regards to you as well,

-CW

Hillary Clinton counts as an "enemy" she is most proud of...

Republicans...

So, let me get this straight..

Hillary is "proud" of the fact that she is an "enemy" to millions of Americans..

And THIS is who ya'all would choose to lead this country!???

SERIOUSLY???

Is THIS how far we have sunk???

Michale

Paula's comments in the current commentary is a PERFECT example...

"People kept talking about how great it was to hear people be able to have differing opinions without demonizing each other."

And yet, the Democrat Party leadership (such as it is) demonizes fellow Americans on a DAILY, sometimes HOURLY basis!!??

Imagine you are an alien being doing covert surveillance of humans and you stumble on a hysterical liberal saying, "Ya know, it's really nice to be able to talk amongst ourselves without demonizing and attacking.. Unlike those filthy terrorist arsonist scumbag Republicans!!!!"

Wouldn't you think that humans were totally whacked!???

And replace liberal with conservative and Republicans with Democrats and it's STILL whacked...

THIS is what I am arguing against...

Am I wrong???

Michale

To HAVE a friend, you must first BE a friend..

And other corny platitudes.. :D

Michale

Just switch Party names and ask yourself if such a thing is possible in today's toxic environment..

For example:

Now here's what I think may be an interesting wrinkle. Once he starts this (and assuming that enough Democrats follow him and a few House Republicans join each bill), the disruption in the House and liberal media will be deafening, but it will also continue to be all but impossible to find a new speaker.

The point being is that ya'all want the GOP Speaker to work WITH Democrats and compromise WITH Democrats..

The *EXACT* same Democrats who call ALL Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage takers" and every other nasty and perverse name that Democrats can come up with...

In short, ya'all want Republicans to act reasonably and compromise with the VERY people that are calling Republicans every nasty name in the book..

Which begs the question...

Is that a logical or rational expectation??

Speaking for myself personally, I can't recall a time that Democrats ever put Country before Party.. The GOP has, on occasion, but Democrats never have..

Given this fact, ANY suggestion of working with them and compromising with them MUST be taken with a not only a HUGE grain of salt, but the whole damn salt mine...

Is there room for a Republican party that is distinct from both the Democrats and the Freedom Caucus?

Probably about as much room as there is in the Democrat Party for someone who DOESN'T think that ALL Republicans are Lucifer Incarnate...

Ya'all are ALWAYS going on and on about how Republicans won't work with Democrats...

Why don't ya'all start talking to ya'all's OWN Party and telling THEM to work with Republicans...

Instead of calling Republicans every evil and nasty name in the book...

Michale

Ya'all are advising Boehner to do things that would benefit the Democrat Party..

Would you expect my #10 to have read differently if I were a moderate Republican? If so, how?

Is there room for a Republican party that is distinct from both the Democrats and the Freedom Caucus?

Richard

There's a scene in Groundhog Day where Bill Murray is setting at a bowling alley bar with a couple of locals where they help him realize there are no consequences if tomorrow never comes. I have that scene in mind here where the same sense of dawning arises for Mr. Boehner.

"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster. We drank pina coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters. THAT was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get THAT day over and over and over.."
-Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

:D

Plus, he who cares the least has the most power.
So kiss the innkeeper, throw the toaster in the bathtub, and watch the lights flicker. After all, there are no consequences if there's no tomorrow.

"What if there is no tomorrow!!?? There wasn't one today!! Hello??"

:D

One of my all time favorite movies..

babeute raises a very good point that I would love to see someone here address..

Ya'all are advising Boehner to do things that would benefit the Democrat Party..

Why on earth would a Republican want to do that!??

This may come as a total shock to ya'all, but the Democrat Party is NOT the country..

Horror of horrors, sometimes (often times) what is good for the Democrat Party is NOT good for the good ole U S of A...

Just once, it would be nice if the Left could put country BEFORE Party...

The Right has done it on occasion... I am hard pressed to recall a time when the Left has done it...

I'm just sayin'....

Michale

First off, as I am wont to do...

"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

Secondly....

WHERE have you been all my life!!!???? :D

Michale

I'd like to play this out a bit more, mostly because I have an odd and unfortunate sense of fun. Let's double-down on some kind of Boehner devil-may-care attitude.

I'd be thinking "that'll teach the li'l' bastids ...and where in the hell did I put my glass of Merlot?!!

There's a scene in Groundhog Day where Bill Murray is setting at a bowling alley bar with a couple of locals where they help him realize there are no consequences if tomorrow never comes. I have that scene in mind here where the same sense of dawning arises for Mr. Boehner.

Boehner isn't going to jump on the live grenade, because he knows that action will save exactly nobody.
So with that in mind, your "live grenade" has perhaps a different role. I agree, no point in jumping on it, but of course little cost (other than any sense of legacy he might have) if he wants to throw one (or more).

The problem bedeviling the Establishment Wing of the Republican Party is its reluctance to cut deals with the Democrats, for whatever reason that maybe.
I sense Spkr. Boehner cares a great deal about doing something meaningful in his work (even if I personally don't always agree with the something he might choose to do).

In technology, the holy grail of entrepreneurial venture is disruption. The Gingrich dynamic in the 90s was in large part about political disruption, to take the Republican perception in a new direction, to upset the trajectory.

It has now become virtually impossible for Republicans for differentiate themselves from others any more by being the most conservative or unrelenting. It's akin to a price war between business competitors in a commodity industry: at some point it's meaningless and does little to distinguish one from the other and just undercuts profits for both. The bargain hunters may care, but everyone else just looks at the price warriors as bargain basement low-end options.
If one really wants to disrupt the current Republican trajectory, your question is central: why the reluctance to compromise? Republicans have a huge advantage: they control both chambers. So Boehner can lead a new Republican trajectory by setting new terms. Pres. Obama can only sign what is sent to him. The Senate Democrats can only filibuster what is proposed to reach the Senate floor. But Spkr. Boehner and 218 in the House, they can write what they like as long as it can survive compromise.

Now here's what I think may be an interesting wrinkle. Once he starts this (and assuming that enough Republicans follow him and a few House Democrats join each bill), the disruption in the House and conservative media will be deafening, but it will also continue to be all but impossible to find a new speaker. With Paul Ryan so relunctant, Boehner probably gets to keep going as long as he likes. Without 218 votes behind someone else, they probably can't throw him out until the next session and without 218 votes behind another single Republican, there's no good reason for him to step aside. As long as he gets his way and is willing to compromise with at least some Democrats, Boehner might have more practical power over the American legislative agenda than he's had in years.

This reasoning is less grounded in what is right for the Republicans or right for the nation and more about what is fulfilling to Boehner personally (the central premise of your post, @TheStig). Although it assumes that doing what he thinks is right is part of his definition for being fulfilled, it doesn't necessarily require personal sacrifice on his part other than having to listen to some howling from the same people he's had to listen to before. It's pretty risk free for both the party and for him personally. Plus, he who cares the least has the most power.

So kiss the innkeeper, throw the toaster in the bathtub, and watch the lights flicker. After all, there are no consequences if there's no tomorrow. Like you said, that'll teach 'em.

I predict that you're not gonna have any fun at all. :)

18 Oct...

:D It's gonna be a fun few months..

Michale

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/iranian-parliament-passes-bill-approving-nuclear-deal

Ya see!!??

That's all it takes to kill any argument from me!! :D

A simple acknowledgement that, whatever ya'all want to bitch and moan at the GOP for, the Democrat Party is guilty of it as well..

Well played, TS :D

If more people follow this, I might be in trouble!! :D

Michale

The "severe pressure to disavow the Boehner Rule and to pander even more to the far-right." has existed since the early 90's and will exist regardless of ANY action Boehner might take. Boehner was one of Contract for America insurgents of the Gingrich era that put the pressure on the Republicans, and he knows, as well as anybody how the game is played. Boehner isn't going to jump on the live grenade, because he knows that action will save exactly nobody. The problem bedeviling the Establishment Wing of the Republican Party is its reluctance to cut deals with the Democrats, for whatever reason that maybe.

The underlying dynamic for Boehner is that the Tea Party wing is flapped by implacable "Jeffersonian Republicans" operating under the principle: "That government is best which governs least." (The fact that Jefferson probably never actually said, or believed this, is completely immaterial). Throwing shoes into the gears of government (sabotage) is exactly the reason Tea Partiers seek office, in so far as it does not preclude collecting a paycheck, retirement and health benefits or future employ as a lobbyist. (Yes Michael, there is equivalent thinking over at the Democratic Party).

When Jay Leno asked JB why he wasn't interested in running for President, JB said: "I like to play golf. I like to cut my own grass. I do drink red wine. I smoke cigarettes, and I'm not giving that up to be President of the United States," That's probably as close to understanding Boehner's "resignation" as we are going to get. I don't think it's a complex parliamentary maneuver. There is often truth in flippant remarks (see pretty much all of TheStig's many, many flippant comments). I don't think red wine or cigarettes are really the problem, he could drink/smoke in private, off hours, and many a President has. A strip of grass for recreational mowing would be easy to arrange. Golf is the problem. Recreational golf is a social activity that extends far beyond the fairways. It is a very upper crust social activity when you play at Boehner's level. Covering the grenade would cripple his golf foursomes and Golden Years to no useful purpose. There are Profiles in Courage, but these shouldn't be mistaken for Profiles in Futility.

This, of course, pre-supposes that there are "sane" Democrats to be found.. :D

Clearly the facts show that "sane" Democrats are as hard to find as "sane" Republicans. :D

Michale

Many of us out in the world also think it would be nice to have a functioning Congress again because, without one, it's kind of hard to have a highly functioning presidency. And, without that ... well, I don't really want to think what the consequences of that would be - for America or for the rest of the planet.

I was thinking, though ... maybe this whole speaker thing will force bipartisanship if Democrats and sane Republicans in the House can come together to elect a speaker with a large majority and leave the know-nothings behind ... ?

I was going to ask why Spkr Boehner wouldn't take your advice and then realized one reason not to. Once he crosses that line, all potential (Republican) candidates for Speaker will be under severe pressure to disavow the Boehner Rule and to pander even more to the far-right.

It'll essentially exacerbate the divisions that exist now. It also means Boehner's last days will be even more miserable for him personally than the days leading up to his announcement. So to follow your advice might cause him to have to stay much longer in a role that grows even less tolerable.

While it may seem that Republicans could look more responsible to the public if the Speaker went this course, that optimism may also be a symptom of liberal bias, as some conservatives may easily see it as less responsible. It could easily be that the backlash and gnashing of teeth on frantic display could be pretty poor PR for the party (not that the approval rates could really go that much lower). I'm not sure that this approach is really that attractive for either outgoing Speaker or his party.

But it'd sure be nice to have a functioning Congress again.

Richard

I'm not necessarily a "tea party" Republican, but I certainly am not an establishment Republican. Although I recognize your astute knowledge of politics in general, what I find interesting is the mere fact that you are advising the Republican party in the first place. That's like me advising the DNC to insist on insulating Hillary, cancelling all future debates and making a side deal with Trey Gowdy! Why would I do that if I think the DNC is filled with communists, socialists, liberals and other loonies? No, I would leave alone the DNC's disarray altogether with the purpose of enjoying the implosion.

Now, I don't know you and you me so it is quite possible that you desire peace and harmony within the RNC. So, in an effort to achieve that end, what could you advise the RNC do in regards to the leadership vacancy? Yes, you would support the notion that Boehner should absorb internal and external scrutiny and continue as speaker.

This brings me to my point. Liberals enjoyed Boehner as speaker because he was complicit to the Obama administration and the DNC itself. Because he controlled the schedule, because he caved to POTUS, because he was such a poor leader, this allowed POTUS and the Democrats unfettered license to push forward any and all of Obama's agenda items. So, by supporting Boehner, Obama and the DNC have nothing to fear.

Frankly, I think the shake up in the RNC is much overdue. You, oddly, support a peaceful and complicit RNC. No? I prefer to see Republicans actually represent their constituencies and, given their numbers advantage in both houses, place bills on POTUS' desk; bills that represent an opposition to Obama and DNC policies and agendas.

Are you afraid that POTUS would veto a bill? How about 100? That's the position Boehner has taken by operating a schedule and adopting rules that prevent legislative action.

Regards to you.

babeute