I've heard a few people mention it now. He's up for reelection to that post when the new congress is sworn in. That's really soon now - this week or next, I think. Should he be kept on as speaker?
Nope. And not because of this, but because the D's and R's need new blood who are willing to not hyperbole. Sadly, the 2 of them who don't, aren't interested in the positions.
Seems to me that Boehner has been a republican willing to deal. There was a grand deal, supposedly, all but done but Obama changed the terms at the last minute and Boehner wouldn't deal with him anymore. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...ho-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all#9 My thinking is that his willingness to cave on everything and get nothing in return, and inability to get his own membership to back him, makes him toothless.
I tend to agree with this thinking. Its easy to see how the Rs are in a lose lose situation, but we need someone to have the stones to hold the line.
I think that congress and the president aren't getting a fair deal when it comes to getting quite a bit done. It's only a few of the really big and destructive things that Obama wants to do that are being blocked. Check this bipartisan legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R. 1339: Frankly, that's exactly the kind of legislation government should be limited to. This article lists a few pretty important things passed by congress: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/241469-congress-isnt-gridlocked-its-just-totally-irresponsible- And I think it'd be a good idea for anyone and everyone to watch this video and explain to me why you think Democrats should obstruct the bill: [video=youtube;CIyLlXBcbjo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo&feature=player_embedded[/video]
None of the tea-party right-wingers want to actually do anything, so they'll never try to be speaker.
So you think the rest of the Republicans won't vote for a tea-party guy, so they just don't even try to run?
I don't get your question. There are 50 tea party candidates elected to the house and senate. They're far from some small fringe group. But Rand and Rubio are fairly prominent senators, and you can see what Rand's sort of agenda is from the video. Do you disapprove of the amendment he was proposing? Should Democrats obstruct it?
No, I am saying, why aren't they nominating themselves to be a speaker of the house since they seem to hate Boehner's compromising so much?
The way it goes, the speaker must be elected with a majority of votes. Thus Pelosi can't win unless republicans vote for her (ain't going to happen). That means that of the republican votes, 17 or more have to not vote for Boehner. Then a tea party guy would be nominated and might win. Seems like the race would be wide open at that point. There's some talk of that happening - that there are 20+ members willing to vote against him. Hence this thread. Nobody would outright and openly just run against him because the speaker has the power to appoint members to prestigious positions on the various committees and nobody want to have him hold a grudge.
I think many tea-party republicans would rather see government burn, and accomplish their goal of "small government."
As opposed to seeing government burn with the accomplished goal of really big government for as long as it doesn't crash under its own weight? Which is truly better? (I say the small government way).
Well the big government believers think something important is happening with that big government. But I won't try to sway you that you are wrong.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. No matter how big govt. is, it can't promise everyone 10 tons of food if there are only 9 to be grown or otherwise had. And that is the problem - they're writing checks they can't cash over the long haul.
