Will Boehner survive As Speaker; Raises Ire Of Many House Republicans

After House Speaker John Beohner’s gift to the democrats on a late night House vote on Tuesday, many Conservative House Republicans are talking about replacing him as Speaker, if they can find another to take his place. “The vote was considered a rout by the Democrats,” Krauthammer told Fox News. “Tonight is one of the low points that Republicans have had in the last few years. on substance, Obama not only won tax increases in tax rates for the wealthy, but he’s likely to gain another tax increase through reducing deductions in the future. So he gets a double rise in rates.” House Republicans are considering House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia to take the House’s top spot. Cantors Opposition to Biden and Mitch MaConnell is a sign that cantor has the resolve to stand up to the democrats. A source close to the situation, concluded, if enough members fail to support Beohner, we could see him step down from his position as speaker.

27 thoughts on “Will Boehner survive As Speaker; Raises Ire Of Many House Republicans”

  1. If Cantor gets elected pull out of the markets immediately to save today’s gains. With that signal by House Republicans announcing that we are going back to divisiveness and political posturing iagain in 2 months, it is almost certain that today’s and last Friday’s enthusiasm will putter and stop….

    Btw! Today, was the best stock market day of the year!

  2. You could also say that if we give in to the Democrats, and we don’t have a meaningful effort to reduce debt and spending, and quit over printing money, our credit rating will be downgraded and that could also hurt the market.

  3. The stock market is pumped-up with printed money. Gains won’t matter if, when you cash them in, the cash is worthless.

  4. The market has been bolstered by printed money for some time now. It is oversold by at least 3000 points and maybe more. When the market fails, it will be worse than last time.

  5. There is talk that the Speaker of the House does not need to be an elected Representatve in the House of Representatives. I have no idea, I haven’t had time to research that. However, some are suggesting that Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich be elected Speaker, even though they are not currently elected to the Congress.

    The markets are irrelevant because people trade on short-term news, not so much on fundamental realities. That is because “the markets” believe they can sell in 30 seconds if they want to exit. So they are hoping to ride today’s headlines, not necessarily predicting economic conditions past next week. Yes, financial professionals are trained, skilled, and supposed to analyze the economy’s prospects for the next 20 years. But in fact swings in the stock market averages occur because there is news that investors believe that alll the other investors think will move the markets. Short-term swings in the market averages are dominated by what investors think all the other investors are thinking.

    So the markets will rise on a “good news” headline even if the long-term effect is very, very bad. Investors will try to ride up the surge, and then sell next week.

  6. Jon
    “There is talk that the Speaker of the House does not need to be an elected Representatve in the House of Representatives. I have no idea, I haven’t had time to research that.”

    I’ve never heard that said before. It doesn’t make too much sense. Well, I guess it could be true, the head of the Senate is the Vice President and he is not a Senator.

  7. Jon is correct that technically, the Speaker of the House is not required to be an elected Member of the House. Neither does the Pope have to be a cardinal or even a priest. However, the chances of either event transpiring are about the same.

    The Speaker and the President reached a compromise that neither liked but which the American people demanded. The next part comes this spring with cuts, which neither should like but the American people have demanded.
    That’s sorta the definition of governance.

    Krauthammer, Norquist, et al do not run the nation. We have elected officials for that purpose. Still, it seems to me that conservative folks should be happy about making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Of course there are some who thrive on doom and gloom and half a loaf will never be satisfactory to them.

  8. Dave
    “Krauthammer, Norquist, et al do not run the nation.”

    You are right they do not run the nation and the Speaker of the House made a decision that his peers disagree with. It will probably cost him his seat but the real question is:
    Did he do the right thing and give a “tax and spend” president the upper hand and is that what republicans in America voted these representatives in office, to accomplish?
    I think not! The mid-term elections might prove my point.

  9. “is that what republicans in America voted these representatives in office, to accomplish”

    Actually, republicans did not vote these representatives in office. It was republicans, democrats, independents, and others with no affliation. In short, Americans voted them in office. In that light, did Americans vote them into office to do something, including reaching a compromise? Well, all the surveys and polls say yes that exactly what they were voted into office for. Remember, if the candidates relied only on republican voters, many would not even be in office.

  10. Dave writes in #10: “In that light, did Americans vote them into office to do something, including reaching a compromise? ”

    Well, Dave, this is what you and other liberals, moderates, RINO’s and media types seem to be incapable of understanding.

    Let me ‘splain:

    Candidate John Smith runs for office. John Smith says “IF ELECTED, I WILL DO X.”

    People vote for John Smith.

    WHY did they vote for John Smith?

    Because he said “IF YOU VOTE FOR ME, I WILL DO X.”

    So the voters:
    a) Are given clear information
    b) Are given truthful information (hopefully)
    c) Know what they are voting for
    d) Have an opportunity to choose and to make a meaningful choice
    e) Have a right to get what they voted for

    However, moderates, RINO’s, liberals and media types want to OBSCURE what the voters are getting.

    This robs the voters of their power because they cannot make a meaningful choice. Ther choice is an illusion.

    SO if a candidate runs for office by promising NOT to raise taxes….

    do you think the elected official should break his promise to the voters?

  11. In short, the voters do not expect Members of Congress to “do something.”

    Voters want them to “do” WHAT THEY PROMISED.

    Dave, how many voters are just itching to have more people in their lives LIE TO THEM ?

    You really think that voters are just hoping one more person in their life will LIE to them?

    This is what Dave Jones cannot understand about the grassroots revolt against the establishment. The GOP establshment EARNED the contempt of the grassroots, fair and square, one lie at a time.

    I had a friend who used to say that a man will easily lose $100 and not be bothered. But if you steal $10 from him, he will never forgive you and will be furious.

  12. To expand on Dave’s thoughts that voters of all parties elect an official, if a candidate says: “I WILL NOT RAISE TAXES” and Democrats vote for him, what do you think Democrats who voted for him want him to do in office?

    If he said: “I WILL NOT RAISE TAXES” and then people vote for him, what do you think they want out of him in office?

  13. They want him to govern effectively, even if it means raising taxes or perhaps they want him to govern effectively even it means cutting spending for entitlement programs. Unlike you and other LIVs, candidates who make future promises that are not based in reality, may not appeal to those voters who are more discerning. “A chicken in every pot” should not be taken literally. Of course that’s sort of the problem with literalists, everything is literal even when it’s not.

  14. Dave writes in #14: “They want him to govern effectively, even if it means raising taxes”

    That is what YOU want, Dave.

    And you have difficulty distinguishing between what you want personally and what other people want.

    A candidate coudl run on a platform of “I will not make you any promises other than to make up my mind as I go along.”

    And if that is what the voters choose, that is fine.

    But the fact is that many candidates did NOT run on that as their platform.

    No matter how hard you try to twist things, Dave, into your utopian vision of philosopher kings, you are talking about politicians who promised one thing, LIED, and are delivering another.

    You want a goverment of philosopher kings.

    You necessarily ant to neuter the voters and take away their power and transfer that power to an aristocracy of elites who are so amart and wise that they make the decisions entrely on their own, ignoring the voter.

    You are a TORY, Dave. You are in favor of an aristocracy that you see rooted in wisdom of the elite: Philosopher kings.

    Conservatives believe in the VOTERS.

    So when the voters choose a candidate who promises not to raise taxes, the voters WANT what they were PROMISED.

    Imagine if you bought canned food from the grocery store. When you take it home and open the cans, what you get is totally different from what is shown on the label.

    Will you be happy? Will you be thankful for the wisdom of the cannery at giving you what THEY decide you should eat instead of what you chose at the grocery store?

  15. Mr. Moseley,

    Why you remain fixated on a state’s politics that you know little about remains a mystery.
    However I do understand math. Being in the majority is everything. Cellar dweller’s matter not for much.
    Majorities control the agenda, etc.
    I will always take a 1/2 a loaf if it means we control the majority. Once we have that that then we get good stuff done.
    Morality is like mink, it’s great if you can afford it.
    Your exclusionary politics does just that; exclude a rapidly changing demograhic that, sadly, has become more and more dependent upon the dole.
    Their policies are sexy and easily implemented whereas ours, while better, are cumbersome to explain and implement.

  16. Well, I think some expect way too much when we only have control of the high court by 1 vote and half of the Congress. We can block most of the bad stuff, but can not pass anything without some sort of deal. That is not an excuse, it is reality. Another reality, in the new Congress, there are 200 Democrats. 18 Republicans defect and we lose. The Democrats increased the Senate majority to 53 and we lost cooperative Democrats like Nelson and Lincoln. It means they are not as pecarious as when they had 51 last session.

    In this case, all the Democrats had to do was nothing. Thanks to John McCain, Lincoln Chaffe and others, the tax cuts expired. The house voted to renew all of them. The senate would not even bring that to a vote. The President wouldn’t consider it even if it did pass. Should they have just said, well we voted right let the economy crash and burn or should they have implemented the greatest amount of good they could? From basically no leverage, they sliced the tax increase from 4.6 trillion to 600 billion or so. They saved us almost 4 trillion in tax hikes that took effect 1 January. They won a permanent fix to the AMT and Estate tax and kept the dividend tax low, which was worth the top income tax rate going up a few points on 1%. The 1% will gain more out of those 3 than they would losing them and keeping the rate lower.

    This is not half a loaf, it is 86% of a loaf when we could have lost it all. The problem is at the Democrat end of PA avenue. The Republicans fought hard to protect us. Oddly enough, if we passed plan b, we may have gained even more.

    I want the critics to tell me how they would have prevented an automatic tax hike when one house would not even vote on the bill to stop it, and even if they did, the President who ran on tax hikes and won only had to veto it? I have not heard one critic give a strategy let alone a plausible one. I hate the bill too, but I can’t think of a better solution.

  17. To Dave Jones in #16:

    The problem with pragmatism is that it never works in the real world.

    The problem with pragmatists is that they are wildly unrealistic and ignore the experience of real life.

    Dave Jones writes: “I will always take a 1/2 a loaf if it means we control the majority.”

    But thats why you never get any loaf at all. It’s like trying to sell your $100,000 house by letting everyone know you would settle for $20,000.

    For one thing, while you determine to settle for half a loaf, the other side *KNOWS* that you are ripe for the taking and willing to be pushed around.

    One of the major mistakes made by GOP insider is that they think they can control the battlefield. Remember: There are other players on the field. And they play the game BETTER than Republican insiders do. And they KNOW what you are willing to give up. So they rob you blind.

    So in pursuit of your half a loaf, you never get any of the loaf at all, except possibly some crumbs (only to fool you).

    Dave Jones writes: ” Once we have that that then we get good stuff done.”

    But the GOP insiders already had their chance.

    The reason for the grassroots revolt against the GOP establishment is the long-running failure of the establishment. It’s like Christine O’Donnell told me in 2006 with exasperation, while considering whether to run for the first time or not, (paraphrase from memory):

    Christine: “They don’t care if they lose!!! [This was March 2006] They are not even trying to win! They are perfectly happy to keep losing as long as they look good while losing.” This was March 2006. Christine’s tone of voice was extremely exasperated and frustrated saying it, with disbelief. By “look good while losing” Christine made it very clear that insiders wanted to stand for nothing, never believe in anything, and never ruffle any feathers.

  18. Hmmm…..if you can’t win with 7 million dollars, what on earth more do you need?

    7 million dollar’s……………..

  19. Dave Jones writes in #19: “Hmmm…..if you can’t win with 7 million dollars, what on earth more do you need?”

    A candidate needs MANY things other than money.

    Again, the Republican establishment is addicted to the idea that running a successful campagn = making favored campaign consultants rich.

    Successful campaigns are NOT about spending lots of money.

    But this is beside the point, because establishment insiders have nothing to offer in the abilty to win elections.

    You argue that establishment Republicans were winning elections until the conservatives interfered.

    Question: WERE THEY winning elections? Ask Jan Ting who got 29% of the vote.

    Tell us about John McCain, the man who will deliver independents for the GOP. Tell us about Mitt Romney, the perfect moderate Republican. Tell us about Bob Dole, the establishment’s candidate.

    You argue that establishment Republicans won’t raise money for the DEGOP because of conservatives.

    Question: WERE THEY raising money in the past? They raised only $212,766 for their US Senate candidate Jan Ting.

    The establishment claim credits for things the establishment never actually delivered. The establishment wants to BLUFF by putting up fake chips on the table. The establishment wants leverage in the party by claiming accompilshments the etablishment never had.

  20. Basically, Dave Jones, the insider’s mouths are writing checks their record can’t cash.

    But go ahead and SHOW US: Win elections in NCC.

    Prove that your way works. GO out there and WIN.

    Lead, follow or get out of the way.

    If you know the way, SHOW US. Go do it.

  21. “7 million dollar’s……………..”

    And that’s with about 650,000 registered voters in the entire state!

  22. Money sway’s voters less than people realize. No amount of money can overcome that gap. At best you MIGHT get a small bump(3 points or less) from the spending race. The reality is though that money’s correlation to winning candidates is not nearly representative of it’s actual effect.

  23. No matter how hard you try to twist things, Dave, into your utopian vision of philosopher kings, you are talking about politicians who promised one thing, LIED, and are delivering another.

    You want a goverment of philosopher kings.

    That’s essentially what you already have, for the most part. For example, if Bernanke and the private banking cartel had decided to raise interest rates and make people feel some pain instead of infinitely stimulating them globally for Obama Inc. then it’s unlikely that Obama would have won. But apparently it has been decided that Obama will be the front man. So now he gets to run wild with it, shifting paper ponzi this way and that.

    Just speculation…. but the image of a slave or a builder of the pyramid scheme presiding over its destruction may be useful in the end.

    If you like or are like “the base” of the Right then I wouldn’t worry too much about it. You’ll probably come raging back into power and so on and so forth when more accountability and less of the “single woman vote” or effete trendy emotional goo is perceived to be needed. (And stupid, semi-literate people too busy trampling each other to death at Walmart to read history seem to be easy to manipulate… see 9/11.)

    Republicans should get ahead of the game and advocate that the Fed attribute 1 million to the accounts of all poor people to bankrupt the system while simultaneously establishing power for themselves. They could even frame it in their own minds as being for the best because then they would supposedly have power to do the “right” thing in the end. They’d have to be careful of the decentralized media though, as it spreads like a virus. But the main stream media in general? It seems to be easy to manipulate the trends and streams of information among lemmings of that sort.

    A sample of their trends: “We know that you don’t lose Mr. President and you’re my favorite type of image as a single woman voter too. So may I kiss your butt now?”

  24. Money sway’s voters less than people realize.

    Then why do people spend billions on campaigns and advertizing campaigns to manipulate and profit from trends among lemmings?

    I actually agree… but only in so far as people are not almost functionally illiterate, stupid and ignorant.

  25. If Cantor gets elected pull out of the markets immediately to save today’s gains.

    But what will you save your gains in? Greek debt? Federal reserve “notes” in a bank account owned by Obama’s banksters? Make a note of that.

    Ironically many Americans may be in the same position as the global 1% if civilization is declining globally. I.e. there is no safe haven or hedge for your creation of wealth if no one is moral or trustworthy with respect to “full faith and credit.” The fiscal is the social…

    With that signal by House Republicans announcing that we are going back to divisiveness and political posturing iagain in 2 months, it is almost certain that today’s and last Friday’s enthusiasm will putter and stop….

    Indeed. They should probably just stimulate everyone with paper ponzi at this point. But maybe they could come full circle with it all, unlike that degenerate Bloomberg and others seeking to profit from control over others. So put a million in everyone’s accounts, stimulate everyone and have free “too big to drink” sodas for all!

    Fun times.

    Enough with the Republicans playing pretend about accountability or responsibility… they always seem to have been merely playing pretend about things with paper ponzi in a different way than the Democrats anyway.

    Btw! Today, was the best stock market day of the year!

    Yay.

    Here’s to hoping that the Republicans don’t ruin the party before installing enough cameras in the Casino to protect the profits of degenerates like Bloomberg? If everyone is gambling and no one is working to create wealth, then what? Can machines be invented fast enough to keep up with the production of wealth necessary for addicts to keep gambling and psychopaths to keep manipulating others? I doubt it.

    Plus, the surveillance state may be hacked to bits by people who don’t care about the current Right/Left paradigm in America anyway.

    Meanwhile, I guess people can try to enjoy the “stimulated” and simulated booms manipulated by the central banksters…. while trying to avoid the bust. It seems to be their rigged game that stimulates the greed/fear/death cycle. Could people charge fees for wealth redistribution while manipulating and stimulating “the base” at the bottom of a pyramid scheme with paper ponzi but then establish a police state to enforce payment back in something real? More record DHS orders for ammo incoming? (They probably need it to police the border with Mexico due to the drug cartels there being given guns by the federal government, I guess.)

    Fun times.

    Better to just love and live simply at a local level… seems to me.

  26. …there is no safe haven or hedge for your creation of wealth if no one is moral or trustworthy with respect to “full faith and credit.” The fiscal is the social…

    I would guess that gold will hold value anywhere and for all time- one of it’s prime assets is portability. Maybe those ludicrous giant gold chains and pendants aren’t such a bad idea after all.

    And don’t forget, if the Socialist-Democrat thieves get the House in ’14, you can kiss your 401k (and other retirement instruments) goodbye. You will be allowed a ‘reasonable’ yearly distribution (the principal being spent but ‘securely’ backed by a fed IOU)- for your own good, of course.

Comments are closed.