Boehner: I refuse to negotiate one-on-one with Obama anymore

posted at 9:41 pm on January 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

But … how else will we get our fill of facile political drama in the weeks leading up to the big debt-ceiling standoff? The one and only redeeming virtue of the fiscal cliff negotiations was that it produced a cheeky anecdote of one major player dropping the F-bomb on another.

Someone will still drop the F-bomb in February, right?

During both 2011 and 2012, the Speaker spent weeks shuttling between the Capitol and the White House for meetings with the president in the hopes of striking a grand bargain on the deficit.

Those efforts ended in failure, leaving Boehner feeling burned by Obama and, at times, isolated within his conference.

In closed-door meetings since leaving the “fiscal cliff” talks two weeks ago, lawmakers and aides say the Speaker has indicated he is abandoning that approach for good and will return fully to the normal legislative process in 2013 — seeking to pass bills through the House that can then be adopted, amended or reconciled by the Senate.

“He is recommitting himself and the House to what we’ve done, which is working through regular order and letting the House work its will,” an aide to the Speaker told The Hill.

He knows the debt-ceiling negotiations will be the toughest yet, with the highest likelihood of real economic damage resulting when both sides dig in and refuse to budge. Go figure that he doesn’t want to be the face of it on the Republican side. Instead he’s going to follow a version of the strategy he followed last night by presenting the caucus with options. When he tried to spearhead his own plan, Plan B, he got humiliated. When he forced the caucus to choose between prolonging the standoff by sending an amended bill back to the Senate or else letting the Senate bill come to the floor for an up-or-down vote with Democratic support, he succeeded in getting the Senate bill through and will likely keep his Speakership despite violating the “majority of the majority” rule. In other words, I’m not so sure his new strategy is aimed at rejecting Obama as much as it is rejecting his current role as the guy who’s supposed to somehow bridge the gap between establishment Republicans and tea partiers. (In fact, a Boehner aide emphasized to the Hill that he’ll continue to talk to, and meet with, O as necessary.) From now on, they can vote their way to fiscal resolutions, either by holding out until Obama caves and gives them what they want or until enough establishment GOPers break off and join with the Dems on a compromise. Besides, given how this process played out, I’m not sure O’s going to be the lead negotiator anymore for his side either.

Speaking of House Republicans in new roles, does anyone really think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds are seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich? I hasten to remind you that McCain was nominated after supporting amnesty and campaign finance reform and despite rumored flirtations in the past with the possibility of switching parties. Romney was nominated despite having been pro-choice and having signed RomneyCare into law. Republican voters in presidential primaries are either very forgiving or considerably more moderate than the sort of activists who read righty blogs, and Ryan has a leg up on the competition with them because of the name recognition he got from joining the ticket this year. He’ll have more opportunities to prove his fiscally conservative bona fides, starting with the next budget death match this spring, and if anything he may gain some bipartisan cred with squishy GOP voters for having voted with the Dems this time. I’m not saying he deserves to win, but I’ve written enough incredulous “c’mon, we’re not actually going to nominate McCain/Romney” posts in my almost seven years here to know that no one’s too heretical to get a serious look from Republican voters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Romney was never pro-choice or a progressive. He said these things because he dared to take on Kennedy in MA and couldn’t win without portraying himself as both.

So he’s a liar and a weasel?

How can you be sure he was lying when he lied in Massachusetts about being a ‘progressive’ rather than lying about being a ‘severe conservative’? Do you just sorta know, or is there something Romney does when he’s lying that helps you figure it out?

Romney was nominated because he was without question the best candidate and the only one with a prayer of beating Obama.

Basilsbest on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM

He really needs to work on this part of it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM

Romney was never pro-choice or a progressive. He said these things because he dared to take on Kennedy in MA and couldn’t win without portraying himself as both.

Which apparently goes to show that if you’re a conservative, the only hope you have of getting elected to office in Massachusetts is have Martha Coakley as your opponent.

Even Rick Snyder became governor of MICHIGAN without portraying himself as a Democrat-lite. And he’s done more for the movement than Mitt ever could have imagined. Hello, right-to-work?

Romney was nominated because he was without question the best candidate and the only one with a prayer of beating Obama.

Basilsbest on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM

And yet he still lost. Which invalidates that argument right off the bat.

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Whatever. You’d vote for Osama Bin Laden if the Republican Party ran him for President. Hypocrites.

lostmotherland on January 2, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Obama has done far more to promote Islam and Shariah than Osama ever did.

VorDaj on January 3, 2013 at 12:32 AM

Romney was [...] the only one with a prayer of beating Obama.

Basilsbest on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM

… as elucidated in exhaustive detail by the electoral savants over at UnSkewedPolls.com… so you just know it’s true!

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 12:33 AM

I don’t give a damn who the two people are doing the negotiating. that isn’t how our founders set up the damn government. suck eggs boehner and obama.

tom daschle concerned on January 2, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Can’t imagine what these two BS’rs were doing for so long up at the WH. It couldn’t have been negotiating, because Obama doesn’t negotiate. Probably clock watching until quarter past prime time, so the Speaker could do a fast run to Congress, and, as is so often the custom now, run something through without debate. And of course, it was time to return to the hula hula boys at the golf course over in hula land

The game is becoming so overt it approaches pornography

entagor on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Ryan’s non performance vs pos Biden…

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM

That was truly pitiful, the most sh*t-eating performance I’ve ever seen. Biden strutted and japed and sneered all over the stage while Ryan sat there with this placid choir-boy smile on his face. What lack of self-respect or lack of respect for your country is required to put up with that?

Something is seriously wrong with republicans these days. They just don’t care how many times they take it up the as*. They take it, and take it again. They have no pride at all, no sense of history or personal dignity. I’m sick of them beyond words.

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Romney was [...] the only one with a prayer of beating Obama.

Basilsbest on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Har, har, har. I hear 2016 coming now. “Jeb’s the only one with a prayer of beating Biden”… “Christie’s the only one with a prayer of beating Hillary…”

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 12:40 AM

Something is seriously wrong with republicans these days. They just don’t care how many times they take it up the as*.

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM

They not only refuse to put up even token resistance; they genuinely seem to enjoy it, in some perverse, counter-intuitive sort of way.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM

This after-the-fact, pathetic attempt at manning-up by Boehner is just embarrassing. Does anyone really think it’s authentic?

As for Ryan, his votes and curious excuses will easily get him the support of the GOP for the nomination. Only Christie can stand in his way, unless Rubio manages to disrespect the base even more. This is what Republicans want, folks. It’ll happen again, and we’ll all be told about “indies” and “moderates” and “hispaniclatinoswhateverthef**k” and “electability” all over again.

Dongemaharu on January 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM

That’s telling ‘em, Boehner. I’ll bet Obama is sorry now. What’s next, a kicking and screaming tantrum on the House floor?

ghostwalker1 on January 3, 2013 at 12:52 AM

And yet he still lost. Which invalidates that argument right off the bat.

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 12:30 AM

.
Are you suggesting the American electorate always elects the “Best qualified candidate” being voted on for the job?

That is naive.

Presidential politics is a prom king popularity contest. Someone to ” connect” with.

FlaMurph on January 3, 2013 at 1:08 AM

May they all combust, spontaneosly.

Schadenfreude on January 3, 2013 at 1:11 AM

Presidential politics is a prom king popularity contest. Someone to ” connect” with.

FlaMurph on January 3, 2013 at 1:08 AM

Which raises the question as to why the GOP ran the Mitt Romney…Mannequin?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 1:15 AM

Are you suggesting the American electorate always elects the “Best qualified candidate” being voted on for the job?

That is naive.

Presidential politics is a prom king popularity contest. Someone to ” connect” with.

FlaMurph on January 3, 2013 at 1:08 AM

And you can’t win a prom king popularity contest when you come off as the rich father of the privileged children, with no principles and a reluctance to take pride in what you HAVE accomplished.

Sorry, but Mitt really WAS the best person qualified to be on the Republican ticket, then we were doomed all along.

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM

Which raises the question as to why the GOP ran the Mitt Romney…Mannequin?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 1:15 AM

Dude… why insult mannequins?

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Sorry, but IF Mitt really WAS the best person qualified to be on the Republican ticket, then we were doomed all along.

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM

Correction.

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Dude… why insult mannequins?

Myron Falwell on January 3, 2013 at 1:18 AM

True. At least some of them are mildly interesting.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Speaking of House Republicans in new roles, does anyone really think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds are seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich?

Since when has merit, charisma, principle, and/or competence been a factor in the Republican Presidential nominee desired and usually chosen by the elitist RINOs running the Party?

ShainS on January 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM

Are you suggesting the American electorate always elects the “Best qualified candidate” being voted on for the job?

FlaMurph on January 3, 2013 at 1:08 AM

Legitimately E!L!E!C!T!A!B!L!E! national political candidates typically do somehow manage to win their own states; something which Mittens was demonstrably incapable of doing (both his birth state [Michigan], and the one sole state where he’d previously held office [Massachusetts]). Nor could Mittens’ handpicked running mate pick up his own home state [Wisconsin].

37 baseline EV, ineptly whizzed right down both pairs of pants legs.

Chalking up an election year belly-flop that eye-poppingly disastrous and memorable to mere vicissitudes of a “popularity contest”…?

Now, that’s genuinely naive.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Democrats do their best to make sure they have a candidate who can win. Republicans are content to go with any mutt that shows up to be their nominee. This is why republicans ended up with mccain and romney. Our best candidates didn’t run for president – jeb bush, marco rubio, and paul ryan. The RNC needs to do a better job to ensure the republican presidentital nominee is able to articulate a conservative message. Romney wasn’t able to because in his heart he was a massachusetts liberal.

philrat on January 3, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Romney was never pro-choice or a progressive. He said these things because he dared to take on Kennedy in MA and couldn’t win without portraying himself as both.

So he’s a liar and a weasel?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM

I sincerely admire your ability to still sound genuinely surprised by that, even now. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 1:36 AM

Something is seriously wrong with republicans these days. They just don’t care how many times they take it up the as*. They take it, and take it again. They have no pride at all, no sense of history or personal dignity. I’m sick of them beyond words.

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Well said, hope you see this tomorrow. I want to shake your hand.

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2013 at 1:44 AM

Republican voters in presidential primaries are either very forgiving or considerably more moderate than the sort of activists who read righty blogs sidelined by a system which allows Independents and Democrats to vote in our primaries the early states, many of which are Blue States, in a winner take all scenario while the Conservative voters have to wait forever to give out their delegates piecemeal to whatever schmuck the Left has already chosen for us,

Fixed it for you.

Theophile on January 3, 2013 at 1:45 AM

So he’s a liar and a weasel?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM

I sincerely admire your ability to still sound genuinely surprised by that, even now. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 1:36 AM

I am genuinely surprised that someone would trot this out as a defense?

Romney not a progressive, he was lying! He lies all the time, so don’t be so foolish to actually believe a word he says!

How is this a defense?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 1:46 AM

Something is seriously wrong with republicans these days. They just don’t care how many times they take it up the as*.

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM

They not only refuse to put up even token resistance; they genuinely seem to enjoy it, in some perverse, counter-intuitive sort of way.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Sort of sounds like how the rainbow boyz are.

platypus on January 3, 2013 at 1:47 AM

Boehner: I refuse to negotiate one-on-one with Obama anymore

…”until I cry… swear…and change my mind!”

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2013 at 1:51 AM

How is this a defense?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 1:46 AM

My personal, all-time favorite spavined Team Mittens attempt at rhetorical ju jitsu is the tried and true: “Well, of course he couldn’t actually govern as a genuine conservative while in Massachusetts, you big sillies! There were all sorts of liberals and whatnot hanging around there at the time, for heaven’s sake — !!!”

This wheeze was actually, for real, no foolies, routinely huffed by MittSycophants — on this message board, and elsewhere — as a legitimately substantive reason for blind faith in Mittens’ inherent, deep down conservatism, mind you: that it invariably became flaccid and ineffectual, whenever confronted by even the suggestion of opposition from the political left. Or something like that.

I always snickered whenever I heard/read it (as any rational, thinking adult naturally would)… but: there was always a knife’s edge of dismay, underlying, that even a single purported “conservative,” somewhere, might actually be stone gullible enough to swallow that sort of codswallop, for whatever reason.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 1:59 AM

“John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” Reid said Thursday, claiming the chamber was “being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker.”

No wonder Boehner told him to go F himself.

Paul-Cincy on January 2, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Yes, agreed.

Boehner is doing the job of the Speaker as if there are rules that apply to the job and to the Congress. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s trying to interact with people, Reid, the Dems overall, who don’t CARE about the rules of behavior and limitations on their jobs.

Refusing to meet privately with Obama from here on out sounds like Boehner understands he’s been played like a barmaid in a flop house.

I said this long ago and I’ve never been more proven right than lately about this: Obama is NOT a nice person, he’s not the cool-character he presents to the public when he wants to court and spark (and thereby to manipulate people). He’s not a nice person, he’s a creepy snake.

Reid, well, he’s the snake’s old skin.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:04 AM

I always snickered whenever I heard/read it (as any rational, thinking adult naturally would)… but: there was always a knife’s edge of dismay, underlying, that even a single purported “conservative,” somewhere, might actually be stone gullible enough to swallow that sort of codswallop, for whatever reason.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 1:59 AM

Most of them did swallow it and most of them did vote for the guy. They attacked anyone who dared to point out Romney’s actual record over the years. I understand that they were desperate to believe, but at some point you should look at what is right in front of you.

I think that for most they did know Romney was a fake, but he sort of became ‘their‘ fake.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:07 AM

Our best candidates didn’t run for president – jeb bush, marco rubio, and paul ryan…

philrat on January 3, 2013 at 1:31 AM

No way. While I agree in retrospect about McCain, whole-heartedly about McCain, and now about Romney (because he lost, I’ve since moved on), Jeb Bush, his Minnie Me, Rubio and now even Paul Ryan are NOT “our best candidates.”

I mean, Jeb Bush might win over the Left (because they can use him) but he isn’t the “best candidate” for the Right, nor is Rubio, nor is Ryan after seeing his overall voting record (including this last one from Dec. 31).

Let these abacus-wonders do their labors on budgets and on whiteboards but let them stay away from the Presidency. I think it takes a Leftwing person to “win” on a GOP ticket to the House, for the most part, which explains why the GOP House is caving too quickly if at all to Obama’s political gaming: they’re still trying to keep favor with a snake.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM

I think that for most they did know Romney was a fake, but he sort of became ‘their‘ fake.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:07 AM

sharrukin, seriously, move on, already. The rest of us realize that Romney lost. That election already happened.

Move on, already. I realize your animus about Romney runs deep but move on, for Pity’s sake. Let it go. Get into solutions.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

Speaking of House Republicans in new roles, does anyone really think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds are seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich?

Since when has merit, charisma, principle, and/or competence been a factor in the Republican Presidential nominee desired and usually chosen by the elitist RINOs running the Party?

ShainS on January 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM

I think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds ARE seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich. Ryan’s now accrued an inexplicably undermining voting record as to being again considered “Right” or “Conservative.”

I like his VALUES but he’s seriously skewered his future opportunities for higher office. I’m very, very disappointed in him, to state the least.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM

How many times did they have to hit Boehner over the head with that Louisville Slugger before he finally realized he had no chance, evah?

Another Drew on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Move on, already. I realize your animus about Romney runs deep but move on, for Pity’s sake. Let it go. Get into solutions.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

My hostility for Romney is the same hostility I have for all liberals. I don’t like them and I don’t like what they do, nor do I like the results of their policies. So, no I will not move on and I won’t give them a cheap pass because they happen to wear a Red Jersey, because I don’t care. I don’t care what party they belong to. Republican progressive or Democratic progressive arrives at the same result.

Part of the solution is to STOP DOING THE SAME IDIOTIC THING AGAIN AND AGAIN. Romney is not something new. He’s Herbert Walker Bush, he’s Bob Dole, he’s John McCain, he’s Scott Brown, he’s Jeb Bush, he’s John Boehner, he’s the same guy, with the same failed policies and the same disastrous results even if he wins an election like George Bush did.

Romney winning the election, or losing the election is a disaster. And no I don’t think that you do get it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

The two guys who should be heading the GOP contingent in any joint House-Senate negotiations with the WH are Rand Paul, and Tom McClintock.

Another Drew on January 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM

The rest of us realize that Romney lost.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

Tragically, there are still too many rote GOP robots and mulishly obdurate CINO apologists who steadfastly refuse — even after losing in precisely the same manner, in two consecutive elections — to recognize the politically suicidal reasons why we lost both times, and effect credible, effective solutions to same.

Unless and until said problem is thoroughly remedied: the GOP will never win another national election. The fact that this is an undeniably hard truth does nothing whatsoever, sadly, to render it one whit less an essential one.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

Part of the solution is to STOP DOING THE SAME IDIOTIC THING AGAIN AND AGAIN. Romney is not something new. He’s Herbert Walker Bush, he’s Bob Dole, he’s John McCain, he’s Scott Brown, he’s Jeb Bush, he’s John Boehner, he’s the same guy, with the same failed policies and the same disastrous results even if he wins an election like George Bush did.

Romney winning the election, or losing the election is a disaster. And no I don’t think that you do get it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Great (and rational) minds think alike. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM

“John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” Reid said Thursday, claiming the chamber was “being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker.”

I thought Harry was speaking about himself.

Another Drew on January 3, 2013 at 2:31 AM

Great (and rational) minds think alike. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM

And fools never differ! :)

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

Great (and rational) minds think alike. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM

And fools never differ! :)

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

“Save the cheerleader, save the wor — ” No… no, wait. That’s not it… ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:36 AM

And no I don’t think that you do get it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

You Ronulans have a history of ruining just about everyone and every thing. You’re mired in the perspective of: “let’s do the impossible by not doing it and making sure no one else can or does.”

You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. And many a Ronulan hates the GOP with the same burning emotion with which they voted for Obama.

I’m rather pleased, from your perspective, that I “don’t get it.”

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:45 AM

And no I don’t think that you do get it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

It would be nice to read from you something that was constructive instead of your ongoing destructiveness about “Romney”.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:46 AM

Great (and rational) minds think alike. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM

And fools never differ! :)

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

^^ personal insults. I win.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:47 AM

The rest of us realize that Romney lost.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

Tragically, there are still too many rote GOP robots and mulishly obdurate CINO apologists who steadfastly refuse — even after losing in precisely the same manner, in two consecutive elections — to recognize the politically suicidal reasons why we lost both times, and effect credible, effective solutions to same.

Unless and until said problem is thoroughly remedied: the GOP will never win another national election. The fact that this is an undeniably hard truth does nothing whatsoever, sadly, to render it one whit less an essential one.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

Yes, but trashing and thrashing Republicans won’t accomplish anything except to layer on the work of the Left’s.

Careful who you carry water for. And try and move into SOLUTIONS as quickly as possible after you lose instead of trying to whip losers into some sort of increased shame and incompletence.

The condemnation of the GOP never accomplishes anything except that it emoldens Leftwing nuts like Obama and his supporters, and, it depletes enthusiasm to continue to support candidates who are, at least, not Left.

I understand the anger at and about failure but the way to be CONSTRUCTIVE about that instead of destructive is to move onto constructive, creative ideas and support for others who are trying to do likewise.

“sharrukin” has been hating on Romney at great length here in comments for years. At some point, the question needs to be asked what the obsession is and why there’s nothing more offered.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:51 AM

Move on, already. I realize your animus about Romney runs deep but move on, for Pity’s sake. Let it go. Get into solutions.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM

My hostility for Romney is the same hostility I have for all liberals. I don’t like them and I don’t like what they do, nor do I like the results of their policies. So, no I will not move on and I won’t give them a cheap pass because they happen to wear a Red Jersey, because I don’t care. I don’t care what party they belong to. Republican progressive or Democratic progressive arrives at the same result.

Part of the solution is to STOP DOING THE SAME IDIOTIC THING AGAIN AND AGAIN. Romney is not something new. He’s Herbert Walker Bush, he’s Bob Dole, he’s John McCain, he’s Scott Brown, he’s Jeb Bush, he’s John Boehner, he’s the same guy, with the same failed policies and the same disastrous results even if he wins an election like George Bush did.

Romney winning the election, or losing the election is a disaster. And no I don’t think that you do get it.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

This election was 1980 against a failed and feckless Jimmy Carter … and we ran George H. W. Bush instead of Ronald Reagan.

The result wasn’t really surprising. The miracle is that we ever had a President Reagan. There were plenty in the Republican party who really wanted Bush to be the nominee instead.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2013 at 2:54 AM

You Ronulans have a history of ruining just about everyone and every thing.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:45 AM

You don’t get it. I don’t like Ron Paul.

I am something called a conservative. It’s a strange creature that despite what you have been told isn’t just a part of myth and legend. We still actually exist. Leftovers from before the days of the Neocons, back even before ‘compassionate conservatism’, before the dawn of the “kinder gentler” conservatism of HW Bush.

Unlike the newer, more hip conservatives, we don’t actually believe in liberalism, or progressive ideas. That doesn’t make us much fun at parties but it also means we don’t immediately start crying when someone tells us that our policies might make a kitten sad. So it’s a trade-off.

Guys like Boehner and Romney believe in liberalism and they have already lost the battle before it even begins because they have already granted the superior moral claims to the left. It’s over before it even begins and we have just seen a demonstration of that with Boehner.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM

^^ personal insults. I win.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:47 AM

Oh, come now. “Fools never differ” is an aphorism with a definite, long established meaning of which you are (evidently) unaware; particularly as it was not even directed towards you, but (instead) me. (Comment @2:34)

Breathe, for pity’s sake. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

The result wasn’t really surprising. The miracle is that we ever had a President Reagan. There were plenty in the Republican party who really wanted Bush to be the nominee instead.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2013 at 2:54 AM

They tried to sabotage him with Anderson, and I think they were genuinely worried about his popularity the same way that the Tea Party bothered them. Reagan had to compromise by choosing Bush as his VP and one can only dream of what might have been if he had chosen otherwise.

I think the GOP has more in common with the Democrats than they do their own base.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:59 AM

And fools never differ! :)

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:34 AM

^^ personal insults. I win.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:47 AM

Oh, come now. “Fools never differ” is an aphorism with a definite, long established meaning of which you are (evidently) unaware; particularly as it was not even directed towards you, but (instead) me. (Comment @2:34)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 2:57 AM

It basically means that both these people could be equally brilliant, hence the similarity in their brilliant ideas (great minds think alike). Before they get all carried away though, the saying goes on to remind them that a possible explanation is that they are both equally stupid (fools seldom differ).

I think you could argue that it might very well apply to her?

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM

I think the GOP has more in common with the Democrats than they do their own base.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 2:59 AM

I think all they want is political power, and they’re convinced the best way to accomplish that is to position themselves just slightly to the right of the Democrats. Romney supporters said it all when they said, “Of course the conservatives will vote for Romney. What choice do they have?”

In effect, though, it means … the GOP has more in common with the Democrats than they do their own base.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2013 at 3:06 AM

Yes, but trashing and thrashing Republicans won’t accomplish anything except to layer on the work of the Left’s.

Lourdes on January 3, 2013 at 2:51 AM

Precisely the politically suicidal mind-set to which I specifically made reference, above.

You’re conflating conservatism with Republicanism. That’s a core, baseline exercise in logical solecism so fundamentally at odds with both history and simple, everyday observable reality, it cannot possibly do anything but lead one into catastrophic, irreversible error. GIGO (“Garbage In, Garbage Out“), as they say in programming circles.

Pointing that out IS, by any sane and rational definition, “constructive.” There’s no reason to expect those on the receiving end of such correction, however needful, to love one for doing so, certainly… but: brute reality remains inviolable, regardless.

You handle things however best pleases you, on your own end; I’ll be doing likewise, on mine, sans your blessings or otherwise.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 3:10 AM

I think all they want is political power, and they’re convinced the best way to accomplish that is to position themselves just slightly to the right of the Democrats.

I have a suspicion that most of the difference between the GOP and the Democrats can be laid at the door of their respective audiences. A more conservative audience and you get the GOP.

The Democrats seem slightly different in that they believe in what they are doing and push it despite a lack of popularity for many of their policies.

Romney supporters said it all when they said, “Of course the conservatives will vote for Romney. What choice do they have?”

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2013 at 3:06 AM

It didn’t work that way though. Didn’t work out for McCain’s and his Nativist Hobbits either.

sharrukin on January 3, 2013 at 3:11 AM

Romney supporters said it all when they said, “Of course the conservatives will vote for Romney. What choice do they have?”

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2013 at 3:06 AM

A happy conceit from which they’ll doubtless derive near-infinite amounts of warmth and emotional succor, whilst celebrating joyously during the incoming Romney administration’s triumphal inaugural.

And much good may it do them. ;)

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 3:14 AM

… oh, and one more thing about all of this pious, pre-emptive “OOOOOooooooh, you’re just not being consTRUCTive, darn you!” bravo sierra:

CINOs aggressively hectoring/tantruming throughout the primaries on benighted behalf of a candidate who’d been unsuccessfully running for public office, off and on, for 18 y-e-a-r-s; had denounced Reagan (by name) and conservatives, more than once; and deliberately ran hard to the left of the single most egregiously socialist Democrat in the U.S. Senate — NOT. “CONSTRUCTIVE.”

You continually force Doles, McCains and Romneys upon the rest of us. You continually lose winnable elections, as a direct and demonstrable result.

This has not, I assure you, been lost upon a substantial (and growing) number of us.

Unless and until you actually start winning again, rather than simply handing the gleeful Dems one easy, unearned electoral cakewalk after another: you have nothing to say on the topics of “electability” and “being constructive” that we either need or want to hear.

Kent18 on January 3, 2013 at 4:50 AM

Yeah, and I’m going to lose weight, quit smoking and work out 4 times a week this year.

MJBrutus on January 3, 2013 at 4:52 AM

I guess I know the feeling, when Jugears starts talking I mute the sound or change the channel. He has nothing to say that I want to bother with. Not my President, never has been, never will be.

stormridercx4 on January 3, 2013 at 4:58 AM

“I think all they want is political power, and they’re convinced the best way to accomplish that is to position themselves just slightly to the right of the Democrats.”

Unfortunately, few will vote for Santa Claus lite when Santa Claus premium is also on the ballot.

tommyboy on January 3, 2013 at 6:28 AM

Here is a study of the Crier of the House…and how he got to where he is.

kingsjester on January 3, 2013 at 7:03 AM

Boehner: I refuse to negotiate one-on-one with Obama anymore

“It always leave with my woman parts sore.”

onomo on January 3, 2013 at 7:17 AM

The 2016 field should be much stronger hopefully with Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Rand Paul (who is smoother and less nutty than his father) and a few others. Paul Ryan is going to have a harder time than McCain or Romney had it. He gets outclassed in looks by Rubio, in conservatism by Jindal, in actual accomplishments by Walker, in economic freedom by Rand Paul, even that big mouth traitor Christie will outclass him for the Rhino vote. All of them are better speakers and have more charisma.

Umm.. The only one that I actually agree with you on is Rubio. I don’t think that Jindal can be called a conservative or perhaps conservatives are just battered wives who enjoy being called names by potential champions. Walker doesn’t run if Ryan does; those two are BFFs, so I don’t see both running and think Ryan would really like to be President. Rand Paul will inherit his father’s 10% of the vote and continue to run every four years just ’cause. Christie is a blowhard who isn’t going to flame out spectacularly. As for the last sentence, you actually believe that Bobby Jindal has charisma and is a good speaker?? Seriously, the guy basically blew his 2012 chances with his Kenneth the Page SOTU response.

As for Obama 2.0, Rubio is the ultimate American Idol candidate. Since running for President now resembles a calling in talent singing contest with the median viewer age of 12, this is really important. This annoys me, which is why I’d prefer the more substantive guy.

Illinidiva on January 3, 2013 at 7:39 AM

Since when did Boo-hoo Boehner ever negotiate? My take is a typical meeting went like this:

Boehner: “We oppose this, Mr. President.”

Obama: “I won.”

Boehner: “Yes, that’s true. Never mind…”

Liam on January 3, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Time for a replacement.

albill on January 3, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Rule #1: Never negotiate with Obama without witnesses present.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Time for a replacement.

albill on January 3, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Yep, that too. Boehner as Speaker is waaaay over his head.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:30 AM

We ALWAYS mute the current President.

If they play a clip on the radio I turn the volume down to mute or change the channel. If I see him on TV we change the channel or turn it off.

Note to Conservative radio: if you play audio clips of Obama……you lost the Possum Holler audience.

PappyD61 on January 3, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Having Boehner as Speaker is like having a knife in a gun fight.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:34 AM

We ALWAYS mute the current President.

PappyD61 on January 3, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Same here.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Having Boehner as Speaker is like having a knife in a gun fight.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:34 AM

And using the knife on yourself before the other guy shoots you.

Liam on January 3, 2013 at 8:38 AM

I guess Boehner’s job is done, he’s given Obama everything he wanted.

bflat879 on January 3, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Liam on January 3, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Right. The cluelessness is not just painful. It’s an embarrassment.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I wonder how the RNC fund raising is coming along? Well, since Boehner latest cave…

Mr. Arrogant on January 3, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Hey Speaker (for the time being): what you would have know ages ago that Barry BAMSTAHHHHHHH!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMMMMY BABYYYY!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLL!!!!!! YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Ding2, 2013 at PM

cableguy615 on January 3, 2013 at 8:48 AM

I keep reading things on these blogs like the following: Romney, Dole, G Bush the Ist, all forced on the public by “the establishment” and they are not Conservative enough to win.

First, I don’t think that we can win right now given that the media power to reach masses of Americans is in liberal hands. I can’t blame Romney, when conservatives would yell and scream at him not to go on Today show, The View, abc/nbc/cbs when he was trying to reach those people. But they would do a great interview, then selectively pull out some Gotcha from it, like Romney doesn’t really want to be president, or Mrs. Romney you don’t really want to run right? and then put whatever it is in the liberal megaphone. Almost all coverage of Romney was negative.

But secondly, if anyone has the idea, what conservative message should Romney Ryan have persued in the BattleGround states that they did not? If a voter wanted to see it, all you had to do was look on the web page at the You Tube videos to get the messages. Romney had no power over the negative ads run against him. That will be true with the next candidate also. Romney won Red states by no less than 55%, in most cases well into 60% of the vote.

In Indiana, Romney won by 55% talking economy, Mourdock lost.
In Missouri, Romney won by more than 60%, and Akins lost. He even tried to save those guys at the last minute with ads asking for them to bring up the numbers in the Senate. What conservative message should he have tried there when he already won the state? I don’t agree that he did not press a conservative message. Paul Ryan did too, and was articulate. Today’s mess could only been cured by a Romney, but the media told the populous that The One had fixed the economy, it only needed a little more time.

So, I would appreciate examples, and please don’t tell me about the third party candidate in VA that wanted to be a spoiler. That is going to be used to win against conservatives, in the future too, and many who are “righteous” and like-to-loose masochists, will say blah blah blah on that. Since those are not serious arguments.

In the battleground states, the conservative vote was banked, especially with the elderly, and not counted for two weeks after the election. They showed up and voted early, I don’t want to hear that they did not show up, Romney BEAT McCain in vote totals. What you have to figure out, is how to get the non voters to the polls to vote conservatively. Look in your community and find them and start now. The unions pick them up with buses and tell them how to vote (D down the column) and give them a gift for getting on the bus. The spin is that Romney wasn’t conservative enough to win. He was TOO American traditional conservative to win the popularity contest, too polo shirts and country clubs for today’s hate-filled underclass. Not cool enough for the cool, identity seeking liberals.

The funny thing is, those are things that the media doesn’t like about Boehner too…except he reminds them he grew up from nothing, and begins to cry…I think they like that crying on tv now. I am glad he is giving up on negotiations with Obama, I want bills, I want campaigns to make the Senate pass them. It is time for the 501c’s to spend money educating the public.

Fleuries on January 3, 2013 at 8:53 AM

I know this has been going around. The numbers are over a year old. All they did was take off 8 zeros to understand the numbers better.

Why the GOP hasn’t bothered to do this is beyond me… and bring it to the American people.. pound this with a sledge hammer until Americans understand what is going on. They don ‘t seem to understand how to communicate. How to sell a message. Telling the freaking truth is offensive to the Republicans.

Why S&P Downgraded the US:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277873/bringing-budget-numbers-down-size-carrie-lukas#

You know… I bet Boehner could run rings around Obama and the Democrats if he wanted. With all of his years in Washington and knowledge of the House.. if he wanted to he could do a lot. Obama is full of himself. Obama has so many weaknesses and flaws. Narcissists always do. They entire freaking Democrat party is a corrupt hypocritical party. How many in charge haven’t even paid their own taxes until they were caught… and yet the GOP does nothing with this.

JellyToast on January 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Why should he negotiate with Pres. Obama when he can just have Pelosi do it for him?

Blaise on January 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM

When it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, they should refuse to do so until the Senate passes a budget.

The Rogue Tomato on January 3, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Boehner just saying this to get re-elected Speaker.

WannabeAnglican on January 3, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I refuse to negotiate one-on-one with obama anymore

Uh, bending over every time obama winks at you, is not exactly “negotiating”.

Pork-Chop on January 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Boehner just saying this to get re-elected Speaker.

WannabeAnglican on January 3, 2013 at 9:09 AM

You’re probably right. Just like the “FU” statement to Reid. All of a sudden before his vote he starts sounding tough.

JellyToast on January 3, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Too late, Boehner, you dumb motherf*cker. You brought a pen knife to a gunfight. If you’re still SOH at the end of this month, then look for a 3rd party to form in 2013.

PD Quig on January 3, 2013 at 9:27 AM

You’d vote for Osama Bin Laden if the Republican Party ran him for President. Hypocrites.

lostmotherland on January 2, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Especially since you can’t prove bin Laden’s actually dead, right?

Washington Nearsider on January 3, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Obama has done far more to promote Islam and Shariah than Osama ever did.

VorDaj on January 3, 2013 at 12:32 AM

Whoo Boy! Statement of the year! (But then, the year has only begun…)

HiJack on January 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Okay, sure.

shar61 on January 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Speaking of House Republicans in new roles, does anyone really think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds are seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich?

No Ryan – no more wonks. You don’t hire an accountant for an intervention with a crackhead because he’s broke from buying blow. We need someone who can explain and sell conservatism in a way that this dumbass country can understand. Rubio or Paul.

The Count on January 3, 2013 at 9:38 AM

“He is recommitting himself and the House to what we’ve done, which is working through regular order and letting the House work its will,” an aide to the Speaker told The Hill.

Even if true *cough* I’ll believe when I see it *cough*, it’s too little too late, Boehner-boy.

totherightofthem on January 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Amazing, boner and his pal, obamasatan spend like drunken sailors, now he says he’s moving right to save his job.

BONER HAS TO GO! NO CANTOR, WE NEED A TRUE CONSERVATIVE AS SPEAKER!

Danielvito on January 3, 2013 at 10:09 AM

If the Rs in the House would do their damn job according to the way the Constitution and House rules demand, then they wouldn’t have to worry about negotiating with someone who doesn’t negotiate or want to. Why do the talking heads keep saying that the govt is dysfunctional, because it is. It would be like playing a football game with ever changing rules. Nobody can win unless you’re the rule changer.

Kissmygrits on January 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM

BOLDFACED LIES BOEHNER HAS TOLD IN ONLY THE LAST TWO YEARS …

“Next week – we are going to cut $100 BILLION from this years budget, WRITE THAT DOWN – $100 BILLION and we won’t stop there!”

Result – he cut 400 err … MILLION.

“We’re gonna kick their asses!”

Result – He got HIS ass kicked.

“This violation of religious freedom – WILL NOT STAND!!”

Result – The mandate for contraceptive insurance coverage is still … er, STANDING.

“I refuse to negotiate one-on-one with Obama anymore”

Result – we ALL know how this one will turn out!!

HondaV65 on January 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM

…will return fully to the normal legislative process in 2013…

Sorry, Martha Stewart, but I see this as “a Good Thing”

osborn4 on January 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Boehner is finally doing what he should have done long since, in returning to regular order. Let the Democrats introduce, amend and vote, instead of these faux crises where people “reluctantly” vote in order to “save the country from greater pain”. That’s entirely BS and, now, we will see who supports what.

Start with the debt ceiling Mr Speaker. Introduce the stripped down basic bill right now, and let the committee and amendment process begin. That’ll end these crap sandwiches once and ofr all.

MTF on January 3, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Boehner is finally doing what he should have done long since, in returning to regular order. Let the Democrats introduce, amend and vote, instead of these faux crises where people “reluctantly” vote in order to “save the country from greater pain”. That’s entirely BS and, now, we will see who supports what.

Start with the debt ceiling Mr Speaker. Introduce the stripped down basic bill right now, and let the committee and amendment process begin. That’ll end these crap sandwiches once and ofr all.

MTF on January 3, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Amen.

If return to constitutional process is the end result of Foehner’s butthurt, then the crap sandwich is actually a win for America.

cane_loader on January 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

What did Harry Reid do on floor of the Senate yesterday when no one was watching?

This

It starts at 05:03:20…very near the end of the session.

BobMbx on January 3, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Having Boehner as Speaker is like waving a knife counseling pamphlet in a gun fight.

petefrt on January 3, 2013 at 8:34 AM

He’s not under-armed, he’s unarmed.

BobMbx on January 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM

arnold ziffel on January 3, 2013 at 1:44 AM

Thank you. Likewise.

rrpjr on January 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Nice one, Boehner. Talk about being a day late and dollar short.

batter on January 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM

What did Harry Reid do on floor of the Senate yesterday when no one was watching?

This

It starts at 05:03:20…very near the end of the session.

BobMbx on January 3, 2013 at 11:13 AM

And where were the Republicans? Out playing golf with Obama?

What prevents Harry from just passing any law he wants at the end of a session. “Any objections? (empty chamber except Harry Reid)” “No objections?” “All for?” Harry says “Yea!” “The yeas have it. The law is passed.”

JellyToast on January 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

It’s not Boehner’s incompetence or (I prefer) complicity, any more than it is Obama’s.
Both men were elected by the failed democratic process where evil wishes are rewarded and voters are openly solicited and bought by selling out America, God, the family and all responsible citizens in order to destroy it.
The GOP is merely the flip side of the leftist ruling class coin: they pretend to be conservative for votes, while the left openly solicits votes from the morally corrupt.
It was a nice sounding experiment that went sour about the time we tossed out God with nary a whimper.

Don L on January 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Speaking of House Republicans in new roles, does anyone really think Paul Ryan’s 2016 odds are seriously damaged because he voted yes on this shinola sandwich?

Since when has merit, charisma, principle, and/or competence been a factor in the Republican Presidential nominee desired and usually chosen by the elitist RINOs running the Party?

ShainS on January 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM

And all the patsies on conservative web sites will call anyone who fails to support the elitist RINO de jour will be labelled a troll for daring to speak the necessary truth.

Mitt told the conservatives to “stuff it” when he early one publicly said they’ll have to get on board anyway.

The problem dear friends, as Pogo said-0-is us!

Don L on January 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Alternate Headline: “Noted Checkers Player Refuses to Play Chess Anymore”

NickelAndDime on January 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Republican voters in presidential primaries are either very forgiving or considerably more moderate than the sort of activists who read righty blogs

It is quite simple. Republicans want to win. And they are told non-stop that the only way to win is by nominating the mini-statist who doesn’t promote or propose free market and individualist policies and principles.

This, despite all evidence to the contrary that these unprincipled politicians never win because they can’t form a coherent argument as to why anyone should actually vote for them. It’s like the Democrats and their statism/socialism – this time it will work because they are in charge, despite the long history of failure (and corpses).

besser tot als rot on January 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3