House Dems vow to protect Boehner from a conservative coup

posted at 11:21 am on March 6, 2015 by Allahpundit

After Tuesday’s big cave on amnesty, with more than two-thirds of his own caucus opposing the bill he brought to the floor, it’s really the least Democrats can do.

John Boehner, Democratic Speaker of the House.

Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process — already limping along — to a screeching halt.

“I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills…

“Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come on,” said [Rep. Raul] Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “We can be suicidal, but not stupid.”…

Other Democrats suggested they would side with Boehner for one simple reason: They’re hoping to move bipartisan legislation this Congress and see Boehner as a more moderate leader with a penchant for compromise. 

It takes a majority of the whole House to oust him so if Democrats aren’t willing to play ball with tea partiers on this, there’s not a prayer of dumping him. But … why wouldn’t Democrats play ball? If I were Pelosi and staring at five more years of Republican rule in the House (at a minimum), I’d be thinking less about ways to entrench the GOP majority with successful bipartisan bills and more about how to convince voters that the party’s at war with itself and incapable of governing. The obvious way to do that is to join in ousting Boehner, see him replaced by a conservative like Scalise (or a squishier conservative like Kevin McCarthy), and then watch the new Speaker dig in against everyone — including Mitch McConnell, who’ll be pushing back against tea-party pressure by urging House Republicans to compromise with the Senate, and with Democrats, on major legislation. The worst-case scenario for Pelosi after all that is that the new Speaker quickly betrays the right and joins her, McConnell, and Reid to get bills to Obama’s desk, leaving conservative morale crushed. Best-case scenario: The new Speaker ends up butting heads over and over with McConnell and his Senate caucus, producing 18 more months of gridlock but jumpstarting a juicy media narrative about Republican civil war and paralysis which Democrats can run on in 2016. That won’t put Pelosi back in the majority (yet) but it’s something to build on in 2018 and 2020.

The Democratic argument for keeping Boehner in place, as noted in the excerpt, is that a more conservative Speaker will be less likely to compromise, killing any hope of a big bipartisan deal on tax reform or immigration before Obama leaves office. I wonder, though, how likely even Boehner will be to compromise as we get closer to the presidential election. If Republican presidential candidates spend the next six months bashing comprehensive immigration reform and then Boehner and McConnell strike a grand bargain on amnesty, that’ll make for some awfully awkward party messaging. Scott Walker and Marco Rubio are already desperately trying to walk back their prior support for comprehensive reform; what spin do they roll out if Boehner turns around this fall and makes a deal with Democrats on a bill? If you believe, as many do, that bold legislative moves from Congress will become less likely as we get closer to the election then Democrats would really be losing nothing by joining tea partiers to oust Boehner. There’s going to be gridlock whether Boehner’s in charge or Scalise is in charge. Might as well go with the latter and make conservatives own it.

Maybe Pelosi’s playing a long game here. There’s a better chance that Republicans will control all of government after the next election than there is that Democrats will, thanks to the GOP’s stranglehold on the House. If Scott Walker ends up getting elected and Republicans hold on to a majority in the Senate, the only thing stopping the GOP from enacting whatever laws it wants is the filibuster, and McConnell could go ahead and nuke that at any time. Pelosi may be thinking that her best hope of moderating whatever comes out of a Republican Congress under President Walker is to have a centrist like John Boehner playing gatekeeper. Better to leave him in place and forfeit the short-term “GOP civil war” strategy than dump him for Scalise and have tea partiers effectively in charge of legislation circa 2017.

Exit question: Are we sure that Boehner is less likely to do a deal on immigration reform as we get closer to the election? Like I said, it would be confounding to GOP messaging … but his pals in the donor class would love, love, love it, and although it would place the presidential field in a bind temporarily, it would also give them a way to pander to two key groups. During the primaries, Rubio could impress conservatives by saying, “I oppose this deal. We should have gotten stronger guarantees for border security before proceeding to legalization.” And then, during the general election, he could impress Latino voters by saying, “Although I disagreed with elements of Congress’s new immigration act, I risked my own political life to try to pass comprehensive reform in 2013. As president, I’ll do my best to execute the law in a way that improves border security and brings hard-working immigrants out of the shadows.” Why pander to one core constituency when you can pander to two? An immigration deal would allow Republican candidates to pander to both, assuming they did it smartly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They are vastly more inclusive (though nowhere near perfect, they can and should do much better).

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 2:42 PM

Why is inclusion considered equality? It isn’t, it’s actually special privilege, the majority is making a very special warm place so the minority can lay it’s weary little head in comfort. How is that equality? You demand special treatment in the name of equality, but true equality is indifference.

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 5:46 PM

I have a feeling you won’t see much for from Tlaloc in this thread.. I win, indeed.

What a simpering child.

ShadowsPawn on March 6, 2015 at 5:56 PM

House Dems vow to protect Boehner from a conservative coup

IOW, the RINOs’ closest political ally is the Dems.

Why bother voting GOP?

farsighted on March 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM

Why is inclusion considered equality? It isn’t, it’s actually special privilege, the majority is making a very special warm place so the minority can lay it’s weary little head in comfort. How is that equality? You demand special treatment in the name of equality, but true equality is indifference.

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 5:46 PM

Inclusion isn’t the same thing as equality but it certainly helps. Having minorities on the team means they can express their views. Why is it do you think that the right is so incredibly patronizing to minorities?

You say “true equality is indifference” that’s a very easy sentiment for a privileged member of the majority to make because it pretends that there are no systematic barriers. It pretends that if we just left everyone alone they’d all have a fair shot. Reality is quite different.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:33 PM

I have a feeling you won’t see much for from Tlaloc in this thread.. I win, indeed.

What a simpering child.

ShadowsPawn on March 6, 2015 at 5:56 PM

Um, okay.

I had to go out. Now I’m back. You have something in particular you want me to respond to?

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:34 PM

No tlaloc I’m a member of neither party. I just love how you try and act like you used to be racist, yeah like that just stops.

bbinfl on March 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM

If you are talking about the old history of racist dems you are talking about things that happened before I was born. So, yeah, I’m fully comfortable with not taking responsibility for them.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:38 PM

House Dems vow to protect Boehner from a conservative

coup

IOW, the RINOs’ closest political ally is the Dems.

Why bother voting GOP?

farsighted on March 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM

David Burge @iowahawkblog · 2h 2 hours ago

We don’t need a third party, we need a second party http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/06/house-dems-vow-to-protect-boehner-from-a-conservative-coup/

davidk on March 6, 2015 at 6:40 PM

This is why I’m a registered Independent and not a Republican.

TarheelBen on March 6, 2015 at 6:46 PM

Says someone who has already proven themselves to be pro-theft, pro-murder and pro-corruption

You’ll forgive me if I don;t take your word for it.

Not exactly, no. They’re the party of bigots, who work hard to make their own bigotry the societal norm.

It isn’t the Republicans who wanted a Supreme Court Justice who thought she could do better than others because of her skin color. It isn’t the Republicans who called a black politician a “house n1gg3r.” It isn’t the Republicans who coined the term “white hispanic.” It’s not the Republicans who TO THIS DAY call Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” It’s not the Republicans who delight in “Teabagger” as a derogatory term.

Please, for every incidence you point at there have been thousands by republicans towards obama alone. You have a working monopoly on racism.

As for “teabagger” that was a term first used by the tea partiers themselves, which is what made it so rich. You had these out of touch idiots in tri-corner hats using a sexual term to describe themselves. And so earnestly.

Of course we laughed our as$$es off about it.

It isn’t the Republicans who are proud to be associated with openly racist organizations like the NAACP and La Raza. It wasn’t the Republicans who proudly put a sexual predator in the White House in the 90s. It wasn’t the Republicans who are proud of voting for our current President because of his skin color. It’s not the Republicans who fight tooth and nail to always make it easier to get on welfare and harder to succeed in business. It’s not the Republicans who are “Ready for Hillary!” because of her gender. It’s not the Republicans who are “empowering minorities” by doing everything they can to see to it they can live all their lives dependent on government largesse.

It’s not the Republicans who have worked hard to destroy the black family, and largely succeeded. It’s not the Republicans who always want to offer amnesty to illegal aliens, but have no interest in border security or immigration law reform, thus ensuring that there will always be more people left to the mercy of coyotes and cartels. It’s not the Republicans who are filled with pride when they get an award named for the woman who founded Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of killing as many black babies as possible.

Yes, Democrats are “inclusive” alright. They want to make sure that everyone who isn’t of their chosen aristocracy is included in the cleansing.

GrumpyOldFart on March 6, 2015 at 4:38 PM

SO much of what you qualify as racism is anything but. Organizations like the NAACP exist because real systemic barriers exist to people of color. You don’t see them, what a shock, but they are there.

Your screed reminds me very much of the book schoolgirld by peggy orenstein. In it she writes:

In a deliberate attempt to promote a gender-fair classroom, Weston teacher Liz Muney began calling on boys and girls alternately from her attendance roster. After two days the boys blew up, claiming that she was unfair. “Equality was hard to get used to; they perceived it as a loss,” she told Orenstein.

some excerpts

the privileged class usually sees equality at an attack on itself.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM

If you are talking about the old history of racist dems you are talking about things that happened before I was born. So, yeah, I’m fully comfortable with not taking responsibility for them.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Hate to break it to you sweet cheeks, there are still plenty of racists in the democrat party. They sit at the same table with the anti-Semites, anti-Christian, those folks from “the race” who hate the gringos and blacks who hate whites. And even some racist whites. It’s a big bigoted table.

But congrats, you’ve convinced them to put their racism and bigotry second and vote for their own self interest. Because we know getting that sweet, sweet gov’t handouts takes precedence over all.

That’s reality.

HumpBot Salvation on March 6, 2015 at 6:50 PM

Couple of things: This site is going to hell. I signed up when Michelle was here… when she left the bottom fell out. Slow loads. Delays. Pop-ups. Nightmares. HEY, managers, you’re losing us. Item 2: Let’s start thinking that maybe Boehner and Nanny got something going on the side and she’s got him on the string….. hmmmmmm? (Throw up in my mouth)..

PaCadle on March 6, 2015 at 6:57 PM

I got to hear a bit of Mark Levin going off on this Boehner story, and the Karl Rove Bushies controlling the gop.

Well, unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be anyone of consequence that is willing to stand against Boehner in the House, and of course the republicans in the Senate are really 90% Bush big gov loving Progressives.

And just as a side note, I haven’t seen one single republican candidate for President that gives me any hope that it will change. Levin, unless you have a plan to wrest control away from Rove and the Bush family……we’re all screwed, no many how many “republicans” we elect if they can count on the Democrats to rescue them in the House.

#gopdespicable

#still

#worthless

#whocanstandagainsttheBushfamily

#Jeb/Hillary2016

#Hillary/Jeb 2016

PappyD61 on March 6, 2015 at 7:28 PM

Inclusion isn’t the same thing as equality but it certainly helps. Having minorities on the team means they can express their views. Why is it do you think that the right is so incredibly patronizing to minorities?

You say “true equality is indifference” that’s a very easy sentiment for a privileged member of the majority to make because it pretends that there are no systematic barriers. It pretends that if we just left everyone alone they’d all have a fair shot. Reality is quite different.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:33 PM

So you want a position of privilege, for a while, to make things even. It’s only fair right? Come on you can say it, don’t have to beat around the bush. Who gets to decide the depth of that privilege and it’s length? Who gets to determine when that “debt” has been paid, and how to do intend to deal with the human tendency to abuse such arrangement?

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 7:39 PM

Who gets to determine when that “debt” has been paid, and how do you intend to deal with the human tendency to abuse such arrangements?

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 7:39 PM

Fixed it.

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 7:40 PM

the privileged class usually sees equality at an attack on itself.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM

The problem is that the privileged class doesn’t feel all that privileged. They don’t have those hard, but well paid factory jobs anymore, they live in trailer parks. They can’t see this privilege that you see all around them. They feel as persecuted as you do. So, how do you think all this ends?

DFCtomm on March 6, 2015 at 7:45 PM

Please, for every incidence you point at there have been thousands by republicans towards obama alone.

I notice you don’t give examples. But of course there would be, once you define things like “Chicago” and “golf” as evidence of racism.

As for “teabagger” that was a term first used by the tea partiers themselves, which is what made it so rich.

Got a link to back that up?

SO much of what you qualify as racism is anything but.

And yet you make no attempt to refute any of it.

Organizations like the NAACP exist because real systemic barriers exist to people of color.

Whether that’s true or not doesn’t change the fact that they celebrate racism against white people. See Fisher vs. University of Texas.

Why is it do you think that the right is so incredibly patronizing to minorities?

Let me guess… making every effort possible to keep minorities dependent on welfare for generations isn’t “patronizing” in your eyes, is it? And yet that has been a major effort of the official Democrat Party leadership from the late 60’s right up to the present day.

GrumpyOldFart on March 6, 2015 at 7:55 PM

Bet you didn’t know the Democrats control both the White House,the Senate and the House.What a waste those midterms were in 2014.

redware on March 6, 2015 at 7:57 PM

GOP establishment is killing the republican party and they don’t care. So why should we? Boehner and McConnel are closet dems!

soapyjeans on March 6, 2015 at 8:28 PM

As for “teabagger” that was a term first used by the tea partiers themselves, which is what made it so rich.

Even stipulating that to be so, that doesn’t change the fact that the party that claims to consider slurs regarding people’s sexual choices in fact takes absolute glee in using a slur about people’s sexual choices to describe those they dislike.

Organizations like the NAACP exist because real systemic barriers exist to people of color.

Nor does this change the fact that in the Fisher vs. University of Texas decision, the NAACP celebrated denying someone university admission because she was white. Racism, by definition.

And you’re okay with that. You find it amusing.

GrumpyOldFart on March 6, 2015 at 8:39 PM

My congress critter voted for allowing the president to write laws and create new citizens out of people who may not even be loyal to the US. He has lost my vote. He claimed to be a border security hawk, but of course, he’s just a typical, lying politician. If he wants to govern like a dem, then he needs to join that party.

Ibanez Lotus on March 6, 2015 at 8:44 PM

Acting like the wizards of K street the lot of them.

askwhatif on March 6, 2015 at 8:51 PM

If you are talking about the old history of racist dems you are talking about things that happened before I was born.
Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Yeah, yesterday was not that long ago.

farsighted on March 6, 2015 at 9:21 PM

Tlaloc you people are still racist. Nothing has changed no matter how much you wish it so. You just don’t openly hang people from trees like you used to. You can attempt to take the dim from the klan but you’ll never remove the klan from the dim. Own it. You so easily point fingers at others when you should look more at your own. You hypocrites would almost be funny in your excuses to disavow what you are if you weren’t such miserable human beings.

bbinfl on March 6, 2015 at 10:01 PM

Kim Roy adjorian hates anyone that doesn’t toe the republicoward line so he hates the people that dare speak out.

bbinfl on March 6, 2015 at 10:03 PM

Haven’t read all the comments, but I can guess what a number of them say, and I’m on that fence myself.

But, maybe, just maybe, this gal has it right.

It is a fight people, and I want to win. We can beat the RINOs; we can beat the squishes.

And we can for sure beat the leftist pantywaists. It’s just a tougher fight than we think we want, but we have to win.

Read that article.
h/t Instapundit

questionmark on March 6, 2015 at 10:46 PM

I have no love at all for Obama

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM

Wipe your chin off.

Yes, that means I won.

Tlaloc on March 6, 2015 at 2:35 PM

Tell us again how the US “deposed” Emperor Hirohito after World War 2, as you stated as fact the other day.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 6, 2015 at 11:33 PM

But, maybe, just maybe, this gal has it right.

questionmark on March 6, 2015 at 10:46 PM

I’d love to be able to agree with her, but there’s a crucial bit of information that I think she has completely wrong:

So I went and looked at numbers. 1/3 of the GOP flipped. ONE THIRD.

Two thirds held firm.

17 voted against bringing the bill to the floor.

50-60 argued against it on the merits.

The bill pased by one more vote than needed, with all Democrats voting for it.

From where I sit, that makes it plain that most, if not all those who voted “Nay,” yet didn’t vote not to bring it to the floor and didn’t argue against it on the merits, were allowed to vote Nay because the leadership knew it would pass without them. They were allowed to vote Nay specifically to allow them to fool people like you and me, and Ms. Hoyt, into thinking “Two thirds held firm.”

Well, I’m not fooled.

How many thought it should never even come up for a vote? 17, out of 234 Republicans in the House.

How many argued against it on the merits? 50-60, out of 234 Republicans in the House.

So the way I see it, the number of people actually on our side are at least 17, but certainly no more than 60. In other words, at best 11% of the House, and barely a fourth of “our own” party. The other 89% are our enemies.

Our current administration has brought us far closer to nuclear war than we’ve been since the Soviet Union collapsed in on its corrupt self. And worse, it will be a multiparty war that will leave at best 1/3 of the world in ruins. And what they’re doing to the new generation, between indoctrination, unemployment and setting the sexes against each other doesn’t bear thinking too deeply about, lest the black pit yawns beneath our feet.

Yep. And at best, there is only 11% of our leadership trying to stop that from happening. It’s likely that 40% or more are actively working to bring that about. And the remainder don’t really care so long as they get their power, privilege and perks.

So that horror story about the collapse of civilization that she tells… well, it’s fantasy to think we’re going to be able to stop that from happening. Therefore the goal becomes 1) to survive it, and 2) to try to create something from which a civilization can be rebuilt.

And because #2 is so important, I don’t see how surrendering to the 3/4 of the GOP that is our enemies is any improvement over surrendering to the Democrats who would exterminate us completely if they thought they could get away with it.

GrumpyOldFart on March 7, 2015 at 9:18 AM

SO much of what you qualify as racism is anything but.

I didn’t qualify it as racism, I qualified it as bigotry. And if you think “this person is better than that one because of their skin color, their gender, their ethnicity or their sexual preference” doesn’t qualify as “bigotry,” then there’s no point in discussing anything with you at all.

GrumpyOldFart on March 7, 2015 at 9:23 AM

Let me point out that this story is being reported by the Hill. The most left of the left MSM in D.C. Is the basic facts correct, maybe but with unnamed source’s and a pro Dem slant it is really hard to tell. What we are seeing is the opening shots to push the speaker out in advance of the presidential election. Despite the big A spin on this, Boehner is in real trouble, otherwise the Dem’s would not be speaking up at all. Going to be an interesting year.

flackcatcher on March 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM

Now, tell me again why we even bothered to vote in the last congressional election.

rplat on March 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM

Weston teacher Liz Muney began calling on boys and girls alternately from her attendance roster. After two days the boys blew up, claiming that she was unfair. “Equality was hard to get used to; they perceived it as a loss,” she told Orenstein.

Bullshit.

Mimzey on March 7, 2015 at 10:12 AM

Read that article.
h/t Instapundit

questionmark on March 6, 2015 at 10:46 PM

Maybe..maybe not.
Maybe we shouldn’t have had a resistance to Britain, but tried to change their rule by becoming part of them and arguing for change from the inside? That idea seems to fly in the face of what we all see with our own eyes and complain about regularly…”Once the enthusiastic young guns get to Washington they start playing the same game.”

We need real change. Theres that old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Why would politics be any different?

Mimzey on March 7, 2015 at 10:21 AM

“By his friends Ye shall know him!”

Another Drew on March 7, 2015 at 2:10 PM

We need real change.

Time to let the GOP go the way of the Whigs.
You’ve got to hand it to the Dems in that they’re too corrupt to die, even carrying their legacy of Slavery, the KKK, and their fascination with Fascism.

Another Drew on March 7, 2015 at 2:12 PM

Bullshit.

Mimzey on March 7, 2015 at 10:12 AM

You can see the exact same thing in this very thread. Threatened members of the privileged class loudly b*tching because the “others” may get equal opportunities…

But they try to hide it by claiming they are fighting against “special rights.”

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 4:48 PM

The Republican leadership are a bunch pussies.

They drove me out of the party.

I will not caucus with cowards.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:16 PM

If Patton were here, he would slap Boehner’s face.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:18 PM

You can see the exact same thing in this very thread. Threatened members of the privileged class loudly b*tching because the “others” may get equal opportunities…

But they try to hide it by claiming they are fighting against “special rights.”

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 4:48 PM

Why is it that I feel 100% certain that you include my Fisher vs. University of Texas example as one of these?

GrumpyOldFart on March 7, 2015 at 6:19 PM

We won the election, and Boehner is still taking orders from Reid.

I now hate these republicans, as much as I hate all democrats.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM

I will bring back the Bull Moose Party.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM

Why is it that I feel 100% certain that you include my Fisher vs. University of Texas example as one of these?

GrumpyOldFart on March 7, 2015 at 6:19 PM

Because it very clearly falls exactly in that group…

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 7:11 PM

I will bring back the Bull Moose Party.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM

I wonder if those seeking a third party would have any advantage in reviving a defunct party instead of making a new one. It’s an interesting if academic question…

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 7:12 PM

Because it very clearly falls exactly in that group…

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 7:11 PM

I see. So when I object to the NAACP celebrating a decision that it’s okay to discriminate against someone based on their skin color and ethnicity, but only if they are white, I am a “threatened member of the privileged class loudly b*tching because the ‘others’ may get equal opportunities.”

So tell me, if you can: How does saying “You can be admitted to the university because you’re black, but you can’t because you are white” represent “equal opportunity”?

GrumpyOldFart on March 7, 2015 at 8:57 PM

I will bring back the Bull Moose Party.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM

I wonder if those seeking a third party would have any advantage in reviving a defunct party instead of making a new one. It’s an interesting if academic question…

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 7:12 PM

==============================

It was a joke, actually.

JackM on March 7, 2015 at 9:23 PM

Any Republican who thinks that a Democrat is going to help them is a delusional child.

Equally, if it has really come to this, that Boehner is speaker only at the whim of his enemies, then his time is up. The writing is not just on the wall, but on the floor, ceiling and window. Boehner and McConnell cannot rely on the support of the media and the Democrats – every slap on the back has a little dagger in it, draining their power and influence.

While technically correct, today, that Democrats saved Boehner, he lost his leadership in the process, and tomorrow is another day when Democrats will do the calculation again, and come up with another answer. It’s a matter of time from this loss of moral leadership to his loss of actual position – all downhill from here.

virgo on March 8, 2015 at 1:05 PM

IOW, the RINOs’ closest political ally is the Dems.

Why bother voting GOP?

farsighted on March 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM

Because voting Democrat is unacceptable. And not voting is passive in a time when the people need to be active. (All that is necessary etc.)

But the case for voting third party gets stronger and stronger.

David Blue on March 9, 2015 at 1:58 AM

But they try to hide it by claiming they are fighting against “special rights.”

Tlaloc on March 7, 2015 at 4:48 PM

You do realize that your pursuit of special rights is going to create the kind of hatred that you are trying to stamp out. Is revenge and power that important that you would sacrifice your chance for equality. It’s a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

DFCtomm on March 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM

Just switch parties, Boehner.

When most of your party votes against you and everybody in the other party votes for you, then you are done.

Theophile on March 11, 2015 at 1:49 AM