Revenge of the purged

Irregardless of if they were a-holes or not a-holes. the fact remains the Speaker in the middle of tough dance w ith Obama when he needed GOP unity decided to go on a purge of house members. In other words from a leadership pov the speaker instead of knocking down bridges should have been building them. The entire things reeks of lack of leadership from the speaker. He deserved to get egg on his face because of his actions regarding the purge. he is unfit to lead.

unseen on December 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM

So to sum it up. The three congress members who were purged from their committes where purged because they were not go along to get along types. they called out leadership on what they thought was wrong policies. To “punish” this inability of going along to get along, the speaker removed them from their comittees. Which instead of cowing these three made them very pissed off. Now “a go along to get along” type would have fallen in line but these three are men of principle and would not be cowed. The “go along to get along” types think principled men in Dc are A-holes. So when the chips were down and the speaker needed his party’s unity. these three rightly told the speaker to pound sand. But even then it wouldn’t have mattered because what did plan B in was this:

One GOP lawmaker who was ready to vote for the Boehner plan said the Club’s decision to “score” the vote in its tally of member’s positions on key votes was a turning point in rallying conservatives against Plan B. At that point, the lawmaker said, the floodgates opened.

I.e Sunlight. As long as the deed was done under cover of darkness and no one would have a record of raising taxes they wouold have voted for it. but as soon as the CLub for Growth said they would use it in their tally that is used in things like primaries. then the “conservatives” decided no on taxes.

So why was this story written? Well it is written to try to place blame on these three people nothing more and nothign less. Look for more of this attempt in the coming days.

unseen on December 22, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I do not see a problem with wanting to have a unified party leadership.

On the other hand, it is only beneficial if that leadership is leading as opposition to instead of go along to get along with the Democrat agenda.

astonerii on December 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM

agreed. If those three were moderates trying to sabotage the Speaker I could understand it. But from all reports those three were trying to move the house leadership to the right in accordance with the people who elected them the majority in the house and no undermine the Speaker. But over the last 20 years more and more power has been stripped from the avg congressman and vested in the speaker’s office. To the point that congressman have become basically nothing more than stooges to vote for a bill created and drafted by the speaker. This was seen clearly with obamacare. They don’t make the bills any more, they don’t read the bills anymore. I think if you believe in federalism then you should also support returning more power to comittee’s and subcmittee’s and have a weaker speaker.

Same goes for the senate and the POTUS.

unseen on December 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM