Inside Boehner's Debt Limit Surrender...

[bendog]

Rand Paul would be trounced by Clinton. Even Biden would beat him.

Can we PLEASE get a GOP candidate who is not a wack-job?

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

I realize you didn't ask me, but I think Scott Walker could be a formidable candidate. His take on public unions would play well with independents. His tax cut is bad policy, because the economic forecasts do NOT show continuing surpluses, but the cut may simply be political expedience to court the TPM, and to allow him to move to the middle later on.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rand Paul would be trounced by Clinton. Even Biden would beat him.

Can we PLEASE get a GOP candidate who is not a wack-job?

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

 

[paulitician]

It is a tough choice to pick expediency over principal. But, it is necessary in this case, because the national media is entirely under the control of Progressives.

The smart thing is to be good Boehner boys and leave these disgusting Chicago Politico-Mobsters with nothing to do during this election year but explain the last 5 years of Obama Lies, Incompetence, and Socialism.

Getting rid of Harry Reid is a worthy goal. Will require some sacrifice.

I'm hearing that argument a lot. Just don't make waves and give the Democrats anymore ammunition. I understand it, but i've never been a 'Go along/Get Along' kind of person. I'm very uncomfortable with such strategies. But i do understand the logic.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It's surreal what is happening in Washington with the RINOS. I'm beginning they are actually attempting to drive away the conservative base. Lose the mid terms and rebuild without conservatives.

How soon they forget it was the Tea Party candidates and TP and Libertarian voters who gave the RINOS their power in 2010 and 2012.

I heard Dick Morris speculating that this vote was to give the RINOs some cover when they run for re-election this fall.

With him and the "leadership" (for lack of a better term) throwing in with the democrats, they paved the way for RINOs in sketchy districts to vote "nay" as a campaign talking point.

If this is true, so much more urgent is it that Boehner, Cantor, et.al. be primaried and flushed.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Rand Paul would be trounced by Clinton. Even Biden would beat him.

Can we PLEASE get a GOP candidate who is not a wack-job?

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Yet you support democrats, who are as Utopian as you can get.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Yet you support democrats, who are as Utopian as you can get.

I've voted in 9 presidential elections. Voted Republican 5 times, Libertarian twice, and Democrat twice.
Where do you come up with me supporting Democrats?

 

[paulitician]

Rand Paul would be trounced by Clinton. Even Biden would beat him.

Can we PLEASE get a GOP candidate who is not a wack-job?

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Well, now you've only made me more skeptical of your real motives and agenda. Define 'wack-job.' It'll give us all a better indication of what you stand for and support. Because right now, you're being very vague and all over the place. What in your estimation constitutes a person being labeled a 'wack-job?' Just curious.

 

[tinydancer]

It's surreal what is happening in Washington with the RINOS. I'm beginning they are actually attempting to drive away the conservative base. Lose the mid terms and rebuild without conservatives.

How soon they forget it was the Tea Party candidates and TP and Libertarian voters who gave the RINOS their power in 2010 and 2012.

I heard Dick Morris speculating that this vote was to give the RINOs some cover when they run for re-election this fall.

With him and the "leadership" (for lack of a better term) throwing in with the democrats, they paved the way for RINOs in sketchy districts to vote "nay" as a campaign talking point.

If this is true, so much more urgent is it that Boehner, Cantor, et.al. be primaried and flushed.

There has to be a breaking point where conservatives if they cannot rid themselves of a particular RINO in the primaries have to let the RINO lose and punish the McConnells and the other "inside the beltway democrat lites". Take the loss and punish them for their greed and lust for power in Washington.

Washington needs an enema.

 

[bendog]

Define 'wack-job.' Because i can't get a handle on what or who you support. Give us a little more to go on. Start with defining 'wack-job.'

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Well, now you've only made me more skeptical of your real motives and agenda. Define 'wack-job.' It'll give us all a better indication of what you stand for and support. Because right now, you're being very vague and all over the place. What in your estimation constitutes a person being labeled a 'wack-job?' Just curious.

Well, you're putting him in an untenable situation. I think Kasich is viable, and he's not crazy. He's got natl exoposure, but frankly the TPM has shown the ability to erase anyone during the primary who does not toe the "wack job" line.

I already said Walker has some cred. Snyder.

All are conservatives in swing states.

Nikki Haley could be a nice vp candidate. I don't think she's ready to headline a ticket though.

But run a TPM darling, and say hell to President Hill.

 

[paulitician]

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Well, now you've only made me more skeptical of your real motives and agenda. Define 'wack-job.' It'll give us all a better indication of what you stand for and support. Because right now, you're being very vague and all over the place. What in your estimation constitutes a person being labeled a 'wack-job?' Just curious.

Well, you're putting him in an untenable situation. I think Kasich is viable, and he's not crazy. He's got natl exoposure, but frankly the TPM has shown the ability to erase anyone during the primary who does not toe the "wack job" line.

I already said Walker has some cred. Snyder.

All are conservatives in swing states.

Nikki Haley could be a nice vp candidate. I don't think she's ready to headline a ticket though.

But run a TPM darling, and say hell to President Hill.

I hear ya, i was just trying to get where that particular poster was coming from. What is a 'wack-job?' What exactly constitutes justification for labeling a person that way? I was just being curious. But thanks for the reply.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The worse thing you can do when you're number 1# within science, r@d and said to be the worlds reknown super power is to slice and give up on them. We'd be better off bringing our troops home and cutting 200 billion from the military.

Rome didn't become great by cutting science, education or infrastructure. No, it became great by building and bettering its people.

Brition didn't become great by cutting. It fucked up when it started expanding as we're doing and doing less with its own people.

This is where the conservative movement is wrong.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

There's no one that's been mentioned out there right now who I can support that enthusiastically. Not adhering to a political philosophy that is contingent upon a Utopian fantasy is a good start.

I'll have to see who can convince me that they have the will to seriously tackle spending.

Yet you support democrats, who are as Utopian as you can get.

I've voted in 9 presidential elections. Voted Republican 5 times, Libertarian twice, and Democrat twice.
Where do you come up with me supporting Democrats?

Well, you voted for them twice, that you claim.

Also interesting that you also claim to have voted for libertarians, while calling Rand Paul a whack job.

Your politics appear about as schizophrenic as they come.

 

[bendog]

Well, now you've only made me more skeptical of your real motives and agenda. Define 'wack-job.' It'll give us all a better indication of what you stand for and support. Because right now, you're being very vague and all over the place. What in your estimation constitutes a person being labeled a 'wack-job?' Just curious.

Well, you're putting him in an untenable situation. I think Kasich is viable, and he's not crazy. He's got natl exoposure, but frankly the TPM has shown the ability to erase anyone during the primary who does not toe the "wack job" line.

I already said Walker has some cred. Snyder.

All are conservatives in swing states.

Nikki Haley could be a nice vp candidate. I don't think she's ready to headline a ticket though.

But run a TPM darling, and say hell to President Hill.

I hear ya, i was just trying to get where that particular poster was coming from. What is a 'wack-job?' What exactly constitutes justification for labeling a person that way? I was just being curious. But thanks for the reply.

Oh, well, I could have answered more concretely since we're being rational. I'd say whack job has some of the following: No compromise, getting rid of the fed reserve, bringing all the troops home, Obama is a socialist, we cannot raise the debt limit, Obamacare must be repealed and not tax dollars may be used to subsidize HC, no amnesty, gay marriage is an abomination before the LOrd.

On the other hand, holding increases in spending to increases in gnp, compromising on pretty much everything else, so long as the result is more market based decisions, and less govt directing people what they must do.

But again, the question is whether anyone not a whack job, or at least giving lip service, can win the gop nomination. Mitt's problem was he really was a Rino, so he couldn't move back to the middle, since he didn't really have the base vote. The people whose names I floated, imo, can run to the right and do a Nixonesque pirouette to the middle.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The worse thing you can do when you're number 1# within science, r@d and said to be the worlds reknown super power is to slice and give up on them. We'd be better off bringing our troops home and cutting 200 billion from the military.

Rome didn't become great by cutting science, education or infrastructure. No, it became great by building and bettering its people.

Brition didn't become great by cutting. It fucked up when it started expanding as we're doing and doing less with its own people.

This is where the conservative movement is wrong.

Johnny One-note rides again!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rome became great because it did great things
Brition become great because it did great things
Italy in the 13th century become great because it did great thins
China is becoming great as it is doing great things!

America invested during the 50's and 60's on tech, r@D, education and looked upwards. That is why we became a great power.

 

[paulitician]

The worse thing you can do when you're number 1# within science, r@d and said to be the worlds reknown super power is to slice and give up on them. We'd be better off bringing our troops home and cutting 200 billion from the military.

Rome didn't become great by cutting science, education or infrastructure. No, it became great by building and bettering its people.

Brition didn't become great by cutting. It fucked up when it started expanding as we're doing and doing less with its own people.

This is where the conservative movement is wrong.

Define 'cutting.' I think we would disagree somewhat on that definition. But we do agree that scaling back our 'Empire-Building' would be a logical and effective cut.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The worse thing you can do when you're number 1# within science, r@d and said to be the worlds reknown super power is to slice and give up on them. We'd be better off bringing our troops home and cutting 200 billion from the military.

Rome didn't become great by cutting science, education or infrastructure. No, it became great by building and bettering its people.

Brition didn't become great by cutting. It fucked up when it started expanding as we're doing and doing less with its own people.

This is where the conservative movement is wrong.

Johnny One-note rides again!

Gutting America with punishing Americans for your stupid wars is the real one note.

 

[Sunshine]

Man, remember when this current President preached about massive Debt being 'Irresponsible and Un-Patriotic?' Seems like a long long time ago. Almost like it never happened, huh? And now, a supposed Republican 'Leader' has turned on us as well. These are very dark times for our Nation. It's so sad.


How John Boehner decided to give up on the debt limit fight

This week’s debt-limit drama ended as it began: with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), standing alone before his colleagues, seeking consensus but receiving only silence and stares in return.

The scene happened Tuesday morning at the Capitol Hill Club, where House Republicans had gathered for a private breakfast.

After listening to a handful of colleagues flatly discuss fundraising strategy for 30 minutes, Boehner stood up, walked past dozens of sleepy, coffee-sipping Republicans and tersely woke up the room with an update.

“Listen – we’re going to move forward,” Boehner said. Instead of bringing up the leadership’s plan, which would link a restoration of recently cut military benefits to a debt-ceiling extension, he would push a “clean” bill, averting default more than two weeks before the Treasury Department’s debt-limit deadline.

“We’re going to get this done,” Boehner continued, according to several people present for his remarks. No strings attached, he added. He said he was going stop reaching for votes on the plan, an effort that had stalled on Monday. And he wasn’t going to even think of floating another proposal. He was going to do what he thought was best for the GOP, in spite of the widespread angst.

For the past week, Boehner said, he had gone through all of the possible options with the conference, had mulled a variety of scenarios, all with the hope of getting 200-plus Republicans united. But nothing ever gained traction, even the military pension fix, which he thought could win Democratic votes.

Ahead of the midterm elections, Boehner argued that now is not the time to get drawn into weeks of dramatic headlines and fiscal battles with President Obama. “We’re not going to make ourselves the story,” he said. He spoke about the need for the party to not get mired in damaging endeavors.

Boehner’s delivery was crisp; his decision was final.

The room of Republicans sat up, stunned that Boehner was abruptly shifting away from the leadership’s plan, which had been championed 12 hours earlier at a Monday night meeting in the Capitol basement. But there were no outcries or boos. A few members whispered to each other that Boehner was right, that due to conservative opposition to any hike, he was cornered...

More:
How John Boehner decided to give up on the debt limit fight
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

I would not be surprised if a lot of people in Washington give up on a lot of things. I wouldn't even be surprised if Congress walked out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's surreal what is happening in Washington with the RINOS. I'm beginning they are actually attempting to drive away the conservative base. Lose the mid terms and rebuild without conservatives.

How soon they forget it was the Tea Party candidates and TP and Libertarian voters who gave the RINOS their power in 2010 and 2012.

Partially and only in the House, td. The TeaPs cost the GOP the Senate in 2010 and 2012, and the TeaPs got out maneuvered by BHO in October and November, hurting the GOP and crippling Cruz's presidential hopes. I hope the TeaPs and libertarians come to their senses and try to work with the mainstream GOP.

You have no "mainstream" in the Republican party. You have progressives aka RINOS. We flushed our Progressive Conservatives many years ago. With Conservatives in the majority now we have bounced back from the world recession with a sound fiscal policy.

We are on the verge of balancing our budget. You? No hope in hell. Your idiots inside the beltway refuse to stop spending.

"Conservatives in the majority" where? The House? That majority was a TeaP rump-dominated minority that controlled the majority of the GOP caucus.

Guess what? Boehner has said and enforced no more "just once more" on the TeaPs.

The TeaPs in the House will be primaried by probably 2/3ds this year.

The leadership of the GOP mainstream majority is quite willing to cut you guys loose.

And he should.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only way the gop could lose the house is shutting down the govt again. Boehner proposed linking the debt ceiling to Keystone, but the TPM demurred, because they figured the Senate would tell them to f themselves, which Ried would have done, and they'd have to cave in and pass a clean bill anyway.

The end result is the gop holds the house and probably takes the senate ... though the gop could yet run some nutbags.

The TPM no doubt hates this, but it's actually good news for the gop, which might be why the TPM hates it. But, anyway, the bad news for the gop is that Ayn Paul is setting himself up as "the guy who'll fight Hillary." Monicagate and Benghazigate may well win him the nomination. But, if he tries to run on going back to the gold standard, he'll lose. So, the question may be whether he can morph into a rational person.

Paul's a possibility, not a probability.