search
top

Boehner Retains Speakership

Jim Geraghty notes:

At least 217 House Republicans know the job of Speaker is a pain in the ass, vote to punish Boehner for another two years.

It would seem we go to war with the GOP we have, and if that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will. Soon we will have specific bills we will need to communicate with lawmakers about. This is going to be unending and relentless. I hate that, because I’m tired of politics too and I have a day (often night these days) job, but this is what four more years is going to mean. Are we going to preserve our liberty?

14 Responses to “Boehner Retains Speakership”

  1. Harold says:

    It would seem we go to war with the GOP we have….

    Right now I’m reading the great An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943 (the “at dawn” refers to how “Battle by battle, an inexperienced and sometimes poorly led army gradually becomes a superb fighting force.”)

    They’ve just landed and started to engage the Vichy French, and I’ve noted how Eisenhower’s political expertise, honed by 6 years on the staff of MacArthur, was entirely inadequate for dealing with the French.

    (Esp. François Darlan and Henri Giraud (you may not have heard of the latter, he’s distinguished in escaping from captivity and by having a lot fighting spirit, but little else)).

    Now, there was enough need to stay on their good side during the war (they still retained an outsized military reputation) and for after, that we didn’t just at some point tell them to “[beep] off”, and enough of them were more than nominally on our side … but I’m wondering if the latter can be truthfully said for the Republican party at the national level.

    Well, maybe for the RKBA, but after Connecticut are any of us confident in that?

    • Sebastian says:

      The big problem is that the third parties are seldom serious parties. The bigger problem is that while building a third party, the Democrats will basically own the country. You can end up with a socialist country right quick if the people who don’t want it are busy arguing with each other. Also, there’s a lot of people who identify by party first and ideology second. The “Go team!” types. Those people won’t abandon the GOP lightly.

      For a lot of reasons I don’t think a party replacement is likely. The last time it happened was over slavery, and we had a civil war right after that. That could happen again, mind you, but that’s the kind of titanic schism that will need to happen.

      • Harold says:

        For a lot of reasons I don’t think a party replacement is likely. The last time it happened was over slavery, and we had a civil war right after that. That could happen again, mind you, but that’s the kind of titanic schism that will need to happen.

        But we know that kind of “titanic schism” is going to happen, almost certainly in our lifetimes, very likely “fairly soon” (say a decade plus or minus). If nothing else, the fiscal cliff deal with it’s 100s of billions in spending reminded us there’s absolutely no appetite in D.C. for reducing spending.

        But we know the borrowed money to pay for this free ice cream is going to run out, sooner or later, one way or another. Be it interest rates we can’t afford to pay, or the Fed devaluing the dollar so these “benefits” are no longer worth the name, we’re headed towards a true cliff, and with Obama’s reelection and an ineffectual House the throttle will stay floored for another 4 years.

        When that happens, it’s going to get very ugly. A lot of people will suffer, die prematurely or just plain die, and civil war can hardly be ruled out, as well as a discontinuous change in our system of government (as I label FDR’s changes, but I expect worse, the Left is now fully Marxist).

        As Bob Krumm lays out in points 6 and beyond, the GOP is not positioning itself to be relevant as this transition happens. That’s very significant.

        • Sebastian says:

          I wouldn’t say it couldn’t happen, but you don’t really have the divisions yet. You don’t have low level violence happening yet, nor do you have anything like nullification being seriously spoken of. But that said, I think we’re seeing the beginnings of deep division. It could get bad enough to fracture a party and cause a new party to form.

      • Harold says:

        Blargh, sure wish for a preview feature:

        As Bob Krumm lays out….

      • Arnie says:

        About three years ago you rightly chastised me for advocating preparations for such a cataclysmic schism – and you were right, my timing was wrong, and my verbiage was too bellicose.

        It is a sign of how our political conditions (and liberty) have deteriorated to see you now write of even the potential for the prospect of another civil war. And I believe you are right again.

        But I am not so eager for a fight as I once was. I now dread the bloody prospect. Your blogs and commenters have contributed to my greater sanity, and I thank you and them for that.

        God bless you all!

        • Sebastian says:

          I don’t want to see it either. But I think there is increasingly vast differences between the type of country the left wants, and the type of country we want. And more importantly, that’s developing more regionally, with blue states getting bluer, and red states getting redder. That’s a recipe for problems. But I’m not sure anyone has a stomach for another civil war. Maybe an amicable separation.

          • Diane says:

            Which red states are getting redder? Texas is a decade away (plus or minus a few years) from turning blue.

            • Red getting redder: Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Montana…? Other than the mountain west though a lot of red states are fading blue. Nevada is a great example. Between Kalifornication (refugees fleeing high taxes who vote the same damn way in Nevada) and massive immigration with Latinos who tend to vote “D” Nevada is going blue rapidly. Same with AZ, NM, TX, etc.

  2. Patrick H says:

    Weren’t you just saying a few months ago how quiet it was, and that you were worried people would get complacent?

    Be careful what you wish for! Haha

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s what I’ve been thinking this whole time. That, and “How did this issue go from being toxic stew for Democrats to a winning issue in the space of a few weeks?”

  3. Chas says:

    The Republican Party isn’t the Tea Party, it’s the “Low T” Party.

  4. Trav says:

    It’s true that the SotH is supposed to be a pain in the butt. However, somebody forgot to tell Boehner he is supposed to be a pain in the Democrat’s butt – not ours.

    Furthermore, I really wish people would stop calling him “Boner.” This country has never had a more impotent SotH.

  5. Jake says:

    You know, I sort of wonder Boehner’s win today was because most Republicans want him as the Speaker, or if it’s because most Republicans want to let him be Speaker so he can take the blame for what’s coming?

top