So will Boehner get to keep his job?

Predictions? Guesses? Is he the best politician ever? Is he really bad at being Speaker of the House? 

Do you want to see him no longer be Speaker of the House? Is this what you think will happen or just what you wish will happen?

Personally I think we won't see him lose the position of Speaker of the House over this, or if we do it will be someone closer to the Tea Party stances who will get the position.

no idea, but i bet he will cry

I have a feeling that nothing will change.

As long as he keeps the Tea Party nutcases happy, he'll keep his job. The moment he caves and puts a clean CR up for a vote, he's toast.

I love OT :lol:

Speaker of the House, keeper of the zoo, ready to delay healthcare for you. . .Makhaidos

I hope not.

[QUOTE="Makhaidos"]Speaker of the House, keeper of the zoo, ready to delay healthcare for you. . .Serraph105

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-republican-party-cannot-stand-by-and-let-obama,34074/

In a perfect world, he'd be Cheney's hunting partner. =PAllicrombie

John Boner? Here's hoping he does. But I doubt it.

He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.coolbeans90

He'll probably be Speaker for a few more years.

On the other hand I don't know if Reid will be Majority Leader for long, maybe he'll even get beat in 2016 or maybe not run for re-election. He has been majority leader for a while now.

I do wonder though, does taking on a big job like Speaker or Majority Leader hurt or help a person's image with their constituents in their home district or state?

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

whipassmt

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

Why should he be fired?AmazonTreeBoa

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

Serraph105

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

What did Pelosi really get done when Bush was President? You can say Boehner didn't get much done, but he has a Democratic Senate and President to contend with.

At least Boehner never pulled any of those silly "non-binding troop withdrawal date"attachments to military funding bills that Bush would veto and then Democrats would pass without the time-table. And he didn't meet with Assad against the President's wishes.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Why should he be fired?Serraph105

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Why should he be fired?Serraph105

That being said perhaps Boehner should bring the Senate vote up for a vote, including allow the House members to make amendments to the bill.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

Serraph105

Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House.

Oh yeez, she got stuff done with a Democrat Senate and President? No way.

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

jimkabrhel

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

whipassmt

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds. 

The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement.jimkabrhel

The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's always lovely how some people refuse to be critical of any members of the party that represents them. Some will blindly support Boeher if he's standing up to the President (even if he cannot control his own caucus), and some will follow Obama blindly because he's making the GOP look foolish (even though there are a host of legitiame criticisms over drone strikes, transparency, etc).

Boehner can open the government by allowing the clean CR to come to a vote in the House. He won't because the Tea Party wing will revolt and likely call for a new Speaker.

jimkabrhel

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] He should allow the CR to come to a vote, but let the House get to Amend it first. Why can't Obama let the House at least repeal the Medical Device Tax from Obamacare, some Democrats (like E. Warren) believe that tax should be repealed. Why tax people's pacemakers and hearing aids? why tax doctors and vets' gloves?

The House is 1/3 of the government, they should be able to get some say in this. There needs to be a negotiated settlement, there can't be a clear Obama victory.

whipassmt

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement.Master_Live

The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. jimkabrhel

As far as Republican opposition forcing Obama to modify the law in 2010 and 2009, The Republicans didn't have the votes to block the law in either house. Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before Brown was elected (and after he got elected they decided they only needed 51 votes to pass Obamacare anyway) and a majority in the House. What held up Obamacare was that it took a lot of time to get Democratic Senators like Landrieu, Lieberman, and Nelson on board and that the House Democrats were divided over the Stupak amendment. As it was I think 34 Democrats actually voted against Obamacare.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

You can't pull yourself away from talking points, can you. The President isn't going to alter his signature achievement. The President has already compromised on previous issues, including the ACA itself to get it passed through Congress. The ACA was originally far more progressive (read socialist), and a lot of the stronger parts were removed to placate enough Republicans. Now they want none of it.

The President is not required to negotiate just to fund the Government. It's Congress' constitutional requirement to pass a budget to fund the government, and they are refusing to do so for a law that a few fringe parts of one part don't like.

Would you negotiate how much of your child's body to cut off? The analogy is melodramatic, but it still holds.

jimkabrhel

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

He'll stay on power.

He made sure to Gerrymander his voting districts so he'll have a lifetime appointment, just like all the other creeps in the US Congress.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Better Boehner than Pelosi.

whipassmt

I've heard this before, but I don't see the reasoning behind it other than party affiliation. Whether you like her or not Pelosi got stuff done on a regular basis, and was clearly in charge of the democrats in the House. I'm guessing the Republicans wish they could say the same for Boehner.

What did Pelosi really get done when Bush was President? You can say Boehner didn't get much done, but he has a Democratic Senate and President to contend with.

At least Boehner never pulled any of those silly "non-binding troop withdrawal date"attachments to military funding bills that Bush would veto and then Democrats would pass without the time-table. And he didn't meet with Assad against the President's wishes.

Boehner has done nothing but vote against everything and put forth bills that he knew beyond any doubt would fail.

What exactly has he CONTRIBUTED TO or BUILT other than greater division in the government?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

whipassmt

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

Who gives a fvck what the Bishops say? They aren't experts on healthcare.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Congress did pass a budget, indeed they passed at least three.

If It was the only way to save the child (for instance gangrene) then it is acceptable to cut a limb off.

So if Warren wants the Medical device tax repealed she should join with Republicans to get it done, right?

whipassmt

There's no evidence that the limb is unhealthy. It's akin to cutting over the growing limb because you find out what the limb can do. If Obamacare doesn't work after a few years of it operating, then fine, get rid of it, alter it, whatever. This has the potential to help MILLIONS of people, and the GOP wants no part of it.

I just don't get that at all.

And there is evidence that the limb is unhealthy, even the Bishops who support the idea of health-care reform have stated that the law must be amended, that it is unacceptable as it is.

Wow do you sound like a tool right now.. Bush's policy was killed off on the floor it was never passed.. Made into law, and found CONSTIUTIONAL by the Supreme court.. This isn't even in the same fvcking catagory.. What the Republicans are doing is basically holding the country hostage (again) to force their ideological crusade further.. This is irresponsibility at the highest level.. There should be absolutely NO ARGUMENTS when it comes to this regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.. The fact of the matter is their refusal to cooperate or negotiate.. This isn't negotiation, this is chicken, and we are the car the Republicans are driving towards the cliff. I would hope that regardless of whatever your leanings are, this kind of behavior should not be tolerated because it is costing us all something.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's a lousy Speaker, but better him than some tea party nutjob.coolbeans90