Boehner Will Resign From Congress

John Boehner Will Resign From Congress: Boehner took over the speakership in January 2011. The decision to step down was closely held; Fox News is told House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was only informed of Boehner's decision "one minute" before Boehner told the GOP conference.

He was under fire from conservatives for, basically, doing little more than grabbing his ankles for Obama since 2014.

But I think his blubbering during the Pope's address yesterday was the last straw.

If there is any truth to the notion that he has, basically, a deal in hand to prevent a shutdown; then I am not completely sure this isn't a long game play on the establishment's part. Turn things over to the TP/anti-establishment crowd so they have to pull a 1980 or run back with their tail between their legs in time for 2020.

Really think there is more going on here than meets the eye.

Originally Posted By: iggy

If there is any truth to the notion that he has, basically, a deal in hand to prevent a shutdown; then I am not completely sure this isn't a long game play on the establishment's part. Turn things over to the TP/anti-establishment crowd so they have to pull a 1980 or run back with their tail between their legs in time for 2020.

Really think there is more going on here than meets the eye.

The problem with that theory is his that his likely successors are all -to one extent or another-mainstreamers.

My initial instinct to Boehner resigning is "Good."

Boehner has accomplished little as speaker (other than advancing Obama's agenda and failing to stand for issues that his own party campaigned on, particularly in 2014, and then didn't even try to de-fund Obamacare as they promised and won the Senate on promising, and then immediately funded in their first 3 weeks as a new legislature.)

But it concerns me that guys like Ted Cruz will take control and possibly shut down the government again in a pointless gesture with no exit strategy.

I've thought all along that Obama's people have something on Boehner, that makes him so pliant to the Dems' wishes. So again for that, I'm glad to see him go. But still concerned about who will replace Boehner, and if they have any will to stand for conservative principles (i.e., the will of the people, who voted for them based on those stated principles.)
It's a far cry from the 1994 Contract With America, where they stated their objectives pre-election and passed most of them, and those not enacted only because of Bill Clinton's veto pen obstruction of their passing.

Not sure what conservatives think Boehner could have done that he didn't try doing. During the debates I've been seeing republicans insist that if only they stayed the course with shutting down the government it would have worked. The problem is any side that takes the position of "just do what we want or else" is going to get the blame for the consequences. It seems like Boehner is just a handy scapegoat. On the other hand with all his crying and orangyness, he was a clown I loved seeing as the face of the GOP that I could understand your side wanting a change in optics.

So I see Boehner's would be replacement has gotten an early start. (snicker)

Quote:

A top House Republican was accidentally honest about the Benghazi investigation

Updated by Andrew Prokop on September 30, 2015, 11:50 a.m. ET @awprokop

A gaffe, in Michael Kinsley's famous formulation, is "when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

On Tuesday night, Rep. Kevin McCarthy — the overwhelming favorite to succeed John Boehner as speaker of the House — made Kinsley proud.

During an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, McCarthy bragged that the House GOP's investigation into the Benghazi attack had made Hillary Clinton's poll numbers plummet. Furthermore, he presented it as part of a "strategy to fight and win," rather than a nonpartisan effort to find the truth.

Here's what he said, via Roll Call:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.

"I give you credit for that," Hannity responded. "I'll give you credit where credit is due."

The Select Committee on Benghazi's investigation has long appeared partisan

Several investigations into the Benghazi events have already wrapped up without findings of serious wrongdoing. Yet the House Select Committee on Benghazi has kept at it — and has long appeared unusually focused on Hillary Clinton, and even on a member of her circle who wasn't even in the administration.
...

vox.com

Pointing out effect is not the same as admitting motivation.

And even if there had been improper motivation such motivation in bringing a charge does not, per se, mean somebody is innocent of a charge.

Still, he should've been more careful in his phrasing, insofar as partisans such as yourself-and 95% of the media-would jump at the chance to spin this.

You've had multiple investigations and now we have the presumed new house speaker spinning his original statement, lol. At this point how can it not be political?

Restating your premise as a question is not the same as addressing my point.

There isn't much on my part to address. I'm fine with letting his original statement speak for itself. I don't have to try to say he meant something else than what he quite clearly meant.

I would respond to this part of your post..."And even if there had been improper motivation such motivation in bringing a charge does not, per se, mean somebody is innocent of a charge."

Improper motivation is another way of saying the gop was interfering with an election. That is against the law besides being immoral.

So, if Hillary is guilty of something related to Benghazi, and republicans uncover that, their political motivation somehow exonerates her...and means a crime was committed on the GOPs part?

Oh Kayyyyyy...

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, if Hillary is guilty of something...

I think your illustrating the GOP's problem and where it crosses into illegality. These multiple investigations lead by republicans haven't turned up anything criminal by Clinton. Just having a never ending fishing expedition with the intent to damage a political opponent isn't legal. I think it would fall under the Hatch Act but I would have to double check that.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, if Hillary is guilty of something...

I think your illustrating the GOP's problem and where it crosses into illegality. These multiple investigations lead by republicans haven't turned up anything criminal by Clinton. Just having a never ending fishing expedition with the intent to damage a political opponent isn't legal. I think it would fall under the Hatch Act but I would have to double check that.

If that were true, why is Barack Obama's FBI (not the Republicans) investigating Hillary Clinton's e-mails?

In truth, three divisions of Obama's government are investigating Hillary Clinton. Steve Hayes on Fox News Sunday cited that fact as evidence that Obama has already thrown Hillary Clinton under the bus, and wishes her candidacy replaced by Joseph Biden or Elizabeth Warren, who would carry on Obama's legacy more in the direction Obama wants.

But regardless, these are not Republicans investigating Hillary who can be accused of a "partisan" investigation (i.e., revealing the true facts.)

Defense Department Finds Emails Hillary Clinton Didn't Hand Over(Newsweek/Reuters)

That damn partisan right wing media... oh wait!

Woah!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, if Hillary is guilty of something...

I think your illustrating the GOP's problem and where it crosses into illegality. These multiple investigations lead by republicans haven't turned up anything criminal by Clinton. Just having a never ending fishing expedition with the intent to damage a political opponent isn't legal. I think it would fall under the Hatch Act but I would have to double check that.

So all those investigations by democrats into the Bush administration, each of which you supported, amounted to criminal conduct?

Perhaps we should be reading you your rights?

Ah the "dems did it too" argument. lol Find a Bush investigation that ran this long and had top elected democrats gloating that it was a big achievement in bringing down Bush's poll numbers before an election. In your mind I think you are not seeing the difference between apples and oranges.

So... the fact that Hillary Clinton set up a private server and compromised top secret material in her e-mails, available for the hacking by Russia and China, is the Republicans' fault because they set up a committee to investigate it, and revealed her crimes?!?

I guess it's "partisan" to simply want to know the truth.

What crimes has she been charged with?

marrying bill clinton.

Originally Posted By: John Boehner

Zippity-do-da...Zippity....SONUVABITCH!!!