# No longer his circus, no longer his monkeys



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 25, 2015)

John Boehner just announced that he is stepping away from Congress in just over a month, citing the papal visit as one catalyst for making the decision, along with fatigue from dealing with his party's rightmost elements.

His decision makes the coming few months even more interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/john-boehner-resigning-as-speaker/index.html


----------



## tuxgeo (Sep 25, 2015)

According to the article, he wanted to leave on a high note, and the Papal visit and speech to Congress was an excellent opportunity.

Two questions arise: 
(1) how does Ohio fill vacancies in its congressional delegation? (Does Gov. Kasich (R) appoint a temporary replacement, or will there be a special election, or what?)
(2) how quickly will the House of Representatives hold a vote to replace Boehner as Speaker? (I'm guessing first and essential order of business once Boehner is gone. That leaves the members a short five-week span for maneuvering and persuading.)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Subtext:

Boehner was facing a likely challenge to his role as Speaker from within his party.  He could withstand that challenge, if he'd had Democratic support.  However, Boehner had shown that he only "cooperated" with the Dems when he needed something, not at any other time, so the Dems had made it known they likely weren't supporting him.  And, if they did save him with their support, he'd be beholden to them, which wouldnt' be a good position.

So his, "leave on a high note" may be "leave while he's still speaker, and not disgraced by being punted".


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2015)

A new more conservative Speaker? Longer government shotdowns with him* as Speaker?


*Right, like Republicans will elect a woman.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

The republican party is in for some fun times.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 27, 2015)

On the plus side, it means the government likely won't be shutting down in the next month; since now that he's resigning, he's pretty much immune to pressure from the far right. Gonna be interesting times after he's gone, though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 27, 2015)

Boehner is going out swinging.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Boehner is going out swinging.




Some remarks of his I heard made me think he'd do as much.  Good for him.  Especially in taking the stunning responsible act of working to avoid a government shutdown.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Sep 28, 2015)

*It's been a while, Goldo.*



goldomark said:


> A new more conservative Speaker? Longer government shotdowns with him* as Speaker?



Hey you spell like I do. 

It really takes two sides for those shutdowns. So if either side can just run over the other it wouldn't happen. And maybe we can get rid of that _not introduce a bill that could pass because politics_ clown act can be thrown out with both chamber leaders soon to be replaced.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 28, 2015)

A big part of the problem is the so-called "Hastert rule", where the Speaker of the House won't allow votes on a bill unless it has the support of the majority of the Speaker's party. So even if there is a majority for a particular bill, it might not get to a vote because a large minority of House members won't vote for it.

Of course, the Hastert rule is not an actual rule - the Speaker can allow a vote on any bill he or she pleases. But doing so would invite a leadership challenge.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Some remarks of his I heard made me think he'd do as much.  Good for him.  Especially in taking the stunning responsible act of working to avoid a government shutdown.



Yeah, I wish he'd behaved in this manner before and without having to quit.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yeah, I wish he'd behaved in this manner before and without having to quit.




My personal read of this is that he'd actually been *trying*, and some segments of the party are tired of him getting in the way or their attempts to do otherwise.  I expect the writing was on the wall that the next time he tried to be reasonable, they'd have forced him out (probably over Planned Parenthood, in this case).  So, he decided to resign, which allows him at least one last hurrah of being as reasonable as he can be - there's a funding bill apt to pass tomorrow, if I heard the radio correctly today.

That pushes out the funding question until December.  And I think that's tactical.  Pushed that much closer to the elections, it may make a shutdown less politically expedient.  A shutdown would raise the very narrow base, but cheese off *everyone else*.  Do that too close to elections (over the holiday season, no less), and it may become a hindrance, not a boost overall.  So, if the relevant folks try for it anyway, they may shoot themselves in the collective foot, electorally speaking.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2015)

calronmoonflower said:


> Hey you spell like I do.
> 
> It really takes two sides for those shutdowns. So if either side can just run over the other it wouldn't happen. And maybe we can get rid of that _not introduce a bill that could pass because politics_ clown act can be thrown out with both chamber leaders soon to be replaced.




Hey, still in the chicken industry?


----------



## calronmoonflower (Oct 5, 2015)

*Now we return you to your regularly scheduled thread.*



goldomark said:


> Hey, still in the chicken industry?



You need to stop talking to squirrels, I've never worked in the chicken industry.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 6, 2015)

Representative Boehner has now pushed back the election of a new Speaker to the 29th of October, 2015. 
_[link goes to McClatchyDC]_


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 8, 2015)

Prepare for drama. Front runner drops out, couldn't unifiy the Republican party behind him. http://gawker.com/house-majority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-who-recently-boas-1735442870


----------



## Umbran (Oct 9, 2015)

Yeah.  As I understand the dynamic, the "Freedom Caucus" had decided they didn't like the guy, and were going to not vote for him.  He might have been able to get the position, but with a small enough margin that his position would not be secure.

In short, the Freedom Caucus is, in essence, holding the operation of the House hostage.  But, they are known to support measure like shutting down the government when they don't get their way.

One author I read today suggested that the more moderate Repulbicans could, in fact, form a coalition with some Democrats to elect someone to lead the House.  I suspect his would probably be good for the nation, but not so hot for the re-election prospects of the people who did it.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 9, 2015)

*More candidates for Speaker of the House*

CNBC has an article about candidates for Speaker of the House. The list includes: 
• Daniel Webster (R-FL) 
• Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) 
• Paul Ryan (R-WI) (who has said he is _not_ a candidate) 
• Trey Gowdy (R-SC) 
• Tom Cole (R-OK) 
• Peter Roskam (R-IL) 
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 9, 2015)

I hope the guy from Florida wins. No one does crazy like a guy from Florida. It should make the House much more entertaining.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> One author I read today suggested that the more moderate Repulbicans could, in fact, form a coalition with some Democrats to elect someone to lead the House.  I suspect his would probably be good for the nation, but not so hot for the re-election prospects of the people who did it.




That scenario has popped up before under Obama, but hasn't happened. I'll believe it when I'll see it. It would lead to a split among Republicans and I'm not sure the fruit is ripe for that. 

It's like a Democrat's wet dream. Bipartisanship in the House! But what does it mean when your dream is imagining the girl you like getting a beating from her boyfriend so that she'll fall in love with you? Sounds rather bleak to me.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That scenario has popped up before under Obama, but hasn't happened. I'll believe it when I'll see it.




I didn't say it was likely, merely that it was technically possible.  What it would do to the re-election chances of the GOP members who do it would likely prevent it.



> It would lead to a split among Republicans and I'm not sure the fruit is ripe for that.




I think that depends - the fruit is on the verge, and may just need a bigger swat.  Should Trump actually win the nomination, something interesting might happen.



> But what does it mean when your dream is imagining the girl you like getting a beating from her boyfriend so that she'll fall in love with you? Sounds rather bleak to me.




I'm not sure who "the girl" is in this case.  Certainly not the GOP - the Democrats do not like them.  They may be willing to work with them.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I didn't say it was likely, merely that it was technically possible.



A lot of things are possible.



> I think that depends - the fruit is on the verge, and may just need a bigger swat.



A terrible electoral defeat could be that swat. 



> Should Trump actually win the nomination, something interesting might happen.



It is more probable that a new Speaker won't be elected for a while. That could mean the debt ceiling not getting raised for a while. This could lead to a terrible electoral defeat. 

I'd be curious to know what the presidential candidates would say on the matter. 



> I'm not sure who "the girl" is in this case.  Certainly not the GOP - the Democrats do not like them.  They may be willing to work with them.



Metaphors aren't 100% accurate.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> A lot of things are possible.




So?  

The role is actually pretty interesting, in that most of its current nature is traditional, rather than legislated.  The Speaker, for example, doesn't have to even be a member of the House.  The Speaker does not have to be a member of the House majority party (though, getting the role without being such would be terribly difficult).

It is possible, for example, for the House to find a non-partisan outside to do the job.  It has never happened before, but would be entirely legal.  WHile an unlikely development, it is an interesting one for thought.



> A terrible electoral defeat could be that swat.




Yes.  But I think a looming electoral disaster might also do the trick.



> It is more probable that a new Speaker won't be elected for a while. That could mean the debt ceiling not getting raised for a while. This could lead to a terrible electoral defeat.




Yes, that is certainly a possibility.  The last time we faced such issues, the GOP didn't come out looking very good at all.



> I'd be curious to know what the presidential candidates would say on the matter.




Probably very little - mucking in on this issue would be extremely politically complicated and risky.  I expect they will mostly remain silent, to distance themselves from yet another sign of the party's dysfunction.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, that is certainly a possibility.  The last time we faced such issues, the GOP didn't come out looking very good at all.




The last time we faced such issues, in the next election, the GOP increased it's majority in the House and took the majority in the Senate.  I'd hate to see what would happen if such issues went well for the GOP.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The role is actually pretty interesting, in that most of its current nature is traditional, rather than legislated.  The Speaker, for example, doesn't have to even be a member of the House.  The Speaker does not have to be a member of the House majority party (though, getting the role without being such would be terribly difficult).
> 
> It is possible, for example, for the House to find a non-partisan outside to do the job.  It has never happened before, but would be entirely legal.  WHile an unlikely development, it is an interesting one for thought.



Very similar to how the prime minister and the ministers in the British parlimentary system do not need to be elected to get the job. Like you say, it is tradition that they come from the elected body. 



> Yes.  But I think a looming electoral disaster might also do the trick.



I think denial is too strong among Republicans for "looming" to be sufficiant. They can't even learn from their mistakes as below. 



> Yes, that is certainly a possibility.  The last time we faced such issues, the GOP didn't come out looking very good at all.



And yet here they are again. Amazing. Seriously. 



> Probably very little - mucking in on this issue would be extremely politically complicated and risky.  I expect they will mostly remain silent, to distance themselves from yet another sign of the party's dysfunction.



But journalists will ask them questions. They'll have to say something, even if very vague. Some will say they are in favor, because it will make them look good with the more radical base. Ted Cruz and his stance on the government shutdown comes to mind.

Others just do not know what the debt limit is. http://gawker.com/ben-carson-cant-quite-put-his-finger-on-exactly-what-th-1735348489 He's second or first in polls. Amazing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> The last time we faced such issues, in the next election, the GOP increased it's majority in the House and took the majority in the Senate.  I'd hate to see what would happen if such issues went well for the GOP.




Midterm elections favor Republicans as their voter base goes out more to vote. The turn out was only 36,4%. Hard to say the electon reflect the sentiment of the general population. Gerrymandering also favors Republicans in the House since 2010.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 9, 2015)

> It is possible, for example, for the House to find a non-partisan outside to do the job. It has never happened before, but would be entirely legal. WHile an unlikely development, it is an interesting one for thought.



Huh- didn't know that.  I learned something!

As a tangent, that sort of gives the position something in common with then Pope: most assume that the Pope must be a high ranking priest to be chosen, but this isn't the case.  Any Catholic male in good standing with the church may be elected Pope, even if he is not a priest.  Nothing like that has happened in centuries, though. (Pope Leo X, 1513.)


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 9, 2015)

Given that House membership is not a requirement, maybe Newt Gingrich (remember him?) could sneak back into the position. 

If he did, though, the press would call him "The Sneaker of the House."


----------



## Umbran (Oct 9, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> The last time we faced such issues, in the next election, the GOP increased it's majority in the House and took the majority in the Senate.  I'd hate to see what would happen if such issues went well for the GOP.




Well, there are a couple of effects at play there.

For example:  Congressional approval ratings are low - right now they are at about 14% approval, and they were at the same place about this time last year.

However, folks generally *approve* of how their own congresscritter does their job.  In September 2014, 54% of polled respondents think their own representation wass doing a good job.  Typically, more than half of people think their own Congress members but also think the majority of the members of Congress are corrupt.  You see similar skews on who gets attention - special interests or constituents.  People generally feel that congress, on the whole, caters to special interests, but their own representative is better than Congress as a whole.  Same for being out of touch.  So, Congressmen are like kids - everyone thinks their own is above average.  

Thus, opinion of the party as a whole is not necessarily related to someone's opinion of their own representation.  This is seen in the Tea Party today - they haven't formed their own party, but they don't generally approve of the GOP take on things, enough so that their representatives in Congress have their own caucus.

So, we have the situation where (of course) the GOP doesn't look good to the Democrats.  But, to the classic GOP, the Tea Party is a problem.  To the Tea Party, the classic GOP is a problem.  Nobody really likes the GOP as a whole these days.  







Cite for statistics: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, there are a couple of effects at play there.
> 
> For example:  Congressional approval ratings are low - right now they are at about 14% approval, and they were at the same place about this time last year.
> 
> ...




You've listed a bunch of reasons why things should be bad for the GOP (and Congress in general), but nothing you listed shows how the GOP would be able to improve their situation despite the presumed negative of the debt ceiling crisis. Yet, that's exactly what happened -- the GOP improved their position despite the debt ceiling crisis.  So I'm wondering, if you think they did poorly out of the last one, what metric are you using?


----------



## Bawylie (Oct 9, 2015)

Boehner pulled earmarks. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. (And as a libertarian, I freaking hate earmarks). So I supported it wholeheartedly. However, it's clear to me now (as it should've been) that money is the lubricant that makes compromise possible. 

So without the ability to sweeten deals, and a chunk of the party representatives elected to grind things to a halt, things ground to a halt. 

Now, again, I'm normally very fine with a government that doesnt do much. I'm less fine with a government that can't do anything. Believing in limited government means (for me at least) tolerating some amount of governance. 

Boehner did about as well as anyone could've done. I hope the next guy reinstates earmarks, or something, so SOME stuff can happen. Like the stuff they're p much required to be doing. 

The political football issues can take a hike, I don't care. But there are legit functions, bills to pay, work to do. They can screw around playing "who's the crappiest party?" after the work gets done.  And the "grind to a halt" people need to differentiate between legit business and grandstanding. Jaysus.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> You've listed a bunch of reasons why things should be bad for the GOP (and Congress in general), but nothing you listed shows how the GOP would be able to improve their situation despite the presumed negative of the debt ceiling crisis.




Yes I did.  When people elect Congresscritters, they are voting not for the party as a whole, but for the local individual (who, as stated, folks generally believe is better than the rest of Congress, the rest of the party).  Thus, the party makes gains by way of individuals, not *as a group*.  

I would argue, though, that they didn't actually improve their position - empirically, they are no better at getting things done, even with their supposed gains.  They gained seats, but that only improves position if they are ideologically united, and work as a team, which they clearly aren't and don't.  They gained seats, but only at the cost of depending on a coalition of groups that don't actually agree on how the country should be run.  The result is an "improvement" on paper when you only paint in Blue and Red, but not actual improvement in getting policy enacted.


----------



## Orius (Oct 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, there are a couple of effects at play there.
> 
> For example:  Congressional approval ratings are low - right now they are at about 14% approval, and they were at the same place about this time last year.
> 
> However, folks generally *approve* of how their own congresscritter does their job.  In September 2014, 54% of polled respondents think their own representation wass doing a good job.  Typically, more than half of people think their own Congress members but also think the majority of the members of Congress are corrupt.  You see similar skews on who gets attention - special interests or constituents.  People generally feel that congress, on the whole, caters to special interests, but their own representative is better than Congress as a whole.  Same for being out of touch.  So, Congressmen are like kids - everyone thinks their own is above average.




Gerrymandering at work.  I don't like the Democrats at all, but I'm in a district that's gerrymandered to be safe for Democrats, so naturally I don't care much for the Democrat who supposedly represents me in the House.  But I'm also pissed at the state GOP who after the last two censuses gerrymandered things this way to keep their candidates safe even though I voted for their candidates.  But since locally Democrats have a fairly big advantage in higher registration numbers, the GOP is at a disadvantage, so they just cut and run instead of building local support.  I'm only registered as a Democrat because the local GOP is so pathetically impotent that local elections tend to get decided in the primaries, statewide GOP races (pretty much just the governor and US Senators) haven't been competitive in years, and presidential primaries are  usually effectively over by the time Pennsylvania votes.



> Thus, opinion of the party as a whole is not necessarily related to someone's opinion of their own representation.  This is seen in the Tea Party today - they haven't formed their own party, but they don't generally approve of the GOP take on things, enough so that their representatives in Congress have their own caucus.
> 
> So, we have the situation where (of course) the GOP doesn't look good to the Democrats.  But, to the classic GOP, the Tea Party is a problem.  To the Tea Party, the classic GOP is a problem.  Nobody really likes the GOP as a whole these days.




My take is that the GOP coalition from the Reagan era is breaking down.  It's been over 35 years since it was formed, and the various social issues that were important to the American right have changed except for a few like abortion (and _that_ particular issue has gone nowhere as long as I've been alive, it's like the freakin' Western Front in WWI).  Political power is shifting from the Baby Boom to Generation X and millenials who have different views and priorities.  Society is changing as well, things are not what they were in 1980, and some groups, the working class, are growing increasingly more frustrated as things change.  Primary elections have gotten quite a bit more partisan, to where candidates  have to pander to the more radical elements of the base to get nominated for the general elections, and then they have to swing to the center without being labeled as a flip-flopper, phony, or liar.  Hell, the far right reveres Reagan as a great president and all that, but today, they'd call him a RINO and boot him  out of office!  It affects both parties (there are people on the far left who don't like Clinton and are throwing their support behind Sanders instead, but she'll likely win the primary and get their support except for the voters on the fringe who'll vote Green or Socialist or something, for example), but  the Democrats are a bit more successful in reining in the radicals.  Perhaps  they're just more  politically pragmatic and are more concerned about overall influence in Congress than ideological purity, or maybe the far left simply doesn't have the clout the far right does, so they can't  pull the stunts the Tea Party's been doing.

I was sympathetic towards the Tea Party early on when their main focus was on cutting wasteful spending, but they've increasingly gotten more and more dominated by the isolationist, xenophobic, and religious elements of the right, none of which  I like.  None of them has any sort of political vision that can prevail into the future.  They don't kmow how to pick their battles either.  They want to win everything, which is impossible, since Obama will just veto most if not everything they want, there's enough Democrats in Congress to sustain the veto, and the Tea Party seems to be so math deficient that they can't count the votes they actually have.  So they have a situation where they have to pick what's really important to them and make lesser sacrifices to prevail.  They're incapable of that.   Unfortunately, the more moderate wing of the GOP is saddled with a not entirely undeserved reputation for being uncaring, wealthy, elitist hardasses and/or racists and don't have enough power to challence the radicals.  They can thank clinging to the Southern Strategy for too long for that, supporting too much corporate welfare, and not doing enough to strengthen their hand in swing regions, and now it's hurting them badly.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2015)

Orius said:


> Gerrymandering at work.




Gerrymandering is a major issue, but it does not explain how someone likes their own representative, while thinking poorly of all the rest, regardless of party.  You'd imagine rather the opposite, as part of the point of gerrymandering is to focus efforts - there is little campaigning going on in gerrymandered districts, so folks are not fed so strong a line of how good their congressperson is.  Gerrymandering generally results in low voter turnout (because, why bother?), which should lead to very little voter investment in their congressional representation. 

So, I don't think gerrymandering explains the data.  Basic and common human psychology, "that *mine* is better than average," I think better explains what's seen.



> My take is that the GOP coalition from the Reagan era is breaking down.




You're talking a little longer term than I am, but I don't disagree.  I was speaking of the coalition with the Tea Party.  But, I might say that the rise of the Tea Party was actually a major step in the break down of the Reagan coalition, as it represents a section of the party that no longer believes the party as a whole represents their desires.  

And the breakdown of Reagan's coalition is, in turn, really a breakdown of the Southern Strategy on which Reagan's was based.



> It's been over 35 years since it was formed, and the various social issues that were important to the American right have changed except for a few like abortion




I would say the social end of the conservative platform hasn't changed much since the Reagan era, and that's a problem because the world is changing around them.  



> Perhaps  they're just more  politically pragmatic and are more concerned about overall influence in Congress than ideological purity, or maybe the far left simply doesn't have the clout the far right does, so they can't  pull the stunts the Tea Party's been doing.




Well, you noted above - since at least the Reagan Era, the GOP has been *actively courting* the far right.  There have been party people helping them organize, whipping them up and telling them that what they want is okay, and that they can make a difference - the image of them being "grass roots" is not actually very accurate, in that sense.  The GOP put effort (and a lot of money) into building up the clout of the far right.  The Democrats have not done the same with their more radical elements.  

In essence, the GOP is Dr. Frankenstein.  They have created their own monster, and now must deal with it.  



> They don't know how to pick their battles either.  They want to win everything, which is impossible, since Obama will just veto most if not everything they want, there's enough Democrats in Congress to sustain the veto, and the Tea Party seems to be so math deficient that they can't count the votes they actually have.




The more cynical among them probably knows that.  But, you see, fighting the good fight - refusing to back down on *anything* - increases the support they get from their base.  To the radical end of anything, ideological purity is often more important than getting results.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2015)

Gerrymandering is one of those things that both parties do, and I wish we could just get made illegal because it is antidemocratic and generally creates more problems than it solves.  There is some whiff that it may yet be struck down, but that movement will probably take decades to get any serious political force behind it.  I have to ponder which party will go for it first and hardest, though.  While the Democrats would seem to have the most to gain by it, the GOP has truly refined the method to a fine art...but they're also being damaged by it.

Here's what I mean: traditional gerrymandered districts are drawn in such a way as to produce unassailable political advantages.  Candidates win with huge margins of victories- often exceeding 30%.  That's the way most state Democratic Party majorities playing the game still do things.  The past decade or so, though, GOP strategists learned they could gerrymander in such a way as to reduce their margins of victories to lower double digits- safe, but still daunting 15%+ margins- while picking up seats by spreading their voters among other districts enough to get similar victory margins OR make former Democratically-held strongholds into toss-up districts.  It has been VERY effective.

...And it is biting the GOP in their collective tuchus right now: a goodly number of the party's far right representatives came from such districts, and not only do they not fear the Democrats, they're also virtually immunized from a need to follow GOP leadership on anything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2015)

An interesting development in The Center Ring:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-export-import-bank/409966/?utm_source=yahoo


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 10, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> An interesting development in The Center Ring:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-export-import-bank/409966/?utm_source=yahoo



Nice.


----------



## Orius (Oct 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Gerrymandering is a major issue, but it does not explain how someone likes their own representative, while thinking poorly of all the rest, regardless of party.  You'd imagine rather the opposite, as part of the point of gerrymandering is to focus efforts - there is little campaigning going on in gerrymandered districts, so folks are not fed so strong a line of how good their congressperson is.  Gerrymandering generally results in low voter turnout (because, why bother?), which should lead to very little voter investment in their congressional representation.
> 
> So, I don't think gerrymandering explains the data.  Basic and common human psychology, "that *mine* is better than average," I think better explains what's seen.




Well, there's probably two other factors I overlooked as well.

First, there's 435 members of the House, so a lot of them are going to be pretty obscure.  Not everyone is represented by one of the big names like Boehner or Pelosi, and when they blame both parties, it's probably blame on the leadership.  If their rep is a lesser-known member who isn't bloviating regularly on CNN or C-SPAN or something, a voter might figure "He/she's not part of the problem" and blame everyone else.  It's nonsense of course, because the Reps usually tend to vote with the rest of the party, if they don't, they don't get leadership positions, they don't get seats on the committees and so on.  Party leadership  won't pay them much heed if they stray too often.  But gerrymandering may play some part here because of partisan loyalties -- when you've got a safe seat, the rep is probably the same party as the majority of active voters, so they're probably going to be inclined to be more forgiving of the rep.

Second, there's pork and earmarks.  Technically, they're not the same, but they tend to get lumped together.  It's the money that gets things done in Congress, but it's also what bloats the budget, often needlessly (like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere).   This is another way legislators get support, they can brag about how they obtained federal funding for the district which gets them support and approval.



> You're talking a little longer term than I am, but I don't disagree.  I was speaking of the coalition with the Tea Party.  But, I might say that the rise of the Tea Party was actually a major step in the break down of the Reagan coalition, as it represents a section of the party that no longer believes the party as a whole represents their desires.
> 
> ...
> 
> And the breakdown of Reagan's coalition is, in turn, really a breakdown of the Southern Strategy on which Reagan's was based.




Yeah, I'm looking back to the late 60's/early 70's to explain the current dynamics, because a lot of it to me  has been driven by the Baby Boom's participation in American politics, though they didn't start taking over until they '80s.  



> I would say the social end of the conservative platform hasn't changed much since the Reagan era, and that's a problem because the world is changing around them.




To some degree, yes.  For me it depends on the reasons for the views, traditions, and values conservatives support.  I don't support conservative views that originated in protecting the privileges of one class, religion, or race over another, I see that as against basic American ideals to begin with.  I don't support views that were important in the past but don't really apply today becuase the views have become obsolete.  I do support the sort of values that tend to be timeless, values that society needs to function properly.  One of the biggest weaknesses in any conservative movement IMO is the tendancy to romaticize the past and not see the problems.  



> Well, you noted above - since at least the Reagan Era, the GOP has been *actively courting* the far right.  There have been party people helping them organize, whipping them up and telling them that what they want is okay, and that they can make a difference - the image of them being "grass roots" is not actually very accurate, in that sense.  The GOP put effort (and a lot of money) into building up the clout of the far right.  The Democrats have not done the same with their more radical elements.




I think perhaps that Democrats don't bother because they know far left isn't likely to vote Republican in the general elections.  So if they can win without radical support, they'll court the middle instead. That sometimes is a problem for them when the GOP successfully mobilizes and achieves victories.



> In essence, the GOP is Dr. Frankenstein.  They have created their own monster, and now must deal with it.




Yes, unfortunately.  Since the GOP is more likely to side with my views, I don't like seeing them commit political suicide at the behest of the far right.  What they need to do is build up real political support from the center, particulalry from minority voters instead of playing gamews with gerrymandering and voter registration.  Without building the party base outside the far right, they're not going to get long-term victories.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gerrymandering is one of those things that both parties do, and I wish we could just get made illegal because it is antidemocratic and generally creates more problems than it solves.  There is some whiff that it may yet be struck down, but that movement will probably take decades to get any serious political force behind it.  I have to ponder which party will go for it first and hardest, though.  While the Democrats would seem to have the most to gain by it, the GOP has truly refined the method to a fine art...but they're also being damaged by it.
> 
> Here's what I mean: traditional gerrymandered districts are drawn in such a way as to produce unassailable political advantages.  Candidates win with huge margins of victories- often exceeding 30%.  That's the way most state Democratic Party majorities playing the game still do things.  The past decade or so, though, GOP strategists learned they could gerrymander in such a way as to reduce their margins of victories to lower double digits- safe, but still daunting 15%+ margins- while picking up seats by spreading their voters among other districts enough to get similar victory margins OR make former Democratically-held strongholds into toss-up districts.  It has been VERY effective.
> 
> ...And it is biting the GOP in their collective tuchus right now: a goodly number of the party's far right representatives came from such districts, and not only do they not fear the Democrats, they're also virtually immunized from a need to follow GOP leadership on anything.




That shows the GOP _can_ be smart, very smart really when they want to, regardless of what liberals think.  They know that they don't need landslides to win, just majorities.  So by going for smaller margins which are still safe, they can spread their influence in the House out more.  But it's probably not just votes in Congress, they may be looking at electoral votes too.  Which is another short-sighted problem: during the last century, holding the presidency became more important for them (perhaps one reason they hated Clinton so much).  But the president doesn't make the laws, Congress does.  So without controlling Congress (and that includes the Senate where they can't make safe seats), they get less influence on the laws that are made.  Sure, the president can veto, but that's reactive.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> An interesting development in The Center Ring:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-export-import-bank/409966/?utm_source=yahoo




That should never have been a huge issue to begin with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 11, 2015)

Orius said:


> Yes, unfortunately.  Since the GOP is more likely to side with my views, I don't like seeing them commit political suicide at the behest of the far right.  What they need to do is build up real political support from the center, particulalry from minority voters instead of playing gamews with gerrymandering and voter registration.  Without building the party base outside the far right, they're not going to get long-term victories.




I think that danger is part of what John McCain percieved in all those decades pre-2008 when he warned his fellow Republicand against excessive entanglement with the religious right.



> That shows the GOP _can_ be smart, very smart really when they want to, regardless of what liberals think.




Few politicians at that level are stupid, regardless of party.  Regardless of my opinion of Ted Cruz's ideas, ideology, and implementation of same, he DID graduate from Princeton Univerisity & Harvard Law School- both with honors- and clerked for Justice Rehnquist of the SCOTUS.  Dumb people don't do that.

I've seen Newt Gingrich give speeches.  After some of them, I watched him come up with solid workable solutions for questions raised during the Q&A sessions, some of which might be at odds with GOP orthodoxy, and others that, despite conformity, might be palatable to the Left.  Off the cuff.  Dumb people don't do that, either.

Underestimate politicians' intellect at your own risk.  Their _sanity_, OTOH, is always a matter of concern...



> That should never have been a huge issue to begin with.



Agreed.

What I'm hoping is that this is a sign that the moderate & liberal elements of the GOP will continue to work with moderate & conservative Dems to actually govern the country responsibly, as opposed to governing from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.  You know, like in the pre-Gingrich era legislatures.

After all, "compromise" is not a four letter word...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 22, 2015)

Looks like Ryan wants to stir the pot a bit. I'm betting that in two weeks, Ryan will decide not to run for Speaker of the House.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 22, 2015)

The whole Ryan & Freedom Caucus relationship reminds me of something...

Hmmm...what was it now?

Oh yes- they've got his back, now!


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The whole Ryan & Freedom Caucus relationship reminds me of something...
> 
> Hmmm...what was it now?
> 
> Oh yes- they've got his back, now!




Well, among his conditions for taking the role are some changes so that they can't easily stab him in the back.  Once they put him in there, he will not be as easy to threaten with an ousting.  Plus, by most reports I have heard, he doesn't really want the job, but will do it because nobody else can/will.  Threaten to oust him, and what's his reply going to be?  "Finally, I can get out of here!"


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 22, 2015)

The last news I read about this subject was that the Freedom Caucus was continuing to support Webster. Since having their support was a precondition to Ryan's accepting the job in the first place, he doesn't seem destined for it now.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> The last news I read about this subject was that the Freedom Caucus was continuing to support Webster. Since having their support was a precondition to Ryan's accepting the job in the first place, he doesn't seem destined for it now.




When was that?  As of this morning, CNN says that Ryan supposedly has 70% of the Freedom Caucus behind him - not a full endorsement by the caucus yet, but enough that he's continuing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/paul-ryan-house-speaker-freedom-caucus/index.html


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 22, 2015)

Yeah, I still had ahold of yesterday's news. Today, I came to EN World before checking. Thanks for the CNN update. 

Today, The Strait Times (just to use a different source) states that Ryan barely has the votes to become Speaker, should he enter the race as a formal candidate, which he hasn't done yet.

That article goes on to quote a statement from the Freedom Caucus saying, "While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding chairman Ryan's preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our conference in due time."


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> That article goes on to quote a statement from the Freedom Caucus saying, "While no consensus exists among members of the House Freedom Caucus regarding chairman Ryan's preconditions for serving, we believe that these issues can be resolved within our conference in due time."




From articles I've read, "consensus" as far as Ryan is concerned, was at 80% support of the caucus.

I don't agree with Ryan on much, but I am not of the opinion that he's so dumb as to step into the role unless his preconditions are met beforehand.  So, "due time" needs to be the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 22, 2015)

Especially with the 28th being the date set for the selection, as I recall.  Ryan and I may differ in our politics, but if know for a fact the man ain't dumb.  The question is how obstreporus is the Freedom Caucus?  How willing are they to push hard for strict adherence to (their interpretation of) conservative doctrine versus the long term health of the country in general and the GOP in particular?

Because if Ryan DOES become SotH, I predict that it will be a short honeymoon.  The 30% who don't like him are already calling him "RyNo", with appropriate graphics.


----------



## Orius (Oct 22, 2015)

Personally, I'd like to see him rein them in quite a bit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because if Ryan DOES become SotH, I predict that it will be a short honeymoon.  The 30% who don't like him are already calling him "RyNo", with appropriate graphics.




Not even elected yet, and...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...94f3ce-7999-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not even elected yet, and...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...94f3ce-7999-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html



I can't wait until he actually becomes Speaker of the House. I want to see if he can match Boehner's  record for crying. I'm sure his party ill do their best to make sure he beats Boehner's record.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not even elected yet, and...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...94f3ce-7999-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html




Not Everyone Agrees!  News at 11.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I can't wait until he actually becomes Speaker of the House. I want to see if he can match Boehner's  record for crying. I'm sure his party ill do their best to make sure he beats Boehner's record.




I doubt he can even come close to Boehner's record for crying -- overall, Boehner was an _especially teary guy_. 

Ryan's party may well behave with a modicum of sense once he's elected SotH (if he is), as soon as conservative ideas start getting at least a hearing in bills, with some of the ideas possibly even being passed on to the Senate.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 28, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> I doubt he can even come close to Boehner's record for crying -- overall, Boehner was an _especially teary guy_.



While what you say is true, I have faith that Ryan will try his best to beat that record.



> Ryan's party may well behave with a modicum of sense once he's elected SotH (if he is), as soon as conservative ideas start getting at least a hearing in bills, with some of the ideas possibly even being passed on to the Senate.



I don't know about that. Ryan's policies don't seem to be well like. I mean, he doesn't like his own policies. What hope is there that other republicans are going to like it?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't know about that. Ryan's policies don't seem to be well like. I mean, he doesn't like his own policies.




That's not exactly fair.  Specifically, Ryan's issue is with the process - the deal was brokered by a handful of the top people in the House, with the White House, rather than as a more broad initiative.

The article you quote says, _"They grabbed off the shelf what we’d been working on for months," Buck said, *adding that Ryan supports the provision.* "We were aware of that, but not what all was being traded back and forth."_ 

(emphasis mine)  So, he's happy with the stuff he wrote, but not so much with what happened in the horse-trading.

That Ryan was not included in the horse trading was intentional, actually.  It allows them to get this issue out of the way, and Ryan starts with a clean slate and no budgetary Sword of Damocles hanging over his head for a while.  Boehner gets to leave having avoided a crisis, Ryan gets to come in without having compromised with Democrats to avoid a crisis.




> What hope is there that other republicans are going to like it?




I think the point is that some of the House GOP would prefer that the Speaker do *less* personal driving of policy than in the past.  I think they want him to be more about facilitating process than determining content of bills.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think the point is that some of the House GOP would prefer that the Speaker do *less* personal driving of policy than in the past.  I think they want him to be more about facilitating process than determining content of bills.



I disagree. The House GOP has been pushing the Hastert rule for quite some time. They are not interested in the process. The Hastert rule limits what can be brought up to floor to that which the majority of the majority agree on. It's used by the GOP to limit the power of minority groups. It isn't even a written House policy. It's a belief that the GOP uses to control what can and can't be voted on. So as far as them caring for the process? Yeah, that's a gigantic pile of hot and smelly you know what. The process be damned, it's all about the content of bills. As long as the content is that which the GOP likes, they could care less about the process.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> As long as the content is that which the GOP likes, they could care less about the process.




As we have seen in many ways these days, "the GOP" is no longer a unified thing.  That's why we have this whole circus over the Speaker in the first place.

There are elements of the GOP that don't feel they have a voice, and they don't like compromises. These are the same elements that use what power they have to take budgets hostage and threaten to get Speakers tossed out if they don't get their way, because they don't have any other way to get their ideas forward.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> As we have seen in many ways these days, "the GOP" is no longer a unified thing.  That's why we have this whole circus over the Speaker in the first place.
> 
> There are elements of the GOP that don't feel they have a voice, and they don't like compromises. These are the same elements that use what power they have to take budgets hostage and threaten to get Speakers tossed out if they don't get their way, because they don't have any other way to get their ideas forward.



And those problems are a making of the GOP. They've ignored and/or found ways around the process, and thus created the current circus. The worst part is that the groups within the GOP that feel they have no power further ignore the process. As I said before, the GOP doesn't care about the process. It's all about the content. If Ryan decides to actually follow the process, he's going to be attacked by various groups in the GOP on an almost daily basis.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 28, 2015)

On a sort of related note, Dennis Hastert pleads guilty to fraud charges in hush-money case. [/quote]Former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert pleaded guilty Wednesday to bank fraud charges connected to $1.7 million he paid to cover up what federal officials said was sexual misconduct dating back to his years as a high school teacher and coach. Prosecutors are recommending up to 6-month prison sentence.[/quote]It's good to see that the GOP follows the principles of good and honest law-abiding citizens who only want to help themselves to some young men.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And those problems are a making of the GOP. They've ignored and/or found ways around the process, and thus created the current circus.




Perhaps we are talking past each other.  I don't think the GOP is about process for the sake of process.  They are not process purists.  But, as a practical matter, the issue of the moment is the process - that they need the Speaker to include what they want in bills.  The Speaker right now is a gatekeeper, and that's been an issue.

It isn't that they ignore the process.  What they do is *change* the process so that it does what they want of the moment.  Congressional rules are changed pretty regularly.  When they come across the next time the process gets in the way of what they want, then it becomes about the process for a little while.



> The worst part is that the groups within the GOP that feel they have no power further ignore the process.




No, actually, they are experts at using the process.

Consider them to be munchkin gamers - experts at finding the odd corners of The Rules.  When they can't get what they want, they threaten the GM with something *even worse* until they get the changes they want.  Very much the, "Your rules won't let me do what I want?  Fine, within you rules I can hold the entire game hostage until you give me what I want!"  

The difference is that in a tabletop game you can boot anyone who is disruptive.  In an elected body, the guy managing the thing is stuck with whoever shows up.



> As I said before, the GOP doesn't care about the process. It's all about the content.




As I said above - until they can get the content the want, it will be about the process.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 28, 2015)

As expected, Paul Ryan has now been nominated by the Republicans to be the next Speaker of the House. (Washington Post)

The vote of the full House for Speaker won't happen until Thursday.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 28, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> As expected, Paul Ryan has now been nominated by the Republicans to be the next Speaker of the House. (Washington Post)
> 
> *The vote of the full House for Speaker won't happen until Thursday*.



There is still time for his own party to derail Ryan and continue the circus show. With another GOP debate coming up, this is going to be fun couple of weeks of GOP watching.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> There is still time for his own party to derail Ryan and continue the circus show.




A few hours - they vote tomorrow morning.  Technically possible, yes, but unlikely.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 28, 2015)

The House has now passed the budget deal that John Boehner struck with the Democrats. (Link to CNN.)

He goes out as Speaker the way he sometimes ran things before: more Democratic votes in favor than Republican votes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2015)

Double the number of Reps who voted for the deal since the last time. Interesting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> A few hours - they vote tomorrow morning.  Technically possible, yes, but unlikely.



True. It's unfortunate they probably don't have the time to derail the Ryan-becoming-House-Speaker train, but that's okay. Fortunately, after Ryan becomes SoH, the GOP will have plenty of time to derail his tenure as SoH. The circus will continue. It can't be stopped.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> On a sort of related note, Dennis Hastert pleads guilty to fraud charges in hush-money case.



Former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert pleaded guilty Wednesday to bank fraud charges connected to $1.7 million he paid to cover up what federal officials said was sexual misconduct dating back to his years as a high school teacher and coach. Prosecutors are recommending up to 6-month prison sentence.[/quote]It's good to see that the GOP follows the principles of good and honest law-abiding citizens who only want to help themselves to some young men.[/QUOTE]

Not to defend whatever Hastert did to need to pay hush money (and the charge he plead to explicitly avoids any mention of what the payments were for), but the law he plead to is one of the worst piles of steaming excrement to ever come out of the War on Drugs.  It's almost as bad as USC 18  Section 1001, Lying to Federal Agents, but not quite merely because it has less opportunity to be used.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not to defend whatever Hastert did to need to pay hush money (and the charge he plead to explicitly avoids any mention of what the payments were for), but the law he plead to is one of the worst piles of steaming excrement to ever come out of the War on Drugs.  It's almost as bad as USC 18  Section 1001, Lying to Federal Agents, but not quite merely because it has less opportunity to be used.



Settle down legal-eagle. He paid money to keep kids quite about his secret wrestling techniques. That's against the law. You may not like it. Hastert may not like it. He still broke the law. If it was such a bad law, he could have changed it during his time as Speaker of the House.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 29, 2015)

Paul Ryan has now been elected to become the next Speaker of the House. (Link to Boston Herald.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> On a sort of related note, Dennis Hastert pleads guilty to fraud charges in hush-money case.



Former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert pleaded guilty Wednesday to bank fraud charges connected to $1.7 million he paid to cover up what federal officials said was sexual misconduct dating back to his years as a high school teacher and coach. Prosecutors are recommending up to 6-month prison sentence.[/quote]It's good to see that the GOP follows the principles of good and honest law-abiding citizens who only want to help themselves to some young men.[/QUOTE]



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Settle down legal-eagle. He paid money to keep kids quite about his secret wrestling techniques. That's against the law. You may not like it. Hastert may not like it. He still broke the law. If it was such a bad law, he could have changed it during his time as Speaker of the House.




Um, that's not what he was charged with or what he plead guilty to.  He was charged with structuring, and he plead guilty to structuring without having to acknowledge any reason for the structuring.

Structuring, if you're unaware, is the avoidance of required banking reporting of deposits of more than $10,000.  It's a requirement of the bank that they must report to the IRS each and every transaction involving an amount of $10,000 or more.  The issue is that it is a technical law, and does not require mens rea, or intent to break the law, to be found guilty of it.  If you own a small business that does about $9k a day in business, and you make a deposit every day, you can be found guilty of structuring.  Further, structuring allows for civil forfeiture, which is another horrid law also from the War on Drugs, that allows the government to seize the money in the accounts used for structuring without conviction or even pressing charges, and keep it with almost no recourse for getting it back.  

Both of these laws make sense if you're looking to restricting the drug trade -- you want to catch people trying to wash their money through banks by avoiding the monitoring tripwires, and you don't want all that illegal money to be used as part of the defense or to continue illegal business during the court proceedings.  However, as with every law that this broad, it ends up getting used against people that aren't doing anything wrong (the shop owner) and/or against people when you can't find anything actually illegal about what their doing (paying off an extortionist isn't illegal).

So, be educated, and bask in the knowledge that a crappy law was used to punish a man whose major crimes the system ignored.  Truly a victory for law!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, that's not what he was charged with or what he plead guilty to.  He was charged with structuring, and he plead guilty to structuring without having to acknowledge any reason for the structuring.
> 
> Structuring, if you're unaware, is the avoidance of required banking reporting of deposits of more than $10,000.



I'm aware of what structuring is. I just don't care that you don't like it. 



> It's a requirement of the bank that they must report to the IRS each and every transaction involving an amount of $10,000 or more.  The issue is that it is a technical law, and does not require mens rea, or intent to break the law, to be found guilty of it.



It's a tool. It's been shown to work. 



> If you own a small business



I own a business.


> that does about $9k a day in business,



Sometimes a lot more.



> and you make a deposit every day, you can be found guilty of structuring.  Further, structuring allows for civil forfeiture, which is another horrid law also from the War on Drugs, that allows the government to seize the money in the accounts used for structuring without conviction or even pressing charges, and keep it with almost no recourse for getting it back.



And yet, neither I, nor anyone I know who owns a business, has been convicted or had their assets seized. 



> Both of these laws make sense if you're looking to restricting the drug trade -- you want to catch people trying to wash their money through banks by avoiding the monitoring tripwires, and you don't want all that illegal money to be used as part of the defense or to continue illegal business during the court proceedings.  However, as with every law that this broad, it ends up getting used against people that aren't doing anything wrong (the shop owner) and/or against people when you can't find anything actually illegal about what their doing (paying off an extortionist isn't illegal).



It also helps catch the ex-republican Speaker of the House who helped push the anti-gay agenda across the country. 



> So, be educated, and bask in the knowledge that a crappy law was used to punish a man whose major crimes the system ignored.  Truly a victory for law!



Yes, bask in the knowledge that a "crappy" law has been used to punish a man whose major crimes are ignored. As no other attempts at punishing him for playing hide-the-sausage with high school wrestlers, this is at least something.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, bask in the knowledge that a "crappy" law has been used to punish a man whose major crimes are ignored. As no other attempts at punishing him for playing hide-the-sausage with high school wrestlers, this is at least something.




And Al Capone was caught on tax charges, never mind how many deaths he was ultimately accountable for.  Sometimes, you prosecute the thing for which you've got the evidence, not the thing that you'd most like to see him prosecuted for.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And Al Capone was caught on tax charges, never mind how many deaths he was ultimately accountable for.  Sometimes, you prosecute the thing for which you've got the evidence, not the thing that you'd most like to see him prosecuted for.



Exactly.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 1, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I disagree. The House GOP has been pushing the Hastert rule for quite some time. They are not interested in the process. The Hastert rule limits what can be brought up to floor to that which the majority of the majority agree on. It's used by the GOP to limit the power of minority groups. It isn't even a written House policy. It's a belief that the GOP uses to control what can and can't be voted on. So as far as them caring for the process? Yeah, that's a gigantic pile of hot and smelly you know what. The process be damned, it's all about the content of bills. As long as the content is that which the GOP likes, they could care less about the process.



You forgot blaming descending minority groups because the speaker wouldn't submit a bill that would pass if it actually got a vote by saying the minority is blocking it.It's all part of the process and it stinks. Of course Dems did much the same in the Senate under Reid.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 2, 2015)

Well, now that he's SotH, at least Ryan is _sounding _like a responsible politician. 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/01/politics/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood/index.html

Now, if he can translate that rhetoric into effective stewardship of the House, things might get done...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, now that he's SotH, at least Ryan is _sounding _like a responsible politician.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/01/politics/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood/index.html
> 
> Now, if he can translate that rhetoric into effective stewardship of the House, things might get done...




I doubt that'll stop him from letting republicans push bills to defund Planned Parenthood. It's just going to be more of the same.


----------

