Washingtonpost.com:

When Republicans scored their big victory in the midterm elections of 2010, they looked like a party on the rise after a devastating pair of losses in 2006 and 2008. Instead, they have become a party in almost permanent disorder, torn by warring factions and near-constant tensions between their establishment leadership and a tea party-infused grass roots.

Now, in the wake of GOP House Speaker John A. Boehner’s stunning announcement Friday that he will step down from his post and resign his seat in Congress at the end of October, the question again arises: Can a party so driven by anger, a party divided over confrontation vs. compromise, actually govern in Washington?

Boehner’s decision to quit, and the suddenness with which the news broke, provided one more piece of evidence of how badly strained the Republican coalition is. His inability to corral his unruly members was legendary and, seemingly, never-ending, a series of “Perils of Pauline” moments that brought temporary truces but never fully resolved the debate about the kind of party Republicans want.

Those divisions have infected the battle for the GOP presidential nomination. Anger at Washington among grass-roots Republicans has turned the party’s nomination contest upside down. In the early autumn of 2015, non-politicians such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are prospering at the expense of those who are governing or have governed at the state level.

Most of us were speechless today when the banner came across the bottom of our TV screens, announcing Speaker  Boehner’s resignation.    I don’t understand how it all happened or why his resignation will keep the government from shutting down.  I just haven’t had time to digest it.

I am pretty sure most of us will miss him.  He is a decent man.  He tried for compromise.  He was enough of an adult to realize that he isn’t always going to get his own way.

Do I blame the Tea Party?  Absolutely.   Their America is not my America.  Once again the choppy stock market shows market jitters over the possibility of a shutdown.   I am tired of these people messing with my money and jeopardizing my country over their misguided politics.

 

102 thoughts on “Does Boehner’s resignation signal permanent disorder for the GOP?

  1. Cargosquid

    @Scout
    “Threatening to shut down government to gain a particular point is an abrogation of these fellows’ function as legislators.”

    Complete and utter claptrap. The House has the power of the purse. If the Democrats are unwilling to compromise, they are the ones not governing.

    If you don’t like what doesn’t open or doesn’t get paid during a “shut down,” blame the President. HE decides.

  2. blue

    The suggestion Cecile Richards’s inquisitors were insulting is itself insulting = oh, never mind, misogyny is just the new racist defense to hide facts, prevent investigation and examine misdeeds. Apparently, the tone used is sexist when asking a woman who makes (was it $350K or $500K with travel) per year about her business as the chief executive of a “non-profit” that takes $500 million in tax dollars and, according to the testimony, generated a profit – profit – of over $127 million last year. That she denied knowing the figures from her own annual business report is scary enough.

    I get that someone who has never been to an Oversight Committee hearing might be a little taken back by the political tone and posturing that goes on – and that also depends on what side you are on going in, but it was not anything anyone inside the beltway has not seen on a regular basis by both parties. The difference here is that Richards played to the cameras in an effort to deflect what the hearing was really about, the questions and the information that came out of the hearing. She used sexism as a defense when she really needed to put her big boy pants on as a well paid chief executive and answer questions that could have and may yet hold her in contempt of Congress. Everyone in these positions gets interrupted, suffers grandstanding and withstands hostile barbs. And like clockwork the liberal media came to her diversion. That really ticks me off, because now – or once again – we cannot have a discussion based on the facts and once again women are put in the less than capable position of holding their own as legitimate chief executives. She did more damage in boardrooms across America than can be imagined.

    And before you go off half cocked, here’s the issue with the sexist card: If Women really want to be treated no different from men in 21st century America and share in all the benefits and downsides that comes with that professional desire, they need to stand up to the old stereotypes so reinforced by Mrs. Richards. Tell me again why women should not have to field tough questions during an oversight hearing, have their records examined, and have their control over their business questioned just like the men do? And then be pushed when she deflects the question, denies the information or does not know the answer, when then faced with the source of the information? Should they not be held accountable just men are in such hearings? Wait, are we saying that PP does not need to be held accountable – even as it asks for another $500 million if federal funds? Add in the political funding PP does ( as factually described, it really is a Democratic slush fund) using taxpayer dollars and of course its going to be testy. If Mrs Richards wants to be treated equally, she and women generally have to accept that they cannot hide behind the sexist card to stifle legitimate criticism.

    And do I have this right, they get $500 million directly over and above what they get from Medicaid, without performing anything other than abortion, STDs services and birth control?

    1. Medicaid is simply reimbursement, like if you go to your doctor and your insurance pays for the visit. It isn’t like a big Medicaid check comes in the mail.

      As for Ms. Richards, you obviously didn’t watch the hearings or you would know that she handled herself well, even when she was getting cut off. Most questions aren’t yes or no.

      As to Beltway treatment…it’s unacceptable for any people, regardless of party or gender to behave that way. You basically don’t talk to your fellow human beings the way she was talked to. It really has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with manners.

      I defy you to give me even one example of where Cecile Richards hid behind the sexist card. I don’t believe you can.

    2. Blue, you obviously didn’t watch the hearing. Cecil Richards in no way played the sexist card. Far from it. She fielded plenty of tough questions, usually asked rudely. I don’t know why people, especially Republican congressmen and women, feel that rudeness is a sign of being tough. If you ask a question, at least give the person a chance to answer it. Not every question is yes or no.

      I found the Congressional Republican members to be ill informed of the simplest concept of women’s health issues and what Planned Parenthood really does.

      On the subject of Medicaid, it works just like insurance. If someone goes to the doctor, Medicaid is billed. Planned Parenthood doesn’t get a big Medicaid check, only reimbursements.

      Nice try, attempting to make it look like Richards played the victim. Far from it.

  3. blue

    Oh Pullease, she played that card with the willing and pre-coordinated help of every democrat on that Committee. Tell me that you cannot see the advance talking points in every Deomocrats response. The faux indignation and Richard’s played right along and even facilitated it.

    1. I saw advanced talking points on both sides. Too bad the Republicans chose to infuse their questioning with rudeness. It was grandsanding and political theater at best.

      She did not play the sexist card or the victim.

  4. Pat.Herve

    blue – when was the last time that the House Ways and Means committee questioned the salary of any other CEO of an organization?

    Chaffetz introduced powerpoint slides of data that was made up – how is that professional? Chaffetz did his best to intimidate her.

  5. blue

    @Pat.Herve

    What does Means have to do with this? I am missing your point. The is an oversight hearing on an organization that recieves Federal funding. It has nothing to do with authorization.

  6. blue

    @Moon-howler

    She played along with every member on that Committee (with advanced knowledge and coordination) in playing the sexist card and they are still playing it, since there is no other good defense / diversion. But yes it was grandstanding at its best by Democrats to deffer from the technical issues at hand and the failure of her testimony. That was petty.

  7. Pat.Herve

    @blue
    When is the last time that a CEO was asked to answer for his/her salary (before this week) at an oversight hearing?

  8. blue

    @Pat.Herve

    Good question. In my experience, all or most government corporations CEO salaries are questioned repetitively or, more accuratley, stated as fact when they come in and want more money. Labor unions are also quick to bring up this issue for organizations within and outside of government. The auto industry bail out is another example. They also go after it when they go over the Federal health insurance program and the Combined Federal Campaign. It is not unique and is fair game.

    Are you suggesting that making the point that PP’s CEO makes an excessive salary was out of line or special as an NGO non-profit?

    1. Her salary isn’t out of line at all. She is the CEO of an international organization. Have you checked out what the CEO of the Red Cross or United Way makes? Richards is underpaid by those standards. Plus she probably has to put up with a lot more fools than they do.

  9. Pat.Herve

    @blue
    You do not want to answer it, do you? When was the CEO of an organization questioned about his/her salary in an oversight hearing?

  10. Pat.Herve

    @blue

    If you would like a charity to investigate – try the Wounded Warriors Project – there CEO (Founder) is paid around $500K a year, flies around in first class, spends all kinds of money on his pet projects. WWP also spends over 50% of what it raises for fund raising.

    http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/media/879225/2014_form-990_wwp.pdf

  11. blue

    @Pat.Herve

    Interesting. I did not realize that Wounded Warriers was also federally funded.

Comments are closed.