« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If Not Boehner, Then Who? We Have Options

Price, Jordan, and Hensarling Could Attract Enough Support

By: Ned Ryun (Diary)  |  December 10th, 2012 at 02:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If not Boehner, then who?

Last week, American Majority Action kicked off the trending #FireBoehner hastag on Twitter and began to pressure House members to abstain from voting for Speaker.

After speaking with the House Parliamentarian, we discovered the House precedent is actually interpreted to mean an absolute majority of votes cast for a specific candidate. So, House members do nothing by abstaining. However, the core idea remains: Without a majority (50% +1), the House is speakerless. If neither Boehner nor Pelosi win 50%, the House keeps voting until a new leader arises with a majority.

To get Boehner under 50%, we need to unite behind a candidate—or candidates. We have more than three weeks to choose.

American Majority Action is endorsing Tom Price, Jim Jordan, and Jeb Hensarling as candidates for Speaker and senior leadership.

Though Price has announced that he does not plan to run, all three would be a welcome change. All three have been staunch conservatives—standing up against the Bush spending sprees. They have each been in leadership and have significant support in the caucus.

The #FireBoehner movement has become a threat: If Speaker Boehner compromises with Obama and they propose a tax-hike together, Speaker Boehner will be finished.

#FireBoehner started after Boehner proposed a tax-hike and purged four key conservatives from their committees. The movement has had tremendous support so far, and more House members will join our cause if Boehner capitulates.

We cannot raise taxes on our small businesses right now. Any Republican who votes for a tax-hike will be primaried—we can guarantee that.

If Obama continues to force the issue, we agree with Senator Rand Paul: Let Democrats eat the tax-hikes. Republicans should vote “present” and let liberals own these awful polices.

We shouldn’t—conservatives shouldn’t—endorse any policy that will destroy jobs for normal Americans, as tax hikes would. We should be fighting for what works. Frankly, we should be looking at tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes 25% in 1981, during both a recession and fiscal crisis, and by the end of his term: Revenue from the highest bracket doubled, Americans created 20 million jobs, and youth unemployment fell 43%.

That’s what we should be fighting for—not a smaller tax hike.

Boehner be warned.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jimmyg

    ” The movement has had tremendous support so far, and more House members will join our cause if Boehner capitulates.”

    What house members have joined so far?

  • rightlane1111

    Who knows that goes on behind those doors. Price is who I want.

    • rabun1016

      Very disappointing to read that Price has said he won’t run. Don’t underestimate the viciousness, like cornered rats, of current Republican leaders if challenged.

      • sharinlite

        You have that right: RINO’s are largely progressive lite.

  • bdirks

    “…we discovered the House precedent is actually interpreted to mean an
    absolute majority of votes cast for a specific candidate. So, House
    members do nothing by abstaining.”

    What a fabulous example of the “shoot first, ask questions later” power of the Internet. People like you are the reason my crazy Uncle Lenny forwards me ten emails a week that are completely not based in reality.

    • satchman3

      This is serious. A twitter hashtag has been launched.

    • SoFiMil

      Humility and correcting the record after one makes a mistake is always appreciated.

      • davesinsanantonio

        And, it shows more courage, wisdom, and integrity than stonewalling, doubling down, or grandstanding.

    • sharinlite

      Obama got away with “present” in Illinois and as a Senator….I don’t like it either, but, there is comprise the progs will accept, so, let the pros aka dems nee Marxists do the “yes” bit and own it. We, conservatives won’t survive anyway in four years if this monstrosity goes through. We’re out of bulets bdirks….unless we actually, I don’t know, get together as a people large enough to make a difference we’re toast! Live with it!

  • Dan Middleton

    “…After speaking with the House Parliamentarian, we discovered the House
    precedent is actually interpreted to mean an absolute majority of votes
    cast for a specific candidate. So, House members do nothing by
    abstaining.”

    Genius.

    You can only wonder what caused Mr. Ryun to be struck with the idea of finally, at long last, speaking with the House Parliamentarian.

    • sharinlite

      What exactly does the “present” mean? You can abstain, exit (no quorom) or “present”….I see your points…why don’t we just say NO! What is wrong with standing for your principles….ahhhh, made a mistake, DC pols don’t have any!!

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        The point was to deny a majority to force the establishment to the table, without having to unite behind a candidate at the last second.

  • fnord73

    Old marine joke I believe: “Who is this we you speak of?”

    • gawken

      There’s a somewhat different version: “What’s with all this “Lindbergh” crap?

      (Lindbergh’s best selling autobiography was titled “We.”)

    • Dave_A

      I think that one is universal…

      Usually referenced when some higher-up says ‘we’ are about to do some perticularly unpleasant task… Where by ‘we’ he means everyone at least 2 ranks below him… The brass will be ‘driving the fall-out van’ or ‘in the coffee shack’ the whole time…

  • Marcus_Traianus

    For the record, I have never supported Mr. Boehner. From the onset, I have stated he would be a weak Speaker who never met a deal he didn’t like. He has spent over 20 years in Congress participating in some of the worst and most fiscally irresponsible decisions which helped bring us to today’s crisis. I predict he will cut a deal on taxes that will be the coup de grace for Republicans. I will oppose him until the day he thankfully leaves or is forced out of the Speakership.

    But this idea is foolish and not without potentially grave consequences. There will never be enough party members to successfully support another candidate.

  • mikwcas

    i hear Allen West is looking for some work… :)

    • Dan Middleton

      I can’t tell if this is an ironic post in keeping with the spirit of implausible windmill-tilting which has characterized Mr. Ryun’s entire “fire Boehner” endeavor…

      …or a demonstration of a laughable utter lack of comprehension of how the House of Representatives works.

      Just in case anybody needs this cleared up: someone who is not a member of Congress cannot be elected Speaker.

      • bdirks

        I derive a great amount of satisfaction from picking on the people who carelessly post things that aren’t true, but in this case the guy who doesn’t know how to use the shift key on his computer is right. There is no requirement to be a sitting Representative to be elected Speaker. It has, however, always been the case.

        • Dan Middleton

          Very interesting if true. But if this is the case and someone could inform me in 10 minutes, it only makes me more puzzled why it took Ned Ryun a week to figure out how the vote is an absolute majority.

        • Dave_A

          The ‘requirement’ is created by the fact that you will never get a majority of Representatives to vote for any name that is not a member of the chamber.

    • naraht

      The Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected Member of Congress, it doesn’t put any qualifications on them. Vladimir Putin or Honey Boo-Boo could be selected (same lack of qualification as Supreme Court Nominees)

    • commonsenseobserver

      The Constitution also says that the Houses of Congress determine their own rules and choose their own officers. I don’t think House Rules allow for that.

  • gawken

    I posted a diary a few days ago, that Tim Scott should run for Speaker. It’s absolutely perfect. He’d be a great face, and voice for the GOP. If he loses, Haley will still appoint him to DeMint’s seat..heck, he’d be even more popular in SC than he is now..I mean, DeMint has already slammed Boehner..

  • honorable

    Why not pass the Bush Tax cuts permanently now and send it to Senate and let them not do anything or let Obama Veto it. He and the Democrats will then own the consequences of Tax cuts. In any case GOP majority should not under any circumstances pass the tax increase.

    • commonsenseobserver

      You do realize that passing a partial extension of the current tax rates (maybe alongside a DOA full extension) would not constitute a technical tax increase, unlike closing loopholes and all, which many will be eager to use to squeeze out of the pledge.

      If they do choose to do that, I’d actually understand. In this case, we’d just have different interpretations of Conservative principles. One side says we should minimize tax increases, even if that means agreeing to some. The other says that democracy means the people should have what they want, good and hard. Both are right.

    • checkmate2012

      The House passed a bill last summer extending all the rates….done. No vote in the Senate- surprise!

    • tomcatdriver

      and then when the Senate passes an tax cut for the middle class and the House wont take it up…what play is next?

  • freemanja1991

    How about Paul Ryan, He is younger then all of the above.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Oh, but he’s a big RINO!!!
      Strengthening Medicare and protecting current seniors is RINO!!!
      Voting to prevent a collapse of the financial services and in the interests of his constituents is RINO!!!
      Voting to prevent financial chaos while securing some semblance of spending restraint is RINO!!!
      Using his position to tackle the big issues, rather than just ueslessly grandstanding, is RINO!!!

      • commonsenseobserver

        The only thing that Republicans really cannot escape is No Child Left Behind. It had good intentions, and tackled the right problem, but had the wrong solution by dismantling local control, even if countering the soft bigotry of low expectation by raising standards is a noble goal. It may have been a step in the right direction in terms of standards and choice, but, with the benefit of hindsight, this was outweighed by the sacrifice of localism. Republicans must act to end the micromanagement of schools from Washington.

        • Dave_A

          The problem is, the municipal governments are where the rot in the school system (eg: *teacher’s union*) is entrenched….

          When Bush got into office, the ‘pension bust’ wasn’t even a consideration, and there was essentially no hope that state governors would start dropping the boom on municipal employees unions…

          With the states unwilling to break the unions stranglehold, federal control was the only option available….

          • commonsenseobserver

            In which case, half-measures like NCLB didn’t work.

          • Dave_A

            I prefer the Walker plan myself…

            I just give W credit for actually TRYING…

      • sharinlite

        You forgot sarc/ at the end!

  • tngal

    Lately, every picture on the web seems to have Boehner and Obama snuggled up real close together and giggling and agzing into each others eyes. Makes me wanna yell, “hey you two, either get a room or exchange rings.”

    • checkmate2012

      You’re right tngal, including the pic with this featured story; a disgusting love fest! I want the prez to go to the floor of the House and Senate and answer questions a la parlimentary style. We the people should hear reasons why O is being so inflexible on raising the top two rates when it only gives him 9 days of revenue. when Boehner caved on revenues. Campaigning and speeches are so one-sided that he doesn’t have to explain himself.

  • Christine

    Forgive the negative attitude…but how do we convince these folks to unite behind someone else, when they’ve already seen what happens when they don’t march in lockstep with the establishment?

    If this can happen, I would jump for joy, but I just don’t see it.

    My congressman is a 25+ year member of the GOP establishment. Conservative, but still, establishment. We couldn’t even mount a decent primary challenge against the guy. He is going to die in office…and he isn’t going to risk his place in the hierarchy by going along with this.

    • westcoastpatriette

      There is enough true conservatives in the House to mount enough opposition to prevent Boehner from getting the votes he needs for Speaker. I’ve lost track of the exact number but I believe it is around 50-60 of these conservatives are warning Boehner that he is going to get huge push back if he tries to screw us again in these negotiations with Obama. If nothing else, they can prevent anyone from getting a majority and the House will be without a Speaker until they can find someone to replace Boehner — it’s past time to play hardball with the establishment Republicans. Enough is enough already.

      • jimmyg

        You do not have to name 50 house members, name 20 that are warning Boehner that he is going to get push back. Other than the 4 members that lost their committee assignments, I have not heard of any House Members pushing back on the leadership.

        • westcoastpatriette

          I think whatever is going on is wisely being kept out of the public eye. You can be sure there is a lot of friction building especially since Boehner removed conservatives from committees.

      • plumely

        I hope we can fire Boehner. But, we also need to primary him and get him out of Congress for good. People like him have no business being anywhere near government.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Sounds like precisely the kind of people we need to convince rather than those unreliable, two-faced, opportunistic freshmen. If Boehner is allowed to continue, there’ll be no hierarchy in which to risk his place.

  • Samsara

    A better question would be “who wants Boehner’s job?”

  • tomcatdriver

    this is comical

    • davesinsanantonio

      Yep! You have to laugh. Because if you don’t, you have to cry!

  • commonsenseobserver

    I suppose that’s for House Republicans to decide, and not Mr. Ryun. Though if Boehner loses, Cantor, McMorris Rodgers, the three you mentioned, would be in pretty strong positions for promotion.

    We must make it clear, though, that the latest offer is NOT the reason (after all, he’s trying to prevent even larger tax hikes). The thing is, he has consistently embraced a silly and ineffective strategy of trying to find center ground instead of common ground, leaving us with all the blame and none of the credit.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I don’t think they become the majority caucus like that, but if they do, they’d be able to control the committees, at least

  • everclear

    The Rand Paul idea is bad for House Republicans. They have the power to kill a bill. Voting present to allow a bill to pass is as bad as voting for it, if Republicans have the votes in the House to kill it. In fact Republicans in the Senate will not have the power to block a tax bloated deficit bill because the bill will almost certainly be a “reconciliation” bill and those are not subject to a filibuster, so for them to vote present is fine.

    • commonsenseobserver

      And then we get the full package of tax hikes, across the board?

    • plh

      You are right: House Republicans do have the power to stop the President in his tracks, but have been unwilling to use it – just look at the last two years. And since I fear we are looking at more of the same, I would far prefer – and in fact I’ve argued for – at the very least abstaining to voting yes on yet another stupid spineless compromise that only slows our progression into the abyss.

  • commonsenseobserver

    If only Artur Davis had been elected to Congress again.

    • rabun1016

      He would be so much better than Priebus as the RNC head. So much better.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Not really. Priebus’s value is his skill in raising money, and that he has done superbly, even if Michael Steele dismantled the infrastructure itself.

        He does deserve some share of blame, but not enough for a former Democrat Congressman to replace him just yet.

  • gardis72

    Folks, I understand conviction, I understand principles, but I don’t understand denial. You are in denial. John Boehner is not going to be replaced by anyone. Do you understand that we lost terribly in November? Mitt Romney did not win ONE of the battlegrounds except NC, and that only by a c–t hair. We had terrible rotten candidates in MO and IN – both red states that we should have won — who destroyed Romney’s momentum because they couldn’t shut their traps about abortion, a topic that Conservatives LOSE every time, all the time. Why can’t we take a page out of the Democrat playbook – do you ever hear a Democrat talk about Gun Control? We all know they would reverse the 2nd Amendment, but they have the brains and cunning to keep quiet about their true intentions and beliefs. I admire the Tea Party, but we lost too many Senate seats because of their choices: Christine O’Donnel (disaster, and karl Rove was right, please give him his due); Sharon Angle – Harry Reid was dead man walking until Sharon Angle won the nomination; Akin and Mourdouck. Not only did we not take back the Senate, Harry Reid gained seats. We also lost in the House some seats. To me, John Boehner should immediately pass the Bowles Simpson recommendations in full. That would CHECKMATE Obama, because Obama hates it. No matter how much Republicans dislike Bowles, the deal Obama is going to give us will be 50 times worse. The public will respect the Republicans for passing it. Think it over. It’s the only way out of this horrible mess. We’re in big big trouble. Lastly, when are we going to get some young, vibrant speakers for Conservative causes. I cringe every time I see Mitch McConnell on TV.

    • becky5

      I am so sick of this talk about how we lost an election therefore we have to abandon our principles and surrender to Democrats and help them destroy the economy, the currency and our entire country.

      In 2010 Republicans had the biggest midterm election landslide since the 1930s, and it was about one thing: cutting spending. Funny I don’d remember any of the RINOs or anyone in the press saying “Well, we had the election and the people spoke so I guess we need to cut spending.” No such thing happened, but now that the Democrats won an election we have to accept higher income taxes, amnesty, carbon taxes, more regulation, millions more added to the growing ranks of government dependence, exploding debt, more money printing and no spending cuts? This double standard is repulsive.

      Romney lost by 3 points, nothing unprecedented about that. The only reason it felt like such a monumental blow is because he lost to the ABSOLUTE WORST PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER HAD. So yes, the loss necessitates some reflection. But how can changing the Republican party to be more like Democrats possibly be a winning strategy? Enough conservatives will abandon them (I know i will) and they will never win again. They won’t pick up enough mushy-RINO votes to compensate for the loss of their conservative base. Why would anyone vote Republican if they are simply Democrats with a different name?

      As for all the tea party losses — Mitt Romney wasn’t a tea party guy, how do you explain his loss? What about Tommy Thompson? Linda McMahon and all the other RINOs who got beat?

      You bring up O’Donnell & Angle, but no one voted for them because they thought they were the best possible candidates. People were absolutely at the end of their rope with big government Republicans, and they were were willing to roll the dice on a less than perfect candidate who would at least stick to conservative principles if elected. We lost, lesson learned, we’ll run better candidates next time. Why should we settle for a RINO? The lesson, at least in my view, is to get good, articulate conservative candidates, not to become more like Democrats.

      • commonsenseobserver

        On the other hand, even Reagan would probably have lost this year.

    • ihateliberals

      It is moronic talk like this that has the Party in termoil to start with. We lose so immediately we need to change our spots and match the other side. what a stupid position to have. I have my principles and i will not compromise them for anyone. we lose because Cowards in the Party cave to the demands of the Democrats. People within the Party then lose faith in the leaders and the entire things caves in. When Reagan beat the Hell out of the Democrats two times did they decide they would become Republications. hell no! They figured out a way to beat us and keep true to their principles. I can’t believe my ex_party is so full of cowards. i am a conservative and i have my values for over 50 years and I will not change them. If we were to stick togeteher we would beat them everytime. you can’t beat them with putting up Liberal candidates against Liberals on the other side. If you are going to vote for a Liberal you might as well vote for the real thing. That is what people did this past November and 3 million conservative cowards sat at home.

      • davesinsanantonio

        NO! We know three million Republicans sat home. We do NOT know that they were conservative. True conservatives do not sit home, because they know the importance of doing what it right. That is why they are conservative. Many who claim to be conservative are only sunshine conservatives, not real ones.

        • ihateliberals

          You’re right. Republican use to mean conservative but nnot for many years now.I’ve been a Conservative Republican for over 50 years but since Nov. 6th i am just conservative.

    • ohiohistorian

      How did the conservative movement lose by Mitt Romney losing? Republicans held the House and kept their position in the Senate despite the opposition party being elected President. If he were a Republican, the media would have been saying that Obama has no coat-tails (to drag anyone else across the finish line), so his is a damaged Presidency. It is a matter of perception, isn’t it?

    • davesinsanantonio

      You whine about Angle and O’Donnel as if they were the whole election. They were not, and lots of conservatives won that year, in state and local races also. So singling them out as if they were the whole election makes YOU the one in denial.

      • ihateliberals

        The thing with Angle is that lost returned harry Reid to the Senate.

        • perdido

          It would have helped a bit if the Republicans in office with money & influence would have helped the candidacies of Angle and O’Donnel instead of actively working against them. That was stupidity writ large.

          This last election proved they haven’t learned. Instead of marginalizing, disdaining and hanging the candidate in MO they could have jumped in and got the dimwit a coach and some guidance. But look what they did. Not too smart, me thinks.

      • commonsenseobserver

        No, but they represent far more blatant mistakes than, say, Linda McMahon.

    • gscandlen

      For Pete’s sake, spare me the Tea-Party-losing-Senate-seats talking point. Establishment candidates like Tommy Thompson didn’t do so well, either. Akin wasn’t OUR choice. He was backed by the Democrats in the primary. The Tea Party is the ONLY good thing that has happened to the Republicans in quite a while. It was the Tea Party, not the establishment, that gave us “young vibrant speakers for Conservative causes” like Rubio and Cruz.

      I say, let’s go off the cliff. Bush’s tax cuts may look pretty good after they are gone. Then we can talk about real reform of our ridiculous tax code.

      • Brookhaven

        You’re missing the point.

        We’re supposed to spin all defeats as being the fault of the tea party. Only then can we get rid of them and get back to the way things were meant to be–the GOP establishment calling the shots, and the rank and file following along like sheep.

  • skeptic62

    What would happen if a number of Democrats crossed Party lines to vote for Boehner?

  • votemout2012

    I will tell you what I am going to do about this mess Boehner has gotten us into with the sequester. If republicans cave to tax increases I am never voting for establishment republicans again. What is the use of voting republican if they vote like Democrats. I will be voting for conservative candidates only. If republicans lose so what. They cave anyway. I am done with the republican party. The rate they are going they will never win an election again.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Of course they will win elections again, maybe just not the presidential one. Running away from a problem never solves the problem.

      • votemout2012

        Running away from the problem? The problem is Republicans cave when the going get rough. I am done. Our country is is in real danger. We need leadership! Boehner is pathetic!

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      votemout2012,
      Are you “in” the Party?
      Thank you,
      CW

      • votemout2012

        I guess voting republican for 35 yrs qualifies me as a republican.

        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          votemout2012, voting for Republican candidates may be one way to qualify oneself as a Republican. I was inquiring as to whether you were a “voting member” of your local Republican committee.

          Here’s a link to a site that explains “how it works” in Missouri:

          http://www.moprecinctproject.org/

          Thank you.
          CW

          • votemout2012

            Thanks

  • Papabile

    My basic question is why didn’t this author actually just check the basic House precedents?

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V1/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V1-1-2-6.pdf

    If he took some time to learn floor operations, perhaps he wouldn’t have to bother the parl with amateur questions.

    • checkmate2012

      Well at least you put to rest all suggestions of Paul Ryan as Speaker, unless one doesn’t want him as the Head of the Budget Committee:

      “One further distinction is that a Speaker elected during a Congress must resign
      from the committees on which he has served while a Member, (16)”

      • commonsenseobserver

        Nothing wrong with Scott Garrett as Budget Committee Chair. We could clear up the nonsense about the Ryan plan not being specific or bold enough, and Ryan gets a head-start for 2016 if he wants. ^^

    • littlehouse18

      Are we not in danger of getting Pelosi as Speaker if the Rs are fractured and some refuse to vote for the Republican nominee?

      • commonsenseobserver

        That sounds like a thrilling prospect.
        Could remind people about what’s in their interest during elections if they want their ears to stay unharmed.

      • Papabile

        The R’s would never go to the floor without knowing how the vote would turn out. It’s the Conference meetings beforehand which are more important.

        • littlehouse18

          OK, good. That’s where I would want to fight to be.

  • Papabile

    FYI…. If the author of this column knew how the politics of the Conference actually worked, he would realize it’s not a 50% threshold, and much closer to what he originally identified. But that is an internal conference thing.

    I miss his father’s impassioned defense of the unborn at HASC. I actually do. I miss him. But, the author could learn a few things about the conference operations.

    • becky5

      Papabile — Can you help us out here, how does it work?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      The post is talking about the vote for speaker, not the the conference. The actual House voter for Speaker.

      Reading is fundamental.

      • Papabile

        Perhaps you missed my point. The vote for the Speaker in the Whole House on the State of the Union does not matter BECAUSE this is always worked out in Conference before the vote.

        My point concerning Ryun’s comments were that e should have realized this, and I am surprised he didn’t.

        Take for instance what happened with Bob Livingston. We had Hastert nailed down as speaker after two floor votes where the Delay Whip team moved the Conference.

        The play for Speaker is in the Conference NOT the Whole House on the State of the Union.

        And, the author should have been able to figure out the precedent without talking to the Parls. He could have simply actually read Deshcler’s Precedent’s Volume 1, Section 6 and then consulted Cannon and Hinds. They are BOTH available free on the GPO web site.

        Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is for those who can take the time to understand what they read.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          No, you’re missing the point. you failed. Read the post and try again. Maybe this time you’ll actually figure it out.

          It’s not hard. It’s not written with needless ten dollar words. So get a dictionary, spend an hour studying, and maybe someday you’ll figure out this basic concept that Ned has put out here.

          I apologize if you’re just slow.

  • kycon

    One thing no one is talking about is the barrel that Rand Paul’s suggestion would put Republicans over. Assume that we let the tax hikes go through. We simply vote present and take the deal. You can count on Obama and the Democrats immediately introducing a measure to ‘cut’ taxes on the middle class back to today’s rates. They’ll then have Republicans between a rock and a hard place. They can either stonewall and be called out as ‘voting against tax cuts’ or pass the cuts and be called out for ‘picking winners and losers.’

    That said, I think it’s important to note that the real reason we’re getting pounded in this is that the Democrats are defining the language, and we’re letting them. Right now, they’re calling out Republicans for ‘standing in the way of tax cuts’ because we want ‘cuts for the rich.’ There are no cuts. We’re standing for maintaining the current rates for everyone. This shouldn’t be that hard to argue, but somehow, we’re making it difficult.

    Boehner, as much as I dislike him, has to stand his ground, as I don’t think we’re going to get him replaced. I fear that he’s going to cave, and when he does, he’s going to give Obama all the cover he needs. What should he do instead? I can see two possible options.

    1. Immediately pass a bill that makes the Bush tax cuts permanent for all Americans. Let is go to the Senate and die. At the very least, this will put the shoe on the other foot for a change.

    2. Immediately pass Simpson-Bowles. It’s a distasteful option, but it’s light years better than any deal Obama will offer us now, and it was championed by their side, making it very difficult for them to ignore, vote against, or veto.

    While I’d love to get Boehner out of the Speaker’s chair, I think the more realistic option is for us to lean on the other House members (unless you’re in Ohio, then lean on the man himself) to try to get a workable plan going forward. Not sure we’ll be able to dispose of Boehner in time for it to matter.

    • plumely

      Boehner will do what Boehner wants to do. Right now he is interested in waving the white flag of surrender. I am pretty sure he has a tin ear for any advice we Red Staters try to give him.

      • kycon

        You’re probably exactly correct. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but I doubt it is.

  • 4youreyesonly

    There is an important constitutional point of order here. That is assuming we still have a constitutional government. The senate is constitutionally required to pass a budget, and without this simple but mandatory requirement being fulfilled, there is no constitutional way for the Republications to adopt anything divorced from budgetary requirements.
    The first thing any “Speaker” must require is to demand a constitutionally required budget passed by the Senate before the Congress can proceed. There is no financial framework to put anything in context. So far, there seems to be agreement by both the Republicans and Democrats that this is OK.
    If we do not have the rule of law, then we have the rule of tyranny.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Well, we have been running without a budget for years now. So, there must be a way to get things done. “Continuing resolution” seems to be the way.

    • bdirks

      The Constitution does not require the Senate to pass a budget, the Budget Act of 1974 does. It is against the law to not pass a budget, but not a violation of the Constitution.

      I am going to cut out this lecturing and talking-down-to business to avoid being banned, but all I will say is that if we don’t make our arguments and pursue our goals with a full and commanding grasp of the facts we are never going to win. These details may seem insignificant when compared to the overall crisis we face, but to be taken seriously we can’t turn the ball over to the other side on the account of an easy mistake. Do your homework, get it right and not just first, then hit them with everything you’ve got. Screw up any of those three, and its back to the drawing board and back to irrelevance.

      • 4youreyesonly

        Article 1 of the Constitution clearly states that an annual budget be passed. By not passing a budget as constitutionally required, the senate Democrats and the media are demanding that the Republications pass a budgetary plan instead.
        It is a violation of the constitution not to govern according to the constitution that all of our federally elected official have taken the oath to uphold. Passing an annual budget is one of those requirements.

  • dajeeps

    I support this, but am just half off the fence on it. Part of the problem is that while I am part of the conservative coalition in the limited government, fiscal conservative, free market aspect, I am still a small ‘d’ democrat. It’s kind of like reading the tealeaves when attempting to interpret the results of the 2012 election, and I don’t see where either party has a clear mandate for anything. Given that, and one of the reasons I support the revolt is that Boehner isn’t a good political strategist, and most of the egg the party has ended up with on its face is because of that. All this talk about caving is completely ridiculous when almost nothing has been identified to make Dems swallow an equally sized bitter pill. It’s a false choice between what Obama wants or the cliff – and it’s more because of Boeher’s weakness than anything else.

  • littlehouse18

    From the link posted above, it says a majority of those present, not 218. This is where it could get very bad if R’s don’t show up and vote.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Not really. All it means is that the Democrats can shoot down all our legislation, but that would be perfect for Let It Burn.

  • rickbillies

    I’m not impressed by any of them. Price lost his race to Cathy McMasters Rogers, Jordan was replaced by a less than stellar conservative and no one knows Henserling. If you’re going to overthrow the leader, you need to replace him with a leader. The House has only one nationally recognized leader: Paul Ryan.

    • perdido

      Nah. Being nationally recognized is not important at all. Being a leader and having a set of cajones with a conservative heart and brain is what matters.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The more butthurt people get about the Ned Ryun #FireBoehner plan, the more I know he’s on to something.

    • Dan Middleton

      I see no “butthurt.” I see exasperated rolling of the eyes. I know that’s what I’m doing.

  • sharinlite

    Can you pose a list f the best options? I always think Ryan but don’t know enough about the others….help.

  • mlewis3460

    I disagree. Somewhat. While Boehner could not negotiate his way out of a steak dinner with a vegetarian, I did NOT vote for my Reps (Okla) to just vote “present”. In my opinion, that is a greasy way of simply saying, “I’m hear, but, I ain’t gonna do nothin.”

    I would like for all conservatives to VOTE AGAINST any and all tax increases and government expansion. Take a stand. Additionally, I would like for my state reps to be true conservatives as well, but that’s a nail for a different hammer.

    http://www.amazon.com/Common-Sense-Gravy-Michael-Lewis/dp/1618623176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355239847&sr=8-1&keywords=common+sense+with+a+side+of+gravy

    • mlewis3460

      I want a True conservative as Speaker of the House! Boehner should be out.

  • commonsenseobserver

    It seems McCarthy was the primary mover behind the purge.

  • eldstenorge

    The only person we need is Paul Ryan! Why? He knows money, he is confident in what he does, he can even speak a clear sentence, something almost all Republicans cannot do today, he is intelligent and people like him. He is young, he is conservative on most all issues. He should have been our nominee rather than Romney.

    • commonsenseobserver

      We don’t usually nominate people who don’t run.

      Though Ryan himself owes Mitt quite a lot. If he hadn’t been selected as the running mate, there’d be almost no chance of him competing with Rubio on anything resembling a level playing field.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Paul Ryan helped engineer the purge. He’d be same old, same old.

  • remalimo

    I know there has been wringing of hands and knowing of teeth since the big election. We have been throwing blame every which way and nothing seams to stick. I now invite you to a web site on You Tube. Senate Elect Ted Cruz speaking to American Principles Project on November 29, 2012, about his view as to why we lost. If you read Senator Cruz history he has be one of the top debator in the U.S. I know Sen. Cruz from his days in Houston High School. He is LEGIT.

  • http://ridersonthestorm101.blogspot.com/ SE-779

    We should also give consideration to knocking down Mitch McConnell.

  • ihateliberals

    Pelosi has as good a chance as Boehner does right now. There would be a whole lot of difference except the amount of time it would take to give the Dem’s what they ask for. It is hard to believe tha the Republicans are the majority in the House. Anyone that just woke up from a fifty year coma would swear the Democrats controlled both houses.
    Are the conservative candidates too much of cowardest to run for speaker? Where ar e they and why aren’t they fighting Boehner and the Elite Republicans.

  • ihateliberals

    Mr. Ryun it really doesn’t matter who is picked to replace or even to keep Boehner. Mickey Mouse could do the Job as well. This fiscal Cliff Bull Stuff just doesn’t matter. If Obama gets the tax increases he is looking for it won’t even scratch the surface. At best we can collect a little over a trillion dollars in taxes. the deficet is 15 trillion dollars. If we applied every penny collected we woul d still be 15 trillion in hte hole and the deficet combined with current spending trends is grqwing faster than we can tax our people. At some point the machjine is going to seize and the Stuff is going to hit the Fan. All this talk of fiscal cliff and taxes and creating jobs is just a waste of time as long as Obama is running the government. it is a smoke screen to keep us busy while he continues to plunder the Federal coffers.

  • commonsenseobserver

    If we can’t get the Congressmembers to do it together, we’ll never be able to persuade them to fight on their own, no matter how much influence they have. We must not use a piecemeal strategy.