Redstate

If he fails the Dems will only cement their majority. Failure is not an option! That is why Boehner and the rest of the status quo that failed us so miserably have got to go.

He's a loyal lieutenant of Blunt. If you want Cantor, you may as well keep Blunt in the position - the result policy-wise is the same and at least Blunt has some experience.

This is the equivalent of saying "gee, Nancy Pelosi isn't such a good choice, we should all get behind Jack Murtha." The change from Blunt to Cantor does nothing for the principles and policies that we seek to affect. All it does is change the face that is selling the big government platter.

If we want new leadership than we need truly NEW leadership.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the reason I can beat the media to scoops like the Roberts appointment and the Alito appointment and the Boehner shenanigans is because I honor the confidentiality of the sources.

Just because you don't like what they say doesn't mean they are wrong.

Erick - your posts have been intellectually lazy and, to put it mildly, pathetic. To endorse Pence by selectively noting his votes (as well as Boehner's) is bad enough; but to trot out as you have first a set of liberal talking points and debunked liberal articles, and second a set of "sources"... it's too much. Your earlier sorry attempts at bashing Boehner make this all the more suspect.

Sorry that somebody is actually challenging you. I know you don't like dissent.

Didn't realized I had given the impression that I don't like dissent.

And I've made no secret that I'm a Pence partisan, as you are a Boehner partisan. Feel free to put up a post about Pence or Boehner. We've made our site position clear, but we certainly don't mind contrary opinions.

If you think I'm bad, you should take serious issue with the guy behind this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvgbP4x9s-Y

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

That is taking the word "demonize" literally. That makes negative TV ads seem like running praises. I'm not a Blunt and Boehner fan, but that is over the top.

You don't think that John Boehner would threaten a fellow Republican with a loss of rank? If you do think that you're a patent fool. Power is a corrupting influence, and apparently Boehner would like to use all weapons in his arsenal (including the selection of ranking members) in order to clear the field for his own election.

This is the same kind of tactic the leadership has used to pass unpopular bills. The best way to get votes is to threaten realcitrant members with a loss of status if they don't go your way.

The proof will be in the pudding. We'll see how Pence and Shadegg are treated if they lose their races. My guess is that we'll be proved right and those who oppose Boehner will be punished with back bench status for the next two years.

And when we don't regain control in 2008 - will we still be saying "it's not Boehner's fault?" In the meantime, how much damage will Boehner do? Perhaps you're a gambling man, but I'm not willing to take that risk.

What do you base all of this on? All of the people who were "punished" after Boehner won Majority Leader? Or the big blinking siren up above?

If you're a Boehner man, that's fine. Still, he oversaw nine of the worst months Republicans could have had. He was ineffective as a spokesman for the party and it's policies and he did nothing to implement the reforms on which his leadership platform was based. I supported him last winter, but we lost 29 seats under his leadership. He, not Hastert, was at the controls and he lost. He doesn't deserve to be rewarded for doing worse than most predicted. As Bush said, "It was a thumpin'."

Boehner may be a conservative, but that doesn't mean he should be given the benefit of the doubt after a terrible loss. On the contrary, it means he should suffer the strictest of scrutiny. Right now, the party is at a crossroads. The current majority, soon to be minority, was built on conservatism. It wasn't built on conservative Republicanism. Unless the party returns to true conservatism, we will be stuck in a 1970's minority position.

John Boehner got a nine month audition for fulltime leader and he failed. It's time for Mike Pence.

Got a personal stake in this, by chance?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Below

I've deleted that sentence from the post, which is otherwise still accurate.

nt

Pence is not the only one that is calling for a delay. In fact, the reason to have the elections now is flimsy. They claim that we need a response to the Democrat leadership when nobody in the MSM is going to be paying any attention to Republians between now and January whether we have elected leadership or not.

Why should the new Republican caucus have the chance to discuss what the election means and what the party's response should be before rushing into leadership elections. Like any snap judgment, a quick election like this will simply throw a lot of weight on the current incumbants.

And if the threats were in fact made, why should Pence, or his supporters, be faulted for pointing it out.

As for the immigration issue, the position of a majority and that of a minority are different. In the majority, perhaps the goal was to broker some sort of deal that would get something through the Senate. In the minority we have somewhat more freedom to simply stand on the tracks and say "no." Besides, is Boehner's position on immigration so great that it should outweigh all of the issues on which he is simply dead wrong?

Every other part of the congress has voted or will vote this week. The only reason for the house republicans to delay their already planned schedule would be for the currently losing candidates to try and catch up.

There is a very strong reason to go forward immediately, which is that inter-party fights are toxic, like some of the anti-Boehner stuff which has been posted here. Another 4 or 6 weeks of this would tear the party apart, for no reason.

It would also be bad to delay because the leadership vote is relatively unimportant, and we need to move on to important activities like attacking the democrats. If Pence is really a good leader, then even if he loses he can lead from the back bench, as Gingrich did. Party "leaders" are really spokesmen with relatively little power, as shown by the constitutional title "speaker" of the House.

> As for the immigration issue, the position of a majority and that of a minority are different. In the majority, perhaps the goal was to broker some sort of deal that would get something through the Senate.

That is why comparing Boehner's voting record vs. Pence's is apples vs. oranges, and, unless it is considered with all the other evidence, is really a cheap shot against Boehner. Someone in the leadership is expected to vote with the majority of the caucus almost all the time, even if they disagree.

Any back bencher who lives in a safe district can sit back and vote their conscience, being very liberal if they are a democrat, or very conservative if they are a republican. Yet as your example shows, sometimes more good gets done by voting with the majority in order to cut half of a bad bill out, rather than voting "no" and letting the whole bad, liberal piece of legislation pass.

Why can't we wait until the Ethics Committee produces a report on, inter alia, what Boehner did or didn't do with respect to Foley before deciding on whether he should continue as leader? Did he tell Hastert or didn't he? Why weren't the e-mails enough for the Majority Leader to insist upon an investigation "in the spring" when, he acknowledges, he first learned of the instances of predatory behavior? Why the rush?

Gee, if Boehner is so great at winning campaigns, maybe we should have had him in charge this year!

Oh wait...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.