October 5, 2010

"Does Boehner Even Want to Win Big?"

Asks Mickey Kaus.

35 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Boehner is a serious man. Morris is a visionary clown. We need both skills.

MadisonMan said...

Yes, if Boehner wins big, he has to actually do something. Other than spending like a drunk soldier on shore leave when he has power, Boehner isn't actually very good at doing things.

So why should he want to win big?

Salamandyr said...

I have to remember not to click on any of the side ads when I read Kaus. Newsweek has not improved.

Big Mike said...

(1) Mickey Kaus is a hard-core Democrat. He does not "get" Republicans.

(2) Mickey is blogging for an entity that is dying from having gotten too many sigma to the left of normal.

Calypso Facto said...

Salymandr, I have yet to get beyond,

"I have to remember not to ... read ... Newsweek..."

ricpic said...

Boehner may be a great guy for all I know but he's not a crusader, which is what we need now. Jack Ryan as Speaker of the House after the tidal wave in November could and would lead a no holds barred counterrevolution.

AJ Lynch said...

Kaus over-analyzes just about everything. And generally misses what he was swinging at. I don't know what Inty and Althouse see in Kaus.

Hagar said...

John Boehner is a very decent, low key kind of guy, and the Republicans owe him a large vote of thanks for keeping the fires burning and the flag up through a difficult period, but I do not think he necessarily will become Speaker if the Republicans win a majority in the House.

peter hoh said...

Threat level . . .



. . . orange.

AJ Lynch said...

Ricpic:

Jack Ryan? From the Hunt for Red October? heh.

Peter: That was a funny one!

former law student said...

I don't know what Inty and Althouse see in Kaus.

Especially when he takes Dick Morris's political insights seriously.

peter hoh said...

Thanks, AJ.

edutcher said...

Boehner is adhering to the Gospel according to Ann Coulter, rather than Morris. He's being practical.

Newsweek, OTOH, wants to have something they can trumpet as a Republican failure on 11/3, so, if the Rs take the House and split the Senate and they predicted super-majorities in both, Norman Thomas' grandson can chortle about how badly they fell short.

As it is, about the only thing they may be able to celebrate is beating Christine O'Donnell only by lying about her.

(Sort of like the mean girls in junior high humiliating one of the square girls)

john said...

I'd rather Paul Ryan than Jack Ryan. He was a great presence during Obama's GOP-meetup last January, one of the few adults in the rom, IMO.

I think he understands the teaparty movement, and could handle winning big just fine.

john said...

Did you mean the Jack Ryan that Obama and the Chicago Suntimes chased out of the race, or Clancy's Jack Ryan?

I'll take Jack Bauer to either Jack Ryan.

Scott M said...

Speaking of DC leadership post-11/3, has this occurred to anyone else?

1) The Obama administration, regardless of what you think about their policies, was seemingly swamped by unforced errors (to many to list here).

2) Rham is leaving the administration to run for mayor of Chi-town. He promptly commits two completely unforced errors: a) "it's good to be home" filmed while still in DC and b) can't run for mayor if you're not a resident of the municipality for x number of months prior to putting your name on the ballot.

Anyone else think the unforced errors might be leaving, dead fish in hand?

AJ Lynch said...

Arrogance or overconfidence or inexperience can cause unforced errors. I think the White House still has plenty of these "qualities" even though Rahm took his share with him.



wv = nonot =Obama's Team of Rivals

HDHouse said...

Hagar said...
John Boehner is a very decent, low key kind of guy..."

John....hey John....while you are handing out tobacco lobby checks where is mine?..John?

thanks for the tobacco money John..you are "very decent".....but let's keep this low key ok?

HDHouse said...

..The honorable speaker of the house, congressman bonehead for Ohio........

former law student said...

can't run for mayor if you're not a resident of the municipality for x number of months prior to putting your name on the ballot.

The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners decided that this same law, applied to an aldermanic candidate, did not disqualify him, even though he had spent much of the prior 12 months not in Chicago, but in Wisconsin, in FCI Oxford. Surely the President's Chief of Staff deserves the same consideration as a jailbird.

(The CBEC found Jones ineligible on other grounds -- he had been released before his term was fully served. The case went up to the Illinois Supreme Court which decided Jones was ineligible to run, not because he lacked residency but because he was a convicted felon.)

Scott M said...

We'll see, FLS. I just heard about this one this morning and haven't had a chance to read up on it. I believe there was a claim that he was eligible due to home ownership, but there is a precedent that disputes that.

Aside from that, I'm still out for more info on the matter. On the one hand, you can't imagine that the freaking CoS of the White House wouldn't have realized this issue and already have a contingency for it. On the other...look at the seeming ineptitude of the White House in question.

Calypso Facto said...

Do you mean THESE tobacco lobby checks, HD?

"Sen. Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) Glacier PAC has received the most money ($30,000) from Altria’s PAC since 2004."

Scott M said...

Speaking of all things Congress and federal law...

Can someone please explain to me, idiot that I am, how Prop 19 in California (legalizing MJ) is not a more direct refutation of federal law than Arizona's immigration enforcement ever was?

Alex said...

Note that FLS would rather the wicked witch from SFO stay in power forever.

former law student said...

how Prop 19 in California (legalizing MJ) is not a more direct refutation of federal law than Arizona's immigration enforcement ever was?


California would merely be Restoring the Lost Constitution (TM,Randy Barnett). States possess the police power, which allows them to regulate for the health and welfare of their residents. The Federal government was thought to be a government of limited, defined powers, until the 1930s, when the US Supreme Court began to widen the Commerce Clause to the point a fleet of trucks could pass through.

So the Feds could block the import of MJ, or forbid it from interstate commerce, or tax it, but their ability to prohibit a homeowner from throwing a few seeds in his backyard would have seemed limited before Wickard.

ricpic said...

Pual, not Jack Ryan. Mea Culpa.

traditionalguy said...

After cementing a working relationship of mutual support with the first African american GOP National Committee Chairman, Sarah Palin is going to a private dinner with heavy GOP donors in Palm Beach, and locals Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter may also attend. So let Boehner be Boehner. He will do a better job under Palin's Presidential leadership.

peter hoh said...

Tea Partiers, just so you know what kind of guy you're getting:

The Pledge is a promise to have a conversation about maybe getting together to start thinking about some sort of plan that might lead to a proposal for spending cuts.

Alex said...

peter hoh - going back to 2008 spending levels is a start. It's certainly better then continuing on the Pelosi/Obama headlong rush off the cliff. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hagar said...

For the next two years either party will have a small majority in either House of Congress, and Obama will hold the White House.

There will be plenty of time to talk about the problems and make proposals, because no actual legislation is going to go anywhere.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I don't know if Boehner wants to win big but boner certainly does.

Revenant said...

Can someone please explain to me, idiot that I am, how Prop 19 in California (legalizing MJ) is not a more direct refutation of federal law than Arizona's immigration enforcement ever was?

The Arizona law empowered state officials with authority similar to what the federal government claims for itself.

The California law forbids state officials from exercising authority similar to what the federal government claims for itself.

Revenant said...

John Boehner is a very decent, low key kind of guy, and the Republicans owe him a large vote of thanks for keeping the fires burning and the flag up through a difficult period

John Boehner is one of those responsible for us being in this "difficult period" in the first place.

Hagar said...

And if the Democrats think that the voters are acting unreasonable and hostile now, just wait until 2012 after two more years of joblessness and frustration!

peter hoh said...

Boehner and the GOP will win the House, but it won't be a huge, crushing win.

And for that, we can thank gerrymandering -- or blame gerrymandering, whatever your preference. Both parties participate in the creation of safe seats, and both parties benefit.

The losers? The people. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks a little more turnover in the House would be a good thing.

Take a look at Nate Silver's House map.

Maybe one of you has the time to figure out the number of incumbents with a 100% chance of returning to their seat. It's too many for me to count right now.

There are, according to Silver, only about 18 closely contested House races (those with less than a 60% chance of going one way or the other).

That's just 4 percent.

That's not good for democracy.

If you want to see some ridiculous districts, try NC-12, Il-17, and AZ-2