Why do we continue to allow low-lifes like these to continue to collect a pay check?
Three back-bench martyrs of the Republican Conference sent a message back to their leaders yesterday: Payback’s a bear.
Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), all stripped of prized committee assignments earlier this month because of perceived sins against the party, did a three-amigos end zone dance as GOP leaders struggled and failed to get the votes for a tax-cut bill designed to empower Speaker John Boehner in negotiating the so-called fiscal cliff.
All three voted against a related spending-cut bill that narrowly passed earlier on Thursday.
Schweikert Tweeted that he would be a “no” vote on the tax measure.
And, after Boehner concluded he didn’t have the votes to move forward, Huelskamp issued a fiery press release accusing GOP leaders of trying to bully rank-and-file Republicans into voting for a bad bill.
“Republican leadership thought they could silence conservatives when they kicked us off our committees,” Huelskamp said. “I’m glad that enough of my colleagues refused to back down from the threats and intimidation, thus preventing the conference from abandoning our principles.”
The whole episode gave Boehner the feel of a substitute teacher who is accountable for what happens in the classroom but isn’t really in control of the kids. He’s already used the tools at his disposal to bring Huelskamp, Amash and Schweikert into line — and that didn’t work.
The leadership-driven Republican Steering Committee kicked the three lawmakers off of committees, a move that they interpreted as punishment for conservative voting records.
But Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), a conservative and a member of the Steering Committee, said the real reason was an “a-hole factor.” Another member of the Steering Committee, seeking to distinguish between these lawmakers and others who might be difficult to deal with, called them the “most egregious a-holes” in the Republican Conference.
The meaning: These guys didn’t just vote no — they went extra miles in working against the interests of the GOP.
Now you would think I had better things to do than laugh at Republican in-fighting. Something just caught my eye on this one. Lynn Westmoreland gets my “Republican of the Year” award for just telling it like it is. You can look at these guys and see exactly what he is talking about. So these guys just want to cause trouble and send us over the cliff. Ok, I get it. Maybe they are going to fight out that paybacks have not even really begun yet. It sounds like those in their own party want a big piece of their butts before the rest of us get to them.
A big shout out goes to those who have starting calling out the A-holes.
Moon /
A slight mistake. Lynn Westmoreland happens to be MALE! Married to Joan.
Might he be Republican Rooster of the Year rather than “Chick”? :>)
Bwaaahahahahaha Thanks for letting me know. I will fix.
All fixed, Punchak. Now how did you know that? Androgenous names always catch me. Somehow it isn’t as much fun know I know Lynn is a rooster.
This really validates the decision of he American people to reelect Obama. The Repugs are not capable of governing.
Man, those establishment GOP members sure whine alot. The conservatives were voted into office in 2010 and were expected to fulfill the expectations of their constituents.
Standing on principle is hard. Maybe Boehner needs to learn how to do it.
Those same conservatives expected Obama to hold back the Red Sea right after he was elected. They failed to deliver.
Actually, the conservatives delivered. It was the rest of the GOP that goes along with the spendthrifts.
@Moon-howler
Whenever I see the name of a “person of interest”, I look up the name on Wiki
to find out more. I’m simply NOSY!
Here is the reality Cargo, if you want to live in a society where it’s your way or the high way, move to North Korea, move to a society where there is authoritarian rule. compromise is what makes this country viable,PERIOD!
These GOP “representatives” ( I use the term loosely) had not place serving on a committee that requires dialogue and compromise, you know, those critical components in a negotiation process.
@Elena
Oh, you mean like Obama’s idea of compromise?
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”
“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”
Yep..he sure does want to compromise….. Remember his statement, “I won.”
Every compromise that Boehner offered was shot down by Reid as not even worthy of consideration. Reid has tabled everything. Seems like its the Democrats that want it their way or the highway.
Please…show me Reid’s plan for ANYTHING.
There was a very close compromise Cargo, until Boehner came back with a ridiculous offer of a tax rate increase for those making a million or more. THAT was the joke Cargo and thus here we are, racing towards the cliff. You may want to listen to the multitude of conservatives, bill kristol, ben stein, ann coulter, etc etc who recognize that they must give on the bush tax cuts because they willl expire, period, if they don’t compromise.
BTW, LOVE the pretend conversation with the President, I am sure that is exactly how it wen (snicker dripping with sacrasm)
@Elena
That was the Pelosi plan….the Democrats LOVED that idea last year.
Pretend conversation?….that’s a quote. Sorry if it bursts your bubble of naivete about Mr. Obama’s “willingness” to compromise. Plan B gave the Democrats 90% of everything that they wanted. And Reid said that it was DOA at the Senate. So, the fact that it did not pass the House is moot. It would not have gotten a vote in the Senate.
@Elena
Forgot to add,
Congress wrote the bill for the “cliff.” Its an artificial construct. They could just repeal it.
Obama doesn’t care if we go over the “cliff.” His goal is not to save the economy, but to destroy the Republicans as much as possible. As long as the GOP gets the blame….he doesn’t care. And since the GOP gets blamed for anything that happens, I say, let’s not only fall over the cliff, let’s soar! Its the only way to get real spending cuts and force people to realize how impossible the Obama economy and way of doing business truly is.
If you want high spending, pay for it.
Let’s go back to what Elena was saying… If the Republicans (who control 1/3 of the government – Senate = 1/3, House = 1/3, President =1/3) don’t compromise, everyone including their millionaires will see increased taxes. Their failure to come to an agreement will violate their Norquist pledge.
So Cargo: it seems what you are telling us is that the 2/3 part of the government is going to be at fault for not totally agreeing with the 1/3 part of the government.
What I am telling you is that 1/3 of the gov’t DID compromise, even to using a plan approved by the Democrats last year.
What I am telling you is that the SENATE is refusing to even negotiate AT ALL. Period. Full Stop.
What I am telling you is the Obama is not willing to negotiate and even HIS plan was tabled in the Senate.
I will assume then that you would support a compromise wherein the President and the Senate Majority Leader give up 1/3 of their demands and the House Speaker gives up 2/3 of his demands.
I am glad to see that some folks are still working even though it is the holidays. That’s more than I can say for the Congress.
CS – The absence of the Senate isn’t a problem. In fact, it probably is an advantage to working something out. The Senate normally would await a bill from the House.
@Scout
Yes, the Senate does….except this Senate has decided that any bill coming from the House is DOA, as per Senator Reid.
@BSinVA
The House Speaker gave Obama 90% of what he wanted in Plan B, a perfectly acceptable DEMOCRAT plan from last year.
So you support a compromise where the House leader gives up 2/3 of his demands in return for the Senate and the President giving up 1/3 of their demands? I don’t think your recent response was clear enough.
The Senate will vote for a House Bill that is acceptable to the Administration. I think that is how it will work. I don’t really see a problem with that. The real action is between the House and the President.
Plan B could not be acceptable (and it wasn’t within the House) after a national election in which the Democrats had such a strong showing and the President expressly campaigned on raising the upper bracket rates.
@BSinVA
Apparently you didn’t read my response. Boehner already gave up 90%. The Senate rejected it. What I support is that the GOP live up to its lip service and grow a spine. But, if they are not going to do that, lets raise taxes on everybody. The GOP should vote present. If the Democrats want higher spending and taxes….lets do it.
Plan B raised the upper bracket rates. And the Senate should hold a vote or, at least, put it into committee…..you know..what the Senate is supposed to do. But the Senate refuses to do anything. Period.
So, since the GOP is going to get blamed for any and everything, even if it agrees to whatever scheme Obama wants to use…. anyone for cliff diving? At least this way, we get real cuts. And the reality is that both parties and the President signed off on it. This is all theirs. Everyone’s , except the conservatives that voted “no.”
@Scout
Oh…and if that’s so, why did they table Obama’s budget?
Cargo: I would like to double check your claim that the Speaker has agreed top 90% of Obama’s list. Do you mean he agreed to 90% of the items or 90% of the dollars involved. Please provide your sources for your assertions. Thanks.
“they” being who, CS?
@Scout
The Senate.
It’s hard to govern when a part of one party of one chamber of the government, the House Of Representatives, is allowed to control the content of the legislation. I say “allowed” to control because Boehner is doing exactly that- allowing the Tea-Party faction to control things. The GOP under Boehner has decided to not bring up legislation for a vote unless they have a Republican majority in line to vote favorably. This assures that even partisan bills like Plan B don’t get a vote and that bills that might pass with Democratic votes even if they don’t have a Republican majority don’t get a vote.
Our government was never designed to function this way. The congress was set up by our founders to give the minority party a strong say-so in governing, but it was not expected that a fringe group of one party could bring our government (and economy) to a stand-still and ignore the wishes of the majority party and the majority of the American people. The above policy by the GOP and the unprecedented use of the filibuster in the Senate has made this possible. The will of the people no longer matters in congress.
Boehner may have made an honest attempt to find middle ground with the president, but if he did, he was thwarted by the fringe element in his party once again. Now his game apparently is to wait for the cliff, and then possibly convince the fringe that they are now voting to reduce taxes on the 98% rather than raise them on the 2%. Good luck with these extremists- I think they’re willing to crush our economy just to maintain their “purity.”
So, the bills sent to the Senate….that are being tabled without a vote, including the President’s budget…..what’s your opinion on that?
And I agree…Boehner should have brought it to a vote.
It still would not have passed…not enough Dems apparently.
It is Reid’s naked intent to wait for the cliff and point at the GOP. Same with the President.
The “extremists” have nothing to do with the cliff. The cliff is the result of a bill which they voted “NO” on. It’s not the fault of the Tea Party if Congress and the President was stupid enough to set this up for political games.
Since the majority of the population voted for Obama and want his ideas….and the President signed the bill making the cliff….you get what you voted for.
And since the majority is in favor of higher spending and higher taxes…I say raise taxes on everybody and let the spending commence.
Cargo, are you imbibing? Clearly that is not what the people of America voted for. You don’t speak for us. You speak for the moss backs.
The majority of people are in favor of the rich paying a higher tax rate, not being their patsies.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, the bills sent to the Senate by the House GOP are ridiculously partisan, but maybe they should have been voted on anyway, as you say. Boehner’s Plan B didn’t have enough GOP votes to pass, that’s why he dropped it.
The president entered negotiations with Boehner and they actually got pretty close before Boehner walked away. They were within a few hundred billion of an agreement, which isn’t much when you consider the size of the Federal Government. The President even conceded a reduction in cost of living increases for Social Security, which got him a lot of grief from the left.
My guess is the reason Boehner walked away from that deal is that after caucusing with his group he realized that he had no chance to get enough GOP votes for it. In LBJ’s day that would have led to the leader leaning hard on recalcitrant members to get the votes, especially when it was clear what the American people wanted, as it is now. But we now have congressmen (and it is overwhelmingly men) who think they know better than the voters and refuse to allow the adults to govern.
As if this isn’t enough, the children plan to bring the economy to its knees again with the debt limit issue. These extremists care nothing about the deficit or debt- they are intent on using every opportunity to push forward their social agenda and they don’t care if they crash the economy in the process. Happy New Year!!!
who think they know better than the voters and refuse to allow the adults to govern.
Well the voters put them in there…so, they ARE following the wishes of the constituents.
Debt limit? You mean the thing that Obama says that HE needs to be able to control unilaterally? Perhaps if there were actual reductions in spending and some reprioritization, we wouldn’t need to raise the debt limit. I mean, the President added 50 billion in new spending in debt reduction negotiations. The President added spending AFTER the deal almost got done.
@middleman
Personally, I say get rid of the so-called debt limit. It has NEVER been properly used. If we’re going to raise it regardless of effect, then get rid of it. Neither party wants to really rein in spending.
And THAT is why our credit rating is being threatened. Not some problem with the debt limit.
If the voters want more spending, let them pay for it. Raise taxes. ON everybody. Stop the borrowing.
@Cargosquid
“Well the voters put them in there…so, they ARE following the wishes of the constituents.” If you’re referring to the House GOP, arguably the only reason they retained the majority is because of extreme gerrymandering. If you go by actual votes, the dem’s got far more.
But I’m actually referring to poll after poll that shows broad support for the President’s policies. And, they show that Obama’s approval rating is TWICE as high as congressional Republicans. It appears that most folks know what’s going on…
Its also twice as high as the Democrats. His popularity is proof that the press shields him and that the populous tends to forget his lies. Most people don’t pay attention to politics. All they know is that Obama “cares.”
But, hey! Lets go with your theory. So, since the voters want more spending….lets raise taxes to pay for it. They shouldn’t mind. ObamaCare is already going to raise taxes. They supposedly like…oh..wait. The polls that you like so much show that ObamaCare is even more unpopular now then when it was rammed through Congress. But since Obama likes it, and the voters supposedly like him… lets raise more taxes. Congress and the President invented and passed this “cliff.” Let them own it.