Boehner vs. Reid

Boehner wins.

At least for now:

Washington (CNN) — The federal government may not be hit with a double whammy on top of the ongoing shutdown, as House Speaker John Boehner told a group of fellow GOP legislators that he won’t let the nation default on its debt, according to a House Republican.

Boehner said that he’d set aside the “Hastert Rule” — that Republicans would only bring measures up for a vote if they are backed by a majority of their caucus — and rely on Democrats to pass a measure to raise the nation’s debt limit, said the House member.

Reid is a partisan warhorse.  If he would vote “no” on a bill, it doesn’t come before the Senate.

Period.

Time will tell if Boehner actually allows the vote, but he has history of being far more bipartisan than his counterpart in the Senate.

6 responses to “Boehner vs. Reid

  1. I can’t understand how you keep pushing the “bipartisan” BS when Boehner won’t let the Dem’s clean CR come up for a vote. Your only retort is that Reid is worse, which is a non-sequitur and also undercuts everything you say about Boehner.

    Regardless, Boehner is the head of his asylum, but the inmates are running it. I’m sure he’ll publicly say anything to appear sane on the debt limit, just as he leaked his opposition to the shutdown for the last few months until he clearly couldn’t control it, and suddenly he had to lead the charge.

    The guy running in front of the angry mob may be the leader, or he may simply be avoiding getting trampled. Boehner is the latter. If his mob decides to default the government, I don’t know how effective Boehner is going to be in curtailing it. Especially because he’s going to lose the speakership in the blink of an eye if he appears to compromise.

    • I can’t understand how you keep pushing the “bipartisan” BS when Boehner won’t let the Dem’s clean CR come up for a vote.

      Boehner is saying that he’ll allow [though to be fair he has peddled today] that he would allow a vote for the debt ceiling to come before the house. Reid won’t allow a vote on anything other than a clean CR.

      Boehner will allow a vote [on the debt ceiling] and Reid won’t allow a vote [on anything but a clean CR].

      The guy running in front of the angry mob may be the leader, or he may simply be avoiding getting trampled. Boehner is the latter. If his mob decides to default the government, I don’t know how effective Boehner is going to be in curtailing it.

      So, I think it’s safe to say that the country can afford to reduce the size of government by 10-20% easy. This is proof positive.

      Second, those people, the mob, are duly elected representatives of the people. And those people WANT the law changed and are willing to face government shutdown to do it. For these people, the law is more of a danger than going through a shutdown is.

      You disagree, I get that. I may even disagree. Be that as it may, these folks are not anarchists or jihadists. Shit, they aren’t even Occupy pukes. These folks won elections and are now working within the legal framework of the government to make their case.

      Don’t forget, the last time a republican lead house faced off with a democrat president like this, Newt balanced the budget and passed Welfare Reform.

      Of course the country gave credit to Clinton and punished republicans.

      The burden of the responsible 😉

      • So, I think it’s safe to say that the country can afford to reduce the size of government by 10-20% easy. This is proof positive.
        Sure, and whether that would be better or not is a political question. Legislators vote on, and pass or repeal, programs that expand or contract government. If you want to shrink the government, take a look at the size of the federal government under Obama v. Bush, or Bush v. Clinton. Democrats are actually much better at reining in the growth of government than Republicans in recent memory. Regardless, once the law is passed, until it is repealed, that’s the size of government we’ve chosen.

        Second, those people, the mob, are duly elected representatives of the people. And those people WANT the law changed and are willing to face government shutdown to do it. For these people, the law is more of a danger than going through a shutdown is.

        If those people want to change the law, the Constituion provides for methods of doing so. Shutting down the government is not an acceptable way of doing it. No serious person disagrees with this. As for those people, the reason it’s not a danger to shutdown the government is because their base voters are, quite frankly, out of touch.

        You disagree, I get that. I may even disagree. Be that as it may, these folks are not anarchists or jihadists. Shit, they aren’t even Occupy pukes. These folks won elections and are now working within the legal framework of the government to make their case.

        No, they’re not. Find me any place in the Constitution or the US Code that says a government shutdown is a legal mechanism for legislating. Of all the arcane things that are allowed, that’s not provided for. You need to elaborate how simply not passing a budget such that the government stops functioning is “within the legal framework of the government.”

        I don’t think I’ve called them anarchists or jihadists, though I think any differences are simply matters of degree. I think they’re nihilists, however. They don’t actually care about policy, they’re simply doing whatever they can to bring the red meat back home every two years, consequences be damned. After all, none of these people will ever really suffer from economic downturns.

        • If you want to shrink the government, take a look at the size of the federal government under Obama v. Bush, or Bush v. Clinton. Democrats are actually much better at reining in the growth of government than Republicans in recent memory.

          To be sure, repub on repub government is no bueno, For small government types, the best government is a democrat in the White House and a republican House.

          No, they’re not. Find me any place in the Constitution or the US Code that says a government shutdown is a legal mechanism for legislating.

          It’s a consequence, to be sure. But it isn’t illegal. Bad idea – probably.

          I don’t think I’ve called them anarchists or jihadists, though I think any differences are simply matters of degree.

          No, I haven’t seen you do it, just our Senate Majority Leader.

          They don’t actually care about policy, they’re simply doing whatever they can to bring the red meat back home every two years, consequences be damned.

          I think the Tea Party folks that have been elected are different.

  2. Oh look, Boehner now caves to the Tea Party on the debt ceiling. Go figure. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/boehner-u-s-will-default-if-obama-doesn-t-cave-on-the-debt-limit

    Let me go ahead and write your response, saving us some time: “He didn’t say he wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling, he’s just using a perfectly legal technique to extract policy concessions.”

    My response: “No, he’s defaulting the government to appease a crazy faction of his party that doesn’t care about the credit of the United States, given that half of them probably don’t even recognize the sovereignty thereof.”

    • Oh look, Boehner now caves to the Tea Party on the debt ceiling. Go figure.

      Yup, they’re both preventing votes now. And that sucks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *