Press "Enter" to skip to content

Robert W. Peck: Boehner Resigns and Conservatives Cheer

John Boehner
From Robert W. Peck at the Constitution Party website:

Conservatives of late have been openly bemoaning Boehner’s performance in office. However, I remember watching the live election coverage with a friend back in 2010 when Boehner and the republicans won control of the U.S. House. It was called a “Tea Party victory” and conservatives were all aflutter believing “we’ve won, we’ve taken our country back.” Tiny Tears Boehner was crying live tears for the camera as conservatives joined in with tearful joy that “we’re saved!”

I had already been fooled by George ‘”new world order” Bush in 1988 and Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution in 1994, then watched as the conservative right bought into GW “record deficit” Bush as being a true conservative in 2000. By the time Boehner came along, I just felt like I’d seen this movie too many times to not be able to predict the outcome. There’s a saying about, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Nevertheless, the conservative right seems to be once again getting aroused with hope, this time the hope that something good will come of replacing Boehner. Meanwhile, the current Presidential circus, and infatuation with Donald Trump, would seem to indicate that we like being fooled and are ready to buy a ticket for another elephant ride.

I don’t mean this as discouraging negativism in the vein of “nothing will ever get any better; there’s no hope; let’s all sing another chorus of ‘Gloom, despair and agony on me.” What I do mean is that nothing is going to get any better until we start paying attention, determine to not get fooled again and realize that to change our government we have to change our vote.

Read the Washington Times article about Boehner’s resignation here.

18 Comments

  1. paulie September 29, 2015

    Unfortunately they are not an endangered species.

  2. Darryl W. Perry September 29, 2015

    Big-government Republicans call the smaller-government Republicans RINOs and the smaller-government Republicans call the big-government Republicans RINOs.

  3. paulie September 29, 2015

    The Real Reason Rand Paul is Losing to Trump and Carson: Republican Voters Want Bigger Government

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/the-real-reason-rand-paul_b_8141032.html

    Excerpt:

    The answer is Republican voters don’t really want those things. They’re fed up with the GOP leadership, but not because it’s failed to make the government smaller or less powerful. They’re fed up because it hasn’t made the government bigger, in the areas they want it to be bigger.

    Think about what has resonated with Republican voters. It’s been exactly the opposite of what Paul proposes. Trump and Carson supporters have responded enthusiastically to promises of a bigger, more powerful federal government, led by a strong-willed leader who will trample constitutional limits on his power, run a command economy and pursue an activist foreign policy.

    They want more border security and less immigration. Whether illegal or legal, the real resentment towards immigrants is the competition they bring for jobs. Crime and welfare make good headlines, but deep down everyone knows this is just protectionism in the labor market. It’s the opposite of free markets.

    Second only to his immigration stance is Trump’s protectionist stance on international trade. Trump views the world economy the same way 18th century mercantilists viewed it: as a zero sum game with winners and losers. His answer? Higher taxes, in the form of tariffs, to protect less efficient domestic manufacturing. Adam Smith wrote his seminal economic treatise to refute precisely this world view.

    Ben Carson’s most popular position is the mainstream Republican “strengthen the military” mantra. Republican voters want more money spend on the military, even though it remains larger than the next 10 largest national military establishments combined. Contrary to current Republican talking points, the U.S. military has not been cut in decades. Sequestration only decreased the increases in spending. Actual spending still went up every year. Republican voters don’t care. They want more. Let’s face it. No amount would be too much.

    Trump says he’ll dramatically increase spending on the VA. Like all government programs, the VA has serious problems. But Republicans seem unable to apply the logic they apply to federal spending on education or civilian health care to federal spending on health care for veterans. If it’s for the veterans, they’re all for spending more. Again, no amount is too much.

    Even Rand Paul’s stance on NSA data collection is unpopular with these “small government” voters. Regardless of whether you ultimately agree with Chris Christie, Rand Paul bested Christie on this issue in the first debate. Christie based his whole argument for bulk collection on his experience in the FISA court getting warrants on individuals. Paul pointed out the error of logic and Christie offered no substantive response.

    Rhetorically, it was a knockout. Republican voters didn’t care. Fox News told them Christie won the debate and GOP voters were happy to believe it. Why? Because no amount of power given to the federal government in the “War on Terror’ is too much. That’s how they really think. “Terrorists don’t deserve due process.” Counterintuitive? So, what?

    Most importantly, there is nothing Trump or Carson has said that remotely implies they would reduce the reach of the federal government in any area whatsoever or cut federal spending overall. If they have, no one is talking about it. Find a single social media post about how Trump or Carson are going to get the federal government out of any area of our lives. You won’t.

    Forget style, Washington insider vs. outsider, or anything else the media is saying about why Trump and Carson are so far ahead. The real reason is they’re promising a bigger, more interventionist federal government that will wield massive federal power on things Republican voters like, constitutional limits be damned.

  4. David September 29, 2015

    What is a RINO? Ron Paul believed in the Constitution and was a RINO. Republicans really don’t know who they are.

  5. paulie September 28, 2015

    LOL

  6. langa September 27, 2015

    The fact Kevin McCarthy will be the next speaker shows how truly impotent they are.

    Kevin McCarthy? I don’t know anything about his politics, but I thought “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” was a great movie.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002994/

  7. Cody Quirk September 27, 2015

    “Meanwhile, the current Presidential circus, and infatuation with Donald Trump, would seem to indicate that we like being fooled and are ready to buy a ticket for another elephant ride.”

    At least Mr. Peck sees Trump for what he really is.

  8. Dave September 27, 2015

    Actually only 216 Republicans voted for Boehner. Various tea party challengers received the rest of the votes. And only 164 dems voted for Pelosi. Imo the argument that would be more effective is that the “good old boy” network in congress ensures that the establishment of both parties inevitably triumphs over their opponents and stifles meaningful debate and dissent. Hence the need for outsiders beholden to neither party.

  9. paulie September 27, 2015


    Speaker exits ^

    As for more seriously I think this sums it up well:

    Andy Craig for Congress

    As nice as it is to see him go, Speaker Boehner isn’t the problem. The 246 other Republican members of the House who elected him are, and they aren’t going anywhere. (…and of course, the same goes for the 188 Democrats who inexplicably keep re-electing Nancy Pelosi as their leader.)

    If you don’t want the same old Republicans and Democrats to control House leadership, stop electing the same old Republicans and Democrats to House membership. Expecting them to pick a better leader among themselves once they’re there, is the repeated triumph of hope over experience.

  10. Sean Scallon September 27, 2015

    The fact Kevin McCarthy will be the next speaker shows how truly impotent they are. They can plot, they can stop, but they can’t run. Ultimately that gets old after a while.

  11. robert capozzi September 27, 2015

    An R with cojones sounds scarey.

  12. Jed Ziggler Post author | September 27, 2015

    “Clearly a RINO.”

    The term implies that other Republicans are somehow different.

  13. NewFederalist September 27, 2015

    Exit one clown. What will the next clown be like? I cannot imagine the GOP will actually elect a Speaker with any cojones.

  14. Dave September 27, 2015

    Perhaps I’m just a softee. But yes, despite my pity for the man I am glad to see him leave congress.

  15. jim September 27, 2015

    Dave: You said, “Not all that fond of the man’s views, but I do feel bad people picked on him just because he cried. Yes, he did it a lot, but there’s like a thousand better things to attack him on.”

    I wonder. Enough so I used Google Trends to look up ‘Boehner cry’. There were (only) three peaks: One in January 2011, one in October 2013, and the third, now. That doesn’t sound like a lot of bullying, to me. Everywhere else, the result was “zero”.
    I was disgusted by Boehner LONG (years) before I’d seen a single reference to his “crying”.
    Clearly a RINO.

  16. Dave September 27, 2015

    Not all that fond of the man’s views, but I do feel bad people picked on him just because he cried. Yes, he did it a lot, but there’s like a thousand better things to attack him on.

  17. Jed Ziggler Post author | September 27, 2015

    The GOP has lost its Boehner.

  18. jim September 27, 2015

    Boehner was a doofus in 2010. However, he survived because he was riding the wave of the revolution he not merely didn’t personally win, but one in which he strenuously objected. He should have been ejected in 2012. He should never have been appointed to the Speaker position.

Comments are closed.