# Congratulations to our new Speaker of the House, John Boehner

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

## Main Question or Discussion Point

One of my favorite Republicans, and like President Obama, SOH Boehner is a shining example of the fact that power still resides with the People. He started his career woking in his father's bar. When his wife married him, he was a building custodian. Today, he is the third most poweful person in the US.

No doubt he will be ticking me off on a nearly daily basis, but I wish him well. Hopefully wisdom will prevail and he will soon be a Democrat.

I should add that this ends the second term of service for the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I never liked Pelosi, but in the end, I must admit that she performed admirably. Under the leadership of her and Senator Reid, like it or not, the 111th Congress got the job done. One cannot argue with success. Congratulations to former SOH Pelosi for a job very well done. The 111th Congress was a historic Congress by any measure.

Last edited:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Dare to dream Ivan - dare to dream.

I hope he stays the course on smaller Bills, honest debate, and 3 days to read the pending legislation.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
My biggest concern is that he will push legislation that can't possibly pass in the Senate, with no chance that Obama would ever sign it, in order to position the party for the 2012 election. My hope is that he will put his country before his party. I like Boehner because I have seen him do this, and I expect he will continue to do so.

While I like the idea that the entire Constitution will be read in order to start the 112th Congress. I hope the SOH will not assume the position that this is a Republican-only platform. Note that in the video below, Boehner cited the Delcaration of Independence, not the Constitution as he claimed. So I ask SOH Boehner and all of our representitives to listen very carefully when the Constitution is read. I also ask our Tea Party favorites to do the same. In spite of the rhetoric, recall that Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell didn't even understand that there is an establishment clause wrt religion, in the Constitution. So I hope they leave their marching band outside and stick to business. In my view, the real threat to the Constitution has come from the right, and esp the Bush administration, not from the best efforts of Obama and the 111th Congress to save a failing economy and a health care system in crisis.

Hopefully wisdom will prevail and he will soon be a Democrat.
Sorry, but that's an absolute non-sequitor, in my book.

I never liked Pelosi, but in the end, I must admit that she performed admirably. Under the leadership of her and Senator Reid, like it or not, the 111th Congress got the job done. One cannot argue with success.
I'd like to hear what measures you're using to judge "success." There's a reason Obama's approval rating is dismally low, and much of that rests with the many failures of the 111th Congress. Passing partisan legislation is not a "success" if most of the nation's citizenry are opposed to it. Treating a nation's citizenry as if they were idiots who could not think for themselves simply because they disagreed with her is perhaps Pelosi's most infamous faux pas.

My biggest concern is that he will push legislation that can't possibly pass in the Senate, with no chance that Obama would ever sign it, in order to position the party for the 2012 election.
Hopefully, he'll push legislation that's wise, needed, and desired by the People of our country. If such legislation "can't possibly pass in the Senate, with no chance that Obama would ever sign it," they're the one's who'll be positioning the Republican party for the 2012 election, not Boehner.

My hope is that he will put his country before his party. I like Boehner because I have seen him do this, and I expect he will continue to do so.
Same here. I've had enough of partisan politics.

I like the idea that the entire Constitution will be read in order to start the 112th Congress.
Same!

I hope the SOH will not assume the position that this is a Republican-only platform.
From what I understand, a number of Dems were behind this, as well, especially the ones who've also had enough of partisan politics.

So I ask SOH Boehner and all of our representitives to listen very carefully when the Constitution is read.
Why listen when one can http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" [Broken]? Of course, listening helps, too. :)

Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell didn't even understand that there is an establishment clause wrt religion, in the Constitution.
There's not - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html" [Broken]... Lol.

Actually, there is, but most people, especially the courts who keep prohibiting the free exercise thereof, forgot about the second half: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

In my view, the real threat to the Constitution has come from the right, and esp the Bush administration...
Is that the Constitution as it was envisaged by those who wrote it and held dear by those who built our country from the ground up, or the "living document" many would like it to become to suit their own view? However, if you're referring to the rights violations of the Gitmo detainees and the citizens of a couple of countries we invaded recently based on sketchy/faulty intel, I'm with you there.

...the best efforts of Obama and the 111th Congress to save a failing economy and a health care system in crisis.
Well, each are ripe for their own debate, except to say the best way to "save" a failing economy is to ride out the natural adjustments, and the crisis in health care is that it'd become big business, with an overreliance in insurance, while insisting the "fix" be to simply tax the taxpayers who can afford to pay taxes to pay for the health insurance of those who can't, thereby exacerbating the root problem.

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Sorry, but that's an absolute non-sequitor, in my book.
Obviously your book is out of print! :tongue2:

I'd like to hear what measures you're using to judge "success." There's a reason Obama's approval rating is dismally low, and much of that rests with the many failures of the 111th Congress. Passing partisan legislation is not a "success" if most of the nation's citizenry are opposed to it. Treating a nation's citizenry as if they were idiots who could not think for themselves simply because they disagreed with her is perhaps Pelosi's most infamous faux pas.
Firstly, consider health care reform. Unlike the Republicans who [Michael Steel, Mitch McConnell] stated explicitly that their singular goal was to stop Obama, there was true and credible division within the Democratic party. Additionally, due in large part to a misinformation campaign started by the likes of Senator Grassley, Sarah Palin, hate radio, and Fox News, [pull the plug on grandma, conjured accusations of socialism, false claims of lost benefits, classic scare tactics] the Democrats realized that it was time to be leaders.

One of the biggest divisions within the Democratic party was the demand for a public option. When commentators cite the statistic of low support for health care reform, what they often leave out is that about half of those who want it repealed believe it didn't go far enough. So with this factored in, most Americans support basic effort. Only about 30 or 40% reject it in principle. [those stats should be about right]. Additionally, many Democratic Representatives came from Blue dog States that did not generally support the reforms. Even though many Representatives knew it would likely cost them the 2010 election, they fell on their swords for the sake of the country. They opted not to govern by survey. They chose to be leaders and make the tough decision - to do the right thing even if it was political suicide. You may recall the "Yes We Did!" yelp by one Dem Rep., just after reform had passed, when Obama talked about the personal sacrifices made for the country. In my book, those people are political heroes.

Had the Democrats done otherwise, they would been accused of governing by the polls, as Clinton was accused of doing.

This unity can be attributed in part to Pelosi's leadership, as well as Obama's. Also, in the end, the support of [R] Snow and the two Independents in the Senate was critical. This is what killed the public option. So we had balance within the Democratic party along with the three moderates. The Republicans were clearly employing a political tactic, which included endless abuse of the fillabuster, instead of participating in landmark legislation. It was their choice to bet that health care would be Obama's Waterloo [Steele]. It was their choice to fail in their duties. It was their choice to serve their party instead of the country.

So, after a century of failed efforts, the 111th Congress passed historic health care reform. That alone puts the 111th in the history books. As cited in the now locked thread dedicated to the achievements of the 111th Congress, the 111th got more done than any Congress since the time of Johnson. Given that the Republicans opposed in lockstep most of the legislation passed, and given that they rail about all that must be undone, to that extent the 111th clearly succeeded in forwarding much of the legislation sought. As I stated, whether you agree with their solutions or not, much was accomplished in furthering their agenda. That is the definition of success. Only time will tell if they fought the right battles, but as a voter I couldn't be happier. I think they were fighting the right battles and did so most admirably.

Hopefully, he'll push legislation that's wise, needed, and desired by the People of our country. If such legislation "can't possibly pass in the Senate, with no chance that Obama would ever sign it," they're the one's who'll be positioning the Republican party for the 2012 election, not Boehner.
Any buffoon in his position could pump through legislation that has no hope of passing. It takes a leader to serve the country through the art of the possible.

Last edited:
So, after a century of failed efforts, the 111th Congress passed historic health care reform. That alone puts the 111th in the history books. As cited in the now locked thread dedicated to the achievements of the 111th Congress, the 111th got more done than any Congress since the time of Johnson. Given that the Republicans opposed in lockstep most of the legislation passed, and given that they rail about all that must be undone, to that extent the 111th clearly succeeded in forwarding much of the legislation sought. As I stated, whether you agree with their solutions or not, much was accomplished in furthering their agenda. That is the definition of success. Only time will tell if they fought the right battles, but as a voter I couldn't be happier. I think they were fighting the right battles and did so most admirably.
The part I can't understand is why didn't Obama, Pelosi, and Reid tout the expansion of the IRS to enforce health care legislation? I pulled this article from factcheck - they claim the addition of 16.500 IRS agents and $10 Billion per year is wrong - more like 11,800 employees (not gun carrying agents) and a mere$5 Billion (up to \$10 Billion) per year.

http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

"To their credit, the GOP analysts admitted this shortcoming, saying their figure "does not include other costs that would be incurred, including office overhead." In fact, they said: "There would be some additional overhead costs for the new employees, such as computers and telephone services." Adjusting for that, they said, the number of new workers implied by the CBO guesstimate would be 11,800."

Hmmm, approximately 27 additional IRS employees per Congressional district - how bad can that be?

CAC1001
pull the plug on grandma, conjured accusations of socialism, false claims of lost benefits, classic scare tactics] the Democrats realized that it was time to be leaders.
It is a variant of socialism. It's government control of health insurance. What else would one call it? It's a version of single-payer. And whoever controls health insurance essentially controls the whole of healthcare to a degree - everything from doctors to hospitals to the pharmaceuticals industry to the medical device and equipment industry, etc...all get affected.

Republicans pointing out costs will skyrocket or freedom of choice will be curtailed, or even both, were not classic scare tactics, that was just pointing out things that will have to happen with such a program as Obamacare (and judging by the history of healthcare programs in America, likely will).

One of the biggest divisions within the Democratic party was the demand for a public option. When commentators cite the statistic of low support for health care reform, what they often leave out is that about half of those who want it repealed believe it didn't go far enough. So with this factored in, most Americans support basic effort. Only about 30 or 40% reject it in principle. [those stats should be about right]. Additionally, many Democratic Representatives came from Blue dog States that did not generally support the reforms.
Which I do not get, because the bill HAS a public option in it. It mandates you purchase health insurance, if you refuse to, then you pay a fine, and if you outright cannot afford it, then you are subsidized.

Even though many Representatives knew it would likely cost them the 2010 election, they fell on their swords for the sake of the country.
Maybe, some may also have been bought off in certain ways, such as being promised an ambassadorship or something.

They opted not to govern by survey. They chose to be leaders and make the tough decision - to do the right thing even if it was political suicide. You may recall the "Yes We Did!" yelp by one Dem Rep., just after reform had passed, when Obama talked about the personal sacrifices made for the country. In my book, those people are political heroes.
Doing the right thing for political suicide is when the financial system is about to collapse and the polls show the general public don't want the financial companies bailed out because they think it's politicians taking care of their Wall Street buddies and do not understand the ramifications if the system goes down; so despite public opinion, you bail the system out anyway.

Ramming through a completely experimental healthcare bill that no one really has any idea how it will work in practice, for completely ideological reasons, is not doing the right thing.

Had the Democrats done otherwise, they would been accused of governing by the polls, as Clinton was accused of doing.
If as President you want to do something, but the public doesn't want it, then no matter how "right" you think you are, you should not do it, the ONLY exception being if it is absolutely necessary to prevent collapse of the system or something.

President Obama gave speech after speech on healthcare and still couldn't sell it to the American people.

The reason he rammed it through in the end was not for the country, it was to save his Presidency, which he himself stated, that if healthcare failed to pass, it would destroy his Presidency - he'd become a lame-duck.

So even if it required the deem-and-pass method, the Democrats were going to push it through.

This unity can be attributed in part to Pelosi's leadership, as well as Obama's. Also, in the end, the support of [R] Snow and the two Independents in the Senate was critical. This is what killed the public option.
The public option is still there.

So we had balance within the Democratic party along with the three moderates. The Republicans were clearly employing a political tactic, which included endless abuse of the fillabuster, instead of participating in landmark legislation.
One cannot participate in landmark legislation if they completely disagree with it. So will the Democrats now participate in the "landmark legislation" to completely undo Obamacare? Will they at least participate to undo the individual mandate, while retaining certain other aspects of the healthcare bill?

Of course not, because the mandate, one of the main reasons Republicans could not agree to the healthcare bill, is also why the Democrats cannot agree to any Republican attempts at reform of Obamacare, because undoing the mandate also essentially undoes Obamacare.

It was their choice to bet that health care would be Obama's Waterloo [Steele]. It was their choice to fail in their duties. It was their choice to serve their party instead of the country.
The Republicans were serving their country, which is why Obamacare did not get a single Republican vote. If one thinks a piece of legislation is possibly the worst piece of legislation to be passed in history, they are thinking about the country in refusing to vote for it, and I applaud the Republicans for finally acting like conservatives for once.

I thought the reading of the Constitution might appear - fake. Now I think it was pure genius. When Nancy Pelosi dutifully stepped to the podium - allowed only to read her script - then stepped off, Boehner verified his power in the House.

I also liked his comment (summarized) that he didn't think anybody in Washington actually believes that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit. Boehner looked like a parent telling his kids that he wasn't buying their story of how the lamp was broken by a monster.

I'd like to find a list of the House Memebrs that didn't think the reading of the Constitution was important enough for them to waste their time. Perhaps they believe it doesn't apply to them?

Hepth
Gold Member
I'd like to find a list of the House Memebrs that didn't think the reading of the Constitution was important enough for them to waste their time. Perhaps they believe it doesn't apply to them?
Heres two:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47170.html

They also had cast votes after missing the swear-in. I personally don't think its that big of a deal for the votes cast; but why were they somewhere else.

Heres two:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47170.html

They also had cast votes after missing the swear-in. I personally don't think its that big of a deal for the votes cast; but why were they somewhere else.
They missed the swearing in ceremony on Wednesday, not the reading of the Constitution on Thursday.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Be sure to watch very closely. There was an interesting moment that most networks didn't catch.

Last edited:
Oh, the daily show last night was hilarious regarding Boehner. He's the kind of man who can really shake the confidence of a nation, and he's just 2 heartbeats from the presidency!

Reagan would be proud.