Thursday, September 22, 2011

Another Reason (Of Many) That RINO Hacks John Boehner and Eric Cantor Need to Go

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The Washington Post has it that "GOP Leaders Rebuked on Spending;" Politico has it that "Vote shows Boehner's Lack of Control."

Per usual, the lamestream press is missing the point.

I'll put it simply here: John Boehner and Eric Cantor think that they can "get along" with the Democrats, quietly pushing through destructive legislation that aids and abets the statist agenda.

They don't even put up a fight.

They just roll over and expect conservatives in the House and the Tea Party grassroots to go along.

No. And they must go.

CNS News has the real reasons behind House conservatives voting down the Boehner/Cantor continuing resolution (a fancy way of saying short-term) budget:

(CNSNews.com) - The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.
Sweet. Attaboy for standing by your principles, House conservatives.

Republican leadership is known for saying one thing and doing the precise opposite. Limited government! Taxes! Ooohh, those wascally Democrats!

Then, they don't even put up a fight. How's this for throwing social conservatives under the bus:

An analysis of the CR published by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said that it “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
And fiscal conservatives, too:

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

During that time, it would have funded the government at an annualized rate just $7 billion less than the level of federal spending for fiscal 2011--but $24 billion more than the Republican-controlled House approved in the budget resolution they passed earlier this year.

How about throwing all limited-government conservatives, independents, libertarians et al. under the bus?

Obamacare -- the same Obamacare that Boehner/Cantor rode into House majority status with, promising to repeal/replace/de-fund gets funded in Boehner/Cantor budget:

“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” said the study-committee analysis.
Imagine that there isn't anyone railing against this abomination over at Memeorandum. "Conservative" bloggers and talking heads are too busy waving their 'R' red-white-and-blue flags to consider that they are being used and bamboozled by the very leadership that they put into power positions November of last year in the first place.

Boehner and Cantor have no interest in promoting or furthering the righting of our financial ship. Can we afford that right now?

Another question: What happens when we have a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney and these two guys are still the leaders in the House?

Think about it.

13 comments:

  1. See, right there is why the lamestream media is such a statist tool.

    They are spinning this to make it look like those who opposed this bill are against FEMA and helping victims and blah blah blah, but there was MORE to this bill than just that. I would have voted it down, too, based on these hidden bookmarks and attachments.

    But how convenient for the LSM to be able to paint a picture that these Conservatives are heartless bastards who don't want to give money to those who deserve it after these natural disasters we have had.

    Tedious.

    RINO's in Congress. Someone needs to give DC an enema.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You guys don't actually watch C-Span, do you?

    You whine and moan about the "lamestream media" (very lame and uninspired of you, by the way), and then turn around and cite some BS rightwing rag, as if it is some sort of substantive alternative.

    Why not go right to the source?

    I watched the debate myself on C-Span yesterday and can tell you for a fact that the spin you guys are putting on it has no basis in fact. Really, it's kinda comical. Nothing you mentioned, Les, came up really at all! And then you say that these silly rightwing social issues you bring up are somehow serious fiscal issues! Just like the Tea Party! All talk about sound fiscal policy, all concern with the rightwing social agenda.

    The issue for the Dems was the idea of offsets for disaster spending, something we really do not do for the most part, since you never know when a disaster will happen, what it will cost, etc. (Ideally, we'd simply raise taxes to pay for emergencies, but conservartives are too stupid and cheap for that.)

    The 48 Republicans who voted against it were simply railing against the overall spending, but this is a continuing resolution, after all, not an entirely new budget. If the GOP House had done it's job and produced budget legislation - instead of goofing around with the Debt Ceiling, and some of the rightwing social nonsense you cite above - this CR would not be an issue.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Jersey,

    You said:
    "I watched the debate myself on C-Span yesterday and can tell you for a fact that the spin you guys are putting on it has no basis in fact."

    Sir, you see President Obama as harmless and full of hope and change. We see him as destructive and dangerous to our liberty and freedoms. So for you to assure us that you saw the whole thing and you saw what really happened and what really was said is dubious at best. In easier to follow logic: you are deluded and are drunk on your anti-Conservative kool aid.

    Besides, I can't believe you actually watch C-Span. My gosh, don't you have anything better to do? (That was a joke, not a really real jab. I'm just playin' with ya, JMJ.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. JMJ said: "Ideally, we'd simply raise taxes to pay for emergencies, but conservartives are too stupid and cheap for that."

    Ideally, we'd not raise taxes for that. We have more than enough money for necessities. Conservatives are smart enough to realize this. And it is not being "cheap": it is merely not wanting to steal more from the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's something about that photo of Boehner around the eyes and mouth that reminded me of the album cover to the classic 1969 album by King Crimson. He looks pretty tired and scared. Definitely smoking more and enjoying it less.

    But seriously, given five years, surely the republicans could come up with a more credible candidate to go up against Hillary in 2016!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @JMJ,

    If this bill did not indeed include the following add-ons:
    Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1., then I will gladly apologize.

    If, however, this bill does include these atrocious and unnecessary add-ons (for political gain, I might add), then I again will state how I would have vetoed it without question. You cannot ask me for the keys to the car and secretly throw in gas money, driving lessons, free parking, and an in-dash DVD player in that request. Congress would do well to realize this.

    So arrogant and flippant and totally against the will of The People. These morons are making the 111th Congress look good in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's discouraging that they seem to think you can work with today's democrat party. You can't. They're commie totalitarians, and you can't "compromise" there. What do you do? Hey, how's about we only take X, Y, and Z inalienable rights?

    Sorry, it's rather like trying to "compromise" with a mass murderer; how do you do that? We'll only kill 40 people instead of 80? Ridiculous. We need stronger, more principled GOP leadership, no doubt about it. But for now, they're what we have. 2012, I hope, will change that or move closer to changing it--once they see that we aren't joking, that we aren't going away, and that they better get it together and stop blowing smoke, they'll do the right thing. Or be voted out. It's not rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fuzzy -- Great comment! You said, "for now they're what we have."

    This is true but pointing out their flaws -- and lack of limited government or movement conservative adherence -- educates people on just why they should not be where they are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. dmarks, you do understand what an emergency is, right?

    You do understand the concept of having to pay for things, right?

    You simply must understand that it costs money to deal with an emergency, just as it costs you as a person when you face disaster. If you can raise more money to pay for the incurred costs, should you not raise it?

    How do you do that???

    I think you're insane.

    ecc, I watched most of the floor debate. None of that was of any serious significance.

    Here's the proof and the reality of what happened:

    The Dems did not want offset cuts for FEMA spending. That was their sole argument against the resolution.

    A few dozen Tea Party types took advantage of the Dems recalcitrance (if you want to call it that), to smack Boehner and Cantor in their mouths, which is exactly what they did.

    It wasn't about every last little detail in the resolution. It was a call to come back to the Ryan plan for the Sept 30 bill that Boehner and Cantor have not been able to assemble. We're looking at a government shutdown - not because of a veto, not because of the senate, but because the inept, juvenile, radical, moronic GOP House is simply unable to produce a bill.

    If you thought the debt ceiling fiasco was a tragic joke, get ready, because this will be disaster just as bad as a flood or earthquake - or even worse.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, and I'll tell you guys this for sure: for all these whackball issues you guys go on about, for all the government shutdowns you're guys cause or threaten, there are more and more people who are turning against hardcore conservatism. In recent polls, almost half the American people have a negative view of the Tea Party, with another quarter undecided, and over 80% have a negative view of congress - and the Debt Ceiling drunk-chimpanze-tricycle-circus is a big part of that.

    So go ahead. Keep going off on all these goofball "issues."

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  11. JMJ - With reference to your first comment, you know, the one you referenced me as though I wrote this accurate and enlightening article, well I guess your razor sharp eyes must be as blunt as your ability to accurately analyze situations. The author of this fine post is in fact the Left Coast Rebel.

    As to goofballs and the host of other comical adjective you use to describe serious individuals... Well, just keep the comedy show coming Oliver...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @JMJ,

    Just pass it and you'll see what was really in it later.

    (Sound familiar?)

    Your name should be Spendy McSpend, not Jersey McJones.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If there is ever an issue involving the rights of the rulers vs the rights of the ruled, JMJ will stand up for the power of the most privileged.

    If there is ever an issue of the rights of workers vs the rights of partisan thugs who rob them and take away their rights, JMJ will stand up for the thugs.

    If ever there is an issue of sane budget policy vs wild eyed waste, JMJ will support the waste.

    If ever there is an issue involving healthcare, JMJ will shill for those who want the government to take control of all healthcare decisions away from the people, and he will oppose the public interest and interest of patients.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.