Boehner issues threat (vote for buget or lose your committee)

House Majority Leader John Boehner issued a veiled threat to GOP incumbents yesterday that they could be stripped of plum committee assignments if they voted against his budget resolution.

Three and a half months into his job, Boehner flexed his authority at a closed-door meeting, saying those lawmakers who do not face difficult races in November’s midterm election have no reason to vote against the budget, according to people who attended the conference session.

The House has passed a budget resolution roughly setting spending levels each year since 1974, and many congressional observers would view failure to do so this year as an embarrassment to Boehner.

. . .

During the meeting, Boehner also singled out Rep. Walter Jones, the Democrat-turned-Republican from North Carolina, as a lawmaker who did not support the budget and needed to be “talked to” by his fellow Republicans.

Republicans who may run afoul of the leadership could include Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.), a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee who has voted against multiple budget bills in the past few years. Reps. Jim Gerlach (Pa.), Jim Leach (Iowa), John Hostettler (R-Ind.), Rob Simmons (Conn.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and Jones are other Republicans who have voted against multiple budget bills.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051806/news1.html

The only one on that list I'm familiar with is Chris Shays, and I'm not sure I see him being badgered like that!

Threaten your employee and call him out in front of all the other employees.

Gee, who wouldn't want that in a boss?

That's no veiled threat, that sounds like a direct threat.

You gonna be pushed around by a man who spends all his time tanning himself silly?

have been largely irrelevant over the past 6 years.

Until the Dems learn to deal with their far right enabling DINO's like this, they won't able to govern effectively- even if they manage to reverse 6 straight congressional losses (which is still very much up in the air, considering that they look to be largely sticking with their losing "strategy" of Republican lite).

I think that the major problem with the Republicans is their inability to cooperate with varying opinions so more people don't feel represented and would want to switch parties. The Dems don't force it on the moderates as much -keeping them and their supporters in the party.

over the past 10 years, how many Dems compared to Republicans switched parties? Huge advantage to the R's.

How much far right legislation went through (often with the aid of DINO's- but almost always with Republicans lock step in barrel). Back in 1993-96, Republicans with a mere 41 votes in the Senate managed to block nominees and major legislation including the fairness doctrine. And then they gained hoe many seats the next year to retake the Senate?

The Dems lost ever since- and in the meantime acquiesced in and legitimized Republican policies. And the reason for that is that they have little or no party discipline. And they still don't- instead up and until last week (where we STILL had two DINO's vote with the far right on HIMMA) Bush gave every single nominee no matter how extreme they were and the Dems failed to block any piece of legislation- no matter how egeregious.

IMO, that's why the Dems are percieved as cowardly and ineffectual- and that's why they lose- and may yet lose again this fall.

No doubt about it given the *'s approval ratings-which jumped from below 50 to well over 90 after 911. We had the Senate and were just a few seats from taking the house. Now the Democrats will probably take the hosue in a landslide. In 1992-2000,we had the presidency(who some considered dino) while we slowly picked up seats after we lost the house and senate. It wasn't until 02 that we actually started losing seats again d/t the fabricated patriotism, stand by the president BS that was still dying off in Nov. 04. It's gone now. 4 sho'

it was the historic trend, but we'll never know.

Nor wil we know what might have happened had they been running a pathetic Republican lite "strategy" that many of us knew was destined to fail.

As to Clinton being a DINO- I gues you'd have to look at the record and see what kinds of regulatory actions he took or didn't take and what sorts of laws he signed and/or sent to Congress.

People are sometimes suprised when they run down the list....

:hide:

What? It's true! :evilgrin:

Give the Repug leadership something to worry about. Maybe some of your old Democratic values are creeping back in as your party flounders....