Boehner could face rocky vote for speakership amid Republican angst

Fox ^ | January 02, 2013

[Red Steel]

John Boehner could be in for a fight Thursday when the newly seated House votes for the next speaker, with conservatives grumbling about his leadership and a report surfacing about a supposed plan to challenge him.

The 11-term congressman, who's endured his share of political turbulence, presumably enters the election with the upper hand. So far, a single viable Republican challenger has not emerged and the rules of the vote tend to work in Boehner's favor.

But Boehner's potential troubles were compounded by a late-night flare up with outraged northeast lawmakers over a decision by the speaker to postpone a vote on an aid package for Superstorm Sandy victims.

For the near term, the speaker appears to have weathered those complaints, assuring members in a closed-door meeting Wednesday afternoon they will vote by Jan. 15. Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., who initially described the postponement as a "betrayal" and threatened to abstain from voting for Boehner, said after the meeting he would back Boehner.

[Joe Boucher]

I’ve written a letter or two to Reids Senate office voicing that same sentiment.
Wrote one to boehner and mcConnel just this morning tool.

[GeronL]

The problem is that she would be too conservative for most of the House GOP

[Jane Long]

West was not reelected.

Doesn't matter. He can still be nominated and voted as Speaker. West would be great against the Dims.

[RummyChick]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/john-boehner-frank-lobiondo-sandy-aid_n_2397250.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
John Boehner Yelled At Frank LoBiondo Over Sandy Aid

[gov_bean_ counter]

You are probably right. But we need unapologetic. conservative street fighters.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Stood up Peter King, eh?

Must have had a meeting with his trusted adviser, Jack Daniels...

[alice_in_bubbaland]

GOOD!

[clintonh8r]

So the speaker need not be an elected member of the House? As Johnny Carson would have said, "I did not know that!"

That would be a great move, but the castrated GOPers would never do it.

[jazusamo]

Good!...All of them certainly deserve it.

Even if boehner really did it I just can't think of him even close to being like Dick Cheney...I love this pic.

[AdaGray]

If nothing is done, if something big doesn’t happen, the GOP is completely finished. The leaders have no idea how disgusted former GOP voters are. The Party simply does not have a chance at ever gaining power again. There is no longer any reason to vote for most Republicans. They are a bunch of losers who stand for nothing except themselves.

[editor-surveyor]

Boehner should face a tough time renewing his birth certificate!
.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “And, by the way, is it OK for me to ask what the turncoat Republicans got for selling us out?” <<

.
Permission to keep breathing until the next critical vote.

[fortheDeclaration]

True!

[editor-surveyor]

I hate to have to point this out to you, but the country is finished.

If they caved in this one, they’ll cave on everything.

[Joe Boucher]

Good thing they weren’t at a duck blind here!!
Speaking of which I went to the North Bank of Lake Okeechobee last week to let one of my dogs go pooh and as I stood there you could hear maybe a hundred shotgun blasts from folks in boats sitting in weeds just a waiting for dinner to come by.

[matthew fuller]

My choices are in my tagline.

[matthew fuller]

That is irrelevant. I prefer Newt, and it is not necessary that the Speaker be a member of Congress.

[moodyskeptic]

all good choices!

[AuH2ORepublican]

That interpretation assumes that when the Framers placed the words “the House of Representatives shall choose thir Speaker” in Article I of the U.S. Constitution they were not basing the speakership on the Speaker of the House of Commons of the British Parliament, which most definitely *did* need to be filled by a Member of the House of Commons. The reason that they didn’t write “the House of Representatives shall choose thir Speaker *from among their members*” was because it was deemed to be self-evident, since the Speaker is the leader of the House and the leader must come from within the group—had the Framers intended to allow the House to elect a Speaker that was not a member of the body, such a clear departure from parliamentary precedent would have been specifically noted, and they likely would have selected a title other than Speaker. The one instance in the U.S. Constitution where the presiding officer would not be a member of the body he presided was when the Vice President is made, ex officio, the President of the Senate, but he was specifically designated as such in Article I, and the fact that the VP is not a member of the Senate was probably the reason why they didn’t baptize the presiding officer of the Senate as “the Speaker of the Senate.”

No one believes that the Chief Justice of the United States can be someone other than a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and, until a few years ago (when a couple of Republicans upset at Newt Gingrich voted for retired Republicans for Speaker) no one other than a sitting Representative had even received a vote for Speaker. I think the theory of the non-member of the House serving as Speaker is an interesting exercise in constitutional analysis, as is the theory that the Governor of New York could be in the line of succession to the presidency (a governor is, after all, an “officer”), but having a non-member serve as Speaker ultimately would be a distortion of the Framers’ original intent.

[novemberslady]

Issa would make Obama crap his pants!

Bet there wouldn't be golf with Obama...