Posted on 07/04/2013 12:07:28 PM PDT by neverdem
It started on January 3, two days after the “fiscal cliff” vote, when a Democratic aide suggested to the Huffington Post that Speaker John Boehner’s willingness to violate the so-called “Hastert rule” might be the salvation of immigration reform. It ended almost seven months later, on Thursday, when Boehner finally gave an airtight promise to his right flank not to do so.
The intervening battle — over whether Boehner will violate the rule by passing an immigration bill without the support of a majority of the Republican conference — underscores the lack of trust between a GOP Speaker and his suspicious flock.
For their part, conservatives scoff at the notion that Boehner was with them all along, saying it was only their pressure that forced him to finally relent. For instance, Representative Steve Stockman of Texas, who is pushing an effort to formally codify the Hastert rule, says the principle strengthens Boehner in negotiations with President Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Boehner has shown clear annoyance when asked about the “Hastert rule,” named after his Republican predecessor, former speaker J. Dennis Hastert.
“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” he said in April. The two men don’t have much of a relationship. Hastert’s allies have wondered why Boehner hasn’t reached out to the Illinois Republican, and Hastert himself has criticized Boehner for violating the “majority of the majority” precept. “If you start to rely on the minority to get the majority of your votes, then all of a sudden you’re not running the shop anymore. I think that’s what it comes down to,” Hastert, now a senior adviser at Dickstein Shapiro, told me in March.
Speculation over whether Boehner might pass immigration reform with mostly Democratic votes escalated almost immediately after Boehner passed the fiscal-cliff bill and a Hurricane Sandy aid bill with mostly Democratic votes. On January 10, the New York Times editorial page hailed the moves as “Democracy in the House” and urged him to repeat the pattern on the debt limit, immigration reform, and gun control.
In February, Boehner passed another bill — the Violence Against Women Act — in violation of the informal rule.
A week later, Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia confronted Boehner at a closed-door meeting, asking him whether he planned to continue using a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to bypass the majority of the GOP.
“It’s not a practice that I would expect to continue long-term,” Boehner said then.
But a month later, on April 10, it happened again, on a relatively unimportant bill to expand the government’s ability to buy land to protect historic battlefields. Some of the muscular “outside groups” like Heritage Action had declared they would score the vote on the bill.
In May, as the Senate immigration bill gained steam, Boehner stayed mum on whether he would proceed in like manner. Every signal he gave indicated that a big immigration deal was his No. 1 priority, prompting concern among senior Republicans about the lengths to which he would go to get it.
Then, on June 11, Boehner strongly indicated that he was open to passing an immigration bill in violation of the Hastert rule, telling ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos that “it’s about what the House wants. And my job is, as Speaker . . . to ensure that all members on both sides have a fair shot at their ideas.”
Senate majority leader Harry Reid called the comments “music to my ears,” adding: “The truth is the Speaker needs Democratic votes to pass any bill that has a chance of becoming law.”
By this point, the conservatives in the House were coming unglued. The same day, Representative Steve King told National Review Online he had gathered the necessary 50 signatures to force a “special conference” on immigration. While King said he was not envisioning a challenge to Boehner, forcing a special conference happened to be the same procedure one would use to force an unscheduled leadership election.
Two days later, Boehner slightly walked back his comments, saying, “I don’t intend to bring an immigration bill to the floor that violates what I and what my — members of my party, what our — principles are.”
Five days later, the issue had metastasized. In a radio interview, Representative Dana Rohrabacher warned Boehner that he should be “removed as Speaker” if he violated the Hastert rule on immigration.
That morning, outside of the Capitol Hill Club, I interviewed Representative Louie Gohmert, who had just listened to Boehner tell Republicans at a closed-door meeting that he didn’t want to bring a bill to the floor that didn’t have the support of the majority of the majority. That guarantee contained too much wiggle room for Gohmert.
“My concern is not that he will bring a bill to the floor without a majority of Republican support, but that we bring a bill to the floor of the House, pass that, and then it goes to conference, and then, not a bill, but a conference report comes that has amnesty and then it’s passed by a majority of Democrats,” Gohmert said.
Immediately following the interview, I went into a press conference with Boehner, who reiterated his Hastert-rule promise. Does it extend to the conference report, I asked? “We’ll see when we get there,” he replied.
It appeared to be confirmation of conservatives’ worst fears. Later that day, a Boehner spokesman tried to walk it back, saying that he had consulted the Speaker personally and that the desire to pass an immigration bill with the support of the majority of the majority did extend to the conference report.
It wasn’t enough. Shortly afterwards, Representative Michele Bachmann began circulating a letter asking Boehner and House majority leader Eric Cantor for a promise in writing that the Speaker would follow the Hastert rule on the final conference report for any immigration bill.
On June 27, Boehner finally said the words that persuaded his right flank to back down.
“For any legislation — including a conference report — to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members,” Boehner told reporters.
“Speaker Boehner’s latest comments accomplish the intent of the letter,” said Bachmann spokesman Dan Kotman, indicating that his boss was standing down.
It’s not that conservatives are totally letting down their guard. Stockman says he doesn’t believe any politician’s promise: He saw colleagues who had committed in writing to vote against Boehner for Speaker call out the Ohio Republican’s name when the vote occurred.
But for what it’s worth, they finally have an actual promise from Boehner.
— Jonathan Strong is a political reporter for National Review Online.
It appears that Boehner recognizes that a coup is waiting in the wings. We shall see. Boehner may be an accidental speaker, but this concession to conservatives looks like Boehner fears a terminal embarrassment that thirty pieces of silver could bring.
/johnny
I wish they worked as hard for the conservative vote as they did for the illegal alien vote. :(
He won't make minority leader if blue and purple state Republicans are crushed in the ensuing post-amnesty outrage among the GOP base. Amnesty is a Damocles sword poised over his position as Speaker. Boner must be thinking of the megabucks he'll make as a DC lobbyist when he's out of office.
I would have a problem with a leader who you need to get promises from, because he really wants to join the dems, and also because you can’t trust him.
With a particular focus on Boehner's office
Speculation over whether Boehner might pass immigration reform with mostly Democratic votes escalated almost immediately after Boehner passed the fiscal-cliff bill and a Hurricane Sandy aid bill with mostly Democratic votes. On January 10, the New York Times editorial page hailed the moves as “Democracy in the House” and urged him to repeat the pattern on the debt limit, immigration reform, and gun control.
In February, Boehner passed another bill — the Violence Against Women Act — in violation of the informal rule.
A week later, Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia confronted Boehner at a closed-door meeting, asking him whether he planned to continue using a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to bypass the majority of the GOP.
“It’s not a practice that I would expect to continue long-term,” Boehner said then.
But a month later, on April 10, it happened again, on a relatively unimportant bill to expand the government’s ability to buy land to protect historic battlefields. Some of the muscular “outside groups” like Heritage Action had declared they would score the vote on the bill.
.....
Then, on June 11, Boehner strongly indicated that he was open to passing an immigration bill in violation of the Hastert rule, telling ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos that “it’s about what the House wants. And my job is, as Speaker . . . to ensure that all members on both sides have a fair shot at their ideas.”
Senate majority leader Harry Reid called the comments “music to my ears,” adding: “The truth is the Speaker needs Democratic votes to pass any bill that has a chance of becoming law.”
By this point, the conservatives in the House were coming unglued. The same day, Representative Steve King told National Review Online he had gathered the necessary 50 signatures to force a “special conference” on immigration. While King said he was not envisioning a challenge to Boehner, forcing a special conference happened to be the same procedure one would use to force an unscheduled leadership election.
....
That morning, outside of the Capitol Hill Club, I interviewed Representative Louie Gohmert, who had just listened to Boehner tell Republicans at a closed-door meeting that he didn’t want to bring a bill to the floor that didn’t have the support of the majority of the majority. That guarantee contained too much wiggle room for Gohmert.
....
Immediately following the interview, I went into a press conference with Boehner, who reiterated his Hastert-rule promise. Does it extend to the conference report, I asked? “We’ll see when we get there,” he replied.
....
On June 27, Boehner finally said the words that persuaded his right flank to back down. “For any legislation — including a conference report — to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members,” Boehner told reporters.
Note Reid's comment: “The truth is the Speaker needs Democratic votes to pass any bill that has a chance of becoming law.”
So if they pass a bill that gets Dem votes, that's the clue that the traitors won.
Boehner should be replaced. The only real question is whether the house could be ruled by dem + rino agreement on discharge petitions. Anyone know?
Well Reid is right because the Senate won’t pass anything good and House conservatives won’t pass Reid’s crap.
We would do well not to pass any new laws for the time being. And when the rats complain fire back that’s it their fault for refusing to compromise with the people’s elected House majority.
Don’t trust Boehner. He’s a snake NOT a saviour.
What the House is doing makes no sense to me if a majority of the GOP members really don't want amnesty. They continue to produce some kind of "comprehensive immigration bill." My congressman's website says he does not support any kind of path-to-citizenship, but one Reuters article says "In his approach, the 11 million would spend 10 years in a legalized status that provides them with work permits. At some point after that, they could be considered for permanent resident status, followed by possible citizenship."
They can't both be right, and I certainly don't trust Reuters, but remember GWB had a nasty little surprise for us in his 2nd term.
Sometimes I think it would be ok to let them stay as NON-CITIZEN foreign workers as are present in many countries (I think the MAJORITY in Andorra are foreigners who can’t vote).
But as long as they’re here the rats and RINOs will always want to give them citizenship. And their spawn are unfortunately wrongly granted citizenship at birth.
Meanwhile more cross the border everyday and liberals help them by setting up water stations.
Especially those who were brought here as kids raised here and graduated from HS here and some from college with good grades and no problems, where this is the only home they have ever known.
Its easy to post here anonymously that they are criminals for not leaving, but in the real world its sounds morally vacuous. You will see this in the 2016 election I am certain.
Alternatively with Obama refusing to enforce his own Obama-care law and justice Kennedy creating a new right to gay marriage using the argument that the kids will be hurt if we don't, because gays were allowed to adopt, etc. (payback for compassion), and Rubio's dishonesty, its easy for us to say f...k it and believe that anything we give in on will be used against us.
My heart is made of ice and even I wouldn’t send THOSE back to some craphole they don’t remember (some that came as babies don’t even speak Spanish).
But I wouldn’t give them cheaper college either, can’t reward their parents. Ideally these are issues to deal with after we STOP LETTING MORE IN but I’m just whistling dixie.
I think we’re well screwed. The status quo ain’t great but anything beats “path to citizenship”.
But Dems would demand that they be in government workers' unions. You can see where I am going with this. They would need to protect their collective bargaining rights, and how can they do that if they can't vote.
But as long as they’re here the rats and RINOs will always want to give them citizenship. And their spawn are unfortunately wrongly granted citizenship at birth.
No doubt about it. Obama already tipped his hand with his non-enforcement EO.
Like O Malley did in Maryland. In fact that leads to a great inclusion to a poison pill to add to an immigration bill, they cant have accepted in state tuition rates.
College tuition is such a scam.
They punish you for your parents success by charging you higher tuition rates based on your parents assets and income even though you are an adult,
They actually demand that you get your parents to sign a form telling the IRS to give up to them their tax returns and if you refuse you get charged the maximum tuition that no-one else pays.
Sound familiar? Well maybe the GOP needs to outlaw that practice in any immigration law, if illegals here shouldn't pay for the crimes of their parents (bringing them here) then the US citizen college kids shouldn't have to pay higher tuition because their parents were successful.
Not holding my breath...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.