Posted on 09/03/2013 8:31:21 AM PDT by maggief
Edited on 09/03/2013 8:39:33 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Reuters Jeff Mason and Mark Felsenthal report: John Boehner, Republican speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said on Tuesday he would support President Barack Obama's call for military action in Syria and urged his colleagues in Congress to do the same. Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Obama at the White House, Boehner said the United States had to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria and show allies that America would stand up when necessary.
Funny you should mention graveyard. Boehner gives me the creeps. There is something seriously wrong with that guy.
The Electoral College effectively requires that interest groups split into two camps, more left, and more right. Because the Electoral College is “Winner Take All” by State, splitting a State’s votes among more than one right-ish groups ensures defeat. We don’t want 20% Republican, 35% Conservative, and 45% Democrat outcomes in states.
Therefore, each camp has to choose its political vehicle. Currently, that is Democrat and Republican. If a more conservative political vehicle were constructed (a “Conservative Party”), then the leftist Democrats would win the Presidency surely by way of the example above.
So, the proper thing to do is recapture the Republican Party. We can do that with pressure, cash, votes, etc. Just don’t vote, work, or give cash to Republicans that aren’t conservatives.
That’s that consistent answer over years. Reagan recaptured the Republican party for conservatives. We must do it again each generation.
The "rebels" will not fire on US military and Assad will be too busy trying to fight the the double duty Obama and "rebels".
I'm often wrong but I have a gut feeling that the "rebels" and Obama have worked things out some time ago. With the help of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
The citizens of US can be polled all they like - whether they are on with Obama and "rebel" Syrian attack or not really doesn't matter.
I'd like to see what Putin does/says between now and at the G-20 summit later this week (and its already Tuesday).
This has been the MO of this faction in the corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" for a few decades. Sadly it is not going to get any better. It's not who votes but who counts the votes. We are screwed.
“It is appropriate for the president to seek authorization from Congress, although I wish he would have called us back to vote on this immediately rather than waiting until Sept. 9. I support the use of military action in Syria. If we fail to take strong action against Syria for this horrendous attack, then we are sending a signal to Syria as well as to Iran and North Korea that they are accountable to no one.”
Not wasting time on Chambliss. He will vote as he pleases since he is not running for re-election.
And its a major FU to American people.
Think US military will revolt and mutiny?
Obama is certainly disliked by military for all the FU's Obama has flung their way.
Wonder if any will go AWOL rather than participate in a war that renders them canon fodder.
Boehner is a coward, who just wants to keep his $236,000 salary. If he becomes minority leader, it doesn’t matter to him.
I've heard it said that Democrats start wars but the Republicans are left to wage war and do the clean-up.
Don't know if it is true or not. Just throwing it out there and hoping someone with war knowledge/historical expertise will set me right if I'm wrong.
The domestic enemy within....
Times have changed and despite my voting, campaigning and contributing to the Republicans over the past ten years, their voting record has worsened and the contempt of the Republican establishment towards us conservatives has greatly increased. At my age, I have no hope for the “Stupid Party” for the foreseeable future. Hope is a virtue that Boehner, McCain et al have destroyed. I chose realism and shall spend my time in protecting and nourishing my family from the ravages of government and politicians, both R and D.
Not really. Republicans were accused of "isolationism" by Wilsonian Democrats in the first half of the century.
Both political parties have had both intervenionist and anti-interventionist wings throughout their history. Among Democrats, you had both pacifists and Wilsonian activists, and among Republicans, you have/had both Old Right anti-interventionists and war hawks.
The only question is which faction of the party is dominant, when, and for what reason. Unfortunately, usually the way it works is this: if a Democratic President wants to get involved in a war, the Republicans allow the libertarian, anti-interventionist wing to speak because of partisan politics, while Democrats keep their pacifists quiet. Conversely, if a Republican administration starts a war, liberal pacifists become less marginalized by their party elites, not out of principle, but because of party politics.
“So Boehner is now going to support Obama’s war. I wonder what Boehner got in return. “
A permenant job as house majority/minority speaker.
Rob Portman from Ohio is supporting action on Syria as well.
This is making me ill.
Beer
Polls have shown US support for intervention in Syria at less than 20%. That's why Obama has gone running to Congress for support, because he doesn't want to be held accountable when this blows up in his face. It would be a great opportunity for Republicans to nip this in the bud and humiliate Obama in the process. Instead, they've once again chosen to be his lapdogs.
I would like for someone to ask him this - publicly.
There are not really any coincidences in politics.
I think you are Halfway right. How’s that?
More likely Obama has bought their vote with lots of promised pork.
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.