House Dems Sent Boehner a Message: Strike a Deal and Maybe We Can Help Protect Your Speakership

[highplainsdem]

Source: Mother Jones

About two weeks ago, as tea partiers in the GOP-controlled House were forcing a government shutdown, some House Democrats sent a private and informal message to House Speaker John Boehner: if you need to break with the die-hard conservatives of your caucus to keep the government running and avoid a debt ceiling crisis, we might be able to try to help you protect your speakership, should far-right Republicans rebel and challenge you. This offer was conveyed to Boehner just as he was entering what has turned into the toughest stretch of his speakership, according to two senior House Democratic lawmakers who each asked not to be identified.

Throughout the latest showdown over government spending and the debt ceiling, political observers have noted that Boehner was in a fix because of the stubbornness of a band of 40 or so tea party firebrands within his caucus, who have been egged on by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). These lawmakers were committed to a hostage-taking strategy (no government funding or boost in the debt ceiling, unless Obamacare was smashed and/or government spending was further slashed), and they could mutiny against Boehner, were the speaker to forge a bipartisan compromise that bypassed them. There are 232 Republicans in the House—with 218 usually required for a majority—and simple math suggested that if 15 or so of the GOP radicals abandoned Boehner, he could loose his cherished top-dog position. Under House rules, a speaker can be challenged any time with a motion to vacate the speakership, and such a motion is privileged, meaning it zooms to the House floor, without winding through any committee, cannot be blocked by a speaker or his allies, and is subject to a full vote of the House.

But on Capitol Hill, math is not always simple. It would take only a single rebellious tea partier in Boehner's caucus to force a vote on a motion to boot Boehner. But such a bill, requiring a majority to pass, would probably need Democratic votes to succeed. If Boehner had the backing of half of his caucus (116 members), the coup-makers would only win if Democrats joined their effort to create a bipartisan, anti-Boehner majority. But if the Dems sat out this fight—by voting present or not showing up at all—Boehner could keep his balcony, as long as the mutinous tea partiers could not enlist a majority of the House GOP. In a much more improbable scenario, Democrats could actively protect Boehner by voting to retain him as speaker (that is, voting against the motion to vacate). If such an unlikely event were to occur, Boehner could lose the support of more than half his Republican comrades and still retain the speakership.

As things look now, a tea party uprising in the House against Boehner would not be a guaranteed success. Boehner appears to have support from much of his caucus, which includes legislators who are angered by the tea partiers' to-the-brink tactics and lawmakers who just like Boehner. There's no clear sign that the Cruz-controlled faction within Boehner's ranks could win over their colleagues for an attempt to oust Boehner. And there would be the tricky matter of finding a successor. The 1997 coup against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich failed partly because the plotters could not agree on his replacement. If the tea partiers did manage to throw Boehner from the train, he could run for speaker again. In that event, Boehner could stage a comeback by obtaining the votes of 201 of his 232 GOP colleagues, enough to overcome the 200 Democratic votes that would presumably go to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. This assumes none of the mad-as-hell tea partiers opposing Boehner would go so far as to vote with the Dems for Pelosi. (The vote for a new speaker is held by all members of the House, and the winner needs an absolute majority of the votes cast.) Or here's a twist: in the vote for a new speaker, the Democrats could take another walk—which would lower the number of votes Boehner would need for restoration.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/john-boehner-democrats-debt-ceiling-deal-speakership

---

According to David Corn, Boehner's response then was "I'll get back to you."

[robinlynne]

1. wow. in other words, THIS is what the past 2 weeks were all about?

[bigdarryl]

2. He such a p**ssy

[zbdent]

3. Make sure the deal with Boner is set in stone before

telling him "Oh, we went back to a tiny minority of our colleagues, and they told you to go f*ck yourself."

[Swede Atlanta]

4. I would not trust Boehner at all....

He will not abide by any agreement that might be reached with him such as allowing up or down votes without the Hastert rule, etc.

But the concern I would have is what would we have if not Boehner? Who else is out there? I don't trust 4-eyes Cantor or gym-boy Ryan. Either one would be even worse than what we have now - an ineffective man with virtually no leadership skills.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. I would say the offer expired a week ago

and we should let the wolves eat him.

We should do EVERYTHING to encourage a schism in the GOP. The TP wing may have enough votes to remove Boehner but they do NOT have the votes to appoint Cantor or any other barking mad cretin. This would leave the Dems in an alliance with the few remaining sane GOP members to elect someone who will support a less virulent agenda.

[leftyohiolib]

6. that orange turd can go to the wolves

[calimary]

11. I agree up to a point - what, or who, would the extremists push on us if he's booted?

I'd HATE to see that smug bastard eric cantor wind up being rewarded. Or heaven forbid, a flat-out teabagger...

[MNBrewer]

7. Why in the world SHOULD they?

What's in it for the Democrats in the House? He has been completely inept and incompetent.

Unless we're headed for some type of coalition governance in the House (which I don't see happening, but I guess it could) why would the Democrats want to keep him in the Speaker's chair?

[shawn703]

9. I think this has been a sobering experience for him and the majority of his caucus

And I think if the Democrats offer to protect Boehner's speakership by sitting out any fights, he wouldn't be at the mercy of the teabaggers if he puts forth more bipartisan legislation to get things done instead of needing their support for everything to bring a bill to the floor. Ousting Boehner doesn't help much, since the obvious replacement would be Cantor.

[Botany]

8. Can we make him do tricks?

Stay Johnny Stay!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

10. Did they offer this because they see him

as part of the problem, or part of the solution?

[Mr.Turnip]

14. I imagine because they feel most possible replacements would be worse.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. It had less to do with Boehner or who would replace him than with the solution

The only solution is a clean or nearly clean CR. Boehner can rest assured that he will remain Speaker until 2015, when Nancy Pelosi is poised to return.

Boehner came to realize that the Tea Party bill wasn't going anywhere and, worse from a Republican perspective, it was toxic to the GOP. As a result of this display of right wing ideological arrogance and Boehner's weakness that caused a government shutdown, the Republicans' chances retaining the House in the 2014 elections is seriously diminished, and if the country were to default on its debts a Democratic landslide in 2014 would be assured. Considering the history of the White House party losing seats in Congress in off year elections, that would be particularly remarkable.

Under this deal, we all get the government re-opened, we avoid government default, Boehner keeps his gavel and what passes for moderate Republicans nowadays keep the Tea Party at bay. I guess a moderate Republican nowadays is one who's willing to talk to a Democrat, even if only forced to by circumstances that require bipartisan cooperation to keep the government running.

I recommend to the members of the Tea Party, at least those who can read, to read The Federalist Papers. If the have already, read them again, and I challenge them to show me whatever it is that I must have missed to the effct that the Founding Fathers that government, or even just the federal government, was entirely unnecessary. What I remember most about reading The Federalist Papers many years ago is this from Number 51 (Madison):

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

I don't care how perfect society is, there will still be psychopaths and sociopaths who would trample on the rights of others in order take what does not belong to them; the people need to be protected from such. A king or some other absolute ruler is not a god and is more likely to be a tyrant. Thus we have government, and because the governors are fallible, like each of us, we put limits on the government to keep it from becoming tyrannical. The people need to be protected from those who abuse the power with which we entrust them. To completely halt the day-to-day operation of government can be more than just a little inconvenience to individual citizens. It can only be done at the risk of all of us.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

17. Politics always has hidden agendas.

I suspect they see him, or his weakness (to the TP), as part of the (GOP's) problem, and the (Dems) solution to regaining the house. I am hoping there is more to the offer, and an eye (like you said) to next years election. It is a real shame American politics have grown so vitriol that these are even offers.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

12. I read a comment from Lindsey Graham (R, SC)

Of all the damage to be done politically here, one of the greatest concerns I have is that somehow John Boehner gets compromised.

My nose bleeds for him.

[eggplant]

13. Of course, when we take back the house, this promise would be moot, so why not? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

16. Heh. For some reason Marshal Petain springs to mind (nt)