Curt wrote “Boehner Plans Amnesty Sellout To Pelosi” on 1 Dec 14. Vince wrote “Surrender: Why does anyone ever vote for the Republican Party – at least one run by Boehner & McConnell?” on 14 Dec 14. And Curt wrote “Floor Drama: Boehner Embarrassment As House Nearly Kills Omnibus On Procedural Vote” on 11 Dec 14. So Flopping Aces has done a good job of documenting John Boehner’s ineffectiveness as House speaker.
Not satisfied with the damage he’s already done, there’s this action by Boehner:
In the final days before the start of the new Congress, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican establishment are quietly purging strong fiscal conservatives from prominent budget and finance committees.
Now today (2 Jan 15) we get evidence of just how dissatisfied with Boehner we conservatives are. In a national telephone poll conducted on 26-30 Dec 14 of 602 people who identified themselves as Republican voters and independents who lean Republican and voted Republican in 2014, the following results were obtained:
| Select John Boehner as House Speaker | |
|---|---|
| John Boehner, definitely | 11% |
| Boehner, probably | 15% |
| Someone new, definitely | 34% |
| Someone new, probably | 26% |
| Don’t Know/Undecided | 15% |
Notice that the “Someone new, definitely” category has the greatest response, and that the two “Someone new” categories comprise 60%, a clear majority.
Consider the responses to these statements:
| Speaker Boehner has been ineffective in opposing President Obama’s agenda. | |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 29% |
| Somewhat agree | 35% |
| Somewhat disagree | 15% |
| Strongly disagree | 9% |
| Don’t know/no response | 12% |
This means that 64% of us think Boehner is ineffective.
| House Speaker John Boehner has the best interests of the American public at heart, rather than special interests. | |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 9% |
| Somewhat agree | 34% |
| Somewhat disagree | 23% |
| Strongly disagree | 20% |
| Don’t know/no response | 13% |
Wow! A similar number of us (43% to 43%) think Boehner puts special interests ahead of us as not. On a salary of $233,500, his net worth is about $3,588,556. Not bad for government work.
Now consider these results:
| Where would you place yourself on a scale where 1 means very conservative and 7 means very liberal? | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 25% |
| 2 | 17% |
| 3 | 23% |
| 4 | 16% |
| 5 | 9% |
| 6 | 4% |
| 7 | 4% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
FWIW, the mean response is 2.94, so this poll is not primarily fire-breathing conservatives.
| Do you consider yourself to be a supporter or opponent of the Tea Party movement? | |
|---|---|
| Strong supporter | 22% |
| Not strong supporter | 35% |
| Not strong opponent | 14% |
| Strong opponent | 8% |
| Don’t know/no response | 20% |
While the “Strong supporter” category can be interpreted as “very conservative,” they are far from the majority of respondents. This poll represents “Republicans,” not the TEA Party.
The poll was commissioned by the People’s Poll and supervised by Caddell Associates. Yes, Pat Caddell is a Democrat, so these results cannot be dismissed as some “hack job.” The poll has a Margin of Error of +/- 4.00 percentage points.
That Boehner is not conservative – fiscally or socially – is not in doubt. As Lester Jackson wrote:
Conservatives find it especially galling — and intolerable — to have a Speaker who (a) shows utter contempt for the representatives whose election resulted in his ascension to power; and (b) does everything he can to subvert the wishes, interests and values of these representatives and their constituents.
BTW, “Republican” doesn’t necessarily mean “conservative.” After all, Boehner has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he’s a RINO. But we have to start identification somewhere. Since we know that conservative Democrats are very rare, “Republican” will have to do for now.
Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer
Now is the chance for a change.
How did Trey Gowdy and Jason Chavez become new heads of committees?
Was it simple seniority or could Boehner have had something to do with it?
They are both further to the right than their predecessors.
I am really looking forward to the committee meetings under these new leaders.
@Nanny –
How did Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz become committee chairmen? Boehner wanted them as chairmen. Seniority does play a role, but not so much within the Republican Conference.
What I like about Gowdy and Chaffetz, both are quite knowledgeable, they clearly understand the role of government (most importantly the separation of powers), reasonable and fair. They only become confrontational when they know someone is being dishonest, misleading (lying) and the like. Moreover, they are very competent and capable.
One more point I’d like to add is if a new speaker is elected, there are no guarantees McCarthy and Scalise stay in their leadership positions as well. It also means committee assignments may become subject to review. A Speaker Gohmert or Speaker Yoho would want their loyalists in key committees. This is the way of politics. Also, this is the kind of disarray the Dems and liberal MSM would eat up and pose a potential threat to the conservative brand.
Indeed!
I’m not sure by today’s terms how one would define either. Originally the distinction was between conservative and liberal but that’s even hard to say who is what today. I mean, what we do know is that today’s conservatives are certainly not Eisenhower conservatives as today, an Eisenhower protege would be promptly run out of town as a left wing liberal socialist from hell. Reagan wouldn’t be far behind.
John Boehner is attempting to protect his party—and his own career—from total destruction by the far right. With republican majorities in both Houses, he knows that there’s no end to the self-inflicted political damage they could do. He’s got a real problem: Neither immoderate action nor inaction will lead to a good outcome for republicans in 2016. If they were to act on their rhetoric, the voter backlash would likely reset the clock back to January, 2008; alternately, if they continue to do nothing, the people who gave them their win this past election will turn on them. This is Boehner’s Dilemma.
Unfortunately for republicans, they have a highly skilled opponent in the Oval Office who has accurately sized up the situation. Witness the fact that he has upped the ante already. Probably the only thing they could do that would surprise him at this point is to begin acting reasonably.
@Greg: Congressional job approval remains mired at 15%—Obama at 44%
With Repubs. firmly in control of Congress can we expect those numbers to change?
If they don’t Repubs. will have a difficult time in 2016
The internecine struggle between RINOS and T.P will most likely allow Repubs to once again steal defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016 Prez. election.
BTW MULLY My predictions of Congressional outcomes in 2014 were spot on–ask RT
I also nailed 2012.
@Greg:
And just how accurate was your prediction of the last election cycle?
Swing and a miss.
@Rich Wheeler, #5:
If they do change, I don’t think they’ll be moving in the direction that republicans hope. The latest Rasmussen Presidential Job Approval Poll result has Obama at a 51 percent total approval rating. The guy’s approval ratings are trending upward, not down. That’s pretty much amazing, considering that the GOP and right-leaning media have devoted 6 continuous years of time, energy, and money to an all-out campaign to destroy his public image.
@Mully, #6:
I don’t recall making any. Anyone who was paying attention expected republican gains this past election. I wasn’t certain republicans would take the Senate, but it came as no big surprise.
If you go back and check, I think you’ll find that my pre-midterm speculations were mostly about the consequences winning control of both Houses would have for the GOP in 2016. I’m guessing their big wins in 2014 will cost them dearly in 2016, for the reasons stated in post #4. They’ve just lost their main excuse for doing nothing, and they won’t be able to come to any agreements with regard to doing something. The far right faction will blindly pursue their own aims and political ambitions, putting the GOP in serious danger of self-destructing.
@Greg:
The only “poll” that matters is the one that results from elections. The GOP was given control of both houses of congress to try to stop shamnesty and opposition to obamacare. If Boehner and McConnel fail to recognize this, and are seen to bow down to Obama’s destruction of the country over the next 2 years, the GOP will lose big in 2016.
Bear that in mind after the 2016 elections.
That’s the delusion presently afflicting many republicans. The fact of the matter, however, is that winning an election with only a slight majority of the votes when only 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population turned out to begin with isn’t a mandate for anything.
Republicans can do their best to force the deportation of 11 million people—many of whom have friends and relatives who are citizens that do vote—without addressing any of the underlying problems that they’ve been dodging for decades. They can also do their best to wreck the Affordable Care Act. If successful, they’ll deprive 10 million or so Americans of the health insurance they have finally been able to acquire, and most likely throw the entire healthcare system into financial chaos. We’ll see what happens at the ballot box if they’re successful with any of that.
Their basic problem is that the consequences to mainstream voters of many of the things they advocate are highly negative. They make for good political rhetoric, but they make for something else entirely if they actually happen.
@Rich Wheeler:
your prediction in Senate was 52-48 mine was 56-44, we were both off by 2.
@Greg:
Do your dance of the Dervish as you make excuses for why Democrats took such an ass-whooping. They lost, Republicans won, and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.
@Greg:
Yeah, millions of taxpayers who received subsidies for their medical care will really love the Democrats when they learn they now own money to the IRS for that money,
@Greg:
Chuckle, ‘right leaning media’. ? please elaborate.
@Redteam, #13:
FOX News, the Washington Times, the National Review, etc; countless right-leaning internet sites; more right-leaning AM radio news-and-talk shows than anyone could possibly shake a stick at. The right isn’t getting their message out entirely by carrier pigeon.
@Redteam:Truth be told I missed only N.C. and Kansas–you missed Kansas, N.H. and Va..—Not bad.
@Greg:
,
as compared to ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN
as compared to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Chicago Tribune, and 90% of all newspapers in the nation
compared to The Atlantic, Time, and just about every major news magazine in the nation
like the left doesn’t have any internet sites, you know, like DailyKos, Huffington Post, Wonkette, Talking Points Memo, the list is endless
Well, there you got it. No one wants to listen to mindless liberals, like Allen Colmes, drone on for hours. Left talk radio has been, and will continue to be, a major fail.
Quite correct, although I find it absolutely hysterical that you whine about ONE cable TV station that is conservative, ONE newspaper that is conservative, and right wing websites that no one is forced to read. Nothing but 100% liberal indoctrination will suffice when it comes to the left. Tell me, Greggie, would you like some brie with that whine?
I wasn’t “whining.” I was responding to a request that I clarify what I meant by the phrase “right-leaning media” by providing some specific examples.
Most people don’t share your biased perception that CNN, ABC, and NBC represent the other side of the coin. They’re pretty much in the middle and are generally viewed as such. MSNBC is decidedly left-leaning. Unlike FOX, they don’t pretend to be middle of the road.
@Greg:
Only those that have brain damage from drinking too much liberal Kool-aid.
It’s a new year. You really should consider getting some new material.
@Rich Wheeler:
Are the correct numbers 52-48 and 56-44 or not? If your numbers were 52-48 then you were wrong by 2. Correct? If my numbers were 56-44, then I was wrong by 2. Correct? Why do you have to use liberal math to try to make a point?
@retire05:
why even that darling of the liberal lefties, Rachael Madcow, wasn’t able to make it with the lefties on the radio. She hasn’t made it on TV either, but someone, her gay partner I suspect, is keeping her on the air. Even that liberal blowhard Eddie Schultz couldn’t make it on radio and got the axe at MSNBC.
@Greg:
From a guy who parrots OFA? Now, that’s funny.
@Greg:
They sure don’t.
Greg, we’ve established in the past that your comedy routine is not going to make it.
@Redteam: You missed 3 did you not? You picked Repubs to win in NH and Va. Dems won. You picked Indie to win in Kansas–Repub won.
I picked Dem to win in N.C–Repub. won I also picked Indie to win in Kansas. I got two wrong–you got 3. That’s a fact.
@retire05:, #22:
I don’t even know what “OFA” is. In any case, I don’t require ready-made opinions or anyone else’s words to express them. You might want to consider the possibility that your political opponents often arrive at similar conclusions because they’re observing the same events and are thinking along similar lines. We don’t have to be told what to think about a Ted Cruz or a Sarah Palin. All we’ve got to do is watch and listen. Boehner is more complex. I don’t agree with him, but he’s not an empty suit or a cardboard cutout. His head isn’t filled with feathers. I can understand the difficulty of his dilemma.
On the right? The approved spin on any usefully out-of-context news byte spreads across the conservative blogosphere in the blink of an eye.
@Rich Wheeler:
The picks were what the numbers would be, not ‘who’ won. You picked 52 to win, I picked 56 to win, the correct number was 54 you were off by 2, I was off by 2. If I said 56 would win and 54 did, what combination could result in me getting 54 correct. I expected two more to win than did.
@Greg: “OFA”
Obama For Always, (for the true believers) Organizing for Action for Obama in reality.
@Greg:
Not complex at all, high bidder wins.
Yeah, sure….throw out all the RINOs, shrink the party, and demand all-or-nothing when you didn’t control the executive branch or the Senate. Thank and credit Boehner for at least this:
@Greg:
And what have you learned about Ted Cruz? Perhaps you should refer to the words of Alan Dershowitz, esteemed Harvard Constitutional law professor, and darling of the left, who stated that Ted Cruz was unequivocally the most brilliant law student he had ever taught saying that “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.” Bear in mind that Professor Dershowitz would have also taught Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. as Professor Dershowitz had held a full professorship at Harvard Law for quite some time when Obama was a law student at that university but, to my knowledge, and you can correct me if I am wrong, Professor Dershowitz has not commented on the brilliance of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.. And while the left loves to point to the fact that Obama was “editor” of the Harvard Law review, Ted Cruz was the primary editor of the Harvard Law review as well. Ironically, the year Obama was editor of the HLR is one of the least referenced issues while the year that Ted Cruz was editor it is one of the most referenced issues.
You also want to question the intelligence of Sarah Palin for no other reason than she really gets under the skin of progressives. And while she is a private citizen, I would stack her intellect up against the female Democrat role models such as Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters (admitted Socialist) and Sheila Jackson-Lee. The days of Democrats electing brilliant women such as Barbara Jordan seems to have long passed.
@retire05: Barbara Jordan—a brilliant, compassionate, Texas lady.–one of a kind. She is missed.
@Greg:
Please don’t confuse having the media in the hip pocket and having every failure thoroughly covered up as “skill”.
I expect “reasonably” would be a matter of opinion. When Obama first took office, he tried to “reason” with Republicans, which meant the understanding that “you lost, I won” and “elections have consequences”. The intention was that the Republicans should just fall in line with Democrats and help rubber stamp whatever liberal legislation was devised. They didn’t.
Now, after the consequences of the most recent elections, Obama pledges to continuing issuing edicts without even discussing terms with Republicans. The message there is that, regardless of what the electorate says they want, what Obama wants is priority. Remind me again who is unreasonable?
And how large was Obama’s “mandate” in 2008 & 2012? Fact of the matter is, Republicans control both Houses and Obama will have to sign or veto legislation put forth. Obama has avoided making such commitments (no budgets, no decisions on Keystone, cancelling or delaying the mandates of his own legislation), so we shall see who, exactly, has whom by the balls.
Actually, not very many agree with that assessment, which is why Fox is consistently rated tops above all other is fairness, honesty and balance. What the left does not like about Fox is the exposure, while the networks of cover-up refuse to report the warts and blemishes.
Leftists won’t watch their own outlets because they are not interested in educating themselves; they are content with the specific words to speak and thoughts to think without having the data to formulate their own independent thought.
CSPAN is showing the vote live.
Right now it is
82 Boehner
67 Pelosi
13 Other
1 Present (is Obama there?)
@Rich Wheeler:
Yes, she is missed; even by Texas Republicans who understood that Ms. Jordan truly cared about the nation she served with such distinction. Even today, for us Republicans who knew Ms. Jordan, we speak of her in favored tones with high regard. She also would be in full riot on the Democrat’s current stance on illegal immigration as she testified, more than once, on the harmful effect that illegal immigration caused this nation.
If you have never read her Congressional testimony, it is truly brilliant. With a standard like Barbara Jordan, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee become even more egregious.
The days of rational Democrats are long gone. Now, most are simply members of the Democrat Progressive Caucus, a caucus started by admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders, and the legislation they support shows that there is now little difference between them and the radical Socialists who would impose their vision for a Socialist utopia on all of us. Barbara Jordan would have been vehemently opposed to their views. How sad for the nation that Democrats have taken such a hard left turn.
@Wordsmith: While it’s true that spending was cut, it’s arguable that it was a good thing. Those cuts you speak of were acquired mostly by the sequester which if I’m not mistaken, many on the right were pointing at Obama as the culprit of that, blaming him on one hand while taking credit on the other. Nothing new there.
Much of these cuts on programs and economic stimulants such as infrastructure, et al (which republicans had up to the Obama administration supported, particularly during economic downturns) can actually be associated with the GOP’s obvious intent to sabotage the economy to achieve their admitted goal of unseating Obama (to “insure a one term presidency”).
There’s much to be argued on the negatives and positives of austerity but historically as well as presently, it generally fails. The very reality of today’s economic upswing is a result of the recent easing of those very spending restrictions. Paul Krugman completely destroys the arguments of your reference man Paul Kengor. Both men by the way, are relatively equally educated as well as ideologically divided. So I suppose it falls back to simply seeing what one wants to see or perhaps, falling for whatever folly that suits your agenda,.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Yep, you’re mistaken. Obama offered up sequester thinking the Republicans would back out due to the defense cuts. When they didn’t, Obama took to blaming THEM for the cuts, when it was he that offered it as a compromise. Unfortunately (for Obama), there were recordings of Obama claiming credit for the sequester compromise.
Half of the cuts were to programs and half was to defense. Obama took $865 billion out of the piggy bank to spend on infrastructure and, instead, handed most of it out to campaign supporters (“I guess they weren’t as shovel ready as we thought. Giggle.”). So, almost a trillion down the tubes and no stimulus, no jobs, no infrastructure recondition. What a clever GOP plan.
We are in a situation were austerity is not a choice; it is our condition. Liberal programs have bankrupted the nation with nothing to show for it. This “upturn” (after 6 years and $7 trillion) is just the economy healing. Had Obama done nothing in 2009, the economy would have slowly and painfully come back… you know, kinda like it did. Krugman proves himself time and time again as 90% left wing hack and 10% economist.
@Bill: Uh, yeah, OK. Thanks.
@Bill, #36:
A big part of the problem is that taxes have been repeatedly cut without giving a moment’s consideration to how the bills would be paid—the rationalization being the absurd notion that tax cuts continue to raise revenue no matter to what degree taxes are cut. We just conducted two wars that will ultimately cost us $4 to $6 trillion using a credit card, and now have absolutely nothing to show for it but the debts, and the likelihood we’ll be sucked back in again. We cut taxes as we went into this. It was totally absurd. Totally irresponsible. Anyone claiming that is wasn’t should probably have a psychiatric evaluation. They certainly should be put in a position to make any such decisions in the future.
@Rich Wheeler: Hey Rich, you ought to read this, might find it interesting:
Wonder why BHO would refer to ‘his Muslim Faith” ?
@Redteam: I notice the article mentions he graduated from Columbia. Aren’t you one of the nuts who claim he didn’t attend Columbia?
I get you right wing radicals confused.lol
@Greg: THE problem is that the left never considers reducing spending, unless it is military spending (something the Constitution actually mandates, by the way). Tax cuts do, indeed, increase revenues, as the Bush tax cuts did. Even WITH the wars, deficits were being reduced under Bush until the recession hit. Just think of all the additional revenue we would have if Obama hadn’t jacked up the corporate tax rate and forced businesses to move their operations and profits overseas. The left does not understand that they cannot simply keep wasting taxpayer money trying to buy votes and their way into power and just raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes to pay for it.
The reason we have nothing to show for the expenditure of blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq is due to Obama being such a failure and desperate for positive headlines, he just abandons the field and victory and allows the enemy to retake all the gains. Place the blame where it belongs, please.
Republicans had a majority in the House from 1995 through 2006. They had a majority in the Senate from 1995 through 2006. They held the White House from 2001 through 2008. How is it exclusively the fault of Democrats that the economy went to hell in a handbag beginning in 2007, when economic policies and budgets leading up to that point were largely being decided by Republicans?
Regarding the invasion of Iraq, it has to have been single worst U.S. foreign policy blunder in recent memory. Creating a power vacuum in Iraq is precisely what got us to the point where we are now, and is precisely what the Bush administration was warned about by U.S. intelligence agencies before the invasion occurred. Put like-minded people in charge again, and they’ll repeat the same errors all over again. Had they been in charge during the last few years, we might have had a military confrontation with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, rather than having taken a carefully measured approach that has clobbered him economically without a shot being fired. I like Obama’s approach much better. We aren’t spending untold billions per month on yet another dangerous stand off that could easily have turned into the beginning of World War III. One impulsive head of state in the mix is more than enough.
@Greg: Where was it I said the fault was exclusively Democrat? While Bush had deficits coming down, we were still spending too much, just like we have been for decades. However, the CAUSE of the recession was the combination of the housing bubble and financial meltdown, which was a DIRECT result of Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton amplified by requiring lending institutions to make 10% of their mortgages for people who, basically, could not afford them. You seem to wish to forget that, up till the period you mention, in between and when the actual recession occurred, Democrats held majorities.
For instance, we have plowed over $17 trillion into fighting poverty with the result that we have more poverty than ever before. We subsidize illegal immigration, which costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Waste and corruption is rampant in the government, which hundreds of billions of dollars of waste towards expired programs and defunct real estate payments ignored. All this remains the case because if anyone chooses to address it (usually Republicans) they are shouted down as racists, haters of the poor and wanting to shut down the government (ALWAYS Democrats).
As has been shown clearly many times, while the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, nearly ALL high level Democrats supported the intelligence, believed what it indicated and supported the invasion. Despite all that, the war in Iraq was won, the nation subdued and a government installed… which Obama summarily abandoned and allowed the current state of upheaval and crisis to ensue. If Obama had ever once demonstrated an understanding of foreign policy and the utilization of US power and influence, there would be no Putin in Ukraine and the harm done to Putin and the Russian economy is due to energy production that is IN SPITE OF Obama’s policies. Obama gets absolutely NO credit for any of that.
Once, Obama demanded compliance from the minority party to his leftist agenda and non-compliance indicated lack of cooperation. Now, Obama demands full compliance and subjugation of the MAJORITY to his leftist agenda, declaring unilaterally that, while once elections had consequences, the last election had no meaning whatsoever. He seems intent on maintaining his legacy as the worst leader in history.
The idea that there was some kind of huge revolt in the Republican Party in the House is just garbage. 5 votes is not a revolt. In fact if you subtract the two that ran against you get 3!! I do think Republicans are acting responsibly and now the far left President will be totally exposed and not hidden by Reid!!
@Bill, #43:
The war in Iraq was never won. If it had been, the situation wouldn’t be far more unstable and dangerous only three years later than it ever was to begin with. We successfully destroyed the Saddam Hussein regime and successfully dismantled the nation’s military and police force. Order was imposed by military occupation, and lingering signs of resistance were suppressed with a temporary troop surge. The enemy wasn’t defeated, it was only forced into inactivity. We then left, when the replacement government that the Bush Administration set up made it impossible to renegotiate the departure date that the Bush Administration locked in. None of the underlying sectarian issues that had long been held in check by the Saddam Hussein regime had been resolved. If anything, the al-Maliki government’s policies exacerbated them.
I grow weary of hearing the claim that “Bush won the war, but Obama lost it.” There never should have been a war and it never was won. Obama didn’t create the situation. He inherited it. We left behind a vacuum that we created, which is now being filled by the very people we should have been most worried about.
@Greg: Well, gosh, Greg, Obama and Biden themselves disagree with your assessment, claiming at the time of the complete cut and run that Iraq was stable and calm. You can grow as weary as you like, but you’d best get used to it because not only will you continue to hear about it but as soon as we get a leader in the White House, we will have to commit troops to fight ISIS, thanks to Obama’s grandstanding at the expense of national security.
Would you seriously have expected Obama and Biden, or any other administration, to publicly proclaim before the world on the occasion of our departure that the entire enterprise had been a monumental error, and would likely end in disaster for the country we had invaded?
A recurring problem with the narrative of the right is that it often ignores any aspects of reality that get in the way of the message of the moment. Blind spots seem to develop whenever necessary, and seem to vanish just as quickly. The inconsistencies that pile up over time are never noticed, let alone remembered. Cause and effect seem to have to do with rhetoric, not reality. One such ignored fact is that no U.S. president would ever say such a thing.
@Greg: Greg y our blame Bush crap is outdated and ridiculous and America confirmed this during the last election cycle!! Democrats and their economic policies have been rejected “period”!!
@Greg:
Oh, but wait, didn’t Joe Biden proclaim that Iraq was going to be Obama’s greatest achievement? Or has your selective memory forgotten that?
@Common Sense: Common sense tells me that by the time the circular firing squad aka the 2016 Repub.Prez. Primary shoulder their weapons the Dem. candidate will defeat the badly damaged lone survivor.
Question Will the Tea Party and Conservatives once again allow the mainstream Boehner led Repubs pick the nominee?
Ret05 Biden was the first to recognize the power struggle between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that had been going on for centuries. Recognized the Civil War and called for 3 separate states. For this he was derided. In the long run it appears he was right.