John Boehner could shut down Obama’s dictatorship any time he wanted to. Boehner controls the purse strings, and/or he could initiate impeachment proceedings any time he wants to. He refuses to use either of his pimary tools, and also refuses to press forward with prosecuting Lois Lerner.
Instead he makes mindless, idle threats about a lawsuit. Obviously there is something very wrong going on. Boehner refuses to do his job. Why?
President Biden would make a better lame duck.
BiteMe was O’s insurance policy…mainly because he already was a lame duck.
Yes and a President Biden would be eligible to run for ‘reelection’ in 2016 and again in 2020 unlike the Current President would. The “lame duck” comment above is a good example of the political disconnect between the Tea Party and reality.
Impeachment is a fools game unless there are 67 sure votes for conviction in the US Senate. Thanks in large part to hapless or rather hopeless Tea Party Senate candidates there are currently only 45 GOP Senators in Congress. That is TWO Senators LESS than there were in 2011 when the Tea Party first burst onto the scene as a political king maker. However instead of dealing Kings and Aces all the TP has dealt us is a full house of Jokers who couldn’t steal an election. When or where will the Hopeless Tea Party find and elect the 22 additional GOP Senators needed to convict Obama and remove him from office? With Tea Party help it’s obvious that it won’t happen in the 21st Century. The Tea Party is too fixated on defeating GOP Senators to be worried about defeating or kicking any Democrat out of office and that includes Obama. To remove Obama it is obvious that the Tea Party will first have to be rendered harmless.
You see that line of thinking, Substitute, just about everywhere, but the problem with it is that the RINO republicans would never go after Obama. These are the folks that “want to cross over to the other side of the aisle to work with the other side,” who believe that “compromise is how you get things done.” In other words, they are just more of the same.
Who cares about winning elections? If you want to pick a winner, just vote Democrat. They have no problem winning these days.
To me, what matters is reality. Reality doesn’t care that you got 60% of the vote and have control of the Senate. Reality demands either we scale back the size of government or we get crushed under its bloat. I’d much rather have candidates who accept that reality rather than candidates who would abandon those principles to get votes.
I agree and often wonder if he is being blackmailed by the administration. There is a strong case to be sure, that John Roberts was blackmailed to change his Obamacare vote…
I think that the blackmail possibility is actually wider even that that…
Consider that the NSA, CIA, FBI and who knows who else, have been monitoring private emails and phone calls for some unspecified long time. Why on Earth would anyone suppose that only private citizens were being monitored? If you had an essentially unlimited ability to monitor all communications, wouldn’t it be more believable that your first targets would be politicians, high finance figures, and corporate leaders?
Having problems getting funding for your particular bureaucratic fiefdom (or for your personal funding)? Monitor corporate CEOs — find out which stocks to buy before the public knows. Monitor high finance leaders — know ahead of time which markets, which bonds to invest in. Monitor Congress and the White House — make sure laws go in your favour and enforcement never goes against you. Afraid of bad press? Monitor editors and journalists.
Some may think, “Why, Jason! How paranoid! Don’t you know that our leaders would never do such a thing?!” My response would be “My theory explains what anyone reading the news will observe. It is based on a broad knowledge of human nature and history.”
Anyone who refuses to at least include the possibility of massive blackmail being part of today’s political and economic system is, simply put, naive in the extreme.
” Some may think, “Why, Jason! How paranoid!” ”
Yes, well, quite a bit truth to that.
It also goes to support my contention that a lot people here have never worked in a ‘hierarchical’ organization where expectations for ‘team play’ from the CEO on down exists … a lot of simple pressure exists in these organizations to get everybody moving in the same direction, with nearly the same set of core beliefs.
.
Actually, Jim, I had you in mind when I wrote that. Yup. Naive in the extreme.
Well, you said it brother! Where you see ‘conspiracy’ and collusion for intentional;, nefarious purposes I see good people gone bad owing to a variety of subtle, yet corrupting influences.
For instance, the myriad of stories in just this category: when good people go bad influence.
From “27 Psychological Reasons Why Good People Do Bad Things” I’ll list a few relevant topical items:
– – – – –
Tunnel vision –
Setting and achieving goals is important, but single-minded focus on them can blind people to ethical concerns.
When Enron offered large bonuses to employees for bringing in sales, they became so focused on that goal that they forgot to make sure they were profitable or moral. We all know how that ended.
– – – – –
The power of names –
When bribery becomes “greasing the wheels” or accounting fraud becomes “financial engineering,” unethical behavior can seem less bad.
The use of nicknames and euphemisms for questionable practices can free them of their moral connotations, making them seem more acceptable.
– – – – –
Social bond theory –
In large organizations, employees can begin to feel more like numbers or cogs in a machine than individuals.
When people feel detached from the goals and leadership of their workplace, they are more likely to commit fraud, steal, or hurt the company via neglect.
– – – – –
The Galatea effect –
Self image determines behavior. People who have a strong sense of themselves as individuals are less likely to do unethical things.
Alternatively, employees who see themselves as determined by their environment or having their choices made for them are more likely to bend the rules, as they feel less individually responsible.
– – – – –
Time pressure –
In a study, a group of theology students were told to preach the story of the good Samaritan, then walk to another building where they’d be filmed. Along the way, they encountered a man in visible distress.
When given ample time, almost all helped. When they were deliberately let out late, only 63 percent helped. When encouraged to go as fast as possible, 90 percent ignored the man.
– – – – –
Acceptance of small theft –
There are dozens of small temptations in any workplace. Stationary, sugar packets, and toilet paper frequently go home with employees.
Those small thefts are ignored. So are slightly larger ones, like over-claiming expenses or accepting unauthorized business gifts. It doesn’t take long for people to begin pushing those limits.
– – – – –
Self-serving bias –
Few people believe they’re average; most think they’re smarter and more ethical than those around them.
That can lead to feelings of injustice. If somebody else gets a promotion, it’s not down to their performance and capacity, it must be something else. Those feelings, and overestimation of other’s biases can lead to unethical behavior.
– – – – –
The Pygmalion effect –
The way that people are seen and treated influences the way they act. When employees are viewed suspiciously and constantly treated like potential thieves, they are more likely be thieves.
This effect occurs even in employees who aren’t initially inclined towards unethical behavior.
– – – – –
Environmental influence –
Employees reflect their environment. If corruption, major or minor, is a part of their workplace, they become blind to its occurrence and its possible costs.
A study incorporating participants from a variety of countries found that the less transparent and more corrupt the participant’s country of origin, the more willing they were to accept or give bribes.
– – – – –
Reactance theory –
Rules are designed to prevent unethical behavior, but when they’re seen as unjust or excessive they can provoke the opposite reaction.
This is known as reactance theory. People resent threats to their freedom, and they often manifest that resistance by flouting certain rules.
– – – – –
Obedience to authority –
Obedience to authority is ingrained in our culture and workplace. When someone in a position of authority asks an employee to do something unethical or illegal, they can find it difficult to say no.
It’s easier to justify bad behavior, and when people see themselves as an instrument of another’s wishes, they feel less responsible.
– – – – –
The blinding effect of power –
Powerful people appear more corrupt because they’re caught more publicly. However, a recent study found that when given power, people set ethical rules much higher for others than they do themselves.
If someone is influential and sets rules for others, they can begin to see themselves as morally distinct from their employees, and not subject to the same rules.
– – – – –
Broken window theory –
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani popularized the “broken window theory” when he led a sweeping effort to lower crime rates. The idea was to crack down on smaller, petty crimes, and clean up the city to create some semblance of order, and discourage larger crimes.
When people see disorder or disorganization, they assume there is no real authority. In that environment, their threshold to overstepping legal and moral boundaries is lower.
– – – – –
Cognitive dissonance and rationalization –
When people’s actions differ from their morals, they begin to rationalize both to protect themselves from a painful contradiction and to build up protection against accusations.
The bigger the dissonance, the larger the rationalization, and the longer it lasts, the less immoral it seems.
– – – – –
Lack of sleep and hypoglycemia –
The rewards of unethical behavior are something people struggle with on a daily basis. As simplistic as it sounds, people who are hungry or tired have less self control.
Research has found that tired participants asked to complete math tasks significantly over-report correct answers. While being tired or hungry won’t make someone embezzle, it leaves them more open to moments of weakness.
– – – – –
Escalating commitment –
Big thieves usually start out as small thieves. One way such actions become a slippery slope leading to ever greater misconduct is the feeling that there’s no way out.
This has been seen in recent rogue traders like Jerome Kerviel and Kweku Adoboli. They got bonuses for taking big risks, but when those risks became big losses, they took even larger risks to try and make up for them.
– – – – –
The induction mechanism –
People compare their present behavior to what they’ve done in the past. Another way people slide down the slope of unethical behavior is to stop seeing that behavior as bad.
As the unethical becomes routine, the extremely unethical, once unthinkable, enters the realm of possibility.
– – – – –
Market and shareholder pressure –
Former Citigroup CEO and Chairman Charles Prince once said, “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”
He was referring to the leveraged buyout market in 2007. Before the collapse, there was intense pressure for managers to join in on the huge and risky profits, despite the evident bubbliness of the market.
– – – – –
Bad communication –
Issues of corruption and morality are often treated as black and white, wrongdoers are badly punished, and gray areas are not discussed.
That can lead to an environment where rather than sounding out ideas that border on unethical, people push and test their limits.
– – – – –
The pressure to conform –
Nobody likes being a nuisance. In order to fit in with a group, people do things they might not otherwise. That can lead them to ignore abuses for the sake of peace or unity and go along with questionable decisions.
– – – – –
.
Hey Jim! That is one heck of a list — twenty different reasons (all valid, in my opinion) for people to do bad things. I would suggest that you left out two; coercive violence, and blackmail.
Of course good people can certainly be motivated by threats and violence, but the over-riding reason why violence and blackmail remain part of the system is that not everyone can be pressed into the “good people doing bad things” category. Quite a few people are in the category of “bad people doing bad things”, and the ratio of such people seems to increase as we go higher in the command structure. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that we consider a system that is 100% composed of sociopaths at the highest levels. If one or two of those people do not find some desired action in their own interest, how can they be motivated? Appeals to group loyalty, to ethical considerations, commitment to previous promises, charity, compliance with law, fear of public censure, etc. — these factors mean nothing, nothing!, to someone who has no compassion or conscience. You might try bribery. But if bribery is either uneconomic or ineffective, what remains for one bad person to motivate another? The answer is: coercive violence and blackmail. YOU would never stoop so low, and I would never stoop so low — but if you were a sociopath it would be an obvious choice.
Gail would not be convinced of this; I have suggested same that this lies at the ‘root’ (imagine a rich Jocelyn Elders pronunciation of that word) of the problem …
Getting the dirt on someone is certainly a Chicago practice, but what is your evidence WRT John Roberts?
To answer as to “why?”- the mavericks in the GOP tried awhile back to cut back and the Obamunists did what they could to punish the American people by shutting down places and events that are popular. The Repub’s took a PR shellacking from the left-wing press. The Party then fell to in-fighting, the echoes of which resonate to this day (as in Mississippi.).
Is Boehner lame (Ha….lame duck!)? Yep.
Is he muddled? Again yep.
But the forces arrayed against pulling the purse-strings taut are large, monstrous, and like hell, ever hungry to destroy.
I hate to say it, but even electing squishy Republicans would be preferable to the cabal in the White House.
Otherwise, I agree with Morgan: Biden NOW!
They would be smart to stop reading the “left wing press” and start listening to their constituents. Then they might actually win.
Taking advice from MSNBC is pretty stupid.
I am in agreement. But the fact is they don’t listen. Look at the way they kowtow to the Chamber of Commerce over illegals, despite the screams of protest from the people.
Boehner is symptomatic, but he doesn’t have a cure since he doesn’t have a clue.
Why? The NSA probably has a TON of dirt on him; or that he is horrified by the talking heads telling him how angry the country would be to impeach the first black president.
Remember: you don’t need conspiracies when incompetence (and cowardice) explains so much.
Ok. So If Boehner is a coward or Idiot like you are saying, Is the President not morally deficient to use the NSA like he and his minions did like the IRS?
Chuck,
I apologize, but I don’t understand your point, and I’m not being snarky. Can you clarify, please?
It wasn’t meant as an insult sir. Is the question entirely out of the realm of impossibility?
Simon’s Law:
It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.
Gamecock’s law: plagiarism is bad form. It’s Hanlon’s razor.
Why?… because it would be racist to go after Obama… besides. .. why do any real work or stand up for anything when you’re fatt n happy right now? Making a big stink would create a big firestorm and swim upstream in this waterfall of Progressivism. ..
Easier to do nothing…
Preserving the system is the first priority. No republican is going to risk destroying the gravy train that they all benefit from. Thus they cannot impeach Obama on any meaningful violations of the USC etc. To do so could put an end to what makes them all rich and the source of the power they share. If they are to go after Obama they must find a relatively meaningless scandal to exploit. Something that has no impact to power or revenue.
There were a variety of meaningful, constitutional things to go after Bill Clinton on, as there are with every modern president. Getting a BJ from an intern was chosen because anything else threatens the system. It also might role back executive power, which is undesirable for either party. They fight over which of them wields the power, they both want it so neither will act to dismantle it.
Even if we go back to Nixon, the possible impeachment was over a 3rd rate burglary, not a meaningful constitutional issues. We will never see a president impeached over a constitutional violation by one of the two major parties unless we get a third party president or someone both parties hate because he threatens the system.
If you want Obama impeached, better find a sex scandal, campaign finance issue, or some other BS issue. A major violation of the USC won’t do it.
It ain’t so, Tony. You’re blaming the innocent. In practice, Boehner does not control the purse strings, and Clinton proved that impeachment is an empty threat while Democrats control the Senate, particularly since conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote.
The sad fact is that Democrats, not Republicans, are in the drivers’ seat. Boehner can’t fix that.
The Democrat-socialist coalition has 55% of the Senate, and the Republicans (including liberal and libertarian RINOs) have 54% of the House, which sounds almost balanced. But the Left also controls 100% of the executive branch, and dominates the federal bureaucracy, the press, the academy, and most of the courts.
It’s no use blaming Boehner. He’s doing his best, but he can’t fix this mess. Until and unless Republicans start winning more elections, America will continue her decline into a bigger version of dysfunctional, nihilist, socialist Belgium.
libertarian RINOs
Ah. You mean the Constitutionalist wing of the Republican Party. They should be reviled.
BTW did you notice a Drug Prohibition Amendment? Me either. Those libertarians have to go. They imperil the iron rice bowl of so many Federal and State workers.
Q: Who is John Galt?
A: An idol for those who think that the principal cause of America’s decline is the loss of liberty rather than the loss of virtue.
– Mike S. Adams
Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the freedom to do as you ought.
– probably a paraphrase of Lord Acton and/or Peter Marshall
The U.S. is only one law away from sorting out all the problems- no lawyer can be elected!
There is the job that you, peon, think he is supposed to be doing, and then there is his real job — which, as Douglas Adams made so brilliantly clear so long ago, is to distract attention away from what’s really going on.
“Elections”? Seriously? In the last 20 years or so, the approval rating of Congresscritters has dropped into the low teens — while the percent of incumbents reelected has been consistentlly in the high 90s. What’s wrong with that picture?
Why are any of you still falling for the “Left vs. Right” bait?
As long as you still vote, right, left, or independent, the modern Praetorian Guard (why can’t it happen today, hmm?) knows you still Believe, and they have nothing to fear. The day the voting booths stand empty — then they’ll know real change is coming.
Why? Because Boehner is just as much a power-hungry statist as Obama, just with a RINO “R” in front of his name, instead of a “D”.
The only people Boehner actually goes after with any furor are actual conservatives in his own caucus (see also: committee chairmanships/assignments retaliation after the failed leadership coup).
I pray he gets the Eric Cantor treatment soon.
Take this one step further – WHO elected him as ‘speaker’ in the house anyway, and WHAT were their motives? Were they looking for a RINO, a pushover in that position? Take that next step, Chip …
I’m not sure what “next step” you’re wanting me to take. I am generally distrustful of anyone at the federal level who has been in office for longer than the duration of 2 or 3 senate terms, and think that they’re pretty much all political-class statists, for whom “D” and “R” are fungible designations – the primary difference being that “D” wants a progressive revolution, and “R” is willing to get there by the death of a thousand cuts.
I’m a conservative first, Republican second, and don’t give any of my own money to party organizations (I research and support candidates individually).
I thought this was going to be rather straight forward, but it seems not.
1) WHO elected him as ‘speaker’ in the house anyway, and
2) WHAT were their motives?
Why did the house elect a putz like Boehner in the first place? Don’t try and over-analyze it …
You can save yourself the effort there Chip, I answered myself further below …
Boehner is a coward, it’s just that simple. He is ill-equipped to deal with much more than a setup bar, in my estimation. And, to top it off, his colleagues who put him in that position WANTED it that way.
Chuck
Yeah. Why not?
WRT John Roberts being blackmailed, just google it and decide. Jim Calley’s post above should also be put in the mix.