Free Markets, Free People

“They can’t get to yes” = “They won’t give the Democrats everything they want”

In case you had not yet heard, Speaker Boehner is resigning.

As we say in the South, that’s fine and all, but it won’t really change anything. He will likely be replaced by Kevin McCarthy, who has been Boehner’s lieutenant for a long time. McCarthy is apparently better at soft-soaping the limited government Republicans in Congress, so it looks like they will go along with his election. They might even think he’ll make a difference, though I hope most of them are not that naive.

When I was reading the NYT article linked above, however, one sentence by Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania stood out to me:

Mr. Dent said there was “a lot of sadness in the room” when Mr. Boehner made his announcement to colleagues. He blamed the hard-right members, who he said were unwilling to govern. “It’s clear to me that the rejectionist members of our conference clearly had an influence on his decision,” Mr. Dent said. “That’s why I’m not happy about what happened today. We still have important issues to deal with, and this will not be easier for the next guy.”

“The fundamental dynamics don’t change,” Mr. Dent said. “The dynamics are this: There are anywhere from two to four dozen members who don’t have an affirmative sense of governance. They can’t get to yes. [Emphasis mine] They just can’t get to yes, and so they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead. And not only do they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead, but they undermine the entire Republican conference and also help to weaken the institution of Congress itself.

This is a consummate member of the political class spinning excuses for why nothing ever changes, and we get ever-increasing government. It’s the “dynamics”. Opposing more government “undermines the ability of the speaker to lead”. Those who do so are “rejectionist”.

I’m not surprised the Times sought out such a pathetic specimen of the Political Class (GOP Kabuki Failure Theater Division). They’re totally in on the gag. They know that the easiest way to get big government is to make it look inevitable, and to paint anyone who opposes it as one step short of ready for commitment to an insane asylum.

“They can’t get to yes.” Meaning they won’t cave. They won’t give Democrats yet another round of big spending, more regulation, more debt, more secrecy, and more corruption.

When means Dent is right in on it. Oh, I’m sure when he looks at himself in the mirror, he sees a fine, upstanding practical politician, constantly grappling with important issues and making wise decisions about how government will solve them. Because, like so many in the political class bubble, he lacks the context and awareness to see what he really is: a pathetic liar and coward who pretends to his constituents that he cares about limited, responsible government, and then does everything in his power to satisfy collectivists so that he can get a nice mention in the New York Times.

——————————————-

On a related subject, I think Boehner’s exit is connected, at least peripherally, with the rise of Trump.

(Oh, and could we please, please, please avoid another “Trump is not conservative, and he’s a fraud, and he’s a collectivist at heart, and a crony capitalist, and blah, blah, blah” argument in the comments? I don’t know how others feel, but that has been done to death. Everyone has made their points, and going over it another round isn’t doing anything but pissing people off.)

No matter what you think of Trump, he is effectively running against the GOP establishment just as much (or more) as he is running against the other primary candidates. I said so over at Daily Pundit when the rumors of Boehner’s exit first surfaced. I think Trump would have probably preferred for Boehner to stay where he was until the nomination was locked up.

I have to wonder if at least part of Boehner’s exit was due to the GOP establishment wanting to defuse Trump’s appeal by saying “See? We get your anger. We’re doing something about it. So you don’t need to nominate Trump, who will be a disaster, blah blah.”

I wonder, too, if part of Boehner’s motivation is to see the chaos that results, and tell himself that he really was the indispensable man. The timing means that the whole shutdown debate will happen right after he leaves. He strikes me as just the sort of guy to hope for vindication by seeing bad things happen.

But, as I said above, in the end it won’t mean much either way. The GOP will find a way to cave. Another establishment drone will take Boehner’s place. The government will spend more, oppress more people via regulation and security theater, keep letting millions on new Democratic voters illegally enter the country, keep on colluding with crony capitalists and financial types to extract more money by any means necessary, and keep on giving spiffs to the media to blunt the effects.

That’s called “getting to yes”.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

26 Responses to “They can’t get to yes” = “They won’t give the Democrats everything they want”

  • Oh, and could we please, please, please avoid another “Trump is not conservative, and he’s a fraud, and he’s a collectivist at heart, and a crony capitalist, and blah, blah, blah” argument in the comments? I don’t know how others feel, but that has been done to death. Everyone has made their points, and going over it another round isn’t doing anything but pissing people off.

    OK, McQ, please take this as an effort to understand your rules here.

    Should I understand this blog is a “safe space” for Trumpians?

    Or should I issue a trigger-warning so nobody will be “pissed off” by anything contrarian I may say?

    I will abide by what you tell me. It’s your dojo.

    • Look at the post author again.

      • Well, the questions still stand. And McQ is the head duck of the blog, is he not?

        • Yes. But you know the policies. You can say anything you want (within some very broad limits about personal attacks).

          And so can I. So I expressed a desire to avoid such discussions since we’ve done them to death. If you choose to ignore me, you can.

          • So you don’t want to hear about how T-rump supports campaign finance reform, or that he has an apparent problem with the First Amendment, because those are so passe?

            Well, OK. I’d love you see your comments on those things, where you did them to death.

          • Look, this isn’t complicated. I KNOW ALL OF THAT.

            I’m not even a Trump supporter. I just prefer what’s he doing to the race, compared to the usual GOP snoozefest that ends up picking another losing drone. I like that he won’t take anything off the smug media types.

            I like that people such as Ben Carson have learned from that, and stood their ground on politically incorrect statements on topics such as Islam. I hope other candidates learn too.

            I like that he has raised such an important issue (illegal immigration) to the forefront of the race, and made it mainstream enough that others can do the same.

            And that’s what I (and others) have said, over and over and over again, and you just keep coming back with the same stuff THAT WE ALREADY KNOW.

            We get it. You don’t like the guy. You think he’s a disaster. Fine. I’m just tired of hearing about in every thread that has the word “Trump” anywhere in it.

            This post was about Boehner’s resignation, and the likely minimal effect it will have. The Trump comments were a small part of it. But notice where you focused your attention.

          • The Trump comments were a small part of it. But notice where you focused your attention.

            Wul, yuh. They were the part of your post that directly brought into question what was permissible on this blog.

            Will McCarthy ascend to the speakership? Dunno. Strange days! If this portends an awakening among the eGOP, maybe NOT!

          • “So you don’t want to hear about how T-rump …”

            I think what he is saying is that we have heard it before, and maybe even agree with it, but repeating it again and again at every opportunity is boring and a waste of time.

          • If we are lucky Trump will be the irritating grain of sand that creates a pearl.

          • Mr Hollis; your request to avoid a particular conversation (not Trump, just a specific argument too-often made about Trump) was simple and succinct, as was your reason. Your policy says, “there is no ‘right’ to comment here.” Surely this presupposes the sign we see on so many public establishments: “we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason,” thus, you have every right to ban certain limited subjects on the simple basis of taste since, if nothing else, you could not afford to actually litigate each disputed, third-party claim to your comment space.

            Your courtesy to Mr Ragspierre is wasted; he is only trolling you. His unwillingness to bend to the eternal principle of de gustibus non est disputandum is ignorance, stupidity or evil. His attempted high-flown language argues against the first. Addressing you as “Mr McQ” suggests a motivation to post regardless of whom he was addressing, or the original point.

            Mr Ragspierre is borrowing the arguments of Dr Thomas Sowell’s Visionary Anointeds: he demands you first rationally prove your rule (for a private site) is rational, while refusing to explain the rationality of his reasons for challenging it. No a priori structure is possible that can pre-determine your best possible options, which is why law is almost entirely made of proscribed outcomes we have outlawed, along with the proscribed law enforcement techniques we no longer wish to suffer under, or that proved ineffective. Sometimes, in one’s own sphere, the argument is only, “Because I said so.”

        • Uh, no. We each speak for ourselves.

    • Have you considered the possibility that “Trump is not a real conservative” is basically just the establishment roping you back in to the lines in which you belong, into the categories they’ve written, into the parts in the play that you’re expected to play? Even if it is 100% true? What have the conservatives done for us lately?

      If Trump’s plan is to get elected and then immediately turn into a leftist himself, he’s doing a very poor job, actually. SJWs hold grudges now a lot, lot more than they did 10 or 20 years ago. By the time he’s elected with the scarlet R after his name there will probably be nothing left he could do to please the left as he should be getting the full Bush by then. They can’t help it. In its own weird way, and given Trump’s ego and behavior to this point, that may well be our best guarantee that he won’t just pivot left. He won’t lick shoes to do it, he clearly knows it wouldn’t work anyhow, and whereas perhaps 10-20 years ago the establishment could have bent and made an effort to draw him in, modern leftism can’t anymore. It’s too inflexible.

      I’m still not sure where I stand on him myself, but even as history sits on one shoulder yelling in my ear about the dangers of electing a populist in an environment like this, the guy on the other shoulder is yelling that electing an effective moderate over the conservative who says all the right words but appears to view his job as just making sure the left gets everything it wants, but slightly slower, may not be such a bad idea.

      And I just wish I knew which was the devil and which was the angel.

      • Have you considered the possibility that “Trump is not a real conservative” is basically just the establishment roping you back in to the lines in which you belong, into the categories they’ve written, into the parts in the play that you’re expected to play? Even if it is 100% true? What have the conservatives done for us lately?

        Well, first, let’s define WTF you mean by “conservatives”?

        Second, I gotta say, “No”. There ain’t NOBODY in the “establishment” that I consider a chess master who could hooo-dooo me into saying, “T-r-u-m-p n-o-t c-o-n-s-e-r-r-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.”

        But the idea is a yuck! I’ll give you that! Anybody with a working brain SEEs he’s not a conservative. Not now, not yesterday, not EVER!

        • Ragspierre, you’re acting irrationally. I see no evidence that your rational brain read my message at all.

          You should take a moment, take a deep breath, settle down, and try again.

          • … but Trump isn’t a real conservative .. there, I said it.

            Trump is just one of those who have been on the other end of a Hillary’s grifter adventure.
            He’s not the solution. He has been part of the problem. He represents a special interest .. namely, himself.
            Trump is just tired of being shakendown and has decided to take over the game. It’s merely getting rid of the middle [wo]man.
            Note, that Mark Cuban has expressed interest in doing the same.

            Frankly, this is representative of the fact that PR is now the law.

  • And that’s what I (and others) have said, over and over and over again, and you just keep coming back with the same stuff THAT WE ALREADY KNOW.

    Odd. I don’t recall ever making the points that T-rump supports campaign finance reform or has an apparent problem with the First Amendment, except to point to specific conduct. Like his siccing BIG GOVERNMENT on Rich Lowery. Which was, of course, stupid, since the FCC does not police cable content.

    But maybe you’ve dealt with all this. I don’t get to read everything you publish.

    • “Anybody with a working brain SEEs he’s not a conservative.”

      Which is precisely why continually listing Trump’s faults is irritating. We DO have working brains.

  • The get along go alongs in our ruling class don’t understand (yet again) which is why he who shall not be named is still on campaign point. There are a lot of us who don’t view a farcical kabuki shutdown as a bad thing.
    That’s yet another of Boehner’s problems, he thinks a shutdown IS a problem.
    I think that has more to do with Republican campaign optics than with it actually being a bad thing for the country, and since the Republican party is currently ruled over by the GOP Gentry country club (of which Boehner is a life time member) that’s the driver here. Damn those smaller government spending restraint types trying to actually do what they were elected by their constituents to do! They’re not huge donors to the party why would anyone listen to them!

    So, if the miracle happens and they manage to get to shutdown for 15 minutes – Boehner will continue, as Obama does, to pretend that the 20% (or whatever figure is not the mandatory spending) spending that is discretionary is a show stopper. They’ll all trot out the usual fictitious figures about the $billions lost to the economy, and the millions of jobs that were lost as a result and Boehner will be right there with them, only now he’ll be saying “see, see! But it’s not MY fault, no no no”.

    Why anyone trusts the figures of a government that continues to pretend actual unemployment is below 7% and their other numerical reporting fictions about spending, budget, employment, healthcare, deficit, is beyond me.
    But yes Boehner will be right there crying crocodile tears, lamenting and sadly shaking his head at the tragedy of it all while Obama shuts down National Parks and keeps vets away from their memorials/monuments in DC.

  • http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/shock-poll-62-of-republicans-feel-betrayed-by-their-party-video/
    And right now John Boehner is half of two faced pair (appropriate phrasing) that most people see as “the party”.

    Maybe the man does have a conscience after all – I’m saying that to give him the benefit of the doubt, though I don’t believe it.

  • Boehner had to fall on his sword, as flaccid as it is, because one of the big anti-Trump rally points is abortion. Boehner is taking the blame for Republicans caving on re-funding Planned Parenthood without a whimper. Ending Partial Birth Abortion had large majority will against it and it should have been an easy victory for Republicans but it was a struggle and ultimately just one method of late term abortion. Arguably there is enough will against 3rd trimester abortion (or at least 2nd half of 3rd trimester), the Republicans could have an across the board victory there but barely could stop one of the most publicly unpalatable forms in the last 20 years and have not intention to really try for the rest.

    This planned parenthood issue had to get ‘closure’ before the Republicans are too obvious the liars they are with the abortion card they play against Trump as well as the other cards they play like foreign policy, the budget, immigration, and just about anything else.

    But probably a good time for Boehner to cash out is the real reason.

    • If the Republicans were selling the weapons they used in their “attacks” on various Democratic positions the sign would read as follows:

      “Slightly used rifles for sale, never been fired, only dropped once”.

    • Establishment GOP saw that victory was in sight, thus, per usual, had to deliberately fail to keep from succeeding.

  • “If it is correct that the speaker, before he resigns, has cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi to fund the Obama administration for the rest of this year, to fund Obamacare, to fund executive amnesty, to fund Planned Parenthood, to fund implementation of this Iran deal, and then presumably to land a cushy K Street job after joining with the Democrats to implement all of President Obama’s priorities, that is not the behavior one would expect from a Republican speaker of the House.”
    —Ted Cruz

    Which is an observation we can watch, test, and determine with time.

  • Boner (huh huh huh) had to go effectively because he delivered on nothing for the people who actually gave him the house majority. So eff ’em, the orange weeping cretin.

    Some people are tired of seeing a GOP “majority” constantly get rolled. Can’t get to yes? DAMN RIGHT