Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

THe elections isn;t even over and minority leader John Boehner is making deals behind the scenes with Democraps and others,,,,Apparently he hasn't gotten the hint that that is exactly the sort of Bull we are sick and tired of in Washington...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101022/ap_ ... e_promises

Boehner offers plum committees to GOP challengers

Associated Press Writers Ray Henry And David A. Lieb, Associated Press Writers – 3 mins ago

ATLANTA – Deep in rural Georgia, the Republican who may become the next speaker of the U.S. House is playing let's-make-a-deal with voters.

Minority Leader John Boehner promised this week that if southwest Georgia residents unseat Democratic Rep. Sanford Bishop, he will support placing GOP challenger Mike Keown on the House Agriculture Committee. It's a promise designed to get Keown votes in a red-soil district that harvests the nation's largest peanut and pecan crop.

This is the kind of crap that can lose an election by turning people off before it even begins,,,The Democraps have to go for sure, but the Republicans , if victorious better be forewarned that they will enjoy a very short majrity if this kind of stuff is going on.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

- George Santayana


And that, boys and girls, is how the Tea Party came to be.


Remember in November

Amen to that! A clean sweep is the best thing I can think of for DC,, If they even try to put Boehner in as Speaker the country needs to derail that the minute it starts and let it be known there will be hell to pay ....

Well, I hate to say it but I honestly wouldnt care if all of the incumbent heads explode the night of 1 November...I'd dance in the streets just like the muslims did on 9/11...

Edit: quite honestly, I trust NONE of them...possibly a small handful are upstanding but who knows for sure with crap like this going on...

Seems to be a trend that all but a few incumbents show they are worthy of our trust...McConnell,Boehner and the likes are too main line Republican for my tastes,,,,They don;t seem to grasp this change for the better concept and want to continue with the same old power brokerage trip....JIm DeMint has the right idea. Screw the status quo and actually listen to the people ,..What a concept,Huh?

I'm a little lost on the outrage here. The next potential Speaker of the House is simply letting the constituents of a district with strong agricultural economics know that he'll try to get a representative they might vote for on a committee about agriculture. If the guy is elected, he's gonna be on many committees no matter what... might as well put him on a committee of importance to his constituents. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. With each new Congress, committee assignments are shaken up. And given the expected turn over this time, there is gonna be a lot of vacant seats on a lot of committees that will need to be filled by incoming representatives.

I'm with you, Andy,

Nothing underhanded, no back-room dealing here. Just politics the way it has been played since the Sixth Day. Not even the untimely cranial detonation of all incumbents is gonna change it.

Regards,

George

VBshooter wrote:Seems to be a trend that all but a few incumbents show they are worthy of our trust...Screw the status quo and actually listen to the people ,..What a concept,Huh?

Therein lies the whole problem, we no longer have (and have not had for a loooooong time) a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Hopefully, the Tea Party movement will be able to shake things up enough to actually effect some meaningful change.

That is real Hope and Change!

LFS wrote:I'm a little lost on the outrage here. The next potential Speaker of the House is simply letting the constituents of a district with strong agricultural economics know that he'll try to get a representative they might vote for on a committee about agriculture. If the guy is elected, he's gonna be on many committees no matter what... might as well put him on a committee of importance to his constituents. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. With each new Congress, committee assignments are shaken up. And given the expected turn over this time, there is gonna be a lot of vacant seats on a lot of committees that will need to be filled by incoming representatives.

I think my angst comes from all of the posturing the candidates do...elections have become a popularity contest. There is very little if any focus on what they stand for. Most, if not all for some candidates, campaigning is directed at how bad the other candidate is or making deals.

I for one want to hear honest discourse from a candidate on what they stand for...who they are...and what they intend to do and not do...for instance, how often do you hear ANY candidate have as part of their platform and stump that they will support the Constitution and defend our rights? Not just gun rights BTW but ALL of them...

IMHO if a candidate has to make deals like this to get votes then they probably arent worthy of the office...

How about if he makes this deal -- if you vote for me then I will support the Constitution and as the next potential speaker NO bill will pass the House unless it conforms to the Constitution...

Now, now, DK, once again you're violating that most cardinal of government regulations. You are making sense.

I'm with you; the only "deal" being made by any politician needs to be to follow the Constitution as it is written, with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as his or her guiding force. Any other deals are by definition rotten.

X2

Yep...

zephyp wrote:if you vote for me then I will support the Constitution and as the next potential speaker NO bill will pass the House unless it conforms to the Constitution...

You have my vote zep!

CowboyT wrote:I'm with you; the only "deal" being made by any politician needs to be to follow the Constitution as it is written, with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as his or her guiding force. Any other deals are by definition rotten.

First, there was nothing unconstitutional about the deal. In fact, the Constitution expressly gives each house of Congress the powers to make up the rules in which they operate.

Second, there will always be deals struck in any democracy or any form of government where power is shared. In only outright tyrannical dictatorships will you not find this sort of thing. Even the Emperors of Rome had to make deals.

You can rage on about this issue all you want, but I think that is foolish. And if I were the politician who is the subject of your rage, I wouldn't give you much thought. People who yell at walls and shake their fists to the sky don't tend to be taken very seriously, if at all. Perhaps keeping your cool and raging against something a bit more substantive is a better use of time.

LFS wrote:

CowboyT wrote:I'm with you; the only "deal" being made by any politician needs to be to follow the Constitution as it is written, with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as his or her guiding force. Any other deals are by definition rotten.

First, there was nothing unconstitutional about the deal. In fact, the Constitution expressly gives each house of Congress the powers to make up the rules in which they operate.

Second, there will always be deals struck in any democracy or any form of government where power is shared. In only outright tyrannical dictatorships will you not find this sort of thing. Even the Emperors of Rome had to make deals.

You can rage on about this issue all you want, but I think that is foolish. And if I were the politician who is the subject of your rage, I wouldn't give you much thought. People who yell at walls and shake their fists to the sky don't tend to be taken very seriously, if at all. Perhaps keeping your cool and raging against something a bit more substantive is a better use of time.

Yes, but the tone is poor and reminds people of previous Republican rule. One example:

"I'm in a position not only to have a seat at the table, but to help slice that pie into portions worthy of the needs of the people of the 2nd Congressional District," he said at a recent debate.

It smacks of more pork and big government rather than the limited government and balanced buget people have been asking for. In addition, this appears to be the Republican establishment, particularly Boehner, solidifying their power against "Tea Party" Republicans.

gunderwood wrote: Yes, but the tone is poor and reminds people of previous Republican rule. One example:

"I'm in a position not only to have a seat at the table, but to help slice that pie into portions worthy of the needs of the people of the 2nd Congressional District," he said at a recent debate.

It smacks of more pork and big government rather than the limited government and balanced buget people have been asking for. In addition, this appears to be the Republican establishment, particularly Boehner, solidifying their power against "Tea Party" Republicans.

Good point. And it maybe that politicians don't realize how bad it is right now. DC has a reality distortion field.

I was just noting the emphasis on the Constitution. We should remember that the current system of earmarking, while unethical, is completely Constitutional. A Constitutional amendment limiting the size of government maybe necessary.

Granted it is going to happen and it has always has been taken for granted, What really pissed me off was that Boehner isn't even in the Speakers job yet and he';s wheeling and dealing like a street corner dope dealer.. A little restraint would go a long way to reassure people that it won;t just be the old Republican way in a new wrapper..It's like he and McConnell are settling in before the ballots are even counted and IMHO those two are not who I want running the show..They would be wise to embrace the Constitution a little more with the political winds blowing as they are and not worry about who they can screw with or influence with their renewed power that is contingent on a Republican sweep of both houses to regain the majorities..

LFS wrote:

gunderwood wrote: Yes, but the tone is poor and reminds people of previous Republican rule. One example:

"I'm in a position not only to have a seat at the table, but to help slice that pie into portions worthy of the needs of the people of the 2nd Congressional District," he said at a recent debate.

It smacks of more pork and big government rather than the limited government and balanced buget people have been asking for. In addition, this appears to be the Republican establishment, particularly Boehner, solidifying their power against "Tea Party" Republicans.

Good point. And it maybe that politicians don't realize how bad it is right now. DC has a reality distortion field.

I was just noting the emphasis on the Constitution. We should remember that the current system of earmarking, while unethical, is completely Constitutional. A Constitutional amendment limiting the size of government maybe necessary.

No document, nor any political system on its own is capable of preventing corruption. The Constitution presumes good moral statesmen...of which we are lacking dearly.

@Garrett - yup...and if he makes deals like this then who knows what other deals he will make...I would really like to see these guys stand on their own merits and IMO that doesnt include making deals...and yes I know deal making isnt the norm and they can make their own rules but if we condone this type of behavior then he will make other deals, closed door etc. Our country has ha enough of that already.

VBshooter wrote:Granted it is going to happen and it has always has been taken for granted, What really pissed me off was that Boehner isn't even in the Speakers job yet and he';s wheeling and dealing like a street corner dope dealer.. A little restraint would go a long way to reassure people that it won;t just be the old Republican way in a new wrapper..It's like he and McConnell are settling in before the ballots are even counted and IMHO those two are not who I want running the show..They would be wise to embrace the Constitution a little more with the political winds blowing as they are and not worry about who they can screw with or influence with their renewed power that is contingent on a Republican sweep of both houses to regain the majorities..

I don't see it that way. He was communicating to the people of that district something vital to their interests, which would also help in getting another Republican elected. Say what you want about Boehner, but he has done a very good job of keeping his minority coalition in line since Obama was elected. And the way you keep them in line now is by promising them committee positions when the tables are turned.

The Senate is a different story. Why the Republicans let Kagan out of committee is beyond me. At least they've held off cap-and-trade.