Van Hollen On House GOP: 'Speaker Boehner Is Not In Control'

[ProSense]

Van Hollen On House GOP: 'Speaker Boehner Is Not In Control'

Evan McMorris-Santoro

<...>

"Speaker Boehner is not in control," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said on a conference call with reporters when asked about the prospects of a shutdown by TPM. "The tea party caucus has their hands on the steering wheel and they are prepared to drive right into a government shut down if they don't get 100% of their demands met."

<...>

"To pretend that they care about deficit reduction here when their real goal is to use this budget battle to impose that social agenda is becoming more obvious everyday," Van Hollen said.

He says that the man leading the negotiations for the Republicans in Congress, Boehner, has become nothing more than a proxy for his party's far-right extreme.

"None of us of course know how this is going to turn out," Van Hollen said, "but the Speaker is not in control of this process."

"He's being pushed rather than leading," Van Hollen said.

[Ramulux]

1. Is this a joke?

John Boehner and the republicans have completely and totally controlled this entire debate while democrats sat back and agreed with almost all of his outlandish demands.

Its fucking pathetic listening to democrats trying to pretend like they are pulling some sort of secret smart last-minute strategy or something. We lost, and we lost because our leaders have no principles or convictions and didn't even attempt to offer up an alternative way of looking at how to reduce the deficit. Its either insane, draconian, unrealistic cuts or just a lot of cuts. There aren't two sides to this debate.

[ProSense]

3. No,

but I'm laughing at this comment.

[Ramulux]

4. What?

[ProSense]

15. I said:

"I'm laughing at this comment."

How many of Boehners' teabagger-driven legislation made it out of Congress?

[ClarkUSA]

8. What garbage! Prove that "democrats sat back and agreed with almost all of his outlandish demands."

Just today, President Obama issued a veto threat, so it appears you are wrong on all counts.

In fact, here's my proof that you're wrong via today's New York Times:

Mr. Boehner expressed disappointment that the president had vowed to veto a new Republican-backed stopgap measure that the House passed on Thursday by a vote of 247 to 181.... Congressional officials said that the sparring over money had gotten down essentially to a fight over $5 billion or less. Mr. Boehner, whose bid for $40 billion in spending cuts was rejected on Wednesday, came back on Thursday with a proposal for $39 billion in cuts, the officials said, while the Democrats’ top budget aides, working through the night, returned Thursday morning with a proposal for $34.5 billion in cuts, $3 billion of it coming from Pentagon spending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/us/politics/08fiscal.html

Note that the Teabaggers in the House had campaigned on getting $100 billion in cuts. Now they are lowering their sights all the way down to $40 billion and the Democrats are rejecting it, too.

What's "fucking pathetic" is the bullshit "democrats are weak" meme that are constantly pushed around here that mirror RNC talking points. What's "insane" is that facts don't seem to matter to Obama's opponents on either side of the aisle, as long as they can get their licks in.

[Ramulux]

9. Insane

First off, the teabagger number is absurd and not realistic in the slightest and should not even be part of these negotiations.

John Boehner wants $40 billion in cuts. We are giving him $34.5 billion. How is that not anything short of complete and total defeat. He got 7/8 of what he wanted and we got nothing. This was not a negotiation. This was republicans pulling a massive childish stunt and democrats just going along with it. The idea of cutting all this in the middle of a recession is fucking insanity, yet somehow you are claiming victory because we got the republicans down to 34.5 from 40? billion? There is no other side to this argument. Its not republicans saying they want cuts and democrats saying they want tax increases, its republicans demanding something and democrats demanding nothing.

We lost this entire debate because no case was made by us. We have completely and totally allowed the republicans to push this idea that the only way to reduce the deficit is with massive cuts to non-defense spending. There was no counter, no democrats demanding something in return for these cuts, no compromise, just republican demands and democratic capitulation.

How you see this budget negotiation as anything other than a complete and total surrender is beyond me.

[ClarkUSA]

10. It's clear that you are unable to objectively prove your claim, given the facts I have shown you

For the Teabagger House to go from loudly demanding $100B at the beginning of their term in Congress to possibly settling in the neighborhood of $34.5B is nothing less than a resounding and embarrassing defeat for their 2010 RNC talking point campaign promises to their base, given that Democrats started their negotiation at $10B.

It's easy to see which side compromised more when you look at the numbers objectively. Hint: It isn't President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as you are falsely claiming, Ramulux.

[Ramulux]

23. You ignored everything I said

and didn't respond to a single point I made. If you dont offer up a counter argument to the points I make, I cant respond to you.

[ClarkUSA]

25. You are entitled to your opinion but I am more of a fact-based type of person.

I just disagree with you on all of your "points" because of the facts I mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to share your POV, though. This is a discussion forum and I realize that many of us look at things differently.

[vroomvroom]

12. Ramulux, you are not alone -- 100% Agree with you. nt

[ClarkUSA]

13. Why do you agree with him? The facts bear neither of you out.

Or don't the facts matter to you?

[Hippo_Tron]

2. That's what John Boehner would have us believe

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. He's a twit!

[msongs]

5. good thing for Boner that Obama is yet again asking dems to compromise more and more eh? nt

[ProSense]

6. "good thing for Boner"

that the teabaggers have him on a short leash?

Can Boehner Really Deliver?

David Kurtz

Just a quick observation on the budget talks. There's a difference between being a negotiator and having the authority to negotiate, and I'm starting to wonder if Speaker Boehner has full negotiating authority from the House GOP conference. It's a big difference, and it can affect how negotiations proceed.

A negotiator with limited negotiating authority can present his side's case and listen to the other side's. He can dicker some and argue back and forth. But when push comes to shove, that kind of negotiator is basically a messenger, not a principal -- and that makes it difficult to do get a deal done.

It can lead to what we're seeing here: frequent short negotiating sessions that are interrupted so that the negotiator on a short leash can confer with his principals, pass on the latest message and devise a response. It short circuits one of the features of an intense negotiation, which is to create a pressure-cooker environment that melts away the extraneous issues and forces the parties to deal with the core disagreements.

If you've ever been in a negotiation where the opposite side is a loosely associated group or committee, like the House GOP conference is, you know how frustrating it can be not to have a fully empowered negotiator representing them. All of your efforts to nail down the specifics are rebuffed with marshmellowy vagueness. The harder you press, the mushier they get.

more

Obama Threatens to Veto House GOP Bill As Lawmakers Predict Shutdown

[Logical]

7. Damn, this will mean more crying! n-t

[jeanpalmer]

11. Everyone knows how this is going to end

Obama has already signalled he wants to compromise. He's willing to give them a lot of what they want. And the Republicans know it. Keep giving them half of what they want, and over time they get it all.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Wrong. The Teabagger House campaigned on cutting $100B from the budget in 2010.

For the Teabagger House to go from loudly demanding $100B at the beginning of their term in Congress to possibly settling in the neighborhood of $34.5B is nothing less than a resounding and embarrassing defeat for their 2010 RNC talking point campaign promises to their base, given that Democrats started their negotiation at $10B.

It's easy to see which side compromised more when you look at the numbers objectively. Hint: It isn't President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as you are falsely claiming, jeanpalmer

Proof of how low Republicans might go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=647641&mesg_id=647700

[jeanpalmer]

16. Meanwhile, the country continues

its march to Armageddon while these two parties try to score cheap political points. The cuts have to be much bigger than $30 billion, or even $100 billion, and it has to come out of defense spending. Neither of these parties is serious. I expect that of Republicans, but not the party I've voted for.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Meanwhile, the doomsday rhetoric and Democratic Party bashing continues... regardless of the facts.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. The Teabaggers should ask to refund war spending - millions for warplanes

the amount spent in Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for trillions of cups of tea.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Heh... I'd pay for you to say that to Rand Paul's squirrelly face.

;)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. A teabag for every $ spent in Afganistan - would be quite a mound!

one enormous heap - can you imagine if it was constructed outside the congress. offices?

[DCBob]

19. The more I hear Chris speak the more I like him.. .

He is rapidly growing into the voice and face of the of Democratic party. I suspect we will see this guy running for higher office in the near future. He has been my congressman since 2002 when he beat a very popular left leaning Republican Connie Morella.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. He is one of the best