Boehner resignation bad for Bush

Let's just go ahead and indulge a pretend argument. It's mental. But helps sorting.

The subject is CNN Politics, two authors, John Boehner's resignation spells trouble for Jeb Bush a pleasing headline that attracts clicks.

The article begins acknowledging grassroots insurrection infuriated with failure of system of checks and balances. This election cycle, insiders are out, outsiders are in, and the split in the party created by hotheads will make any party standard bearer like Bush a difficult win.

The next few paragraphs describe events as we know them. Nothing to argue with here. Although Mickey Kaus takes issue with the assertion that Boehner's departure might be bigger than Cantor's loss.

Doug Heye, a Cantor aide is still confused. He refers to an amusing Yogi Bera phrasing that does not make sense applied to Republican situation. Heye says Republicans have come to a fork in the road and the question is if they will take it. Heye adds, "There are a lot of people who wanted to fight, all we could do is fight Obama, the Democrats nonstop, or do we have a strategy of not just throwing punches but landing punches.

The answer is yes, yes, and yes. What's the problem with fighting nonstop landing punches or not? Conservatives saw their representatives holding punches while the crazy in Democrats produces roundhouses nonstop. He is admitting he is not up to the task by confusing strategy with throwing and landing punches and with cute Yogi Bera phrasings about forks and roads.

A sensible rephrasing is, we have come to a parting of the ways. And one way or another there is a parting. A split. Perhaps a visual representation would be helpful ... here.

nice and orderly as ever  vs hit 'em in the face with a board

The analysis is GOP loses the general by advancing Bush and GOP is incredibly slow on the uptake. The writers mention that even with outsiders taking elections throughout recent cycles establishment GOP still advances names like Romney and McCain. This is not happening for Bush.

All that is fine.

Peter King (R NY) speaks up. He does not care for the turn of events within his party. Boehner's resignation is: "throwing raw meat" (to senseless animals) to a "small but loud faction" He still has not looked behind him. He's riding the crest of the wave without any sense of the storm surge tidal forces that gave him majority, he still thinks all that is pendulum-swinging natural with some small but loud faction of crazy interrupting his smooth sailing the ship of state.

It's important to know what the dope looks like. When you see him you'll know he's too thick to perceive the what whys and wherefores disrupting party for failure of representation, dereliction of duty. King moans, "This has never happened before in our country. Where a person doing a job, the Speaker of the House, was removed from office, by a small faction because they want these unreasonable demands that if you don't agree with them they shut the government down. This is insanity.

Spoken like a true Democrat, Asshole.

Still stuck on the small faction. Buddy, you haven't been out.

He has the bit about who shuts down government reversed. This is what conservatives are talking about. It is Obama who shut down the government by his inability to cooperate, the tiny insignificant faction he keeps referring to is the conservative majority and King is flat not having it sink in. 

Start packing, King, you're not cut out for the task at hand immediate or otherwise. A quick history lesson about this not happening before. 

Let's have a timeline thing.

In the beginning there was nothing. No political parties. George Washington delivered a warning about the formation of political parties, the damage they do while recognizing their probable unfortunate inevitability. The core ideas in the speech are Washington's. The speech is written mostly by Madison. Hamilton was hired to edit an intermediate draft penned by Washington and rid it of the bitterness that Washington wrote.

So we have the nice version. 

Washington's anguish: National union forms the bedrock of collective and individual happiness. Political parties reinforce division with local factors the source of petty differences. Parties were one of two threats Washington perceived, internal and external. Washington warned of the baneful effects of the spirit of party. Parties allow a small but artful and enterprising minority to put in place the will of the party in place of the delegated will of the nation.

But power of government is too attractive to avoid the formation of parties of interest. Influence is bought and sold  immediately. Schemes plotted, kickbacks, mutual support, bribery and graft, favors, gifts, the lot. The Democratic party formed on its own as nebulous intermingling of interests and without a name coalescing around Jefferson's and Madison's Democratic-Republicans in the 1790's, formed in opposition to centralizing policies of the new Federalist party. At that time the newly forming Federalists run by Hamilton who wanted more central federal control while the early Democrat party wanted less. Founded in 1828, the Democrat party is oldest in the world. 

We look at this in terms of crackpots who desperately want government to do something for them, to fashion government into their monster. At first it was Federalists, the Pro- Administration party, a coalition of businessmen and bankers, organizing for more government control and Democrats invented to check them. 

This term, Democrat-Republican is cause for confusion. The term "Old Republican" refers to these and not to an earlier form of modern Republican Party. The interests were split then over Federalist principles applied to the purchase of Louisiana territory, over the results of the war of 1812, over measures taken against the strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, tariffs to protect factories, chartering the Second National Bank, promoting strong Navy and Army and internal improvements. All counter to U.S. Constitution, the basis of Republican thinking. The split in support for these essentials caused the party to lose influence and elements recombined and reform to a new party in mid 1800's, the Whigs. These Whigs operated for twenty years supporting the supremacy of Congress over the presidency, they put up four presidents themselves. They disintegrated over the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories. They were sent to check the crazy and they did very well until they were split themselves and could no longer do it. 

This "Speaker of the House" not being put out before ever in U.S. history, not by a small "faction of crazies." Maybe not just so, Mr. King, but entire political parties disintegrated because they simply are not up to the task. The same as your party today.

Mr King, The Speaker of the House was not put out. He resigned. He saw the split caused by party ineffectiveness inviting "the crazies"  and acted on his own. You, Mr. King, were sent to check the Democrat crazy and failed. That's the crazy of the opposing party, not the crazy you perceive coming behind you in your own party to chew you up. 

So that's King, seeing his party go the way of the Federalists, the way of the Democrat-Republicans, the way of the Whigs while one thing stays constant, reliable and ever present, the catch basin for American crazy, the oldest political party on Earth. As far as brakes on ambition of crazies go, Mr. King, you and your cohorts suck. Be disappointed. The feeling is mutual.

Kasich believes Boehner's resignation reflects the general dysfunction in Washington. Look how Kasich describes dysfunction in Washington. Would it be representatives failing to represent? Would it be executive branch overreach? Would it be SCOUS blending with Executive branch instead of twisting off their unconstitutional heads and dropkicking them across the marble courtroom floor? Could it be the dysfunction of Failure Theater™Republican helpless spinning of wheels and cute Parliamentarian maneuvers in the night. No. It's the dysfunction of not giving the servant sufficient respect. 

"Where people cannot even honor somebody who has dedicated their life to public service... He built the largest Republican majority in modern time... I guess no good deed goes undone or unpunished because some of the most savage attacks on him come from Republicans."

We honored his sartorial choices, his ties. What more do you want? He was there to check the crazy and he failed. Spare us your personality cult. Knock it off with "dedicated his life to public service." He was sent to check the crazy not join a class of elitist managers, not dedicate his life to public service. There is no such thing. Stop saying that, please. It will not be honored.

He did no such building. He presided over the majority given to him by the hard work of others. He did not build it. You're another one, Kasich. It's not about him and it's not about you and your "pubic service."  His unwillingness to represent went punished. The attacks came from exactly where they should have come from, voters disgusted with not being represented. You have the honor thing reversed, Kasich. You honor the voter, not they honor you. There will be no honoring of the politician. Democrats do that. You'll want to join them.

We know what the dope looks like.

Geoff Garin, Democratic pollster, (that would be crazy partisan pollster unable to ask the right questions and incapable of analyzing results), president of Hart research, so doubly, triply crazy, recently polled for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, questions whether Republican party can survive as coherent and functioning political entity.

I'd say, if Republicans cannot halt tax support for one abortion service provider and do that immediately with all the help they've been given, then the answer is resounding, "No." Not presently.

"The brinksmanship over shutting down the government in a futile effort to defund Planned Parenthood has not done the Republican Party any favors.

Too many adjectives. Brinkmanship is too delicate. GOP base has HAD it their continuing appropriations resolutions. And ALL talk of shutdown by government experts is 100% bogus. They have always HELPED GOP not hurt them. All his talk of perceptions are Democrat perceptions they're Washington insider perceptions they are wrong and they are in no way reflective of conservative base perceptions. That he is a pollster and that he bases his opinions on them means he is too mal-informed to heed. Just shut up. His political opinions are not informed, he just thinks so.

This is what the dope looks like:

You just worry about your own party's problems and the conservatives will sort their own house. Your opinions about Republicans, value: nil set. 

For Kasich: Depeche Mode, Master and Servant.