Memo to Speaker Boehner: If You Won a Congessional Majority Because You Pledged to Cut Spending and You Can't Think of a Single Program to Cut Now, Please Go Home

That Congress botched its first-ever public reading of the Constitution is worrisome, but less so than the fact they've spent the past 200 or so years radically misinterpreting it (especially over the past 80 or so years, as the Commerce Clause has become more stretched out than the waistband on former Speaker Dennis "Coach" Hastert's jockstrap.

But c'mon, John Boehner: The only reason you're wielding that comically oversized gavel as Speaker of the House at all is because of public revulsion at outta-control federal spending. And you can't think of one program to cut?

From an interview with NBC's Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: Name a program right now that we could do without.

BOEHNER: I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.

Vid and more here.

That's not exactly an ambush, bub. It's right up there in the softball sweepstakes with Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin to name a newspaper she reads or two Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with.

The GOP got kicked to the curb in 2006 because they were up-to-the-neck-complicit with the profligate and stupid spending (and bellicose) ways of George W. Bush. If after four years in the supposed wilderness you get power and the first thing you do is walk back the suggestion that you're gonna cut $100 billion out of fiscal year 2011 (still without a budget!), and then your main guy bumbles the query above...well, you're not winning any fans among the growing ranks of independents (read: crypto-libertarians) who want a smaller government that does less and costs less.

If Boehner is looking for programs to trim to the bone and cut altogether, he should check out the special 3D issue of Reason mag, which features no fewer than 14 (fourteen!) "way to dismantle a monstrous government, one program at a time."

And if he wants a 10-year plan to balance the budget without raising taxes, he ought to check this out (a more-detailed version will appear in an upcoming ish of Reason).

At the top of this post is Reason.tv's stunningly and depressingly prescient video, "Countdown to Disappointment: Don't Expect the New Congress to Cut Spending."

Hat tip to Boehner bumble: Alan Colmes.

And as long as we're talking about Boehner (my very congressman in southwestern Ohio, alas), I might as well entreat Reason.com readers to help us make more politicians cry by supporting our attempts to defend and expand the world of "Free Minds and Free Markets." Click below or go here and make a tax-deductible contribution to our efforts.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    fiscal year 2011 (still without a budget!),

    There was a continuing resolution that covers about 30-40% of FY 2011. Any remaining budget would only cover the remainder. The $100B cut was calculated by "if we adopted 2008 discretionary spending for FY2011," something that is impossible to do for all of FY2011 now, since the previous majority did adopt a budget for the partial year.

  • ||

    "There was a continuing resolution that covers about 30-40% of FY 2011. Any remaining budget would only cover the remainder. The $100B cut was calculated by "if we adopted 2008 discretionary spending for FY2011," something that is impossible to do for all of FY2011 now, since the previous majority did adopt a budget for the partial year."

    However, this is something that was known waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when they first made that pledge.

    It's like in charge of snow-removal in a Northern city claiming to be surprised by an 'unseasonable' December blizzard.

  • ||

    WORST. CONGRESS. EVER.

    That "Well it's halfway through the year" shit doesn't wash.

    If they had a planned 100m in their secret files, he'd be able to say "We had planned to cut 100m from these (fill in the blank - bullshit programs/agencies/offices) BUT can't since it's halfway through the year."

  • Jeffersonian||

    Word. To not have a big, fat, stupid program's name at the ready for that inevitable question is inexcusable. Surely there's a target out there that's ripe for torpedoing.

    This does not bode well.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's like in charge of snow-removal in a Northern city claiming to be surprised by an 'unseasonable' December blizzard.

    Were they surprised? Or just wasted?

  • Congress||

    “The Constitution was placed in a three-ring binder, and the pages simply stuck together,” said Rexrode.

    That's OK. We'll just deem it read.

  • Jerry||

    It's like those two Republicans who thought they could take the oath of office in front of the TV instead of being actually on the House floor.

  • Skeptic||

    our attempts to defend and expand the world of "Free Minds and Free Markets."

    How's that working out? All I see here is pessimism, cynicism, sarcasm.

  • Rich||

    So, that's working out pretty well.

  • ||

    Oh, you thought the way to "expand the world of free minds and free markets" was by being optimistic and naive about the role of politics and voting in achieving this?

    I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

  • ||

    Come for the markets. Stay for the snark.

  • Bucky||

    ^^^this

  • Ted S.||

    Didn't Obama campaign on the effect that he was going to get make people not be cynical?

    For me, being a cynic is a reaction to the government coercion trying to make me not be a cynic.

  • Rich||

    WILLIAMS: Name a program right now that we could do without.
    BOEHNER: I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.

    With all due respect, WTF?!

    What *is* it with this inability/reticence to be specific? "We won." Spit something out already!

  • ||

    Notice that he could have come up with something, and then not done it, or transfer the money to another office, or name a cut which amounted to squat in actual dollars.

    So this politician was so out to lunch he couldn't even lie or BS on a major issue.

  • Jerry||

    I read up on the debt ceiling thingy, and now actually think it's just another way the Republicans will try to look 'tough' on spending, without actually accomplishing anything. Of course the GOP rather focuses on these silly things than to talk about entitlement reform or real spending cuts.

  • Rich||

    The next eighteen months are the Republicans' last chance. If they do not get real, Boehner will be crying a yummy and sweet river.

  • Tammy Faye Baker||

    It's not like the bitch has to worry about his makeup

  • ||

    Until the next time they run for election promising to cut spending.
    You've been had!
    Republicans ARE NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN fiscally conservative.

  • ||

    The next eighteen months are the Republicans' last chance.

    When you're talking about the 30th "last chance" the spoiled brat doesn't take you seriously anymore.

  • Rather||

    P l e assssse we really, really, really will be good this time and we'll even eat our vegetables-off the butts of hookers, bitches.

  • ||

    "The next eighteen months are the Republicans' last chance."

    FRIEDMAN UNITS RETURN!!!!

    YAY

    Some of the people here will still vote for Lucy after she pulls the football away from your feet again...they're your kind of people, rich and you wanna be in their club. So shut it and want what they want, show some spirit, we can tax cut our way out of anything!

  • ||

    The bottom line will be the budget at the end of the year. We've had Republicans talk a good game in January and come away with nothing in the end. I don't like the way Boehner's talking right now, but it's not what really matters.

  • ||

    They're all sizzle and no steak, meaning they've spent their whole time trying to market NO, and taxcuts for the rich. They haven't really bothered thinking beyond that, like the underpants gnomes. They are 99% marketing/branding and 1% policy. And here you are thinking they've even discussed budgets and cuts? You really didn't get a hint when they let Ryan of Wisconsin come out there with that thin-assed booklet, in like 14 font? They're in the business of winning elections and not much else.

  • ||

    I'm shocked the GOP said one thing during an election cycle and once returned to power immediately went back to gouging the taxpayer.

    Shocked. No one could have seen that coming. Simply unprecedented.

  • Capt. Renault||

    Me too

  • Some Guy||

    +435

  • Rather||

    435? Why not 1k, or do you not go all the way? ;-)

  • Monkey's Uncle||

    Damn squirrels. I was going to ask if you were serious.

  • ||

    Well, this is supporting evidence for the thesis that "Boehner is lazy" as reported to Matt Taibbi. (This article in RS was really good and libertarian friendly.) If Boehner has Ryan taking care of the broad spending cuts for him he need not worry about any of it.

    They didn't read "a republican form of government"??? EW pointed out that Goodlatte stumbled over "the rights of the states" in the 10th amendment and almost didn't read it. I am getting more satisfied that I didn't watch this.

  • Ska||

    How much would it have cost to have Sally Struthers walk out holding a giant turkey leg to end the video?

  • ||

    the Commerce Clause has become more stretched out than the waistband on former Speaker Dennis "Coach" Hastert's jockstrap.

    Thanks for the visual.

  • ||

    Yes I most certainly could have done without that myself.

  • ||

    "We've cut spending to the bone. TO THE FUCKING BONE!!!!"

  • Almanian||

    Roadz, teh childrun, Evul Korporashunzzs, Teh Rich™, Average Americans®, old people eating catfood being eaten by Katrina survivors.

    IOW, Libertopia!!!!!1111

  • Almanian||

    So, no, nothing can be cut, or ^^^^^ this will happen. QED

  • Jeffersonian||

    I know the feeling. My wife and I just can't seem to get by on anything short of $3.7 trillion a year, either.

  • mr simple||

    Maybe this wouldn't have happened if they had just one person read the document out loud, instead of every member of congress read about 8 words. Then the reading would have flowed better and people would notice if a part was skipped. Also, the reps would have had to listen and might have learned something, rather than just waiting for their turn.

  • Mike Laursen||

    That makes no sense. How would they get any photo ops out of that.

  • ||

    Nick: "But c'mon, John Boehner: The only reason you're wielding that comically oversized gavel as Speaker of the House at all is because of public revulsion at outta-control federal spending. "

    Odd, because last I heard, the polls didn't show that. And Republican revulsion at out of control spending didin't seem to be one of the party's talking points until January, 2009.

  • Duh||

    Shush! Thou Shalt Not Dispute The Narrative!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    all my R friends said if we just put team red in they will fix it this time. I am confident that team blue will be successful...err wait...i mean red...i mean...ohh damn. Who am I supposed to be rooting for again?

    The LP should be team mauve

  • Almanian||

    Almsot forgot - meant to fix the headline for you....

    Memo to Speaker Boehner: If You Won a Congessional Majority Because You Pledged to Cut Spending and You Can't Think of a Single Program to Cut Now, Please Go Home

    There we go.

  • Ted S.||

    Why just John Boehner? Why the hell can't they all go home?

  • Rrabbit||

    Why let them go home? Why not put them all in prison?

  • Almanian||

    I don't write the headlines - I just fix 'em....

  • ||

    "Stunningly and depressingly prescient" Yes, only a genius who hasn't spent the last decade under a rock could have foreseen that.

  • l0b0t||

    The comment section on The Hill article about the Constitutional reading is mind-numbingly vapid, full of Team Red/Team Blue bluster & boosterism. I read a great many blogs and (apart from a couple of military blogs frequented by professionals) the commentariat here at H&R is, despite all the rape talk, trolling by retarded Yorkies, & adle-pated theists trying to conflate theoretical physics with their big, invisible sky-friend, the most intelligent, cogent (dare I say reasoned) group of opinion slingers on the whole damn interwebz.

  • Almanian||

    Now yer gonna have to DRINK!

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH WANT RAPE THEIST YORKIE!

  • zoltan||

    Volokh is pretty good too.

  • ||

    I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.

    In other words, Bonehead's thinking is so strictly limited to getting re-elected, he is completely clueless about the actual job he is alleged to be doing.

    Impeach.

  • ||

    Rope.

    Impeachment provides for a second chance.

  • ||

    This article is making a common mistake about Republicans. It's undestandable, because it's such a common mistake, but it's about time it sunk in. Republicans do not care about spending, they care about tax cuts. It's not that Boehner can't name anything. It's that he knows that if he names anything it will be unpopular. You say that the election was about the deficit. It really isn't. Voters like tax cuts, they like spending cuts in theory, but they don't like actual cuts to services. The Republicans figured this out a long time ago. That's why every cycle, they present very specific plans for tax cuts, and very unspecific plans for spending cuts. This is a feature, not a bug of the party. It does wonders for their political success. The sooner people realize the grift that they've been pulling on this country for the last 30 years the better.

  • Richartd Head||

    ^ Trudat

  • Paul||

    Yeah good post except for "the GOP got kicked to the curb in 2006 because of their spending".

    Did the GOP spend a ton? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the outcome in 2006. Let's not be silly. There were 8-10 other factors that ranked above the public's feelings about spending. General incompetence of bush was the biggest one, but there was a cyclical nature to 2006 as well. The GOP was stretched pretty thin in the house and holding a ton of seats that they probably shouldn't have held. Also - the democrats' insanely robust candidate recruitment and new online fundraising tools gave them a pretty big advantage.

  • Duh||

    i seem to remember something about a war, too. and maybe some GOP ethics problems.

  • zoltan||

    Yeah, but that has nothing to do with spending.

  • Memory Loss||

    Yeah good post except for "the GOP got kicked to the curb in 2006 because of their spending".

    Yeah, I seem to remember something about some war too.

  • ||

    Thank Odin that's over with.

  • Bucky||

    obama's biggest success story...
    Free Iraq Now!

  • Jeffersonian||

    I hereby propose a one-time spending increase of $10,000, to be allocated for the purchase of explosives sufficient to demolish the Department of Education building. Said building will be evacuated, its salable fixtures and equipment removed, and the building leveled. Employees of said department shall be laid off.

    There, John, is an annual savings of tens of billions of dollars, previously spent on things we will never, ever miss.

  • Almanian||

    ANARCHY!!! CHAOS!!! CANNIBALISM!!! BEASTIALITY!!! RUN!!! RUUUUUUUUN!!!!!

    *hair on fire*

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's true. I'm old enough to remember the blood in the gutters and the Road-Warrior-level existence we all lived before Jimmy Carter created the DoEd. Women were stolen, cattle were raped.

  • Tim||

    Graduates could read their diplomas.

  • Jeffersonian||

    This is a despicable rumor spread by those who don't pay dues to the NEA and AFT.

  • Almanain||

    PS Drink? I think?

  • Bucky||

    ...where is the FCC housed?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good start, but you'd need more explosives than that, as you left out "and demolish the IRS building".

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm working my way up to the good stuff.

  • Kristen||

    Only problemo is that the Dept of Ed, like everything other bloated bureaucracy in the USG, is spread over several buildings.

    For example, I use dto work in SA-44. State Department Annex #44. Yes, 44.

  • ||

    Man, are you stupid.

  • ||

    Memo to Fonzi: If you voted republican because you believed they were going to actually cut spending, please get a clue.

  • ||

    If you've watched any of The Jacket's appearances on various shows before the election he said flat out that the republicans would be no better once they were back in charge. I seriously doubt he voted for Boehner.

  • ||

    Republicans don't cut spending. They cut taxes. Republicans are entirely consistent about this. They have behaved this way for thirty years. Without exception.

    And y'all haven't noticed this because . . .

  • Almanian||

    Yeah, "we" all missed that. Thanks for pointing it out!

    Ya learm sumpfin ebbyday!

  • ||

    WHAT!? WHY DOESN'T ANYONE TELL ME THESE THINGS?

  • ||

    ""And y'all haven't noticed this because . . .""

    Because it's more fun to ignore reality and call each other names.

  • ||

    It's reason.com, ignoring reality is what we do.

  • db||

    So what's the sock puppet count this morning?

  • ||

    I'd say this thread is running about 35% sockpuppet content. And the major sockpuppets aren't even here. Wait until Rather finally wakes up.

  • Tim||

    Darn those socks!

  • ||

    I'd Rather not.

  • generic shrike post||

    Fuck you, Christ-fags!

  • Duh||

    Golly! Who could have guessed that the party that has never actually demonstrated even a hint of their legendary fiscal responsibility would fail to be interested in actually cutting spending!

  • Tim||

    They're going to cut spending but we need a few more aircraft carriers first.

  • Brett L||

    This is why I vote straight anti-incumbent now unless the rare occasion arises that I think the challenger might be a bigger danger (my count is 1 so far, the crazy former FL Sec of State who ran against Nelson). If I must be ruled by theives and knaves, I prefer them to be inexperienced.

  • Tim||

    "Gypsies, tramps and...theives"

  • robc||

    I vote LP whenever possible (almost always an option in my House district). Both anti-incumbent and I dont have to worry if the guy Im voting for is a bigger danger.

  • Brett L||

    I don't know about the second part. The senate candidate in '10 in FL (Snitker?) worried me quite a bit when he invited his supporters to the WorldNetDaily Conference that disinvited Ann Coulter for not hating teh gayz.

  • ||

    I'm not buying the "well, the fiscal year is already underway" excuse. $100BB is chicken feed in a deficit of over $1.5T. If they can't find multiples of $100BB to cut, even in the relatively small "discretionary" budget, the budget ain't gonna get balanced. Period.

    Its early days, I know, but this Republican House is not inspiring confidence. Yeah, the ObamaCare repeal bill is good, but as a stand-alone its political tool (a good one, to be sure) and nothing more. They need to announce that it will be attached to other legislation.

    If they were serious, they'd attach it to debt ceiling resolution, along with real cuts (by real cuts, I mean the elimination of entire programs; start with the ethanol subsidy).

  • Tim||

    Our boys in uniform need an underwater tank that fires lightning. It's the only way we can ensure our future.

  • ||

    ""Its early days, I know, but this Republican House is not inspiring confidence.""

    Did you expect it to?

    ""the elimination of entire programs; start with the ethanol subsidy.""

    Didn't the republicans give us ethanol subsidies? Will they ever cut the programs that filled their pockets will K street money?

    The best way not to get lobby money in the future is to shoot them in the back after they gave you cash. All on Capitol hill knows that.

  • Bucky||

    GA-Faux!

  • ||

    You do realize that "faux" is pronounced "fou".

    Idiot.

  • creech||

    A few tea partiers of my acquaintance are really riled up this morning about Boehner. {They didn't like him for speaker, but no one else stepped up}.
    Why aren't these bozos each walking around with a 12" binder full of detail on programs to cut? For Galt's sake, send your legislative assistant over to Cato's office or Paul Ryan's office.

  • ||

    Correct me if Im wrong but I don't think the tea partiers have come up with any specific cuts they want. As others have pointed out everyone wants cuts in the abstract but no one wants actual cuts. Has anyone from the tea party named an actual program or agency that should be cut?

  • ||

    Kinda sux to realize you've been played for suckers, huh?

    Maybe you and the Tea Party can have a big ol' boo-hoo together.

    But just for future reference: Charlie Brown NEVER gets to kick the football.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, because none of the libertarians here predicted this would happen.

    Except for about 95% of us. Nice try, though.

    For future reference: try harder.

  • mr simple||

    But BP, We're the reason their guy didn't win. Don't you know we're all closet [other party].

  • Almanain||

    we're all closet [other party]

    Psychiatrist: How long have you had these feelings?

    [*all* libertardiantypes]: Forever.

    Psychiatrist: Most people are Red or Blue. Why do you think you're not?

    [*all* libertardiantypes]: I don't like red OR blue. I'm more into...I dunno, black. Or purple. Or green. Whatever.

    Psychiatrist: And how does that make you feel?

    [*all* libertardiantypes]: Like punching Team Blue and Team Red politicos and their followers in the FACE!

    *lab-coated assistants rush in with straightjacket and tranquilizers*

  • Ted S.||

  • Kristen||

    Epic lack of comprehension

  • ||

    New around here?

  • ||

    Here's one for you, Boner- tax credits for electric cars.

    Or you could just pull the plug on the TSA scanner program, you useless pussy.

  • ||

    ""Or you could just pull the plug on the TSA scanner program, you useless pussy.""

    Could, but look who makes those scanners.

  • ||

    Here's the really bad news: Your agenda is unpopular. The elephant in the room is ignorance of basic civics.

  • ||

    WHAT!? WHY DOESN'T ANYONE TELL ME THESE THINGS?

  • Almanain||

    They're working on a new government agency to take care of that.

  • Liberal||

    The 2010 election was all about Obama's failure to close Gitmo.

  • Anarchist||

    The 2010 election was all about government still existing.

  • Theocrat||

    The 2010 election was a message to Democrats: accept Jesus or suffer the consequences.

  • NAMBLA member||

    The 2010 election was a referendum on the lack of congressional page raping.

  • ||

    The elephant in the room is ignorance of basic civics math.

  • ||

    they didn't win by promising to cut spending. most won small not nationally publisized races by promising old people they would protect medicare after the dems enacted deficite reducing cuts in the heathcare bill.

  • ||

    And so, the realization continues slowly sinking in to the Reason folks that, by desperately supporting the election of GOPers, they prostituted themselves to frauds.

    I realized a long time ago to never take any politician of any leaning or party at his or her word. So when, after they are elected, they go back on their promises for any reason, I'm neither shocked nor outraged. Instead, I spend my energy deciding whether what they're doing is an over-all good thing, regardless of whether they promised it or not, and decide based on that whether to support them at the next election.

    Why are so many Americans seemingly incapable of understanding how to do this? Even allegedly intelligent ones who write for magazines?

  • ||

    Start reading here, clueless one.

  • ||

    You leftists expect him to just spew his whole game plan to Brian Williams and the Democrats, huh? To give him the stick with which to beat him?

    No wonder you've been so soundly beaten.

  • cynical||

    True, if they keep a secret which programs they want to cut, Democrats will hide the programs and then act like they don't know where they are.

    They'll be all like "What? Department of Education? Yeah, now that you mention it, that does sound familiar. But I could have sworn we got rid of that along time ago. Or did we even have one? I think you're thinking of Canada -- yeah, I remember now, Canada had one and we saw it at their place. I talked about wanting to get one, but we never did. Oh well, maybe you can find something else to cut, like the military or whatever."

  • cynical||

    If they don't keep secret, rather.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Funny. But the dude is right. Boehner would be an idiot to give a direct answer to that question right now.

  • Ahhh... ||

    They told me if I voted for Democrats in the last election, spending wouldn't be cut, and Obamacare wouldn't be repealed... and they were right!

  • ||

    Of course they won't remove anything like ethanol subsidies. That would make Monsanto mad. As you might discover at some point, the current Republicans are not pro-business, they are pro corporation. And corporations don't like free markets because they might allow some upstart to take business. And they certainly don't want their wonderful wonderful subsidies to stop.

    Most corporations hate laissez faire. They want extreme government control, just as long as that government control benefits them.

  • Draco||

    And who owns the corporations? Oh yes, that's right. I forgot. The American people through their IRAs and 401Ks.

    So let me draw the logical conclusion (assuming that corporations attempt to put into effect the wishes of their owners): Americans who own securities (including the 100 million + who have retirement plans) hate Laissez Faire, and want extreme government control as long as it benefits them. How's that? Better?

    By the way, I don't know about you but I also tend to be in favor of what benefits me. I'm kind of funny that way I guess.

  • ||

    This is a lil nonsequitor, as the point was to mention Republicans don't support what the writers at Reason do, but it is certainly something to discuss.

    It's a very logical conclusion at face value. I am guessing you aren't protesting the idea laissez faire is bad then. You do favor what benefits you, as you said and companies doing well benefits you, so you support ethanol subsidies, aggressive use of imminent domain, extremely long copyright rights and the like. Or at least you do if your 401k has corn producers, ethanol producers and drug companies in its portfolio. If you owned an Ag company trying to make sustainable biodiesal or a corporation that makes generic drugs, those government controls and subsidies would probably make you quite irate.

    Of course this all hinges on your arguement of US citizens 'owning' the corporations and thus the corporations do what their 'owners' want, hence what is good for GM is good for the country. This is a real rabbit hole of an assumption though.

    I could mention that plenty of foreign investors own large sums of these stocks. I could try to argue about the disparity in desires between the person who owns 10% of a corporation and the guy who has 100 shares of it in his 401k. I could argue about some percentage of those 100million + people use a mutual fund and have little to know idea what corporations they are in part ownership of. I could note how so many corporate execs screwed over their 'owners' while extracting millions for themselves. But no..those would take a while and have caveats.

    More importantly, the premise itself is wrong. Publicly traded equities and bonds do not equal the full market and corporations often stand in opposition to each other. one company's new invention or innovation is another company's lost market share. Massive government controls that favor the powerful and capital-strong benefit those corporations and might bring the stock price up a point or two, but a fading tide lowers all ships.

  • cynical||

    "And so, the realization continues slowly sinking in to the Reason folks that, by desperately supporting the election of GOPers, they prostituted themselves to frauds"

    lolwhut.

    Maybe the conservatarians, but the ordinary Reasoner never figured the Republicans for anything but hypocrites. There was some faint hope they would do better than the last Congress (not a high hurdle at all), but it wasn't an expectation.

  • l0b0t||

    ^^This.
    Also, haven't the H&R threads of the past 2 years been full of comments taking Reason writers to task for voting the Hopey McChange/Plagiarizing Douche-Bag ticket?

  • Gridlock||

    that is all

  • Southern Beale||

    But ... but ... but ... they read the CONSTITUTION! On the House floor! For the first time EVER!

    And that changes EVERYTHING!!

    Suckaz.

  • ||

    "well, you're not winning any fans among the growing ranks of independents (read: crypto-libertarians)"

    Proof please. I've seen nothing to indicate that libertarians are any more than the 5% they've been for the last 40 years. Tea partiers marching to keep government's hands off medicare are not libertarians. They're just idiots.

  • ||

    Hell, even I could have told you the Republicans aren't going to cut spending.

  • Jason Feffer||

    Boehner got stumped. He has the charisma, but I don't see the Conservative DNA in him that will keep the Tea Party momentum going into 2012.

  • ||

    Emperor Palpatine would like to thank you Libertarians. You have been quite useful.

  • Hurr Durr||

    Hurr

  • ||

    You mean the Republicans are frauds?

    shock

  • ||

    Boehner could shout "Hell no" again.
    That might reduce the deficit.

  • Dano||

    Memo to Ohio Tea Party members: start your primary challenge for Boehner's seat. That, like nothing else, will get his attention.

  • ||

    If you don't understand why Palin did not answer Couric's question...then you will never understand why Boehner did not tell a liberal newsman what he planned to do.

    Let me give you a hint.

    Dial back your memory to 2008 and the contest between Hillary and Obama. Whatever she was for...he made fun of and mocked her. Two days later that was his platform issue "that he was always for and if you didn't know that, then you were not paying attention".

    He did the same with Palin and McCain.

    He knocked them down...then pretended that their programs were his...

    Obama wants to follow the leader by cutting him down, then taking his programs and making them his own. We have seen this so many times that it is comical.

    Yet, for some reason, Dems and Progressives do not notice this at all. Especially the writers and reporters who are so prolific on Obama but have no clue as to how he works.

    Republicans are smart enough to not give away any more of their plans to Obama so that he can claim credit for them.

    Obama lies and Obama steals every day in every way.

  • yes||

    This is critical of Republicans. This must mean you support the Obama agenda. Derp derp derp.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement