The Speaker of the House of Representatives is two heartbeats away from the Presidency, and is the top constitutional officer in the legislative branch of government.
The Speaker is chosen by the majority party in the chamber, and he has responsibilities which include introducing the President of the United States at a State of the Union address, and all other special speakers to a joint session of Congress, including foreign government leaders. The Speaker has been second in line of succession to the Presidency since the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
The Speakership has had its major figures historically, including those for whom House Office Buildings are named: Joseph Cannon, Nicholas Longworth, Sam Rayburn, and Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. It also has had a President, James K. Polk, and two Vice Presidents, Schuyler Colfax and John Nance Garner, as Speakers. It also had three Presidential nominees, John Bell, James G. Blaine and Henry Clay.
Henry Clay was the greatest single figure in the whole history of Congress, who ran for President three times, including against Polk in 1844. It also has had Thomas B. Reed, who promoted the growth of the office to its all time greatest authority, continuing under Joseph Cannon.
It also had John McCormack, who played a major role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and much of the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson. Had there been no 25th Amendment passed in 1967, Carl Albert would have succeeded Richard Nixon when he resigned in 1974. Were it not for Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to be Speaker, there would have been no ObamaCare legislation passed in 2010.
It was a rebellion of progressives in the Republican Party in 1910 , in combination with the minority Democrats, that created a “revolution” in House rules, stripping the Speaker of the absolute control of events that existed under Thomas B. Reed and Joseph Cannon, but still the office has played a major role in American history.
Since the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, after 40 years of being in the minority, and keeping control except for 2007-2011, the Speakership has become an office of disaster and controversy.
First, Newt Gingrich became very confrontational with Bill Clinton, and caused crisis after crisis, until he was forced to resign, with his private scandalous love life being discovered as Bill Clinton faced impeachment for his own scandalous love life. Bob Livingston was supposed to succeed Gingrich, but his own private scandalous love life prevented that, so Dennis Hastert, a back bencher, became Speaker, lasted longer than any Republican in the position, and avoided most controversy, until now in retirement we have learned of his abuse of male students while a teacher and wrestling coach in high school in the years before he engaged in politics.
John Boehner came into the Speakership under Barack Obama, and faced a Tea Party rebellion, which prevented ability to negotiate, and finally, he lost the confidence of his party, and decided to resign, but his planned successor, Kevin McCarthy, self destructed in the past two weeks, and decided yesterday that he would not run for Speaker, uncertain of support of the Tea Party element. So now Boehner is back temporarily, and there is a major crisis among House Republicans as to who would be acceptable as an alternative, with Paul Ryan, head of the House Ways and Means Committee and 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, being pressured to take the job, but not wanting to take it.
The Speakership is in crisis, and the Republican Party has done great damage to the position in the past 21 years, and besmirched the historical reputation of the position and of the House of Representatives, and the only way to retrieve it is the hope that, somehow, the Democrats can regain control in 2016, but considered highly unlikely!
Excellent post on The People’s View. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/10/7/butting-heads-the-roles-of-empathy-and-understanding-among-todays-political-parties
D brought up in an earlier post about which is more important for us to win – Congress or the President? My answer to that is both.
Even if a Dem wins the White House next year, if we can’t take back both the House and the Senate, with exception of a Dem president replacing one or more Supreme Court justices (which is hugely important), the GOP will continue to obstruct and wait for the next economic downturn. That’s their ace in the hole, in my view. In 2012 the Dems received one million more votes than did the Kochheads and still couldn’t take back the House, thanks to gerrymandering made possible by the 2010 Dem voter midterm sit-out.
They will then likely hold the country hostage and demand that their budget agenda (which is designed to exacerbate the situation and cause more long term damage to our country) is implemented for them to make some mild concessions for addressing the immediate economic crisis if/when it occurs. Actually, the dysfunction could eventually result in everything collapsing at anytime in the near future. This is the danger in which the 2010 and 2014 voter sit-out has put us. I’m not getting caught up in the “GOP implosion” talk. I’m looking at the big picture and it ain’t a pretty one.
LOL! Some Faux Snooze analyst wants Darth Cheney for Speaker.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/fox-news-analyst-dick-cheney-speaker
Washington Post has a list of demands the Freedumb Caucus is insisting any speaker sign onto:
>No debt ceiling increase without gutting social security and Medicare.
>Permanent gov’t shutdown until Obamacare is repealed, Planned Parenthood is dissolved, the Iran deal is voided, and more.
>Handing much of the speaker’s power over to them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/09/it-doesnt-matter-who-the-next-speaker-is-because-this-is-a-permanent-conservative-rebellion/
Princess Leia, there is simply no way that the demands of the “Freedom Caucus” can be agreed to, as it is, fundamentally, an overthrow of the entire government system.
This is a Fascist attempt at a takeover, and moderate conservative Republicans need to join with Democrats to create a coalition government to prevent this great danger to American democracy!
There is no negotiating with terrorists, which the so called Freedom Caucus is, so they must be isolated at all costs, and forget party lines and do what is good for the American people at large!
Now we are really off the rails! Fascist attempt at a takeover…There is no negotiating with terrorists, which the so called Freedom Caucus is..” OMG you guys are really really out there in left field. So one must agree 100%, one must comply 100% with the left wing agenda, otherwise you are a terrorist! LOL This is insane, amusing but nonetheless insane…
The American people, at large, are NOT going to accept the “Freedom Caucus” agenda.
It would set back all of the progress of the past century, the New Deal and Great Society, and make the nation ever more an oligarchy of the elite wealthy and religious zealots working together.
Chris Hayes interview O’Malley about the debates, etc.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/omalley-champing-at-the-bit-for-1st-debate-541392963716
“We are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.
(Nearly 40% of Americans identify as conservatives while only 24% as liberals see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx ). Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well. I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” (Today they say “These damn Tea Party extremist are ideologues, purist”) Whatever ideology may mean — and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it — it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world.
Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind.”
It’s hilarious watching the Republican establishment freak out over who will be the next Speaker of the House. They thought they had everything lined up to hold the power forever until John Boehner stepped down. Kevin McCarthy pulled out of the race, and Paul Ryan might not run. Now we’re witnessing a pushback against the entrenched GOP establishment trying to push one RINO after another. The dirty secret in Washington is that We The People are viewed as the outsiders to be controlled and lied to by those in power. Somehow we’re the radicals and extremists and there’s something wrong with us for refusing the left’s agenda.
“Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left (aka Democrat Party) or right (aka Republican establishment)– those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.” RR 1977
“We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.” RR 1977. Same can be said today.
Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists…Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group (like the left constantly does). No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.” RR 1977. Today in 2015 we need again a New Republican Party.
“The tone and tendency of liberalism…is to attack the institutions of the country under the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs of the people under the pretext of progress.”
– – – Benjamin Disraeli, Speech In London, June 24, 1872
The Russian experiment{sic} in socialism is scarcely more radical for modern times than was the American Declaration of Independence in the days of George III.” Senator J. William Fulbright -Liberal Democrat. Furthermore, Fulbright’s (like a good little leftist) contempt for the Constitution, which he had sworn “to support and defend,” was never better demonstrated than in a speech he delivered to a Stanford University conference in 1961. Said Fulbright on that occasion:
“The President is hobbled in his task of leading the American people to consensus and concerted action by the restrictions of power imposed on him by a constitutional system designed for an 18th century agrarian society far removed from the centers of world power.
“It is imperative that we break out of the intellectual confines of cherished and traditional beliefs and open our minds to the possibility that basic changes in our system may be essential to meet the requirements of the 20th century….
“He [the President] alone, among elected officials can rise above parochialism and private pressures. He alone, in his role as teacher and moral leader, can hope to overcome the excesses and inadequacies of a public opinion that is all too often ignorant of the needs, the dangers, and the opportunities in our foreign relations….
“Public opinion must be educated and led if it is to bolster wise and effective national policies. Only the president can provide the guidance that is necessary, while legislators display a distressing tendency to adhere slavishly to the dictates of public opinion….
“I do not know if the American people can be aroused in time from their current apathy and indifference and educated to the necessity for challenging tasks and policies that break sharply with the traditions of our past.”
Fulbright’s longevity in the Senate brought him to the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he took advantage of his position to push hard for appeasement with the Soviet Union, recognition for Red China, and, for abject withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam. So obvious was Fulbright’s pro-Communist position that, in January 1968, the Communist newspaper Izvestia in Moscow announced that it would translate and publish Fulbright’s book “The Arrogance of Power”, a bitter critique of an anti-Communist American foreign policy and a plea for accommodation with the Communists.
J. William Fulbright would, indeed, be very pleased today, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, who is equally as contemptuous of the American people, and disdainful of their Constitution.
LOL! I see our troll is busy spewing his typical nonsense tonight. He must be bored.
While Kasich may be saner than some of the others, he is definitely a Scott Walker-type Republican. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/john-kasich-get-over-it-social-security/index.html
Ariel worships Ronald Reagan with a passion, failing to see how contradictory he often was, and how he did a great amount of damage to this nation.
He spews forth right wing propaganda ad infinitum, but Princess Leia is correct, that he must be bored and likes seeing the words of Ronald Reagan, his flawed God.
Pragmatic Progressive, John Kasich is better than anyone else, but still, as you say, not acceptable, just the least evil of the group of nominees the GOP is offering us!
I’m in disagreement with Ariel. I’ve seen polls saying that most Americans are moderate, with a slight lean to either the left or the right.
Rustbelt,
That’s because he only looks at polls that are favorable to him.
Ronald. Unlike the left we do not worship anyone as a “God” or “Messiah”. We know that men are imperfect. Unlike the left, we know that creating a perfect society is utopian because those who claim they can create such a society lack something very fundamental, perfect men to create it. So as you see, we leave the worshiping to the left or statist as I like to say. And believe me, we conservatives understand how difficult it is for the low information crowd and the feeble minded not to be overwhelmed by the columns of the Pergamon Altar that announced the coming of the ‘anointed one” during the 2008 DNC.
LOL! His right wing propaganda (which no one is interested in here, making his posting here a waste of his time) has got me rolling on the floor laughing.
Unlike our troll here, we are absolutely NOT worshipping anyone as a “God†or “Messiahâ€.
rolls eyes in disgust at the trolls nonsense
The social gospel found in the New Testament is what shapes our politics.
Well, troll, my friends and I are heading off on a trip together. The Professor is the only one you will be able to argue with until we return.
Princess Leia, I do not intend to waste my time arguing with Ariel.
He is incorrigible, and I have better things to do with my time than satisfy his need for responses to his rhetoric!
“The social gospel found in the New Testament is what shapes our politics.”
Rational Lefty, I am interested to know what other things found in the New Testament shape your views on another subject other than politics. In other words, are there any other aspects of your life or belief system in which you would claim are shaped by something found in the New Testament, as you say your politics are?
Mike, I have never felt any particular aspect of my life has been shaped by religious beliefs, other than my view that we must help the needy, the poor, and disadvantaged.
Even though I’m agnostic, I can clearly see that the New Testament has an overall message of helping those less fortunate and, of the two political parties, the Democratic Party is on the side of the poor, which is why I choose to vote for Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
Rational Lefty, I appreciate your reply.
Indeed in the New Testament there is much teaching regarding serving those less fortunate than yourself. On that we agree, and that fact helps me to shape my own political views. The Democratic party does in some areas, promote more economic mobility for those near the bottom than the GOP.
However, I think there may be some inconsistency in your original comment regarding the Social Gospel movement. (When you say that it is what shapes your politics) The way you explain it makes it sound as if you read the NT, notice the Social Gospel trend, and thus form your political view based on that. In this case, the NT is your authority; it is the path which you walk on to influence your ideology. But in your own words you are an agnostic, so obviously the NT is not your authority, as it would be for a Christian.
My point is that it seems it would be more accurate to say that you use the NT to support your views when it agrees with you, rather than say certain aspects of it shape your politics. With all due respect, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to use a collection of writings (in this case the NT), to argue your point, when in fact you would seemingly disagree with much of what else is written within them.
I’m a left-wing Christian but I’m not as highly religious as I was when I was a kid. As for the New Testament, I AM TOO saying that certain aspects of it shapes my politics.
I’m in agreement with Rational Lefty. Nothing he or she has said is inconsistent.
I agree too. You can be a Christian and be agnostic.
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44061/13952817/Christian_agnosticism
I’m a UU. Because there are no UU churches close by my home, I read an online blog at home for my daily spiritual time. (http://www.questformeaning.org/) The New Testatment also helps shapes my politics. I second that what Rational Lefty is very consistent.
Correction: That should be: I second that what Rational Lefty said is very consistent.
Okay, if to be a Christian means to be a believer in and follower of Christ, which it does, then would that not mean that you believe what He said? He clearly proclaimed the existence of God (and seemed to be pretty certain in His proclamation), often referring to Him as His Father. In fact, He claimed to be God; at least that is how his listeners interpreted His words and at times wanted to kill Him for it, accusing Him of blasphemy. And by the way, He never said “Oh wait, don’t be so upset, I didn’t mean to say I was God.” So you either believe in and put your trust in Him or you do not. You cannot say you are a follower of His but also say you are agnostic; that you are not sure. Jesus was sure, so if I follow Him, I must have a great level of certainty regarding my views on God. Sure I have some doubts on many things, but when it comes to specifically what Christ clearly said, I ought not to doubt, otherwise I am not truly following Him.
You can say you are agnostic but like many of His teachings and do some things He said to do. But there are many people who that describes but they would not call themselves Christian. Many other religions do this but are not Christian. Many Muslims for example consider Him a great prophet but of course would never say they are Christian. Because they do not accept all of Christ.
With all due respect, to say you are Christian and agnostic IS a contradiction, despite what the posted link says. They are mutually exclusive. Jesus says, “You are either for me or against me”. Matthew 12:30. You cannot be for Him but not take him at his word. He either is God or he is not. Perhaps you may want to Google CS Lewis the great trilemma if you have not heard it. He would say this point better than I.
From my experience with people who are Christian agnostics, they label themselves as such because:
On the one hand, they are skeptics, and have many doubts (existence of God, historical accuracy of Jesus, afterlife, etc.) On the other hand, they believe in living by most of the teachings and actions of Jesus. They are people who can’t just dismiss it all.
I believe that Jesus’s moral teachings (love thy neighbor, the Beattitudes, the Golden Rule) are more important than whether or not he was born of a virgin or resurrection.
I do too Rational Lefty. Conservative “Christians” have turned their back on the central tenets of the Bible.
Southern Liberal –
That’s precisely why evangelicals are a turn off to me.
Mike needs to show some religious tolerance and accept Rational Lefty just as he/she is without insisting that he/she conforms his/her thought processes.
Rustbelt – Thanks for those wise words of wisdom.
Sorry, was having trouble with the website. . .
I sincerely apologize, as I did not intend to come across as intolerant.
Former Republican, the fact that some may try to try to live “by most of the teachings and actions of Jesus” is exaclty my point. Would it not be more consistent to desire to live by them all? To do otherwise is to pick and choose which ones to follow, which may do an injustice to Jesus and undermine Him. Why not just say you are an agnostic who likes some of what Jesus said and did? For example, I am a Christian. But I acknowledge that many things that Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) said are true. But I do not follow him, nor do I claim to. Regarding the most important things, he was wrong.
The source of much of the disocrd here – I believe – is due to the fact that in recent years (like other words) the meaning of the words “Christian” or “Christianity” have become arbitrary. It can mean what ever you want it to mean, rather than defining it through it’s origin and historical context. This is not a very wise method in dealing with words, otherwise language and communication no longer mean very much. So in one sense, it is possible to be a Christian agnostic but in another sense it is not. It all depends on how one defines the word “Christian”. I think once he/she is willing to recognize the original meaning and context of the word, it is quite clear that the two cannot coincide for very long.
Rational Lefty, it may surprise you to know that I too consider the moral teachings of Jesus to be more significant than His Virgin Birth. Two of the four Gospels do not even mention the Virgin Birth narrative. That is not too belittle it or say that it is not true, as the other two Gospels do mention it at great length. I indeed believe it to be true and incredibly significant. I am just stating a simple fact.
I love and accept Rational Lefty just the way he/she is. I do so in fact, because Jesus tells me to in the Gospels. I just think that the idea that Christianity and agnosticism are compatible is mistaken.
I sadly admit that many folks who profess to be followers of Jesus do not always behave like it. I certainly do not many times. While it is no excuse for failure, and there are some things more excusable than others, nobody measures up to the ideal that they strive to imitate. We all have one on some level.
Jesus alone is perfect, no one else is.
Thanks for that Rustbelt.
An agnostic Christian is a part of the agnostic theists. This means that this person is an agnostic (believes that the existence of god cannot be known by humans) but chooses to follow the Christian religion in spite of their agnosticism.
Theism is the belief that gods or deities exist, while Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable. Belief is defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification. Agnosticism does not violate this, and this definition of theism does not violate agnosticism, implying that it is possible to be both theist and agnostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
In my opinion, everybody has their own belief system.
“. . . but chooses to follow the Christian religion in spite of their agnosticism.”
I think it is more accurate to say they follow parts of the “Christian religion” that they find acceptable and do not conflict with their agnosticism. This is not much different from some folks on the far right who emphasize certain parts of Jesus’ teaching or certain parts of the Bible because it advances their political ideas.
Pragmatic Progressive, I agree. I am just suggesting that the belief system that is based upon Jesus Christ will ultimately side with Him and Him alone; not Jesus and “fill in the blank”. In His own words, He said, “No one can serve two masters.” – Matthew 6:24
He said it, not me.
On a related note, there are people out there who label themselves as Christian Deists.
http://christiandeism.com/
In addition to labeling myself as Christian agnostic, I’m into the Spiritual But Not Religious Movement.
http://www.facebook.com/SBNR.org
http://www.sbnr.org
I believe that all religions contain some wisdom but no one religion contains all wisdom.
I would probably fit in best in a UU church, but like, Pragmatic, I also don’t have a UU church close by. Probably that online blog that she suggested would be best.
“I believe that all religions contain some wisdom but no one religion contains all wisdom.”
We do not disagree here. Every religion has some element of truth, otherwise no one would believe it. But they all indeed contain falsehoods.
However, there is one man – not a religion – that contains all wisdom. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to The Father except through me.” – John 14:6
That’s where I disagree. I’ve come to believe that no one person contains all wisdom.
I agree with Rational Lefty. In my opinion, saying only one spiritual leader is the only way to God is narrow-minded and the reason I left the Christian church. Universalism is why I feel that UU is now the best place for me.
Y’all aren’t alone. Many Americans are increasingly questioning religion.
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/why-americans-increasingly-are-questioning-religion-especially-christianity.html/
There certainly is some truth to the idea that more people seem to be “questioning religion”.
While I do not want to make the legitimacy of the Bible, or God, or Jesus dependent upon cultural trends (acting as if I am the wrong one if it is proven that culture is turning its back on religion or that you are the wrong one just because I can show that culture is not altogether turning its back on religion), this link may help to provide an alternate perspective.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/living/christianity-american-dead/
Thanks for the Former Republican.
I also thank you for posting the Former Republican. Looks like people are seeking God without all the baggage.