Former Speaker of the House John Boehner made news last night when he made an appearance at Stanford University.
“You can call me boner, beaner, jackass, happy to answer to almost anything,” said former Speaker of the House John Boehner as he took the stage at CEMEX Auditorium on Wednesday evening. Boehner joined David M. Kennedy, faculty director and history professor emeritus, in a talk hosted by Stanford in Government (SIG) and the Stanford Speakers Bureau.
Naturally, the discussion focused on Boehner’s time at the helm of the House of Representatives, but they also discussed his view of the presidential race.
Segueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
Boehner went on to say that he’s “texting buddies” with Donald Trump, has played a lot of golf with him over the years, and that, although he doesn’t agree with all his policy proposals, he would vote for him in November. However, he bluntly said that he would not vote for Ted Cruz.
During his time as Speaker, Boehner struggled to deal with the non-reality-based Freedom Caucus rump of his party, and Sen. Ted Cruz played a big role in egging that faction on. This explains most of the animosity that Boehner is nursing now. But it would be a mistake to see Boehner as very grounded in reality himself, because he easily slips into the most submental conspiratorial gibberish.
On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.
Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.
“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.
At least in theory, the president could use his influence over the Justice Department and the Intelligence Community to turn Clinton’s email server issue into a crippling liability right before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. He might then, in typical Frank Underwood style, orchestrate things so that Joe Biden could “parachute in” and act as the party’s savior.
But, despite Boehner’s previous seat in the highest corridors of power where he might have gleaned animosities that are invisible to the rest of us, there isn’t the slightest outward sign that President Obama is displeased to see Clinton emerge as his likely successor. The president has remained ostensibly neutral during the primaries, but he quietly got his message out that he preferred Clinton to Sanders, and that was reflected in (among other things) how the black community voted in the South and elsewhere.
It could be that the president actually would prefer Biden to Clinton, but to suggest that he would misuse his powers to sabotage Clinton at this late date in order to secure the presidency for his friend Biden is heat-fevered lunacy as far as I am concerned.
Boehner is supposed to be the sane one, and yet he’s just as infected as the rest of them.
Still, the fact that he wouldn’t vote for Cruz is a canary in the coal mine. Consider that during part of Boehner’s speakership his partner was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. And McConnell stated publicly just before the New York primary that he was still hoping for a brokered convention that could stop Trump. The most obvious beneficiary of a brokered convention would be Ted Cruz.
This is the definition of a fractured party.
The comments about Rafael were hilarious.
Found at POU:
Miranda
This is a passage from the New York Times Magazine interview with PBO that’s out today – PBO on why even though the economy is humming along, a lot of people still think its horrible:
But the president did seem frustrated. As he tried to sum up his economic legacy in Florida, our discussion stretched to twice as long as planned, seemingly to the consternation of the Secret Service. When we got back on Air Force One, he sent an aide to ask if we could continue the conversation; when I joined him again, he looked as if he’d been stewing over something. He quickly returned to the topic of public perception. “If you ask the average person on the streets, `Have deficits gone down or up under Obama?’ probably 70 percent would say they’ve gone up,” Obama said, with some justifiable exasperation — the deficit has in fact declined (by roughly three-quarters) since he took office, and polls do show that a large majority of Americans believe the opposite.
Obama is animated by a sense that, looking at the world around him, the U.S. economy is in much better shape than the public appreciates, especially when measured against the depths of the financial crisis and the possibility — now rarely even considered — that things could have been much, much worse. Over a series of conversations in the Oval Office, on Air Force One and in Florida, Obama analyzed, sometimes with startling frankness, nearly every element of his economic agenda since he came into office. His economy has certainly come further than most people recognize. The private sector has added jobs for 73 consecutive months — some 14.4 million new jobs in all — the longest period of sustained job growth on record. Unemployment, which peaked at 10 percent the year Obama took office, the highest it had been since 1983, under Ronald Reagan, is now 5 percent, lower than when Reagan left office. The budget deficit has fallen by roughly $1 trillion during his two terms. And overall U.S. economic growth has significantly outpaced that of every other advanced nation.
Gene Sperling, the former director of the National Economic Council who spent hours inside the Oval Office debating and devising the president’s economic strategy, told me, “If we were back in early 2009 — when we were coming to work every morning with clenched stomachs, with the economy losing 800,000 jobs a month and the Dow under 7,000 — and someone said that by your last year in office, unemployment would be 5 percent, the deficit would be under 3 percent, AIG would have turned a profit and we made all our money back on the banks, that would’ve been beyond anybody’s wildest expectations.”
There are, of course, many reasons so few Americans seem to be celebrating. “How people feel about the economy,” Obama told me, giving one part of his own theory, is influenced by “what they hear.” He went on: “And if you have a political party — in this case, the Republicans — that denies any progress and is constantly channeling to their base, which is sizable, say, 40 percent of the population, that things are terrible all the time, then people will start absorbing that.”
I suggest to the President that how people feel about the economy is influenced most by whether they and their families and friends have living-wage jobs.
That is not information reflected in the “unemployment” rate.
I agree with you, but I do agree, to an extent, with Obama. I do feel that Obama has done much more to influence the domestic economy positively than he’s ever been given credit for. But yes, there are far too many who’ve lost out and possibly lost out in huge and meaningful ways for good. And their needs have never been addressed and are not much acknowledged.
And witnessing the Bankers and so forth prancing around suffering not ONE consequence while continuing to rake in giant bucks is way beyond annoying.
It’s definitely a mixed bag.
But GOP & the media’s intransigence has led to the point where it’s next to impossible to pass meaningful legislation and a good 40% of the population is riled up over bullshit. This is also not good, and I do lay that at John Boehner’s feet as much as at the feet of anyone else in conservaland.
Dean Baker, economist, reply to Sorkin’s article:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/andrew-ross-sorkin-s-confused-assessment-of-president-obama-s-p
olitical-legacy
The 73 consecutive months of private sector job growth, “the longest period of sustained job growth on record,” is kind of a joke. This is sort of like a weak scoring basketball player telling a reporter about the number of consecutive games in which he scored points, it is an utterly meaningless statistic. It is the average job growth, GDP growth, and improvement in living standards that matter, not the monthly job creation streak.
{…]
What matters on stimulus is not just the total, but the time frame. Spending $1.4 trillion over 8 years comes to less than one percent of GDP annually. This is not much stimulus for an economy that has faced the collapse of an enormous asset bubble.
[…]
From the comments: In April 2009, before the Great Recession in the U.S. had even hit bottom and as nearly 700,000 jobs were being lost that month alone–with over a million more jobs to be lost until the unemployment rate finally hit its peak six months later–President Obama was telling Americans that the federal government had to “tighten its belt” and impose “fiscal discipline” to end the economic crisis:
“We came into office facing a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion for this year alone, and the cost of confronting our economic crisis is high. . . But we can’t settle for a future of rising deficits and debt that our children can’t pay. All across America, families are tightening their belts and making hard choices. Now, Washington must show that same sense of responsibility.” President’s Weekly Address, 4/25/09.
Naturally Obama prefers Clinton to Sanders. She might as well have been campaigning under posters that read OBAMA 2016.
Of course, now that she’s put Sanders away, it’s time for that to change. Hillary’s own subtle denigration of the “last eight years” is ready to be rolled out when expedient.
Hey, Eric must be Clinton’s new campaign manager, thanks for sharing her coming strategy. Such a good idea to subtly denigrate the administration she was a key member of, you are a political genius, sir.
(As opposed to Sanders undisguised denigration of the last eight years, which has worked out great for him as well.)
Obama’s job approval among Independents is 9 points underwater.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval-independents
You shouldn’t expect Hillary to go around the country telling them how eager she is to enact his third term.
As for Sanders, define “well”. If people liked what I had to say enough that they sent me $180 million, I’d feel pretty satisfied.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528
I expect Clinton to distance herself somewhat from some parts of Obama’s programs that she may disagree with, but I do NOT expect her to denigrate any part of his legacy, subtly or otherwise.
As for Sanders, denigrating Obama’s legacy hurt him with the voters he needed, particularly African -Americans, and if a big reason why he lost. If you think that’s good politics, good luck to you, sir.
Fair enough. At the very least, African-American voters put Hillary far enough out in front so early that Sanders never reached his full potential. And his criticisms of Obama are as good an explanation as any why they rejected him.
Still, I wouldn’t have had it any other way. The criticisms were valid and they needed to be made.
Indeed, that is how you build a reputation for plain speaking your mind as you see things and backing it up with behavior. Refreshing.
Can’t blame Boehner for loathing Cruz because after all, Senator Cruz directly challenged Boehner’s power as Speaker. A stunt that he couldn’t manage in the Senate.
He might even be suggesting that the outcome of McConnell’s “just say no” strategy is Trump or Cruz and that more generally acceptable presidential candidates could have developed if they’d practiced a bit more comity with Obama.
wrt his Obama-Biden comments, probably projection on his part. Or he could know or suspect a few more things about prior Presidents and Obama than he’d ever disclose.
I think Boehner has been taking in a little too much Bill Cunningham on talk radio in Cincinnati.
Student Loan Borrowing Is Skyrocketing for Black Students
Billmon responds:
From the White House today.
So, what young people today want is for government to spend more money on helping them to “manage” the repayment of their student loan debt? Better than a poke in the eye. Better still would be much less debt in the first place and an education that led to a job that paid well enough that it doesn’t take a lifetime to pay it off.
Ah, yes, Biden’s bill that locks private student loans (at unregulated rates) into debt peonage with the govt as enforcer.
“Prior to the financial collapse and recession of 2008, the private student loan market was largely unregulated — meaning that private student loans were risky and expensive, reaping windfall profits for the banks instead of providing affordable access to higher education for students taking on these loans. Paying for college with private student loans is like putting a college degree on a credit card.”
[…]
Unfortunately, hopeful college students today still face the same basic market dynamic that existed before 2008, with college costs outpacing the availability of low-cost government aid. And with the PSL market expanding to fill that gap once again – experts predict that private student loan volume will outpace federal student loan volume by 2030…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-senack/watchdogging-private-stud_b_4156507.html
Be cheaper to give that kidney donation up front, no?
The Obama Administration and Democratic Party’s support for unionization, collective bargaining, and enforcements of and improvements in Labor laws, along with their support for increasing the minimum wage, as Party leaders have done in many States, pairs with the Affordable Care Act to help college graduates better afford all costs of life, including their student debt.
Imperfect is not the equivalent of bad. Name the Administrations with a better overall record in the last century.
Student Loan Borrowing Is Skyrocketing for Black Students — Here’s Why and What to Do About It
https:/www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/why-student-loans-skyrocketing-for-black-student
s
Is a lot of suspicion that this will be the next conflagration on WS–1.2 trillion pool of PSL, securitized into unregulated weapons of mass destruction, of course. Look for SLABS to enter the lexicon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/startups-are-securitizing-student-loans-2015-6
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2015/0515soederberg.html
Are we all supposed to do a face/palm and say, oh Geez Louise, I guess we had better re-run all the primaries, because now the scales will finally fall from the eyes of black students, and they’ll rush to vote for Sanders?
Would not be news to young AA, who did NOT vote with their elders so much.
Booman writes:
Boehner…like most federal legislators of both parties…more resembles a parrot who spent too much time in an insane asylum. He’s just blathering back the insanity that he heard for decades.
Ignore him in good health.
AG
An article that resonates for me because those on the left in the ’80s appreciated what was up and it was why I had no interest in Gary Hart and even by 2000 felt queasy about Bill Bradley.
Corey Robin – When Neoliberalism Was Young: A Lookback on Clintonism before Clinton
He begins with Chait’s recent tweet: What if every use of “neoliberal” was replaced with, simply, “liberal”? Would any non-propagandistic meaning be lost?
The money quote from Peters:
And the money quote from Peretz (former owner of The New Republic) looking back to those heady early years:
“We still believe in liberty and justice for all, in mercy for the afflicted and help for the down and out. But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business. Indeed, in our search for solutions that work, we have to distrust all automatic responses, liberal or conservative.”
That was my politics when I was 18-20 — so figure 8-10 years ago. Of course, I thought “so shouldn’t you guys favor public health care — never mind single payer — as it is objectively the best solution?” And when the answer came back as a resounding “no” I reoriented, and realized ideology matters.
“class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because it is the only barrier against class domination.” LOL
Haul out the smelling salts.
Please tell me how many of these “neoliberals” were supporters of Ronald Reagan’s policies in Central America, including funding the contras in Nicaragua. No doubt some were. But I recall quite clearly how close the votes in Congress were on funding the contras. The way I remember things, it was Blue Dog types who provided Reagan the Democratic votes he needed.
It may well be that the self-appointed neoliberal intelligentsia like Peretz favored funding the contras, but who did they represent?
Foreign policy issues should not conflate neoconservative with neoliberal. They aren’t the same. Neoliberal is domestic market economy advantaged. Neocon is “American Century” imperialistic.
The Scoop Jackson wing of Dems back then could be described as neocon on foreign policy.
Blue Dogs, which did not exist back then, are conservative on domestic economics, and squishy on social issues. And everyone wants defense projects in their homes states.
Trum-Boehner ticket? He needs somebody who understands Congress and knows his way around Washington.
Trump could do a lot worse than Boehner. That suggestion causes me to wonder if GOP elites moved Ryan into the Speaker position to make him a stronger VP choice had one of their picks made it through the primaries. A member of the House as VP is a loser ticket. The exception to that would be Cheney, but he wasn’t going directly from the House to VP (same with GHWB and Kemp). Don’t know if a Speaker or former Speaker would be as strong as a Senator or Governor at the bottom of a ticket because it hasn’t been done since 1932 (when it was successful).
Agree. Still “Trump could do a lot worse than Boehner” is chillingly true.
Boner on Cruz: “Lucifer in the flesh”.
Yup, that’s about it.
Morning Consult — approval/disapproval numbers for US senators among their constituents.
If these numbers meant anything, McConnell should have been toast. Peters (MI) is lucky that he has four more years in which to turn around his numbers. Kirk (IL) is looking like a goner. Ayotte (NH) is in decent shape. Toomey (PA) not as vulnerable as Democrats have been advertising.
If the email servers become a political issue with moments to spare before Election Day, it will be Republican FBI Director James Comey begging for reappointment by a Republican President who is the likely culprit, not Barack Obama. Does Boehner know about a fix?
The GOP establishment has made its peace with President Trump as their only hope to gain the executive. And they are plotting the general election campaign dependent on an October surprise.
But will the facts about Trump University’s fraud come out sooner? What power does Comey have over this process?
Comey doesn’t strike me as a big enough snake that he’d play an “October surprise” with this. More likely that if the investigation didn’t develop to the point where he thought an indictment was appropriate before September, he won’t tangle with Lynch to get an indictment and will keep his mouth shut (as LBJ did).
as LBJ did ??
Is that an allusion to something involving J. Edgar Hoover?
Nope. Not an allusion and not to J Edgar. Nor a something but a well known fact.
You mean the treason Anna Chennault was involved in for Nixon before the November election?
Chennault was a messenger.
“You can call me boner, beaner, jackass, happy to answer to almost anything . . .”
Jackass is perfect, thanks.
Peter King of NY says that Orange Julius’ comments about Rafael…
are an insult to Lucifer
BWA HA HA HA HA HA H HA HA HAH A
OT
Trump wants to take `the woman card’ off the table
04/28/16 12:49 PM
By Steve Benen
Following this week’s primaries, the 2016 presidential general election is, after more than a year of campaigning, coming into focus. It’s not yet a done deal in either party, but odds are, Donald Trump will face Hillary Clinton in the fall. What’s less clear is what Trump intends to do about it.
In recent months, the Republican frontrunner has prioritized insulting labels for his rivals, hoping to define them quickly in voters’ eyes. Jeb Bush was “low energy”; Ted Cruz is “Lying Ted”; Marco Rubio became “Little Marco”; and so on. Trump’s message about the Democratic frontrunner is still taking shape, but he’s clearly begun trying out some lines of attack.
“If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote,” Trump declared Tuesday night. The “only card she has is the woman’s card,” the Republican frontrunner added. On NBC this morning, Trump stuck to the line.
A day after his chief rival picked a woman as a running mate, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended comments he made about Hillary Clinton playing “the woman card” saying the Democrat couldn’t even win a local election if she were a man.
“The primary thing that she has going is that she’s a woman and she’s playing that card like I have never seen anybody play it before,” he said Thursday on TODAY.
Co-host Savannah Guthrie noted, “But Mr. Trump, for you to say, `If she were not a woman, she would be getting 5 percent’ suggests the only thing she has going for her is that she’s a woman – not that she was a former senator, a former Secretary of State and a lawyer. Do you understand why people find that to be a kind of demeaning comment?”
Trump was unfazed. “No, I find it to be a true comment,” he replied. “I think the only thing she’s got going is the fact that she’s a woman.”
Trump is actually attacking voters with that comment, men and women.
It’s a losing line.
But but but…
They LOVE him…right?
……………………
Hispanic Voter Registration Spikes
Trump’s speech on foreign policy was a sharp pivot from his old crazed schtick about walls and furriners.
He stuck to a not-too-bad script and looked um, er, presidential.
He also comes off as significantly less belligerent than Hillary pretends she’s not.
He made no gaffes, strung his sentences in a consequential row and a good percentage of what he said sorta made sense.
I had expected him to become progressively unhinged towards the nomination. The reality is the opposite.
Bottom line he doesn’t lie as much as Hillary does and offers a different approach, (still wrong from where I stand, but quite possibly even a lot less wrong.)
He seems to totally eschew the globo-robo cop hawks take for granted, while simultaneously pouring more $ to the military, (as sop for less wars?)
I don’t trust him, but his act is coming together, and whelk before his speeches -impromptu- were down at GWB level, now he sounds much more rational.
People will vote for him because he’s not beholden and offers a new, (more isolationist?) Recipe for America that involves dropping unemployment by punishing offshoring.
He’s getting a Mount Rushmore look…