In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
the portion of america completely unhinged from reality is fairly high, and sometimes they leak into mainstream, mostly because the guys who are supposed to filter are not filtering.
Yes, And Obama was the Democrat candidate and front-runner for the entire election, and then President of the United States.
Ted Cruz is one of a whackton of Republican candidates, and not even the most publicized one.
Ted Cruz is pretty fucking famous among the republican candidates.
Which still doesn't make any discussion of his birthplace juicier than the possible conspiracy of the President of the United States secretly sneaking his way into political power.
on that particular question a person's fame would not explain the situation. if anything the more well known a person is, the more people should know about him, and that only makes the republicans more ridiculous.
Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
On September 27 2015 08:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
Among other things.
Oh so now racism is called "other things". Real critical thinking there bro.
On September 27 2015 08:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
Among other things.
Oh so now racism is called "other things". Real critical thinking there bro.
So "other things" are perfectly valid explanations for the popularity of every other conspiracy theory that doesn't involve a black person.
Like JFK's assassination.
Or the Moonlanding.
Or 9/11.
Or Roswell.
But if it's about Obama, then all those "other things" are no longer applicable.
On September 27 2015 08:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
Among other things.
Oh so now racism is called "other things". Real critical thinking there bro.
So "other things" are perfectly valid explanations for the popularity of every other conspiracy theory that doesn't involve a black person.
Like JFK's assassination.
Or the Moonlanding.
Or 9/11.
Or Roswell.
But if it's about Obama, then all those "other things" are no longer applicable.
70%+ of the Republican party isn't some small group of paranoid conspiracy theorists... or are they?
On September 27 2015 08:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
Among other things.
Oh so now racism is called "other things". Real critical thinking there bro.
So "other things" are perfectly valid explanations for the popularity of every other conspiracy theory that doesn't involve a black person.
Like JFK's assassination.
Or the Moonlanding.
Or 9/11.
Or Roswell.
But if it's about Obama, then all those "other things" are no longer applicable.
70%+ of the Republican party isn't some small group of paranoid conspiracy theorists... or are they?
Well, yes, I think Republicans tend to have the larger subsets of conspiracy theory believers across pretty much every conspiracy theory.
On September 27 2015 08:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Conspiracy theories have very little to do with what people should know, and a lot to do with an extreme mix of:
1) Ignorance and lack of critical thought processes 2) Desire for juicy controversy 3) Superiority complexes and a need to feel you know more than everyone else
Among other things.
it shows, among other things, a lack of what one should know.
so yea it does have a lot to do with lacking basic knowledge and judgement.
Which brings up the question of why conservative media (which are all fully capable of investigating whether or not obama was born in the US) were willing to "teach the controversy" so that people can "question more". Did they do it because they are pandering to morons or to racists?
On September 27 2015 09:10 Jormundr wrote: Which brings up the question of why conservative media (which are all fully capable of investigating whether or not obama was born in the US) were willing to "teach the controversy" so that people can "question more". Did they do it because they are pandering to morons or to racists?
On September 27 2015 09:10 Jormundr wrote: Which brings up the question of why conservative media (which are all fully capable of investigating whether or not obama was born in the US) were willing to "teach the controversy" so that people can "question more". Did they do it because they are pandering to morons or to racists?
Willing to pander to racists and people who want to believe he can't be president.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
By black Republican(s) you mean Ben Carson, right? Probably because Obama is an evil socialist who's weak on supporting Biblical authority, like how we should deal with gay marriage in a secularist country.
To be fair, you could easily be inundated with quotes and comments and votes that would clearly depict Republican politicians, Fox News pundits, and other conservative figures as incredibly racist, especially against Obama.
It doesn't require a narrow, biased worldview to see that. Unfortunately, it gives a bad name to the laymen who are conservative but not bigots.
To be perfectly frank, I think your marginalization of black Republicans (of which there are many) is more racist than anything I've heard from the mainstream right against Obama. Tim Scott, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Col. Allen West, Mia Love, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, etc. There are literally thousands upon thousands of black Republicans who are not Ben Carson, and I think it is beneath you to try to marginalize them and their opinions.
As for the quotes which supposedly "prove" racism, most of them were in no way racist. Unless you define any opposition to Obama as racist, which in my opinion would be pretty damn racist!
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right?
Using the classical definition of racism it is not impossible for a black man to be racist against other blacks, but it is highly improbable. What black man would actually believe that he is inferior by virtue of his skin color and genetic makeup? It is absurd to suggest. Unless you are using the tortured definition of the word recently popularized by colleges and academics everywhere, which is a silly thing to do in my opinion because then it destroys any concrete meaning the word might have, by changing the definition willy-nilly so that you can continue using the term as a smear against political opponents long after it's original definition no longer applies.
Further, it is very convenient for someone to say: "You are racist, and if you try to respond by illuminating all the areas in your life that give evidence to a lack of racism, then that is even more racist and actually proves your racism!"
It is a variation of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" accusation. You can paint your opposition as racist, and if they try to point out that many people of all colors are in that camp, you turn around and shout that this very defense is itself racist. How then is a non-racist person supposed to defend himself or herself against your accusation? If in your view any attempts to answer the charge and bring evidence exonerating them would be itself evidence of their racism?
And finally, I think it is extraordinarily hypocritical that the same people that I have seen on this very thread arguing that Republicans should work with Obama and Democrats in good faith, that they should be more willing to compromise, and that Republican rhetoric is inflammatory and divisive, should then turn around and out of the other side of their mouths, vilify their opposition as racists and bigots and reject any good faith on their part, stretching clearly non-racist remarks so far out of their intended meaning to support that weak attack, and then further accusing any black Republican of either also being racist or just dumb and brainwashed:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
The power of media spin
If your argument ever finds it's primary foundations on the vilification of your opposition, then you should probably re-examine your argument.
edit: As far as birtherism goes: Let us remember that it was originally a Democrat position (Hillary primary), and that it was rejected by most mainstream Republicans, and further that it had less to do with Obama's race than with his unique family history. No one would ever question Jessie Jackson's nationality, not because he is "less black" than Obama, but because he does not have a foreign citizen father and did not spend much of his early life outside of the United States.
In short, it is not the color of Obama's skin that makes fools question his nationality, but rather a mixture of many things, some of which are based in Obama's peculiar childhood, other are based on the irrational desire to "get rid of him" in any way possible, one easy way would be to simply disqualify him by virtue of his birthplace.
I agree that birtherism is silly, and that accusing Obama of being a Muslim is equally silly (no evidence for either claim other than pure conjecture), but I do not agree that the primary motive of it is racism, neither conscious nor subconscious.
Using the classical definition of racism it is not impossible for a black man to be racist against other blacks, but it is highly improbable. What black man would actually believe that he is inferior by virtue of his skin color and genetic makeup? It is absurd to suggest
So I don't really think there is anywhere to go after that. Going to take longer than I hoped.
While differences on cyber security and talk of sanctions dominated the headlines for Chinese president Xi Jinping’s visit to the US, the two countries also signed up to a major agreement to end the global trade in ivory.
In a statement released by the White House on Friday, the two countries – which are the largest markets for illegal ivory – said they would enact a nearly complete ban on the import and export of ivory.
The ban would cover “significant and timely restrictions on the import of ivory as hunting trophies” as well as unspecified “significant and timely steps to halt the domestic commercial trade of ivory.”
China is the biggest market for poached ivory with some estimates putting the US in second place.
The announcement follows a decision by China to phase out the legal, domestic manufacture and sale of ivory products in May.
In December, a report released by Save the Elephants and the Aspinall Foundation found that the wholesale price of raw elephant tusks had tripled in just four years since 2010.
Cutting the supply of ivory to the Chinese market is seen as an crucial step in reducing the loss of Africa’s elephants to poaching.
The White House said the US and China would cooperate with other nations in a comprehensive effort to combat wildlife trafficking.
Using the classical definition of racism it is not impossible for a black man to be racist against other blacks, but it is highly improbable. What black man would actually believe that he is inferior by virtue of his skin color and genetic makeup? It is absurd to suggest
So I don't really think there is anywhere to go after that. Going to take longer than I hoped.
I don't really know why people think that people self inflict racism and because that is impossible, racism isn't real among blacks. Its been proven that black police officers use racial profiling and racial bias against other blacks, because racism is a socialite problem.
But I guess for some racism only exists if the guy doing it looks liker Colonel Sanders and is drinking a mint julep, talking about how he is going to keep the "negros in their place". That if people acting racist with intent, its gone forever. Or such a minor problem they don't need to deal with it. Because if they admit racism is the root of the birther idiocy, then racism is something they have been ignoring this whole time.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right?
Using the classical definition of racism it is not impossible for a black man to be racist against other blacks, but it is highly improbable. What black man would actually believe that he is inferior by virtue of his skin color and genetic makeup? It is absurd to suggest.
Unfortunately, I think our society has created an environment where plenty of blacks (and other minorities) feel like they are genetically/ naturally inferior because they aren't white. There have been a few very comprehensive psychological studies- most notably by educational researchers and psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark- done on white kids and black kids, and both groups have shown to consider white to be good/ nice/ pretty and black to be bad/ mean/ ugly, etc. It's because of the portrayal of whites and blacks in modern society and throughout history, and it's pretty chilling to see black babies automatically assuming that they're bad or screwed up or inferior because of the color of their skin.
Here's a one minute video clip on it (there are many more on YouTube):
Here's more information on the Clarks (and their papers can easily be found on the internet):
"Kenneth Bancroft Clark (July 24, 1914 – May 1, 2005) and Mamie Phipps Clark (April 18, 1917 – August 11, 1983)[1] were African-American psychologists who as a married team conducted important research among children and were active in the Civil Rights Movement. They founded the Northside Center for Child Development in Harlem and the organization Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited (HARYOU).[2] Kenneth Clark also was an educator and professor at City College of New York, and first black president of the American Psychological Association. They were known for their 1940s experiments using dolls to study children's attitudes about race. The Clarks testified as expert witnesses in Briggs v. Elliott, one of the cases rolled into Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). The Clarks' work contributed to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in which it determined that de jure racial segregation in public education was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Brown vs. Board opinion, "To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone".[3]"
"The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie Clark's master's degree thesis. They published three major papers between 1939 and 1940 on children's self-perception related to race. Their studies found contrasts among African-American children attending segregated schools in Washington, DC versus those in integrated schools in New York.[24] The doll experiment involved a child being presented with two dolls. Both of these dolls were completely identical except for the skin and hair color. One doll was white with yellow hair, while the other was brown with black hair.[25] The child was then asked questions inquiring as to which one is the doll they would play with, which one is the nice doll, which one looks bad, which one has the nicer color, etc. The experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all children in the study.[26] These findings exposed internalized racism in African-American children, self-hatred that was more acute among children attending segregated schools. This research also paved the way for an increase in psychological research into areas of self-esteem and self-concept.[9]"
Amid revolt, Boehner steps aside to avoid 'irreparable harm' to Congress
WASHINGTON — It took a visit from the pope, a brewing conservative rebellion, and a good night’s sleep for John Boehner — the son of a bartender and a devout Catholic from Cincinnati — to decide that Friday morning was the right moment for him to end his tumultuous five-year speakership and bring his 25-year career in Congress to a close.
“This morning, I woke up and I said my prayers and I decided today’s the day I’m going to this,” Boehner told reporters in an emotional news conference on Friday afternoon, a few hours after he stunned Washington by announcing that he planned to resign, effective Oct. 30. “It’s as simple as that.”
But of course, it was not that simple.
Boehner disclosed his decision less than 24 hours after he reveled in the first-ever papal speech to a joint session of Congress, something he has dreamed of for 20 years — and as the government was on the verge of another shutdown, with Boehner's fractious caucus battling over a bill to fund the government beyond Sept. 30. Conservatives were threatening to oust Boehner from the speaker’s post if he did not take a hard line in using that spending bill to strip funding from Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health care provider that has come under scrutiny for its handling of fetal tissue.
“It had become clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the institution,” Boehner told reporters Friday. “I don’t want my members to have to go through this. And I certainly don’t want the institution to have to go through this.”
Besides, Boehner said, “I was thinking about walking out the door anyway.”
When he was first elected speaker in 2011, Boehner said, he had only planned to serve two terms in that leadership role. But then last spring, his deputy and successor-in-waiting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, lost his primary race in a huge upset. Fearing the GOP leadership was not seasoned enough, Boehner quietly determined he would stay on for another year, and he planned to announce his resignation on Nov. 17 — his 66th birthday.
On Wednesday evening, after an exhilarating and emotional day spent at the side of Pope Francis, Boehner started thinking about moving up that date. He said the pope’s visit was not the inspiration for his decision.
But the former altar boy, who grew up attending mass every morning before school, was clearly overwhelmed by the pontiff’s presence. He talked about a moment Wednesday when he and the pope found themselves alone, just before they greeted a crowd of well-wishers gathered for the papal address on the West Front of the Capitol.
“The pope grabbed my left arm and said some very kind words to me about my commitment to kids and education,” Boehner said, choking up as he recounted his private conversation with the leader of the Holy See. “And the pope put his arm around me and said, ‘Please pray for me’.”
Boehner was overcome with humility by the pope’s request. “Who am I to pray for the pope?” he said.
The next morning, the speaker, the second oldest in a family of 12 from Reading, Ohio, walked into an 8:45 staff meeting. “This is the day,” he told them.
He made it official at a 9 a.m. meeting of the House Republican conference, which he started with a business-as-usual recitation of the legislative schedule before disclosing he would step down. The mood quickly turned somber, as one GOP lawmaker after another rose to offer their heart-felt assessments of his tenure and their shock at his impending departure.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, said he stood up and talked about one of his first encounters with Boehner three years ago, at a fundraiser for children attending inner-city schools.
"It’s what you do when no one’s looking that matters,” Wenstrup said. He told the GOP conference about the “men for others” motto they both learned at their Catholic high schools in Cincinnati and said: “I think that’s what we’re seeing here today. … You are a man for others.”
Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot said Boehner “fell on his sword for the rest of the conference so we didn’t have to go through a bitter, divisive battle about his speakership.” And, Chabot added, he also went out on his own terms — with the glow of the pope’s visit enshrining his departure.
“John just spent a day with the pope … and that’s a huge deal,” Chabot said. “Why not go out when you’re at the top of your game, and I think he did that.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Boehner can be proud of a "legacy few can match" — transforming "a broken and dispirited Republican minority into the largest Republican majority since the 1920s."
Praise flowed in from outside the House as well. President Obama called Boehner "a patriot who cares deeply about the House."
"Most importantly, he's somebody who understands in government, in governance, you don't get 100 percent of what you want,” Obama said. “You have to work with people you disagree with. ... My hope is there's a recognition on the part of the next speaker ... that we can have significant differences on issues, but that doesn't mean you shut down the government."
Former president George H.W. Bush said “few people have done more in recent years to build the Republican Party and make it a viable force in national politics than has Speaker John Boehner."
Others were not so laudatory.
“John had allowed the Congress to become irrelevant,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., a hard-charging conservative and Boehner foe. He said the speaker refused to use Congress’ power over spending to bend Obama to the GOP’s will.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called Boehner’s resignation “good news for the country” in a tweet Friday. Massie led a failed uprising in January aimed at denying Boehner a third term as speaker, and he has consistently criticized Boehner’s legislative tactics as too conciliatory.
On the presidential campaign trail, GOP candidates chimed in, too. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Boehner’s resignation to the conservative Values Voter Summit in Washington. Many in the audience stood and cheered the news.
"I'm not here today to bash anyone, but the time has come to turn the page," Rubio said. "The time has come to turn the page and allow a new generation of leaders" to lead this country.
Fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, also at the summit, said of Boehner's departure: “It’s time. I think it's time for him, it's probably time for the party, it's time for everybody."
Some of Boehner’s allies feared his departure would look like a capitulation to conservatives, who would now be emboldened to push for regular showdowns with Obama and Senate Democrats, no matter the chances of winning those battles.
Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said the current GOP leadership — he did not name Boehner specifically — had been “too accommodating” to the right flank in the caucus. “That’s going to end,” he said. “We’ve had enough of that.”
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and a Boehner ally, echoed that, saying “we can't continue to allow this super-ultra minority to dictate" the GOP’s legislative agenda.
Possible successors include House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and, also in GOP leadership, Reps. Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Tea Party conservative Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho could also seek the job.
Boehner said the choice of who follows in his footsteps will be up to his colleagues, quickly adding that he thought “Kevin McCarthy would make an excellent speaker.”
Asked if he had been pushed out, Boehner said flatly, “No.”
“I’ve done everything I can to strengthen the institution,” he added, “and my move today is another step in that effort.”
Boehner declined to say what he would do next, although he hinted that his wife, Debbie, was thrilled. He said he told her about his decision first thing Friday morning, and her response was: “Good.” Boehner said it will be a relief for his family, including his two daughters, who are now 35 and 37, to stop hearing all the attacks against him.
“It’s one thing for me to endure it. I’ve got thick skin,” he said. “But the girls and my wife have had to put up with a lot.”
Even as his eyes welled with tears, he seemed very comfortable in his decision, joking with reporters that he’d miss them and breaking into a refrain of “Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, Zip-A-Dee-A,” in the middle of his news conference.
“I’m doing this today for the right reasons and the right things will happen as a result,” he said, using — probably not for the last time — one of his favorite phrases.
Asked what legacy he would leave in the House, he said he wanted to be remembered as “being fair, being honest, and being straightforward.”
But, he said, “I was never in the legacy business. I’m a regular guy with a big job.”