Don't Blame Boehner For Republican Majority Inaction

Since Speaker of the House John Boehner, announced his resignation and retirement, many in the media have said he had to go because of his inaction on a full range of issues.  The reality is that the inaction was not due to the House of Representatives and John Boehner, but Harry Reid's strength in the Senate.

Harry Reid is a strong defender of all things Obama.  In 2010, the House majority control shifted to the Republicans.  Over the next four years, under Boehner's Leadership, they passed hundreds of anti-Democrat and anti-Obama measures; primarily along Republican party lines. Then, those proposed bills went to the Senate where Harry Reid either sat on them or let them languish in the Democrat-controlled committees. 

In January 2015, the Republicans finally gained control of the Senate with a 54% party membership.  Republicans around the country thought that now, with control of both houses of congress, something could be done to reverse many of the measures that the Democrats and Obama had passed into law over the last 5 years.  But, they were wrong.  With only a simple 54% majority, they found themselves powerless against Senate rules that require a a 60 vote, in some cases, and a two-thirds vote (66% of the votes in most cases or, at least, 67% to override a Presidential veto) to get anything done.  So, as long as Harry Reid maintained solidarity among the Democrats and was able to prevent that, all of Boehner's House bills just kept dying in the Senate.

For example, the House under Boehner's control, even with a majority control in the Senate in 2014, had successfully voted 6 times to totally repeal ObamaCare and another 54 times to defund or repeal specific parts of ObamaCare. Yet, today, the law remains fully intact from the day it became law.

The simple fact is that the only way that any reversal of Obama and the Democrat's actions is to have someone in the White House that won't constantly threaten to veto those reversal bills. Also, the Senate control must be further strengthened to insure that things get done.

In my opinion, Boehner's resignation merely exposes how divided this country is along party lines, and how a minority in the Senate, along with a like-minded President, can block anything not supported by both parties.  Changing the Speaker of the House is not the answer to solving gridlock in Washington.

References:

The 4 Worst Things John Boehner Did As Speaker: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/25/3705592/4-things-john-boehner-did-as-speaker-that-make-us-cry/

Two Charts That Show How Boehner Had An Impossible Job: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/27/443446996/two-charts-that-help-explain-boehners-resignation

House passes 50th bill to undo Obamacare: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/house-passes-50th-bill-to-undo-obamacare/

No, House Republicans haven't voted 50 times to repeal Obamacare: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733

The Perplexing General Petraeus Resignation

I can't remember the last time when such a well-known public figure outed himself as a two-timer on his wife but, General Petraeus, the head of the CIA, did just that.  And, it was done in the midst of an increasing controversy over the Benghazi consulate attack and the killing of four Americans.  Certainly, Petraeus' CIA was highly involved in this incident since the CIA dominated our presence in Benghazi.  The "annex" that is always being talked about -- just a mile away from the consulate --  was a  CIA installation.  Two of the four dead, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy Seals under contract by the CIA and stationed at the annex.

Normally, an affair becomes public and the offender -- after the fact -- has to respond with some public affirmation, humility, and an apology.  But, because Petraeus came forward before any public knowledge of his affair, it almost seems like he was being blackmailed in some way; and, he decided to thwart the blackmailing by going public on his own.

This, then, leads to other speculation.  Was the threat of a public exposure of his infidelity being used to force him into "modifying" his upcoming Benghazi testimony before Congress?  Perhaps, take the fall for the Obama Administration? Certainly, the timing of Petraeus' disclosure and resignation would suggest something like that.  If so, was this an extension of the currently suspected coverup over Benghazi?  And, at what levels within the Obama Administration was this "blackmailing" effort being conducted?  Was President Obama involved?