Red State is following the election:
Update [2006-2-2 13:30:52 by krempasky]: Heh. They had more ballots cast then members in the room. Hilarity ensues.
Update [2006-2-2 13:40:40 by Augustine]: First ballot: Shadegg took roughly 40 on the first ballot, Blunt 110, Boehner 75.
Insert your own jokes.
*** Update ***
Shadegg has dropped out, which means that Boehner is going to win this.
*** Update #2 ***
It is official. Boehner is the new majority leader.
Democrats are going to have a field day with this.
Paul Wartenberg
Oh sweet monkey jebus. Do I need to come up there to help count? I *was* in Broward County back in 2000, so I’ve got the experience…
DougJ
Is this the real leadership election? Or some strange Red State joke?
So that means it goes to a run-off ballot between Boehner and Blunt.
Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that the it’s come down to Boner versus Blunt. Those two had quite a competition in my mind when I was in high-school.
rilkefan
[emphasis added]
DougJ is secretly Jehovah or Brahma or suchlike.
LITBMueller
Looks like those Diebold machines are acting up again!!! Can’t they get their voting manipulation software down straight?
Oh, and I hear Blunt’s canmpaign theme song has been “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by The Who, focusing on the line “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
Shadegg didn’t find it funny, though. But, his motto, “We Can’t Go From the Hammer to Blunt,” really hasn’t gained any traction…
Perry Como
Diebold has your back.
DougJ
Meet the old boss, same as the old boss. I’m not cynical about these things — Shadegg would have been a real change, IMHO. Boehner’s more of the same.
DougJ
For reasons I can’t fully explain, I was really looking forward to saying “Shadooby Shadegg”. I just can’t enough of that song: flatter, flatter, flatter, flatter, flatter. So good. Fuck it, I’m going to Itunes to buy it.
Pb
For some reason it doesn’t surprise me — (a) Katherine Harris is there; (b) they make up some pitiful excuse as to why this happened, and then (c) they don’t reveal what the actual results were that their excuses can be verified–obviously they need a verifiable voting process just as much as we do. But at least they did a “do-over” this time instead of taking it to the frickin’ Supreme Court to litigate it. Geez.
Perry Como
It’s good that an Ohio Republican was elected as majority leader. Ohio Republicans can wash away that corruption smell quickly.
Pb
DougJ,
Or as I said before, Shadeggadelic, baby. Maybe he’ll get another shot at it if Blunt gets indicted.
jaime
Boehner has the smallest taint.
*Tee Hee.*
Great. Choose the Ohio republican. No corruption there.
Zifnab
I don’t know. Blunt comes across as more of a “bought and paid for” type of politician, if only because he’s so firmly next to DeLay. Perhaps I just haven’t seen Boehner ranting on FOX News as often.
Pb
Oh, the House got a Boehner for their Majority Leader? Heh, maybe there will be some comedy potential there after all. :)
Marcus Wellby
The GOP has the full lower anatomy covered — a bush in the WH, a boner in the house, and an asshole in the senate.
Richard Bottoms
Yes we are. too funny for words.
LITBMueller
Joke Attempt Two:
Wha…what? His name is pronounced “Bayner?”
Shit. :(
Brad R.
Democrat’s are going to have a field day with this.
Here’s a better question: who’s going to be the first lefty blogger immature enough to make a joke about the GOP “popping a Boehner,” or something like that?
UPDATE: Turns out it was me.
Steve
I don’t think Shadegg would have been anything close to a reformer, but it definitely would have been the talking point to try and sell. At least the winner is someone other than Blunt, who would have made the Democrats’ job ridiculously easy.
I also recall reading about some conference call where Blunt pissed off a bunch of the conservative bloggers by basically saying, “I already have the votes, so you better think carefully about which side you choose.” Guess his bluff got called.
Paul Wartenberg
In the short term, this is a satisfying victory against the DeLay faction of congress and the GOP to have their hand-picked guy Blunt kicked to the curb.
In the long term, Boehner has to take this ‘free of taint’ stuff and actually reform how the GOP and how Congress works. He’s going to have to show that he’s stepped beyond the corruption of being in the Ohio and Abramoff circles of greed…
Now here’s the next question, who won the other posts, like the party Whip (the vote-getter guy)? If it’s a DeLay crony that should tell us how bad it still is…
Shygetz
Blunt is party Whip.
Mr.Ortiz
What bluff? He DID have all the votes. The problem is he got greedy and cast them all at once.
Zerthimon
I disagree. Boehner is the worst outcome for Dems. Sure Shadegg would have been more active in trying to reform the corruption in Washington, but he was extremely conservative. He harkens back to the old-school, let’s abolish department of education, slash medicare and medicaid, kind of conservative. The kind that would alienate moderates. Boehner is a conservative, but he’s more moderate. He worked with Democrats to pass the No Child Left Behind bill for example. And democrats will have a hard time attacking him for supporting pork, since he was one of the view who voted against the transportation bill and the “bridge to nowhere”.
This was the best choice for Republicans.
Otto Man
Christ, I just used that for a blog post on this and thought I was so damn clever. Then I come over here and three people have already beat me to it. Lightning fast reflexes.
Lines
So now that he’s Majority Leader will he fight for it to be funded?
Also, NCLB is a piece of shit to most liberals outside of the beltway.
MI
Is he the one who handed out checks on the floor during a vote?
Doug
I think it’s time for the Dems to do their darnedest to turn Ohio Republican corruption into a national story. It helps put Ohio in play, it tarnishes the new House leader, and it gives the impression that the Republicans are up to business as usual.
Paul Wartenberg
Which one, Delay, Blunt or Boehner?
I do know that handing out checks on the floor was/is a time-honored tradition in the Texas Lege.
MI
err, that wasn’t snark. I remember seeing on the Daily Show that one of the guys running for majority leader had actually done that. I guess I could stop being lazy and google it!
MI
Ok, here it is, yeah it was Boehner.
“..Boehner once handed out checks from tobacco political action committees on the House floor. Blunt, who tried to insert a “provision benefiting Philip Morris USA” into the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security, is married to a Phillip Morris lobbyist, and his son lobbies for them in Missouri..”
My god.
John Cole
Yes, it was Boehner.
MI
Oops, link http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/11/43423/5881
Davebo
Err.. I seriously doubt it.
Oh yeah, he’s a reformer like Bush is a uniter.
DougJ
God, he sounds worse than Blunt.
DougJ
I mean Boehner does. I’m sure Shadegg’s no angel, but I think he would have been an improvement. Maybe I’m naive.
My favorite angle on the Republicans in the House was the rumor that Scanlon took Livingstone down. I remember vividly that a lot of Democrats were not happy about Livingstone stepping down.
MI
Well wtf? Do Republicans know something about the ’06 elections that the Democrats don’t? The dems are hoping to ride the culture of corruption frame all the way to taking back the house, apparently (by electing this joker) The GOP doesn’t think it’s nearly the winning issue that dems do.
Angry Engineer
Yea, that doesn’t really scream “we’re serious about reform”.
Wow, so this guy who actually handed out checks on the floor is viewed as the answer to the Republican’s problems? Amazing. These guys really have absolutely no clue.
Mike
Well MI, of course the Republemmings know something the Democraps don’t. They know that Diebold and ESS count the votes!!!
After all, I think it was Kruschev that said “it doesn’t matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes”
Kimmitt
Mike — my grandma always said, “If the scorekeeper loses, it’s his own damn fault.”
Anyways, that’s what Repubs know that Dems don’t.
BadTux
Then there’s Boehner’s Abramoff ties. To quote the LA Times:
According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, he received $32,500 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and the lobbyist’s clients — more than DeLay did.
And in the mid-1990s, Boehner was criticized by public interest groups for passing out campaign contributions from tobacco companies to lawmakers on the House floor.
If Blunt or Boehner became majority leader, it would leave them open to Democratic charges that they remain steeped in a “culture of corruption” in Washington.
This isn’t even counting the donations to Boehner’s “Freedom Project PAC”.
The whole “Republican culture of corruption” meme is virtually the only time the Democrats have succeeded at “branding” the Republicans with something (as vs. the other way around). This certainly isn’t going to help.
– Badtux the PoliSci Penguin
Paul Wartenberg
Three things need to be done to end corruption in DC:
1) Vote the bums out. We’ve got their voting records. We’ve got their ties to lobbyists. Kick em out. Done.
2) Petition your State gov’ts to call for a Constitutional Convention specifically designed to pass amendments that limit the power of the lobbyists, eliminates pork earmarks and other corrupt financial practices, and defines the limits of presidential abuse of power (simplist amendment to write: “The President of the United States is not above the law. The Consitution and the system of checks and balances between branches of government shall be upheld at all times.”) If enough states petition for the same thing for a convention, Congress will be forced to call one.
3) File referenda or state-level amendments (I dunno how it’s done in other states, but Florida has a system where if enough people sign a petition an amendment can be proposed directly by the voters) that reduce the costs of filing for political campaigns and make it easier for third party and/or independents to run for office. End the two-party rule: when both sides are corrupt a third side must be made available.
What, too wordy?
Faux News
Outstanding! I almost spit up my “liberal elite bottled water” on the computer screen.
(cue nasty/spiteful post by Stormy proclaiming triumph for the GOP)
Zerthimon
Is there evidence that Abramoff directed the indian tribes to give money to Boehner? Remember the scandal isn’t that tribes under Abramoff gave money to politicians. It’s that Abramoff specificaly directed tribes to. And that he also gave some money directly.
DougJ
I’ve got to go with Zerthimon here. Unless there’s some evidence of quid pro quo or the like, I’m reluctant to attack Boehner for this.
AkaDad
I wanted Blunt to win because Blunt is something i can relate to heavily.
I also thought they would vote for the guy with “less taint”, but they perferred a Boehner.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Boner wins!
Seriously, the way the guy’s name is spelled it looks like it should read like that.
I told you Shadagg didn’t have a chance.
And in closing, Republicans rigging an election? Why do I feel like it’s 2000 all over again.
Steve
There’s no glib answer to the question of whether Abramoff-connected money is dirty or not, aside from the fact that some politicians have been giving it all back just to try and dispel any lingering issue.
The GOP talking point is that tribal money is just like money from Abramoff himself; thus, Dems took plenty of money too. That’s not a fair argument.
The Dem talking point is that the tribes were the victims here, and the tribal money is all clean, it’s just the direct money from Abramoff that’s an issue. That’s not right either.
To get at whether the tribal money is dirty or not, you have to dig deeper. For example, many of the tribes had been donating to politicians (mostly Dems) well before they hired Abramoff. Obviously, if they kept on making the same donations after they hired Abramoff, the money is most likely clean.
On the other hand, you have cases where Abramoff’s clients suddenly start making contributions to candidates they have no apparent connection with. For example, in 2004, Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA) got a $5000 donation from the Sac & Fox tribe, one of Abramoff’s clients located in Iowa. In 2003, he had written a critical letter to the Bush Administration questioning an action involving the tribe. This is not proof of a quid pro quo, obviously, but when a California Congressman intervenes on behalf of an Iowa tribe that he’s never had a relationship with before, and then gets a big donation from them, you might suspect something fishy.
If anyone has seen allegations like this made against a Democrat – they got a donation out of the blue from an Abramoff client they had no logical reason to be dealing with – I’d be interested to take a look at it.
Krusher King
Democrats will NOT have a field day with this–they’re too lazy, complacent (what they think they have to be complacent about, I will never be able to guess) disorganized, and craven. They are supine. The Democrats will, as usual, do nothing.
neil
They had more ballots cast then members in the room. Hilarity ensues.
See? See what happens when you count all the votes? We tried to tell you 6 years ago!
searp
Just another sign that all the reform talk is just that. The K St. project IS the republican party. The ties to corporate money are exactly that close.
Reform talk will fade away. The lobbyists don’t have to go to the gym. Next up: fake energy stuff. After that: fake terra stuff. It is an election year.
AkaDad
Looks like Boehner is a Theocrat
http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/02/new_gop_leader_.html
The Disenfranchised Voter
Holy shit. This guy is a looney tune.
This is posted from AkaDad’s link:
Ten things you should know about Boner:
The Other Steve
Didn’t really matter. None of the guys running for this position were any good.