John Boehner channels Scut Farkus; Conservatives need to channel Ralphie

Barack Obama and John Boehner share one thing in common; they're both bullies. The difference is that Obama bullies Boehner and Boehner bullies conservatives in his own party. The Speaker of the House actually fights the principled members of his own party more than he fights the President. After all, they are weaker than he is.

A Bully is defined as:

a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Implied in that definition is that bullies choose not to fight people who are stronger than they are. In the case of Obama, he's not only played with Boehner like a cat plays with a ball of yarn but he has a history of acquiescing to bullies on a world stage as well. For example, Obama abstained from supporting the Green Revolution in Iran because it would have meant crossing the Mullahs. Conversely, when it came to the 'Arab Spring', not siding with the revolution would have meant crossing the Muslim Brotherhood, which is doing far more than bullying right now.

In the case of Boehner, those he bullies are conservative / Tea Party types who insist on staying true to conservative principles. As the most powerful Republican in the country today, Boehner has chosen being a bully himself instead of fighting one. Conservatives in the House are weaker people and Boehner is decided to bully them while caving to Obama's demands.

We need a Speaker who will stand up to a bully, not mimic the actions of one.

It's time for a Christmas metaphor. In this short excerpt from A Christmas Story, Boehner is represented by Scut Farkus (yellow eyes); House leadership (Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy) is represented by Grover Dill; and the bullied victims are the conservatives who are being booted off of the Budget Committees for not falling in lockstep with Boehner's rather subservient agenda:



Ever since 2010, House leadership has viewed the Tea Party - despite the latter being responsible for putting the Republican Party back in the majority that year - with disgust. Dissent among conservatives was met with derision. Now, after the election, Boehner & Company have decided it's time for payback and are using their power to bully conservative congressmen who are doing nothing other than what their constituents sent them to Washington, DC to do.

Ned Ryun has a piece at Red State that offers some hope to conservatives because it's quite doable and would only require sixteen Republican congressmen to take care of Boehner the Bully.

Basically, it's this simple:

If Speaker Boehner wants to purge independent, bold conservatives—I think it’s time he gets fired as Speaker. Not only for the purge. He has failed to effectively win negotiations with President Obama and appointed moderate committee chairs. To the public, Boehner may appear radical but in reality he proposes milquetoast policies, like the tax-hikes he proposed this week.

While the caucus has already voted in support of John Boehner as speaker of the 113th Congress, the final floor vote doesn’t happen until early January.

Everyone thinks it’s a fairytale, but the Conservative Movement is capable of firing Boehner with just 16 votes.

The House rules demand that a Speaker receive a majority—218 votes—to be elected speaker. If no nominee for speaker receives 218, the House remains speakerless—as it did during parts of the Civil War.

If 16 House Republicans were to abstain from voting for Speaker, Boehner would only receive 217 votes.

The question remains. Are there sixteen House Republicans who are fed up enough to deal with Boehner the Bully? I've written my congressman to demand he be one of them. Please do the same.

In this metaphor, Boehner - played by Scut Farkus - actually cries because conservative Republicans - played by Ralphie - actually do with Boehner what Boehner WON'T do with Obama.



It's time for conservatives to make Boehner cry for the right reasons.

Video: Costas hits rock bottom, continues digging

Aside from the red flag of finding a sympathetic ear in Lawrence O'Donnell being an indicator of Bob Costas' liberal bonafides, the NBC sports commentator continues to rip the mask off. Again, Costas' desire to further explain his position demonstrates that he knows this is a big deal and that he made a mistake (despite his attempt to say the problem was messaging).

What's interesting is that the more Costas attempts to explain what he meant, the clearer it becomes that he meant exactly what pro-Second amendment advocates thought he meant.

Bob, please, just keep talking.

Via Washington Examiner:

Audio: Bob Costas doubles down on anti-Second Amendment 'commentary'

I truly do not know where to begin in reacting to this interview between NBC's Bob Costas and Fox Sports' writer Jason Whitlock (the guy whose column Costas quoted on Sunday Night Football). For starters, Costas is unapologetic and has only one regret - that he didn't have enough time to explain his position (is it me, or was that the same argument we heard from the Obama administration about why Obamacare wasn't popular?). That Costas felt compelled to come out publicly to respond to the backlash speaks for itself; it means it got to him at some level, regardless of how he attempts to dismiss it.

Anyway, some memorable moments from his interview with Whitlock...

1.) Early on, Costas is asked about whether it was appropriate for him to inject himself into the gun control debate on Sunday Night Football. Of course, Costas says that's an 'easy one' and that, yes, it was appropriate because it involved an NFL player.

Bob, you could have done a commentary about the incident without polarizing your audience. The appropriateness of talking about a murder / suicide involving an NFL player did not have to involve an anti-second amendment 'commentary'.

2.) Costas then attacks those who had a problem with his 'commentary' by saying if people disagree with something that's written, they consider it a 'screed' and if they disagree with something that's said, it's considered a 'rant'. I will therefore refer to Costas' anti-Second amendment lecture as a 'commentary'.

3.) At the 1:55 mark, Costas attempts to marginalize those who were critical of him by referring to them all as 'the gun lobby folks'. People who disagree with him are part of the 'gun lobby'. Bob, how come they can't just be 'pro-Second Amendment folks'? Nice choice of words when describing people who disagree with you, huh? (see #2)

4.) At around the 4:00 mark, Costas attempts to compare what he did this past Sunday with what he did at the Olympics, making a reference to the 1972 Munich tragedy. What he doesn't do here is draw the more accurate comparison, which would be taking a political position in which he sides with either Israel or the Palestinians in the larger conflict. For example, did he say anything about how if Hamas had no rockets, Israelis wouldn't be killed or if Islam was banned, there'd be less killings? Nice try, Bob but way off.

5.) Whitlock then asks Bob a leading question about knowing that the comments would be controversial and implies in his question that because Bob has a big platform, it's courageous to speak his mind on controversial topics. I find this point of view quite interesting because the left doesn't seem to have that opinion about right wing commentators. Rush Limbaugh was thrown off ESPN for saying something that was rather innocuous compared to what Costas said.

6.) Shortly thereafter, Costas says he could have addressed the issue on his show later in the week and given it more time, thereby having a greater ability to convey his point of view more fully. His reason for doing it on Sunday Night Football instead? The audience was much larger, which is precisely the point, Bob. You used your platform to espouse a political position that a huge portion of your football audience didn't tune in to hear.

7.) Whitlock then asks Costas if he had to 'clear' his comments with NBC management. The question is ridiculous, as is Costas' answer. Costas's response that management doesn't 'forbid' him 'from saying anything' is absurd. If Costas espoused a pro-Constitutional / second amendment view, he in all likelihood, would have been fired. He was able to say what he said because NBC management agreed with it. Right, Bob?

8.) Costas said he would be 'surprised' if NBC heard from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in any 'negative way' about his comments. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be the politically correct culture that exists in both the NFL and at NBC? Duh.

9.) Wow. At the 10:45 mark, Costas actually says that there are people who treat their guns as if they're on par with their wallets or car keys, never leaving the house without them and that when people do that, it leads to bad things far more often that it leads to good things. This is a despicable comment, in part, because the good is not seen. How many times did the mere presence of a gun prevent bad things from happening in these instances, Bob? This comment only further underscores Costas' anti-Second amendment position. Keep talking and keep digging, Bob.

10.) To the absurdity of #9, Costas wants an example of when a professional athlete, armed with a gun has done any good. That's the point, Bob. The presence of guns in the hands of responsible owners can prevent acts of violence. Such scenarios aren't generally newsworthy. I don't recall you ever commenting on them during any NFL halftime shows.

On the same day that Whitlock interviewed Costas, he told Roland Martin that the NRA is the new KKK.

Listen to as much as you can stand.

Via Daily Caller: