"Lover's quarrel?" In conservative land? I can't believe it.
They just puffed John Boehner on the cover of a national news magazine as the next Speaker of the House. But he's more an establishment conservative Republican than a tea bagger wingnut.
And with Angle and Rubio and Bachmann and even O'Donnell (!) running strong campaigns, the "real crazy" may feel that this is their moment to take over and have their own turn as Republicans who really eff up and divide the country seriously and permanently.
Hence, this report from CBS:
(CONTINUED)
Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann wouldn't necessarily vote for John Boehner for Speaker of the House should the GOP to take over the chamber in the midterm elections, Bachmann said in a Thursday debate on Minnesota Public Radio.
"Right now, we don't know exactly who the candidates will be. It may be John Boehner," said Bachmann, a conservative who has aggressively tied herself to the Tea Party movement. "If John Boehner's the only candidate running, I'll be voting for John Boehner."
But she emphasized that her support for him was not a guarantee.
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
...so that's a pretty weak endorsement of Boehner as a leader, from Michele.
Never mind: her word means nothing. She could flip tomorrow, and become the biggest Boehner-lover in America.
How do we know? Her performance after the McCain nomination is the key to understanding here. When the comparatively liberal McCain got the GOP nod for the White House, Bachmann told Republicans that "John McCain was not my candidate."
Fast forward to months later, after McCain put Sarah Palin on the ticket--thus earning the approval and support of the evangelical Council for National Policy (CNP.) Bachmann did a 180 degree turn and became a fervent McCain supporter, appearing at rallies and speaking for the candidate at the GOP convention here in Minnesota.
So the lack of enthusiasm about Boehner may disappear, if he's elected and includes tea party/evangelical leaders in the leadership access pool.
Next:
Bachmann opponent Tarryl Clark is trying to get out the volunteers this weekend here in Minnesota, to stop the madness. On Saturday she appeared with Senator Amy Klobuchar, who told the audience that Clark is giving Bachmann toughest fight of her career.
The last of three debates between Clark and Bachmann also takes place this weekend. We may (just may) see some verbal fireworks from Bachmann, if she's feeling very confident about her lead. (She's been playing it very careful this time around, mostly confining her smears against Dems and liberals and the President to fund-raising emails to like-minded supporters. The smear campaign against Clark, however, is in full swing in this: the most expensive House race in US history.)
http://www.wxow.com/...
Next:
For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to Congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: Fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.
Bachmann won’t be teaching the classes, Gor says, but will help organize sessions with constitutional scholars, experts, and judges likely to be held in one of the committee rooms on the Capitol Hill complex. The classes will be open to any members — not just freshman — looking to continue their study of America’s founding documents. They will not be open, however, to staff or members of the press, and the list of speakers won’t be made public.
http://www.politico.com/...
...and they won't be making the list of speakers public, because the evangelical political movement's definition of what a "constitutional expert" is, is very different than the rest of the world's.
According to Bachmann, the Tea Party, and the evangelical political movement: most of the people traditionally recognized as "experts" on what the Constitution means and requires have got it wrong, deeply wrong. They, on the other hand, have got it right.
According to Bachmann and the Tea Party, the body of constitutional interpretation amassed over the last two hundred years by mainstream legal scholars and appellate judges authorized to interpret the Constitution--is, too often, garbage. So they are going to try to teach a new theory of constitutional interpretation to legislators--a theory that is more in accordance with the interpretation of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, than Justices Marshall and Warren and Cardozo and all those hundreds of other bozoes who have "unconstitutionally expanded the power of the federal government" over the past centuries.
And: with the Fox Network to support them, this new "theory" of constitutional understanding (which rejects any established law that conflicts with conservative dogma) may gain ground in Washington. It's radical, for those of you who want to be radical. It requires ignoring official decisions and precedent about what the Constitution means. Basically, any legal decision about what the Constitution means made after the signing of the original document is "up for grabs"--if this scheme is successful.
It's a beautiful plan--not just the re-writing of history that conservatives are famous for; but the rewriting of the basis of US government.
ACTION LINK: Not too late to try to stop this. Here's a link to Tarryl Clark's campaign, if you want to donate or volunteer...
http://tarrylclark.com