Boehner likely to keep speakership
WASHINGTON — When Republicans chose John Boehner as House speaker two years ago, the former plastics salesman who had served two decades in Congress finally had the job he wanted.
Trouble was, he couldn't have picked a worse time.
That reality played out again late New Year's Day, when Boehner suffered a stinging rebuke as his rambunctious Tea Party-inspired majority — more conservative and less willing to compromise than he is — abandoned their leader on the “fiscal cliff” deal.
Boehner voted yes, but the majority of his majority and even his top two lieutenants voted no. If conventional wisdom held, the speaker's tenure would be finished.
But Boehner is expected to be re-elected on Thursday by a still rebellious Republican majority. Like the political disarray within the Republican Party nationally, the GOP ranks in the House are similarly divided. The lack of a challenger with a clear line of ascent all but ensures he will keep his dream job.
Influential Republican activists agitate for change, and up-and-comers in Congress muse aloud about a run. Yet no one else in the House leadership, most notably the No. 2 Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, has stepped up.
Would-be challengers are reluctant to aim for the speaker's job — and miss. Nor are they eager to take on a line of work that has proven extremely difficult.
“Who wants his job right now?” said strategist Ron Bonjean. “No one wants to take his place.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.