Boehner Promises GA Republicans Committee Posts if GOP Take House

Politico reports on Minority Leader John Boehner’s appearances in South Georgia this week.

House Minority Leader John Boehner promised two Republican candidates choice committee spots this week.

Boehner, speaking Tuesday in Centerville, Ga., said he would commit “to do everything I can to make sure” Austin Scott, the Republican running against Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), gets a spot on the Armed Services committee, according to a video posted on a local news source’s website.

Mike Keown, the Republican running against Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), said Tuesday that the Ohio Republican committed to him a seat on the Agriculture committee.

“We will have a seat at the table and with a Republican majority, we’ll have a strong voice as we address farm issues,” Keown said, according to the local Fox affiliate.


    • Tyler says:

      It’s news. I didn’t say it wasn’t obvious haha. Though it does raise one question: how do Bishop and Marshall “sell” their seniority in the House and their committee positions if the Rs sweep the House? I highly doubt that Boehner would keep a lot of Dems in high positions if the GOP takes control of the House.

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        Tyler, not to be condescending or anything, but no speaker keeps members of the opposition party in committee chairmanships.

        John Boehner is not interest in just or effective outcomes. He only wants his buddies in power. Just like every other Speaker. That is why they get elected. Democrats in committee chairmanships will not rush Boehner’s bills to the floor without hearings and deliberation…only Boehner’s republican (notice I did not use that undefined phrase conservative) allies will do that.

        That being said, it is unlikely that Bishop will lose. Marshall is probably a goner, but Bishop will probably pull it out. We will see though. I can not entirely say that I am being objective on the Bishop vs Keown race. Like Jim Marshall, I like having Bishop in office. I do not mind contributing to Austin Scott if he wins, but I hate the idea of having to contribute to Keown to buy access. Scott has been in the game long enough to know how to play ball. Keown is, quite frankly, a moron and a neophyte. Always has been.

        I know my opinion is not regarded highly amongst the PP crowd…because I am a “liberal” and all (though given the current definitions of conservatism I am no less conservative than any other on this site). Let me speak to you as a successful businessman: Keown is bad for business. not only can backbenchers get nothing done, he is merely recycling ideas from 200 business cycles ago. He is a minister…not a businessman. His ideas are old, ineffective in the market, and are only designed to get votes from those that do not know any better or those who lend themselves to the whims of the mob.

        • Tyler says:

          I know that Speakers don’t keep those in the opposing Party in seats of power. I was merely pointing out that the Dems will have a hard time promoting themselves b/c of committees (see Marshall repping his Armed Services Committee seat in regards to Robins AFB).

          That said, I don’t know the political climate in the 2nd. And I’m nearly 100% sure that no 2 people can agree what “conservative” means haha.

          You “might” be liberal. I’d really have to see where you stand on issues thought. To me “liberal” is synonymous with Big Gov’t and using tax dollars to provide services for individuals rather than relying on the private sector. Merely differing opinions on the engines of prosperity. One likes government as the stabilizer, the other likes the market place.

        • polisavvy says:

          Actually, Goldwater, I enjoyed your post. It made a lot of sense (even to someone as ignorant as me). LOL!! 😉

        • drjay says:

          i have never met keown, but good grief, he has held several elected offices and has been elected to the state house 3 times, he clearly has some political acumen…and if the would be speaker is making a point of talking about him now, it’s reasonable to assume he will have a chance to get some things done…

        • jeff says:

          What would make you call Keown a moron or a neophyte? Just a few weeks ago you were calling him a total loser that had absolutely not shot a winning. Now you are saying that Bishop will probably pull it out. What does “I hate the idea of having to contribute to Keown to buy access” mean? Obviously Keown is much more adept at running a campaign than you gave him credit for just a few weeks ago. He might not have the political experience that Austin Scott has but has it ever crossed your mind that maybe that is what the people of the district want? Maybe they want someone who doesn’t care about “playing ball” and will simply represent their values and wishes in Washington DC.

  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    In other news: last week many commenters on this site stated that the promising of committee posts for political, rather than practical, purposes was one of the things wrong with the system.

    See the post “Why jim marshall does not support pelosi except when he does” for those that believe so.

    That being said, like all things in the anti-intellectual south, it is probably fine if conservatives break the rules so long as they are not democrats.

  2. ricstewart says:

    At the risk of sounding ignorant, why is Boehner promising committee appointments to candidates based on what committee assignments their incumbent opponents have?
    Wouldn’t it make more sense (not that I really expect Boehner to have it, much less use it) to make committee assignments based on the skills and background of Keown and Scott?

    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

      That would make sense.

      What concerns me is that committee assignments are sometimes used in critical votes to essentially blackmail politicians into voting with the rest of the party’s critters, or risk losing their committee positions (like what happened to Preston Smith). Forcing a politician to choose between ‘keeping a position of power’ versus ‘the will of the people’ almost always results in the people getting shafted. In my opinion, it would be best if Georgia’s republicans steered clear of those cushy committee posts so they’d lose nothing by telling the other Republicans in D.C. to go to hell!, in the event that they were pressured by party leaders into voting against the principles of the party.

    • griftdrift says:

      He promised Keown the Ag Committee because the 2nd is the most agricultural district in the state.

      He promised Scott Armed Services because of Robins Air Force Base.

      This is not rocket science.

      • polisavvy says:

        Exactly. That’s why I’m wondering why people are making such a big deal about it. It’s kind of like “Captain Obvious” stuff to me. Logical choices for logical committees.

  3. Steve says:

    The current Democrat congressmen support the Democrat Speaker, at least on procedural votes, because it’s part of obtaining committee seats.


    The possible new Republican Speaker makes open promises of committee seats, in exchange for possible new Republican congressmen supporting him on procedural votes.


  4. Jeff says:

    Has anyone considered the possibility that Scott and/or Keown wins, but the Ds retain control of the House? On the flip side, what if Marshall and/ or Bishop win, but the Rs take the House anyway?

    How do Boehner’s promises (or the incumbents’ current committee assignments) work out then?

    I’ve never hid the fact that I like Austin, nor have I hid the fact that I don’t like Mike. But voting for them based on these “promises” is idiotic, at best.

    • drjay says:

      if keown wins, we are very, very likely talking about a pretty big wave where it is hard to imagine the gop is not leading the house, so this is more to blunt the ability of bishop to say “hey look i’m on ag” as a signifigant advantage over keown to the voting farmers…all other things being more or less equal…

    • Hi Jeff,

      You know that unless there is an event of epic proportion then the Republicans gain control of the house.

      Boehner was careful to say he would attempt to do so. I’m not sure it’s legitimate to come right out an offer a position upon condition of winning. Having said that, I have no doubt that when Austin wins and Boehner is the next Speaker, then Austin will have a seat on the House Armed Services Committee.

      Marshall has been fear-mongering about RAFB. So, it’s important to know that Boehner wants Scott on the HASC.

  5. slyram says:

    I must been one of the most selfish people in southwest Georgia. Keown can win and he is running a masterful campaign at a time when we Dems are napping. The selfish question becomes what of 2012 when another wave could change the 2nd seat again; there goes all of that seniority of Bishop.

    Quietly, some Republicans in this depressed region must be thinking Bishop brings a lot and options must be considered. In the recently Roll Call article about the 2nd race, Albany city commissioner/Darton College professor Roger Marietta called Bishop a 100 million dollar per year industry. We all know southwest Georgia has other GOP luminaries who would have tossed their hats into the race if winning served the region—guys with well earned history of functioning with comfort in all corners of the second.

    Since Jeff is pushing the whole “let’s be honest” thing, I like Austin also and would trade Marshall down the river to hold an appropriator in the 2nd and give President Obama a rare GOPer who would join with Rep. Paul Ryan and outline what is wrong with White House spending trends line by line.

Comments are closed.