Republican Party United States Politicians

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

"I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association"

"Now, let me be clear. While I have always approached this relationship and the role of sanctions realistically, this election is a test the government must pass. Simply holding an election without mass casualties or violence, while vitally important, isn't good enough. Let me say that again. Just holding an election without mass violence is not enough. It has to do a lot more than just have the absence of violence. As I stated on the Senate floor earlier this year, if we end up with an election not accepted by the Burmese people as reflecting their will, it will make further normalization of relations--at least as it concerns the legislative branch of this government--much more difficult. It would likely hinder further enhancement of U.S.-Burma economic ties and military-to-military relations. It would likely erode confidence in Burma's reform efforts. It would also likely make it more difficult for the executive branch to include Burma in the Generalized System of Preferences Program or to enhance political military relations."

"At the same time, we should not allow these things to completely overshadow what Burma has accomplished. It has actually come a long way in recent years. There are many positive things to be built upon as well. In short, there is still hope for Burma's upcoming election. Thein Sein's government has an opportunity to make these last few weeks of campaigning as free and as fair as possible. The Burmese Government can still hold an election that, despite the troubling things I mentioned, can be embraced by Burmese citizens and the international community alike. That will mean ensuring these final weeks of campaigning are as free and as fair as possible. That will mean ensuring freedom of expression is protected. These are the kinds of minimum goals that Burmese officials must strive toward in the final weeks of the campaign season. If the Burmese Government gets this right, if it ensures as free and fair an election as possible, with results accepted by competing parties, the government, and the military, that would go a long way toward reassuring Burma's friends around the globe that it remains committed to political reform and progress in the bilateral relationship. Indeed, both the government and the military have committed to standing by the election results."

"Reports indicate that otherwise eligible Rohingya, more than half a million of them, have been systematically deprived of the right to vote and the right to stand for election. That poses another serious challenge to next month's elections being seen as free and fair, and there is another serious challenge I would note as well. Finally, while media activity in Burma is far more open than it was before 2010, there have been troubling signs that indicate a recent and worrying backslide. In fact, just a few days ago, news circulated of individuals being arrested for Facebook postings. These are very disturbing reports. Campaigns can be conducted only when a free exchange of ideas is permitted. Arresting citizens for free expression runs directly counter to that idea. It is at odds with notions of free speech and democracy, and it seems designed to send chilling signals to the Burmese people. It is clear that Burma faces substantial challenges. From the undemocratic elements in Burma's Constitution, to the disenfranchisement of the Rohingya, to troubling incidents regarding the curtailment of citizens' basic rights, these challenges are significant. They need to be addressed."

"Allowing appropriate constitutional changes to pass through the Parliament would have represented a tangible demonstration of the Burmese Government's commitment to both political reform and to a freer and fairer election this November. But when the measures were put to a vote on June 25, the government's allies exercised the very undemocratic power the Constitution grants them to stymie the effort. So what kinds of messages do these actions send us? They bring the Burmese Government's continued commitment to democracy into question. If you were truly committed to democracy, why would you continue a provision like that, which to most of the world is simply quite laughable or outrageous? They also raise fundamental questions about the balloting this fall, increasing the prospect of an election being perceived as something other than the will of the people, even if its actual conduct proves to be free and fair. It is hard to see how that is in anybody's interest. The second deeply troubling consideration is the apparent widespread, if not universal, disenfranchisement of the Rohingya population. For all the ill treatment the Rohingya have had to endure in their history, at least they had once been able to vote and run for office in Burma. They voted and fielded a candidate for office in both the 2010 election and the 1990 election, but, alas, no more."

"First, the Constitution was not amended prior to the election. As many of my colleagues will recall, the Burmese Constitution unreasonably restricts who can be a candidate for President, a hardly subtle attempt to bar the country's most popular opposition figure from even standing for office. That is certainly worrying enough, but the Burmese Constitution goes even further, ensuring an effective military veto over constitutional change--over, for instance, amendments about running for the Presidency by requiring more than three-fourths parliamentary support in a legislature where the Constitution also reserves--listen to this--more than one-fourth of the seats for the military. So in order to change the Constitution, you have to get some military votes and obviously, so far, that hasn't happened."

"Mr. President, on November 8, just a few weeks away, the people of Burma will hold national elections. This promises to be a momentous event for a country many of us have studied and followed for a very long time--in my own case for over 20 years. This is going to be a momentous election for at least two reasons. First, for Burma's citizens--or for many of them, at least--this election represents a chance to finally choose their own leaders, which is, indeed, a rare occurrence in recent Burmese history. That is significant in itself, but there is another reason these elections are so important, because the manner in which they are conducted will serve as a key indicator of the progress of reform in that country. There are some encouraging signs that the election will be freer and fairer than what we have seen in the past. Unlike recent Burmese elections, for example, international election observers have been permitted into the country. That is an important departure from the past, and it is encouraging. At the same time, there have been troubling signs during the election cycle. Allow me to share a few of them with you now."

"I do support the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. I actually worked with Senator Barrasso to introduce it and will take a vote to move the bipartisan bill forward this afternoon. A bipartisan majority of the Senate supports the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. What it says is pretty simple. If the administration is actually serious about protecting waterways and not just cynically using this regulation as a ploy to extend the bureaucracy's reach, then it should follow the proper process to get to a balanced outcome. It should appropriately consult with the Americans who would be the most affected by the regulation, especially farmers, ranchers, and small businesses, not to mention the homebuilders, manufacturers, mine operators, and utility providers that would be particularly impacted in my State. It should appropriately consult with the States. It should actually conduct the regulatory impact analyses required of it. In short, what this bipartisan bill would do is require the administration to actually follow the balanced approach it should have followed in the first place. It is commonsense, bipartisan legislation that would protect our waterways while protecting the American people from a heavy-handed regulation that threatens their property rights and their very livelihoods. A similar bill has already passed the House with bipartisan support. Americans in places like Eastern Kentucky have suffered enough from this administration's regulatory onslaught already. This latest regulation threatens to turn the screws even tighter for almost no benefit at all. I call on every colleague to join me in standing up for the middle class instead of defending cynical, job-crushing regulations. I ask them to join me in supporting the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act this afternoon."

"Mr. President, two Federal courts have already found that the Obama administration's plan to regulate the land around nearly every pothole and ditch is illegal. It is hardly a surprise. The administration's so-called waters of the United States regulation is a cynical and overbearing power grab dressed awkwardly as some clean water measure. It is not. Many argue it actually violates the Clean Water Act. The true aim of this massive regulatory overreach is pretty clear. After all, if you are looking for an excuse to extend the reach of the Federal bureaucracy as widely and intrusively as possible, why not just issue a regulation giving bureaucrats dominion over land that has touched a pothole or a ditch or a puddle at some point? That would seem to be pretty much everything, and that is why the waters of the United States regulation is so worrying. It would force Americans who live near potholes and ditches and puddles to ask bureaucrats for permission to do just about anything on their own property. Want to spray some weeds? Fill out a permit. Want to put a small pond in your back yard? Ask Uncle Sam. Want to build a barn or just about anything else on the land you own? Good luck getting approval from the Feds on that."

"When John talks about struggling to make it, it is not some platitude. When John gets choked up about Americans reaching for their dreams, it is not some act. This is a guy who had to share a bathroom with 11 brothers and sisters. Imagine that. This is a guy whose parents slept on the pullout sofa. This is a guy who worked hard behind the bar and eventually found his way atop the rostrum. Maybe that is why he is so humble. Maybe that is why when he orders breakfast at Pete's, they don't call him Mr. Speaker; they call him "John-John." Here is what I know about Speaker John Boehner. He says the code he lives by is a simple one: Do the right thing for the right reasons, and the right things will happen. I have always found that to be true. I found it to be true in our battles fighting side by side for conservative reform, sometimes from a position deep in the minority. We had our share of Maalox moments. That is for sure. But he always strived to push forward. As I said about John Boehner the day he announced his retirement, grace under pressure, country and institution before self--these are the things that come to mind when I think of him. I wish Speaker Boehner the very best in retirement. I thank him for always working hard to do the right thing--for his family, for his district, for his party, and for his country. Farewell, my friend."

"Mr. President, allow me to say a few words about the Speaker of the House. There is a lot you can say about John Boehner. He loves his breakfast every morning at Pete's Diner. He is a fan of the tie dimple. He is one of the most genuine guys you will ever, ever meet. I know because we have fought many battles together in the trenches. He never breaks his word. He never buckles in a storm. What is amazing is how we have had such a frictionless relationship, especially when you consider that old House saying: The other party--that is just the opposition. But the Senate--that is the enemy. That may have been true of past House and Senate leaders, but it wasn't true for us. Though you might not expect it, I am a little more Bourbon and John is a little more Merlot. I lecture on Henry Clay. John sings "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah." But I have always considered John an ally. I have always considered John a friend. It is hard not to like him, and it is hard not to admire what John has accomplished in his career. As a concerned Ohioan, he took on a scandal-plagued incumbent in a primary and won. As a freshman Congressman, he took on money laundering schemes and banking scandals involving powerful Members and prevailed. As an engineer of the Contract with America, he took on Democrats' decades-long power lock and triumphed. As an ex-member of leadership once considered politically dead, he knew he had more to offer and convinced his colleagues that he did. As the inheritor of a diminished and dispirited House minority, he dared to believe conservatives could rise again and help grow the largest Republican majority since bob-haired flappers were dancing the Charleston back in the 1920s. John Boehner has wandered the valley. John Boehner has also been to the mountaintop. John Boehner has slid right back into the valley, and then ascended to great heights yet again. He does it all with hard work. He does it with an earnestness and an honesty I have always admired."

"“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” “Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” , The Atlantic, (January, 2011)"

"We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job." (National Journal): What’s the job? The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

"Nobody is happy about losing lives but, remember, these are not draftees. These are full-time professional soldiers."

"There was no involvement whatsoever."

"With regard to White House officials, it will be up to the President to decide frankly whether and when and under what circumstances members of his [own White House staff] testify."

"You're more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate."

"I think the testimony obviously ought to be sworn testimony. And we ought to go all the way into this and take as much time as we can to reassure the American people that this sort of thing’s not going to happen again in the future."

"Chambliss is a senator today by sole virtue of the fact that in 2002 he attacked incumbent Max Cleland -- who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam and earned Silver and Bronze stars -- as soft on defense and lacking in patriotism. Where was ol' Saxby during the war? Home, of course, claiming a "football injury." How you get elected reflects your character, and Chambliss should never be allowed to live down the shame of what he did in 2002. Never."

"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."

"You can truly see that there is some melting going on. When you see it, all of a sudden you say, 'Hey, that issue that we've been talking about off and on over the years, there really is something to it.'"

"The very technologies that some seem to be afraid of are driving innovation, and driving creativity as we sit here today. In fact, we have an unprecedented wave of creativity and product development and content development... I think the history of government mandates... is that it always, always restricts innovation. Why would we think this one special time... it will actually encourage innovation?"

"I don't know of a case where we were discussing such a dramatic step where the federal government will legislatively mandate a specific type of technology to be incorporated in all of this material. Maybe the sky really is falling this time, but I think it is worth suggesting a little bit of skepticism, it's worth offering up a little doubt before we not just entertain this, but jump ahead to what exemptions were required."

"In all cases [of previous technological advancements in the US], we didn't need to step in with a significant statutory government-regulated mandate on technology that consumers use to enjoy this material,"

"This may be the most bizarre recommendation, but I am sincere. I'm not saying it's not an issue or it's not important, but proportionally speaking, stop complaining about health care...if there was something that we could do about it that were quick or easy, it would be done...There is no solution."

"I do not support raising the minimum wage, and the reason is as follows: When the minimum wage is raised, workers are priced out of the market. That is the economic reality that seems, at least so far, to be missing from this discussion.""

"What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would like to have been treated."

"I leave with no regrets or burdens. If anything, I leave as I started; just a regular guy humbled by the chance to do a big job."

"We lost one of one of the great leaders of our lifetime on Monday. She was a true friend of America, and a champion of freedom. We're going to ensure that Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is honored by the United States government in a way commensurate with her enormous achievements."

"Just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do."

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas everyday."

"This guy has emotional problems."

"When it comes to formulating drug policy, too frequently lawmakers are allowed to simply ignore evidence-and even make up their own. I can't count the number of times I've seen shameless politicians use this strategy to mislead the public about drugs. Take for example, former speaker of the house John Boehner, who opposed marijuana legalization for his entire thirty-year political career. Back in 2011, he wrote a constituent to say "research shows that marijuana use in its raw form is harmful" and that he was "unalterably opposed to the legalization of marijuana." In 2018, following Boehner's 2015 resignation from Congress, he joined the board of Acreage Holdings, a Canadian firm that is the largest multi-state owner of cannabis licenses and assets in the United States. As you might've guessed, Boehner no longer opposes marijuana legalization. Now he's an advocate. Now he believes that laws prohibiting the substance are "way out of step." Boehner is a hypocrite. Don't misunderstand me, I think marijuana should be legalized nationwide. My position is unequivocal. What's more, I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for those who are able to change their minds in the presence of new and better evidence. This is called cognitive flexibility, a hallmark of intelligence. Boehner's newfound position, however, was motivated by greed. He doesn't seem to give one fuck about the extensive harms caused by the prohibitory policies he once supported. These policies compromise the health of synthetic cannabinoid users and facilitate racism in law enforcement. "I don't have any regrets at all," Boehner told National Public Radio. Astonishingly, he said, "The whole criminal justice part of this, frankly, it never crossed my mind.""

"Lucifer in the flesh, I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."

"So, whether or not how dramatic this change will be, or is, what it’s caused by, are things that honest people, I think, can disagree with, and I really personally, having been a journalist, the first thing I was always cautioned by when someone was claiming, well, everybody is on my side, or everybody says this, or there is a total consensus, almost always when people said that to me over my years as a journalist, it wasn’t true. It was that there were honest people who disagreed and significant disagreement on such issues. We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well. And what happened when the CO2 was greater since then and now? There have been many cycles of up and down warming. So with that said, I think that we’ve had a great discussion today."

"The American people, through the 35 states that have liberalized laws banning either medical marijuana, marijuana in general, or cannabinoid oils, have made it clear that federal enforcers should stay out of their personal lives. It's time for restraint of the federal government's over-aggressive weed warriors."

"America’s Christian conservative movement is confronted with this divide: small-government advocates who want to practice their faith independent of heavy-handed government versus big-government sympathizers who want to impose their version of 'righteousness' on others through the hammer of law.... Our movement must avoid the temptations of power and those who would twist the good intentions of Christian voters to support policies that undermine freedom and grow government."

"Dave Barry:: Are you really Dick Armey? Dick Armey:: Yes, I am Dick Armey. And if there is a dick army, Barney Frank would want to join up."

"There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It's Judea and Samaria. There's no such thing as a settlement. They're communities. They're neighborhoods. They're cities. There's no such thing as an occupation. The only occupiers were the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Turks, the Brits, the Romans. They were occupiers. The Jews are the occupants."

"I would suggest that what Joe Biden should do if he wants to bring unity and bring these 71 million Trump voters together, let him be the one to call for a full ... investigation, a complete clearing of all the ballots to make sure they're legit"

"Maybe [Pres. Obama] would take ISIS seriously if he discovered they didn't recycle."

"Because I've been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, "How dare you say that, uh, you know, it's not the law of the land?"" Because that's their phrase, "it’s the law of the land". Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren't fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?"

"I have a message for the judge, and I say this with all my heart: If this judge believes that somebody must be put in jail because a person is willing to stand on the biblical definition of marriage, and is willing to stand because they believe that the constitution does not allow the courts to make up law according to their own whims— if the judge believes that, then I would ask this of him: Let Kim go, but if you have to put someone in jail, I volunteer to go. Let me go. Lock me up if you think that's how freedom is best served. Because folks, I am willing to spend the next eight years in the White House leading this country, but I want you to know, I'm willing to spend the next eight years in jail, but I'm not willing to spend one day under the tyranny of people who believe they can take our freedom and conscience away!"

"This president's foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

"Josh's actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, 'inexcusable,' but that doesn't mean 'unforgivable.' He and his family dealt with it and were honest and open about it with the victims and the authorities. No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story. Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things. [...] They are no more perfect a family than any family, but their Christian witness is not marred in our eyes because following Christ is not a declaration of our perfection, but of HIS perfection. [...] Let others run from them. We will run to them with our support."

"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, "Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today." You're laughing because it sounds so ridiculous, doesn't it?"

"Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything that anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That's not a war on them, that's a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it!"

"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"

"I think there were a lot of Christian people who simply stayed home for reasons that I can't figure out. But I think every time we lose major elections or major issues like the same-sex marriage issue or the marijuana issue, it's because Christians just didn't show up and vote.I lay the blame though at the feet of those who sit faithfully in church each Sunday; they probably heard their pastor talk about the importance of this election and how so much was on the line, and yet maybe because they just didn't want to bother with having to stand in line at an election polling place, they just didn't go vote. And we're going to pay dearly for that.If I were Cardinal Dolan or any of the Catholic bishops or priests, I would certainly be very frustrated and discouraged and wonder why aren't they understanding that if they join a church and belong to it, why would they not respect its teachings as having validity. It's one thing to say "well, I can't agree with everything" although I'm not sure why you'd join a church if you dismiss it. But to be openly contemptuous of its teaching and doctrine, it's something I can't understand."