John McCain Slams House Republicans, Calls Out John Boehner’s Petty Partisan Politics (Video)

john-mccain-meet-pressRemember the days when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was called the “maverick” because he often wasn’t afraid to speak his mind, work with Democrats or even call out his own party? Well, things have changed since the tea party rose to power, forcing Republicans like McCain to fear being primaried if they don’t subscribe to their certain brand of hate and ignorance.

And while McCain has mostly sold out to the tea party in terms of pandering to the ridiculousness of the far right, he still has moments where he’s not afraid to call out his own party for acting foolish. Such as when his party threatens to defund the Department of Homeland Security because they’re childishly trying to tack on provisions to rollback President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

In case you haven’t heard, the DHS is set to run out of funding soon, but House Republicans refuse to send the Senate a clean bill to fund the department and help preserve our national security. Instead, they’re trying to exploit this situation to tack on wording (on an unrelated partisan issue) to block parts of the president’s executive order that halts the deportation of some undocumented immigrants.

It’s 100 percent petty partisan politics, pure and simple. John Boehner has recently said that he’s more than willing to let the DHS go unfunded to play this ridiculous game. In other words, he’s perfectly fine putting our national security at risk just to appease those within his party who can’t stand that President Obama used his authority to get something done on immigration.

Well, McCain called out this nonsense when he was asked by Chuck Todd on Meet the Press about his party’s tactics with this bill.

“I think it would be terrible. The American people didn’t give us a majority to have a fight between House and Senate Republicans. They want things done. We cannot cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security,” McCain said. “And there’s ways we can address what the President did was unconstitutional. But it’s not through shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. It’s too serious.”

Notice how he said “between House and Senate Republicans”? Those words are in stark contrast to Boehner who insisted that the American people would blame Democrats, not Republicans, for the DHS shutting down.

It seems John McCain disagrees with John Boehner and agrees with my viewpoint that House Republicans will be blamed for this. It’s not Democrats refusing to approve funding for the DHS, it’s Republicans trying to use this bill to force unrelated partisan legislation through Congress. It’s exactly what they tried to do during the government shutdown – when the majority of Americans put the blame on them.

But it’s indisputable that if the DHS ends up running out of money, McCain has put the fault for that solely on the shoulders of House Republicans.

Though at the end of the day, odds are House Republicans will do what they always do – they’ll act like children until they realize they’re not going to get their way. Then they’ll eventually send a clean bill to the Senate, which will then be passed and signed by the president, and all of this will have been for nothing.

Just like in 2013, when our government was shut down after House Republicans tried to pull this same kind of nonsense.

Watch McCain’s comments below via NBC News:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Avatar

    How convience… No comment by far-right’s favorite hapless troll, Jim Bean.


    • Jim Bean

      (‘Convenient.’) Sorry. I slept in. Rather than comment, I’ll just ask you a question. How would the left suggest Congress handle the emperor’s refusal to respect the democratic system of governance.

      • Paul Schroeder

        THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO Congressman Jordan of Ohio but applies here……Simply amazing that after 6 years of nothing, nada, zip, zilch and zero from House Republicans other than 50 ceremonial votes to overturn the ACA…that we now have a whining bunch of 2 year olds that are asking for a vote on a non-clean bill of added GOP amendments…all because the POTUS used his authority provided under the US Constitution for Executive Action…go cry in your corner Mr. Jordan ’cause the shoe is now on the other foot…obstruction and party-line amendments are no way to govern and never have been!!! Offer an up/down vote on a clean legislative agenda that includes those from the other side of the aisle or taste the same horse manure that you’ve been dishing out since January 2009…it REALLY IS that simple Mr. Jordan!!!

      • Jim Bean

        Uh. . . . .387. That’s the number of house-passed bills that were sitting collecting dust on Harry’s desk when he was told to pack his stapler and get out because he wouldn’t let the Senate vote on them. That’s hardly the ‘zero’ you were told about. You need to go back and confront the liar (or idiot) that told you that.

      • flaridah

        Mr. Dumass ( pronounced dumb ass ) , Really ? Since president Obama was elected , republicans have not passed a single bill …. PERIOD !! Please stop using these asinine excuses for retarded behavior exhibited by the people on the payroll of the Koch brothers and the flea brained party right wing nuts . It is Not a lie . Yes , they have 387 ridiculous and out right ( dare I say ) stupid facsimiles of bills that they knew ( even before they drafted them ) would not get past the senate . Maybe you are one of those ultra proud white men that even though your retarded self would be made to suffer along with the other people who would be victimized by the good ol’ boy system of doing things , you agree with this fuckery because it makes you feel as if you’d have some type of advantage if they were in power . WELL GET OVER IT AND YOURSELF !!! Take off you blood stained white sheet and hood . Come out of your would be murderous anonymity . Your poorly hidden hatred for this black man who happens to be all of your favorite politicians BOSS ( I know you can’t stand that term but it’s true ) is as transparent as the lies they all tell for the reasons they do the dumb shit they do . Your thinly veiled commentaries that you try to make yourself seem smart with only make you look all the more like the racist asshole you really are . I want you to know that I really derive a great amount of pleasure just knowing that your ass is heavily chapped and puckered at the thought of a black man running your precious great white country that your forefathers STOLE for you . I love the thought of you cringing at the fact that you’re slowly losing your false sense of white privilege . I pray that your daughters ( if you have any ) meet and marry black men . I have a sneaky suspicion that your wife has already cheated on you with one . All you have left is your feeble little political opinion . May the blackest of the black “trickle down” your family bloodlines and decimate the racists among you . Once that is achieved , there will no longer be a need for “bi-partisan” ( just another word for segregation ) politics and this county can ( and will ) run as one . With that being said , I wish you well ( I’m lying ) and may you experience impotence at the very thought of PRESIDENT ( you know , that black guy ) OBAMA ….

      • Jim Bean

        I sense a lot of anger in you. You know the saying, ‘hate corrodes the vessel that carries it.’ You could be ready for a coat of Rustoleum.

      • Brad Daviet

        You’re very knowledgeable! So what do we call someone who spends his time trying to provoke anger? “Obama’s tearing up the Constitution, but we’re not going to bother impeaching him and putting him on trial because…” Maybe you want to take this, oh he named for alcohol?

        Since you will avoid the question without doubt, it’s because they know the law, and that impeachment would fail based on past President’s executive orders. They can convince idiots of anything with enough propaganda, though. Enter Jim Bean. So, are you an idiot or a hypocrite trying to fool idiots?

      • Jim Bean

        They’re not putting him on trial because:

        (1) He’s black and has never been held to customary standards because as soon as someone tries, they get called a racist..

        (2) He’s been a tremendous asset in the effort to get Democrats out of control.

        (3) He is instrumental in increasing Pubs chances for taking the WH in 2016 since the winner will be the one better able to convince the voter that he/she is less like Obama than the other.

        (4) His term is nearly over.

        (5) It would take too long.

        (6) The current VP is creepy.

      • VictorPWiley

        You Brad-what a dope you are. Stay on topic. I just flagged you

      • Wiley

        Angry liberal psycho is angry.


      • VictorPWiley

        Hey douche bag. Why don’t you try and bully me tough guy. Praise be JESUS Christ. Our Lord and Savior

      • VictorPWiley

        FOOK off moron

      • GiveTheWookieACookie

        Hey doomarse, did you know Harry wouldn’t allow them to be voted on? You dumb [email protected]@ss.

      • Susan Rosenberg

        Whoot! LOL Check out Boehners daughter marrying a Jamaican born black man. Google it. Hilarious your wish is working!!

      • strayaway

        I’m up for learning something new. Please point out the wording in the US Constitution that describes the “authority” you mentioned “for Executive Actions”.

        Why not just have two votes in congress? One to pass the security funding and another to pass president Obama’s personal dictate. That way President Obama wouldn’t have to shut down any small part of national security with his veto.

      • Brad Daviet

        All of the recent R president’s had executive orders regarding immigration, kind of telling that no one is bothering to compare, or even mention them, isn’t it?

      • strayaway

        Which Republican President issued a dictate overriding congressional laws to allow 4M+ illegal aliens to legally hold a wider variety of US worker jobs? Answer: none.

        The basic part of Reagan’s once and for all amnesty was passed by Congress before Reagan signed it. After Democrats failed to uphold their part of the agreement, Reagan had his regrets. Bush tried to pass an amnesty and did very little to protect our borders but, unlike Obama, Bush went to Congress for approval. That’s the constitutional way to do it. Congress didn’t pass Bush’s amnesty bill.

      • Avatar

        First two years of Obama worked so well. Oh during interview last summer Obama admitted that he is looking forward to January 2017 which is the proof that he is no emperor.

        (Eyes rolling up on you)

      • GenerallyConfused

        How exactly is Obama using his ability to use executive action in regards to illegals any different from when Reagan did it? Oh. Wait. Reagan gave us trickle down and was a republican.

      • Jim Bean

        Reagan’s and Bush’s immigration EO’s were connected to Immigration bills passed by Congress. Obama’s is not. That’s the difference. (You can paste it in your search browser and see where it came from – fact check dot org)

        The actions taken by Reagan and George H.W. Bush bear more resemblance to Obama’s. But they came in response to an immigration overhaul approved by Congress, as opposed to Obama’s reaction to congressional inaction.

      • flaridah

        Now why would anyone go to ?? Anyone with a tenth of their brain in use would know that it’s a site set up by right wing political affiliated media pundits . Looks like I’m gonna have to keep on your ass so you’ll stop lying to people . Rupert Murdoch OWNS a large chunk of american media ( including FAUX wanna be news ) so referring someone to one of your right wing sensitive sites is as much a farce as the lies you try to push . Sorry , try again .

      • Jim Bean

        People would go to fact check org in order to ascertain for themselves that there isn’t any article of knowledge that they’ve overlooked. They would go knowing that no information source is wrong 100% of the time.

      • Brad Daviet

        No one owns a .org by definition. Much more reliable than .com, but of course, not totally free from bias.

      • VictorPWiley

        Just shut the Fook up.

      • GiveTheWookieACookie

        Liberals love to run like hell away from facts. It’s why they believe 0bama is a great leader who has made our country rich by driving our debt to $17 Trillion.
        Food Stamp rolls at all-time high? Check
        Allow druggies to get welfare on demand? Check
        Get dead people to the polls? Check
        Redistribution of wealth? Check

      • razajac


        I see a lot of ad hominem ire in response to you, and that’s kinda a shame, as this post is very straightforward.

        It leads to a straightforward response: Are you saying that the GHWB and Reagan immigration exec actions were OK because they were responses to retail sins of commission by Congress, whereas Obama’s is bad because it’s a response to a wholesale sin of omission by Congress? Isn’t that the only real distinction?

        Seems to me that the problem here is one of perception,. I’m thinking that an exec action is designed to give the President the power to deal with an emergency, in a direct, “executive” manner.

        Here’s the perception difference:

        There is a running status quo: Breadwinner heads-of-households (where members of those households are American citizens) are picked up and just plunked down across the border. Exigency then requires that they get back to the U.S. to meet family and business obligations. Getting back across the border requires these folks to engage the services of gangsters. So, this means the pissing away of American economic power (the value generated/money earned by these workers) into the coffers of foreign racketeers, rather than being turned back into the American economy, where it rightly belongs. And these hapless folks do wind up getting back to their families and jobs, so it’s obviously a colossal waste of energy on the parts of all parties.

        OK: Here’s the promised perception difference: Some would read the foregoing and say: It’s OK. It’s not only NOT an emergency, requiring executive action, it’s actually an OK state of affairs. On the other hand, some would say, it’s NOT an OK state of affairs. It’s a horrific blight on pretensions to national cultural and economic decency.

        Now, I’m not blind. I’m fully aware that the tidy little dichotomy I’ve set up here is unknown to most Americans, and that ignorance on the issue will therefore be subject to demagoguery by right-wingers for short-term electoral benefit. I’m fully aware that _that’s_ the _real_ dichotomy in America: It’s NOT, “Will we do the decent thing, or not?” It’s social awareness vs. shameless political exploitation of the socially unaware.

        And, in the meantime, while this kabuki theatre drone on, tens of thousands of hardworking people are being slowly ground into dog-meat.

      • Jim Bean

        There is no ‘sin of omission by congress’ because they have no more obligation to offer salvation to these few million than they do to the few billion other people around the world whose plight is as bad or worse. Furthermore, if they were not better off being here – even as things are currently – they would go back.

        I feel bad for these people. But I’m not getting on board for anything that doesn’t include a workable plan to prevent this from reoccurring in the future and that isn’t even on the Dems radar.

      • razajac

        IFF that “isn’t even on the Dems’ radar”, then… You’re absolutely right.

        On the other hand, your “no obligation” assertion is suspect. It’s suspect because you compare it against many suffering people around the world. Obviously, there’s a simple “do what you can” principle. The thing about those suffering billions is that there’s nothing we *can* do for them (except “do no harm”; which we have, historically, sometimes failed at). But there *is* something we *can* do for the suffering millions, here. If it were a simple matter of the Art of the Possible, that (at least partially) impinges on your logic. And simply saying, “If it’s so bad here…” isn’t (to my thinking) enough. It’s not like the subset of folks addressed by this stop-gap are a net drain on things. Why kick the goads/cut off the nose?

        BTW, I’m conscious of your respectfulness in discourse with me, and not (yet) sure how you’ve earned flames from others. You seem like a principled, even amenable, fellow.

      • Jim Bean

        Some find my objectivity objectionable. 🙂

        I look at it like this: if I made arrangements to take custody of an orphaned child from China and then dropped it off any one of these illegal-immigration-enabling Liberals doors steps and said, ‘Here. You’re responsible to provide for this child until it can fend for itself,” they would quickly point out the inappropriateness of my behavior. Yet that is precisely what they are doing to me.

        The ones that are here – OK – lets give them a path. But not until we’re sure we can lock down that border and have some stiff consequences for anyone sneaking in afterward because it is going to be interpreted as an open invitation.

      • razajac


        I’m not so sure your analogy holds water; pretty darned sure it hain’t “precisely” (as you say) applicable. Give me more details that spell out the ties between your analogy and Obama’s exec order (or whatever).

        I do agree that it’s prudent to account for downstream effects (“sending signals”).

      • Jim Bean

        My analogy applies only to the Left’s behavior in welcoming intruders and then advocating for policies (tax the rich) to get others – people who didn’t ask for the burden – to carry the burden. I don’t think its right they should be getting the EITC w/o ever having paid in for example. I don’t think its right we have to bear all the additional education costs for double-digit aged kids with no prior (meaningful) education and who can’t speak English, as another example. I don’t think they should be permitted to drive drunk. I don’t think people charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide should be set free in the name of political correctness (or politics).

      • razajac


        Stay focused, now. You can eliminate factors not bound strictly to the matter at hand (e.g., So you think it’s OK for born/naturalized citizens to drive drunk? Didn’t think so).

        Knock out that kind of stuff and repost; then I’ll address clearer points.

        And… Again: Thanks for your spirit of engagement.

      • Jim Bean

        You can stuff the condescension.

        You wrote: (e.g., So you think it’s OK for born/naturalized citizens to drive drunk? Didn’t think so).

        I have no idea where that came from or what point you attempt to make with it.

      • razajac

        The only way you could construe condescension (or claim _utter_ confusion) would be if you _hadn’t_ mentioned drunk driving. You did. I just checked to make sure I hadn’t hallucinated it!

        Reread your post, then mine, and see if mine makes better sense!

        BTW, nothing condescending about a nudge toward clarity. It’s helps everyone. When you figure out why I mention drunk driving (i.e., in response to you), you can then decide if my suggestion to you is in the interests of clarity, or not. Don’t pretend not to have said what you said.

      • Hgeyer

        Congressional republicans COULD pass an immigration bill of their own instead of sitting on their useless republican hands doing absolutely nothing useful…… or the can just keep trying to ruin our great country like they have for the last 14 years….

    • VictorPWiley

      Hi MORON. Wanna play queer boi?

      • Avatar

        Not only if you get your queer balls snkit by Wolverine.

  • JamieHaman

    Good to see something “sensical” out of McCain. First I’ve seen in a while, and imo he does have it right, the citizens want to see government working, not House Republicans fighting Senate Republicans.

  • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

    So sad, but true!

  • Eg Kbbs

    Hint to Boehner #1: When the old-timers of your own party call you out, you are being a brat screaming for ice cream which you aren’t going to get.

    Hint to Boehner #2: When the people saw just over a year ago how stupid it was to try to shut down the government, shutting down a large part of the govt now makes you look like a petulant child who destroys the castle made of blocks out of a tantrum.

    Hint to Boehner #3: When one of the issues getting the highest concern from your base is immigration (including your own party virtually running on the issue and doing every thing it could to fan the flames last October / November ) including Goehmert fanning the flames of Ebola Babies from Guatemala just walking across the border bringing lice and pestilence – defunding the department in charge of monitoring and regulating the border makes you look like you can’t put together 2 facts.

    (I’m ignoring that Guatemala has a better vaccination program than the USA and the children were fleeing gangs and forced prostitution that would make 85% of them eligible to stay in the USA).

  • GiveTheWookieACookie

    Liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s hard to rationalize any point when you can’t get beyond square one simply because your mentality is built on communistic crap. Liberals think they can hug a terrorist and their bomb belts will be dressed with roses.

    • Eugene Berkovich

      Let’s not stray from the fact that communism is opposite of liberalism. But what do I know, someone who actually did experience communism?