Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Nancy Pelosi Gets It. Will We?

 

Smarter than she soundsLong story very short: the president will almost always beat the speaker. To win the presidency, the Right needs not barn-burners but fire discipline. To understand the Boehner fiasco — and for conservatives, it has been a fiasco of our own making — we need to understand a bit of history. We need some perspective, and it would help to start with the first modern speaker, Tip O’Neill.

Tip O’Neill reinvented the House of Representatives. Previous Speakers, like Sam Rayburn, had been effective because they were able to put together large bipartisan coalitions to pass bills. But O’Neill put a partisan stamp on the House: he weakened the committee chairs and did his best to pass bills on party lines. O’Neill’s revolution wasn’t widely understood at the time, however, because O’Neill usually lost legislative battles to President Reagan. Why? Because when the president and speaker fight, the president nearly always wins. The president speaks with one voice, while the speaker frequently gets drowned out by the loudest and dumbest members of his caucus. National Review was right to note that Tip O’Neill shut down the government, but Stiles forgot to mention that O’Neill mostly lost those battles to Reagan.

Newt Gingrich continued the trend that O’Neill started. Gingrich liked to compare himself to British Prime Ministers, who very nearly elected dictators. But when Gingrich tried shutting down the government, the blowback forced him to yield to President Clinton. In Lessons Learned the Hard Way, Gingrich made a rueful admission:

“I am speaking of the power of the veto. Even if you pass something through both the House and the Senate, there is that presidential pen. How could we have forgotten that?”

Hold that thought; we’ll come back to it.

Nancy Pelosi, however, learned from the past. She faced tremendous pressure from the Left to defund the Iraq War and — had she followed the Hastert Rule of only allowing the full House to vote on bills that a majority of the majority party supported — she might well have succeeded. But, knowing that defunding a war would be horribly unpopular and run into Bush’s veto pen, she demonstrated fire discipline against her own party and let Republicans have a temporary victory. Meanwhile, she prepared the groundwork for a Democratic president who could give her the cover she needed to pass big, left-wing bills. She got it with Obama, and her place in history as a powerful speaker is now assured.

John Boehner is now leaving. The tragedy for Boehner is that he was around for the Gingrich years and remembers getting clobbered. In contrast, exactly none of the Freedom Caucus was around for the nineties debacle and — not having learned from Gingrich — they seem hellbent on learning the veto lesson the hard way. Five Thirty-Eight crunched the numbers, and the earliest any of them were elected was in 2002 (Reps. Scott Garrett and Trent Franks). Boehner clearly remembers the power of the veto pen, but the Freedom Caucus has no fire discipline: they want a conservative agenda now and will burn down the barn to rid it of rats.

Given the limitations of not controlling the presidency, Boehner did a solid job. He passed Trade Promotion Authority and did something that hasn’t happened since Eisenhower was president: he actually cut federal spending. The sequester worked. These aren’t just modest accomplishments in the face of the most left-wing president since Johnson; they’re the sort of thing that, to my knowledge, nobody predicted.

Those criticizing Boehner for not pushing a conservative enough agenda are like the man who criticizes a Usain Bolt for not being as fast as Secretariat. Boehner wasn’t dealt a strong hand of cards, but he played them as well as anybody humanly could.

The smartest conservatives — Paul Ryan, Jeb Hensarling, Trey Gowdy — have all ruled out runs for Speaker because they know that many of the base’s demands are impossible so long as Obama is president. Defunding Planned Parenthood, for example, isn’t going to happen in this congress. It will only happen with a Republican president, and for that, we need fire discipline in the House.

Boehner had it. Will his successor?

There are 46 comments.

  1. Guruforhire Member

    Is there any point to this?

    • #1
    • September 29, 2015, at 8:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. The Reticulator Member

    Tip O’Neill won far too many battles with President Reagan. That’s why spending on domestic programs grew so much during the Reagan years.

    • #2
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. BrentB67 Inactive

    Why is TPA a good thing? Gutting the Constitution to fast track legislation we can’t read is a victory? How do you know it promotes free trade? Have you read it?

    Boehner has not cut federal spending. DOD and discretionary spending was reduced with the sequester. The federal government continues to spend more.

    What definition of conservative are we using the includes Paul Ryan and his plan to increase federal taxes and spending by more than 1/3 over the next decade? I acknowledge I am not a conservative, but I am curious your definition.

    My recollection of the 90’s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    You make some good points and it is a well written article, but some facts in support of the bias would be helpful.

    • #3
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:14 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. BrentB67 Inactive

    The Reticulator:Tip O’Neill won far too many battles with President Reagan. That’s why spending on domestic programs grew so much during the Reagan years.

    I was still young then, but recall Tip being a lion of a speaker. The trade-off was huge spending increases to give Reagan tax reform.

    • #4
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    BrentB67: My recollection of the 90′s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    Lets be clear on one thing – the budget was balanced because of the DotCom bubble and for no other reason.

    • #5
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. BrentB67 Inactive

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: My recollection of the 90′s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    Lets be clear on one thing – the budget was balanced because of the DotCom bubble and for no other reason.

    Let’s be clear on one thing – that is your opinion and it is not well informed. There are 2 sides to a ledger, taxes and spending.

    • #6
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Mike Hubbard Member
    Mike Hubbard Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    BrentB67:Why is TPA a good thing? Gutting the Constitution to fast track legislation we can’t read is a victory? How do you know it promotes free trade? Have you read it?

    Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    What definition of conservative are we using the includes Paul Ryan and his plan to increase federal taxes and spending by more than 1/3 over the next decade? I acknowledge I am not a conservative, but I am curious your definition.

    I’m a believer in the least bad form of government possible. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for how Boehner could, for sake of argument, repeal Obamacare or cut Planned Parenthood’s funding.

    Guruforhire:Is there any point to this?

    I thought I’d put some perspective out there, since I’m pretty sure that whoever our next Speaker is, he or she will—at least for the next year or so—get beaten down by the same dynamics that beat down Gingrich and Boehner.

    • #7
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. The Reticulator Member

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: My recollection of the 90′s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    Lets be clear on one thing – the budget was balanced because of the DotCom bubble and for no other reason.

    The Reagan/Bush Peace Dividend helped, too.

    • #8
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    BrentB67:

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: My recollection of the 90′s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    Lets be clear on one thing – the budget was balanced because of the DotCom bubble and for no other reason.

    Let’s be clear on one thing – that is your opinion and it is not well informed. There are 2 sides to a ledger, taxes and spending.

    Yep, and total Federal spending went up every single year in the 90s:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2010

    • #9
    • September 29, 2015, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. BrentB67 Inactive

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:…

    Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    If there is no way to read it, then why do you support relieving the Constitutional burden to pass it. Why is the Constitutional hurdle a bug and not a feature?

    Is supporting the original construct of the Constitution conservative?

    I’m a believer in the least bad form of government possible. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for how Boehner could, for sake of argument, repeal Obamacare or cut Planned Parenthood’s funding.

    Boehner couldn’t repeal Obamacare, but the House is under no obligation to fund any of its provisions. The same with PP.

    Is it plausible? According the Constitution, yes. Is it comfortable or fun, no. Will the NYT and WSJ op ed pages scream, yes, that is their full time job anyway.

    Guruforhire:Is there any point to this?

    I thought I’d put some perspective out there, since I’m pretty sure that whoever our next Speaker is, he or she will—at least for the next year or so—get beaten down by the same dynamics that beat down Gingrich and Boehner.

    Agree and I wrote a post about it.

    • #10
    • September 29, 2015, at 10:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Mike Hubbard Member
    Mike Hubbard Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    BrentB67:

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:…

    Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    If there is no way to read it, then why do you support relieving the Constitutional burden to pass it. Why is the Constitutional hurdle a bug and not a feature?

    Is supporting the original construct of the Constitution conservative?

    To repeat, with emphasis added, there’s no way to read it YET. Do you know what the word “yet” means?

    When it’s finished, it can be read. Should President Obama or his successor try to get a vote on it without letting people read it, then I’d support voting it down. Trade Promotion Authority only gives the President the ability to negotiate an agreement that congress must either vote up or down. The constitution is still respected because Congress can still vote to reject it. Some trade agreements, like NAFTA, are mostly good. Some, like the Maastricht Treaty, are mostly bad. Once TPP is finished, we’ll know. Until then, I reserve judgment.

    • #11
    • September 29, 2015, at 11:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. BrentB67 Inactive

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:…

    If there is no way to read it, then why do you support relieving the Constitutional burden to pass it. Why is the Constitutional hurdle a bug and not a feature?

    Is supporting the original construct of the Constitution conservative?

    To repeat, with emphasis added, there’s no way to read it YET. Do you know what the word “yet” means?

    When it’s finished, it can be read. Should President Obama or his successor try to get a vote on it without letting people read it, then I’d support voting it down. Trade Promotion Authority only gives the President the ability to negotiate an agreement that congress must either vote up or down. The constitution is still respected because Congress can still vote to reject it. Some trade agreements, like NAFTA, are mostly good. Some, like the Maastricht Treaty, are mostly bad. Once TPP is finished, we’ll know. Until then, I reserve judgment.

    I know what Yet means.

    Do you think it is conservative to circumvent the Constitution to lower the hurdle for a treaty we haven’t read YET?

    Can you name a treaty that has been given fast track authority that has been voted down?

    • #12
    • September 29, 2015, at 11:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. BrentB67 Inactive

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67:…

    Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    If there is no way to read it, then why do you support relieving the Constitutional burden to pass it. Why is the Constitutional hurdle a bug and not a feature?

    Is supporting the original construct of the Constitution conservative?

    To repeat, with emphasis added, there’s no way to read it YET. Do you know what the word “yet” means?

    When it’s finished, it can be read. Should President Obama or his successor try to get a vote on it without letting people read it, then I’d support voting it down. Trade Promotion Authority only gives the President the ability to negotiate an agreement that congress must either vote up or down. The constitution is still respected because Congress can still vote to reject it. Some trade agreements, like NAFTA, are mostly good. Some, like the Maastricht Treaty, are mostly bad. Once TPP is finished, we’ll know. Until then, I reserve judgment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

    • #13
    • September 29, 2015, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Mike Hubbard Member
    Mike Hubbard Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    BrentB67: Can you name a treaty that has been given fast track authority that has been voted down?

    The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was voted down by the Senate.

    • #14
    • September 29, 2015, at 12:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. BrentB67 Inactive

    Mike Hubbard:

    BrentB67: Can you name a treaty that has been given fast track authority that has been voted down?

    The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was voted down by the Senate.

    Thanks for the link.

    I am not clear from reading the article that the President was granted fast track authority to negotiate the treaty without overcoming the 2/3 advise and consent hurdle in the Senate.

    Where am I missing?

    • #15
    • September 29, 2015, at 3:29 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. The Reticulator Member

    Mike Hubbard: Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    I could have sworn there was international commerce already in the early 1700s before there was such a a thing as TPA

    • #16
    • September 29, 2015, at 3:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Vald the Misspeller Inactive

    Mike Hubbard:Trade Promotion Authority only gives the President the ability to negotiate an agreement that congress must either vote up or down. The constitution is still respected because Congress can still vote to reject it. Some trade agreements, like NAFTA, are mostly good. Some, like the Maastricht Treaty, are mostly bad. Once TPP is finished, we’ll know. Until then, I reserve judgment.

    Why reserve judgment? All I know about U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman I learned from Wikipedia – he’s a Democrat from California who went to all the “right” schools, and was appointed by Obama. That last bit is all I need to know to reject TPP. Because Obama appointees have a track record, and it is unblemished and abysmal: illegal email accounts and collusion with private groups at EPA, the evasion and feigned cluelessness in congressional testimony of Johnson at DHS and Koskinen at IRS, The deadly waiting lists at VA, unlawful recess appointments at NLRB, expansive control of the internet at FCC, etc., ad nauseam. Given this rogues gallery and it’s recent behavior, why would anyone in the Republican party cede any authority to his president that he hasn’t already arrogated? Personally, I wouldn’t trust him – or, one of his subalterns – to negotiate a car lease.

    • #17
    • September 29, 2015, at 3:48 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    BrentB67: Why is TPA a good thing? Gutting the Constitution to fast track legislation we can’t read is a victory? How do you know it promotes free trade? Have you read it?

    I’m pretty familiar with TPA; I’m writing a thesis on an alternative.

    TPA does not gut the Constitution. Texas is a state (if you believe that TPA is not Constitutional, you must also believe that Texas is not validly admitted).

    Passing laws that change how we deal with future laws is often a good idea. For instance, the Budget Act of 1974 gave us reconciliation, which allows us to pass budget cuts in almost exactly the same way as TPA allows us to pass trade measures.

    In both cases we know that the law does what it’s designed to do for two reasons. Firstly, the structure of the law looks like it would do that (a priori) and secondly, long experience of these laws has told us that that is how they work (empirical).

    BrentB67: Boehner has not cut federal spending. DOD and discretionary spending was reduced with the sequester.

    By enough to involve nominal cuts in some years even after including entitlement spending, and actual cuts in most years, for a total of some pretty significant cuts.

    The federal government continues to spend more.

    Only if you stack the deck with eccentric metrics. Americans today spend less of their money on government ends than they did when he took over.

    BrentB67: Can you name a treaty that has been given fast track authority that has been voted down?

    Congressional Executive Agreements, being passed under the Commerce Clause (and if you don’t believe that Congress can regulate trade with foreign nations under that clause I do not know what you think the clause does allow) rather than the Treaty Power, are more limited than treaties are in scope. Partly as a result, and partly because to be practical you generally need preceding enabling legislation, there haven’t been all that many of them. In general, treaties don’t get voted down either. With a small sample size, it wouldn’t be particularly surprising not to see examples of a rare occurrence even if they were equally hard to pass. They’re not equally hard to pass (they take more time and they are more Constitutionally limited, but the trade off is that they’re easier to pass). Quite a lot of them have been near run things, though; I gather that Obama regrets his trade votes in a similar way to his regret about his debt ceiling votes.

    • #18
    • September 30, 2015, at 12:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The Reticulator:

    Mike Hubbard: Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to get trade deals. If the TPP isn’t good, then we can oppose it—but we’ll have no way of getting an agreement in the first place without TPA. Since it still isn’t in final form, there’s no way for me to read it yet.

    I could have sworn there was international commerce already in the early 1700s before there was such a a thing as TPA

    Well, yes, but it was dramatically more statist. The modern era of free trade, replacing the previous era of mercantilism has been dramatically accelerated by TPA and other measures that give the President statutory authority to reduce tariffs (the Reciprocal Tariffs Act and such). Trade in its modern, tariff free form is a big deal, and is based on mutual agreement to abstain from protectionism. Those agreements are what Mike was referring to.

    • #19
    • September 30, 2015, at 1:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Vald the Misspeller: Why reserve judgment? All I know about U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman I learned from Wikipedia – he’s a Democrat from California who went to all the “right” schools, and was appointed by Obama. That last bit is all I need to know to reject TPP.

    You’re right to be cautious about Obama’s appointees. His first USTR (Kirk) was indisputably the worst in history; I’ve found no defenders. Froman, though, seems to be pretty good, the latest in a long line of competent and sometimes excellent USTRs who went to the right schools and got appointed by Democrats (Republican USTRs are even better, but Democrats have only had one truly terrible USTR and a couple of mediocre ones; it’s a professional position and tends to be relatively non-ideological).

    Also, obviously, TPA applies to this Presidency and the next, and there’s not a lot of this Presidency left. I don’t know who the Republican USTR will be if there is one, but I feel excited to find out.

    • #20
    • September 30, 2015, at 1:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. BrentB67 Inactive

    James, Since my return to Ricochet you have been most consistent in never once being correct about federal spending. I recall you tend to do some political consulting and recommend you visit Treasury’s website and look at actual outflows to reconcile whatever fantasy this is that federal spending has gone down.

    If your only recourse is try some sleight of hand regarding % of GDP or inflation adjusted data using a very peculiar hand-picked reference point then your point is without merit.

    Federal spending has never gone down decreased once under Boehner’s rule in the House.

    Edit: Out of respect for my incorrect assertion responding to JoE.

    • #21
    • September 30, 2015, at 2:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. BrentB67 Inactive

    James Of England:

    BrentB67: Why is TPA a good thing? Gutting the Constitution to fast track legislation we can’t read is a victory? How do you know it promotes free trade? Have you read it?

    I’m pretty familiar with TPA; I’m writing a thesis on an alternative.

    TPA does not gut the Constitution. Texas is a state (if you believe that TPA is not Constitutional, you must also believe that Texas is not validly admitted).

    If the Constitution requires 2/3 advise and consent for treaty ratification and TPA circumvents that by labeling a Treaty as an executive agreement then yes, it guts the Constitution.

    As to the possibility of Texas not being validly admitted to the Union, one can dream.

    • #22
    • September 30, 2015, at 2:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Congressional executive agreements do not “get around” being treaties. They just are not treaties. They are parallel laws passed to regulate commerce with foreign nations, an explicitly granted power.
    Similarly, when I’m clear that I’m talking about the portion of our money being spent on government and that I am not talking about nominal dollars, it is not sleight of hand to mean what I say.
    I’m curious to hear, though, how you justify your claim that spending did not go down in 2013 and 2014.

    • #23
    • September 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Austin Murrey Inactive

    BrentB67: As to the possibility of Texas not being validly admitted to the Union, one can dream.

    And we have. We have.

    • #24
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. I Walton Member

    Clearly surrender saves lives and fighting costs. Is that the point?

    • #25
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. BrentB67 Inactive

    James,

    Federal outlays:

    FY2011: $3.538T

    FY2012: $3.454T (2.37% decrease, we should’ve thrown a parade)

    FY2013: $3.5T (rats, it is increasing again)

    FY2014: $3.4T* (Avg. Sept spending = $0.219T)

    *Treasury hasn’t reported September data yet to conclude the fiscal year.

    During this period discretionary spending has decreased as a result of sequester and I think we are in agreement on that. However, in the data above direct from U.S. Treasury I am challenged to see a reduction in federal outlays.

    The growth rate has been mitigated and I’ve agreed with you elsewhere on that. I will concede that federal outlays have been flat thanks to the 2013 reduction, an anomaly.

    Of course we can trot out % of GDP data and current dollars. If you wish that data I will numb your brilliant mind with the variation of seasonally adjusted GDP vs. chained dollars and then commence a 5 part analysis on what is ‘inflation’ since CBO, FOMC, and BLS can’t agree on what day of the week it is let along how inflation is measured.

    • #26
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. BrentB67 Inactive

    James, I concede your point that an executive agreement is Constitutional and haven’t argued otherwise. I do not concede the point that characterizing a multi-national trade partnership as anything other than a treaty is a ploy to circumvent the high hurdle intentionally set in the Constitution.

    I believe those of us on the right of which we are both card carrying members should be working to reinforce the strict limits on the federal imposed by the Constitution.

    As that may apply to Texas admittance to the Union I think you will be hard pressed to find a majority in Texas objecting to tearing up the treaty.

    • #27
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Larry3435 Member

    Jamie Lockett:

    BrentB67: My recollection of the 90′s is that Gingrich for all his legion of shortcomings used the Speaker’s gavel to effect welfare reform and help balance the budget in the latter part of the decade. Is this also part of the debacle.

    Lets be clear on one thing – the budget was balanced because of the DotCom bubble and for no other reason.

    There were some other reasons, but none of them was the result of any conscious action by anyone in the federal government.

    1. The post Cold War military build down, which proved to be premature.

    2. A temporary and not well-understood plateau in health care costs.

    3. Clinton and the Republican Congress implemented PayGo, and controlled spending.

    4. A tax increase which did not have the usual anti-growth impact because of the technology driven growth spurt during the 1990’s.

    • #28
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. BrentB67 Inactive

    John Penfold:Clearly surrender saves lives and fighting costs. Is that the point?

    Surrender saves seats and donors. Fighting is uncomfortable and rankles the PTB at NYT and WSJ editorial boards.

    • #29
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Canadian Cincinnatus Member

    Dear Mike:

    When Tip O’Neil was speaker, the US ran chronic deficits. When Gingrich was speaker, the US balanced its budget.

    I think it is too bad that Boehner wasn’t the loser that Gingrich was.

    • #30
    • September 30, 2015, at 7:08 AM PDT
    • Like