Image 01 Image 03

CA Tea Party organizer says Boehner needs to have an “adult moment”

CA Tea Party organizer says Boehner needs to have an “adult moment”

A little over two years ago, the newly-minted Speaker of the House John Boehner essentially said that Tea Party freshman would soon have an “adult moment,” when their principles came in to contact with Beltway politics.

Dawn Wildman is a state coordinator for the California Tea Party, President of the SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition in San Diego, and local pundit. She attended a meeting the day after Boehner’s insulting statement went public. This conference heralded how the views of the average American taxpayers would continue to be dismissed in favor of pure politics, despite the election of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives sparked by these very citizens.

Many conservatives believe the only home of conservatism is the Republican Party. However, her experiences at that meeting were clear portents of how party faithful are continually glad-handed and then ignored. It is a chilling lesson for everyone in “Panem” dynamics involving real Washington insiders, especially for those wondering about how the “Fiscal Cliff Deal”could have been struck.

“I was a National Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots at the time, and joined about 25 other tea party activists for a meeting with the staffers associated with both [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and John Boehner,” Wildman said. “Even though McConnell was in the hallway, it seems these men were too busy to actually meet with us, despite the fact that most of the people in that room had been instrumental in getting Boehner his new spot.”

The inherent disrespect shown these citizen activists was highlighted in the assigned meeting center: The Strom Thurmond Room.

“Talk about bad optics,” noted Wildman. “For a group that had falsely accused of being racists daily by political opponents, the media, and members of Congress, to be put into a room named for a representative infamous for his archaic views on race was thoughtless.”

The purpose of meeting was to vent the frustrations over the rapid passage of budget-busting legislation (TARP, Obamacare, Cap & Trade, and the Stimulus). Despite Boehner’s insulting statement the day before, the attendees wanted to highlight the fact that they were willing to work with and assist the new Congress, as well as remind the politicians that they needed to also work with the citizen organizations.

“From the time we got there, it was clear we were to be herded and shuffled out of there promptly at the end of 45 minutes.” Recalled Wildman. “They wasted almost a half hour on getting each person to do a detailed introduction, because it was apparent these staffers did not want to answer questions or directly address our concerns.  That the staffers kept looking at their watches showed clearly they wanted to be somewhere else.”

Wildman said that she was tagged as a trouble-maker, because she used her introduction to express displeasure at Boehner’s statement. In fact, citizen activists act more “adult” than Congress (i.e., working hard, paying taxes, and not driving drunk).

Wildman noted that the looks exchanged between the two staff groups showed that Team McConnell had not been informed of the “adult moment” remark. The very brief question-and-answer session was loaded with softball questions from the mainly older crowd, who tend to be very formal and respectful in such settings.

“We had their back, yet they offered no plan then and it is obvious that they still have no plan,” observed Wildman. “After that meeting, I surmised that Boehner was, at best, a lateral move from Nancy Pelosi. Time has proved me right.”

Wildman, who has been active in politics for decades, subsequently changed her registration from Republican to Independent. She notes that many long-time GOP stalwarts, who have been active in election efforts and regular donors, have also left the party in the wake of the Republican leadership’s dismissive treatment.

“I would really like to see Boehner have an ‘adult moment’ and soon,” Wildman concluded.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Wait a minute. Americans, who supposedly control the government, get superseded by ‘Beltway Politics’?? One excellent way to eliminate that hurdle simply to go from meeting in person (and thus costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars) to virtual meetings through the use of Al Gore’s own Internet. In one fell swoop, the cost of government is significantly reduced (no required Congressional travel or need for local D.C. housing) and places the burden for Lobbyists to travel to the individual Congress critter.

Boehner and company are treated like beaten dogs by Obama, the Democrats, and the media. They acquiesce to this treatment. This prevents their voters from being represented in the room when negotiations occur. It’s like the Democrats are negotiating with themselves.

Boehner and company should wake up. Otherwise they won’t be entrusted with the Majority.

The 2012 election was the last straw for me. I will no longer hold my nose and automatically pull the lever for a Pub. If the candidate is truly a limited government type, then I’ll support him/her. Otherwise, I’m voting Libertarian. I’m done with supporting the lesser of two evils.

    Estragon in reply to wolverine307. | January 4, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    So you’ll be supporting the greater of the evils from now on, then?

      wolverine307 in reply to Estragon. | January 4, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      Your comment would have more impact if it made sense.

        Radegunda in reply to wolverine307. | January 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm

        It makes sense to anyone who understands that voting for a party that’s polling in single digits is a gesture to make yourself feel pure rather than a serious contribution to electoral outcomes.

        The actual choice in 2012 was between atrocious (Obama and the Dems) and flawed but sometimes correct (Republicans). Everyone who sat out (or voted Libertarian) because the Republicans aren’t pure enough, either socially or fiscally, helped put Obama back in the White House and Harry Reid back in charge of the Senate.

        And what’s the message your protest vote sends? That voters prefer Democrats. The Republican leadership takes away the same message and makes more concessions to Dems.

        Feel good about yourself, protest voters?

I called my congressman Scott Tiptons Pueblo office yesterday & talked to his manager. He knows who I am. I continually press them on that level. I feel it is more effective than calling the D C office. My sense is they are feeling the heat but are also getting some from regular GOP whose biggest concern is for party. You don’t get to a top spot in any organization without servicing that organization. We need to counter that which means we need to be more pushy ; especially as they don’t want to go our route. All of us who have been involved over the last several years recognize that.

I am truly disgusted with what happened in Washington this last month or so with the banishment by the GOP Congressional leadership of true conservatives from key committees in the new Congress and then the capitualtion to Obama and the Democrats this week. I have a tactical question. Is changing registration from Republican to Independent, Libertarian or some other variation better than maintaining Republican registration and trying to primary out those GOP officeholders who won’t do the right thing? Being a registered Republican doesn’t mean we have to contribute the the GOP or vote for Republicans we can’t stomach in general elections but at least we might have an opportunity to get better candidates via primaries. If we leave the GOP shouldn’t we be trying to get a viable third party off the ground? Not trying to be confrontational here, just trying to decide how to proceed.

    dorsaighost in reply to TPHobbit. | January 4, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    true conservatives ? most of these folks are more like true libertarians … but guess what, when you nip at the leadership you shouldn’t be suprised that sometimes they’ll put you down hard just to make a point … its called politics and sometimes the lessons can be painful …

    try being a pain in the a** to the next cop that stops to give you a ticket … see how that works out … and don’t be suprised that even though “you were right” you still end up with a ticket and maybe a second one …

      TPHobbit in reply to dorsaighost. | January 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      Voting against higher spending doesn’t make the Congressmen who were punished libertarians. Isn’t that excatly what Boehner and the leadership promised the American people during the 2010 elections? Instead they were “punished” for doing what they told their constituents they would do. Boehner, as the big cheese, had the “right” and the power to exile them so the question now is what to do in response to Boehner and the lame leadership in the House?

      Bruno Lesky in reply to dorsaighost. | January 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      I don’t think civil or uncivil works with this crowd. (Prime example — Obama.)

      What works — I think — is power. Power to vote them out (and as above — kill their golden lobbying geese and all their other obscene perks).

      In the meantime, we be civil…

    JoAnne in reply to TPHobbit. | January 4, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I think we need to control the primary so I vote to stay in the party and vote for the most conservative candidate. In some states you can’t vote in the primaries if you’re registered independent.

    Bruno Lesky in reply to TPHobbit. | January 4, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Thanks — sounds smart. Maybe Boehner is safe in his district? I don’t know. I’m going to check with his local Tea Party to see. If he’s vulnerable and they have a viable alternative, I’ll contribute.

    Otherwise, pick off the most vulnerable of the most offensive ones — Republicans — in congress overall.

    And then … some how … screw with their future lobbying silver linings.

    SeniorD in reply to TPHobbit. | January 4, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Currently, there are two (2) principal political ‘parties’ running the Congress – Marxists (Democrat) and Hamiltonians (Republican). The few Jeffersonians voted to Congress can be found in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) ‘party’. Anarchists (Libertarian-Liberal -or- Libertarian-Conservative) make up the majority of the actual bill-writing group (aka ‘Staff’).

    I refuse to support ANY politician at ANY level of government that cannot proved a consistent Jeffersonian voting pattern.


It’s much harder to take you seriously when you spend time complaining that you didn’t like the name of the meeting room.

    Optics can sometimes be important. For the Staffers to put a group that has been openly accused of raaaaacism in a room that has an association with Strom Thurmond, who Trent Lott was LITERALLY run out of the position of Minority Leader for saying ONE nice thing about Thurmond at his 100th Birthday, was borders upon intentional insult, if not merely an open invitation to the Main Stream Morons to make a comment about it.

So these activists are leaving the GOP over a personal insult … how very adult of them …

thin skinned and hyper sensitive is no way to go thru life and certainly not in Wash DC … (unless you are a liberal of course)

    They’re NOT leaving over a personal insult. They’re leaving over fact that they were promised Conservatives and what they got were barely RINOs, let alone small-government, liberty-minded, reduce-spending types.

    The insults aren’t the problem. Conservatives and Tea Partiers have thicker skin than that. It is the subsequent ACTIONS taken by the leadership that show that they are unworthy of our continued support.

      Bruno Lesky in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 4, 2013 at 5:16 pm

      I agree with their hearts but what’s the strategy?

      It seems we’re currently equipped to pick the offenders off ( I mean POLITICALLY) as we can. We’ll get our political power via those we help to elect.

    Shai Dorsai.

    If the Tea Party is to rise to govern, it must learn to play coalition politics.

    Once, the behavior in the post can be excused as a newbie mistake. If it becomes the norm, I call it stuck on stupid.

      Bruno Lesky in reply to gs. | January 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      I respectfully disagree. Politics in the Obama age seems to be “I won.”

      Once we win, we can be gracious. Civil. And have a wise governmental strategy as to how we can turn the ship of state around.

      With a PR strategy so we all don’t descend into chaos.

        I was referring to the Tea Party’s behavior within the GOP, which I took as dorsaighost’s meaning. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

        Part of Obama’s shtick is that, abetted by the media, he acts reasonable even when he’s just the opposite. We don’t necessarily have to imitate his ploy, but we have to stop being patsies for it.

          Bruno Lesky in reply to gs. | January 4, 2013 at 9:40 pm

          Thanks gs.

          I’m not experienced in local republican party politics. But I have the idea that there’s a spectrum of players ranging from pols who want porks through Jeffersonian idealists?

          I think we shouldn’t build a coalition* with the porkers but also not antagonize them. Instead at the small local levels build constituencies** to topple them. Is that what you are saying?

          And nominate one of ours. It’s a win in the right direction, even if our guy/gal loses in the general — whether it’s for dog catcher or US Senator.

          *Like the Washington DC “coalitions” of back-scratching mutual porkers.

          ** e.g. those who could care about prosperity and happiness. etc. etc.
          and those who could care about posterity and the inter-generational robbery going on.
          etc. etc.

          Bruno Lesky in reply to gs. | January 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm

          Thanks gs.

          I’m not experienced in local republican party politics. But I have the idea that there’s a spectrum of players ranging from pols who want porks through Jeffersonian idealists?

          I think we shouldn’t build a coalition* with the porkers but also not antagonize them. Instead at the local levels build constituencies** to topple them. Is that what you are saying?

          And nominate one of ours. It’s a win in the right direction, even if our guy/gal loses in the general — whether it’s for dog catcher or US Senator.

          *Like the Washington DC “coalitions” of back-scratching mutual porkers.

          ** e.g. those who could care about prosperity and happiness. etc. etc.
          and those who could care about posterity and the inter-generational robbery going on.
          etc. etc.

          gs in reply to gs. | January 4, 2013 at 10:32 pm

          Thank you, Bruno.

          I think we shouldn’t build a coalition* with the porkers but also not antagonize them. Instead at the small local levels build constituencies** to topple them. Is that what you are saying?

          Well put. I agree. Maybe our opinions aren’t identical, but they sure seem compatible.

          Afaic the trick in coalition politics is to keep a critical mass of your partners feeling better off inside the tent than outside—while preserving your essential principles and goals. Easier said than done. IMHO Reagan is the only modern conservative who pulled it off sustainably at the national level.

these folks are demanding a dogmatic approach and stomping their feet and holding their breath when they don’t get their way …

Did they really think the House could just hold votes and things would change without the Senate and Obama signing off ? really ?

    That is not the point. The point is not to “go along to get along” anymore when the other side is doing DAMAGE to the nation by it’s “fundamental transformation.”

    They have the opportunity to play PREVENT DEFENSE. They’re not. They need to stand up and say “HELL NO, WE’RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU DO THIS.”

      left coast rebel in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 4, 2013 at 10:51 pm

      You nailed it, Chuck Skinner! These guys (Boehner, GOP leadership, et al) gave up the ball at the 20-yard line. I just don’t get it or even claim to explain it other than to say that they are incompetent, corrupt and in the same statist bed as the Democrats.

Any Republican office holder who has no reason to feel threatened by conservative grassroots collective power to bend the progressive arc of trajectory towards fiscal restraint is viewed as a threat by Republican office holders who bitterly cling to the status quo.

Hiding within the “safe political walls of the Republican establishment” hastens the end of the Republican establishment as a political party.

The arc is being bent with or without them.

I could not agree more. The Tea Party movement and enthusiastic conservative support put Boehner in his Speaker’s chair. Conservatives, Tea Partiers in particular, have been consistently dissed & sidelined since. The shenanigans at the convention, the booting of conservatives from committees, the concerted effort to ‘put Tea Partiers in their place’ (which is anywhere but a position of influence in the RP, apparently), among many other overt actions evidencing disrespect, have pushed many life-long Republicans to break from the party and register Independent. I’m one. I’ll support conservative Republicans, not Assistant/Junior Democrats.

    DooDooEcon in reply to Daiwa. | January 4, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    I have not turned in my Republican registration primarily due to respect for the conservatives view of the party in the past. My loyalty is now to the conservative tea party movement which saved the country in 2010, but cannot save the country indefinitely. We gave America another few years by delaying the end of the Republic, but to save the country we need brave people to stand up and be selfless.

    Remember that old saying, Truth, Justice and the American Way? It is time to remember what it means to be an American. It is time to confront the political reality that the Republican Party is currently unable to protect the U.S. Constitution.

    There is a reason Boehner keeps crying.

If they didn’t like the Strom Thurmond Room – named after one of the longest-serving Senators and a conservative icon – why didn’t they just go outside?

This self-important little lady has shown her group’s power and influence in California already. Why anyone in DC bothered to give them the time of day is beyond me.

Here’s a clue for the clueless: if you want to talk trash about someone all year long, don’t be surprised if they don’t invite you to their New Year’s Party, mmmkay, Chuckles?

    Daiwa in reply to Estragon. | January 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    The event described was 2 years ago, Estragon. Your comment suggests you don’t/didn’t realize that.

      Estragon in reply to Daiwa. | January 4, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      What difference does it make?

        Daiwa in reply to Estragon. | January 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm

        This is what makes a difference:

        “Here’s a clue for the clueless: if you want to talk trash about someone all year long, don’t be surprised if they don’t invite you to their New Year’s Party, mmmkay, Chuckles?”

        No one had been talking trash ‘all year long’ – the meeting occurred less than two months after the election in question, at a time when the only ‘trash talk’ had been coming from Boehner.

Nobody elected this gal, just as no one elected Freedom Works, TPX, TPP, TPA, or any of the other self-described “Tea Party” groups. They appointed themselves and only pretend to be the leadership of a popular movement. Last time I check, “movements” need adherents.

These are private individuals who attached “Tea Party” to their group name or description and expect to be accepted as official spokesmen for the TP people. To heck with them all.

    As individuals are contributing money, time, support and material to their cause, I would suggest that they HAVE adherents.

    These smaller, TEA Partier type groups seem to be the only ones saying:

    “We are the ones who did the hard work to get you into place. Do what you said you were going to do, or make way for someone who will KEEP their word. We didn’t elect you to be a “pragmatist,” we elected you to be a ROADBLOCK to the Marxist-Statists who are attempting to undo the concept of private property rights in favor of a collective Utopia doomed to failure.”

    The RINOs need to get with the program or they will face replacement with those who WILL do what they promise. Saxby Chambliss right now is at the TOP of that list for abandoning what Conservative principles he once had.

    dmwlaw23 in reply to Estragon. | January 4, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    I was “elected” when I was born in this country. I am a citizen and wen to DC as such, I didn’t claim to represent you or anyone else other than myself, and here is where the rub is, That should have been enough for them and should be enough for you. we have a representative form of government, which means they REPRESENT ME!
    If we no longer expect Congress to represent us then why even pretend like we care what they do. We can all go back to sleep and let them legislate away every freedom we have now and say goodbye to prosperity.

The Tea Party needs to decide if it will continue to be a pressure group, or if it wants to have an “adult moment” and become a real live political party.

    We’ll find out at the end of February. Should Boehner and Co fail to extract deep, true budget cuts from Obama, the TEA Partiers will rebel and use the next 13 months to field their own party and STARVE the Republican party of anything remotely resembling a war chest for the 2014 elections.

      Bruno Lesky in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 4, 2013 at 10:02 pm

      Hi. I checked the “dislike” button as my only choice of buttons. I mean to say I have a differing viewpoint.

      How about this: get in at the local level where we can have an effect?

      Get a good Tea Partier to run against a porker. At any level.

      Per various posters above, a heartfelt but not necessarily mindful strategy to starve the Republican party could likely yield us more little Pelosis, Reeds, Obamas … Barney Franks et. al. Marxists doing us in. Etc.

“They’re leaving over fact that they were promised Conservatives and what they got were barely RINOs,,,”

A “RINO” is someone who doesn’t support Republican candidates, no matter what. If all the folks who throw that term around had supported our last two candidates, no matter what, this a-hole we have as President would be a one-term ex-Senator by now.

    Sometimes RINOs are individuals who hold marginally “Republican” positions (lower taxes, personal responsibility, individual rights, etc…), but then abandon them at the first sign of resistance or opposition from the Utopian Statists. Call them the “wishy-washy, go-along-to-get-along types.” They largely have no principles, and capitulate to avoid having to define what they really believe.

    PS – I DID hold my nose and support Romney. I initially thought he was a losing candidate, and would have preferred a Conservative like Gingrich or Herman Cain. Naming Paul Ryan made Romney MARGINALLY viable by exciting the Conservative base with someone who could actually EXPRESS Conservative budget-cutting ideals, but it still wasn’t enough, because we lost big in certain overtly LIBERAL counties which swung particular states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania), some due to voter fraud, others due to sheer incompetence of the campaign.

Subotai Bahadur | January 4, 2013 at 3:10 pm

I am one of those activists who have left the party. On January 2. Active Republican for decades, always delegate to higher assemblies up to State convention, I have run a successful Republican presidential campaign in my county.

Staying as a Republican implies making several specific judgments.

1. That the Republican Party as presently constituted can be weaned from their co-dependency on the Left. That is, at best, questionable. This is not the best. We face, and have faced, the effective opposition of the Party at every level and to be honest do not have the leverage to change them. The correlation of forces is getting worse, as they have opened official actions to bar Conservatives and TEA Party people from nominations. See the rules changes at the last convention and this.

The Party is forming SuperPACs specifically to keep Conservatives from being nominated.

2. Even if the Republican Party can be brought back into reality, do we have time to do anything before things start crashing down? This is not just a purely intra-party power struggle. Actions and policies have consequences. The country is broke. We are following the same path as Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. High deficits, high debt, functionally printing money [OK, creating it out of thin air with electrons; causing devaluation of what people live on], and increasing state control of the individual. The Constitution is under attack, with the Democrats openly calling for its abandonment in the New York Times … AND THE CALL IS MET WITH POLITE SILENCE FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICANS.

The Institutional Republicans act as if they can assume that somehow a miracle will happen to save them, and to the limited extent that they consider anything outside their own power, the country. Get-along, Go-along with the Democrats is not going to fix things. And we have not seen them stand up and fight the Democrats THIS CENTURY. They ignore that the Democrats have changed the political landscape with organized vote fraud, to the point where they have signed a Federal Court consent decree barring them from taking any measures to fight vote fraud nationwide. See

3. If the Republican Party cannot be transformed, or cannot be transformed in time to have an effect on the larger problems; what reason is there to stay? If you remain, does staying implicate you as collaborating with the Institutional Republicans failure to act? Does staying in the Republican Party actively help resist the Left, when the Party will try to crush any attempt to resist?

4. Leaving the Republican Party implies a necessity to choose a further course of action, if only by default. That course can be giving in to the coming collapse and surrendering to the Left, personal preparations to try to ride it out, joining with others to prepare to ride it out, or some form of resistance. Or some combination of the last three.

The last point can be by electoral or other means. If it is by electoral means; the current political environment drives toward the formation of another party. Yes that party will be facing opposition from all sides. It will imply an attempt to get as much of the Conservative/TEA Party/Patriot movement to coalesce. It will not be easy, and may well not be possible. The analysis here is whether it will have a better chance of success at saving all or part of the country than remaining under the control of the Institutional Republicans. And whether that chance is worth the effort.

Assuming electoral politics are still viable [see court decision above]; getting candidates on the ballot will require petitioning. It will not be possible to get nationwide coverage. Both parties will fight it. You have to decide if the battle is worth the efforts.

5. The battle will have other aspects beyond candidates elected. The campaign will allow a public explication of Conservative thought not possible under the Republicans. And a new party will not be under the court decree barring the Republicans from opposing vote fraud. In fact, exposing and charging Democrats could be a major part of the effort. Any members of the new party who manage to get elected to office will not be under the thumb of the Institutionals. They can be a spokesperson for a non-Statist agenda. If there are further elections, they may or may not be joined by others. Remember how the Republicans came out of the Whigs. Wherever the new party organizes may be the new Ripon, Wisconsin.

If there are not further elections, one cannot see the Institutional Republicans forming an ideological pole star for any movement to restore an abandoned Constitution. They are compromised by collaboration. A new party may provide that center.

There is also the miniscule possibility that the Institutional Republicans will take notice of a decline in party membership and have a “Blazing Saddles” moment.

The prospect of losing their cushy positions may get them off their bellies, and at least on their knees. I’m not betting on that, though.

Subotai Bahadur

    Bruno Lesky in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | January 4, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Thanks for your post. I’ve been arguing for a strategy of basically taking over the Republican party … you have more political experience than I do.

    I agree that most of the Rep. party is down the drain. But it might be more feasible to take it over rather than the hugely more difficult task of taking on The System as a whole?

    I’m in for what will work. I would love to see your concept as workable but as yet I can’t.

    I know it’s dire now. Even more important that we need examples to assess workability for strategy. As said, I have limited pol background but I see Tea Party working via Rep. party to get certain states turning (e.g. Wisconsin). I don’t yet see leaving the Rep. party and forming a 3rd party working. Examples? So we can really consider this.

    What state are you in? Is it a state that is too far gone? Can you relocate?

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to Bruno Lesky. | January 5, 2013 at 12:40 am

      I live in Colorado. The Institutional Republicans here will, and have, thrown major elections to the Democrats rather than let a duly nominated TEA Party endorsed Republican candidate win. Relocating is not feasible, for a number of reasons. And I think one difference between your approach and mine is how much time each of us thinks is left before things go Splat!. I have really grave doubts about making it to 2014, and of there being an election then. Those who think that the Republican Party can be taken over are looking at longer time frames [and through rose colored glasses in my humble opinion].


      Subotai Bahadur

left coast rebel | January 4, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Sadly, after reading this thread (and especially comments from a few key people) I’ve reminded myself an unfortunate truism of our age: low information Republican voters are just as misinformed as Dems, only they cheer on the “good guys” that increase spending almost as much as the Democrats (Boehner, anyone?).

I’m so disgusted how, regardless of the Tea Party handing the GOP a comfortable majority in the House circa 2010, nothing has changed. To be perfectly honest, John Boehner is probably even more corrupt, inept and disingenuous than those holding previous leadership. As a libertarian-conservative, I loathe Newt Gingrich; nevertheless, Gingrich at least held Bill Clinton to a sensible budget and actually got the balanced the federal ledger (albeit for a very short time period).

What does John Boehner have to show for his empty “leadership” position rhetoric (i.e. for those in this thread that don’t get it: “low taxes!”, “easing regulations”, and blah, blah blah).

Absolutely nothing except gratuitous tear ducts and handing everything to Obama on a tear-streaked silver platter.

Then again, Boehner has further damaged the tattered Republican brand, and maybe that’s the only good thing he’s done for America.