I never thought I would miss John Boehner! Aaah, the good Ole days!

An FAIR and insightful look at Democracy and the challenges politicians face. No punches were pulled in the writing of this memoir!

Although I generally disagree with his policies, I can say I respect the man. ( )

Yes, I listened to this book. If you've ever dreamed of retiring and then writing a your account of your work life, including calling your former colleagues kooks, nuts, assholes, in looney ville, or describe them as ruthless bastards, having deep state delusions or one in particular lucifer in the flesh.. If you enjoy that kind of snark and if you have even a passing interest in politics or are interested in how someone may acquire a bulls balls sack, this book is for you! Just keep in mind that this memoir is intended to make the author look good, and should be taken that way.. ( )

John Boehner's memoir is a marvelously entertaining look at the institution of the House of Representatives and how it really works. It also contains insights on the principles of leadership. Although I disagree with many of Boehner's political ideas and actions, it is still a worthwhile book to read. Particularly, entertaining are his cutting comments about the crazy wing of the Republican party and Fox News. ( )

Boehner is a decent storyteller and that’s what this book is mainly about. He does pontificate at times and offers his analysis of today’s politics which he is very critical. He hates Ted Cruz and takes every opportunity to take a literary swing at the Texas senator. As a Republican, he offers positive portrayls of all recent GOP presidents except one (Trump). He’s not a fan of Bill Clinton or Clinton’s character. He admits Obama was very smart and a tough negotiator.

Boehner mentions his experiences dealing with the “crazies” like Michelle Bachman, Steve King, Tea Party members etc. Boehner evidences embarrassment how the Republican Party has become so radicalized and pandered to Fox, Hannity and Limbaugh.

Quick read. No surprises or unexpected revelations. Decent book if you have interest in politics and how things get done in Congress. ( )

I struggled a bit with the stars -- I was tempted to give it 3-stars, but that would be the averaging of 1-star and 5-stars, not an overall rating. I would probably enjoy meeting Boehner over dinner, but I doubt we would ever be close friends. I recommend reading this to almost every American, just go into it with the attitude that whether or not you agree with Boehner's politics isn't the main point -- learning more about our government is.

I consider myself to be left of moderate. Most of the people I know more to the left than I am, including some progressives. I would probably be more to the left if they didn't act like a left-wing Tea Party. This is the best part of Boehner's book, in my opinion. He seems to understand the difference between being an advocate and trying to govern a diverse group of people. Even when only wealthy white males got to participate in politics, they were still diverse. When David Shor, who is himself liberal, merely informed us that Americans as a whole like peaceful demonstrations and disapprove of violent ones, many Progressives rose up in anger because he didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. I will almost certainly be voting for Democrats in 2022 and 2024, but I will not be surprised in the slightest if they go down in defeat. When Pelosi noted that the so-called Squad of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib were the only four people who voted against a certain bill, Ocasio-Cortez, whom I normally think of as an impressive person, retorted that the each represent a district full of voters, as if that were not also true of everyone who voted for it. The tendency to forget this is what makes me think the Democrats may be doomed.

I wish that they would understand what Boehner does: political views are not a seamless garment -- everyone who agrees with one point may not agree with all others. In fighting the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), more on this later, he tried to explain that attempting to overturn the entire thing wasn't practical, they would have to compromise on changing pieces. I am happy to note that the ACA still stands, and thank the Republicans for wasting as much time as they have for small gains when they might have been accomplishing something -- like creating their alternative.

Similarly, one of my Progressive friends keeps hammering away at a cause that she thinks of as a single issue and I think of as at least three. She was shocked when I informed her that 80% of the American public favors what I see as being the first of those issues. (I personally I mixed feelings on it, but if 80% of my fellow Americans want that, I'm fine with it. I consider it to be a policy, not a major moral issue, like civil rights.) It is the other two that only have around 50%, and I'd suggest that she and her friends focus on the issue that has the best chance, before attitudes toward it harden, instead of letting it be dragged down by the others. That just goes to show how morally derelict I am. Both to the left and the right, I find that many people cannot understand that I don't regard everything as a moral issue -- many are just better or worse policy decisions.

When I was first concerned about why so many people liked Trump, even before he was nominated, my more liberal friends dismissed it. Apparently everyone who doesn't think like they do is insignificant. I have a policy of not saying I told you so, but it was very hard to stick to in the face of Trump's election. I once ran into an online thread of people apparently competing to say the most offensive things about Trump voters. I commented that they can call Trump voters any names they like, but they'll still be on the voter rolls. They ignored that, of course.

It was interesting that Boehner found Barack Obama, at least in the first two years of his presidency, to be very smugly uncooperative for all his talk of bi-partisanship. It is interesting to juxtapose his story of the fight over raising the debt ceiling with that in Thomas E. Mann's and Norman J. Orstein's It's Worse than it Looks. According to Boehner, he and Obama shook on a deal that included an additional $8billion in revenue. A few days later, Obama called and demanded additional revenues of at least $4billion, 50% more. Boehner insisted that he couldn't get the votes. And he didn't return several phone calls. Mann and Ornstein fault Boehner, saying that from Obamas point of view, he had gone out on a limb to offer a deal, and Boehner disrespected him. Given their description of Republican internal politics, Boehner had reason to feel that he had gone out on a limb, also, and it was Obama who overturned the deal. I will agree with Mann and Ornstein's general point that Republicans are the ones chiefly responsible for the bitter partisan divide, but although they outline Boehner's difficulties, they have no sympathy. Obama is now rightly warning the left about setting up circular firing squads.

On the other hand, I abhor most of Boehner's politics. I rather ground my teeth when he proudly informed us that the Republicans had given the American people a gift -- a tax system with only 3 brackets and a 35% top rate. This doesn't strike me as a cause for general rejoicing. I fail to see how reducing the number of tax brackets does the average American any favors. Even before the electronic forms, running one's finger down a tax table was one of the simplest parts of filing a tax form. I think more brackets are actually fairer, since they are more sensitive to differences in income. Since I was already paying 35% of my income, whatever benefits I got from that tax cut were miniscule compared to what the wealthy got. Really, Boehner, are you stupid or do you think that all non-wealthy Americans are? How do the Republican think that fiscal responsibility means making tax changes that benefit mainly the wealthiest? We know who's really important to you.

His discussion of the Affordable Care Act seemed a bit, evasive to me. He never did say what was so terrible about it, and he did admit that some parts of it, like care for previously existing conditions, are extremely popular. What he didn't offer was any alternative. I've seen this far too often -- we don't like what we have, so let's tear that down, and I promise that we'll put a better alternative in place. First build your alternative, then we'll see.

Boehner does not discuss all of the controversies that he has been involved with. I found his justifications of lobbyists to be rather dubious -- paid lobbyists especially. While some lobbyists may, as he asserts, have a great knowledge of the field, they are unlikely to be even-handed, and the amount of money that they have to throw around is rather suspicious. If advice is needed, it would be better to call in government employees and outside specialists who don't have a personal interest in the outcome.

I really encourage reading this for the understanding of politics that it contains, without necessarily accepting Boehner's politics. ( )