Boehner, amazingly.
All in all the Republican House of 2011-2017 has done less damage so far than the Republican House of 1995-2001, despite the current GOP caucus being more extremist than the 90s one. Of course the main reason for that is Obama having the spine that Clinton lacked.
The typical narrative I've always heard is that Clinton didn't lack a spine as much as he did a political compass, and was more willing to blow with the wind-which is why he made a rapid turn to the center. Obama, on the other hand, had a chance to get single payer healthcare-or at least make an attempt at it-and instead was bullied by Republicans into creating the milquetoast, watered down proposal created by Newt Gingrich. In the end, Republicans tricked Obama into passing the least offensive healthcare bill possible and than still turned against him.
Which is where Boehner comes in; Boehner was always in danger of losing his speakership. Imagine if he went along with the Democrats and rammed through immigration reform like the article posted by Landside Lyndon suggested. Sure, he'd have lost his speakership in the end but at least he'd have had an accomplishment of some sort. How is Boehner different from Obama? Boehner took no risks while Speaker, and still achieved nothing. Obama did the same with healthcare, and still lost control of the House, and later, the Senate. Face it, both Obama and Boehner are cowards and are made for one another.
Clinton may not have had much of a spine himself, but at least he co-opted Republican policies and got some credit. Clinton, love him or hate him, will be remembered as a consequential President. What will Obama be remembered for besides being the first black President and passing a healthcare law that very well could be repealed in early 2017?
Poll
