Excellent question and before we get into it, please let me remind you that although Steve Israel and the DCCC work frantically to protect Boehner and his chief henchmen, there is a progressive champion who's taken on the thankless task of running against Boehner in his western Ohio district, Andy Hounshell. Andy will get exactly nothing from the DCCC as long as Steve Israel is in charge but if you'd like to help him make Boehner's reelection bid something he has to take seriously, you can do that here at the Blue America ActBlue page.
Now, back to House's question. What he's asking isn't why the DCCC refuses to go after Boehner (or any senior Republican leaders or committee chairs, a failed strategy of Steve Israel that means absolutely never taking back the House as long as he's in charge). What he's asking is why don't the Democrats demonize the drunken, lazy, corrupt, dull-witted Boehner the way Republicans have always demonized Pelosi, wrapping her like a stone around their Democratic opponent’s neck. House asked around and hasn't found a clear answer.
One answer is that Democrats simply see more gain in attacking the tea party-- and like-minded congressional Republicans-- as a group with frightening ideas. Boehner is not typically viewed as a tea-party leader, and is often at odds with that faction himself. And while he could conceivably be attacked as an ineffective leader, many experts say he is simply not seen as a scary figure.
“Fear is a bigger driver,” one Democratic strategist said.
Indeed, during the 2012 elections, Democratic ads focused on Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate who was himself the architect of GOP proposals to overhaul Medicare and other social programs.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and others in the House Republican Conference also provide a broader “collective” cast of well-known foils for Democrats than is available in the Democratic caucus for Republicans, said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Still, a Gallup poll released last week showed both Pelosi and Boehner are well-known. Only 11 percent of those surveyed said they had never heard of Pelosi (the most well-known of all four of the House and Senate majority and minority leaders), and only 14 percent said they had not heard of Boehner.
Pelosi led the list of the four leaders in unpopularity, with 48 percent of those surveying saying they had an unfavorable opinion of her, while 31 percent had a favorable opinion. Forty-one percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Boehner, while 31 percent had a favorable view.
Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief, said he believes-- though he has not seen data to back this up-- that Pelosi has fallen prey over the years to a polarized and intense right-wing media barrage, while more-liberal media voices are less prone to outright personal attacks.
Some of this too may be based on Pelosi’s success in driving the Democratic agenda, such as her role in helping to pass President Obama’s Affordable Care Act while speaker.
“You attack power, not weakness,” said a senior House Democratic aide, “which is why Boehner is less frequently used.”
“I like him, actually. He’s a nice guy,” added Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., of Boehner, who said the speaker has traditionally had a “reasonable and moderate” record.
“If he had it his way, the House Republican Conference wouldn’t be as dysfunctional as it has been,” McGovern said.
This morning we asked Hounshell more about Boehner's actual record and what it's meant to ordinary working families in western Ohio. "As Speaker, John Boehner doesn't have to actually cast a vote and he rarely does. But when it came to voting on the devastating sequester bill," Andy told us, "he came down off his perch and voted-- for it. He alternates between taking credit for it and blaming it on President Obama. But the sequester is a disaster and it's an example of the failure of political elites and insiders in Washington looking out for everything but the interests of their own constituents. The sequester is causing real harm to real people. It's time for them to sit down and work out a budget that will pass. I understand that it is difficult, but it is what they have been elected to do, and what they get paid for. This game of program cutting chicken hurts the people in this country that need their representatives the most. They fixed the flight delays with lightening speed, lets see what they can do with the cuts that are affecting those who need it most, like Head Start and Meals on Wheels."
Two weeks ago the Dayton Daily News reported how colleges and universities across Ohio were having to pull back on crucial, and in some cases life-saving, research programs.
Sequestration, the across-the-board cuts that automatically went into effect March 1 when Congress did not reach a deal to avoid them, is set to drain more than a billion from the federal organizations that fund research. The impact for public universities in Ohio is estimated at $95 million, according to ScienceWorksforU.S., a new campaign launched by the Association of American Universities.Thanks John Boehner! Yesterday Senator Elizabeth Warren, who's working to repeal Boehner's sequestration bill, told her constituents in Massachusetts almost the same thing Andy Hounshell is telling voters in Ohio's 8th congressional district:
“People like to think that the things that may be impacted are things that may not make a difference, but that’s not the truth,” said Dr. William Ball, vice president for research at the University of Cincinnati. “Promising research is potentially going to be affected.”
The Ohio State University has already seen cuts to grants for cancer and infection disease research, said Carol Whitacre, vice president of OSU’s Office of Research. OSU estimates it will see a cut of $13 million in fiscal year 2013 and $14 million for 2014. UC is also bracing for reductions. The university is at the forefront in research on strokes, a leading cause of death in the US. UC estimates its impact at $17 million, some of which could be years away.
“What people need to understand is that research is their future,” Ball said. The cuts, he said, are”personal” and “not just something that could happen to that institution across town.”
We can't solve our country's budget problems with a meat-ax.
Sequestration isn't just dumb, it's dangerous and irresponsible. Blunt, across the board cuts are hurting our children, our seniors, our veterans-- the people who need our help the most.
Last week, Congress stepped in to restore full funding for air traffic controllers to keep out country moving. But our children, seniors, and veterans shouldn't have to get stuck on a tarmac before Congress pays any attention.People with cancer or families dealing with autism or Alzheimer's shouldn't be ignored. Flight delays are bad for all of us, but it's also bad for all of us when we cut funding for Meals on Wheels and Head Start. And it's bad for all of us when medical research gets sidelined and when young scientists' work can't get funded.
The truth is that we could end those cuts and put a stop to sequestration right now if we just made big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires pay their fair share.
That's why I'm joining Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to sponsor legislation that repeals sequestration by ending the tax giveaways and special breaks for our most profitable companies and millionaires.
Washington is rigged for the big guys-- the ones who can afford to hire an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to create and find the loopholes and special breaks that let big corporations off the hook for paying taxes.
• It's rigged for the five biggest oil companies, which made $118 billion in profits last year-- and yet still collected billions of dollars worth of government subsidies.
• It's rigged for multinational corporations, which get tax breaks to ship U.S. jobs overseas and stash their investments abroad.
• And it's rigged for hedge fund managers and billionaires, who pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.
The Job Preservation and Sequester Replacement Act closes corporate tax loopholes so everyone pays a fair share. And it implements the Buffett Rule so that people who make more than $1 million a year pay it forward so the next kid has a chance to make it big.
0 comments:
Post a Comment