Boehner spins like a pendulum do
By Lee Russ
Friday, July 14, 2006 at 05:49 PM
I never had a lot of hope for John Boehner. Turns out that "not a lot" was too much.Boehner specializes in spewing Republican talking points about every major event in American political life. The spin could get you dizzy; the substance could get you ill. Deeply. Quickly.
Three recent examples:
1. On the Supreme Court's Decision That Detainees Have Legal Rights:
Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling [on rights of detainees], House majority leader John Boehner of Ohio circulated a memo, obviously already prepared, among Republican members that provided them with talking-points: the court had given "special privileges to terrorists" and the Democrats were weak on terrorism. "There is a clear choice between Capitol Hill Democrats who celebrate offering special privileges to violent terrorists, and Republicans who want the president to have the necessary tools to prosecute and achieve victory in the global war on terror", the memo stated.
2. On the Mid-June House Floor Debate On Iraq:
During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points:
The Importance of Our Actions
It is imperative during this debate that we re- examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.....during this debate we must ust make clear to the American people that at the United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals
were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.
A Portrait of Contrasts
This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on our own soil...we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era....In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?
Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.
Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat
As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.
A Cal Thomas column rakes Boehner over the coals for his talking points urging Republicans up for election in 2006 to make fiscal responsibility one of their prime campaign issues (yes, seriously).
The following is not parody.
House Republicans are being told by their leaders to run campaigns this fall on a platform of fiscal discipline that includes cutting spending. This from a party that has given us new entitlement programs resembling President Johnson's Great Society; this from a party that has set new records in "earmarks" for pork barrel projects in their home districts and states; this from a party that under President Reagan at least tried to eliminate the Department of Education, but that under President Bush has thrown new money at it with no appreciable improvement in academic achievement.
House Majority Leader John Boehner has published a list of Republican talking points he wants members to use in their campaigns to convince voters they are reducing spending and to tag Democrats with being "fiscally irresponsible."
There is much from which to choose for entertainment purposes. One of my favorites is Boehner's touting of the line-item veto proposal to "help rein in spending." This fiscal chastity belt will, according to Boehner, "make Congress more accountable for the spending it proposes, help eliminate worthless pork and protect taxpayer dollars with a budget based on fiscal discipline." (Pause for guffaws from readers).
Boehner's concluding line might have worked better in 1994, when hopes were high that a Republican majority would mean smaller government and less spending: "Reversing the culture in Washington that believes the solution to every problem involves more government and more spending is not easy."
What's next, an NRC ad touting the ethics of the Republicans as exemplified by the "Golden Boys Graft"--Cunningham, DeLay, Ney, Noe, Abramoff, Norquist, Reed, Burns, and the supporting cast of thousands?
As somebody somewhere once said, there are none so blind as those that will not see. Are there really still people who will not see the Boehner BS for what it is?