Part of the mission of this blog was to talk about issues which are inherently controversial, or divide people politically, and do so with style and content respectful of that. Sometimes, though, I'm just dying to call someone a knucklehead. John Boehner often makes me feel that way.
First of all, in all honesty, how does he keep his position as Minority Leader in the House, when Republican membership under his strategic legislative direction has diminished so much during his tenure? How and why does his caucus stay with him? It's true that the reduction in numbers would be an unfair thing to leave entirely at his feet. There are plenty of factors, including the old adage that "all politics is local." But Boehner has had no success in crafting a vision, a legislative agenda for House Republicans and the country which his caucus can advance, and he can advance from his own considerable bully pulpit, with any degree of genuine popularity or traction. That Boehner is still there as Leader and predicted to remain so after January 20 is one of those things that makes no sense - like how Madoff got to run a Ponzi schema for over a decade, how the Miami Dolphins are good and the San Diego Chargers are not, why Madonna would leave Guy Richie for A-Rod.
There are various Republicans I love. My liberal friends cringe at such statement, and offer the incredulous "Who??...and..why???" questions. But, John Boehner is not one of them, nor has he been for years, or really ever since he came on the scene. I have consistently thought, "Why does anyone care what John Boehner thinks?" And while a whole historical progression of things has led me to that view, I'll just expound on the latest - his expressed disappointment at President Bush using $17.4 billion of TARP funds as a bridge loan to GM and Chrysler.
Ohio, John Boehner's state, remarkably, is heavily invested in the auto industry. There is a large GM assembly plant in the state, and also a large Honda plant (everyone has said that if the domestic auto makers go down that it will adversely impact all U.S. operations whether domestic or foreign), and there may be others. Those are just the ones I know for sure. It's enough. Ohio would be devastated if the auto industry went under. One would think that would be enough for Boehner to support this kind of bridge loan with tough restrictions and a stern accompanying warning, that bankruptcy lies immediately ahead if management and labor do not come together now and make the hard choices they have avoided making for the last 10 to 20 years. Not only did President Bush provide GM and Chrysler with a bridge they would be wise to immediately cross, but also provided a bridge as respects this crisis to the new administration. I can't recall George Bush's exact quote, but it was something along the lines of not wanting the Obama administration to face a disaster in the auto industry on their first day. And he's absolutely right.
With this decision, President Bush demonstrated again the trait which will be part of his legacy, that of doing what he believes to be right regardless of the political or popular fallout. It demonstrates a tremendous inner strength, resolve, desire and willingness to lead. I have not always agreed with his decisions. My previous post predicted that his judgments in directing the war on terror and those in Afghanistan and Iraq may confer a critical view from history. But for Barack Obama to be a successful president he will need George Bush's ability and willingness to lead, to be the decider, if you will, at times in the midst of stiff and vocal opposition from the public, his party, our allies or other governments. If he is as capable and smart as I think he is, Barack Obama will, during such times, call upon the former President George W. Bush and seek his counsel, which I am confident the former president will generously give.
But, for now, it suffices to say that whatever angle Leader Boehner is working with respect to an auto bailout, even a temporary one, is motivated not by leadership, what is best for the country, or best even for his own state, but likely some miscalculated political move of the kind I've seen from him time and again over the years. And yet, he keeps on keepin' on. How or why is beyond me.
Comments