Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > October > 08
Friday, October 8, 2010
Editorial: Re-elect Boehner, Austria, Turner
2010 ELECTION
Among the three Democratic challengers to Republican members of Congress in the districts centered in the Dayton area, there’s not a minute’s experience in public office, not a record to be judged.
Nor — in a time when congressional elections have become nationalized, with money pouring into districts whenever there’s hope of victory — is much of an effort being made by Democrats in Washington or Columbus for these local candidates.
This is not to say that none of the challengers is worth attention or that none is a respectable choice for Democratic voters looking for an alternative.
But the Democratic pitch to independent voters who value qualifications is strained.
JOHN BOEHNER VERSUS JUSTIN COUSSOULE
Rep. John Boehner has been routinely and overwhelmingly re-elected in the 8th District since 1990 with little or no opposition. Now he is leader of the House Republicans and could become speaker if the Republicans take control. It would be a remarkable time for his district to turn against him.
The district dips into Huber Heights and east Dayton from the north, and includes all or part of Miami, Mercer, Darke, Preble and Butler counties.
Rep. Boehner does have a worthier opponent than usual. Justin Coussoule is a lawyer and West Point grad who makes a good presentation of a fundamentally Democratic case.
But Congress is a pretty big office for a first-time candidate. All the incumbents discussed here started lower.
Mr. Coussoule has more financial support than Mr. Boehner’s opponents usually have — reportedly reaching into six figures. That’s partly because Rep. Boehner is a national figure. Anti-Boehner money comes in from outside the district.
Having two reasonably visible candidates is a good thing.
The challenger paints the incumbent as out-of-touch with his district, involved with national affairs, unwilling to pursue funding for local projects the way other legislators do (through those controversial “earmarks”) and used to hobnobbing — and golfing — with business lobbyists and others far removed from real people.
There’s a mix of truth and stretch in that indictment.
But does the 8th District really want to punish somebody for rising in political leadership? Other places have done that, but it seems on the mindless side.
John Boehner is not the reason the House Republicans are at war with the Obama administration. It would be the same under any leader.
What can be said of Rep. Boehner specifically is that he has risen to and survived at the top of his party without using any atypically cutthroat methods. And his party seems to be thriving under his leadership. That has to be respected.
STEVE AUSTRIA VERSUS BILL CONNER
At the other end of the power spectrum from Rep. Boehner is Rep. Steve Austria, a freshman of the 7th District, which includes Greene and Clark counties and extends toward Columbus.
His opponent is Bill Conner, making his third run for the office, having also run for the state legislature. Once notable for an irascible manner, he has improved his act dramatically. Educated as an engineer, he has a strong background in the military and in the defense industry. And he has carefully laid out his views (available on his website) on the big issues.
But he’s still a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican district and still a liberal, pushing single-payer health insurance. His biggest issue, though, as before, is campaign spending. He says the political system is corrupted by money from special interests. He specifically notes the money flowing from corporate interests to his opponent. (Rep. Austria says half his money comes from individuals.)
Mr. Conner wants campaign spending to be limited to $100,000. But the U.S. Supreme Court opposed limits even when the court was more moderate. Today the justices are tearing down even lesser regulations.
Mr. Austria likes to note that he was elected president of the Republican freshman class. And he has put together a committee to help local businesses land more contracts from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. This happened after he took some flak for not asking for earmarks, in the way of his predecessor, David Hobson.
He has broken from the Republican line rarely, but did, for example, in voting for SCHIP, which provides health care for uninsured children.
After mistakenly blaming the 1930s Great Depression on Franklin Roosevelt, the president who was elected because of it, Rep. Austria kept a lower profile, focusing on local affairs, coming back to the district regularly, as a freshman should.
MIKE TURNER VERSUS JOE ROBERTS
The challenge to Rep. Mike Turner is not worth pausing over. Joe Roberts, 25, is a political operative who, after winning a peculiarly undistinguished primary, has not been able to generate much in the way of support or a rationale. Much of his young adult life has been spent outside of Dayton. He can’t possibly argue that he’s the more qualified candidate.
Rep. Turner is the top Republican on an armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, from which post he recently fought to keep intelligence jobs at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. He could become chairman if the Republicans take the House.
He has emerged as a voice for his party in the strategic-forces niche, critiquing Obama administration policy.
Meanwhile, he’s been sharply focused on local interests, such as the murder of Marine Maria Lauterbach and the military’s handling of her case.
He’s also pushing a bill to protect the child-custody rights of military members who are deployed. The bill has passed the House, but is stalled in the Senate.
He has been disappointing on the biggest national issues, especially the bank bailout, which even the more conservative John Boehner recognized was necessary, however unpalatable.
The three House incumbents are conservatives of varying degrees. Many voters disapprove of their voting records. But if the challenging party wants to pull in independent voters, it should put up candidates who are reasonably well known, who stand near the philosophical mainstream of their districts, and who have reasonably comparable qualifications and abilities.
Meanwhile, incumbents who are serving honorably ought not be disposed of too lightly, given the usefulness of their seniority and experience.
In these races, the incumbents are the most reasonable choices.
(Links to letters endorsing each of the six candidates are here under Letters to the Editor.)
Permalink | Comments (62) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Locals in national affairs, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
TweetMartin Gottlieb: Is Boehner serious about changing Congress
2010 ELECTION
Two views on John Boehner, who might be the next speaker of the U.S. House:
From David Broder, the veteran Washington Post columnist, who tends to see the best in politicians:
“It might well behoove people to assume that Boehner should be taken seriously when he acknowledges that the reputation of this Congress is so bad that it cries out for reform….
“Boehner was a serious legislator for five years … as chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce…. His diagnosis of the problems in Congress offers a starting point for a cure. Let’s hope the Democrats respond.”
From New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who tends to see the worst in conservatives:
“It’s beyond astonishing to me that John Boehner has a real chance to be speaker…. I’ve always thought of Boehner as one of the especially sleazy figures in a capital seething with sleaze. I remember writing about the day back in the mid-90s when this slick, chain-smoking, quintessential influence-peddler decided to play Santa Claus by handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to fellow congressional sleazes right on the floor of the House while it was in session….
“The hack who once handed out checks … is now a gilded flunky of the nation’s big-time corporate elite…. Just this past July, Boehner called for a moratorium on new federal regulations, saying it would be a ‘wonderful signal to the private sector that they’re going to have some breathing room’….
“Protect the public? You must be kidding.”
The tobacco story that Herbert tells really happened. And to be sure, Boehner’s ties with big corporate lobbyists are still near the heart of his political identity.
But is that all you need to know about him, as Herbert suggests? Is the rest just an attempt to change the subject, to sell himself to gentle spirits like Broder?
When you talk to Boehner, his desire to reform Congress seems genuine to the point of passionate. But, of course, seeming genuine is his job.
He grants that the Republicans have offended his sense of how Congress should operate. But he is particularly furious about the Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi era. He says everything comes from the top down, that even rank-and-file Democrats have been frozen out by their own leaders. But, of course, he’s most angry that Republicans have been.
That complaint leads to this question:
If your party won big majorities in both houses and had a newly elected president who had won comfortably, wouldn’t you, too, have decided that governing was the responsibility of your own party? After all, you couldn’t go back to the electorate and complain that the other party was the problem.
Boehner doesn’t say no. He just says that going the one-party, top-down route is counterproductive in the long run.
He’s proposing more democracy. Ideas would percolate up. Let legislators actually legislate.
That most of today’s legislators are not real players in shaping major bills is clear to anyone who listens to their campaigns. They talk about bringing home the bacon, about fighting for local interests. They talk about letters they have written (or sometimes, amazingly, just letters they have signed, that some colleague wrote). They talk about whom they got on the phone or had a meeting with. They talk about narrowly focused paragraphs they have succeeded in adding to, or taken out of, larger legislation.
Some people think it’s just as well. Democracy in Congress can be chaos. I happened to be in Washington in the late 1970s, just after an era of reform had changed the House dramatically. “Mark-up” sessions, in which committees draft legislation, had just been made public, along with the votes of the members. Sunshine ruled. Power had been moved downward from committee chairs to subcommittees, which proliferated. Seniority rules had been loosened. Some people saw the flowering of a new age.
But Congress got nothing done, though Democrats had a president and big majorities in both houses. That was the model the Democrats of 2009 were determined to avoid.
In this election, few people will vote according to how they think Congress should operate. But if Boehner is going to make a personal mark — if he’s going to be something other than the generic leader, if stories are going to be told about him other than the tobacco story — this may be his realm.
And one gets the impression he knows it, that the kind of reform he’s talking about is his own particular baby.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Elections, Locals in national affairs, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics
Tweet
