Watchdog Blog

Gilbert Cranberg: Somebody Tell Boehner What ‘Rebuttal’ Means

Posted at 10:09 am, July 27th, 2011
Gilbert Cranberg Mug

Notice how House Speaker John Boehner turned a deaf ear to the president in his so-called rebuttal to Obama’s July 25 address on the debt ceiling? If you hadn’t noticed, you have plenty of company. The press evidently wasn’t paying attention either.

In his talk, Obama took a hard crack at the GOP for not asking for added revenue from the super-rich. “Let’s ask, the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations,” he pleaded, “to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.” Obama’s repeated argument for a “balanced approach” to which the wealthy also would contribute was a key part of his position.

Boehner’s talk, immediately on the heels of the president’s, was billed as a rebuttal. “Rebuttal: an attempt to contradict or dispute.” Call it false advertising, for almost everything that Obama said about shared sacrifice simply was ignored or unanswered by Boehner. His only response to the call for action on the revenue side was an anemic eight words: “I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.”

An alternative explanation: A reincarnated Rosemary Woods had come back to bedevil the GOP once again by wiping out much of what Boehner had to say about revenue from the rich. That’s as plausible as what Boehner actually said, which was a non-sequitur.

Democrats may have been irritated at the networks for giving the Republicans equal time. It turns out they should be grateful. Boehner’s pitiful defense of why his party refuses to ask for shared sacrifice from those with the most had to be seen to be believed.

One Response to “Somebody Tell Boehner What ‘Rebuttal’ Means”

  1. David Reno says:

    Why does this surprize you? It’s just another example of a highly placed political official, this time a Republican, not knowing what he’s talking about.

    There is a similar definitional dyfunction over what is called
    “health care.”

    My own definition: What a doctor, nurse, or accupunturist does is health care. This isn’t what we’re talking about.

    The debate isn’t health care, for a know no rational, sane person who would deny a ill person care, but rather about the ADMINISTRATION of health care, To Wit, who pays for it, how is it paid for, what gets paid for, who gets what. That is BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, not health care.

Comments are closed.

The website is no longer being updated. Watchdog stories have a new home in Nieman Reports.