Boehner’s boneheaded blunder — Day 2

I can never tell what’s going to cause a media feeding frenzy. Sometimes a politician will make a dumb joke and the media will pounce. Othertimes, a pol will say something completely outrageous, which generates a collective yawn. House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) comments on CNN the other day seemed like the kind of story that could raise eyebrows.

If you’re just joining us, Boehner appeared on CNN on Wednesday, via satellite from Baghdad, where he defended the Bush administration’s policy. Wolf Blizter asked how much longer Americans should expect to lose in blood and treasure. Boehner responded that the costs are “a small price” to pay for the overall mission.

Dismissing U.S. sacrifices in Iraq as “small” seemed like a breathtakingly dumb and offensive thing to say. John Kerry pounced, imploring Boehner to apologize. The DNC and DCCC followed suit.

Regrettably, most of the media ignored the story, though the Politico got a response to the flap from Boehner’s communications director: “Wolf asked about the money spent in Iraq, and that’s what Mr. Boehner was referring to when he said our troops’ efforts are critical for the safety and security of our country.” (Actually, Blitzer’s question clearly included a reference to “the loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month.”)

I was afraid that would be that, and the story would quickly disappear, but the controversy is showing signs of life.

Joe Biden weighed in:

“It’s unconscionable. Simply unconscionable. And the rationale put forward is simply ridiculous.”

More importantly, John McCain is urging Boehner to take it back.

“He misspoke. With all due respect, every American wounded or sacrificed is the greatest possible price to pay,” and we should all be grateful, “particularly those of us who sit in relative safety while those young men and women are fighting…. He ought to retract it.”

Two things to consider here. One, the media doesn’t have an excuse for ignoring this anymore. The DNC, DCCC, the last Democratic presidential nominee, a current Democratic presidential candidate, and a major Republican presidential candidate have all criticized Boehner’s remark. If Kerry’s botched joke drew blanket coverage, Boehner’s “small price” comment should get equal treatment.

Two, it’s worth considering why the media, so far, has been disinterested. Why would Kerry’s botched joke be a huge story, whereas Boehner’s comments were unimportant? I think it plays into pre-existing media narratives — reporters/editors/producers assume that the left is hostile to the military. Kerry’s joke offered “proof” that bolstered the media’s worldview, so they ran with it. Conversely, reporters assume that the right loves the military. Boehner’s dismissive attitude of thousands of U.S. deaths, therefore, are interpreted as little more than a poor choice of words.

The same thing happened in November 2006, also on CNN. Blitzer asked about Rumsfeld’s responsibility for problems in Iraq and Boehner blamed military officers instead. Dems tried to raise a fuss, but the media didn’t care. After all, Boehner’s a conservative, so he couldn’t have been anti-military, right?

Regardless, I still think Boehner should feel some heat over this. In fact, ideally, the rest of the Republican presidential candidates should feel compelled to weigh in: “Your party’s leader in the House of Representatives dismissed U.S. sacrifices in Iraq as a ‘small price.’ Do you agree? Are you prepared to condemn the comments? Will you vow not to campaign with or for John Boehner in the future?”

“Why would Kerry’s botched joke be a huge story, whereas Boehner’s comments were unimportant?”

Come on CB… the real answer is quite easy. It’s because John Kerry is well known, was once a Presidential front-runner and at the time of his “joke”, even viewed as a serious potential candidate this election cycle whereas, who exactly is Boen-hner again??

  • I think it plays into pre-existing media narratives

    It’s all about the narrative – the media is there to sell eyeballs, and narrative sells eyeballs in the US these days. Intuitively it would seem like running stories counter to the narrative would drag in eyeballs – in reality, people don’t like their worldview shaken all that much. Telling people what they want to hear has always been more profitable than telling people what they need to hear, why should it be any different for newspapers?

  • The Republicans had invested a lot of time, money, and effort into presenting a caricature of John Kerry to the American public. The Democrats–maybe with justification, maybe not–have not done that with Boner. The story didn’t come pre-told, so to speak, the way the Kerry gaffe did.

    FWIW, if Tom DeLay (or Newt Gingrich) had said what Boner said, I think it would have gotten more immediate play. Not that Tommy D hasn’t said other asinine, offensive things that have gone largely unremarked-upon, but still.

  • To remain logically consistant, people who support Bush’s actions should believe the sacrifices we’re making are “a small price to pay” relative to the doom and peril attached to letting the “terrorists win.” It’s the same as saying the something to the effect of ‘the costs of taking action are far less then the cost of doing nothing’ or some such nonsense. I don’t believe that crap, but it’s logically consistant with what the right has been spewing up to this point. It just happens to sound bad when looked at in the context of individual sacrifice. This is a rhetorical, rather than substantive discussion.

  • Aren’t there any smart people they could interview? Is it a case of the interviewer always needing to have someone on who isn’t as smart as he or she is, and that’s why they keep talking to people like Boehner and Lieberman?

  • And when the media ask republicans whether they agree that our soldiers’ lives are a small price to pay, they should also be asked, “and, incidentally, what would you consider to be too large a price to pay?”

  • No Rush…No Fox News…No RNC Political Press release = no NEWS

    Today’s Journalists are LAZY

    Rush Limpdick can make a big deal out of nothing and its news because FNC will pick it up and the rest of the RW moron brigade will follow suit..

    Who do the Dems have……????

    Cons control 60% of the Op-Ed Columns…..they have their own propaganda network….and 10’s of millions of listeners per day on the radio……

    This ensures that any Dem “controversy” no matter how small can be amplified to a big deal with one faxed press release from a centralized political operation such as the WH or the RNC.

    Simple as that…

    Dems MUST WORK TWICE as hard if they want this kinda stuff out there….

    Its not an impossible task…it can be done

  • Why can’t we get someone like George Soros to start a progressive news network? Oh wait, the right would never allow that. Suddenly you would have the FCC denying liscense applications.

  • C’mon the media isn’t “disinterested” at all; certainly Fox News isn’t. It’s uninterested.

    /pedantry

  • Easy answer: Corporate (Neocon backing) media pounces on anti corporate (progressive) spokespeople and doesn’t pounce on good little Corporate Cronies like Boehner.

  • Haik @ 5.

    Agreed.

    Boehner’s ENTIRE statement said our soldiers’ lives would be a small price if it meant a stable middle East.
    I pointed out this was a HEE-YOOJ “if”.

    Joe Biden’s second part of his assessment backs me up:
    “…the rationale put forward is simply ridiculous.”

    I’d have waited for a credible sign of progress towards that otherwise laudable goal before I’d start letting Beohner’s choice of words slip past my lips…. but that’s just me.

  • Who’s John Boehner? Tell media outlets he’s the House Minority Leader, and he was Speaker of the House when he made his comment blaming the generals on the ground. In each comment, Boehner has actually been in a position of leadership, unlike Kerry, who was not his party’s leader in October 2006 and was not even defending his seat.

  • Let’s say that Boehner’s “small price” comment was only in the context of how much taxpayer dough is going to be needed to be spent in Iraq. He described this “small price” as an “investment.” Funny, I remember conservative Republicans like Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Tony Snow (as a columnist) criticized then-President Clinton for describing the spending of taxpayers’ money using that same word.

  • what usually gets missed in analysis of the many cases of media imbalance like this is the part played by the main culprit, rove’s most important propaganda tool and the difference-maker of the last twenty years- talk radio

    although the difference may appear to be more related to good PR by the GOP and corporate owned media looking after its masters, the only nationwide medium that allows the kind of uncontested repetition needed to enable this level of hypocrisy in the MSM is talk radio. that uncontested repetition to tens of millions every day creates a giant bandwagon for our lazy inbred talking heads. they usually get the blame but without limbaugh and hannity and co. to put whipped certitude on the turd pie of GOP talking points, excuses, and distortions earlier in the day or week the kind of prioritization obvious here would not be possible. until progressives realize it they will continue to play politics without a front line.

  • Bob Somerby is right the reason the Kerry joke became such a big flap is that the corporate media have basically become republican propaganda machines. It really is as simple as that.

  • Well, duh!

    It’s because he’s a Repug!

    The media only crucifies people for gaffes if they are Democrats.

    Jeez, don’t you get it?

  • Boehner has the eyes of a dog, the face of intelligent putty and the sould heart of a Republican, so he must be one. To become a human read Parity Democracy found at online bookstores worldwide.

  • Comments are closed.