As
mentioned in my last few posts, the government shutdown has caused Charlie Dent
to become a local celebrity, being interviewed on national news and being
featured in the New York Times. Charlie chose to be a little risky and
blatantly come out against his party in order to end the government shutdown.
Immediately after the government shutdown, it seemed like this was a really
good move for Charlie and he seemed to have come out on top. Many members of
his party ended up voting to keep the government running and raise the debt
ceiling. Therefore, as I discussed in my last post, it seemed as though Dent
looked knowledgeable throughout the whole incident because he called for this
resolution from the start. Since then, some interesting news has been flooding
the press. A few days ago, almost all of the House Republicans voted for a
resolution disapproving of Congress’ decision to increase the debt limit (The
Morning Call, 2013). This means that even though the Republicans did end up
compromising and raising the debt ceiling, they publically came out to say they
disapproved of the decision they made. One of the only Republicans who refused
to apologize was Charlie Dent. He called the whole thing “a little gimmicky,”
claiming the Republicans were sending a mixed message and trying to have the
best of both worlds (The Morning Call, 2013). This is another example of Dent
publically coming out against his party by trying to show his constituents that
he sticks to his word along with his true moderate nature. But some of Dent’s
more private actions don’t necessarily agree with this so much.
While
Charlie Dent may have publically come out against his party in a pretty large
way over the government shut down, he may not be as distance from his party as
he may seem. In the past few days, Dent has voted right along party lines on
bills involving the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
and the Retail Investor Protection Act numerous times. These bills are on a
much more private level; the people don’t necessarily hear about these types of
votes. Although these bills may not have a massive affect of his constituents,
it just goes to show that even while Dent is publically coming out against his
party, he is still voting right along with them on smaller, less publicized
issues, going right along with his record of voting with his party almost 90
percent of the time (The Morning Call, 2013).
While
the public may be unaware of these votes unless they choose to research them,
Dent made a mistake causing some of his constituents to question his true
nature. Dent has been doing “robocalls” for a Tea Party member Scott Ott in his
run for Lehigh County Executive (Keystone Politics, 2013). This means that
Dent’s office is calling his constituents and presenting them with an automated
recording of Dent explaining why they should vote for Scott Ott over the
Democratic candidate, whom actually was a prior moderate Republican. Scott Ott
has been known to be an extreme Tea Party member and many refer to him as a “Tea
Party Clown” (Keystone Politics, 2013). In 2008, Ott went on record making an
absolutely ridiculous statement about Black Democrats:
“Ott questions why blacks were
loyal to Democrats given the party’s promotion of “genocide” for black babies
saying abortion does not, “just decimate the black population, for that means
killing only 1-in-10. The Democrat party actively, passionately pushes policies
that target the race for genocide, with white “physicians” slaughtering a full
50 percent of black infants before they ever draw breath” (Keystone Politics,
2013).
Clearly, this guy is a nut
and an extremist. Some of Dent’s constituents are not only outraged, but also
extremely confused. Dent has been publically coming out against his own party,
especially the extreme Tea Party Members. Yet, a few days later, Dent goes out
and campaigns for this same Tea Party leader he was so against? It would have
been a much smarter move for Dent to stay out of this race completely, because
his involvement could cause him a lot of issues. One of his constituents
claimed, “Dent is trying to appease to two opposing sides in his own party, and
may end up with both angry at him.”
Not
only does this whole diabolical confuse constituents about Dent’s true nature,
it also shows how dual natured Congressmen are forced to be. Many Congressmen
have totally different home and hill styles; trying to act one way at home to
appease constituents and acting in a totally different way on the hill to
appease to their own party. I think Dent’s constituent that made the statement
about him trying to appease to both sides of his party was perfectly said. At
this point, it seems like Dent wants to have his cake and eat it too. But
unfortunately, Congressmen have trouble doing that because they have so many
different opinions to adhere to. Their jobs are extremely difficult; Dent
agrees with some things his party does and not the others. This occurs to many
Congressmen, and they are forced to make decisions that have one side or the
other questioning who they really are. The difference is that many of these
other Congressmen have done so strategically, which Dent did not seem to do
this past week. Campaigning for a tea party member is pretty much against
everything he and his constituents stand for, so I think that Dent has to learn
to deal with this dual nature a little bit better. If he doesn’t, his moderate
Pennsylvania voters could punish him in the next election.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment