This morning, the Washington Post features a lengthy article on health-care protesters gathering outside the home of Rep. Steve Dreihaus, Ohio Democrat.
Kids don’t choose their parents, and so it’s unfortunate that the Driehaus brood has to hear people chanting outside. Still, the article notes that it’s never more than three at a time, and the local tea parties are saying they discouraged their members from protesting at the congressman’s home.
Having said that, I wonder what, exactly, Driehaus expected. The health-care bill polled abysmally in his district, with 55 percent saying they’re less likely to vote for him if he voted for the bill with its abortion provisions and only 23 percent saying more likely. When you declare that you know better, and you brush off widely and deeply held views like that, you can’t expect your constituents to just shrug their shoulders and declare, “Okey-dokey.”
But then the article includes this gem:
The west Cincinnati neighborhood is predominantly Republican, and Driehaus did not win his precinct when elected two years ago, said his brother-in-law Zeek Childers, who lives a half-mile down the road. Strong support from the more urban part of the congressional district gave him the edge. “It’s bad down here,” Childers said. “This area of Steve’s district is much more conservative. The black community loves him. Labor loves him. The old white guys hate him. You got that out here.”
There’s a racial component to the protesters, alleged the candidate’s brother-in-law.
By the way, Driehaus’s district is 66 percent white and almost 13 percent over age 65.