"House Republicans are a Different Breed"
This clip from CNN is pretty revealing:
Republican strategist Ed Rollins observes that "House Republicans are a different breed" and that they're really just "thinking about themselves" right now. I've made this point numerous times here, but it bears repeating, the House Republicans are the most raw political creatures that exist in all of politics. They are capable of feats of shamelessness and cynicism that boggle the mind. This has been the case for quite a long time. Gingrich, Delay, and Boehner are classic examples, but there are many others just like them. They can be counted on, in all situations, to put party first. And what they want right now is for some sort of bailout package to pass (and thereby avert disaster) but over their vocal objection, so they can turn around and try to stoke populist resentment of the bill. Out of the ashes of a disaster of their own making, they will rise again and rebrand themselves. That's the hope anyway. It's quite possibly the most cynical political maneuvering I've ever seen, but that's never stopped them before.
Republican strategist Ed Rollins observes that "House Republicans are a different breed" and that they're really just "thinking about themselves" right now. I've made this point numerous times here, but it bears repeating, the House Republicans are the most raw political creatures that exist in all of politics. They are capable of feats of shamelessness and cynicism that boggle the mind. This has been the case for quite a long time. Gingrich, Delay, and Boehner are classic examples, but there are many others just like them. They can be counted on, in all situations, to put party first. And what they want right now is for some sort of bailout package to pass (and thereby avert disaster) but over their vocal objection, so they can turn around and try to stoke populist resentment of the bill. Out of the ashes of a disaster of their own making, they will rise again and rebrand themselves. That's the hope anyway. It's quite possibly the most cynical political maneuvering I've ever seen, but that's never stopped them before.
posted by A.L. at 9:36 AM
14 Comments:
Who could possibly have predicted that the GOP would do this if the Democrats left them an opening to oppose this (politically unpopular, but allegedly "necessary") bill from a populist stance? I mean - man - this one just came out of left field. No WAY anyone could have seen this coming!
There is still time here for the Democrats to do what they should have done from the beginning. Withdraw the current bill and put forward a progressive one that carries tax increases on the top 1% & capital gains with it and include widely popular social programs to protect everyday Americans against a downturn.
This will guarantee Bush opposes the plan (which is a GOOD thing for us!) and it forces opposition to the right of the political spectrum.
Then, as the GOP did with the Patriot Act and a whole host of other GOP initiatives, just refuse to budge and ram it down their throats.
For anyone who is concerned that such an approach would lack the required speed, I'd simply ask: How likely is the GOP to ACTUALLY go along with any bill if they stand to gain politically by stalling or opposing it? The quickest way to a solution is to drop the good-faith attempt to reach compromise and apply the pain.
The other day someone floated the idea of a 10% surtax on all income above $250,000 to pay for this, and I'm all for that. The rich have the biggest portfolios, and are going to benefit most from shoring up Wall Street.
If the bail out succeeds in keeping the economy on the rails, middle class folks aren't going to notice much difference in their lives, but the rich are going to be celebrating the preservation of their wealth.
So show your patriotism and open those fat wallets folks. One less yacht parked in your lake? You'll get over it. The skew that the Bush Tax Cuts put on the tax burden in this country (ie, the middle class bearing a disproportionate amount) has burned me up to a cinder, and look where it's got us.
I expected the political posturing. It's six weeks before an election and that's what politicians do. Posturing aside, there seem to be the following possibilities:
1) This is all a giant head-fake by the GOP leadership and they plan to cave, support the Paulson plan with the occasional Doddian flourish, and give McCain credit for leading everybody out of the (manufactured) wilderness.
2) McCain was telling the truth when he said there was not consensus and he believed that he might be able to generate one. Frankly, he's not untalented in this respect but I can't see what he can do in the time allotted other than get everybody to grudgingly support Paulson+Dodd.
3) The House GOP caucus have decided that the crisis is manufactured, plan to obstruct everything, and they turn out to be right.
4) The House GOP caucus have decided to obstruct everything but they've lost their friggin' minds and wind up causing a depression.
Any of these outcomes is acceptable except for #4. But #4 is quite literally the end of the GOP, to the same extent that the Civil War was the end of the Whigs. Surely they realize this. It doesn't really matter whether they realize this out of principled patriotism or the most craven political calculations. They'd be insane to take this risk.
Even if it turns out that events follow case #3, the GOP will get no credit and they'll be badly damaged. Surely they realize this as well.
Case #2 implies that the GOP has gone temporarily insane but can be reasoned with by their standard-bearer. Mass hysteria is certainly understandable but I wouldn't think that it would take hold so uniformly.
So it seems that case #1 is by far the mostly likely to be true and certainly the safest. From the posturing coming out of the Democratic leadership, it seems like they think so, too, and are salting the earth as much as possible to blunt McCain's upcoming White Knight impersonation. Of course, in doing so, they're encouraging the GOP to act crazy, which is almost as irresponsible as the GOP pretending to be crazy in the first place.
Ah, politicians. The vermin of modern society, and yet you still have to vote for the ones that you deem slightly less verminous.
RM, there's another possibility. The House GOP thinks that, when push comes to shove, the Democrats will pass this bailout even without their support. If that happens, they are protected from the consequences of their "plan" but can rail against the plan that passed. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a bailout; they just want it to pass over their objections.
Does it really matter what happens? The bailout happens, it staves off a meltdown, the House GOP says, "this is great news, but remember, it all started in the Clinton Admin."
The bailout happens, and we're still fcked? House GOP says, "See? Democrats sticking Big Government on y'all again. Told ya so."
I'm with A.L. Classy people, the house GOPers.
Here's another possibility. There never was a deal. There were at least two deals between the Reid/Dodd group and some Senate Republicans (enough to overcome any attempt to filibuster); and there was a deal between Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi that never included the House GOP (or at least 100 or so of them). But there was never a deal as the Dems said there was.
Then, Pelosi wanted the House GOP to give her 100 votes for it, even though they were shut out of any deal. In the meantime, those GOP members are getting screamed at by their constituents back home that the bill sucks. The polling seems to bear this out:
AP - 30% for, 45% against
Gallup/USA TODAY - 56% against Bush (Paulson) proposal
Rasmussen - only 30% support a Wall Street bailout
It isn't that these GOP members want their cake; it's Pelosi and Frank and Reid and Dodd who want their cake and eat it too, all with frosting on top to cover Pelosi's tuchus.
The House GOP thinks that, when push comes to shove, the Democrats will pass this bailout even without their support. If that happens, they are protected from the consequences of their "plan" but can rail against the plan that passed.
Yeah, that's a good point, and a narrative that the media has steered away from.
So why aren't the Dems gaming it that way? All it would take would be Obama to go on record with something like, "I urge the Democratic Congressional Caucus to display leadership and courage in a time of crisis to do the right thing, despite the GOP dragging their feet" and he would completely destroy McCain's principal perceived advantage, i.e., that McCain will make a tough call to work across party lines. McCain simply can't throw the GOP Congressional caucus under the bus; it would fatally undermine his base support. But Obama can only use this gambit before the fact. Afterward, it'll just look craven.
The problem with the political solution is essentially the same as the liquidity problem: there's no trust between the counterparties and nobody's willing to prime the pump with a leap of faith. Any one of Pelosi, Boehner, Obama, or McCain could provide that leap. Of all four, McCain is at the greatest disadvantage in doing so. That gives Obama has a rare opportunity to do the right thing and score a significant strategic victory at the same time.
Steveil makes a good point, too. Pelosi and Dodd are making sure that there are plenty of aromatic, fecal morsels for the GOP to chew thoroughly, swallow, and smile. It's no way to build bipartisan consensus at a time when that actually means something. Passing this bill on party lines will have a serious negative impact on financial confidence and make it less effective when it's implemented.
It doesn't game out right for the Congressional Dems. Either the bill passes on party lines and the Dems are left holding the bag if it fails (which is more likely on a party-line vote than a bipartisan one) or the whole thing collapses, leaving Congress as an institution holding the bag, which will further weaken the Dems' ability to get anything of substance done, even with Obama as President.
That's why I continue to think that there's more than a little political Kabuki going on here. All the advantages to fighting are marginal compared to the advantages of cooperating. I still expect McCain to bring fire from heaven down to the debate. It remains to be seen whether the Obama campaign can manage to chain him to a rock and arrange for somebody to eat his liver on a regular basis.
Just saw that Boehler has come out with a full proposal minimizing taxpayers involvement and with private sector funding.
One point is that it makes McCain's assault on Washington seem even more stupid and reckless than it looks already. At least, his chances of getting brownie points are now gone. Let's hope he stays he can cause less trouble than he has already.
On the deal itself, I can't really comment except to say that Secretary Paulsen has already said that it will not work.
Certainly, this proposal (in view of what we know) vetoes the deal on the table. Pelosi and the Democrats are not going to push their own deal through over this one.
From what I gather, Boehler and his crew do not regard McCain as a valid go-between. It should fall back to a Republican President to broker a deal, but that is probably a hopeless cause as well.
As this stage, if it is just a game of chicken, let's all wait until banks start failing. Hoovervilles, okies, and "Buddy, can you spare a dime?", anyone?
I don't understand this. IF the situation is as dire as A.L. and some others think, then wouldn't they all be jumping to pass Paulson's proposal at all costs?
Is it possible that they know it's not as bad as the President has said?
And I'm sure this has probably been asked before but...where is this money going to come from?
700 billion is supposedly just the start, we've still got wars we can't pay for and threatening other countries with our military muscle.
Wouldn't it just take one call from the Chinese and it's all over anyway?
The Democrats should put aside their ethics and moral values. Let the House Republicans have their plan. Let it be discussed by Paulson and others and criticized all over the media before it comes to a vote. Then put it to a vote and vote it down. Use the majority the Dems have. When banks fail, Republicans will be excoriated. Then propose the real plan and have it passed. House Republicans would be exposed for the obstructionists they are.
You guys don't understand that Boehner is setting himself up to rebuild the GOP in future years. He desperately needs Obama to win in order to stand up against something. Same way Dr. King "needed" George Wallace in order to win. Boehner recognizes McCain for what he truly is "closet Democrat". I admire the way the GOP has come together behind a guy that they universally hated as a sell out just a few years ago. McCain may have the great unwashed fooled but Washington insiders know he was a RCH away from being Kerry's VP.
Let the House Republicans have their plan. Let it be discussed by Paulson and others and criticized all over the media before it comes to a vote. Then put it to a vote and vote it down. Use the majority the Dems have. When banks fail, Republicans will be excoriated.
I just don't understand this attitude, unless you think that banks failing is no big deal. Do you really prioritize scoring a heavy electoral hit on people that you hate because of their politics over the possibility of dropping the whole country into a multi-year recession/depression?
Shame on you.
Progressive Libertarian -- not a chance. Schumer, Dodd and others, and Passive Pelosi and Hoyer among others in the House, are too in love with the Street for that to ever happen.
Steve IL... got a shred of evidence, or are you just fellating Boehner?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home