Democrats Eat Their Own Message, Own Young

In a year in which the Democrats have the enviable task of being able to run against the failed and unpopular presidency of George W. Bush, they have decided, against all reason, to fight for George Bush's unpopular and misguided bailout plan just one month before the November elections. They may do so at their political peril.

Right now, the Democrats have George Bush on the run. He is desperate to have a $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street passed quickly before the November elections. One would think the Democrats, having maximum leverage at this point, with Henry Paulson literally kneeling down to Speaker Pelosi to beg her to pass this plan, would try to use this leverage to do something for their constitutency in return. The Democrats, if they truly constituted an opposition party, which they prove every day they do not, could demand that if monies are going to go to bail out Wall Street, at least an equal amount would go to bail out average Americans in the way of health care, full funding for social security and medicare, mortgage and rent protection, infrastructure repair, decent public transportation, investment in green jobs and technology, etc.

Instead, they have not only agreed to the substance of Bush's proposed bailout plan, albeit with small alterations, they are now the ones in Congress fighting for passage of this plan. This not only represents a failure of leadership and principles on a grand scale, it is is also politically dangerous.

The Democrats are now linking themselves with Bush and his failed policies at a time they are telling Americans that a vote for them is a vote against Bush. This is illogical, and voters are not buying it. Let me illustrate this point.

This morning, while taking the bus to work in Pittsburgh (a bus which may be gone soon as the County is threatening to discontinue all bus service by December for lack of funds) I ran into a middle-aged woman named Jane who has been actively working for Obama for months. Currently, she is volunteering for the Obama campaign 20 hours a week, and she has given money every month for his campaign. Now, as she hears that Obama is agreeing with McCain to support the bailout plan, she is furious and wondering why she has bothered all these many months to support a candidate who himself looks like he is trying to run for Bush's third term. And, she assures me that she is not alone in these sentiments. Over the weekend, while canvassing for Obama at an Italian festival in Pittsburgh, the first question she heard from folks on the street was about the bailout plan and what Obama's position is on the bailout. Invariably, the folks asking this question expressed their opposition to the bailout and rage at those politicians who support it.

As Jane told me, she does not know how to canvass for Obama now given this bailout issue and his support for it. She does not know how to sell him to voters who are rightfully incensed that their tax dollars are about to be spent on a mound of bad debt with nothing of real substance coming back to them in the way of benefits, jobs and protection. She herself wonders, as do I, how Obama will be able to make good on his promises for social investment if all this money is spent now on the proposed bailout of Wall Street. And, other Obama activists in her community group are expressing the same sentiment. Meanwhile, I received a message from the local Obama office this morning telling me that phone calling and volunteering were down over the weekend.

Obama and the Democrats must wake up to the reality that when you promise people hope and change, you better deliver it. Caving in to Bush's half-baked bailout plan -- which, by the way, seems to have impressed the international and domestic stock markets very little -- is not change folks can believe in. Voters do want real change, and a real break from the past, and they deserve a real opposition party which will stand up for them and fight for an alternative economic plan which will purchase real benefits for working people instead of a mound of worthless paper.

The Democrats better heed this warning, vote this bailout down and go back to the drawing board where a more people-centered plan can be developed with the input of the voters and taxpayers. That is what democracy looks like.

Comments

[schatsie]

Bush would not give up the tax cuts for the rich for the WAR On Iraq, Katrina or this mess....Why can't the Democrats stand up at the plate and say these tax cuts for the rich are OFF THE TABLE... and will be applied RETROACTIVELY to fund this 'bailout' TRICKLE DOWN didn't do a damn thing for the working class!!!

If they want any further tax cuts for the rich, then get us out of Iraq and get us a DECENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM that does not bankrupt 500,000 people EVERY YEAR!!!

Get SERIOUS AND NEGOTIATE HARD

[mjc]

The attitude of the two candidates in the debate last Thursday may be a projection of what is wrong with this bailout plan. Obama carefully and craftily discussed the plan and made suggestions, but not the ones that Mr. Kovalik has suggested would appeal to the Main St. Americans, Democrat and Republican. McCain tried to make it seem as if he was responsible for bringing the Republicans on board the plan although he indicated that he was not especially sold on the original plan or the modified one. Perhaps the only way that it can be saved, if that is the operative word..., because there will be some sort of plan, IS to do as Kovalik has suggested. But Nancy Pelosi is not the leader she thinks she is and doubt that she has the moxie to suggest guaranteeing universal health care or shoring up Social Security or other good programs. And if Republicans, those who voted against the modified plan, are so concerned with partisanship you can bet their bottom dollar they aren't going to want to make the Democrats look that good. When you think about it, Obama hasn't picked up on that kind of assurance either.

[milo h minderbinder]

Now that the bill has failed, isn't this article a moot point?

They couldn't get this thing passed as is, you think it would be an easier sell with ANOTHER 700 billion in spending increases?

There's no question the bill is unpopular (and obviously house members listened to their constituents), but the way to make it more palatable isn't to tie it to more expensive stuff, regardless of how noble those things might be.

[Dan Kovalik - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't see how this is a moot issue. Clearly, there will be another run at this bill, and the Democrats now have a chance to vastly improve it. I agree that you couldn't practically spend $700 billion on the proposed bailout + more monies for social spending. However, it appears to me that the $700 billion is a made-up number that has little basis in anything real. Consequently, the bailout plan which just went down was to pay an initial $350 billion out and then take a wait-and-see attitude on whether another $350 billion were necessary. Why couldn't you just propose a bill that included $350 billion for bailout monies and another $350 billion for desperately-needed social and infrastructure spending which could really help the economy? This is just one thought. Another idea is to go all out and nationalize the banks as Sweden did; not just nationalize the debts. In any case, it is critical now to go back to the drawing board and come up with a real, comprehensive solution which will solve a number of the problems ailing us; not just the mortgage issue. And, that will take hearings with a number of different groups and constitutencies; not just the Wall Street "experts." If we're going to spend this kind of money, let's do it through a real democratic process; not by holding a gun to our heads and saying,
"take this or else!"

[tompoe]

Dan, try to stay with me on this. Bush, a Republican, shoves the Bush-Paulson Republican corporate welfare down America's throat. Democrats look at options, of which none will save taxpayers. The Bush-Paulson Republican corporate welfare program makes it clear, even to you, Dan, that the Republican Party is the Party of Corporate Welfare, not Party of Small Government. So be it.

America does not tolerate corporate welfare. Say goodbye to all those who call themselves Republicans. Say goodbye to the Party of Corporate Welfare. The Republican Party has ceased to exist as of September 19, 2008. Good riddance.

[LHoney]

I couldn't agree more! This was such an easy one and yet, check out the photo op that goes with the bailout - Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd.... The United States is dying of simple stupidity... A bunch of kids in the playground could have figured this one out!