How Politics Trumped Governance
So, how did we get a war inside the Republican party that may leave the economy in shambles? Look to the end of last week, when McCain made his odd Washington cameo.
First, a bit of subtext: the legacy of the Bush years is how politics trumped governance. McCain, egging on these Republican anti-Bush/Paulson insurgents during his brief return, was doing the politics-first, win-at-all-cost, dance. He was, in essence, telling Bush it was payback time (after all McCain had done, holding his nose, in a support role for W since 2004). Specific, unspoken instructions to Bush in that big White House blow up: give way (and lose face) as the new Republican party -- which McCain now claims to lead -- alters his Treasury Secretary's $700 billion bailout. This will make McCain seem like the de facto president, filling a vaccum, giving him a huge election time boost -- maybe enough of a boost to win. Bush's response, screw you; I'm still in charge and, incidentally, I don't believe in reciprocity. Bush's position: Loyalty goes one way with me, it flows upward, and I'm still the President. I thought you got that, John.
This behind the scenes power putcsh is why most of the House Republicans are now opposing Bush. They're done with him, that's clear, and running from him like the Republicans did in Nixon's final days. For his part, Bush is trying to make sure no one else (and especially McCain) has a chance to step up into the void. With Bush, everything is personal -- it's how he makes sense of a complex world and tries to bend it to his will.
Historically speaking, the Bush/Cheney/Rove innovation of this period has been the view that politics and governance are not incompatible. In fact, their view is that politics fiercely played -- triumphing in daily news cycles and winning as a first principle -- is the guiding strategy of governance.
Now, McCain, waiting to claim victory of any brokered deal inside the Republican camp, is saying that the tide is with me. If I keep my cooI, I might ride it right to the White House. He's taking a leaf from a well-worn playbook that history may show as the cause of so much that has gone wrong. It may now spell political gridlock, incoherent policy, and disaster for the U.S. economy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
we ARE wall street. Do you have a home loan? employed? have a 401K that tanked?
we are wall street.
It's the loud mouths fault here that the bill didn't pass. Only about 35% of Americans were against the bill in the first place, but they are the most likely ones to call their congressman, have hissy fits on blogs, etc
You must be using limbaughs fact checkers, totally wrong. The emails and calls into congress were reportedly 100 to 1 against.
And don't insult us by calling us wall street. Crooks, we aren't!
That doesn't make her wrong. If you have 35% of the people concerned enough about this bill to contact their congressman and of those 35% 100 out of every 101 is against it, then they would get 100 to 1 against. That doesn't prove or disprove whether it was only 35% who were against. Now, I'm not sure where Hazel got the 35% number, and that may or may not be true, but the 100 against 1 for doesn't erase the possibility that only 35% are against. They're mutually exclusive.
I think I understand what you're saying, Hazel. Much of the talk going on makes it sound like there's Main Street over here and totally disconnected from that is Wall Street, and that just isn't true. Everything's connected. Some believe we should just let everything fail and that American's need to see what real lack looks like. Is that really what we want? I'm not saying that this particular bill should pass, but it seems as if Congress doing something is unavoidable. I'm a business owner. I typically pay my bills, my salary and my employees out of my revenues, but there have been couple of times since I opened my business that I had to use my line of credit. I'm really worried now that I won't have that available if I need it in the future. If that happens, not only will I be unemployed (I don't want that, but I have a pretty marketable set of skills so I think in the long run I'll be ok), but my employees will be unemployed. Multiply that by millions of people and we've (both Main Street and Wall Street) got a real problem.
Looks like Gingrich lobbied fence-sitting Republicans mightily against the bill. When if failed to pass, the same Gingrich came out in favor of the bill.
Lets see, is Newt Gingrich a lying hypocrite?
I suppose so.
The theory is that Newt is convinced Obama is going to win, and he is positioning himself for a run in 2012.
Fine Newt, but don't mess everything up in pursuit of your own selfish agenda.
Looking forward -Renegotiate this bill
1. add capital gains tax lowered to 0% for private investors that buy these troubled mortgage-backed assets (Sen. Hatch suggestion)
2. mandate insurance program for banks that participate in gov't program (Rep. Cantor suggestion)
3. mandate banks to work with current homeowners that are currently negotiating foreclosure to stay in homes by getting reasonable interest rates, etc. (Democrats suggestion)
First, I'm glad the bill was slapped down. It isn't near right for the best interest of the working people. Second, I think the Pelosi floor speech was calculated to draw fire & ire from the repuglicans, the vote puts enormous pressure on the administration, McCain and the repugs fingerprints are all over it.
The pols are still not serious about fixing the problem, a $700 billion bandaid is all wrong. For years they have allowed the dismantling of the rules and regulations, everyone knew that would result in failure. Think 1929 and the aftermath that FDR faced. The result was regulations that had worked, was working, very well for many years. When Reagan began in earnest to deregulate, the end result was inevitable. Check the historians take on this.
Today we must insist on comprehensive, proven, enforceable regulations before any other legislation. No money, no buyouts, no deals cut in the back rooms, nothing until after a signed bill that reinstates regulation.
Do you realize that "we the people" just lost 1.2 TRILLION! And in as little as a week to two we will start seeing business shut down and jobs lost. Hmm - 700 Billion or 1.2 Trillion.
I see you bought the 'terror alert' 'the sky is falling' salespitch lock, stock and barrel. What are we to make of the 485 point increase today, does it mean the sky is still in place? Listen to the people who know, I do, they are still telling us the crisis is manufactured and false.
Ron, I completely disagree with your first sentence,
"So, how did we get a war inside the Republican party that may leave the economy in shambles?"
It was NOT a "war within the Republican Party" yesterday that "MAY" leave the economy in shambles..
... it is EIGHT YEARS of Bush-GOP policy that HAS left the economy in shambles!
And for most of that time, the big-biz oil-barons (Deep South) and Robber Barons (Northeast) and War Profiteers of the ESTABLISHMENT Republican Party have been able to WHIP the party Congressmen/women who represent the little-guy, fundamentalists, and evangelical Republican voters out in the Heartland to support Big Biz, establishment policies.
But this was A REVOLT against the "Bush Bubble Boys" in their little bubble world (millionaire Bushies surrounded by flatttering lobbyists and sychophantic staff & supporters) - the people around Bush and Cheney who thought that Republicans could have their cake and eat it too - expanding wars (trillions of dollars), expanding police state bureaucracy (more billions of dollars), tax cuts for rich (more trillions of dollars), OUTSOURCING of US jobs (erosion of the trillions-dollar US tax base), and an INSANE "energy policy" that makes America 100% ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT DEPENDENT on FOREIGN Oil !!
Oh- and the above, combined together as Bush-Cheney's "economic policy" - makes us, America, 100% DEPENDENT on FOREIGN CREDIT!
The RNC wanted the Dems to hold the bag, the Dems I believe planned their vote so that a majority of the RNC would have to vote for the Bill as well in order to get it to pass. When the RNC pulled back at the nth hour, the DEms ensured that they would not be holding the bag and slammed by the RNC for pushing this bill.
Great move, i did not want a Wall Street Bailout, I want and Economic Recovery Program.
Complete with bottom up solutions.
Why extend the Banks credit card which is already maxxed out due to their Lying and flying.
They are not even lending money to clients they have had for 20 yrs
Keep the citizens in their homes, so our occupancy rates stop falling and we can get back on the right side of supply demand. This will increase values over time and add give America more solid footing for the future.
Let get some oversight and regulations, AGAIN, into these business transactions and practices.
Stop UNDERFUNDING OUR GOVERNMENT.
THE FHA HAS 400 OPEN POSITIONS
TEH US DEPT OF JUSTICE AHS MANY AS WELL
I WONDER HOW ABOUT THE FDA
STOP ADVOCATING SMALLER WEAKER GOVERNMENT, IN A TIME WHEN WE NEED
STRONG RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT TO FIX THIS MESS.
THERE IS A BALANCE THAT CAN BE ACHEIVED IF WE TRY
DANG
McSame was just on Fox and was pressed several times if he will again "suspend" his campaign to work for a solution. He just kept repeating.
P for Phool?
Those that voted NO did so because if they didn't, their opposition would use it against them in the next election and possibly lose.
There are times you have to make unpopular decisions. Politicans sometimes have to ignore the loudest voters on some of the most important decisions or votes on critical issues like civil rights would have never occured.
It is amazing how 93 democrats voted against this bill yesterday, yet the press spins it that the republicans are the ones who killed. Aren't the dems in the majority? I am sick to my stomach that this got politicized as we should throw them all out for being a bunch of babies and worrying whether they are going to win in November then rather crafting a good bill to get this economy rolling again. But all I see from the partisans on both sides is the same crap, 'It's your fault!" "No, its your fault!" Maybe it is time for term limits....
Before the vote was held, (like just about any other vote) they asked around, and figured out that they had enough votes for passage.
However, a number of Republicans, who had agreed to vote for the bill, reneged, and voted against it. This is why the vote for the bill failed; if they had known what was going to happen they would have pushed harder, and not brought it up for a vote until enough people were really on board.
This is why the R's are getting blamed.
Personally, as a D, I'm glad they did. This bailout is garbage.
Some of those Dems who voted against it are folks that I have a lot of respect for, that speak for the progressive side of the party, e.g. Kucinich and Udall. To a lot of people, there is just too much "I don't know" about this whole mess. Even the experts are saying that nobody knows the value of the bundled garbage that we will be buying out. If there is this great an absence of assuredness about such a gigantic undertaking, then I for one am fully behind taking time to get it right.
BTW, there is a decided "rat" smell that's starting to emanate.
While I agree that it is venal to vote in one's own self-interest, there is the fact that this country is supposed to be a representational democracy. Obviously, the people these politicians represent are are making their voices heard loud and clear. So while they are voting to keep their jobs, they are also voting in honest representation of the will of the people.
It's actually refreshing to see our "Representatives" in the house doing the peoples will for a change. Far too often, the interests of the party have superseded the interests of the people. The American people may be a little slow, but maybe we've finally had enough of this administration saying "Trust us. Give us everything we ask for right away or the sky will fall. Don't ask questions, just do it. We'll take care of you." Iraq war. Patriot Act. FISA. Torture. It's taken a lot, but maybe we've finally learned.
Let's slow down, take a breath and do the right thing rather than just ramrodding something through. If this bailout plan is any good, it will survive careful scrutiny, if not, it wasn't the right plan.
Let's see... I don't see any press spin. The numbers are pretty clear.
Dems 140 - yes votes (60% of the 235 Democrats)
Reps 65 - yes votes (33% of the 199 Republicans)
If 45% of the Republicans had voted in favor, it would have passed.
False blame aside, I agree that the party games in Washington are completely out of hand. The premise of the article is spot on. Somewhere along the way governance has taken a back seat to politics and we are the losers. Term limits sound great. Along with that, we need REAL campaign reform. There is no reason that the campaign season can't be limited to 6 or 8 weeks, thus negating the need for huge campaign budgets and the reducing the influence of big money on policy. With a short campaign, maybe, just maybe, the candidates will be forced to stick to the issues.
Flyers, you forget, this is a REPUBLICAN bailout of a Wall Street that has failed because of REPUBLICAN policies. If they can't deliver a remedy, then they need to wait until the Dems work out a solution that gives meaningful protection to consumers and the Average Jane & Joe - that will be passed by a Democratic majority. Instead, they whine and point fingers. They DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES to pass their own bill, that's the problem. Nancy Pelosi's speech gave them a convenient excuse. But - as is typical - they can't admit to their own failure. It's Nasty Nancy's fault! Mommy! Nancy was mean to me.
So, what's wrong that this giveaway didn't pass? If Obama was smart he'd come up with an alternate proposal..
This is nothing but highway robbery foisted on us by Wall Street and turned into an emergency by the Bush administration to get what the want. Democrats should not be supporting this raping of the American public and Obama should take the principled position and come up with an alternative.
He'd also appeal to a lot of conservative voters by opposing this fiasco.
Highway Robbery - remember the looting of Baghdad and Rumsfeld saying STUFF HAPPENS. Now it's happening in America for a change
You're wrong Mr. Suskind.
The legacy of the Bush years is:
Death and destruction and misery and sadness.
Once again Republican choose ideology over the best interest of the country, it is sad, cowardly and disgracefull, but hardly surprising. John McCain for his part, failed to get his own party to listen to him, he failed as a leader and he has failed America. His campaign is a joke.
NO, this is the FIRST time they did the right thing.
NO BAILOUT. The USA has been and is a country of smoke and mirrors and has been for years. It WILL be nice to see the light and truth.
Absolutely. Those who voted this down are the ones who listened to their constituents for a change. Why is it that people are beginning to say Congresspeople should ignore the voters and just do what "leadership" wants?
This Wall Street problem is the Corporate version of 1929. Corporations are allowed to be 100%, or more, leveraged. When the pyramid scheme of constantly finding new home buyers ran out of suckers, the housing market plummeted taking everything else with it. The last round of suckers were the $0 down, high risk and rate, subprime borrowers. When their houses stopped appreciating and actually declined in value, when they started selling to people who had no intention to pay, ...
The decline in value has put more than just subprime borrowers under water. Our 6.1% unemployment rate, myself included, will put more houses on the market further depressing prices.
However, this is just the straw that exposed the credit problem. The U.S. cannot expect to borrow $10,000,000,000,000 without it causing a decline in available money and depreciating the U.S. dollar.
McCain failed. He couldn't get the house republicans to vote in any way that might jeopardize them in the upcoming congressional elections. They don't respect John McCain and don't think he will win the upcoming election.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
He couldn't even get any members from his home state of Arizona to vote for the bill: all 8 Representatives (4 R & 4 D) voted against it.
Passage required a 'simple majority'. ELEVEN votes is all that was necessary. Speaker Pelosi 'delivered' more than a sufficient number of Democrats for this to pass. Those eleven votes are the same number as those who claim to have their 'nonpartisan partisan feelings' hurt by ONE SENTENCE containing the phrase "BUSH ECONOMIC POLICIES". ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS 218 AYE VOTES! There IS NO TRUE BIPARTISANSHIP IN THIS CONGRESS! There CAN'T BE! 'Bipartisan' as defined by the Republicans means something like what we saw today. Actually something like what the WHOLE WORLD SAW TODAY!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
