- BIG NEWS:
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- Bobby Jindal
- |
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…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
%2BbsMJWINF6bOJuxB%2FhS%2F%2B6liddOeSLn%2BG2%2BFcVkBehYZAQYqrbgnlNFbtInF5M5%2BOBIEKXPz%2Fsc2mg%2B3VI7H4oJ4%2BgIIMqjW
JV%2FK0TSTf%2B81DfdE2G59D7jJ0DUPFqbYPUTy8u%2FFUl4DIHzM%2F2DyWg%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 5
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
Ron, I really enjoyed your comments on Bill Maher the other night.
It seems to me that McCain should start worrying about his own party rather than the Democrats these days. It looks like it is getting ready to explode.
Right wing radio poisoned the well of political dialogue long ago.
And made a pretty penny ruining this country.
So true.
WATCH
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743
It is "MY RE-ELECTION FIRST" NOT "AMERICA FIRST."
"WHEN THE CHIPS ARE DOWN" FOR AMERICA, THEY RAN FOR THE EXITS!
We saw the "ACT OF COWARDICE" from the House Republicans today.
Rep. Boehner may have tried to give these GUYS SOME GUTS but they PANICKED and COLLAPSED UNDER PRESSURE.
They SOLD US OUT and McFlipFlop did ALSO!
They were ELECTED TO "DO WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR AMERICA" NOT FOR "THEMSELVES!"
Funniest thing is, it was not best for themselves either. Watch the polls. ALL Repugs will now plummet. They brought about the Great Depression. Now they are determined to bring about the Second Great Depression. Greed has no bounds.
Interesting read, but I'm just not convinced you've got the personalities right.
McCain, you've nailed. Bush, I think, is hoping to rescue the economy. Period.
I see a lot of the George W Bush of 2000 in Sarah Palin. A candidate who has never had any serious thoughts of his/her own about the broad, complex issues of national interest. A candidate who must be endlessly coached by those who prop him/her up as leader. A candidate incapable of sorting out the issues on his/her own.
I believe George Bush was used by a few in his party, and I believe the same is happening to Sarah Palin. The difference, in my view, is that Bush is a decent and loving human being at the bottom of it. You can see this in his children. I don't see that decency in Palin.
McCain, like Palin, is ambitious above all else, and now he's also desperate. Playing politics with the whole economy is a small price to pay if it gets him into the White HOuse.
I won't comment on the "decent and loving human being" part, but I do agree that Bush has so little "political capital" on hand that his being untruthful in this instance wouldn't gain him a thing. McCain, on the other hand, really seems to believe that if he masks his tells, no one will know he's bluffing and all at the table will fold, leaving the pot to him. "pot" in this case meaning the White House.
But POKER is not HIS game. Roulette and craps are his games. POKER is OBAMA'S GAME!
Has been since 2000. This is one reason why Obama can be so cool under all the alleged pressure he's getting to either fold, or call before the ante is raised. You know that song right? "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em" "Never count your winnings when sitting at the table." ???? Yeah-THAT song! He's got McCain so ticked off that he's coming off as really rather silly--certainly NOT presidential.
I personally LOVE what is going on. The USA economy has been smoke and mirrors for years. It is very nice to see REALITY coming around the corner. All WILL BE better in the long run, although the short run will rather s*ck.
Did you know that Pelosi's husband as well as Feinstein's are investment bankers?
Did you know that our Republic is no longer a Republic as long as our elected representatives do the bidding of the leaders of the government and not us?
Speaker Pelosi,
Do you remember what Franklin D. Roosevelt did to help end the Great Depression?
FDR created the WPA, the CCC, the TVA. He put people to work. All kinds of people, even artists and writers. People built roads and bridges and did work in the National Parks.
Why are Democrats intent on bailing out Wall Street? Why don't Democrats follow FDR's example. Seven hundred billion could build a lot of wind power generators, could produce a lot of solar panels, could shore up our failing bridges, could bring hi-speed internet to a lot of rural areas. FDR brought electricity and phone service to those same areas in the 1930s. Seven hundred billion could help shore up our ports and chemical factories and other potential targets against terrorism.
Why don't Democrats have any historical memory? Put people to work on the Federal payroll building this country up. Follow FDR's example
Impeachment off the Table Pelosi is about as useless as a Speaker as you can get - a Bush enabler.
Don't expect anything from Pelosi or her pack of spineless democrats. They betrayed their oaths to the Constituion long, long ago.
Based upon what is being said of the impending financial disaster... I like your sentiment but don't believe you understand jack of what is going on. I don't claim to know myself but I highly doubt it is as easy or straightforward as you make it out to be.
All of those were enacted over a longer period of time than seven or ten days. It is advisable that we enact some similar infrastructure/put people to work programs but to do it in ten or fourteen days is seriously irresponsible. Thereforer, it doesn't merit inclusion in an emergency bill.
The Japanese followed his example and now they are so ahead of us in many ways ....yet they are so understated and not as power hungry as the chinese.
Who was it that said, in Germany in the 1930's, that the State and the Party were synomonus.
Reminder: Democrats control congress. They could pass it if they wanted to.
I think Spongebob is on.
I think Spongebob is on.
HYSTERICAL...The best laugh of the day.
Many of the 95 negative Dem votes were left wing Dems.
So the left wing Dems joined most Republicans and voted NO.
both these factions really think Wall Street is being bailed out.
No, the banking system is cratering all over the nation. The National City Bank of Cleveland is not Wall street. Go to that bank and try to get an auto loan or mortgage.
Credit is rapidly becoming unavailable all over the nation.
The commercial paper credit business is shut down across the nation.
Credit, in all its forms, is getting harder and harder to obtain.
My Republican Congresswoman never polled her district to find out how the voters viewed the worsening credit crisis.
She just proudly voted no.
As well as a bank in England and I believe Belgium, there was a bank nationalized in Iceland today. Anyone getting the picture that this isn't just about the USA ? People need to wake up.
Both the 'left wing' Democrats (disclaimer - there really are damned few of them) and the token fiscal conservative Republicans (also a rare breed any more) would be right though.
It was Wall Street being bailed out in hopes that a pittance of that money would come tinkling down (piss) from on high to help out the actual citizens. It was the final attempted act in Bush's corporatist socialism transfer of wealth to the few from the many.
Luckily - this particular incarnation of disaster for the common Americans has been averted - for now.
Reminder: Most of them did vote yes and they relied on just 12 additional Republicans that flipped everyone the bird on this one at John McCain's behest.
And why did those 12 dems NOT vote yae? Because they were in "battleground states" and their seats were at risk. And Pelosi gave them permission to vote the way their people back home wanted them to vote--which was a big fat NO.
Isn't it funny that dems could have passed anything they wanted to fix this in 2006. 2007 or 2008. And they offered nothing. Zilch. Nadda. And suddenly this is bush's fault? Tell me, what did Bush VETO that would have prevented this? Bush doesn't write laws. Congress does.
Let's keep in mind that McCain may have caused the market to lose 1.2 trillion dollars today owning to his so-called leadership. For more on this check out this site: http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/making-700-billion-look-small/
Not to mention the Global consequences of his reckless grandstanding.
He claims that he often makes decisions as quickly as possible and he's willing to accept the consequences- if that were true, he would be in front of the American people (and the world for that matter) apologizing for his ill-conceived political gimmick and far-reaching disaster his actions have caused. Then retire quietly, never to be seen or heard from again.
A great quote that is ringing true:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Benjamin Franklin
Ben left out business but he hit the nail on the head, once people/businesses find out they can vote themselves money, we are screwed.
Yes, that makes sense.
Why we don't want McCain and GOP messing around with our government any more.
They've done a ROTTEN JOB.
Debate or not, some things are already clear!
Republicans by their actions and attitudes proved they aren't statesmen. They've got corporate interests in mind, and not those of average Americans.
Republicans proved they specialize in dividing, not uniting with
anybody on a common goal.
REPUBLICANS PROVED THEY CANNOT GOVERN. They've made one mess after another--and handed the bill to middle income Americans.
We CAN'T AFFORD REPUBLICANS any more.
THEY'RE TOO EXPENSIVE!
We're going bankrupt because they don't want to govern
for the benefit of all Americans and take care of only "their few".
NO MORE YEARS for Republicans.
Enough is enough.
Wasn't it Franklin who said "neither a borrower nor a lender be"?
Nope, that was from Willie Shakespeare.
No it was Shakespeare, Polonius speech: To Thine Own Self be True.
And incredibly, we have a majority in this country all deciding the top 20% will pay their way for everything. Go figure.
He also said: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Our congress would do well to remember those words.
May I ask why we are still listening to the Dodds and Franks of the Congress? These guys have been supporting Fannie & Freddie as their "affordable housing" tool for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYhQLNOXKTo
get off your fannie Freddie Viking Quest! they are NOT the cause of this by a long shot time for you to learn to do your homework and get that horned helm out of thine @ss!
Whether your right or wrong on you're point fm and fm are small potatoes in this mess.
The republicans need courage! America First!
They FAILED and now they PAY the PRICE of a deep recession or depression!
Main Street suffers because of their TRICKS!
Retires see 40+% of their retirement melt away!
The voting today was AGAINST the middle class and their VERY OWN WALL STREET and that is the FACTS.
So it is MY JOB FIRST and forget about AMERICA!
Maybe the prices need to come down . . . inflating the market is what happened with housing and internet businesses before.
BTW, The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans turning against President Bush to join 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.
Democratic - Yes (140), No (95)
Republican - Yes (65), No (133)
I can get why the Republicans who opposed it did so, and I have some sympathy with the critiques from the right (not the partisan Pelosi speech crap, but that the taxpayers were going to own a lot of crap assets and isn't the problem how to reduce foreclosures so the housing supply stabilizes?) Were the 95 Democrats blue dogs? Not enough support for the borrowers. Upset that bankruptcy reform was off the table?
The Dems should be wary here: This smells like a trap of the most diabolical kind.
While I don't believe the crisis itself was 'arranged'; I think it precipitated out of the horrible lack of leadership and deregulation gone wild. I do think that there should be some caution exercised.
Think about it as a 7 step ploy.
1) The Republicans want to change their image and distance themselves from Bush
2) A convenient 'catastrophe' lands in their laps - the question is: how to leverage it?
3) Bush and his cronies come up with a 'plan' that is doomed to fail: but they sell it only on its perceived merits, creating the requisite fear.
4) The Dems, eager to appear as populists, take the bait and support it in large numbers.
5) The bill (Presumably) passes in the not too distant future, pushed by the Dems
6) The failure of the plan becomes apparent, and the monies are lost/squandered/used as pocket liners
7) The Republicans step back and claim Victory, blaming the bill on the Dems and their old leader, Bush.
Where exactly do The Joker and Dr. Evil play into this?
MinasTirith, in other words: Rove out there still pulling strings in the most sinister way.
You may have a point here.
The republicans who were opposed to the bill cited the left wing provisions such as oversight and more regulation. How is this different from Bush/Rove/Cheney/Gramm?
Thats why Pelosi would only pony up 141votes. The Reps had to own it too for it to pass.
The way I see it is as follows:
The republicans congressmen and women have two big elephants in the room - the Bush administration and their own electorate;
A vote against the hugely unpopular bill would signal a distancing from the former and compliance with the latter;
Pelosi's speech was just the icing on the cake;
They will still support McCain as he's the only candidate they have 5 weeks before the elections;
McCain will spin the whole thing as being a victory for Main Street thanks to the "new" GOP;
He'll also point out that most democrats voted in favor of the bill - 140, as opposed to 65 republicans;
The fact that he's been in favor of this piece of legislation is, as far as his campaign sees it, irrelevant. What matters is how successfully he can turn it around and use today's voting record to sell himself as defender of the middle classes. Its a question of perception over reality.
That will be very convincing....... a 72 year old man is going to, after 26 years, all of sudden see the light and change his ways!! LOL
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
