How Republicans Can Win (and Deserve It)

I sincerely hope that Cindy Sheehan will bludgeon Nancy Pelosi with Pelosi's massive capitulation to Wall Street... that -- in a supreme irony -- Republicans managed to defeat. There is nothing California can do for the rest of the nation more beneficial than send Pelosi home and elect Cindy.

As for my Rep, David Price (D-NC), he voted for the Wall Street bailout, even as the vast, vast majority of constituent calls were against it. This is the most astonishing unmasking of the ruling class politics of the United States in many decades. And I plan on spending election day at my polling place with a sign that says, "David Price votes continued funding for an illegal war, and he votes to bail out Wall Street speculators. Republican opponent William (BJ) Lawson opposes the bailout, and the war. Vote Lawson."

I suggest the same for everyone. Call out their names if they voted for this theft.

Here's my suggestion for ambitious Republicans facing Democrat opponents who voted for the bailout. Say no to the bailout, loud and clear. Call out your Democrat opponent for his/her support of Wall Street. And here's the real winner...

Say that the war has gone on long enough. Use whatever bullshit rationalization you need to explain why you haven't opposed the occupations up until now; and even use your best imperial racist demagogy (those awful Iraqis have taken advantage of us, etc.) if you feel compelled. But declare that you will vote to cut funding for the war when you are elected, if there is not an immediate withdrawal. These two positions will give you the margin you need to win; because you will win the straight-ticket Republicans; you will capture a lot of pissed off Independents; and your promise to let Wall Street carry its own over-filled slop jars; and the promise to defund the war will wind the left pole of the Democratic party as well as most left independents. These two issues are guarantees for the Libertarian votes.

Lawson, in my district, is about to give Price a run for his money.

Listen up, Republicans. Abandon the Bush legacy, and confront the Dems on war and Wall Street; and you'll be working in Washington by January.

Comments

[Querent]

Go peddle it on RedState, Stan. And give my regards to Ollie.

[LeeCalif]

Yes, it is past time to call out the Dems !!!! OPEN THE DEBATES !!

I'm voting Nader/Gonzalez

[bknott]

As I have understood the situation, if we don't save these huge investments firms, the fall-out will affect us all. Foreign investors will pull money out of our economy, businesses will be unable to get loans and credit, leading to lay-offs and unemployment, investments (retirement plans, mutual funds, etc) will fall, etc.

If you don't support a Wall St bail-out, what is your proposal to solve the repercussions? You can't just scream "foul" and pretend the rest of the problems don't exist. That's why the Republicans who voted against it are deservedly getting criticized by economists.

[Excander]

Says who, Paulson and Bernanke?

Should we do something about this impending crisis? Of course we should. But we should gather many different views from around the spectrum for solutions. Time should be taken to really adress the situation.

What we are currently doing is allowing the same criminals to negotiate solutions on their terms.
By criminals I don't just mean wall street, but the corporatist representatives in congress as well.

The first thing we should do is fire Paulson and Bernanke for allowing this to "sneek up" on us.

[vendredi]

That fallout is going to happen ANYWAY.

The more debt the US runs up, the more foreigners will dump the dollar. Foreign investors are not going to invest where they know they won't get paid back. This whole bailout is a result of China pretty much demanding to be paid NOW, or they will start dumping Treasuries.

Whether it goes through or not, US debt is going to be toxic for foreign investment. This is not going to be "solved" except by years of hardship and very frugal living, on all levels of American society.

This current bailout is simply a question of propping the markets up for, essentially, one last rally. It's the same old question of short-term "gain" (or postponement) against long-term consequences.

If you think that's worth it, then fine.

But I hope you will also think of the debt that you, your children, and their children will be taking on, for the sake of that short market rally.

The credit bubble is deflating, and the "credit" days are essentially (for the US and most OECD countries) over. It is time to pay. Accept this - NOT taking on more debt in the form of an insolvent-bank bailout is the first step on the way back (the LONG way back) to eventual prosperity.

PS: It isn't economists who are criticising those who voted against. ECONOMISTS are against this bailout - 200 of them recently signed a letter to Congress arguing AGAINST.

[Lemeritus]

MSgt. Goff, you may be spot on regarding the Republicans' best road to re-election. I would, however, like to inject a thought for your consideration:

The anti-bailout Republicans did not act (at long last) in the interest of the American people; they rejected the bailout because it did not include increased corporate tax breaks and fewer regulations for the companies that created this miserable contretemps. That they appeared to be bending to the will of the American people is only a happy by-product which they will, undoubtedly, milk to the fullest.

Encouraging these chameleons to test the wind and vote accordingly is a sure-fire recipe for the same sort of bad government that has saddled this country for the last eight years.

[Lemeritus]

As a note, the chameleon-like behavior I deplored above is not a strictly Republican trademark and has been destructive to this country whatever the party.

[pastgone]

The "bailout" is a prefabricated bunch of hooey designed to steal billions from the American taxpayer. It's over $2,000 for each American! It needs to be defeated!

[bryansmith]

(long annoyed sigh...) Really? I agree that CA should vote Pelosi out, but you are simply dead wrong on the bailout deal. The fact of the matter is that your Rep. is just smart and/or more informed than you are. YOU are part of the problem in this scenario.....ugh

[terkid]

"Deserve" is a word usually reserved for something which is earned by deed, gesture or behavior.
What the Republicans genuinely "deserve" is actually too gruesome for good people to fathom.
And a "win," in absolutely any shape or form, certainly ain't it !! They have lost the right to any
and all votes of confidence whatsoever, Mr. Gaff ... oops, I mean Mr. Goff.

[ProudLiberalDemocrat]

Dem's did not let war happen. Republican President, Republican Congress. Being called unpatriotic. You're either with us or against us. Republicans are to blame for allowing their President to con them; Dem's in moderate communities had little choice.

[teacheng]

Listen, man. This is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be, and calling for the heads of the Democrats who don't agree with you is childish.

[davidly]

Things being complicated, ie. you not understanding them, doesn't excuse going along with what you're told. You need to be able to understand something to have a position on it, and if you don't understand it, then why comment?

[teacheng]

I do understand it, my friend. But economists are divided on whether to pass the bill, and so are we liberals, apparently!

Nobody likes this bill, including Pelosi. And being forced to work with the crap the Bush people have given us is not what anyone wants to be doing right now.

I'm saying that this sort of rant above, where the author is literally calling for Democrats to be defeated because he is angry they aren't taking his position, is the worst sort of crybaby politics.

(see the post below by Camel54, as well.

[Camel54]

You may be completely right regarding your economic advice. But when you start advising people to use "racist demagogy" to get elected, well, then you're just like Rove. Do what ever it takes to win because once they're in office, they'll surely do the right thing then, correct? They'll surely not appoint Supreme Court justices who will continue to deconstruct civil liberty laws or who will turn the clock on women's rights backward. Surely they won't dismantle public education in favor of privatizing and Christianizing it--no, they'd never do anything like that because they didn't vote for a bailout bill that may in fact be a horrible thing even though it in no way makes a person horrible for voting for it.

Just because a person's constituency calls and complains about something, no matter how high the numbers, doesn't mean the congressmen is obliged to change his view on it. If he's voted out for what he does, so be it. But sometimes, the majority has it wrong. People are ill informed (that is inclusive) and too often dimwitted (not inclusive). The majority has twice put Bush in office--once if you want to make that argument but the second time was even worse b/c they knew what he was capable of by then.

[Stan Goff - Huffpost Blogger]

"Mr. Goff" may have an emotional reaction to grand(est) theft; but my greater emotional reaction is to the complicity of Wall Street-financed DLC Democrats who allowed the war to happen, and now this. Emotions are not antithetical to knowledge. They can be based on it.

In fact, I have been studying finance capital for the last eight years; and that's why I suggested a starter reading list as an antidote to the highly abstracted, totally fetishized drivel that is being repeated here (mostly generated in the idea mills of corporate media). My book, Energy War, is available for free, online; and there is plenty there to further excite the denial cells in the liberal brain. Counterpunch, at least, has been printing plenty of well-informed, detailed accounts of this disaster; except they avoid the cynical and deceptive instrumentality of bending every argument to the goal of winning an election. That's because they quit drinking the Democrat Kool-aid a long time ago.

I didn't say vote for McCain; I said vote for anti-war, anti-bailout Republicans if your Dem incumbent voted for this bailout. It's a chance to exercise real popular political power -- albeit in a limited way -- and break out of this hostage-barricade situation we are in with the DLC-led Democratic Party.

[JamesA1102]

This problem was caused by the Republican congress that repealed Glass-Steagall and pther regulations. So your solution is to punish the people that are trying to fix the damage and return Congress to the hands of those who caused the problem. Insane!

[Excander]

Divide and Conquer-

It's amazing how a majority of Americans have been brainwashed into seeing issues through a Democrat/Republican lense. It is as if we are either members of the Crypts or the Bloods.

The fact of the matter is that there are good and bad democrats and republicans. The bad among both parties have been bought by corporate interests and surround themselves with advisors promoting those corporate interests. These Dems and Repubs are allies, playing the game of good cop bad cop. Compare the rethoric to voting records on major issues if you don't belive me. On a range of policy issues they lack the expertise to make decisions based on their own knowledge. Thereby depending on interests advising them for guidance.

Our main problem as citizens of this great country is that the bad actors are in leadership positions as the heads of congressional bodies, and sitting on the most powerful committees.

If we keep up this gang warfare based on the labels promoted by these same actors, and follow them blindly due to their labels regardless of their positions, things will continue to regress.

A country where 95% are stable is stronger than one where 5% are masters of thier universe.

LETS PROGRESS

[JamesA1102]

BS. When you look at most votes in Congress they are on party lines. The GOP has consistantly supported less regulation, no universal heathcare, tax cuts for the wealthy and high deficits. The only reason the Republicans in the House didn't vote for the bailout bill is because they wanted a version that cut more regulations and capitol gains taxes for corporations which is what got us into this mess in the first place. So suggesting that we put them back into power after the way they've run the country into ground over the last 8 years is just insane.

[wendynyc]

A little late to cry over spilt milk - this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The American People have been taken for granted and the misdemeanors of our elected officials - starting from Clinton and Newt to Tom Delay, Cheney and Bush - the slide of ethics is accepted so openly.

Yes we need a better explanation of what is going on before we start piling on the blame.

After the last 8 years I trust the Dems more anyway.

[AnonymousDissenter]

2) Americans want to see some bodies hit the pavement like they did after the Great Depression, and they just aren't going to be happy until that happens. As long as no one is talking about accountability -- which is a nice way of saying "blood" -- from these people who have their culling coming to them, politicians are not going to get anywhere with this bailout and it's going to continue to rightfully piss everyone off.

Throwing money at the problem wildly isn't going to do a damned thing in the longterm, and it's going to leave the next administration with a very small budget with which to accomplish the things that really can work to create jobs and stimulate the economy, like education, alternative energy, domestic manufacturing, high-tech, agribusiness and so forth. Since it's likely that Obama is going to be next in line barring some miracle (and that could happen if the market takes a sudden upswing as a result of the bailout, which is what I'd guess Repubs are counting on), he needs to think carefully about how little money he's going to have and how much obligation he's going to owe to China and the taxpayers with that long laundry list of things he wants to accomplish. This is not to even start on the pipedream that is the entitlement programs...

[AnonymousDissenter]

There are two separate things going on here:

1) The stock market is correcting, which has been predicted for quite sometime now, after being artificially held up by increased esoteric de-regulations and government interference that has shored it up artificially from its necessary culling period. All this stuff was bound to happen, period. The market is pretty simple. It operates on the Greed/Fear principle. Once too much greed happens, fear kicks in. It's natural herd behavior that self-corrects unless it is toyed with to permit too much greed without fear corrections. Examine stocks of stable companies that provide "real" tangible products and services and that pattern is evident and healthy over time; it is largely the sectors of the market that trade on recursive inbred economic tricks that were being artificially buttressed to permit too much greed without that culling of fear that caused this. Close the loopholes that these folks have weaseled through and stop shoring up the economy artificially with interest rate cuts and such, and the market will correct as the greed factor takes back over in the wake of the fear.