Republicans Confuse Talk Radio With Reality
Props to New York Times columnist David Brooks for the divine turn of phrase in the headline above. Props to House Republicans for not only confusing talk radio with reality, but being so maliciously partisan that they preferred to set up Democrats for being blamed for a Wall Street bailout gone awry than to reach across the aisle to help hammer out a deal, no matter how flawed, that might forestall a deepening financial crisis.
The proof that these Republicans were much more interested in acting in bad faith five weeks before the most important presidential election in decades is that they have voted with President Bush on every issue of consequence over the last eight years.
These range from tax cuts for the rich to war funding to the use of torture, but when it came to the most important piece of legislation — again, albeit admittedly flawed — they yarbled that they could not betray the party’s “principles.”
Those “principles” revolve around misty memories of Ronald Reagan. In fact, Reagan’s name seemed to be cited more than President Bush’s in the wake of the defeat of the $700 billion bailout package on Monday at the hands of the Republican back benchers.
But the Reagan Revolution is dead because its most vociferous adherents, including those selfsame Republican nihilists, put a stake through its heart by forcing the very government intervention that the Gipper eschewed because of years of a less-celebrated revolution: The Deregulatory Revolution. And while those talk-radio listeners and many other Americans are deeply cynical about a Wall Street bailout, they ultimately will hold accountable the politicians who failed to rescue them from the crisis.
This does not excuse the grandstanding of Nancy Pelosi and John McCain, let alone Treasury Secretary Paulson’s mismanagement of the crisis. In fact, McCain’s quest for the White House may have taken a fatal hit because he was cut off at the knees by those Republicans amidst his own grandstanding. At least his running mate Mitt Romney still has the credibility to address economic . . . Oh, wait a minute.
There eventually will be a bailout deal because there has to be.
And you can bet your last nickel that when the Senate takes up the issue tonight even its most conservative Republican members will be a good deal less doctrinaire — and I daresay more courageous — after the destructive behavior of their peers in the House.
Who will be given a second chance to save themselves from themselves when the whole mess is dumped back into their laps for final passage.
Meanwhile, the Dow was up 485 points yesterday after plummeting a record 777 points on Monday after those Republicans crapped on the bailout plan.
The reason that there was “a major correction,” as the talking heads termed the turnaround?
It certainly didn’t have anything to do with the financial crisis in Europe, which with every passing day is looking as grave as the homegrown crisis.
It certainly didn’t have anything to do with Wall Street’s faith in Congress gift wrapping those hundreds of billions sooner rather than later.
What it had everything to do with was the usual institutional game playing, in this case money market managers buying up shares at the end of the day to enhance their performance figures for the quarter that ended at the close of business yesterday.
This would have been business as usual under other circumstances. You know, the stuff that these guys do all the time with our 401k plan monies, but the last-minute buying frenzy was notable for all the battered financial stocks that were bought up.
I don’t know about you, but the feeling of having my pocket picked is palpable.
8 Responses to “Republicans Confuse Talk Radio With Reality”
Shaun -
So, exactly how did the Republicans convince 40% of the House Democrats to go along with their nefarious plot? Where, exactly, was the 'strong Democratic leadership' we were promised by Pelosi and Murtha?
How about we say this instead:
“And you can bet your last nickel that when the Senate takes up the issue today even its most Liberal Democratic members will be a good deal less doctrinaire — and I daresay more courageous — after the destructive behavior of their peers in the House.”
As always,
your person troll
Shaun, I thought that the financial crisis was caused by regulation in the U.S. How can the Repulbicans supposed push for deregulation in the U.S. cause financial metldowns in socialist Europe? Or is it that Barney Frank does not really know what he is talking about.
If the Repulbicans wanted to make a statement, they should say that they will come back to the negotiating table after Rep. Frank recuses himself from the negotiations.
Shaun self-destructs again. [rolling eyes] What about the 95 Democrats? Why is Shaun so beholden to Wall Street and the bailout bill? Is any and every bailout a Good Thing?
Not only Barney Frank, but Christopher “Countrywide” Dodd should be recused. Dodd may be someone Shaun looks up to currently as a role model, not only for crafting a bailout bill, but also because Dodd was the dolt who began misusing “extreme” and “extremists” after the 1994 elections.
Go ahead, Shaun. Ignore the reality and just keep whining. The new bailout bill is gimmick and pork-laden, including tax “incentives” without revenue boosts to pay for them, just the kind of thing you'd love and naturally support and defend these days.
Superdestroyer: It's all Bush's and McCain's and Palin's fault, world-wide. Don't you realize that these three are also responsible for HIV, malaria, and all forms of cancer?
Good luck trying to pin this one on the Democrats. You're gonna need it.
The House GOP's pathetic whining about Pelosi's lukewarm speech made it totally clear Republicans knew they blew it and big time.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represent a “Deregulatory Revolution”?
Hahahaha…
I notice that the situation in Great Britian is even more dire than in the United States. The sense is that the United States is being more transparent, and further along with dealing with this crisis, than the social democracies the Democrats so admire in Europe.
Proof of this can be seen in the Deutsche Bank now denying its bankers in the City unlimited expenses for limousines.
When one adds this to the APPALLING decision of the DB to deny its investment bankers the ability to put strippers and lap dances on their expense accounts . . . one can see why the bankers are so insistent that US taxpayers bail them out of their Cristal-induced stupidities.
$700 billion buys a whole lot of lap dances. Happy Days are Here Again . . .
Marlowecan — yes, I've noticed the nationalizations in the UK. (Hopefully that's not going to be misread by Labor as a “need” to return to the good old nationalized 1970s with as much nationalization as Labor can secure.)
There could be more transparency here in the States. There have been one or two mergers or bank purchases that were quietly engineered by Washington and I'd like to learn more about why these were approved and what mechanics, ahem, were involved. I suspect also just in passing that there may be many Dems who approve the consolidation that's happening here in the States because having fewer “players” in the industry actually makes it easier to cartelize and “manage” that industry from and by Washington eventually.
Lap dances, and extra favors? “Consultants,” sir. “Consultants.” Besides, if execs at Volkswagen* can enjoy those favors while in places like Brasil, why not the bankers?
* It makes me wonder about this little possible financial detail of Detroit's Big Three. You know, how successful they are in the Orient, land of exotic women and …
“every issue of consequence”? Not to be nitpicky, but if I recall the Repubs didn't much like that immigration bill Bush was tossing around…or that whole Dubai ports thing. I'll cede the rest–perhaps you could rephrase to “98% of the time”.
If the legislation was the right thing to do– yet a bitter pill to swallow, it was up to the GOP to come up with the number of votes their leaders promised. They hid behind Pelosi's speech and later admitted that their votes were not affected by it.Some voted on principal but others were cowed by the angry calls from constituents that were flooding their congressional offices.
If it was the right thing to do they should have provided leadership to their constituents and explained the consequences of inaction. If not, they needed to present an alternative that the other party and president could get behind. They did neither.