House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that, contrary to press reports, the House isn’t bugging out this week. Now, however, the Senate Democrats are, in fact, talking about fleeing the Capitol early:
Senate Democrats are seriously weighing whether to leave town at the end of next week, instead of staying in session until Oct. 7 or Oct. 8, as had been anticipated.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democrats might pass a stop-gap spending measure to keep government funded beyond Sept. 30 and then go back to their home states to campaign.
Democrats in Congress are getting restless to hit the campaign trail and brace for what some experts predict will be a Republican wave in the midterm election.
It’s not just that Democrats are anxious to get back to the campaign trail; they can’t wait to get out of D.C. As long as they stay, the headlines and talk show buzz about failed maneuvers (the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and DREAM Act amendments, the class warfare vote on Obama’s stimulus plan) will continue to plague them. Even Dana Milbank is grouchy that the Democrats never managed to get much done:
They still have their largest majority in decades, but the Democrats have succumbed to paralysis in the closing days of the legislative session. Congress has yet to pass a budget or a single one of the annual spending bills. Plans to spur the economy with tax cuts await action. Senate Democrats, faced with a GOP filibuster, have now punted on immigration reform and repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. Meanwhile, House Democrats have so little on their schedule that their first vote of the week is coming at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, when Americans are most of the way through their workweeks.
Well, they did a lot already, but none of it is all that popular. “[T]hey don’t want to talk about the achievements. The stimulus bill is unpopular; they’re not getting credit for health-care legislation, financial reforms and many other accomplishments; and the spent majority can’t limp out of town fast enough.” I guess they aren’t achievements if no one wants to talk about them.
So onto the trail they will go. If they can avoid those sticky situations when voters call them out, disassociate themselves from Obama, and convince voters that the recession is over, they’ll do just fine, right? Come to think of it, maybe it’s safer inside the Beltway.
The Contentions bloggers would be in a better position to criticize Reid and others if they hadn’t spent the last two weeks doing everything they could to whip up hysteria in support of the bailout. John Podhoretz turned Contentions into the Joe Granville newsletter by predicting that, absent immediate bailout legislation, the stock market would crash in excess of what happened in 1987 when there was a one day drop of 22.6%, or more than 2500 points in today’s market.
Now that the dust has settled and the Contentions bloggers have their bailout, let’s do a week in review.
Monday, the House defeats the bailout.
Tuesday, the market goes up 485 points.
Wednesday, the Senate passes the bailout.
Thursday, the market goes down 348 points.
Friday, the House passes the bailout, and the market goes from up 300 to down 157 in three hours.
Someone may comment that John Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin aren’t Senators and, therefore, their Chicken Little behavior isn’t as damaging, but it doesn’t excuse their inflammatory advocacy of bad legislation.
One thing is certain. Obama would really love to see this thing being dragged over the next four weeks. As we say in Brazil, he is enjoying (and greatly benefiting from ) seeing the “circus on fire” from his box seat.
Levin: “Someone may comment that John Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin aren’t Senators and, therefore, their Chicken Little behavior isn’t as damaging, but it doesn’t excuse their inflammatory advocacy of bad legislation.”
Let me be the first “someone.” It’s little short of deranged to compare the opinions of Rubin and Podhoretz on the bill before Congress to what Reid and Pelosi have to say with regard to the impact on the markets. It’s now a demonstrated fact that Reid’s incautious remark, to put it very mildly, effected the price of insurance company stocks to the tune of billions of dollars. Not only that, but it was entirely foreseeable. Harry Reid is not only a voting member of Congress with access to information that few others have, he is the Senate’s majority leader. Those in a position to buy or sell take his remarks seriously as well they should. I defy you to cite any effect that the Commentary bloggers have had, or could ever have had, on investor confidence, which after all is the point Ms. Rubin was making.
Secondly, “hysteria” is a rank characterization on your part. Podhoretz and Rubin have expressed their opinions on the matter. Evidently, it’s not your opinion; but your differing with them does not make their opinions “hysterical,” neither does their simple expression of opinion amount to “whipping up” a damn thing, another willfully inflammatory and wholly divorced from reality characterization.
In sum, your criticism seems to come down to the assertion that Rubin and Podhoretz would somehow be “in a better position to criticze Reid” if they more or less agreed with you. Wonderfully persausive!
The GOP always blames hard times on not enough happy talk, at best a quarter-truth. Reid and Schumer are idiots, but they didn’t cause the problem.
It’s partly a typical bubble burst, and partly a result of national profligacy, not least the war you like so well. Examine your own record for a change.
Grumpy: “Reid and Schumer are idiots, but they didn’t cause the problem.”
And who is arguing that they did, pray tell? Rubin’s criticism of Reid was not that Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer caused the subprime-mortgage crisis. Her piece is narrowly directed at the imprudence of an influential senator informing the public that a “major insurance company” was on the verge of bankruptcy without saying who told him that or which major company was involved.
You imply that Rubin was accusing them of the whole mess., thus displacing the argument to another subject entirely. She clearly was not indicting them for that, though I myself will happily go on record to claim that their hands are far from clean, Schumer in particular.
As to “the GOP” always blaming “hard times on not enough happy talk,” in all honesty that really should be amended to “the GOP and the Democratic Party.” Which party is in power is a fairly reliable guide to the amont of “happy talk” demanded or derided by partisans.
Grumpy Old Man,
you find it easier to believe that Reid and Schumer and Pelosi are all idiots in exactly the same way? And how are they idiots when their behavior has no downside for them, but might enable their party to capture all branches of government? The joke is on you and all of us.
Reid and Schumer are idiots, but they didn’t cause the problem.
What problem? The financial crisis? No, that was mostly other Democrats. The problems of IndyMac and the insurance companies? Yes, they caused that.
…not least the war you like so well. Examine your own record for a change
But this is a post about Harry Reid, master of the Senate. With all due respect, the topic changes, only your comments stay the same.
“All of this raises the question: are they trying to make things worse in the hopes of furthering their party’s election prospects?” Jennifer Rubin
Scurrilous. Why don’t you argue ideas instead of iimpugning motives? Why do you consistently take the low road to Smearville? It says far more about you than the people you assail.
For readers who want their minimum daily requirment of irony, JPod above attacks Andrew Sullivan for his insinuations. Maybe JPod should focus on his own staff before he starts tilting against the blogosphere.
Anyway, this might make you happy: The first national tracking poll that includes a day post-debate is out, and it confirms that Palin lost. Research 2000 now has Obama 52, McCain 40. Friday at Obama +13 was his strongest day yet. McCain’s decline continues unarrested. We’ll know more shortly.
Joe NS, I’ll stand by what I said.
The Contentions bloggers didn’t merely advocate the bailout. A lot of people, some of them quite respectable and well informed, advocated it. There’s nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion. But the Contentions bloggers went well beyond that to make a number of wild statements, of which John Podhoretz’s market crash prediction was but one. He was quite specific that if the bill did not pass and get signed by this past Sunday, a huge market crash would ensue. That was not only inaccurate, as we learned, but irresponsible. And in its irresponsibility it fed into the dire predictions which led some commenters on this blog to talk about how we were going to be living in cardboard boxes. And they weren’t saying that tongue in cheek. I would call that hysteria.
I made it clear that the Contentions bloggers don’t have the impact on the markets of Senators or other prominent public figures. I still don’t see how that excuses inflammatory commentary.
Rubin is right to criticize Reid for talking about an unnamed insurance company. He probably thought, wrongly, that by not naming it, he would prevent a run on it, when in fact, he merely created a run on all of them. (The opponents of the rescue plan have consistently failed to understand the nature and consequences of fear.) BUT, Rubin goes on to treat Reid’s comments as equivalent in kind to Shumer’s comments about IndyMac, so I can’t agree with Joe NS (#5) that Rubin’s post was “narrowly directed” at Reid’s kind of statement.
I also tend to agree with Shumer’s argument that one cannot blame the boy for saying that the emperor is naked, even if that’s what brings down the emperor. If IndyMac was on the precipice, it was going to fail eventually. If it was not, then, yes, Shumer’s warning could still have killed it, and that would have been foolish, but that goes to the burden of proof that a public official must demand be met before crying “Wolf!” If, however, there really is a wolf, I don’t see how one can be faulted for sounding the alarm, or escape criticism for not sounding it.
Meanwhile, Larry Levin’s failure (#1) to mention the nearly 800 point drop in the Dow on Monday makes the rest of his screed worthless. Why don’t people realize that if they hide obviously important facts, they admit they have the weaker argument?
Levin: “I made it clear that the Contentions bloggers don’t have the impact on the markets of Senators or other prominent public figures.”
Don’t have the impact??? John Podhoretz and Jennifer have absolutely no impact on investor confidence. They caused NO “damage,” not “little damage,” as you originally put it. Why do you avoid the point? Harry Reid’s opinions do had an impact and caused damage, very serious damage, it would seem. You seem ardent to shoehorn Rubin’s entirely justified criticsm of Sen Reid into a topic where it simply doesn’t fit, namely, your disagreement with her about the wisdom of the so-called bailout.
Again, “. . . some commenters on this blog . . . talk[ed] about how we were going to be living in cardboard boxes. And they weren’t saying that tongue in cheek.” I don’t know to which bloggers you refer, but are you actually charging them with meaning that literally? Hyperbole is not hysteria, neither is it the same thing as inflammatory.
My own position is that I do not know whether the legislation just passed was, in short term or in long, wise or foolish, avoidable or unavoidable. I suspect you don’t either, but in any case it was not what she was talking about, and I still fail to see how it affects her bona fides in criticizing Reid.
Joe NS, the comments about cardboard boxes were made with the statement that they were literal and not hyperbole.
The gist of Jennifer Rubin’s post is that Harry Reid threw fuel on the fire, making a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, Contentions also threw fuel on the fire. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this blog has “absolutely no impact.” Why else does anyone post comments? Would you argue that Commentary magazine, of which this blog is an extension, has no impact? I think that the quality of posts and articles makes some difference, even if it is a small difference.
Mr. Kramer: “I can’t agree . . . that Rubin’s post was ‘narrowly directed’ at Reid’s KIND of statement [emphasis supplied].”
In fairness, was not Reid’s statement of the same kind as Schumer’s? Is it necessary to spell out the similarity? One may split hairs, but the tenor, not to mention the impact, of both Senators reckless – I do not avoid the term -revelations was identical.
Chuck “1600 SATs” Schumer is not stupid. As to Reid, well, opinions may differ. I know what I think. So I must ask Daniel why he is eager, in a viciously political season, to give those gentlemen the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions in creating so much mischief. Are you suggesting that their intentions did not matter at all?
Schumer’s in camera remarks were deliberately leaked to the (financial) press and had predictable effects. Put those two facts together. Why is it a “smear” to to wonder publicly what on earth he was up to?
Lawrence, I also tend to agree with Shumer’s argument that one cannot blame the boy for saying that the emperor is naked, even if that’s what brings down the emperor.
Lawrence, you insist on missing the point. Why say something like that? Since when is it up to some Senator to decide when to push an ailing company over the brink?
You are trying so hard to find excuses for Reid and Schumer, but even your argument leaves only two possibilities:
1. These guys want to run our economy but cannot even control their stupid mouths.
2. They do not care.
And neither do you apparently.
Yep. They are either mendacious or incompetent.
I suppose they could be both, huh?
Again there is an attempt to change the subject. Some want to direct the debate away from what a Democrat Senator and the leaders of both Houses did.
Regardless of what was written on one blog, you either support what these elected politicians did or you don´t. Daniel? Larry? I still don´t know the answer to that. I have to assume you do not care that they ruined people.
A company on the brink of failure is going to fail anyway? So Schumer might as well have gone ahead and given it a push?
Really?
C’mon, you don’t really believe that, do you?
Fess up, now. The truth will set you free.
I don’t think most Democrats would deliberately precipitate a Depression to win votes, but I do think a lot of them figure the prospect of an economic downturn puts them in a no-lose situation politically when it comes to giving advice — particularly given a Republican incumbent Administration — and that they therefore have a moral conflict of interest. Moreover, I believe that many on the Left still romanticize the 1930s. (There are even some on the Right who think we were a kinder, gentler nation when people had less money. ) Funny aside: Did you know that Woody Guthrie’s son, Arlo, was bar-mitzvahed by Meir Kahane?
The “Daniel” on this thread appears to be the same shabby soul who mocked Sarah Palin and her son Trig on the thread about Andrew Sullivan. And his comments here should be considered in that light.
Levin:
“I made it clear that the Contentions bloggers don’t have the impact on the markets of Senators or other prominent public figures.”
No, you DID NOT. What you SAID, precisely, was this:
“Someone may comment that John Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin aren’t Senators and, therefore, their Chicken Little behavior isn’t as damaging, but it doesn’t excuse their inflammatory advocacy of bad legislation.”
So in the eyeblink between your first and second comment, you’ve already lied.
And now we should believe a word you say, because…?
Gee… what choices do I have… Treasonous or Stupid… it’s so hard to choose.
You raise a valid issue, Ms Rubin, but it pales in comparison to the fact that over the past 15 years or so, Dems have steadily implemented two sweeping policy decisions affecting our pocketbooks directly and by putting them at enormous risk.
First, they decided that it’s a public good for us to bear higher fuel prices. Second, they decided it’s a public good to make access to easy credit widely available.
Arguably, these ARE public goods, just managed to poor outcomes. However, the scary part is where was the voting? Where was the public debate? Where was any effective oppositon or even voice from the other party?
It’s bad enough when Congress picks our pockets in public, as they just did, but when they start doing it by stealth, it is time to turn all the bastards out, the crooks AND their ineffectual opponents.
Pelosi, Reid and Schumer are not having a first time experience here — this behavior is not an accident. They know the effect their words have on markets and they have played this for all it is worth to help Obama. This is a coordinated effort to distract everyone from those who caused this debacle and push McCain’s head under water. Don’t forget, Obama is short on the economy. It goes down, he gains.
Bread and circus.
That was Peggy Noonan who wrote the quotes you used. You might have given her credit.
This looks interesting .. Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
Regardless of whether or not Democrats have been trying to drive down the economy for political advantage is there now a strong incentive for all involved to do just the opposite? How will the voters react to having the bailout forced down their throats only to be told it didn’t work and things continue to get worse? Next week better be pretty good on Wall St. or the bailout’s opponents are going to be asking what the people got for their money. I don’t expect there to be a lot of patience if things continue to worsen.
I tend to agree with LL #1
“The gist of Jennifer Rubin’s post is that Harry Reid threw fuel on the fire, making a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, Contentions also threw fuel on the fire.” But so did lots of pundits on the right and left.
However, both Ms. Rubin and LL failed to mention that Bush, Paulson and Bernanke started the fire. Lets face it, you couldn’t get Congress to cough up $700billion without so much as a publc hearing unless you had successfully scared the living daylights out of everyone. And successful they were–hysteria reigned.
From where I sit way out in the right-center bleachers, it looked to me like Bush-Paulson et al created much of the panic that they proposed to buy off. And unfortunately but predictably I think, the fire they started rages even though they are now flush with cash. Oops
Harry “The War Is Lost” Reid can be criticized on so many fronts, that this little comments tiff is akin to the old how angels can dance on the head of a pin argument. Reid has proved time and again that ill-considered, partisan statements are his staple. His utter incompetence at leading the Senate has been manifest at every step. He has failed repeatedly to advance his own stated agenda. He has been outmaneuvered on every single substantive issue by Mitch McConnell. He leaves town with nothing accomplished in two years and an approval rating well below George Bush—no small achievement.
The Democrats have a great investment in defeatism on all fronts. It may indeed work out well for them in the short run, but I would be leery of trying to govern in the aftermath of their politics of depression.
“…blaming ‘the fire on the guy who called 911.’”
More like hysterically screaming “FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!” in a crowded theater because someone dropped a lit cigarette on the floor.
Party first…
I said in the last post that the Democrats have a habit of putting their parochial electoral needs ahead of the interests of the nation. They shown that in their serial opposition to regulatory reform of corrupt practices at Fannie…
Foolish analysis. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Democrats don’t care about Americans losing jobs or their houses. Obama is likely to win. Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress. Why in the world would they act against their self interests and sabotage the economy? The current downturn is likely to extend at least a couple of years into the next administration, eating up resources and hampering Democrats’ ability to enact their agenda. Their political and patriotic interests are aligned: They want the fastest recovery possible.
of course they want to make things worse in order to help themselves at the polls.
thwey did the same thing visvis retreating from al qaeda in iraq:
they’d rather win an lection than a war.
they’d rather have a worse economy if it would help them at the polls.
Joe NS -
I get the similarity between Reid and Shumer’s remarks, but you don’t get the difference. Shumer pointed out, in effect, that Wile E. Coyote (IndyMac) had run off the cliff and would fall as soon as he looked down. If that precipitated the collapse of the bank, it did not cause it, and, yes, it was justified because shouting “dead bank walking” promoted legislation intended to save the economy. That trade-off seems to me worth making if it helps gets the rescue plan passed.
The House vote on Monday was due at least in significant part to the public’s failure to grasp how bad things were. Just how is that message to be got across without scaring people? You have to walk the path not taken to criticize Shumer on this issue. What if no member of Congress had warned that any financial institution faced collapse, and the rescue did not happen, and then they all collapsed anyway as credit froze up? Who’d be first in line to say that Congress failed to warn us?
In contrast, by not naming the “major insurance company,” Harry Reid put at risk viable institutions. That difference between Reid and Shumer trumps any similarity. Shumer’s statement was necessary and, in the long run, fairly inconsequential, as IndyMAc was doomed anyway, whereas Reid’s stupidity threatened entirely sound institutions. In short, both warnings contributed to the rescue eventually passing, but Reid’s was too high a price to pay, and Shumer’s was not.
(BTW, I think Shumer’s a jerk. He’s just not the villain in this particular subplot. Reid, on the other hand, is a moron and a jerk, and he is very much to blame for a lot of unnecessary fear about a lot of good companies.)
Reid and Pelosi are part of the Democrat leadership that has been affected with BDS. They are willing for US to be severely damaged with a lost war, a la Reid “we have lost” or economic destruction or energy starvation such as Pelosi’s “no drilling”.
IT has been a classic Democratic ploy to claim a bad economy under Bush and a great under Clinton yet the stats were the often the same. I have heard the Dems do this a lot.
Schumer is a smart politician and I believe he made a mistake. Reid is an idiot and is willing to have runs against insurance companies incur, to up the hysteria. Pelosi was willing to screw the first vote by taking the opportunity to blame Bush for the credit failure with that incendiary speech on Monday.
BDS often leads people to do mad actions and harm the country to harm the President.
I do not think either Reid or Pelosi were convinced the financial world would end so they used the crisis for political purposes. After all they loaded it up like a Christmas tree. Congress had not passed any of the appropriation bills yet either. This was a chance to shove in their favorites and Bush would not veto it.
Hoyer, Emmanuel and Schumer are smart Democrats and the house would be better with their leadership rather than crazy Nancy. Senate also needs better leadership than nutcase Reid.
In response to #15 el gordo, I am as critical of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer as Jennifer Rubin, if that makes you feel any better.
In response to #19 Mister Snitch, I don’t believe I “lied.” I was anticipating the argument that Contentions bloggers aren’t as influential as Senators. Of course they’re not. But it doesn’t excuse bad commentary. If I phrased the first post to give you the impression that I put them on a par in influence, I apologize for how I worded it.
Great, great post. I wish the McCain campaign made more use of Harry’s unilteral pre-surge declaration of defeat in Iraq. How did this guy ever become a Senate party leader?
The Democrats in Congress are clowns and the media gives them a pass. Democrats in general are too filled with hate to think logically.
The point is that words to have meaning, and also consequences. The rhetoric, of the Democratic Party, has helped to foster a distrust of the U.S. in its relations with the rest of the world. Such petty things as our going alone in Iraq, although other countries committed money and troops to the effort, could be hurtful and yet the Democrats didn’t care, all they were doing was bashing Bush, the fact that it hurt their country was only collateral damage, in their minds.
The fact that Nancy Pelosi was reponsible for scuttling a free trade agreement with Columbia, and causing other countries doing business with us to doubt if our words is good during negotiations, was the utmost irresponsible act of this Congress.
Reid and Schumer’s comments, for the damage they caused, will go unpunished because a syncophant media won’t call them on it. Had they been Republicans, they would have been accused of sabotaging the economy so Barack couldn’t win.
How can all this be happening just 4 weeks before the election? The timing is not an accident. Repeat: THE TIMING IS NOT AN ACCIDENT!!! The Democrats, in order to get their man in, have started an avalanche. Maybe if we give the Dem-Libs 4 years, we can take the next 16. Hold on to your wallets, folks!
Daniel -
“Foolish analysis. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Democrats don’t care about Americans losing jobs or their houses. Obama is likely to win. Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress. Why in the world would they act against their self interests and sabotage the economy? ”
That assumes that they are thinking that far ahead. I don’t see much evidence of that. I think the prospect of a democratic president plus veto proof majorities in both houses is all they are thinking about. I think it also indicates how they fundamentally don’t understand how capitalism works. They believe if only it can be directed by well-intentioned people in Washington, all will be fine.
“The current downturn is likely to extend at least a couple of years into the next administration, eating up resources and hampering Democrats’ ability to enact their agenda. Their political and patriotic interests are aligned: They want the fastest recovery possible.”
The “recovery” will of course happen with Obamas inauguration. At least that is when media shills will stop telling everyone how lousy the economy is. To people in congress, there is no such thing as objective truth – only what can be spun.
You might as well add the show put on by the Democrat caucus after they convinced the Republicans to cross the aisle in sufficient numbers to give cover to the Democrats facing contested seats.
Did you see the smiles. The obvious PRIDE.
This congress – any Democrat member – could call a news conference and then shout profanities and fling poo at the assembled media.
And it wouldn’t have the slightest detrimental effect on the congressman. They are beyond the bounds of cause and effect, and they have evidence to back that up. 90% plus incumbency rates for both parties; the Republicans slipped because they are voted for by Republicans… but the Dems? Side with enemies in time of war? CHECK. Attempt to sabotage industries and sour race relations in search of short term political gain? CHECK. Mismanage or simply corrupt regulatory and benefit mechanism for their own, and their cronies, benefit. CHECK.
We get the government we deserve. So were are truly a bunch of right bastards then, aren’t we? Not very bright, either.
This election year the Democrats were so worried about being out done by the Republicans that they have taken on some of the worst characteristics of hardball Rovian politics, only worse. In 2004 the Republicans used fear mongering about safety to frighten the electorate into voting stereotypes. (Republicans will keep you safe.) This year the Democrats are fear mongering on the economy so they can also play into stereotypes. (Democrats are good stewards of the economy.) The sad part for the country is that while fear mongering about safety didn’t make us less safe, as the problems in the economy are exacerbated by a loss in confidence, the Democrats fear mongering could lead to a deep recession. The even sadder part is that the MSM perpetuates this over simplified “Democrats can run the economy” narrative, to the extent that any nuanced look at what is causing the problem is absent.
There is plenty of blame to go around from Democrats (loosening CRA, protecting Fannie and Freddie from over site) to Republicans (loosening over site of Wall Street) to Wall Street greed (the proliferation of credit default swaps among other infractions) to our addiction to China and North Korea purchasing our debt so we can generate more. The attitude that risk can be passed along the line generated more and more risk taking that was enabled by both political parties and the American people (witting or not).
I would say that recent events were bound to happen at some time but I am of the opinion that the proverbial ‘plug was pulled’ now for politcial gain.
Nothing is the matter with Harry. He’s just sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. What the hell else have Democrats done since 9-11? America need Democrats like a fish needs a bicycle.
Harry Reed is just doing his job. Not the public service job of Congressional leader, but the Democratic leader job. He’s getting votes for Democrats. Between now and the election, the more he can screw with the economy, the better job he’s doing.
“The “recovery” will of course happen with Obamas inauguration.” –ian
And you say Democrats don’t fundamentally understand capitalism? If you think the economy is going to start rebounding in January, you’ve got problems.
For all your contortions, you couldn’t find a single argument that holds water. Democrats are going to hold power next year. Nothing they do today is going to change the near-term economy: We’re heading into a recession. The faster the recovery, the easier it is for them to spend what they want, where they want. It’s amazing how dense you people are, and disgusting how quickly you would accuse, based on vapors, fellow Americans of intentionally selling out America. But them, hyperpartisanship is one of the reasons you’ve lost power and will never hold it again in your lifetimes.
Reid and Pelosi, like most Democrats, will do anything to hurt America. They are traitors, pure and simple. It’s really not that difficult to grok. It’s just truly sad how America is crumbling within.
Daniel, you wrote
Why in the world would they act against their self interests and sabotage the economy? The current downturn is likely to extend at least a couple of years into the next administration, eating up resources and hampering Democrats’ ability to enact their agenda. Their political and patriotic interests are aligned: They want the fastest recovery possible.
Does it really hamper their agenda? Not if their agenda is an expansion of government. I don´t want to speculate too much, but any crisis is an opportunity and during every crisis this country ever had, government was expanded (Republicans are not entirely innocent in that respect). In an economic crisis, the number of dependent citizens can be grown and there is a pretext for massive redistribution. New constituencies are created, can be set against each other. The welfare state has to be administered – that means jobs for supporters. And most importantly: their job is never done.
We have seen it all before.
I’m surprised no one has noted that Reid’s statement was, by his own testimony, a lie.
A day after he said “a major insurance company – one with a name that everyone knows – [is] on the verge of going bankrupt” his spokesman said Reid was “not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy” and that “he regret[ted] any confusion his comments may have caused.” What a maroon.
What’s the Matter with Harry? You mean what’s the matter with John?
Looks like McCain is hiding the magnitude of his gambling by filing false tax returns, according to a 35-year tax attorney who reviewed his disclosures:
“Gambling has tax implications. According to IRS Publication 17, “Your Federal Income Tax”, 2007 edition, page 89 “Gambling Winnings. You must include your gambling winnings in income on Form 1040, line 21. If you itemize your deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040), you can deduct gambling losses you had during the year, but only up to the amount of your winnings.” In other words, you can’t subtract your losses from your winnings and just not report. You have to report the winnings, and then claim the losses.
“But McCain’s tax returns say nothing about gambling winnings or losses.
“As a casino gambler, McCain is likely to have lost more than he won. But by not reporting his winnings, the different percentage calculations built into the tax calculation are thrown off, and if he gambled much at all, he has underpaid his tax. The amount of understatement of tax may be minimal, but that’s not the point.
“The real purpose of preparing his tax return and omitting the gambling winnings is so that people would not know how much he gambled. If he won $200,000 playing craps in Las Vegas, it would make a difference in the way voters viewed his suitability as a presidential candidate.”
el gordo,
Your argument falls short. It depends on a false caricature of Democrats. Democrats believe that, in a wealthy society, government can do more to provide a safety net, offer the less fortunate a hand up, ensure health care for all. But the formulation depends on promoting a wealthy capitalist society. I do agree with you that bad things happen during real or perceived crises. It is a popular theory, promoted by Naomi Klein in “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.” The Bush-Cheney power grab, enabled by terrorism related fearmongering, is a perfect example. As it the use of the pretense of 9/11 to muster support for the invasion of Iraq.
Should have said “use of 9/11 as a pretense” Not “the pretense of 9/11″. I’m not a “truther.”
Where is the Republican leadership???
Why isn’t the Republican leadership calling the Democrats out for actions like this and their actions regarding Fannie and Freddie?
Bush seems to be hiding in a closet coming out every once in a while to read a statement of doom and gloom.
McCain doesn’t want to come across as being partisan.
Acting like this, the Republicans deserve to be defeated in November.
—-
This entire financial fiasco is a scam on the American taxpayers.
Oh God, a Naomi Klein reader. And you talk about false caricature! That´s it. There is no hope for you.
Power grab? Yeah, right, Bush´s power grab consisted of staying dignified and factual while he was slandered and ridiculed every day. Get it into your head that there were good reasons to go into Iraq and they had been there since 1991. Clinton and Gore admitted as much! They just kicked the can down the road while Bush risked his career and reputation.
Look at the many Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, then switched positions and denied their responsibility (“We were cheated”). Suddenly it was Bush´s war. Not a single constructive contribution in five years! Reid couldn´t wait to declare the Iraq war lost. Obama wanted to lose. The global repercussions would have been terrible but hey, it helped them win the house. There you have your manufactured crisis and the exploiters.
Note that I am not saying that Bush made no mistakes. I am saying a loyal opposition would have acted very differently. It was left to Bush and “General Betray Us” (as your ideological allies slandered him) to turn Iraq around. Now weasels like Joe Biden want to claim their slice of the credit. Sorry, most Democrats behaved like a bunch of freeriders, not like responsible statesmen. Only Joe Lieberman did not march in lockstep and look what happened to him.
Daniel – “And you say Democrats don’t fundamentally understand capitalism? If you think the economy is going to start rebounding in January, you’ve got problems.”
I don’t for a minute think the economy will rebound in January (2009 or 2010). I am referring to perception, as peddled in the media. There will be fewer gloom and doom stories.
I would probably not be the only person to have harbored the unpleasant thought that the Democratic Party would prefer to see the current “credit crisis” unresolved for at several more weeks. There would be a certain naivete that denied the political benefits accruing to those, who, correctly or incorrectly, lay the blame for this at the feet of George Bush and 8 years of a Republican President. Or as Nancy Pelosi has now famously stated, “Democrats have had no responsiblity for this crisis.” Reid, Schumer, and Pelosi have their eyes on one date: November 4th. That has informed their rhetoric. Now to be fair, one must say the same of the Republican leadership, except that oddly, what has come out of the House & the Senate fromRepublican leaders hardly seems designed to win the White House for John McCain. They seem to be arguing more from the of less government-interference in the market, especially at the expense of tax-payers. They may be misguided in this, and may be listening more to voters back home than “sound” economic advice. I suggest that sound advice may be spurious at this point because we seem to be rolling the dice with a gun to our heads. It might be the choice between burning to death in a building on fire and taking your best shot jumping out the window.
When you have a ballon or a bubble, it just takes a single prick to burst it. Reed and Shumer are both small pricks.
Harry along with many of other Democrats are probably making sure they invested their Fannie/Freddie kickback money wisely. The financial meltdown secrets bubble is about to burst. November 4 is judgment day. Hope most of the Democrats have lined up what they’re going to due during their upcoming ‘retirement’.
Well, if it’s between maliciously self-serving and reckless and stupid, I’ll have the combination plate please. And frankly I question their patriotism.
If they are trying to promote financial and economic disaster in order to enhance their election prospects, does that mean they know how to undo everything once they get elected? Because I think Harry Reid was being uncharacteristically honest when he said that no one knew what to do, and as the week wore on, I detected a bit of panic brewing among the ranks. When Democrats are in charge, blaming Bush for all the nation’s woes will have a short shelf life. People will demand solutions. I doubt sincerely that Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have those solutions. I’ll bet further that they’ll institute policies that will exacerbate those woes. So, they better be careful what they wish for; they just might get it.
Malicious or stupid? It is a well known fact that Reid is quite good at handling his own money and making more of it with dodgy real estate deals. That decreases the chance of him being simply an innocent fool.
I follow your blog for quite a long time and should tell you that your articles are always valuable to readers.