04:45 pm
Bailout: Fear and Loathing in the Halls of Congress
Matt Yglesias on the cowardly decision by Congressional Democrats to support any bailout only if Republicans go along:
May I just observe that it’s distressing to see the news reports — and even worse, the rumors and gossip in DC — that have Democratic legislative leaders putting their primary emphasis on making sure that there are enough Republican votes for a bailout package to provide adequate political cover. Not only is it a mistake to put a primary emphasis on politics rather than on the merits of the bill, but focusing on trying to make sure that the Republicans don’t stick Democrats with the blame for a bailout guarantees a bad bill. . . .
[Democrats should] make Bush and the Senate Republicans choose between allowing a good bill to become law, or blocking a proposal that would prevent a financial meltdown. If they want to block a good bill and then pass a bad one with Republican votes and a handful of moderate Democrats, let that happen. Or if they want to let Democrats pass a good bill, let that happen. But why pass a bad bipartisan bill? And what makes you think you could get a good bipartisan bill? It doesn’t make sense. Congress shouldn’t be looking for “cover” for embarrassing votes; members should be casting votes they’re prepared to defend on the merits.
This is the problem with being a Democrat. As much as I admire Barack Obama and about 15-20 Members of Congress, the rest of our Representatives, particularly in the House, are a bunch of spineless scaredy-cat scum-sucking surrender weasels. They rolled over on Iraq, they rolled over on the Patriot Act, they rolled over on FISA, they rolled over on Alberto Gonzales — they’ve rolled over on everything.
If I were Barack Obama, I would make replacing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid one of my top priorities should I get elected. Yes, I know it doesn’t work that way, and yes, I know that Congress gets angry when the President starts trying to mess around with Congress’s prerogative to choose its own leadership, but this is freaking ridiculous. We can do better.
Here’s a brief list of some of the Democrats whose spines would make them better Majority Leaders in the Senate, in rough order of my preference:
- Barbara Boxer (CA)
- Russ Feingold (WI)
- Jon Tester (WY)
- Jim Webb (VA)
- Amy Klobuchar (MN)
- Patrick Leahy (VT)
Pick one of these folks and you change the game in the Senate. And notice that I’m not including Hillary, Schumer, Dodd, Kerry, or Durban on this list. Perhaps Hillary could do the job, but I can’t help feeling that she would be part of the problem as well — and try to dictate Obama’s agenda.
Where is Hunter S. Thompson when we need him?
So who should we choose for the House? My instinct is Rahm Emmanuel, but part of me is convinced that even with a strong spine, he would be too poisonous. Jim Clyburn? Marcy Kaptur? There has to be somebody out there who knows how to run things and has the guts to make things happen.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Sigh.
Image: Wikipedia, using a GNU Free Documentation License
Loading ...