 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 30, 2008 at 05:22:42
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 9/30/08: by Brasch Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives grabbed a half dozen bags of sincerity, looked directly into every TV camera they could find, and lied. The House had just defeated, 228–205, a bipartisan $700 billion bailout bill. But it was the Democrats who were the subject of vicious rhetoric. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “poisoned our conference,” screeched Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Republican minority leader. He said the House would have voted for the bill “had it not been for the partisan speech the Speaker gave on the floor of the House.” Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) specifically said that Pelosi’s speech changed the minds of about a dozen Republicans who voted against the bill. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), waving a copy of Pelosi’s speech, screamed out, “Here is the reason I believe why this vote failed!” The speech, he said, “frankly struck the tone of partisanship that frankly was inappropriate in this discussion.” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to Sen. John McCain, was equally blunt—and equally wrong. The bailout failed, he said, because “Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.” But it wasn’t the Democrats who brought about the bill’s defeat. The Democrats voted 140–95 for the bill; the Republicans voted 133–65 against the bill. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain reluctantly supported the bill. Nevertheless, the viciously partisan Republican leadership, eager to paint anything Democratic as vicious partisanship, couldn’t even get a majority of their own members to agree to the bailout, one that now had added protections for the taxpayer. 
What infuriated the Republican leaders was Pelosi’s accurate portrayal of the Bush–Cheney Administration’s economic policies as “built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision and no discipline in the system.”
While driving America into the deepest deficit in its history, the Administration had usurped its own campaign lies that breathlessly panted the fear that the enemies of American consumers are “tax-and-spend liberals,” as if it was one word.
There are several reasons why this version of the bailout failed. Every member of the House is facing re-election in less than six weeks, and their constituents are angry. They’re angry at the government’s lack of oversight and regulation, supported and encouraged by Bush and McCain, which helped bring about the crisis. They’re angry at the failing mega-mammoth financial institutions that sacrificed the middle class to a horde of unbridled greed and incompetence. They’re angry at corporate executives who make millions while their companies are failing, and then get multi-million dollar “golden parachutes” that let them float into retirement, while the average taxpayer’s 401(k), with only a few thousand dollars may now be worth only half what it once was. They’re angry at “house flippers,” aided by easy-to-get mortgages and some unscrupulous real estate brokers, who made minor fortunes and helped raise housing prices to the point where middle-class families could no longer afford to own a home in an economy that was being held up by toothpicks.
But, most of all, consumers and members of Congress are furious at President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and their Neocon gaggle who no longer have credibility. For seven years, the Bush–Cheney Administration has used fear as a bargaining weapon.
Six weeks after 9/11, the U.S. had the PATRIOT Act, a 342-page law, which few members of Congress read before voting for it, that pretending to stop terrorists essentially stripped much of our constitutional protections. And the people and their elected leaders agreed to it.
Using the tactics of fear, the Bush–Cheney Administration lied to the people, almost abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11. And the people and their elected leaders agreed to it.
For the morally bankrupt Bush Corp., dissent is unpatriotic, un-American, and maybe even treasonous. “You’re either with us or against us,” President Bush told Americans. Because the people didn’t want to be seen as opposed to America, they and their leaders agreed to being bullied. “Support the troops,” Bush told Americans, but meant “Support me and my policies.” And Americans didn’t want to be seen as not supporting America’s soldiers, even if the Bush–Cheney Administration, didn’t give the troops pay raises, adequate body armor or medical care.
The Bush–Cheney Administration said they were “compassionate conservatives.” But, Katrina put an end to that lie.
This is an Administration that believes the environment is important only if it doesn’t interfere with private business. For years, Bush said he believed global warming doesn’t exist, and if it does it wasn’t caused by mankind. Only under the crushing weight of scientific evidence did Bush reluctantly have to modify his beliefs.
Almost eight years of incompetence and lies, with the President’s credibility lower than that of Three-Card Monty dealers in New York City, led Americans to finally realize they have been scammed. Bush had cried out “fear” once too often.
But, it wasn’t the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, or the destruction of the environment that brought about the people’s anger. It was their self-interest. In Bush’s Wild West economy, Americans have seen inflation, increased unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies; they have seen their retirement plans dwindle in the vapors of economic chaos. The vote against the bailout was simply political reality by members of Congress who no longer were about to be stampeded by fear, scammed by lies, and whose own self-interest is to be re-elected.[Walter Brasch’s latest book is the second edition of Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush (November 2007), available through amazon.com, bn.com, and other bookstores. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com]
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 16 comments |
|
Angry at Bush?
Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress. Nobody feared Bush. Gore and Kerry both said that the Bush Presidency was good for the country when they conceded to him and smoothed first his transition to and then his return to power. And they both knew Bush and his dad really well. The Democrats elevated Bush to power and supported everything that the neo-cons wanted, but not out of fear. They did it because the defense stocks in their investment portfolios have doubled and tripled in value every year that he's been in office. Plus they could blame him for everything they did. Most Americans opposed the war even before it started. We weren't afraid of Bush and the Democrats in Congress weren't either. But they knew they could profit by keeping him in power, deregulating, and blaming everything on Bush. And they knew there was nothing their constituents could do except wait until the next rigged election to try to vote them out, and since they passed HAVA that doesn't work, does it? The $700 billion dollar bailout is a distraction that the Democrats and Republicans are staging so nobody will notice that they spent another $613 billion on their profitable wars on Wednesday. They're war profiteers, Walter. That's why Americans don't like them. Before the bailout, Congressional Democrats had an 11% approval rating among registered Democratic voters. That's because they started the war crimes and job outsourcing and cutting social programs when Clinton was in office. It didn't start with Bush. And nobody was afraid of Clinton. Ever watch pro wrestling, Walter? If you don't know about it, you might think those guys really hate each other and are hurting each other. They're not. It's a business, they're colleagues, and the whole thing is carefully choreographed. Talk to some professional wrestlers and they'll be happy to tell you about it. The Democrats and Republicans want people to think their scam is real too, but they don't even bother to put on a show except before elections. They're colleagues. They're all wealthy, and the top people in both parties belong to the same policy-making bodies, the same exclusive clubs, and have each other over for dinner. Even the gatekeepers and debunkers know that 9/11 was an inside job, but they're paid very well to publish their disinformation. Look at the pictures of Nancy Pelosi with her arm around Bush, gazing at him lovingly. You want people to believe that she's afraid of him? Good luck with your book, kid. I'm sure a few of the Democratic Party operatives will buy it, or maybe the party will buy it for them. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:59:03 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: response
It's too bad you're wrong. But, then again, the Founding Fathersd said ALL views should be heard--even dumb ones. And, please, even if you disagree with me, don't demean yourself with stupid comments like the one that closes out your response. And, don't call a 63-year-old who has 4 decades as an investigative reporter and editor a "kid." Please get some facts first. by Brasch (87 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'll certainly apologize....
Brasch wrote: It's too bad you're wrong. Well then, I'll stand corrected and I'll apologize profusely -- as soon as you point out where I was wrong. Are you saying that Congress doesn't have a lower approval rating than Bush? That Bush and Kerry didn't both says it was "for the good of the country" when they conceded to Bush? That they didn't know him and his dad well? That defense stocks in the investment portfolios of wealthy Democratic Members of Congress haven't doubled and tripled in value every year that Bush has been in office? That Americans weren't part of the largest anti-war demonstrations in history prior to the Iraq war? That the elections aren't rigged? That Congressional Democrats didn't have an 11% approval rating among Democratic voters before the bailout and have a lower one now? That there aren't pictures of Pelosi with her arm around Bush gazing at him lovingly? That that would be a normal way to interact with someone you feared? That pro wrestling isn't choreographed? Just tell me where I'm wrong and support your statement, and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong and to apologize. But, then again, the Founding Fathersd said ALL views should be heard--even dumb ones. And, please, even if you disagree with me, don't demean yourself with stupid comments like the one that closes out your response. And, don't call a 63-year-old who has 4 decades as an investigative reporter and editor a "kid." Please get some facts first. Wow! Four decades as an investigative reporter and editor! And only five years younger than me! Surely you can produce some sources and documentation to show that I'm wrong on at least one of my statements. You wouldn't just make unfounded attacks, would you? Like saying something is wrong when you cannot produce a shred of evidence to show that it is wrong or even attempt a reasoned argument why you think it might be wrong, or to attempt to dismiss comments as "stupid" because you can't refute them? Come off it, kid. Either speak to the issues, refute something I said, or admit that you can't. You may resent being called "kid," but I didn't make any unfounded arguments or any ad hominem attacks. That would be a sign of immaturity and ignorance, so I try to avoid such things. But then I'm fortunate enough to have facts to work with instead of just political propaganda and spin, so I don't have to resort to name-calling and baseless attacks. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: MARK
I would suggest that the anthrax attack on Senators Leahy and Daschle at the time they were opposing the Patriot Act indicates that in the past, at least, the Democrats did not all lovingly adore President Bush. I personally believe that those attacks had a profound effect on the relationship between the two parties. They made clear that the battle between so-called conservative and liberal philosophies of government had ended and that class warfare had begun. It was time to choose sides. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:31:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Have you read John Perkins?
W.M.L. writes: I would suggest that the anthrax attack on Senators Leahy and Daschle at the time they were opposing the Patriot Act indicates that in the past, at least, the Democrats did not all lovingly adore President Bush. I personally believe that those attacks had a profound effect on the relationship between the two parties. They made clear that the battle between so-called conservative and liberal philosophies of government had ended and that class warfare had begun. It was time to choose sides. Everyone who achieves any political power gets that friendly visit from the economic hitman, as Perkins described in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. If you are not prepared to die for your country, 1) You should not be sending other people to do so, and 2) you should not be qualified to represent people who are. The economic hitman always makes the same offer: Ploma o plata? Lead or silver? A bullet or a bribe? Death, or riches beyond your wildest dreams? Everyone in Congress is very much alive and exhorbitantly wealthy, so we know what choice they made. If someone refuses the bribe, they get the bullet from what Perkins calls the jackals, who are literal hitmen, the wet job specialists. The bullet may take other forms such as anthrax, a mysterious single vehicle accident or unexplainable plane crash, etc. There were a few people of conscience in Congress, but never enough to carry a vote or even to get their legislation out of committee. Did you ever read The Fable of Lanova Messiah? Congress is not there to represent the people, it is a bureaucracy designed to shield the wealthy elites from our wrath. And if you'd like to know how the American public feels about the bailout, Mark Crispin Miller has posted a picture from the Wall Street protests under the title "Very Well Put." (You may have to scroll down a bit. And many thanks to the friend who emailed it to me.) by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:44:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mark? You're over the top.
Mark: If you're not going to vote, you're just pissin up a rope as well as pissin off others who may think like you, but whose analyses may differ. You're doing nothing but burning rubber and emitting gas when you try to lambaste someone who's probably has a few decades of experience on you. Not that you'd give that experience any credit, insofar as they might lack your sage wisdom, but if you're not willing to be part of the solution, you are only part of the problem. I mean, honestly, what personal power do you really have other than voting? Weapons? Ranting on weblogs is not much different than a peacock displaying it's tail feathers. But you seem to get a kick out of showing off your mental prowess from the aft end. by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:53:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One sentence in there is NOT ad hominem! Woohoo!
Cinderfeller wrote: Mark? You're over the top. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. Mark: If you're not going to vote, you're just pissin up a rope as well as pissin off others who may think like you, but whose analyses may differ. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. You're doing nothing but burning rubber and emitting gas when you try to lambaste someone who's probably has a few decades of experience on you. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. Not that you'd give that experience any credit, insofar as they might lack your sage wisdom, but if you're not willing to be part of the solution, you are only part of the problem. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. I mean, honestly, what personal power do you really have other than voting? Weapons? Incredibly, the above is NOT ad hominem and I'll respond to it in a moment. Ranting on weblogs is not much different than a peacock displaying it's tail feathers. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. But you seem to get a kick out of showing off your mental prowess from the aft end. Ad hominem. Speaks to me, not to the issues. But since Cinderfeller actually managed a sentence that wasn't as hominem, I'm happy to respond: I mean, honestly, what personal power do you really have other than voting? Weapons? I do not advocate violence, nor do I think that violence would be effective against a legitimate government that happens to be a military superpower. So weapons are out. As for personal power, it is illogical to say "what personal power do you really have other than voting" because that assumes that voting has some personal power. It does not. In both 2000 and 2004 the President was sworn in BEFORE the popular votes were counted. In 2000 the Supreme Court stopped the votes from being counted until after the President had been sworn in and it was too late to do anything about it, and in 2004 Kerry conceded before the votes were counted and once again the President was sworn in before the votes were counted. What personal power do you think that a vote that Constitutionally need not be counted has? It has no power whatsoever. The reason that the government can claim legitimacy is because it holds elections. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as was stated in the Declaration of Independence, and that consent is gained through elections. However in a democracy or a republic, the actual power over government resides with the people and no government official can be sworn into office BEFORE the votes are counted, the way it is done here. In a democracy or a republic, the people's vote is final and cannot be overruled or disregarded by a Congress or a Supreme Court the way it is done here. In a democracy or a republic the people have a nonviolent way to hold their respresentatives accountable DURING their terms of office (not afterwards when the damage has been done and cannot be undone) and can directly remove them from office for malfeasance, unlike here where the Constitution granted that power only to Congress, not to us. In a democracy or a republic, voting, if the elections are honest, allows citizens to have power over their government. In the United States, voting merely give the government permission to do whatever it wants and does not give us any power to hold them accountable. Trying to vote them out after their terms of office are up does not give us any power to control what they do when they are in office, which is when they are part of government. Election boycotts can and have successfully discredited governments because if nobody (or very few people) vote, the government cannot demonstrate the consent of the governed and is no longer legitimate. When you vote, you are not exercising your power, you are delegating your power to people who you will not be able to hold accountable while they are in office. All you can do is attempt to delegate your power to somebody else after their term of office is up and the damage has been done. If you stop voting, you stop delegating your power to people you cannot hold accountable, and THEN you have power, power that you can only have if you don't give it away by voting. Capish? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:10:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Cinderfella, I think that point is, if voting is the only
If voting is indeed the only recourse, as you suggest Cinderfella, then wishing it were real doesn't make it so. I'd suggest that you MAKE IT REAL with whatever force your life has. Otherwise, you're just what the founders called a slave (a broad concept for ANYONE who didn't have a say in the community's governance, i.e. was subject to tyranny because of unequal representation or no representation) by Paul Lehto (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:40:24 AM (0+)
|
|
I feel better
Walter, at least hearing my song sung by you, makes me feel a bit better. I am not at all certain of this bailout deal but to do nothing does not make sense either. Those that say, "let the market settle itself" are either very well secure, or they have nothing to lose. It is a helluv mess but I would guess my vote would have been to pass it. You are EXACTLY correct, in that all Congress is concerned about is getting re-elected. But, I am convinced of one thing, we do not need John McCain in the Whitehouse. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:02:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Both Dems and Republicans were pathetic
I was opposing the passage of the bill, so I'm glad 130 some republicans and 95 democrats opposed it, regardless of the reason. I'm disgusted with the Democrats who tried to rush it through. As far as I'm concerned, they are the bad guys here. The sky has not fallen today. Read my take on the situation here: Bush Emergency Patsy Dems on Both Side of the Aisle Sold Out, Even Though Pelosi's Bums' Rush Failed by Rob Kall (954 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2089 comments [48 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Walter don't mind Mark
Mark is an advocate for an election boycott in November. I can't figure out if he is just a Republican in sheep's clothing or a complete idiot. by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:46:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is that the best you can do?
E. Nelson wrote: Mark is an advocate for an election boycott in November. I can't figure out if he is just a Republican in sheep's clothing or a complete idiot. If you disagree with the election boycott, Nelson, why not post your reasons -- that is if you have any reasons. I've probably already debunked most of your "reasons" in my essay Consensual Political Intercourse so don't waste people's time with the old canards like, "If we don't vote the bad guys will win." As Rob Kall points out in his comment, there are no good guys in this fight. I don't think people whose only "arguments" boil down to illogical slogans, ad hominem, and "You don't know who I am!" should be calling rational and informed people idiots, but that's just my personal opinion. If you can explain why you think that voting in Republican Karl Rove's rigged elections is still a good idea, go right ahead and try. I was a Democrat for most of my voting life and I have NEVER voted for a Republican, not even Reagan, nor have I EVER voted for a Republican-backed ballot proposition or for anything that would further the neo-con agenda. Name me ONE Congressional Democrat who can say the same. I could have flagged your comment for personal attacks, but I want people to see what passes for argumentation and reason on your side of the issue. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:13:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Another core problem: Lack of clarity re principles
While many did, and all will say, they voted on principle, some principles are more important than others. There is a hierarchy -- without a doubt -- as the principles of the Constitution trump statutory principles, and inalienable rights trump even the constitution, being changeable, as Hamilton put it, by "no mortal power." In my observation, while not explaining everything or even responding to the entirety of the original post or the comments to it, confusion over what principles trump others and when is a core confusion in America. Example: Avoidance of harm, if that can be a principle, would be trumped (to use a more colorful expression of the American principle) "give me liberty or give me death." But avoidance of harm is often motivating folks, and the liberty issues too often ignored. I'm naming no names or even thinking of any names here, but the reader can take the principle, use their tool of Reason, and apply it for themselves. All problems, discussed and solved at "the bar of Reason" as Jefferson put it. Not the lawyer's bar, per se (I hasten to point out, as a former practicing lawyer) by Paul Lehto (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:48:29 PM (0+)
|
|
A broader take
Can anyone with a resonable grasp of genuine power within the corridors of government, the forces that work from behind the curtain, actually believe that a financial disaster of this magnitude came by surprise? The secretive forces that enabled the 911 attack on the US have actually been outdone in the absurd notion that the attack, like the economic meltdown, was an unanticipated surprise. Same faceless cabal. Both steps in the broader agenda. What congressional members that they haven't been able to wildy enrich or bribe have been threatened and blackmailed. The evidence to support this notion is staggering. Wexler, Kucinich, Paul, and a scant few others are the exception. And Americans in immense numbers go about their routines with a stunning complacency and/or obliviousness. Is there really something in the water - the air - the food? by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 488 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:53:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: More likely....
Michael McCoy asks: Is there really something in the water - the air - the food? More likely in the Rockefeller-designed educational system, Mike. In order to produce worker drones, it teaches unquestioning love for and obedience to the system, and produces people such as those I describe in He's Going to Kill Her Constitutionally. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:03:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Amazing video! This guy is right on!!
Listen to this guy....Max Keiser by 911TRUTH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:47:56 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
