I don't think it goes against their beliefs at all. The GOP has abandoned small government long ago. Bush is a Republican (in fact, he won over McCain in 2000 for being the alpha-Republican while McCain was seen as too moderate) and was the one approving bailouts and sent this bill to Congress. Even if we assume that Republicans are holding out for the sake of ideals (which I think is an absurd assumption), what reason do they have? How about preventing a total economic collapse? Is a philosophical ideal on government non-interference with the economy worth crushing the nation? I don't think any Republican politician thinks so. I think both sides expect a bailout bill to go through and both sides want a bailout bill to go through. Right now, both sides are just hoping they can not only pass a bill but also profit politically.
The difference is that this bill largely results in a socialization of the MBS market. For Democrats, that's not too far from what they believe, but for the GOP--especially on the far right--it's anathema. It's easier for a Democrat to run on a bailout bill than it is for a laissez-faire Republican.
Many of the Republicans "holding out" are fundamentally opposed to this scheme. Also, as Boehner has pointed out, some of the funds are earmarked to activist organizations that are under investigation (such as ACORN). Why do you think that fiscal conservatives would agree with handing over $700 billion or OUR money to bail-out the private sector. I don't necessarily agree with them, but believe it or not, there are still people who believe in the free market.
If it favored one parties' chance in the election . . . that party will figure a way to get this delayed until after the election. Politics . . . got to love it.
Seriously, Mook, why do we care about David Letterman? It's not like cancelling Meet The Press to appear on Saturday Night Live. He spoke to people who actually report news for a living.
Because they don't want the US to be like the USSR when communism destroyed them? Both socialism and capitalism can lead to crushed economies in pure forms, which is why every Western nation is a mixture of the two. There's no mainstream US politician who believes in a pure free market, and I don't believe any of them are stupid enough to think a "free market ideal" right now is worth more than saving the US economy. And I certainly don't believe almost every single House Republican is refusing to vote for it due to ideology.
Bush has never been a fiscal conservative, Bush failed to mention how Fannie/Freddie and other members were threatened by Janet Reno to stop "redlining" applicants. Granted, they still took on what there must have known were bad mortgages, but having the AG threaten your industry with investigations if you don't give people loans isn't exactly a "free market" principle. Actually, the entire idea of Fannie/Freddie isn't "free market", but that is a discussion for another day.
How do you know the numbers of House Republicans who are refusing to vote for it? Hell, on the Senate side, Sherrod Brown said this morning that even he wasn't completely sold on the bill. I wonder if he didn't get the Dem talking points?
Well, I didn't realize that was being disputed. I thought everyone agreed that very few House Republicans were willing to vote for it, including the Republicans.
I didn't know that about Bush. I don't know how I would be labeled . . . being a small business owner, I hate the idea of bailing out businesses where CEO made millions of dollars while running a business into the ground. (Guessing the gov't would never bail me out if I ran my business into the ground) But if it means we enter a depression if we don't bail them out . . . well then bail the assholes out I guess.
The Democrats can pass this in the House right now if they want to, and there is nothing the GOP members could do about it. So again, tell me, who is playing politics?
Yet if this is such a "crisis", and if the Dems have the votes to pass the bill that will save us...help me out here.
The issue is he blatantly lied to Letterman. Normally, nobody would give a rat's ass. Right now, though, a lot of people are saying McCain's tactic is a gimmick, a lie. That there was no good reason to suspend his campaign. In the earlier clip, Letterman castigates him for lying about having to urgently return to Washington immediately. McCain didn't go back immediately as evidenced by the live feed, and on top of that he actually spent the night and had breakfast in New York. As Jon Stewart pointed out, he could've walked to DC in the time it took him to finally get there. It's not about Letterman. It's about how fake and posed and comical McCain comes across in this little skirmish, and how it undercuts the whole, "I need to stop everything and go to Washington immediately to save the country!" line. Letterman, Leno, Killbourne and Jon Stewart all joked about the whole thing last night. There's bound to be some undecided voters talking about it today. This isn't Watergate, of course, but in a tight election it's not good at all for McCain.
I'm confused (as always) I agree it is all a poltical game. I don't know what else to say. And if it is not a crisis, why is McCain using it as crutch to avoid the debate? And if it is a crisis, why are some repubs fighting it? And if it not a crisis, why is Bush calling it a crisis? I don't know what the hell is going on, but you really don't think it is only democrats that are playing politics here do you?
And if anything . . . it had great entertainment vaule. Again thanks for the link I would have hated to miss that.
(A) McCain is going to the debate tonight, and (B), I imagine the GOP members who oppose it don't agree that this is the optimal solution. That said, if the Dems believe in their bill, and if the President will sign it, then what is the hold up?
Well I'll answer again, politics? McCain is going to debate tonight because he basically had no choice. But he did his best to delay it. Why did he suggest delaying it? let me answer that . . . politics. Why did he pick such a clearly less qualified VP than his other choices? Politics. Both sides will make decisions based on the upcoming election . . . you don't get that?
