(Now updated below the fold)
So tell me again why taking a principled stand and threatening to withhold your vote (and meaning it) is just a meaningless symbolic gesture, and could never, ever in a million years affect a politician’s stance on anything?
I just received an e-mail from Democrats.com, quite obviously a group as partisan as they come. Here’s part of it:
Friday: Last Chance to Stop Paulson’s Plunder
(1) Call your Representative at 800-473-6711 or 800-828-0498 or 202-224-3121 and say “No Bailout!”
(2) Find or Organize a “No Bailout” protest near you:
http://bailoutmainstreet.com/
(3) Visit your Representative’s local officeThe Senate’s 74-25 vote for Paulson’s Plunder came as no surprise, since the Senate is run by and for millionaires. So now it’s back to the House of Representatives, where we shocked those millionaires on Monday by defeating their bailout bill by 228-205.
A terrified army of corporate lobbyists is working around the clock to switch 13 votes, but only 7 have switched so far – Jim Ramstad (R-MN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and John Lewis (D- GA). Other possible switches include Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), John Yarmouth (D-KY), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). But others may switch from Yes to No, including Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Spencer Bachus (R-AL).
…
(1) Call your Representative today!
First check how your Representative voted on Monday (and note switches above): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xmlIf (s)he voted NO, say “Thank you for helping stop the Bailout on Monday. Don’t betray us now by voting YES on Friday, or I will vote NO against you on Election Day.”
If (s)he voted YES, say “I’m outraged that you supported the Bailout on Monday, and I will remember on Election Day. If you want my vote on Election Day, you must vote NO on Friday.”
Now maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me like Democrats.com is claiming that any success they had on Monday, and any success they might have today, is because a nation of energized progressives threatened to withhold their votes from Democrats (AND Republicans) unless they agreed to enact a progressive agenda.
A plan of action I fully endorse, by the way.
___________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Well, so much for the peasants with their pitchforks. No big surprise, I guess. Despite the best efforts of “Democrats.com”, House Democrats– who were already the bulk of the “yes” votes the first time around– led the way in turning coat as well. And so, the Ruling Elites have won yet another round.
The second time was the charm.
The House easily passed the $700 billion financial rescue package Friday after it was sweetened with $150 billion in tax breaks on a 263-171 vote.
The dozens of switchers from Monday’s failed vote cited a variety of reasons for doing so… Some said they were convinced by a phone call from presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). …
Democrats including Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Elijah Cummings (Md.), John Lewis (Ga.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), John Yarmuth (Ky.) and Betty Sutton (Ohio) were among those switching their votes to yes.
Yes, this bailout was initially engineered by Republicans. But the fact is that Pelosi, Frank, and for the second round of it, Obama, were the public faces of lawmaker support for it. Far more Democrats voted for it than Republicans, both times round. The Democrats own this bailout, through and through.
I wonder if the folks at Democrats.com are going to keep their word and try to mobilize their forces to vote out all the players who voted “Yes”.
Nah, who am I kidding. They haven’t got the guts. I mean, just look at their name. Democrats know that every member of “Democrats.com” is a vote locked in their favor, no matter what they do.
Still, even if Democrats.com can’t stomach the job, the rest of the voting public just might decide to do it for them…
I’d like to see a lot more of the detail in the amended Bill before declaring it in any way ‘progressive.’ If it’s had the usual pork-barrel treatment (and it’s gone from 1 page to over 300 with the amendments) prior to being passed in the senate then it’ll mean very regressive taxation over the next few years.
I am fundamentally opposed to bailing out the poor choices made by millionaires in the stock market, but I also find myself opposed in principle to bailing out the poor choices made by ‘Joe Six-Pack’ in the housing market. What happened to personal responsibility (or corporate accountability for that matter)?
The only people that’ll really end up getting hurt by this sort of bailout is, as usual, the middle class. The rich will either benefit directly from it or, being rich enough, will be insulated from the payback it’ll exact from the middle tier.
The poor, assuming they’re making payments on a home, will benefit from the mortgage assistance and will be spared the full thrust of the tax rises needed to fund it.
Regardless of that, the whole fiasco has played out in the worst possible way. They should have either left the banks alone to live or die (the market wouldn’t have liked it but they’d at least have known where they stood), or got the bail-out through immediately.
By allowing the situation to run for over a week, they’ve caused uncertainty in the markets and almost precipitated the crash that the bailout was meant to prevent.
James H, Democrats.com aren’t labeling the bill progressive. They’re seeking to block the bill from being passed. And yes, absolutely, the new amendments are full of pork. A $2 million “Excise Tax Exemption For Wooden Arrows Used By Children”? Who are they kidding?
Actually, I think this bailout, if it passes, will be quite beneficial to the poor. Because, you see, there would soon be so many more of them. And there’s strength in numbers!
As for how long it’s taken, I don’t see how it could possibly have played out any other way. Even assuming there had been a strong “do-nothing” faction, there still would have been a faction trying to push through a bailout plan as well. And since, nominally at least, it’s not a dictatorship, that meant going through all of the hoops that you need to in the Legislative branch. In fact, if anything, it’s all gone distressingly quickly.
A thought just hit me. That was pretty stupid of me to label a measly $2 million amendment as pork, when the WHOLE BAILOUT BILL is pork. Pork for the legislature’s most important local constituency: Wall Street. I gotta get my sense of perspective in order.
And, after all the money that’s been chucked at the problem both in the States and in Europe (nationalisation of key banks in the UK, Iceland and Ireland, and state-backed guarantees of all savings in Ireland, Germany and possibly the UK and Spain before long), we’re still seeing massive falls in the stock markets.
It may take some time for Paulson to start making his billions felt, but the politicians certainly can’t claim a victory yet and I suspect they’ll be a long time waiting for the stability this bill is supposed to deliver.
I’d be interested in following the money to see which States end up having done best from all that stuffing (it won’t all be going to Wall Street). I suspect that the majority of them will be ‘blue.’
I also suspect that the passing of this bill isn’t going to make a huge difference in which House members get returned to Washington in a few weeks time. People have short memories and strong allegiances.