Patterico's Pontifications


President Bush and the House GOP

Filed under: Government,Politics — DRJ @ 2:04 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

President Bush fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld one day after the 2006 midterm elections, and GOP members felt Bush’s refusal to cut Rumsfeld loose before then seriously hurt their ability to retain a majority in the House.

Now, two years later, President Bush floated his bailout plan so quickly that both Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders were stunned. President Bush was apparently willing to trust the Democratic leadership to pass his bailout bill and he seemingly made little or no effort to get prior support from GOP members in Congress.

This gives a new meaning to the phrase “October surprise.”

But I won’t be too surprised if the bailout ultimately passes with only Democratic votes and a full package of Democratic pork and programs.


25 Responses to “President Bush and the House GOP”

  1. Perhaps it will pass with all that ACORN and other pork after the elections when dem reps don’t have to worry so much about getting elected and facing angry constituents. Fact is Nancy P. couldn’t even pass the bill with her dem majority in House. Of course Obama is spinning and the media will pin failure on Bush leadership.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  2. Could George W Bush sign a $700 billion taxpayer funded bailout bill which Democrats passed on a party line vote in both the House and Senate? We just might get an answer next week.

    Just what repercussions might that have on John McCain’s campaign?

    Ropelight (1be620)

  3. In the end, the Democrats themselves could have passed the legislation without Republican support…so the opposition had more to do with ant-bailout sentiment than anything else, terrible legislative additions notwithstanding.

    Richard Romano (b96fd9)

  4. Ropelight,

    I think President Bush would sign it but I don’t know how it might impact the McCain campaign. I’ll leave that headache for Thursday or whenever Congress takes up a new proposal.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  5. “Could George W Bush sign….”
    Comment by Ropelight — 9/29/2008 @ 2:19 pm

    Yes! It’s what the Bush’s do. Both father and son play Hamlet in the Oval Office. The Bush’s have increased the size of independent voter registration with each administration. Yours truly included.

    C. Norris (807b20)

  6. The problem with buying 25 votes is that you end up buying 50. Expect a lot of Turnip Museums, canals and study contracts.

    Hey…. Maybe our LA Congressfolk can get some subway money!

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  7. They better look around before the next vote and see if there is anything to save!

    Another Drew (dfc67f)

  8. The only thing I dare ask of evil is for it to be revealed. The same holds true for the Democrats. If we can just see them in the daylight, we can fight them.

    JSM continues to give Reid and Pelosi cover, though. If he doesn’t cease, it won’t matter anyway.

    Ed (385e88)

  9. This is a truly loathsome bill, but it may be a necessary one.

    My primary concern is one I haven’t heard addressed yet. While European markets are tanking as well, they might not get hit as hard, and OPEC might take the very regrettable decision to price in euros instead of dollars. If that happens, count on the dollar falling fairly significantly, and the price of oil skyrocketing.

    That, to me, is the real threat: it would trigger an inflationary spiral like we haven’t seen since the 1970s, as fuel would become a disproportionate part of our expenses. The price of fuel impacts everything, as everything we buy in this country is delivered by a truck at some point.

    The worried Dana (556f76)

  10. Hastily crafted legislation is almost always bad legislation. Unfortunately, the dems will be able to pass a much worse bill with tons of pork and earmarks with no republican support and get a lot of credit for passing a credit crisis saviour bill. Mccain and the repubs will lose in a landside, then since the bill will be much worse, we will need to enact much worse socialist legalstation (fdr typ) and be deeper in socialist system that the rest of the world is trying to escape from.


    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  11. Just saw McCain on TV. Same old double talk. The old fighter pilot is having trouble finding the target. He’s up in the air and some of his long range systems are inop, he can’t see the enemy is hot on his tail and closing fast. I give him one chance out of three.

    Ropelight (1be620)

  12. That is certainly one possibility and, if the Democrats have no sense of responsibility, that is what will happen. I wish I had more confidence that they cared about the country and had not gone over completely to the Marxists.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. Have any of those politicians explained what the crisis is?

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  14. Here’s the way it may play out :
    1) Today’s bill failed because a) too many Dems thought it didn’t contain enough ‘pork’, and b) too many Reps didn’t like it on principle.
    2) The next version will contain all (and more) of the ‘goodies’ removed from today’s bill.
    3) Support from Reps will drop to near zero, and the Dems will be faced with taking full responsibility for the bill.
    4) In that case, it will fail to pass due to the reluctance on the part of Dems to be held solely accountable.

    Rich B. (a42df0)

  15. Speaking of California…Mayor Villaragosa emphatically called for talks to resume and get this bill passed because it will help Americans be able to remain in their homes‘. Los Angeles has been the hardest hit city by the subprime mortgage meltdown. More foreclosures there than anywhere.

    Nice to see Villaragosa having the taxpaying, responsible citizens in mind …always thinking of the American citizens, he is.

    The Sarcastic Dana (4d3ea0)

  16. “Just what repercussions might that have on John McCain’s campaign?”

    More tantrums and lolz, is my prediction.

    imdw (23c2b4)

  17. If the Democrats do pass a larded u bill, McCain can run against them saying he got 64 Republicans to vote for a clean bill but the Democrats, with a majority, couldn’t get it done. Now, the
    “do nothing or worse” Congress has made the situation worse.

    How that will play and whether he is willing to do that is an unknown. I’ve been wanting him to run against Congress but the crisis ruled that out until now.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  18. DRJ

    Have you read Beldar?

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the number two House Democrat in authority (behind only Speaker Nancy Pelosi), in defending his party from responsibility for the defeat of the financial stability bill today, delivered the all-time lamest excuse I’ve ever heard (my transcription from video on the PBS NewsHour; boldface mine):

    “No Democrat that we could get to vote for the bill didn’t vote for the bill.”

    Behind that tortured double-negative is a tautology. This is empty double-talk — delivered by the dishonest, intended for the gullible.

    Pelosi, sometime over the weekend, decided that letting the economy tank for Obama’s campaign was the best thing to do. And her hysterical partisan rant right before the vote was just part of it.

    Darleen (187edc)

  19. Exactly, Darleen, together with her rant calling the GOP “unpatriotic” for not attending a meeting that they were not in fact invited to.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. Rich B,
    “1) Today’s bill failed because a) too many Dems thought it didn’t contain enough ‘pork’, and b) too many Reps didn’t like it on principle.”

    Flaming left wing folks like Jim McDermott (Seattle) voted ‘yes’. So it wasn’t ‘too far to the right’.

    The Democrats that voted no, beast as I can tell, are mostly Blue Dogs. The “Conservative Democrats” – who presumably didn’t vote against it for lack of left-leaning programs as opposed to sheer unpopularity.

    Al (b624ac)

  21. The public is furious at Congress over this and they are showing their courage. The question for me is whether McCain can run against them. Or if he would. Truman did in 1948 and won. He could say that he tried and Pelosi torpedoed it.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  22. What the hell can Bush be thinking? He’s a lame duck. Why doesn’t he do the right thing and at least protect his legacy? Instead, he lines up obediently behind Pelosi and eco-guy Paulson! Who’s the Boss?

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  23. Tomorrow there will be front-page headlines about financial catastrophe. The public will be for some kind of bailout tomorrow, no question. This will provide political cover for enough Reps to vote for it, and some version will pass this week, after the holiday.

    Most likely it will be very liberal, with hard CEO compensation limits, home foreclosure protection, etc. All the things Republicans love to hate.

    Here’s why. I had the opportunity to talk to Rep. Mark Udall yesterday (he’s running for Colorado’s Senate seat), and he told me that his calls were running 50-50 between “no” and “hell no.” The political pressure was immense to vote against this thing, but Frank, Pelosi, and Boehner figured out a deal where half of each caucus would vote for it and neither side would have to bear the brunt of the political fallout.

    Now, I imagine the Democrats have learned to stop playing football with Lucy. And what’s the Republicans’ excuse? Pelosi gave an extra-mean speech. Patrick Edaburn:

    But if you see the bill as necessary and important to our economy but voted against it because someone said something you didn’t like, that is DISGUSTING.

    To put your personal feelings before your country is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    I have long contemplated whether I would remain a member of the Republican Party or not. This may well help me make my decision and you may very well see another post in the near future.

    Russell (af1493)

  24. I saw Udall tonight on TV. He seems like a village idiot to me.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  25. To put your personal feelings before your country is WRONG WRONG WRONG

    Maybe he should be saying that to Pelosi and ilk.

    Darleen (187edc)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2970 secs.