they voted down yesterday’s bailout bill and that’s a good thing. so speaking as one who has been extremely outspoken in her criticism of the party I would like to say thanks for that.
less praiseworthy of course are the reasons they put the kibosh on this bill, and those are far from noble — a pattern that extends to the democrats as well, one that provides a a crystal clear example of just how cynical our entire governmental process has become.
looking at the roster of naysayers and yaysayers from yesterday’s vote reveals two very distinct camps not at all split along party lines but according to whether or not they are up for reelection in november. those that are voted almost unanimously against the bailout and those that aren’t voted in favor.
looked at one way, this can be viewed as a positive thing: our elected officials obeying the will of the people as expressed in hundreds of thousands of emails and calls.
but what about the rest of them, then? if short-termers were obeying the will of their constituents, does it mean the others ignored that same will. and if so. in favor of what?
oh. politics. that old ugly thing.
so political considerations outweighed the will of the people for those politicians who felt they had nothing at risk, and almost all of them went with the “politically correct” option.
in other words, if we’re not in the very shadow of an election, or if your representative is on his or her last term, what YOU want doesn’t matter. what the citizens of this country want is only important as a subsidiary concern in pursuing political success. nice.
yet there’s something even more important missing from this picture and it’s the one thing that we specifically elected these bozos to do: weigh all the aspects of the proposal and make a clear, unbiased recommendation of what you think the very best course of action is. in other words to use the brains god gave them, let their consciences be their guides, and then do the right fucking thing.
doing the right thing for the sake of the right thing has been entirely obliterated from our governing process.
standing up for a principle that you truly believe in is considered naive. foolhardy. it’s inexpedient. you can’t get things done that way.
and so we have made ourselves hostage to a congress of liars and fools who daily demonstrate the truth in the saying if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.
it absolutely sickens me.
and you?
and what can we do about it? what happens here if the whole nation stands up and acknowledges that the emperor has been naked for quite some time?
Recent Posts:
- more on moron rick warren
- is rick warren insane? or simply retarded?
- don’t drink the water — it’s spoiled
- XXX-rated santa
- On Gaza [a guest post]
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
There will be a bailout, but the House Republicans are going to have it their way. Or not. It could get voted down again. And the political games go on. I have to admit my 401k has taken a huge hit and I’m wondering if the bailout fails, if there will be anything left. I’m against the bailout, but I want someone to explain it to me like I’m a five year old why I should favor it.
“weigh all the aspects of the proposal and make a clear, unbiased recommendation of what you think the very best course of action is”
Refreshing point of view. When do people like you and me ever get “bailouts”? Perhaps, sometimes, doing the right thing is doing nothing at all.
I agree the Republicans were right to do what they did, although it made me nervous! If the bill was so good, the rest of congress could have supported Pelosi and pass it.
There will be a bailout, because we don’t have enough liquidity in the economy. This started with FannieMae’s push for “affordable mortgages” so we can’t tell people with those mortgages and the banks that hold them to just “eat it.”
But hopefully we’ll get a very scaled-down version. And while they’re at it, congress needs to stop clowning around and get the corruption out Fannie Mae so this stuff doesn’t happen again.
Is it possible that Republicans voted this down because it required too much oversight over bailout funds and the check was insufficiently blank?
Leave a Comment