Clueless

One problem, Joe — the bailout isn’t necessarily popular with Democrats either. By that I mean average Democrats, not our Senators. When I see that BofA needs billions more to buy Merrill Lynch my blood boils. I’m not sure we should give them the money. Also, TARP hasn’t been transparent and seems to have been badly executed so far. The only thing I have to be optimistic about is a belief that Obama/Geithner will be better at it than Bush/Paulson was.

I’m not sure that congressional opposition to further TARP allowances is a game though. If it were up to me, I’m not sure I’d hand over the money without some concessions, more oversight and some results.

Joe, I’ve posted before that Congress is a lagging indicator of the will of the people. It’s important for everyone to know that none of the incumbent members of Congress have lost their jobs or their homes due to this economic crisis. Their lives have remained unaffected in a much different way than many of the voters who live in their respective states and congressional districts. I intentionally didn’t use the word constituents, because it’s obvious that members of congress constituents aren’t the votes in their states or districts. Their constituents are those who make large donations to their respective campaigns.
.
Unless and until they start to see their behavior negatively reinforced (i.e., defeated in primaries or a general election), there is no reason for them to change their behavior. It’s not that they’re clueless Joe, they’re intellectually and emotionally insulated for the realities of the citizens they are supposed to represent.
.
It would be fun to see some pundit chide them for violating their oath of office, but that ain’t gonna happen either.

This was one of the reasons I was vocal in defense of Obama during Bittergate and the ensuing use of the word ‘elitist’ as an attack bludgeon. There are a number of fields where expertise matters and some people actually DO know and understand more than the “Average Joe” on the street.
.
I’m confident that actually doing things that you know are stupid in order to appease stupid people is not quite what the founders had in mind as they were designing our constitutional system.

But Paul — doesn’t the average joe have some legitimate beefs here? Joe’s right that they shouldn’t be playing games but are you totally convinced that the TARP funds should just be released without some more oversight, some more public scrutiny of how the recipients have spent the money and so on?

I’m not reacting to the story. I’m reacting to the paragraph Joe cited.
The Republicans aren’t clamoring for oversight. Their clamoring for control.

“The point is, why waste the effort if the bill is going to be approved, ultimately, in any case.”
.
Joe-Do you plan on continuing to write about the republican obstruction on future bills? If not, then there is your answer.

The hard-right dominated GOP believe that government is the problem and they never miss a chance to prove their theory.
They’re not conservatives, just opportunistic contrarians.
Was it Naomi Wolfe who said being a republican at this time in history is a character defect? There seems to be a lot of evidence to support this claim.

Joe Klein:
.
I don’t get it.
.
Why shouldn’t the Republicans represent and effect the will of their constituency?
.
What’s the problem? Why does there need to be bipartisan consensus, especially if the thing’s going to pass?
.
I don’t fault the Republicans for legitimately representing people with whom I have fundamental disagreements, do you, Joe Klein?.

The Democrats play their share of politics and have had plenty of ham-handed moments in power the last few years. But at least they’re trying to get a few things done in Congress.

This quote clearly shows why the Republicans have failed so miserably lately. They claim to be the party of “Joe the Plumber,” but in reality they’re too busy wrapped up in politics and playing to the base to care about the actual crises now ongoing in this country.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Stuart,
-
The problem with Republicans representing and effecting the will of their constituency is problematic in two parts.
-
1) Their constituency includes the likes of Joe the Plumber and Sarah “Moose Hunter” Palin. Now, I like plumbers and being from Texas, I see nothing wrong with hunting. But I have had it up to here with idiots trying to land the 747! We need to stop F’ing around and put some experienced pilots in the cockpit. The runway is full of potholes and the wind turbulence is making the rest of the cabin motion sick.
-
2) Their constituency includes BIG BUSINESS! And by golly, BIG BUSINESS, hell, SMALL BUSINESS desperately needs a bail-out. They (all of the big banks especially) have been run so poorly that they are on the edge of collapse. Yes, I have heard the argument that we don’t need banks to have an economy, but the problem is that we do NEED a financial infrastructure. And the current infrastructure is so intertwined with our big banks that if they fail the economic bridge (currently, to nowhere) WILL collapse.
-
3) Economic consensus is about getting your pilot and co-pilot to act cooperatively. You don’t want to be trying to land the plane while your pilot is giving left rudder and your co-pilot is giving right yoke. Trust, me in most situations it won’t end well. This is about sending clear, concise signals to the market and the world that this where the ship is headed.
-
4) I don’t blame Republicans for representing people with whom I have fundamental disagreements, but I will not sit idly by and watch them play games either! In this economy and these situations, you either lead, follow or get out of the way! This is no time to lay blame, point fingers and pontificate about economic theory. It is a time for action. You can figure out who wasted money later when the economic ship has been righted.

Joe gets upset when he’s not able to rant using someone else’s previously published arguments. The game he so likes to armchair quarterback has a new interface so he has to manufacture criticisms that even clear thinking liberals can’t get behind.

Poor Joe!

.

“…why anger the base in the name of good policy…”

Because the collective good supercedes whether or not you get elected next year, Senator…Or, in terms most of his Repub base can understand:

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind…Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Shame on ya, Senator.

Stuart,
I think Joe’s point is that Senator Bennett erroneously believes that effecting the will of his consituency will better get himself re-elected, rather than voting for good policy. In the end, the political implications of the vote by these public officials will be
gauged by the success or failure of the policy, and not by how closely it adheres to an ideology.

“Why delay all the other important work that Congress has to do? Yes, yes: to get re-elected. But that strategy doesn’t seem to be working too well for the G.O.P. in recent years, does it?”
.
You can thank the DFHs anytime you’re feeling up to it Joe, for doing the job you were supposed to. Bush and the GOPs tragic flameout and the chronicling of it by real investigative reporters and liberal bloggers (finally forcing the corporate press to report) is the only reason the public now has a clue what the Republican Party is really all about.

Great stuff, Joe.

I wouldn’t expect many liberal democrats to be elected by the Mormon base in Utah, ya think? This is all about political self preservation, and of course fund raising.

From the article:

The matter might not make it to the House, however. This disapproval resolution is not allowed to be filibustered, so it only needs a simple majority, 51 votes, to be defeated.

.
First, the article makes it sound like the lack of a filibuster makes it more difficult rather than less difficult to pass? Huh?!?
.
Second, does anybody know why it can’t be filibustered?

gysgt213 wrote: ‘Do you plan on continuing to write about the republican obstruction on future bills? If not, then there is your answer.’
.
Precisely. In the past two years we’ve seen a historic level of senate vetoes and obstruction from the GOP. It was rarely reported in the MSM and most people were completely unaware of it. Republican senators were routinely quoted decrying the ‘do nothing’ Democratic majority without being forced to defend their own behavior.
.
When asked about the GOP’s obstructionist strategy, Trent Lott said (in April 2007): ‘The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. … so far it’s working for us.’
.
The only way to hold the GOP accountable for continued obstructionism is to make the public be aware of it. As long as the media ignores GOP vetoes and delaying tactics, the republicans will continue to use them.

Here’s an interesting suggestion on what to do with the money and how to hold the banks accountable. Not much discussion on this by members of Congress, because that would upset their constituents the financial lobbyists and potentiall distrupt the flow of cash to their campaign war chests.
.
These suggestions do resonate positively with me, just your average voter, whose opinion and concern doesn’t amount to much in Washington these days.
.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/15/what_should_be_done_with_the_next_350_billion_of_t/

Joe, we all know what the GOP does, the question I have for you is: Why did it take you so long to call them out on it?

If there weren’t so much at stake I’d be happy to see Republicans obstruct economic recovery, then see what arguments are made to the entire electorate – not just the holy Base – in 2010. As an old lawyer friend used to say, “I’ll let you make that mistake.”

Yes, yes: to get re-elected.

 
And then to get pork in order to get re-re-elected, I assume?
 
So, why reward a contrarian who expects to line up to receive an undeserved share of goodies, anyway?
 
Since most of these guys come from red states anyway, where sprawl and carbon footprint and the rampant American lifestyle are found, it’s not just politics to tell them to f*ck themselves.
 

“If there weren’t so much at stake I’d be happy to see Republicans obstruct economic recovery, then see what arguments are made to the entire electorate – not just the holy Base – in 2010.”,/i>
.
I felt the same way about the 2004 election, i.e., will the GOP sufficiently own their failures in the public eye if Kerry takes over in the exact middle of the sh*tstorm. Who knows but it is bittersweet to see Republicans finally reap the whirlwind, since we’re all going to get blown around as a result.

Their constituency includes the likes of Joe the Plumber and Sarah “Moose Hunter” Palin.
.
This is the heart of the death spiral. The 23 percenters LIKE Palin, and think Joe the Dumber is right on point.

The United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals aim to cut world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it completely by 2025. An estimated $19 billion would eliminate malnutrition and starvation around the world. Our current defense budget is $522 billion, in comparison.

The Borgen Project (borgenproject.org) provides lots of information about this issue.

Karl Rove lives!
.
He must be laughing somewhere as his philosophy of putting the scoring of political points well ahead of implementing needed policy continues, unabated, among the Republican braintrust.

Commenters:
.
Thank so much for responding to my confusion in lieu of Joe Klein.
.
I’ve read these responses carefully, and I’m wondering if anyone can help clear up something for me:
.
What’s the difference between the Republicans in power ignoring the clear will of their base in order to ostensibly effect good policy, and the Democrats ignoring the will of their base, again ostensibly to effect good policy (“precipitous withdrawal”, anyone)?
.
Isn’t the result that the people who vote for candidates in order to influence their government are rendered powerless by an often condescending, accountability-free, would-be technocracy?

stuartzechman,
.
A better example would be the Democratic senators who voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. Nearly everyone in Washington knew before Bush was even sworn-in that Cheney and his band of lunatic neocon ideologues were going into Iraq, regardless of events. This crew simply used 9-11 as a jumping off point for a policy they were going to implement anyway.
.
How convenient.
.
The Dems who voted for it did so for political purposes (in most cases). Kerry and Clinton thought they may be running for president in `04 and didn’t want to appear “soft” on terrorism. They voted “yea” strictly on political grounds, particularly in Kerry’s case who had voted against Gulf War I.
.
The result of their political gamesmanship is thousands of our own citizens dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and a trillion dollars down the toilet, not to mention a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. Treasury to politically-connected firms with no-bid contracts.
.
Like our current economic crisis, putting politics before policy only hurts the average Joe who is, at present, deperately trying to keep his job, stay in his home and pay for his kids’ college educations.

“Isn’t the result that the people who vote for candidates in order to influence their government are rendered powerless by an often condescending, accountability-free, would-be technocracy?”

In a word, yes, unfortunately.

@stuart
A leader can represent his constituency and educate them simultaneously. The Replicans of late on the other hand have relied on and encouraged ignorance.

It’s a toughie. I don’t want to be ruled by an aristocracy, nor by the moron majority.

Stuart,
-
Palininatowel has this pegged. I would only add that we live in a representative democracy. I think the technical term is a republic. Because of this I vote to elect persons for various positions to make decisions for and on my behalf. Now, if I don’t like those decisions, in some cases the person can be recalled, impeached or simply I can withhold my vote when they come up again for reelection. But Joe the Plumber has not been elected to run anything more than his mouth. He gets one vote for each person that has an office which can represent him. What we don’t get to do in republic is run down to the courthouse every time there is a decision to be made and vote. We don’t get to sit around dictate every single vote so that it complies with our wishes. That is not the way a republic operates. And if the Sarah Palin supporters and Joe the Plumbers don’t like it, they don’t have to live here under the Constitution. They can move to Canada or Brazil or the Bahamas, but those are the rules here. They always have been and shall continue to be so until the union ceases to exist.

I truly appreciate the responses, commenters.
.
I’m still having trouble reconciling
.
“

I vote to elect persons for various positions to make decisions for and on my behalf. Now, if I don’t like those decisions, in some cases the person can be recalled, impeached or simply I can withhold my vote when they come up again for reelection.

”
.
and (from a recent Greenwald piece)
“

Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it’s best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It’s always better — far better — for a politician to know that he’s being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don’t.
.
Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs. That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway “journalists” and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative “What Would Dick Do?” cover story for this week’s Newsweek).
.
If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to “help Republicans,” or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to “tear him down” or “create a circular firing squad” or “be a Naderite purist” or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes. Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain “robust” interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying: “it’s not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time”?

”
.
Is there something I’m missing?

Stuart,
I think you are trying to reconcile the science of politics with the art of politics. The science is made up of the rules and procedures of government, as bryanfromhouston described above. Our representatives are free to make their own decisions, by the letter of the law. We, as citizens, are prescibed certains tools by which we can hold our representatives accountable, including recalls and elections. The art is made up of all the other stuff that our representatives have to consider when making decisions. What Greenwald is describing, is part of the art of politics. We, as citizens, have the ability to effect the decisions our representatives make by applying private and public pressure. Our representatives decide how much their decisions will be affected by pressure from their constituents.

Is there something I’m missing?
.
You’re not missing anything. Citizens always have to make their representatives do the right thing. They’re only politicians, after all (even the better ones).
.
“I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
–FDR