TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
26.09.2008
The Peril for Democrats

The politics of this bailout bill are as fascinating as anything in Congress since the fall 2002 Iraq war vote. And I sense that, after a period where McCain's neck was on the line, things are now getting dodgy for Democrats.

Here's why: Negotiations with Republicans may have "blown up," last night. But Democrats very likely have the votes to pass a bill on their own. The issue is that, with public anger boiling, Democrats are refusing to pass a bill without ample support--and therefore political cover--from the GOP. Nancy Pelosi has let it be known she wants roughly 100 Republican votes to make this happen in the House.

This is all totally understandable from a political point of view. Why should Democrats take the fall in an emergency that affects all Americans--especially when much of the problem is traceable to Republican rule--and then watch the GOP pound them with populist demagoguery for the next five weeks? But that's the pickle Pelosi and Harry Reid find themselves in. 

Because if the fate of the economy really does rest on this plan, Democrats can hardly refuse to act just because the politics stink. So, channeling my inner Machiavelli here: If you're John Boehner and co., why not be obstinate, let the Democrats swallow the bitter bill, and then after passage start grandstanding about how Democrats used taxpayer money to reward their fat-cat buddies in New York City? Indeed, it seems that's where we're now headed. Boehner and Roy Blunt have been all over TV today reminding people that the Democrats have the votes here.I've never found either of those men very impressive as leaders. But it's worth remembering that their summer theatrics to pressure Nancy Pelosi over new offshore oil drilling, which initially struck me as petulant and desperate, wound up working: Pelosi backed down.

What does all this mean for McCain and Obama? Hard to say. I do wonder whether McCain would have been smarter to keep hemming and hawing on the bailout--and then come out against it after it passed. Perhaps he can still find a way to oppose whatever plan passes, assuming one does. But that would require admitting he'd failed at bringing everyone together and getting the right thing done. (One silver lining for Democrats: Republicans might find it hard to attack a bailout bill viciously if McCain supports it, should that ultimately be the case.)

And as for Obama, the more I think about this dynamic, the more I think he's been smart not to get too visibly invested in the whole process. There's some real danger afoot for Democrats here.

Update: It seems that Newt Gingrich has not only been egging the House GOP'ers on, but he's also urging McCain to, in fact, reject the bill and tie it around Obama's neck.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, September 26, 2008 2:13 PM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

mpatrickhendri said:

As soon as I saw "Peril," I knew this was a Crowley post.

The Republicans are a silly, stupid bunch if they think that sitting on their hands while the credit market contracts is good for their political fortunes. But then again, these are not serious people with serious ideas.

September 26, 2008 2:41 PM

blackton said:

Fine, let Democrats pass it, but first make Bush repeal his tax cuts on the wealthy from 2001, make it revenue neutral. If money is going to the rich, make it come from the rich. Make Bush blink.

September 26, 2008 2:44 PM

mkayser0 said:

Of course. The Paulson plan stinks, and McCain is ahead of the curve here.

Obama should proactively move to accommodate conservative criticisms, and should be gracious tonight in portraying McCain's motives.

The brownie points Democrats won yesterday were mostly ephemeral. They need to pivot: stop blasting Republicans for "obstructionism" and swiftly accommodate their substantive criticisms.

The problem with this analysis is that McCain may not know what the hell he's doing or what he wants. But he will probably come out against this bailout, and the American people will like that.

September 26, 2008 2:46 PM

teplukhin2you said:

mkayser - AMEN. Could TNR please get back to its progressive roots. This P.O.S. plan was an invitation to every arb and shark on Wall Street to stuff the public with sh*t paper, and cherry-pick the good credits for themselves. Good lord, Paulson's plan was even talking about including credit-card and student-loan sh*t.

Thank god the public, left and right, ordinary joes and wall street grunts, D and R alike, saw through it.

www.breitbart.com/article.php

September 26, 2008 2:51 PM

The Plank said:

I think Mike makes some excellent points about dangers facing the Democrats as they try to navigate a

September 26, 2008 3:04 PM

timteeter said:

See my comments below under "Least Surprising Bailout Negotiation Development."

Of course, if the Democrats fail to get the minimum number of Republicans (whatever that is), they can just do what the Republicans do all the time--get some very small number of Republicans to agree and then go around saying that it passed "with bipartisan support."  

Republicans have, for years, passed bills with, say, a dozen blue-dog Democrats signing on and then claimed they passed with "bipartisan support."  Why can't Democrats do the same thing?

September 26, 2008 3:09 PM

luispc said:

Yes Tep. One is not surprised to watch TNR caving into GOP-Cheney-Rove terrorist blackmailing politics. It has happened when they have fallen directly on the Iraq trap (rectius, on the Iraq disaster)

But I would never (EVER!) think they would cave into terrorist blackmailing politics + supply side economics + outrageus social unjustice + political and moral disaster (the package this Paulson plan is all about...)

And yes, "thank god the public, left and right, ordinary joes". They ARE what America is ALL about. "Ode to the common man". To his guts. To his sense of what's right.

September 26, 2008 3:14 PM

mkayser0 said:

Spin for democrats going forward: "We are pleased to finally have a negotiating partner in standing up against the excesses of Paulson's plan. We welcome the House Republicans back to the negotiating table."

September 26, 2008 3:18 PM

luispc said:

"It has happened when they FELL directly on the Iraq trap", of course.

September 26, 2008 3:29 PM

luispc said:

And on the specific subject of peril for the Democrats, Obama should take a lot of care and distance himself completely from this bailout disaster.

Since, if it stays within Paulson's outline, for Obama to support it will mean to contradict directly everything he has been saying on the failed "economic philosophy" Republicans endorsed (it is clear that this plan is all about "supply side", but on a grand, active, unshameful scale).

And if this plan receives some minor corrections such as the ones concerning CEO's payments, Obama should still keep away from it or he will be (rightfully) accused both of caving in + unconsequential populism.

Perhaps the only possibility is if this plan means a business investment for the tax payer as advantageous as the one Buffet got (Buffet's advantages should be considered minimum standard in what concerns tax payers' money, since this last won't even have the chance to choose to invest or not to invest...).

And even in this last case there is still one remaining problem: should money be "invested" (with the inherent risks) feeding a financial system that has proven itself to be a gigantic absorber of money and provider of unproductivity? Aren't those 700 billion going to be "multiplied" through speculative investment + mad consumption on Main Street? And isn't it likely that if this same god forsaken path is going to be pursued once again, the day will come when the monster comes back and asks for more and more and more? Until the day America has Zimbabwe's inflation and Argentina's peso?

Shouldn't the money be spent on real infrastructure or on real education benefiting  real people with real jobs. What do you want Americans to do with their lives? This last point is a political and moral one about the kind of society one wishes to live in the long run, but I've already made it many times on these pages...

September 26, 2008 3:48 PM

klongojr said:

"Of course. The Paulson plan stinks, and McCain is ahead of the curve here."

Bullshit. McCain has been behind the curve the entire time. If he was such a leader and a visionary why didn't he come explicitly for or against the proposal?

McCain is playing politics and the public isn't buying it.

Oh, by the way, looks like he broke the debate pledge was broken...

September 26, 2008 4:07 PM

The Stump said:

Mike makes some good points about the risks facing Democrats now that Republicans are saying, "You

September 26, 2008 4:24 PM

mkayser0 said:

klongo: I agree with you, actually. I think McCain has been floundering. But he does have a solid play moving forward (oppose Paulson on populist grounds), even if he may have arrived here through a series of mistakes.

It's like a train that falls off the rails, rolls catastrophically down a hill, and somehow lands right-side up on a different set of train tracks. Given McCain's impulsive nature, my guess is he won't miss a beat to exploit the new position he finds himself in.

But who knows.

September 26, 2008 4:32 PM

teplukhin2you said:

You can oppose Paulson on not just populist grounds but rational grounds, democratic grounds, progressive grounds, economic grounds...

September 26, 2008 4:40 PM

klongojr said:

"But he does have a solid play moving forward (oppose Paulson on populist grounds), even if he may have arrived here through a series of mistakes."

I agree. But for his own sake, he needs to take a position and/or offer substantive arguments for a compromise bill. After all, everyone agrees that SOMETHING must done by Washington to shore up our banking system.

Democrats often overestimate the intelligence of the electorate, but they may be onto something here. I don't think anyone is buying McCain's ploy of "Country First" because he LOOKS LIKE he's playing politics. He's hedging his bets by waiting for everyone else to react. Whatever his aim, he appears tenative, not bold. He's also runs the danger of looking like and the House Republicans are negotiating in bad faith.

Full disclosure: I'm a moderate Republican who voted twice for George W. Bush but supports Obama in this election.

September 26, 2008 5:36 PM

cal80 said:

I think this is a dangerous moment for both candidates.  Crowley points out that Obama is probably smart to stay on the sidelines.  On one level that is a good strategy because this is not a popular plan.  But he always seems to be on the sideline, waiting for someone else to make the first move.  First it was on Georgia, now with the economy.  If you are president, you are lead dog and can't wait on the sidelines.  At what point does the voter say to him, "Hey, decide what you are going to do and lead us!"  McCain tends to get out in front too quick, Obama hangs behind too long.  And you wonder why the race has been so tight.

September 26, 2008 5:51 PM

JosephCuomo said:

Michael Crowley-

The bailout bill, just in case no one at TNR noticed, is a REPUBLICAN BILL, generated by a REPUBLICAN administration's Treasury Secretary, a REPUBLICAN-appointed Fed Chairman, and a REPUBLICAN President, all of whom have warned, publicly, on national television, that if the bailout doesn't pass--and doesn't pass in a form close to that which they themselves have proposed--if it doesn't pass, then the country's finance system is simply going to collapse.

So tell us again, Mike, just how the hell does this bill suddenly get tied around Obama's neck?

September 26, 2008 7:28 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

If I'm not mistaked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created for the express purpose of regulating and subsidizing the mortgage market. The services and manufacturing sectors that are less regulated are actually doing fine now, the deep failures are in the subsidized and regulated industries.

But the Keynesian horse never seams to die no matter how much truth flogs it...

September 26, 2008 9:28 PM