by Teh Nutroots | Well, well, well.
House Republicans rose up en masse against their vice president on Tuesday morning to blast an administration proposal that would grant Treasury historic authority to start buying hundreds of billions of dollars in devalued mortgage-related assets, according to members present.
The lines to speak were long, the questions many and sentiment in the Cannon Caucus Room Tuesday swayed heavily against the Treasury proposal.
Afterward, Texas Rep. Joe Barton took the unusual step of telling reporters that he had politely given Cheney a piece of his mind – the sort of dissent Republicans considered unthinkable during much of the Bush administration's reign. (Politico)
Re: Cheney, Ron Beasley says: "It's a bitch being a lame duck bully."
Hennessey and Josh Bolten, Goldman-Sachs alumni like the Secretary of the Treasury, had to endure a "barrage" of "tough" questions. For example: Why was the bailout necessary? How would it actually work? Why was this plan better than others under consideration? (It isn't). (Politico)
You know. The kind of questions the lockstep-marching Republicans would never, ever, ever have considered asking in the past.
More to the purpose, as John Cole points out, to give themselves deniability and push the blame for whatever happens onto Democrats. Politico notes:
A full-throated Republican revolt could create huge problems for the administration and congressional Democrats scrambling to assemble a package to reassure jittery markets. It could also preserve the Republicans’ options after the fact – if the bailout doesn’t work or proves deeply unpopular with voters, they can say they opposed it. (Politico)
John Cole says, and seems so far to be correct.
Watch the Democrats fall for the trap anyway:... Stupid is as stupid does. For christ sakes, Democrats. Gingrich. Remember him?...
Obama sliding into the trap....
I just get the feeling that no matter what happens, we are screwed.
Digby's worried too. Obama campaign and Democrats: PAY ATTENTION. Apparently McCain is about to set himself up as the champion of reform and the critic of Wall Street.
Look, McCain has a long history of playing both sides. The most egregious example was when Harry Reid allowed him to carry the ball on torture (surely this honorable man wouldn't go back on his word on something so important!) and he ended up enabling it. More recently he backed the legislation that exempted the CIA from following the Army Field manual which prohibits torture. Earlier this year he ranted like Huge Chavez on crack against the Boumadiene decision. And yet, he still claims publicly that he is against torture. If the most famously tortured ex-prisoner in the world can play both sides on that issue, then is there any doubt that he is a bad faith actor on the economy when his political future is at stake? Please.
If McCain feels the political need to vote against this measure, he'll have no compunction about stringing along the Democrats until he gets them so far out on a limb that they can't backtrack before he decides that he just can't betray the hard working people of America by voting for it. He sold his soul long ago. He's not going to rediscover it a month before the presidential election.
Dan Winer thinks Bush and Cheney will both be gone by the end of the week. A merry thought, but doubtful.
OTHER POSTINGS
Krugman Says: "Daddy Doesn't Know Best." We Say: "Our Tax Dollars? Our Rules."
Limbaugh's Latest: Get a Load of This...
Ride the Wayback Pony: The George W Bush Singers Sing "The State of the Union"
Comments