Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Democrats Run For Cover

[This post has been UPDATED twice three times.]

Readers will not be surprised, or disappointed, that I haven?t added my two cents to the apparently ongoing conversation about our financial crisis. As a former graduate student, I feel perfectly comfortable saying that?s not my field. But there is one political point I?d like to make, primarily because I haven?t seen anyone else make it.

The defenders of the Paulson plan argue that the survival of our financial markets depend on its passage. This conviction is shared not only by both President Bush and his administration but also by the Democrats. For example, late yesterday afternoon, according to the Washington Post,

[t]he leading Democratic negotiator on the Bush administration?s $700 bailout plan accused John McCain of undermining the proposal and prodding House Republicans to lay out a wholly different approach that is opposed by the White House.

?This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country,? said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. ?This is McCain at the last minute getting House Republicans to undermine the Paulson approach.?

Now, here?s my question: if Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et. al. are convinced that the Paulson plan is ?essential for the country,? why don?t they simply pass it? They control Congress and have the votes.

In the past Congressional Democrats have had the courage of their convictions. They passed Clinton?s tax increase in 1993 without a single Republican vote. Today?s Democrats, by contrast, with the fate of the country (in their own view) hanging in the balance, are begging for ?cover.? As Time magazine put it,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demanded that [House Minority Leader John] Boehner get at least half of his caucus ? or 100 members ? to vote for the legislation so that Democrats are not left passing this still very unpopular bill by themselves less than two months before the election.

Indeed, Congressional Democrats are so fixated on ?cover? that they assume that?s all anyone cares about.

On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had explicitly called for McCain to use his influence as party leader to bring House Republicans along. ?We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us,? Reid said. ?We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do.? Reid explained that McCain was crucial to any deal because his approval of a deal would give congressional Republicans political cover necessary to sign on to a bipartisan agreement.

?Country First?? Not with these guys. In fact, I?ll leave you with a question that, at this point, remains only hypothetical:

If McCain manages to persuade the House Republicans to accept a compromise that is also acceptable to many Democrats, do you think Pelosi, Reid, Frank, et. al. would prefer to have

a) A solution for which McCain would receive credit; or

b) A financial meltdown?

UPDATE [10:15 A.M.]

Nancy Pelosi said this morning that the rescue of U.S. financial institutions ?will happen because it has to happen.?

But she added that a deal would be up to House Republicans who balked at the $700 billion package being negotiated by congressional leaders and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and who have given no sign that they will support it.

Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have said that President George W. Bush has to deliver a large number of Republican votes for the politically unpopular bailout to pass Congress.

Saving the country by themselves, without the ?cover? provided by House Republicans also signing on, would simply be too, well, ?unpopular.?

Nancy Pelosi, Profile in Discourage.

UPDATE II [1:05 P.M.]

According to the fearless Frank,

Ms. Pelosi will not bring a partisan bill to the floor. She will not say that we?re going to have a one-sided Democratic bill that is attacked by the House Republicans in response to a request from George Bush. That?s not good for the country.

Let me get this straight. Ms. Pelosi is so committed to bi-partisanship that she will not bring a bill to the floor that she believes is ?essential for the country,? even though the core of that bill is the creation of a Republican Secretary of the Treasury and a Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve and is strongly supported by President Bush (has Pelosi forgotten that he?s a Republican?) and his administration, because a bunch of recalcitrant House Republicans remain critical?

Funny, she?s never seem to care that much about their opinions before. She doesn?t want bi-partisanship; she wants unanimity.

UPDATE II [1:30 P.M.]

Michael Barone on the substance of Pelosi?s bi-partisanship:

Obviously, Pelosi is looking out for the political fortunes of her Democratic colleagues. The bailout/rescue package has been getting middling to poor responses in polls and furious responses from constituents who don't want their tax dollars sent to Wall Street....

Oh, now I get it. Pelosian bi-partisanship means protecting her cowering Democratic members, who are unwilling to do what is ?essential for the country? unless they are immune from Republican criticism.

Full post as published by Discriminations on September 26, 2008 (boomark / email).