Maybe Bi-partisanship Is The Answer

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 14:43

Check out the partisan breakdown of the bailout vote. It was extremely bi-partisan:

The vote is closed. The bill is defeated. 205-228 -- there was a last, and I mean really last, minute switcher. A Dem, switching from yea to nay. Could have been a yea voter looking to move to reconsider. Partisan breakdown: 140 Dems for, 95 against, and 65 Rs for, 133 against. One non-voter, and that was Jerry Weller (R-IL).

What I really love about this is how people came together, regardless of party, to defeat this bill, not pass it. It is also just about the only time I can remember where a bi-partisan alliance from the right wing of the Republican Party and the left swing of the Democratic Party came together to defeat the middle. They had different reasons for doing so, but it was an effective alliance none the less.

In fact, that the bi-partisan alliance against the bill had different reasons for opposing it is what actually made it, and will continue to make it, so effective. With the poles opposing the middle, concessions in either direction will result in losing votes in the opposite direction. In other words, there might not be any way to bridge the divide.

It is pretty sweet that the least partisan vote on major legislation that the House has seen in a few years actually defeated the elite DLC / country club Republican interests who are the loudest public proponents of bi-partisanship. While the calls for bi-partisanship are typically based in elitism, this time around bi-partisanship actually defeated the elite consensus, rather than supporting it.

Fun times. This isn't a victory yet, but I am very happy right now.

Update: Roll call vote is here. As was noted in the comments, the votes cut across not only party lines, but also ideological lines within parties. Really, all over the map.

Chris Bowers :: Maybe Bi-partisanship Is The Answer

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

while I'm not happy (4.00 / 2)
And probably would vote for the bill, it is at least reassuring that you can't just appear and ask for a trillion dollars for an unpopular cause and get it within two weeks.  

The government, oddly enough, shows it is functioning with this vote.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Can you guys get with it! (4.00 / 1)
we need a coordinated action effort. we need lots of calls to particular law makers. and when people call they need a short list of demands. we have a very small window of opportunity. and we need to be coordinated across the big websites. the onus is on the publishers to coordinate this. please get it going.

our goal MUST not be do nothing.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

better dems are on the roll call (4.00 / 1)
some of the better dems or netroots candidates who voted no, Blumenauer, Edwards, Kucinich, Rodriguez, Lampson

some bush dogs voted no too. This really cut across ideological lines.

New Jersey votes (0.00 / 0)
Blue Jersey has the New Jersey votes on bailout (6-7 overall).  

The retiring Repubs went for it, as did a few Democrats (including the very good Rush Holt), but it really does not break down along any usual lines.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Rush Holt voted for it .. (0.00 / 0)
if for nothing else .. for Pelosi .. and because as a Committee chair ... he's part of the leadership .. heck ... even Pelosi voted on this one(even though Speakers normally don't vote unless the vote is really close .. or a tie)

[ Parent ]
roll call (0.00 / 0)
click here

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

Last time the left and right defeated the middle (0.00 / 0)
in a prominent way was the immigration bill, IMO.

No, I do not weep at the world — I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
    Zora Neale Hurston

then again (0.00 / 0)
the NY delegation was very much for the bill. overall, they voted in favor by a margin of 25-4. of 23 dems, 22 voted in favor as well as all but 1 of our 6 GOoPs.

we loves us us some bailout in the empire state.

It's time:the albany project.

too true (0.00 / 0)
i apologize for the behavior of the state of NY. I've called my reps no less than 10 times this week so far, and told lots of friends to do so. its the best i could do.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
short... (0.00 / 0)
one market is healthy today...short selling loft space in the financial district.

[ Parent ]
Wall Street jobs. (0.00 / 0)
NJ and CT voted for, too.

Farm Belt tended to vote against, but not urban Reps from Farm States

This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

[ Parent ]
My NY representative (Gillibrand) voted against (0.00 / 0)
Of course she is in a competitive race and doesn't represent NYC, but still, I'm very happy with her right now.

[ Parent ]
I won't be celebrating. (4.00 / 2)
I wouldn't be so smug, Chris.  The bailout could be reversed if there was a problem with it; more banks failing, credit drying up, and our economy plummeting into a bad recession, cannot be reversed.  Hope you can live with that.  The Dow won't reflect the real problem, which is the credit market -- it's going to get worse.  Much worse.

I DISSENT from the netroots, and I am a "Main Streeter", regular person.  I studied the issue, and felt this bailout was necessary.  Why precisely was a nay vote so great, when the GOP leadership had to lamely say that Pelosi's speech hurt their feelings, and that's why they voted against it?

Math is FUNDAMENTAL (0.00 / 0)
140 + 95 = 235


Introduce a more progressive bill.  Horse trade with the few Blue Dogs and centrist Republicans that you need to keep on board and dare the White House/Senate not to pass it!

This was a bad bill that no one wanted to own.  Now Dems have to be the grownups (again) and hopefully they will get a better bill through the congress by next week.

[ Parent ]
You Won't Get an Answer (0.00 / 0)
While I agree with most of the politics of this site, there are times I don't.  This is one of them.  With most blogs, this included, they don't do much if any real reporting and little real research outside of pure politics.  Chris doesn't understand this issue.  Matt doesn't understand the issue.  Most people don't.  I admit that mine is pretty limited, but compared to the purveyors of this site, I might as well have a Ph.D. in economics.  When you say credit, all they think of is card, which, by the way, they may not be able to use in the future if credit really gets tight.  Read the fine print on those agreements boys.  They can suspend your credit for just about any reason.

Most of us who while not liking the bill supported its passage had pretty good reasons for doing so.  Some on the other side had some good reasons, but most of the hysteria against it was they did not want to "bail out" Wall Street.  I've not heard much in the way of solutions, especially solutions that would get wide spread support.

I have a friend who owns a promotional product business.  He has about 20 employees.  He actually does much of the production locally in Northern Virginia.  He's not rich.  He's middle class.  He doesn't have a pile of cash to buy supplies.  When he gets a large order, we needs credit to buy supplies to make the products to sell.  Without credit, he cannot produce goods.  He cannot sell goods.  He cannot employ the 20 people.  He goes out of business.  So as the boys of this site gloat over their "victory", they should look at the $777 drop in the Dow, the $199 drop in the NASDAQ and the $106 drop in the S&P and know that it affects much more the investment banks and stock brokers.  Unfortunately, youthful ideology sometimes gets in the way of practical solutions.

I would love to read real reasons, not "screw Wall Street", why this bill should not pass.  And with those reasons, I would like to hear legitimate solutions.  The Thom Hartman solution was great, but you wouldn't get most to vote for any kind of tax increase a month before an election.  The only way it would have a chance is with a Democratic Congress and President, and you would probably need 60 seats in the Senate.  At best, you're looking at the last week in January, 2009 to get a vote.  By then, I don't think things will be very good.

Doing nothing is not an option.  It's a cop out.

[ Parent ]
Thinking politically... (4.00 / 1)

  I'm an agnostic on whether we need to do some sort of bailout or not; there are smart people I respect on both sides of the issue. (I'm fully in agreement with the idea that we don't need to throw $700 billion at Paulson.)

  But POLITICALLY speaking, this is a good outcome for the Dems. The fundamentals of the 2008 election favor us, and this vote was so all over the map that it doesn't really change either party's branding. The Republicans don't get to pretend they're sudden populists, and the Democrats didn't suddenly become the Wall Street party. And that helps us.

 For now, anyway. With one really bad Dow day today, I would think that public opposition to a bailout has probably softened, and the Dems' hand just got stronger -- they can craft a much more progressive bill that would get more popular support, and pass it without Republican votes.

 It would be nice if they'd take the opportunity.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Yes, all over the place (0.00 / 0)
From the NC delegation, neither "Bush-dogs" Etheridge (yes) and Shuler (no) or reliably partisan Miller (for) and Butterfield (no) could agree. This is called "a total failure of leadership." And the crisis in confidence over the leadership of president Bush has bled over to the Democratic leadership as well. That some progressive caucus is going to step into the void and lead us out of this mess seems pure fantasy to me. In times of crisis, America usually swings right.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

Top Bi-Partisan Recipients (0.00 / 0)
Securities & Investment Sector: Top Recipients

Candidate                  Amount    Voted
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL)      $600,500  Aye
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) $362,720  Aye
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)  $329,850  Aye
Paul, Ron (R-TX)          $313,129  Nay
Allen, Tom (D-ME)         $277,640  Aye
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)$269,050  Nay
Udall, Mark (D-CO)        $249,568  Nay
Kirk, Mark (R-IL)         $243,850  Aye
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA)  $241,849  Aye
Bean, Melissa (D-IL)      $207,100  Aye
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL)    $206,900  Aye
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)     $184,499  Aye
Cantor, Eric (R-VA)       $176,800  Aye
Frank, Barney (D-MA)      $176,400  Aye
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY)    $171,550  Aye
Klein, Ron (D-FL)         $166,700  Aye
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL)       $166,040  Aye
Murphy, Chris (D-CT)      $164,290  Aye
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA)  $154,750  Aye
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $154,325  Aye


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox