The New Republic

Maybe they're happy, because they go to vote their district without actually having to spend a dime. Symbolic victories are so attractive because they're so cheap!

- AMVHuck

December 11, 2008 at 1:55pm

Ok, time to start thinking politically.  Make the Rs own this in MI, IN, OH, WI and MO.  Hell, throw some token ads up on the air and hope to get free media.

- prnoonan

December 11, 2008 at 1:57pm

Again, why is it so terrible for both labor and executives to take pay cuts that way if they still need bailing out then it won't be at the cost right now?

- kevincollins

December 11, 2008 at 2:04pm

It's times like these that Harry Reid's milquetoast weakness pisses me off. Mitch McConnell wants to filibuster the bill? Fine. Start the debate, fire up the CSPAN cameras, and force Republicans to filibuster the bill. In person. For at least four days. There are only two conceivable outcomes, politically: Either the public gets royally pissed off and forces the defection of enough Republicans to allow cloture, in which case victory to Democrats; or Republicans succeed in blocking a vote but in so doing must endure several days of what the Geneva Conventions regard as physical and mental torture, in which case individual Republican Senators will have learned a useful lesson about the consequences of threatening filibusters.

- rhubarbs

December 11, 2008 at 2:13pm

Rhubarbs -

If Reid had that kind of spine, Lieberman would currently be busy trying to figure out what kind of shine Reid likes on his boots.

In any case, I do agree with you. Bring back the actual filibuster, not this wussy "Okay, okay, by theatening, we take it as read that you'd actually do it" version we have today. It would make the Senate schedule a somewhat messier thing from time to time, but you wouldn't have the record for filibusters being adjusted upwards every year, because people wouldn't have the stamina for it.

- janus

December 11, 2008 at 2:32pm

Exactly.  With any luck the next four years are going to see a lot of wonderful legislation that will be utterly objectionable to this shit-eating fools, and Reid & Co. need to send the message right now, loud and clear, that the mere threat of a filibuster is worth precisely nothing.  If a handful of rockheaded gasbags want to thwart the will of the majority they'd better bring their phone books and prepare to suffer for their cockamamie beliefs the way it was intended.

- adaglas

December 11, 2008 at 2:35pm

Rhub: damn straight.

Uber cynicism alert. I bet if McCain had won the Republicans would be supporting this bill. I can guarantee that there are a number of Republicans who relish the idea of laying the bankruptcy and the subsequent job losses on the doorstep of Obama, in hopes of regaining power in 2010 and 12.

- blackton

December 11, 2008 at 2:38pm

blackton, I believe Republicans are as fundamentally anti-American as does the next guy, but you go too far even for me. Back in October, when John McCain staked his presidential campaign on being the shadow president who could go to Washington and get a deal done, these same Senate Republicans gave him the shaft by killing that bailout bill. They might hope for the outcome you describe, but the hope for that outcome does not motivate their opposition to the bill. They have other, differently mendacious, reasons for opposing the bailout.

I really think that class bias and anti-unionism have something fundamental to do with it. The more I hear Republicans talk about the UAW, the more I suspect that previous GOP contempt for unions as institutions has evolved into contempt for union members. They no longer want to save workers from unions; they want to punish workers for having unions. Regarding the larger class bias issue, I think Warren Brown only somewhat overstates it:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008120502198.html

- rhubarbs

December 11, 2008 at 3:11pm

Are we talking about 15 billion in loans? Too save millions of American jobs, or attempt to? Considering that's what's been spent in Iraq in the past six weeks, I'd say that's a bargain.

This all seems to be part of the "bring me a bigger shovel" strategy of the Republicans. I can't figure out what's dumber, not attempting to help millions of workers or sending Gov. Sanford to the airways to pitch the idea. You know, the same guy that helped bring that GOP economic magic to SC.

- mpatrickhendri

December 11, 2008 at 3:35pm

If the Republicans actually go through with this it could be the first shot of a libertarian revolution in Washington. Imagine, the most powerful manufacturing corporatioins and the most powefull unions go to Washington to demand a bailout, and Congress straight up tells them to file chapter 11 papers. If they follow through it will be an unprecedented and revolutionary policy move.

- cthulhu2008

December 11, 2008 at 3:50pm

Oh, the last gasps of political relevance from the ol' Kentucky obstructor.

- rozenson

December 11, 2008 at 3:53pm

Maybe the Republicans are not just going after union members, but trying to punish Michigan for breaking McCain's heart. That'd make as much sense to me as anything else they're doing lately...

- janus

December 11, 2008 at 4:00pm

I don't know but that blackton doesn't have it dead to rights.  If the problems of the U.S. auto makers continue to advance faster than their reforms and profitability, with the bailout structure and 'car czar' in place, then the Senate Republicans can indeed begin to paint a negative big-employer-plus-big-labor-plus-big-government picture in which they are the plucky defenders of market captialism and the Democrats and the Obama administration are the guys who used taxpayer money to featherbed a heavily unionized industry.

If they sense furthermore that there is only tepid support in the country for the Detroit bailout, then they aren't losing so much because it's not going to be the same as getting on the wrong side of a very popular Obama policy -- which, say, health care might easily turn out to be.  Here, there isn't a lot of downside for them politically, no matter how irresponsible it might be to block the package in terms of controlling unemployment and keeping a traditional industrial base alive.

There was also a good editorial in the NYT today that pointed out how the automobile CEO's are still forking over lots of $$ to lawyers to fight California's tougher vehicle emissions requirements while simultaneously swearing blind to Congress that, you bet, they can build to meet such emissions requirements and more!  No worries on that score.  The ludicrous disjuncture between what they say in DC and what they do to legally cripple any attempts to regulate emissions levels is just one more reason not to trust these guys or what they claim they'll do.

- ironyroad

December 11, 2008 at 4:25pm

I think Senate Republicans smell a bill they can vote for under a claim of duress. But they have to show a bit more suffering. The more the bill is diluted the more it appears it's only a Trojan the GOP will be happy to drive up to Barack's door. At best the current bill only postpones the brink for GM and Chrysler (Ford can starve a while) till W and Dick are transferring funds. At worst it's something Republicans really want to have Democrats begging for so when it's not enough they can say, "We said it was a bad idea...".

Didn't the GOP learn a few months ago they could agree (later if not sooner) because it isn't the money but how it's spent? Well, same with prescription drugs, education or any billions they concluded were OK after all.

This isn't about organized labor or the near term economy for the GOP. Pass or not this will be Obama's problem and the GOP is trying to figure the best way to disown it...in sixty days or so.

- michael

December 11, 2008 at 4:57pm

Rhubarbs writes:

I really think that class bias and anti-unionism have something fundamental to do with it. The more I hear Republicans talk about the UAW, the more I suspect that previous GOP contempt for unions as institutions has evolved into contempt for union members. They no longer want to save workers from unions; they want to punish workers for having unions. Regarding the larger class bias issue, I think Warren Brown only somewhat overstates it:

George responds:

I think that's true. And it speaks volumes regarding the manner in which the conservative political narrative has overwhelmingly dominated politics since the 1980s. Even after the 2006 and 2008 elections, when the country shifted over to the democratic brand, the George Will Syndrome still prevails. This is, in turn what is behind efforts to scale back or eliminate campaign finance reform measures as well.

George Will is incessantly focused on preserving the Founding Fathers' brand of democracy. In many elections back then, only the landed gentry could be trusted with the reins of government. Sure, he is now willling to include people of color and women in the quest for high office, but any and all forms of populism is tantamount to mob rule.

And, admittedly, up to a point, this not just a class prejudice. A democratic republic does need institutionalized barriers to keep the wiles of a demagogue from stirring up passions of "the masses". It is always about splitting the difference, in the end.

This sort of "class conflict" will truly rear its ideological head big time regarding the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama claims to have walked on picket lines, supported working people, and embraced the word "union" in solidarity with employees.

We'll see.

george walton

- iambiguous

December 11, 2008 at 5:24pm

Seriously, why is someone (DNC, UAW?) not up in the air with token ads in industrial states hitting R senators up in 2010 for this (Bond, Voinivich, Specter, Grassley).  Even if they claim to be for the bill, their support of the R leadership is killing its chances.

- prnoonan

December 11, 2008 at 5:52pm

Related Blog Entries

- Anonymous

December 11, 2008 at 10:50pm