Governance Loses to Ideology

Because I am recovering from some surgery, I was home today to watch the vote in the House on the bailout. I watched expecting a close but successful vote. I thought the warnings of dire consequences would force enough ideological voters on both sides to swallow hard and muster the votes needed from both parties.

I was wrong.

Instead, ideology triumphed over governance. Two-thirds of House Republicans refused to vote for the bill and the Democrats refused to force the needed votes from their side alone. The Democrats had supplied 140 votes for the bill. They asked the Republicans for something close to 80. They could only muster 65. Republicans in the House and the McCain campaign would later blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech which included criticisms of Bush economic policies for being "too partisan" and driving votes away from the bill.

That's bull. The most conservative members of the House Republican conference didn't want to pass it. They wanted a "market solution." I have no idea what that means when the credit market is failing, banks are collapsing and the Federal Reserve is using hundreds of millions of dollars to add some liquidity to the markets. The House Republicans by a 2/3 majority choose their ideology over anything else. They may have hoped the Democrats would step in to save the day and then they could spend the rest of the campaign railing against the "socialist Democrats." Never mind that the plan come to Congress from George W. Bush's White House. This time the Democrats would not play along.

I agree with the variety of voices who refer to this as a wide failure of leadership. W is weaker and more disconnected by the day. He couldn't even muster more than a vapid expression during his prime time speech last Thursday night. His fellow Republicans have abandoned him to save themselves. The leadership in both parties in the Congress had to balance electoral needs and governing needs. The Democrats mustered just what they promised and no more. The Republicans could not hold their votes. Neither wanted to take the blame for what has been labeled as "socialism for the rich." No one appeared capable of explaining why this does matter to the average voter. The drop in the stock market and the increasingly tight credit may soon provide the lesson.

The last quarter of the year is vital to retailers in this consumer driven economy. If credit continues to contract and consumers fear for the economy. Spending will not meet the needs of businesses and the result will be a further weakening of the economy. No one in Congress seems prepared to make this point and take the hit alone. Neither presidential candidate wants to take responsibility for the economy before being elected. (Though McCain strangely tried to take credit for the bailout passage before the vote. He later blamed the Democrats for its failure. This is what a failing campaign looks like.)

We are left with failing credit markets and a failing government. The latter can only deepen the problems with the former.

What will happen?

My best guess tonight is some sort of "mini-bailout." A smaller version of the bill to bid time at least through the election and perhaps until the new President and Congress hit Washington in January. Maybe only $350 billion for the markets to be reviewed by oversight committees before any more money can be spent. The only thing I am sure of is that the more the stock market falls, the more likely a bill passing becomes. Voters may not understand credit markets, but they know how to watch their mutual funds decline. When action is demanded, perhaps governance can trump ideology.

Sarah's Easy Task... Playing the Victim

In a few hours, Sarah Palin will give her speech accepting the nomination as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Unless she forgets how to give a speech or the McCain campaign tries to turn her into someone she isn't, she'll be fine. Her fellow right-wing social conservatives who fill the delegate seats will love her and cheer loudly. She'll look good on TV. The campaign will follow the speech by shaking off any criticism from the media as further "attacks" upon her. In fact, being a victim of the media will be part of the speech according to the released text. The blame the media counterattack will be fully under way and will, again, play very well to the Republican base that still sees the media as in the pocket of liberal Democrats. By the end of the night and through the day tomorrow the Republicans will try to declare Palin a great success and seek to push aside any further questions on her views or record.

Their efforts with her speech is part of the overall strategy the McCain campaign has set for this convention and, seemingly, the rest of the campaign that they are "change candidates, too." Yep, the party that has owned the White House for 8 years and had both houses of Congress for 4 of those years. The party in power is now for change.

Changing who is in power? No.

Changing the policies of the past 8 years? No.

Changing the Republican brand from the tattered wreckage left by W and his disasterous presidency? Oh, they wish for it so much.

Palin's pick is, as I previously wrote, a move by a campaign convinced it is losing and looking for something to alter the outlook. The Republican Party also wishes for a "do over" as they face losses in the House and Senate that will strengthen the Democrats hand next January. They seem fairly resigned to the congressional losses. They are desperate to save the White House as their own personal property.

McCain's campaign advisors realize that "change" is the overriding desire of voters in 2008. Like Hillary Clinton before them, they will try to sell themselves as the "safe change" or "familiar change" while Obama represents "risky change." The Democratic Party electorate didn't find Hillary's familiar change as enough of what they wanted. The general election audience is now asked to find John McCain as "the change you can feel comfortable with." Sort of "new and improved" like a box of detergent.

There is, however, nothing new or improved about John McCain or Sarah Palin. They represent the continuation of policies that have failed miserably and an ideology that hates government except when it can be used to help their friends, bully small countries or impose their interpretation of God's will on the rest of us. It is another playing of a familiar tune that was started with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. He was "the outsider" through his entire 8 year term. Then W, son of a president, ran as "the outsider." Now, it seems, a member of Congress for over 20 years is going to try the same theme.

This a theme Palin can play along. She isn't experienced. She isn't the crusading reformer they wish to play her as. Put Alaska is about as outside of Washington as you can get.

Now all they have to do is convince enough voters that the same party that has led 80% of the American public that the country is on "the wrong track" is the choice to change things. It's not impossible, but usually only works when the other party is so weak or divided you are the only real choice. Palin's efforts against the corruption in the Alaska Republican Party is an example. She could successful play "outsider" against the corrupt members of her party in a state overwhelming Republican.

But McCain isn't offering change from W's policy or Republican conservative orthodoxy. He's offering replacing W and Cheny with a war hero and a new chick. But don't look too close to the "new and improved" candidates. You ruin the illusion the marketing boys and girls worked so hard to create. Tonight Sarah Palin will play her part in this illusion.