The following is a brief missive in its entirety from independent congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan on the failure of the financial industry bailout in House today:
As of this writing, the corporate welfare plan was rejected by the House of Reps.
It is a bad bill, and any of the amendments were only put there to try to pull the wool over our eyes.Votes:
Democrats: 141 voted “yea” and 94 voted “nay”
Republicans: 65 voted “yea” and 133 voted “nay”
So the bailout was rejected 227 to 206—-with Republicans killing it.It is just “back to the drawing board” for the corporate elite: Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Boehner and Bush..we still need to push for a bottom-up bailout!
55 responses so far ↓
1 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm
God bless the Republican Party!
2 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Hold on… It appears the vote is still open.
3 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Where do you see that GE? It seemed like it closed a half hour ago.
4 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Front page of Yahoo! Finance (Tech Ticker)
Is it outdated?
5 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm
No GE, it closed. They kept it open for quite a while after all votes were in and several Republicans switched from Nay to Yea–but we still blocked it.
As GE said, God bless those House Republicans.
6 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Yeah looks like the lead article there was written just a couple minutes before the actual gavel.
7 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Yahoo! is being extremely irresponsible for having that headline featured on their main page then: “House Rejects Bailout: Stocks Tumble but Vote Still Open” — it’s the “top story” (not “breaking news”)
8 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:49 pm
If you want to be sick to your stomach, read the comments in that article. There are people there who are actually saying the Congress was cowardly, voting to “save their jobs” instead of “saving the country.”
9 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm
A heroic day for me as a professional stock picker (my first on the job), I called ARD a short, and EZPW a buy. EZPW is one of the few stocks in the world up today. (URBN also a buy, has lost… But 2/3 ain’t bad).
10 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Well, I didnt think I’d ever see GE say this.
“God bless the Republican Party!”
11 Ross Levin // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It’s kind of funny. The usually vehement DailyKOS is silent today. Their whole reputation and website is built upon supporting Democrats, not liberals just specifically Democrats, and now that the Republicans led the charge in stopping the bailout bill, they have nothing to say. The House GOP became more anti-establishment than the House Dems.
Dennis Kucinich was on Democracy Now today, denouncing the bailout. Very interesting.
12 paulie cannoli // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Gotta give them some credit where it’s due. They saved the day, at least for now.
13 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Yes, this was an instance of the hardcore elite insiders vs. the less-so. It was reminiscent of the way things used to be, when there was an Old Right coalition across party lines.
What this will really do is unmask the Federal Reserve as the unaccountable secret government it is: They will just inflate to achieve the desire effect. Watch.
14 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Anyone know where there’s a list of the MC’s that voted for/against?
15 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Also of interest:
Tancredo votes FOR this, I suspect his support will plummet. I used to respect this guy too.
Rohrabacher voted against, despite all of Lew Rockwell’s bad names for him–Rohrabacher is on the best side of most issues, was once a radical anarchist of the Lefevre variety, and voted against this piece of crap bill.
16 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=647
There GE.
17 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Yuck it up now, you cretins!
18 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It seems that the liberal Dems voted against, just as the conservative Republicans did.
This is why third parties based on centrism are idiotic. The “center” is evil.
19 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Ge,
Im going to remind you that you said “God Bless the Republican Party” =)
Which reminds me (the God reference), have you read, “It Usually Starts With Ayn Rand”?
20 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“It seems that the liberal Dems voted against, just as the conservative Republicans did.”
Not as many,but yes. It seems that it was basically the anti-elitists on both sides that voted against it. Anyone close to the House Leadership of either party,and everyone in the middle. Not to mention about 35 more Republicans than Democrats voted against it.
21 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm
No, but the author is a neocon libertine ahole, so I have no interest in the book.
The Democrats who went against their party should be celebrated. Kucinich, Kaptur… It looks like pretty much the entire Black Caucus (I say Conyers, Kilpatrick, Jackson-Lee, Lee)
22 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
If only Ron Paul were running for pres…. Barack Obama and McCain supported the bill.
Of course, if Paul were running, neither probably would, and it wouldn’t have come this close to passage.
Or if they had, it would have been HUGE for Paul.
23 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“No, but the author is a neocon libertine ahole, so I have no interest in the book.”
Um, Tucille is an anarchist of the Rothbardian variety,not a Randian.
24 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm
No he’s not.
25 MattSwartz // Sep 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
This was awesome. Getting to see Michigan come back against Wisconsin and the Republicans stand up for limited government in one week is an embarrassment of riches!
I was expecting maybe 100 to vote against it, at the most. I guess all those phone calls worked!
26 Deran // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I’m pleased, and even surprised, the Democratic Left stood their ground. Kucinich and Lee have been denouncing this scam for a week or more. I bet Pelosi punishes them by with holding committee assignments.
And Sheehan is right in her analysis of this giveaway to the multinationals.
27 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm
GE,
He used to be a Randian, then a Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalist, but doesn’t say anything in this video about what he actually is. He seems to be either a non-Rothbardian anarchist or minarchist. Nonetheless, the book chronicles his early travels and adventures with Rothbard, Walter Block, and Ayn Rand—so it still seems to be a pretty good read.
28 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:39 pm
He doesn’t seem to me to be any kind of anarchist, but a Stato/tReason libertine who wants a big government to defend his right to wear a beard.
29 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm
GE,
Hardly. He seems to be a libertine minarchist.
Sometime, GE, you should make allies and build bridges. It is all fine and great to walk the pure dogmatic line, I walk mine too–but being a shrill advocate that pisses other people off is not a good way to convert them. This guy was once a Rothbardian, that is all im saying. And his book chronicles the birth of the Libertarian movement in the late 60s and 70s. Sheesh.
As for calling them “State/tReason”–I dont agree with them on a great deal of things, but they’ve accomplished a great deal for Liberty. I know many minarchists and anarchists who came to be libertarian because of their introduction to Reason Magazine.
30 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I am all for coalitions with Constitution Party, Green Party, Naderites, etc. It’s the Stato/tReason/Outright/Barr campaign types that aren’t. They’re only interested in “coalition” with the Establishment.
31 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Galt’s Gulch was a voluntary community. If you want to wear a beard, don’t live there.
32 Brian Miller // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I am all for coalitions with Constitution Party, Green Party, Naderites, etc. It’s the Stato/tReason/Outright/Barr campaign types that aren’t.
LOL!
Jason, you truly are a laughable jackass. Only a first-class ideological segment-of-one could lump those various parties together as the Evil Other.
33 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 7:54 pm
GE,
I dont agree with the guy’s ideological leanings–I simply stated that im for coalition building, as we all should be. And I’d sooner build coalitions with small government types than with socialists. I like Naderites, but I’d not soon like to live under the government they want to create.
34 Jeremy Young // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Oddly, some centrists voted against the bill too. This includes my Congressman (Blue Dog Baron Hill) and the entire delegation from Arizona (including centrists Ed Pastor and Gabrielle Giffords).
35 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The “centrists” who voted against it were likely simply responding to citizen pressure.
36 Jeremy Young // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Possible in some cases, but not in all. Pastor, for instance, is running basically unopposed (his opponent thinks the FBI implanted chis in his brain).
37 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:22 pm
For the record, my congressman is a Blue Dog too.
38 Brian Miller // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:24 pm
The bailout bill is profoundly unpopular with everyday Americans. The feedback has been strongly negative across the board.
The only people voting “yes” are those legislators who believe they’re “smarter than everyone else.” They position the Yes vote as “something they’re standing up for” rather than responding to constituent feedback.
Regardless, the good guys won for a change.
39 G.E. // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Brian – Those overlapping but in some ways distinct groups are united in the opposition to working with anti-Establishment non-libertarians.
40 Brian Miller // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm
… says the guy whose personal political hero is a 20-year federal employee who has no notable accomplishments.
Ouch.
41 Brian Miller // Sep 29, 2008 at 9:40 pm
PS, made any progress in eliminating that marriage license, GE?
It is hilarious to watch individuals in licensed marriages, for whom a simple legal no-fault divorce would liberate them of that burden, rage against marriage licenses.
Get divorcin’, son! Live liberated from the oppressive yoke of the state!
42 Mike Theodore // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Ol’ Barney Frank will have to blubber his way out of this one!
Gotta love the ol’ fool!
43 AnthonyD // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:06 pm
GE says,
“I am all for coalitions with Constitution Party, Green Party, Naderites, etc. It’s the Stato/Reason/Outright/Barr campaign types that aren’t. They’re only interested in “coalition†with the Establishment.”
Hayek says,
“It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true (classical) liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, HE HAS HARDLY ANY OTHER WAY OF ACTIVELY WORKING FOR HIS IDEALS.”
-preface to the 1956 paperback of “The Road to Serfdom.”
Methinks I’ll go with Hayek’s advice on the issue of alliances over G.E.’s. Sorry, dude.
44 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
AnthonyD,
10/4 good buddy.
45 AnthonyD // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Trent,
The unfortunate thing is that it does not appear to be an issue of strategy for many purists. That would be a comparatively easy debate to have. For many of them, it appears to be a psychological issue, a deep-seated desire to be alone, to piss off as many voters as possible.
46 Trent Hill // Sep 29, 2008 at 10:54 pm
AnthonyD,
GE is willing to work with me, a minarchist–so I dont think that applies to me. Although there was a time when he assumed I was dirt. Maybe still does, who knows. =)
47 paulie cannoli // Sep 30, 2008 at 12:59 am
Hayek’s advice may or may not have been the correct strategy in 1956. It got us where we are, anyway. GE is definitely correct in 2008.
Libertarianism will start to be relevant in the real world when it is reunited with its roots on the anti-establishment left.
48 darolew // Sep 30, 2008 at 1:35 am
No reason why libertarians can’t form coalitions with both anti-establishment liberals and small-government conservatives. Both of those groups get it right some of the time, work with them whenever they do.
49 G.E. // Sep 30, 2008 at 1:47 am
Brian – ElfNinosMom advises me against the divorce. There are a bunch of interventionist legal regimes that will initiate force against me, based on the fact that my wife and I have a daughter. Sorry. But I support the repeal of all those laws.
Anthony D – No comparison. Hayek is talking about the Establishment. I agree with him: No coalitions with the Establishment.
50 G.E. // Sep 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
Okay, Brian, how about this: I support gay marriage. I do and always have. I just think that libertarian energies should be devoted to repealing laws, not making new ones. So get off my back, bro.
51 G.E. // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:03 am
Trent, this one’s for you… From LRC:
52 paulie cannoli // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:15 am
GE:
Absolutely correct about Tancredo.
Wrong about gay marriage.
As long as regime marriage exists, it is no more tolerable to outlaw gay marriage than it would be to outlaw interracial marriage.
If laws against interracial marriage were still on the books and being enforced, I would likewise agitate against those.
Of course I’m for ending all regime involvement in marriage, but that is a much more long term goal.
Opposing marriage equality because it involves some trivial expansion of the state is like opposing drug legalization because there will be a new bureaucracy to regulate legalized drugs.
Yes, alcohol is regulated, but it is still far better than the way the regime handles other drugs. I would very much consider it an improvement if they created a new bureaucracy to handle other drugs the same way they do alcohol – wouldn’t you?
53 G.E. // Sep 30, 2008 at 2:22 am
Yeah, but I wouldn’t fight for that.
Once gay marriage exists within a state, then I’m obviously against repealing it without repealing state heterosexual marriage. But where it doesn’t exist, the principled stand is to abolish state marriage altogether.
54 Trent Hill // Sep 30, 2008 at 10:42 am
GE,
I long ago recanted my praise of Tancredo. For a while, he was a consistent opponent of illegal immigration and spoke about Constitutionalism. After a while, his votes on the war, his statements about muslims, and his general xenophobia soaked through—I no longer support him in the slightest.
55 Trent Hill // Sep 30, 2008 at 10:47 am
Paulie,
I’ll attempt to make this statement as one that appeals to an anti-statist leftist. Keep in mind I come from the right, I believe I have a pretty good feel for your views so I’ll do my best to create a meaningful metaphor.
The State is bad, and all involvement with the State is a bad thing. The State cannot give benefits, it can only steal and displace money in other’s hands. If the state gave certain “benefits” to blacks and hispanics (Call it Affirmative Action)–these benefits actually harm them. Same with State-instituted marriage. Marriage is a great institution, and so is Colorblind-hiring–but neither should be forced of fed quotas. Would you want to extend Affirmative Action benefits to whites, asians, and semites too? No, this would be an expansion of that state and its welfare. You would agitate to eliminate the affirmative action program alltogether, not “make it equal”.
Leave a Comment