Beyond Here Lies Nothin'

"Now what?"--Robert Redford, from "The Candidate."

On July 15th, GOP house member from New York, Peter King, told a radio station that the GOP strategy should be a "combination of being against what Obama's for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for." He followed by saying "Having said that, I don't think we need to lay out a complete agenda from top to bottom, because then we would have the national main stream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue."

In other words, offer next to nothing.

I mean really, what agenda are they talking about? One need only look at every major focus of the Obama administration to see what the Republicans are offering as a counter point is no more than well, "No."

Let's start with the vilified stimulus bill. Nearly everyone in congress agreed that we needed a stimulus bill to goose the porous economy left behind by the Bush Administration. While it's certainly fair to argue over what "type" of stimulus was needed, that isn't what happened. Democrats pushed for a large stimulus that was focused on infrastructure, a middle class tax cut, and state aid. To get three measly Republican votes, the Dem's cut the bill's expense by nearly 25% and loaded it up with additional tax cuts. Then, these Republicans who voted against this bill, showed up at ground breaking ceremonies to cut the tape on projects they didn't support. Now, most economists think the bill was too small and too loaded with tax cuts. What did the Republicans offer instead? I don't remember. Do you?

Next came the battle over health care. Most Democrats wanted a public option, if not single-payer. Instead, Democrats turned the bill into a big wet kiss to the health insurance companies, and still had to pass the bill without a single Republican vote. While nearly everyone agrees that our national health care system is a mess, not one Republican could be found to vote for a bill that is modeled after the law Massachusetts passed during the Mitt Romney Governorship, and looked an awful lot like the alternative that Bob Dole offered the Clinton Administration way back in 1992. Both Republicans, if you're scoring at home. Think about it, they couldn't even get behind something that was their idea in the first place.

When this whole sorry process started, there were three Senate Republicans (Grassley, Snowe, and Hatch) who were negotiating with a group of Democrats led by Max Baucus to broker a deal. But as the summer got hot with Tea Partiers and town hall criers, Hatch then Grassley backed out. Hell, Grassley even embraced the "death panels" and "government takeover" nonsense of the right wing talk show hosts. Clearly, the Democrats did not have an honest partner. Even though the bill was loaded up with over 100 Republican amendments, there wasn't a single vote to be scratched from the right side of the aisle.

After that came the battle over the Financial Reform Bill that the President signed into law just last week. Despite the near collapse of our financial system, the tax payer funded bailout of said system, and the continued rancid behavior on the part of the banks, the bill had to be watered down to gain three Republicans (Collins and Snowe of Maine and Brown of Massachusetts) and find passage. Is there anyone who can recall the Republican alternative. I am searching my mind and only hear crickets.

Last but certainly not least has been the fuss over extending unemployment benefits. In the past, when the unemployment rate has been particularly high, this was a bipartisan issue. Of course you extend unemployment benefits in an economic crisis. Now, even this is a political issue for the Republicans to say "no" to. Their reason? The deficit has to come first. They would only support the extension if it was paid for.

Funny then, when the discussion of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire--as they are scheduled to later this year--they are far less concerned about the national debt. They claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves by creating more jobs. Really? How many jobs have those tax cuts created lately?

And here's the thing, the cost of extending unemployment benefits was $34 billion. A lot of money, no doubt. But the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts? $700 billion. Yet the out of work middle class has to justify their desperately needed benefits with an offset, whereas the rich need to do nothing.

Let's think about how we got in this mess in the first place. Not only by doing nothing, but actually by doing less. Over the Bush years, regulations and taxes were cut. Wars and a variety bills were put on the card. Oh, and that bank bailout that everyone hates? That came from Bush too. But here's why I hate it: Not because I don't think it was necessary (I do), but because it was passed without setting any expectations with those banks. It was just a grand giveaway that required almost nothing from the banks except to say "Yes sir, I will take that money, sir." So in the end, we got out of control bonuses and the continued tightening of credit that is still strangling small businesses and therefore, the economy itself.

It seems the only time Republicans want to do anything for anyone is if the person asking has INC. at the end of their name.

But here's the scary thing for me and my progressive friends: They are winning. Chuck D once said that "If you want people to say no to drugs, you have to give them something to say yes to." I hate to say it, but it looks like Chuck was wrong. A large number of people are saying "no" to the current administration's efforts to fix this broken land even though the Republicans are offering nothing other than more of the same crap that got us in this mess. Why? Because they are real good at messaging. That step out of the shadows in near lock step and repeat the same misinformation over and over until people accept it as gospel.

Even though people hate corporations, the deficit, unfunded wars, and this wretched economy, they are poised to turn over more seats in the mid term elections to the Republicans who caused this disaster. It's amazing really, they have managed to both make the weather and complain that's it raining. But here's the slightest of silver linings: If the Republicans do win enough seats to take back the House, Senate, or even both, it could well be the worst thing that could happen to them.

Because if they do, they will then have to lead. Which will be trouble for them, because when they reach into that fat sack of ideas they claim to have (but don't want to show), I got a real good feeling that the bag will come open and reveal...nothing. No ideas other than more of the same. Shame on us if we let that happen.

In 1972, Robert Redford starred in a movie called "The Candidate" about an empty suited politician who claimed to be "for the people" running against the corrupt establishment. At the end of the film Redford's character is swept into the Senate behind a message of misinformation and clever use of the media. After the election is over, Redford's jubilant staff burst into the winning politician's room to find a shell shocked candidate. Surprised by Redford's demeanor, they asked what's wrong? Redford replies, "Now what." Now what, indeed.

Sumo-Pop
July 17, 2010