History is Happening Now

It’s Thursday night at about 10:15 p.m. Here is what’s going on right now, if I understand what I just saw on television:

1. Congressman Barney Frank, D-MA, cancelled an appearance tonight on The Rachel Maddow Show so he could attend an emergency meeting with House Republicans to try to crank out a plan to bailout the economy which is teetering on the verge of depression.

2. The House Republicans — who care more about their party than their country and know that most Americans do not support the $700 billion plan now on the table — refused to meet.

3. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won’t allow a bill to go before the House unless it has significant bipartisan support. In other words, she won’t have Dems passing a $700 billion spending bill to bail out Wall Street without Republican support, which Republicans aren’t ready to give because they care more about winning an election than the economic future of this country.

4. Congress was getting close to agreeing on a bill today, until Bush — under pressure from John McCain — held a meeting at the White House with Congressional leaders and both major party candidates. The meeting unnecessarily injected presidential politics into this issue. Barack Obama reluctantly attended, but when he arrived he represented the Democratic position forcefully, while McCain effectively refused to take a position, frustrating the other attendees.

My predictions/fears: It will be quite a while — a week at least — before Congress passes a bill to bailout the economy. Over the course of the next week, the stock market will become increasingly volatile as the financial world loses confidence in Congress’ ability to act. Finally, Democrats will be forced to pass a wildly unpopular spending bill which will be attacked by Republicans as unnecessary. Democrats will spend the next decade trying to convince a skeptical public that this bill was necessary to save the economy.

The takeaway: John McCain and House Republicans would rather see another Great Depression than face personal embarassment or political losses. They are the opposite of patriots. From this point on, any Republican who questions the patriotism of a Democrat deserves a punch in the face. (But don’t punch him/her yourself — take the nonviolent approach, please.)

It’s hard to convey in words the horror we should all feel watching/reading this:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

The best I can do is direct you to this parody in the New Yorker by George Saunders.

I’ve been reading through the transcript of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric.  When I read this part of the exchange, I felt an irrepressible urge to whip up a blog post:

Couric: You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie – that, that’s paramount. That’s more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He’s also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about – the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.

At first, my mind was racing excitedly with all sorts of sarcastic comments about Palin’s clear inability to answer Couric’s question, or even to artfully lie, her clear failure to meet the standard we should all except of someone who might soon be a heartbeat away from the oval office.  All sorts of partisan zingers were bouncing around in my head.  I was ready to attack. 

But the more I reflect on this exchange, the sadder it seems.  I am sad for the state of our democracy.  Sad that the news media has to act as if Sarah Palin is a serious candidate.  Sad that there are some people — serious people — who might read this exchange and genuinely not see anything wrong with Palin’s responses.  Sad that one of our two major political parties, whatever the content of their policies, would think to nominate (by fiat, mind you, not via election) someone so clearly unable to answer a question coherently.

I mean, I understand that our democracy is largely bought and paid for in a million overt and subtle ways, but can’t the major parties at least nominate competent bought-and-sold candidates?  Is that asking too much?