FW: [Peace-discuss] Another Democrat betrayal

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>The question is, why have the 
>latter acted differently and blocked a matter of obvious importance to big 
>business?  Part of it is that some of them really believe the ideology
(small 
>government, etc.) that's been their smokescreen for a generation.  The rest
is 
>that they're far enough down the food-chain not to have been forced
covertly to 
>adopt the interests of the few while they proclaim what they take to be the

>interests of the many.

Hmmm!  In all honesty, I have to ask if these were the reasons (or even
significant reasons), why has it not shown up with more frequency and with
respect to other sorts of legislation?  Why is this piece of legislation the
one that produced the rebellion?

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:50 PM
To: Stuart Levy
Cc: peace-discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Another Democrat betrayal

Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:16:52AM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Altho' the bailout is in the interests of the rich and against those of
the 
>> (much more numerous) poor, it's instructive that the Senate Democrats,
the 
>> Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats all support it.  But the deal

>> fell apart last week because the *House Republicans* wouldn't support it.

>> Why not? Because their mail and phone calls were running 10-1 against it,

>> and the House Republicans are reflecting the views of their constituents,

>> while the others (Pelosi et al.) are protecting the interests of the rich

>> -- with some interesting exceptions, like Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).  
>> --CGE
> 
> Do you think that's why?  Surely it's not only the House Republicans who
are
> hearing from their consituents.  (Sherrod Brown, D-OH, mentioned last week
> that his office was hearing something like 99-1 against, and I'm sure
> he's not alone.)   The Republicans do have other goals, such as
eliminating
> corporate taxes and the capital gains tax -- if we didn't think so before,
> both of those provisions were in *their* proposed bailout plan.
> 
> If the House Republicans have thrown enough sand in the gears to block a
prompt
> and successful vote, that's a good thing, but I hope we don't go thinking
> they're doing out of populism.

I think that is the reason. Senate Republicans (and Democrats) share the
same 
pro-business goals as the House Republicans. The question is, why have the 
latter acted differently and blocked a matter of obvious importance to big 
business?  Part of it is that some of them really believe the ideology
(small 
government, etc.) that's been their smokescreen for a generation.  The rest
is 
that they're far enough down the food-chain not to have been forced covertly
to 
adopt the interests of the few while they proclaim what they take to be the 
interests of the many. It's an interesting glitch in the business control of

government.  But we're prevented from seeing it if we hold to our faith in
the 
Democrats as the "party of the common man" [sic]. --CGE
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss