Richard Spencer

September 29, 2008

I?m always wary of Left?Right alliances; however the fact that this afternoon a majority of the House Republicans?who’ve shown signs of right-wing deviation from the Bush-led GOP?teamed up with the Left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party to vote down the bailout bill is a certainly welcome development. Congress isn?t quite ready to ?put politics aside,? as Paulson, Bernanke, and McCain have been urging, and give massive welfare payments to investment bankers.

I do hope that the Bailout Lobby won’t succeed in brining the dissenting Demcorats in line by offering up a new bill with more regulation, expanded responsibilities for the re-nationalized Fannie and Freddie, and greater government control over CEO compensation etc.?that is, a “compromise” bill that would end up being, if it?s possible, even worse that what was defeated today.

In a highly informative radio interview with Antiwar.com?s Scott Horton this past week, Lew Rockwell mentioned that since almost everyone outside the Beltway and the Big Bagel isn?t buying what Paulson and Bernanke are selling, Obama could easily rally support across the heartland by opposing all Wall Street bailouts. Indeed, it would seem to be a ?duh? political decision as it?d be a good way for Obama to differentiate himself from McCain and depict himself as the real ?ain?t from Washington? reformer. Instead, in Friday?s debate, he tepidly nipped at the bailout bill around the edges and would have undoubtedly voted yay had the bill reached the Senate.

Obama?s choice derives to a large extent from the fact that he?s ultimately an off-the-rack liberal who views any government intervention as good intervention, even if it benefits the New York fat cats. The fact that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase compose three of the top four donors to the campaign of Hope and Change might just maybe have played a role as well.