Shelby: Tie Us Down, We Love It!

Curious comment from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) after the President's Grrrrrr-eat Society speech:

"It's also a big commitment on the part of the president, and he's committed to Congress, even perhaps tied us down to doing more than some people wanted to do -- not more than I wanted to do, but more than some."

Refresh my memory: Are the senators employees of the president, or part of some other branch of government?

Some of Shelby's fellow Republicans appear less inclined to view President Bush's request as a command, which is potentially good news for America, but shows why Katrina continues to be a loser both ways for the GOP: Bush's outlandish promises show the Republicans don't have anything going on philosophically, and the guaranteed-to-be-underwhelming followthrough will show they don't have anything going on practically.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

Parties don't have philosophies. It is impossible for a two party system to have philosophically coherent parties. Every issue will be grabbed by one coalition or the other, and it is just not the case that there is a possible configuration of not-whatever-the-donkeys-do that makes philosophical sense.

Even if there were a coherent philosophy, it would have been swept away by the flood along with everything else. Crisis crushes philosophy.

[Brian]

I dunno. If the goal is to grab as much tax money and shovel it to your friends and leave the taxpayers holding the bag, I don't know if it is a loser for the GOP. That appears to be what the GOP is all about now. I think in the con man biz they call it a "bust out". Remember the Tech Bubble? In its end stage they were doing IPOs for garbage like B2Bs and the goal was to fleece the last remaining dimes out of the rubes before it all fell apart. That's what Katrina reconstruction is: one last big haul. That's why Rove is running it. He knows better than everyone who gets a cut and how much.

[Morat]

Well, those in the House are employed by Tom Delay. I'm not sure how many Senators he owns, but I would imagine he's contracted out to them through various lobbyists.

Don't get me wrong -- government is ALWAYS going to be corrupt. There's just too much money and power to hope for any less, and the only tools really available to combat it are enforced transparancy and a vigilant and oppositional media.

The GOP has been spending it's time since 1994 working on the former -- a process which got a lot faster when 9/11 became a good excuse -- and the media stopped being oppositional when Clinton left office. I mean, jeez, the attention they lavished on that guy's dick must have exhausted them.

Then there's the sad fact that Bush -- even at 40% -- is more popular right now than the general Republican name-brand, and you put the GOP in quite the pickle. A large chunk of the GOP base is personally loyal to Bush, and they really don't know if what will happen if they cross Bush to hard.

This wasn't really a problem when Bush had popularity, because Bush didn't need to go to extremes to keep himself on top. That's less true now, and it's stuck a lot of GOP politicians in a painful place. Oppose Bush and lose some unknown fraction of their hardcore base (perhaps even face a nasty primary fight) or go along with him and lose some unknown fraction of the REST of their voters.

I see it breaking down like this -- Bush's hardcore worships the man. He can do no wrong. And most of them are quite...fervant...about it. They're unlikely to forget for awhile. If you cross Bush, they'll mount a wingnut against you in the primary and you might lose. On the OTHER hand, if you don't cross Bush you'll probably find a primary challenger anyways -- this one focusing on fiscal sanity -- and you might lose there. And even if you WIN the primary, you're face with your base split in half -- either the Bush loyalists are pissed (and likely to stay home) or the moderates and independent types are pissed and liable to vote Democratic to "teach you a lesson".

It's a crappy box, and even the shitty-ass political strategists the Dems have can probably win a decent number of seats by exploiting it.

[trainwreck]

Tim why are you playing naive with us? Party loyalty transcends Constitutional imperatives.

[SP]

Not sure I understand what you're saying here...

... the only tools really available to combat (government corruption) are enforced transpar(e)ncy and a vigilant and oppositional media. The GOP has been spending it's time since 1994 working on the former -- a process which got a lot faster when 9/11 became a good excuse ...

You're saying the work of enforcing transparency sped up after 9/11? I thought the conventional wisdom was that Republicans have been enforcing more secrecy and suppression since the terrorist attacks.

[saw-whet]

"guaranteed-to-be-underwhelming followthrough" Bingo!

[Morat]

SP: Sorry -- I forgot a few key words there. 🙂 The GOP has been spending it's time since 1994 (elected to 'reform government') paring DOWN transparency. It got really bad when Bush took office, and became something of a fetish after 2001.

The history books, when everything finally sees the light of date, are going to be damn interesting.

[SR]

"if you don't cross Bush you'll probably find a primary challenger anyways -- this one focusing on fiscal sanity -- and you might lose there."

How frequently is a GOP incumbent targeted by a primary challenger for being too loose on fiscal policy?

[Crushinator]

Bush has officially announced that the trough is open. Expect the snouts of Halliburton, Bechtel, and all the other "connected" firms to nuzzle deep into our bank accounts.

The Bushites have experienced a short-term drop in popularity due to their incompetence in crisis management. But the circling vultures will provide the Bushites with a thick wad of operating funds in the form of kickbacks, "commissions", bribes, and campaign contributions. Katrina will boost Republican chances in the 2006 elections - it is the cover story for a major transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to Bush cronies. Why do you think that Carl Rove was put in charge of the reconstruction effort?