Sat 24 Jan 2009
Political Aristocracy
Posted by David under Mark Udall '72 at 6:07 am
Is Senator Mark Udall ‘72 just another politician?
The Senate today voted to give Wall Street another $350 billion today. The vote tells us a lot about the new Senate (you can see the full tally here – and remember, on this vote, a “yes” vote was a vote against releasing the $350 billion bailout tranche).
For instance, both Tom and Mark Udall (D-CO), who voted against the bailout in the House when running for the Senate, switched their votes to support the bailout. You may recall that Mark Udall said he was against the bailout not because he didn’t trust George Bush, but specifically because he was against voting for a bill that had no oversight measures. And yet now he’s voting for the same bailout that includes no new oversight measures. This suggests that the Udalls (like lots of political aristocracy) have absolutely no principles – that, in fact, they are the worst stereotype of politicians: The kind of people who go populist when facing election, and then goes corporatist when he’s comfortably insulated in Washington.
And this is surprising because . . .
Print • Email| « CGCL Day 6: Visiting Team Final Report | The Other Side of the Wall » |
7 Responses to “Political Aristocracy”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
current eph says:
Is it at all possible that the economic landscape has changed between those votes? Is it at all possible that Mark and Tom’s outlook on the economic landscape has changed between those votes?
January 24th, 2009 at 12:46 pmhwc says:
One thing that’s changed on the economic landscape is that the Udalls don’t need campaign contributions this month.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pmrory says:
also nevermind the differing mores of the senate vs. the house, his position as a backbencher instead of someone with experience and seniority, etc. plus, it passed like 70-25, right? perhaps he was the meaningless 63 vote for it and didn’t want to waste political capital just to make a point in his first month?
that website also doesn’t get the bailout funding protocols: it passed once one of the two houses voted for it. Once the Senate approved it, the money was freed up.
in fact, in the House vote, progressives voted overwhelmingly for releasing the bailout money…so that website’s kinda flawed in two ways: progressives were for releasing the rest of the money, it was conservatives and moderates who were opposed.
there’s also the matter of obama pledging to use 50-100 billion to directly help homeowners, and the links to the statements by udall makes it clear that such efforts are exactly what he wanted.
that blog sounds like some angry lefties mad that Obama stole their thunder without being far enough left.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pmrory says:
also, talk about transparency (a key complaint by Udall at first)…check out President Obama’s youtube video and this website they’ve prepared: http://recovery.gov/
January 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pmjeffz says:
Didn’t need contributions in October either … they were so far ahead by that point it really wouldn’t have mattered either way.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pmkthomas says:
Is it at all possible that someone could simply pick up the phone, call Mark, get his explanation, and post it here?
One image which came to my mind yesterday, of the commentary on Obama’s Address published in the NYTimes, was that of carrion-eaters, beginning to circle and pick and hope for any little dropping, and of their terrible, destructive, consuming hunger.
At least the people publishing in the NYTimes are big, educated vultures who have bothered to learn a little and think before they poke their beaks into someone’s side– but one of the great dangers of political life remains the effect of the gnat’s sting, the ability of the small barbs of a thousand wild uncontrolled animals, to pull down and destroy all valor, and achievement.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pmPTC says:
kt- Not this time. This time, the country wins. We need to win. We will win.
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way! Some Republicans have not gotten the message, and still look to stop a ship that has already sailed.
The Republicans need to come up with their own agenda… and it needs to be about something other than just social wedge issues. Since they lost their conservative credo on economic issues over the last 8 years,and killed theimage of themselves as mamangers who beleieve in managment at the lower level, perhaps they could fight to have more of this federal money distro to the state’s, then have it distro to the county… but no. Sadly no. We are forced to watch the self destruction of poltical conservativism in the name of division and god… ah well.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm