GOP may win big despite itself

Two months before the November 1994 off-year elections, I and several dozen other Republican candidates were scrambling to raise funds necessary to have a chance of unseating our Democratic incumbent opponents.  Although we hoped to prevail, few if any of us really grasped what was about to happen.  The gathering tsunami that would sweep the GOP to a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades on November 8th of that year, was a secret known only by then-Minority Leader Newt Gingrich and a tight-knit fraternity of associates and consultants. 

President Clinton’s unpopularity in the fall of 1994 was palpable; but few prognosticators or media pundits understood the depth of the disdain with which large segments of the voting population viewed the chief executive.  The economy was in far better shape than now, and although Clinton’s embrace of gun control that year, and of a large tax increase the year before, clearly had sapped his popularity, neither he nor most analysts expected he would wake up on November 9th facing a hostile House and Senate.

It was, more than anything, a tribute to the hard work and vision of Newt Gingrich that caused a seismic shift in American politics 16 years ago.  It was not simply that he worked his fingers to the bone in the months leading to the election; but his untiring efforts over the decade before, that provided the horsepower that undercut 40 years of Democratic control.

In 1994, the Republican Party nationally had vision, an articulated agenda, and well-known leadership.  The Democratic Party had control of a Congress that was a mile wide and an inch deep; led by a president blinded by his own hubris.  It turned out to be a toxic recipe for the incumbent party.

Here we are, eight election cycles later, and the respected Cook Political Report is predicting another major political shift similar to that of ‘94.  In his latest crystal ball gaze, Charlie Cook foresees a 40-seat shift in the House (enough for a GOP majority) and a possible nine-seat dislocation in the Senate (which would change the majority there, too).  Yet, few politically-knowledgeable Americans could articulate anything resembling a Republican agenda, vision or leadership; they couldn’t, because there simply is no national GOP vision, agenda or leadership. 

This time, it is the party in power that is doing it all on its own; the master of its own looming demise.  Fair or not, the Democratic Party nationally is being tarred with the broad brush that is the continuing bad economy.  The sour mood infecting the electorate is made bitterer still by the health care legislation championed by a hubris-infected president pushing against a citizenry clearly not on the same page. 

And while the Tea Party movement has failed thus far to realize the potential attributed to it a year ago, it clearly reflects very broad-based voter dissatisfaction.  Already, several Republican candidates who would not likely on their own be poised to win against Democratic incumbents, have successfully tapped into that sense of general unease to boost their poll numbers.  Just ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Unlike 1994, when the Democrats were caught napping, this time they see it coming already.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly is strong-arming her colleagues in safe districts to dig deep into their war chests to help more vulnerable members.  Attack ads are appearing early and often.  In another obvious effort to stanch the growing hemorrhage, the weakest and most vulnerable Democratic incumbents already are being cut loose. 

Whether all this will enable Pelosi and Reid to cling to small majorities in their respective bodies remains an open question; there are, after all, eight weeks remaining before Election Day.  But right now, despite themselves, the Republicans may reap what the Democrats have sown; and with very little effort.

88 comments Add your comment

Aquagirl

September 13th, 2010
6:24 am

The Republicans had nothing to offer in ‘94 either. It just took most Americans years to figure that out.

Mike

September 13th, 2010
6:24 am

Frankly, all the Repubs have to do is nothing, and it will be miles better than what the Dems have done the last two years !!

Joe

September 13th, 2010
6:34 am

Well, as “cute” as it is that they try every four years, we will NEVER have a Libertarian (or any other third party) president in my lifetime. I’m in my 20’s now, so they can go ahead and post their little website polls and Wes Benedict can send out a vitriol-filled email every week about the Big Two without offering specific, realistic, real world solutions – but none of this will matter. We’ll go back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, and if I have to choose the lesser of two evils, I’ll vote Republican. Thanks for trying though Libs. Like I said, it’s like a child taking their first steps. I go “awwwww cute the Libertarian Party is trying again!”

Lack-o-Leadership

September 13th, 2010
6:38 am

Is it any wonder with a half wit at the helm that the GOP is adrift in a sea of TEA? When they put a token black man in charge that was so obviously a play to get minority voters they were making unwise decisions. Now that Steele has proven through his many missteps that he isn’t qualified to lead anybody anywhere they haven’t made him go away. Anything negative that happens now is all their own fault.

[...] GOP may win big despite itselfAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Two months before the November 1994 off-year elections, I and several dozen other Republican candidates were scrambling to raise funds necessary to have a …Republicans in New York State of MindWall Street JournalTop US House Republican hints at tax compromiseReutersIn Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own PartyNew York TimesSan Francisco Chronicle (blog) -FOXNews -Bloombergall 1,685 news articles » [...]

Uncle Sam

September 13th, 2010
6:54 am

One problem, that I have forseen, is the Democrats and the Republicians,no matter how much they say bad things about the other, will not and does not want another political party to come into the picture. This country has over 308 million people and you cannot tell me there are only 2 political points of view…..The government of the people, by the people, for the people are putting up with the people in control. Time for our constitution to reflect a growing population, It was ok to have 2 politicial parties when the US population was < 5 million people, but they do not represent the majority of the people.

deborahinAthens

September 13th, 2010
6:55 am

It is sad,but true, that emotions rule when people go to the polls. I heard a man on Boortz’s show last week saying he was going to vote Republican because his landscaping/ koi pond business had gone from thriving (17 employees) to surviving (2 employees) starting in 2007. I’m sure he realized that Obama wasn’t president until 2009 and the world started unraveling during the 8 years that Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branches, yet he wants to punish the Democrats. Another thing that I heard this week on one of the Sunday news shows. Someone said that if the Democrats had only included tort reform in the Health Care Bill, there would have been at least eight or nine Republicans that would have voted for it. I voted for several Republicans in the past decade that promised tort reform and, even when they had the majority in all branches of government, they never even brought it up for a vote. It is mind boggling the amount of profit that evaporates from corporations because of specious lawsuits. It needs to be stopped, but Republicans will never get it done.There is so much anger at the gridlock. So, we have people willing to vote for idiots that, in the past, would not have even made it past a primary. These people that the Tea Party are willing to vote for are telling them what they want to hear. They will never, ever be able to get anything done. Bottom line, we have to let taxes go back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts ( a level which gave us a sustainable and vibrant economy), and we have to cut spending. Medicare and Social Security have to be fixed by either raising the normal retirement age to 70 (not so bad if it is done for people under thirty–since even fashion magazines tell us that age 40 is the “new 20″), and some way of eliminating waste in Medicare. Do you really think there is anyone in Washington that has the courage to tell us spoiled, impatient Americans that they have to give up anything?? Not going to happen. So go ahead right wing whackos and vote for the nutjobs and put us back where we were when Bush ruled. The did such a bang-up job!

German Shepherd Dawg

September 13th, 2010
7:16 am

Deborah in Athens,

What are they teaching to pass for political science at my alma mater these days?

The Republicans have not controlled Congress for over 4 years now. Coincidentally, once a Democrat president was installed in office, more money has been spent in the last nineteen months than the entire prior history of the country (combined!)

Democrats are for social spending. So are too many Republicans. But Barr is being dishonest to say no Republicans have a plan. Paul Ryan keeps talking but at the moment not many are listening. But I suspect he’ll keep talking because he realizes what he is saying makes sense.

Boots

September 13th, 2010
7:21 am

DeborahinAthens— you hit the nail on the head. The candidates being backed by the Tea Party and the extreme right wing of the Republican Party are over the edge and will lead the country, if they’re elected, into the swamp.

German Shepherd Dawg

September 13th, 2010
7:22 am

BTW,

The government cannot EVER guarantee anyone health care, and by even attempting to do so will further bankrupt the country AND fail to prevent people from dying. Everyone is going to die, it’s simply a question of when. If you take one person’s money to extend the life of another by force and then the person legally robbed by the government gets sick, he doesn’t have the money to pay for his own health care. Or even if he does, the new plan prevents people from paying for services provided outside of the “system” and makes it illegal.

It’s not freedom. It isn’t moral. It’s moral for me to decide to help somebody else from my resources I’ve earned and the ultimate immorality to use the power of government to force me to do the same. That’s taking away my choice and stealing the joy gained from helping another.

If I have no money left to give, I have no choice to help.

German Shepherd Dawg

September 13th, 2010
7:23 am

Boots,

Deborah doesn’t even have a hammer. When are you going to wake up and realize we’re under the swamp at this very moment!

German Shepherd Dawg

September 13th, 2010
7:25 am

Aqua Girl’s comment merits no reply….

c.q.

September 13th, 2010
7:32 am

hell, the only vision anybody needs at this point is to overturn “Obamacare”, bailouts and tax hikes. The Dems have made it too easy!

nelson

September 13th, 2010
7:37 am

I like to think of the democrats as the yolk of an egg and the republicans the white part. Along comes the RONCO egg scrambler that can scramble the egg while it is still in the shell. It is still an egg but now the whites have become part of the mix. That is what will happen in November, the whites are in the Congressional mix again. It is only democratic that the white establishment become part of the Washington power elite and return the conservative majority to power and alter the path to national banruptcy.

The Children's Crusade: Draft your Mallrat today

September 13th, 2010
7:37 am

1994! That was then. This is not then. It’s not, then, that then is not now a valid crystal ball, but rather that now and then there occurs a seismic shift in the then-unknown zeitgeist. Like the shift now: 1994 + 911 = Hateful Fear (throw in the internet and ditto-parroting bloggers like Kyle Wingnut, and you get a cesspool)

More on then and now: Back then, Americans used to laugh hysterically at the Crusades. The funniest film ever shown was “Holy Grail” by Monte Python. Because of the effect of 911 on political expediency and because of how easily Americans are manipulated by the race card, it is very easy to understand how and why the very-unfunny Children’s Crusade happened. To this day, nobody is sure just what happened to those mostly-French Vunderkinds. Most figure they were sold into Muslim Sexual Slavery and they most likely became the Adams and Eves of the PLO. (That would explain why Yasser Arafat smelled so much like brie).

I stopped caring about the November election when I saw the VoodooBama Posters. There is Newt’s grand vision: Appeal to the worst and most vile voters. Christ said that we will be judged by how we treat the least of us. The Wingnuts are judged by how they appeal to the worst of us.

But I will judge America on whether voters spit or swallow the imbedded seeds of hate and fear that Newt and the born again birthers have sown so so-so.

barking frog

September 13th, 2010
7:39 am

Looks like the republicans missed a chance at
the administration for using the koran burning
to cover the fact that riots in Afghanistan were
protests of the upcoming election which they
see as a sham to cover the US continuing
the Karzai puppet government. The hearts and
minds of the Afghans remain unwon.

paleo-neo-Carlinist

September 13th, 2010
7:44 am

you had me until “I and several dozen other Republican candidates were scrambling to raise funds necessary to have a chance of unseating our Democratic incumbent opponents.” sad, Is it not? Republicans and Democrats rely in “fundraising” to “useat opponents”? the political process is about money, not “vision”. It’s about selling out to the highest special interest bidder, and not “representation”. it’s laughable for you to cite the “vision” of Newt Gingerich. what vision? you freely admit nothing has really changed (saved the money that changed hands as a result of your “necessary” fundraising enterprise).

TheTruthHurts

September 13th, 2010
7:51 am

I would rather take the party with no vision right now over the party of Socialism!!!!!!

Sheriff Joe

September 13th, 2010
7:59 am

Has anybody seen President Obama’s birth certificate? I’m going to need to check his papers. Hopefully we can deport him to Mexico with the first round of immigrants I’m rounding up. Vote Anybody-But-Democrats in 2012!

First Sergeant

September 13th, 2010
8:02 am

German Shepherd Dawg

September 13th, 2010
7:22 am

“Or even if he does, the new plan prevents people from paying for services provided outside of the “system” and makes it illegal.”

I would strongly recommend you go back and read the bill, for your statement is soooo far from the truth.

The truth is, the Health Care bill does not prevent you from aquiring your own health insurance. Now, do you have anymore lies to tell?

Willis

September 13th, 2010
8:08 am

No national Republican political leadership? Why, that is a surprise statement. You’ve got Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Palin, Huckabee, Rand, Angle, Bachman, DeMint, McCain, Steele, Romney, Guiliani and the list goes on and on. The problem is most of these people don’t realize that most American voters are not right-wingers but they’ll probably win anyway because the Democrats have not succeeded in getting the country back to Happy-Land in 18 months after 8 years of Bush and his 6-year rubber-stamp Congress.

Willis

September 13th, 2010
8:12 am

Sorry, I forgot fat-boy Gingrich. He’s still hoping to be President since he is the Wise One.

JDW

September 13th, 2010
8:15 am

Hope you are proud Bob. You helped sow the seeds we have been harvesting for the last 3 years.

RGB

September 13th, 2010
8:19 am

That Republicans are poised to pick up dozens of seats in Congress and additional Senate seats is ample evidence that Americans just hate the Democrats’ plans. Democrats have clearly defined their vision: government-run health care, quintupling of deficits, debt that now approaches total GNP, government takeover of private industry, use of the judiciary to enact unpopular legislation, emboldened nuclear-capable Iran, etc.

And when you think about that for a moment, it is a very damning thing for Democrats. It essentially says “we’re not sure what Republicans will offer, but we sure as heck know that we don’t like what Democrats have shoved down our throats.”

NXS

September 13th, 2010
8:23 am

German Shepard Dawg:
Obviously they didn’t do a very good job with teaching mathematics at our alma mater either since, like most right-wingers, you just spout off BS figures and statements as facts when they are simply Fixed News talking points or numbers pulled out of some TeaTard’s (Beck, Palin, etc) a$$, i.e. ” more money has been spent in the last nineteen months than the entire prior history of the country (combined!)” NOT!

It’s too bad so many on the right are too lazy or illiterate to bother to fact check all the drivel coming from the fringe right about Obama and the Democrats. So you want to show us those numbers Poindexter or are you happy being spoon feed a big bowl of tripe?

Oh yea, and you flunked English class as well. You, Boehner and the rest of the wingnuts can use the word Democrat as an adjective (and I’m sure it plays well to the unthinking Republican base); however, those of use who actually know the English language recognize the word as a noun. In other other words, as much as you and the other Repugnantans would like to change the lexicon and use a noun where an adjective is called for, it will always be the “Democratic” Party and Obama will be the “Democratic” President.

[...] Congress Returns to WorkABC News (blog)Top US House Republican hints at tax compromiseReutersAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -New York Times -The Associated Pressall 1,607 news [...]

RGB

September 13th, 2010
8:30 am

Oh, I left out THE most important thing that defines Democrats: Sky-high unemployment.

And, as we learned over the weekend, the poverty rate has increased more sharply under this administration than at any time the federal government has been keeping statistics (1959).

But since unemployment makes many people dependent on government, the libs are delivering on their vision for America: Making government bigger and thereby consolidating their power.

NXS

September 13th, 2010
8:52 am

Yea, and the one thing that defines Republican success is the crushing of the middle class and the creation of high paying service industry jobs (McDonalds). I’m not surprised the poverty rate has increased, what with 8 years of Dubya’s “let them eat cake” policies. We were at the brink of a depression when the village idiot left office and now you and your ilk want to lay that at the Dem’s feet. Guess again Dick Tracy!

Barack

September 13th, 2010
8:53 am

This is my vision for the country…It is not my fault. It is not my fault. It is not my fault. It is not my fault. FORE!

Supreme Being

September 13th, 2010
9:00 am

The economic mess the counrty is in is due to the Clinton era mantra that it is a right for every American to own a home. Therefore, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relaxed its underwriting and loans were given to unqualified homebuyers, thus inflating the real estate bubble. Barnie Frank and friends fought republican attempts to reign in the lending because Barney’s boyfriend worked for Fannie Mae and might lose his job and the head of that company that made $100 million was a major democratic campaign supporter. It was not republican tax cuts that derailed the economy. More taxes and spending won’t help either. We need a leader not the community organizer in the white house.

Producer

September 13th, 2010
9:08 am

One only has to look at Greece to see our own future. Massive social welfare state, just like us. The gov’t there wants to decrease the spending because they are broke. Riots in the streets from the leeches. It’s coming here sooner than any of us realize.

Jefferson

September 13th, 2010
9:23 am

The GOP has no credibility. Doing the same thing over and over is stupid.

Blue Man on a Red Island

September 13th, 2010
9:25 am

Any of you guys who hate “bailouts” and “socialism”so much stopped to think that General Motors, and all the jobs they provide, would be gone right now if John McCain had been elected? Just sayin…..

JW

September 13th, 2010
9:28 am

I’m like so many others who have been on the short end of the stick during these hard economic times. In particular, I, too, have lost my job and with it the ability to adequately pay all the bills that come due each month. Trying to find another job, especially one with similar pay as what you had, is like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.
I will agree that, like most in a similar situation, I am not at all happy with the results coming from the national level about reducing the unemployment rate. But, unlike so many of you who want to blame all this mess on the Democrats, the fact of the matter is that it was the policies of George W. Bush that got us into this situation in the first place. In fact, G.H.W. Bush ’41 did the very same thing as his son, G.W. Bush ’43. Their policies were almost identical. Tax cuts, rape the banking systems, and then start a war to mislead the public and divert their focus away from all monetary policies. Even though it may have been with smoke and mirrors, Clinton did leave a surplus and a direction for sustained deficit reduction.
Today, politics are so partisan in Washington that all the Republicans want to do is to sit on their asses and do nothing except to blame the Democrats for the fruits that were produced by their own Republican party. They would rather see this country go to “hell in a hand basket” than to even suggest any solutions because it is politically more advantageous for them to do so than to help solve the country’s problems. It seems that for any politician, solving the country’s problems is secondary to getting elected and being branded as something new and a savior for all. And nothing ever changes. It is all more of the same. And, as surely as night follows day, we, as an electorate, always buy their BS – hook, line, and sinker.
A return to power of the Republicans in November will be a return to the same economic policies and practices that produced what we currently are suffering through. And, a return to that will end in a complete economic collapse of this country. Why? Well, folks, where’s the money coming from to pay the bills? They can’t raise taxes – it’s against company policy unless it can be disguise in some way. They have to give tax cuts, especially to their wealthy constituents who helped fund their election. They say they want to reduce the size of government which will eliminate more jobs – further increasing unemployment. They have allowed the manufacturing industries to ship production jobs out of the country for cheaper labor. They have allowed unabated illegal immigration into this country for cheap labor here home. And, now once again, we are hearing from the Republican camp about turning the funds from Social Security Trust over to Wall Street. That in itself is a certain road for destruction not only of Social Security but for all other independent retirement programs. Other programs will not be immune because if the Social Security Trust Fund fails, all other retirement vehicles will follow suit, along will the government.
For all you voters that see the Republicans as your savior and believe that they have your best interest at heart and can solve all your problems, all I can say is that you have to quickly forgotten the past. And, as has been said many times before, to forget the past is to repeat it. Take a look around you in the state of Georgia. If the Republicans are the answer to our woes, then why do we have an unemployment rate of almost ten percent? Who has been in power here for the last eight years?

Wow

September 13th, 2010
9:30 am

CAN ANYONE OUT THERE TELL ME WHO WAS THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.AND BEFORE YOU ANSWER,IT WAS’NT RONALD REAGAN.NOW DO YOU STILL WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING.

Blue Man on a Red Island

September 13th, 2010
9:34 am

JW……you are my freaking hero man.

You Boobs

September 13th, 2010
9:54 am

Not one mention of the Federal Reserve.

Goes to show that you boobus amricanus’ are cluless and will remain puppets and sheep for the duration.

Now give up your money and autonomy you ignorant demopublican putzes.

ExRepublican

September 13th, 2010
9:55 am

Thank you deborahinAthens And JW you are both voices of sanity. I don’t have to articulate my views in this post. You have both laid it out for me. We are part of the silent majority whose voices have been drown out by the noise level coming from the rightwing media.
Come November 2 we march to the polls and let our voices be heard. The party of NO is in for a rude awaking.

Barack

September 13th, 2010
10:14 am

JW the problem is you are not paying enough taxes. So, what we are going to do is to take it from the millionaires that have jobs and businesses to cover your share. Of course they won’t be able to give you a job since they will have to pay more in taxes, but I am sure you won’t mind. Have a nice day. BO

SouthernLiving

September 13th, 2010
10:18 am

Obama might have planned only 1 term all along. He made history as the 1st black president, passed H/C reform that majority of US didn’t want, and passed Stimulus that failed that majority of the US didn’t want either. 2nd term or not, he goes down in history as the 1st and the Worst.

SouthernLiving

September 13th, 2010
10:19 am

..oh, and threw the Democrats under the bus in the process…

Barack

September 13th, 2010
10:34 am

As former president Bill Clinton scored a quick $10 million in speaking fees, good ‘ol Barack can’t wait to get on that gravy train. Then Michelle can get some real bling!!

jconservative

September 13th, 2010
10:37 am

When one looks back over the last 30 years and notes the birth and growth of the “Uncontrolled Budget Deficit”, and listens to the voters continue to debate the faults of Democrats or Republicans, one wonders at the national case of blindness infecting the American voter.

I guess the habit of blaming “them” is just human nature. It simply cannot be “our” (our = Republican or Democrats) fault. It is “their” fault, not ours!

For 30 straight years every American President, whether Republican or Democrat, has signed a huge budget deficit (I know the 2 exceptions under Clinton). And they signed them with eyes wide open. Yet the American voters blames “them”, the other party.

In 1996 Bob Dole asked “Where’s the outrage?” For the last 26 years I have asked “Where’s the sanity?”

Maybe, just maybe, “…the times they are a changing…”

Maybe the American voter in this cycle will blame the real villain, the Incumbent. The Incumbent of either party. A few have bit the dust so far in the primaries; Incumbents from both parties. For it has been the Incumbents that have led us down the path of fiscal ruin for the past 30 years. Read a history book.

One always has hope.

SouthernLiving

September 13th, 2010
10:37 am

Yes…no 2nd term for Obummer=no sweat off his brow

atlmom

September 13th, 2010
10:38 am

Joe: you are completely incorrect. I was at the libertarian ‘convention’ about 10 years ago. It was quite a crowd, but it was a few hours event, that was just some speakers.
Now, they have a real convention with real events, and pick real candidates. They never in a million years thought they would have what they have this year – a slate of candidates for each and every statewide office that are viable candidates. Whether or not they win – many of them are now even being invited to the party (kira willis is out there, chuck donovan has great ideas, john monds is sticking his nose everywhere – they are even raising money to put ads on tv!!!).
The slate of candidates this year was a pipe dream even 10 years ago. The candidates are viable and are raising money and are getting their messages out. The good thing about the runoff system in GA is that you don’t have to worry that your vote for a 3rd party candidate will be ‘wasted’ since a candidate needs 50% + 1 votes to win. So the libertarians in GA can make incremental gains each and every election season – and at some point, some of their candidates will get in there. And hopefully the laws in GA for getting on the ballot will eventually be changed, too (we have the most difficult ballot access laws in the country).

NXS

September 13th, 2010
10:50 am

Supreme Being:
Your Faux News talking points about Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae play well to the Hannity and Limbaugh lovers of this country (all 30% of them), but, as usual, facts escape those who get all their information from GOPTV.

While the FM’s did have had some effect, the policies put in place were designed to prevent banks from “redlining” (denying loans) in areas that were predominantly black or minority. If you lived in one of those areas, it didn’t matter that you had good credit and could afford a loan, the banks simply wouldn’t loan you any money.

Now that we’ve exposed that red herring, let’s take a look at one of the biggest causes of our economic meltdown. That would be the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Stegall Act in 1999. This was pushed by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton.
I won’t bore you with the dirty details, and you probably wouldn’t listen anyway unless Sean or Glenn were pumping it 24/7 on Fixed. But in a nutshell it was something the banking industry had lobbied for since Reagan, and it allowed them to do the same things that it was doing before the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, i.e. make risky investments with our deposits without any government oversight. If you care to read more, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act. I will, however, list the reasons that were given in 1987 (when the Democrats controlled Congress and killed it) for NOT repealing it:

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit (that is to say, lending) and the use of credit (that is to say, investing) by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act.

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

Numbers 3 and 4 are particularly prescient don’t you think?

Now, I know that right-wingers here will probably say that this was all Clinton’s fault for signing it. But I think I’ll take the current Republican position on Dubya’s lack of culpability for ANYTHING he signed between 2006-08 during the Democrat’s current control of Congress. And using their logic, the total blame for this repeal lies with the Republicans for a) pushing the bill in the first place and b) controlling BOTH houses of Congress when it passed.

Now, I will be honest enough to admit that Clinton had something to do with it since, unfortunately, he signed it… you know, kind of like Dubya signed ALL the bills in 2006-08 (including TARP, btw).

However, you don’t need to look much further than the repeal of Glass-Steagall to see why we are where we are today. It sure as he!! isn’t Obama’s fault, and it definitely had its origins, and lies squarely at the doorstep of the failed, conservative, laissez faire banking and insurance economic policies that have been promulgated by Republicans for decades.

SouthernLiving

September 13th, 2010
10:58 am

NXS..both are to blame..accept that and move on, dear.

Supreme Being

September 13th, 2010
11:20 am

NXS … This is not a FOX news moment, so get off that soap box. I agree with your expaned analysis. What about derivatives and the secondary markets that were stacked up on this illusioinary financial bubble? There is blame to go all around here. What we need is a system to elect representatives that govern based on what is sound morally and fiscally. Alas, we have a system that is in place whereby once a person is elected, they spend all their time trying to get relected, which ultimately serves their own self interest and the people that elected them.

Supreme Being

September 13th, 2010
11:20 am

and NOT the people that elected them

redneckbluedog

September 13th, 2010
11:25 am

Yep, they may win big…or not….Ideas attract voters…Sour grapes attract flies….and flies can’t vote..:-)