In essence I agree with your observations about the state. I disagree with your observation that his assertions are meaningless.
If it were just about partisan power grabs...there’d be an apparent divergence of words, ideas, and behavior from the “different” sides of the aisle. The absence of such divergence...and the pathological conduct of the Washington establishment to an extraordinary popular “outsider” -Sarah Palin- is confirmation of Senator Durbins assertions.
“If it were just about partisan power grabs...there’d be an apparent divergence of words, ideas, and behavior from the ‘different’ sides of the aisle. The absence of such divergence...and the pathological conduct of the Washington establishment to an extraordinary popular ‘outsider’ -Sarah Palin- is confirmation of Senator Durbins assertions.”
Well, Bush was all-in for the original bailout, and he’s a Republican, but he doesn’t speak for the entire party. A significant proportion of Republicans voted against the original bailout and spoke out against subsequent measures. They haven’t been as loud or as radically opposed to the measures as you or me, and they have been weak in opposing the Obama administration. But you can probably chalk that up to the fact that Republicans are weak in general, that this is a down period for the party, and the old “conservatives hold the line where liberals last moved it” truism.
Anyway, conservative Washington opinion-makers have turned against massive government intervention. They may have bought it in the beginning, when we were warned of bank runs, marshal law, and apocalyptic delfation. But not anymore. There is opposition. It is a partisan issue. Democrats have Wall Street, bankers, car makers, and GE behind them, but they also have unions, lawyers, and a thousand other interest groups. They pursue the interests of each, even when they clash. Because whatever cause helps grow the size of government, they’re behind.