So What's Stopping Her?

She road the wave that got us into this mess. Perhaps she should have supported the McCain proposal in 2005.

It's truly amazing how Pelosi is now to blame for this crisis. Yes, it's surreal, but when one party, the GOP spouts economic nonsense for twenty five years, all the way from Reagan to Bush, as the next link says, this is what you get.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/demolition-accomplished/

We are a banana republic with nukes thanks to the GOP. Heckuva Job guys.

Here's Sarah Palin on the bailout:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_on_the_bailout.php

Quite in line with my earlier comment on banana republics, right? Anyone here even a little bit worried?

Incidentally she is using notes as you can see, and even then is totally incoherent - can't string one clear sentence together. Very scary guys, very scary, what is happening to the GOP? What does this say about McCain's judgement?

Frankly, I think the GOP should be rebuilt from the bottom up and I now doubt Palin is going to be part of that.

It's truly amazing how Pelosi is now to blame for this crisis.

No, that would be Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc...

And gee, an anonymous concern troll with an off-topic comment and a link from Matt Yglesias.

How cute.

How convincing (not).

Unless John McCain and Barack Obama are the SOLE Senate co-sponsors of the bail out bill it should not be enacted.

It very probably should not be enacted at all, however I haven't been privy to enough details to say for certain.

But either way, unless EVERYONE signs on the no deal.

C'mon, Rand, ban the 'bots from Obama Central Command. No one who has ever read TT for more than a week would imagine a foaming partisan screed from Krugman or Yglesias would have any more influence than one from Robert Mugabe or Pol Pot.

Hmmmmmm.

One major reason why the House GOP has balked?

Barney Frank put in a section where 20% (!!!!) of all profits go into a Democratic political slush fund that they use to fund ACORN.

WTF?!

Now I'm confused by this.

I thought many on this blog were saying that McCain's move to forgo the debate until a bailout deal is reached was the "mark of a leader."

Now he changes his mind, even though a deal was significantly more likely (as Republican Sen. Bennet said - "a deal is ready," yesterday) prior to McCains trip up to DC.

Meanwhile, here is what a future McCain Presidency might look like (check out the las sentence):

http://thepage.time.com/mccain-pool-report-5/

John McCain is acting very strange. Very strange. I wonder how he will handle the debate today. He does like to leave everyone guessing, I have to say that!

Mike, you mean Mike Gerson is acting strange. Very strange.

Getting back on subject, I see Pelosi's complaints as an indication that she doesn't have enough votes to pass the bailout. Since the Republicans aren't getting on board with this, thankfully, I guess that means that the Democrats and Bush will have to reach a compromise with the House Republicans.

The (legal) robbery already happened, but there's no reason that a poorly thought out bailout should be allowed to make things worse.

Also, here's the ACORN pork that memo was talking about. The money actually would go into an existing fund that ACORN and other groups like La Raza already draw from.

Getting back to the POST Mike or whatever your real name is, nobody blamed her for the mess but she isn't showing any leadership. It's scary to think she's two heartbeats away from the oval office. She should have stayed home and raised her five kids.

Getting back on subject, I see Pelosi's complaints as an indication that she doesn't have enough votes to pass the bailout.

No, she has enough votes, and she knows it. She just wants it to be bi-partisan so she can share the blame.

Karl,

I agree that the bailout is poorly thought out and according to some economists has only a 50% chance of working. You can hardly find any economists on the left who agree with it either.

Given that the primary political beneficiaries of a major financial cataclysm will be the Democrats, why do you think they are signing up to it?

Probably because they accept in good faith that what Paulson and Bernanke are saying is true. We are facing a Financial Pearl Harbor, and not to act would be unacceptable. And probably because, for all the faults many of you aim at the Dems, they are patriots.

The House Republicans are offering something completely unworkable in an insistence on ideological principles that have brought us to this abyss. That's not patriotism.

The Dems are expecting to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate backing President Zero!, so this is about their last chance to make sure that th GOP set up to take the fall for all the stuff that goes wrong the next four years She was there, and so remembers what happened in '93, the last time she and the rest of the Dem dinosaurs made a big push to take this country Socialist.

insistence on ideological principles that have brought us to this abyss

No, what brought us to this abyss is the Dems covering for their themselves and performing constituent service to the likes of Countrywide and Fannie Mac and ACORN and "The Friends of Angelo" long after it became apparent that things were headed for the edge. Who blocked efforts at reform in '003 and '005 and last year? Barney Frank and his filibustering pals in the Senate. I guess these days "patriot" has become the euphemism of choice to describe a poltician on the take.

(And isn't it funny how all the names in this story: Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Leany, Obama, Biden, all but one were around/responsible for the '93/'94 fiasco. It really is time for Change™ in the Democrat's party leadership.)

Time to get out the popcorn when you read stories like this

Schumer also requested that Bush get the his House Republicans in line. "We need President Bush to take leadership. We need President Bush, first and foremost, to get the Republican House members to support his plan or modify it in some way to bring them on board," he said.

Um, Chuck... your party controls both houses of Congress. They need only a simple majority to pass the legislation, and then President Bush can sign it into law. See here for an explanation on how it works.

As for an alternative plan, how about doing away with the capital gains tax. Indeed, that's what House Republicans are proposing, and McCain is backing. Such a plan doesn't increase the debt and allows individuals in the market to determine which companies deserve backing rather than one individual in govenment. Now that's change I can believe in.

Now I'm confused by this.

Well, we'll try to help. Listen up.

I thought many on this blog were saying that McCain's move to forgo the debate until a bailout deal is reached was the "mark of a leader."

Hardly. For one thing, McCain didn't say the debate was off "until a bailout deal is reached." He said he felt he had to go to Washington to try and help broker the deal, and that might make him miss the debate. So the rigid hunger-striker ultimatum here, "no no NO debate until a bill is passed," is your invented straw man.

For another, McCain apparently feels he's now done his best in Washington. Do you suggest he alone can make the bailout deal pass? If so, a man that influential with both parties, the only one who can get stuff done on Capitol Hill, is clearly the best person to put in the White House. So I don't think you mean that.

Do you instead suggest that McCain stick rigidly to his place in Washington, once he's decided to go there, even when he's already done his best to help, and there's nothing much more he can do? Prize intellectual rigidity over common sense? Hmm, that doesn't speak so well of your guiding principles either.

Now he changes his mind, even though a deal was significantly more likely prior to McCains trip up to DC.

Says who? How would you know? Different voices say different things.

Honestly, this doesn't even pass the laugh test. Once again, you've got this schizophrenic picture of John McCain as, on the one hand, a bumbler who can't keep his priorities straight, and, on the other hand, as an omnipotent Svengali who can by pulling secret strings cause or derail complex legislation pending in front of the U.S. House, of which he is not even a member, and in which his party is in the minority. Which is it, Mike? Is he an ineffectual preening glory-hound, or a powerful Voldemort whom we desperately need to stop? Or is he either, depending on your needs of the moment?

In the end, was McCain right to go to Washington? I think yes. As I said elsewhere, quoting Gene Hackman in a movie, when the game's on the line, winners want the ball. Is what McCain did in Washington the right stuff? How the hell would anyone know right now? We'll have to wait and see what happens. Is his decision that he's now done enough, and he might as well go to the debate, the right one? I have no idea. Once again, we have to wait and see how things turn out. Will a bill pass, and will it be a good one -- will it do what needs to be done, at minimal cost -- and will it have McCain's fingerprints on it? We won't know for quite a while, unfortunately. But, you know, even if we did, I doubt it would matter to the other side. Anyone who can think Obama represents a better bet to manage this mess is someone incapable of studying or learning from history, where he would find that it is exactly the values and party that Obama so well represents that have caused the mess in the first place. Might as well elect the CEO of Lehman Brothers.

Meanwhile, here is what a future McCain Presidency might look like [followed by Time link]

Mike, are you so insulated from politics that you don't realize Time magazine is more passionately for Obama than probably 80% of his own campaign volunteers? Check out Joe Klein some day. Anything Time prints on McCain has as much chance of being true and direct as a profile of Ronald Reagan in Pravda. If they asserted McCain's birthday was such-and-such, I'd still google it. They're that corrupt.

We've got a Republican President for the last 8 years and the problem is the current Democratic Congress, who've just been in power for 2 and have a bare majority? The guys who told us the economy is in great shape just a couple weeks back, now on their knees before Pelosi begging for help to fix the economy which is quite suddenly in disastrous shape.

And you have a bunch of deep thinkers at this blog who can't fess up and simply say, Yes, our party screwed up big time. We were simply out to lunch.

A party that can't take responsibility for it's utter failure to manage the economy or utter the word regulation, without barfing. And now, with McCain, trying to run against itself - trying to switch it's uniform at the eleventh hour! And who knows the public might buy it, drunk as they are on talk radio. As I said earlier we are headed towards banana republic territory.

Regarding trying to get the minority party on board, in 1993 Newt Gingrich (then minority whip) was trying to pass NAFTA. But, to provide cover, he insisted on 100 Democratic votes for NAFTA before he committed his votes to something he wanted.

See http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/9/26/note-to-paulson-the-key-to-passing-the-700-billion-bailout-is-insurance.html

Mike Gerson seems to be struggling under the misconceptions that the US functions as a dictatorship under the presidency and that Senators and Representatives slavishly follow orders from their party bosses (for good or bad). How come you don't know how (I assume) your own country is structured Mike? Are you a KOSite or a DUmmy? Asking since your errors might pass as civics 101 over there.

As for responsibility everyone shares the responsibility, even McCain despite him being one of those who tried to fix things years ago.

Tell you what Mike if McCain was half the slick sleaze Obama and the current crop of Democrats are he would simply say "hey I tried to fix this years ago but just couldn't find support, my hands are clean". But he's not such a phony and it shows and even if one disagrees with every one of his political opinions one should have the self-respect to acknowledge him for that.

Chris Gerrib what's your point? Wildly different situations and wouldn't you say "minority" has different implications than "majority"?

The "Democratic" formula seems to be:
1. Push for a fight (bonus points for feigning how simply incredible it is that there could possibly be a fight from assuming everyone will give you anything you want).
2. Instantly go on the defensive ("they're so mean and evil, and look they did it too (well close enough anyway) boohoo!").
3. Wait for the MSM and meat-puppet organizations to get as much of the lies and deceit as possible firmly indoctrinated into the public opinion (while claiming the MSM is biased in favor of the GOP).
4. Actually lose to their betters (who did all the actual work) on purpose (it does them no good to produce something they can be called on).
5. Try to take credit for it when what they opposed and lost to actually works (once again with plenty of help from the MSM and meat-puppets).

The US is in practice very close to being a one-party state due to the incompetence of the DP and their voters love them for it? And then claim the GOP has made the US into a banana republic?

Farce.

Hermit - my point is that when the Executive and Legislative branches are held by different parties, it is not unusual that one branch will want a certain amount of bipartisan buy-in to do something, especially if it's large or controversial.

I don't get your and Michael Barone's comparison at all, quoting him:
"Pelosi's move is not unprecedented. In 1993, when the House was considering the North America Free Trade Agreement, which the Clinton administration and most House Republicans supported and most House Democrats favored, Minority Whip Newt Gingrich insisted that 100 House Democrats vote for it before House Republicans would put their votes on the board."

Ok the US House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993. Bill Clinton was president and Newt Gingrich was minority whip in the House of Representatives and the Democrats had twelve more Senators in the US Senate than the Republicans.

Fast forward to 2008 and George Bush is president, Nanci Pelosi is Speaker of the House (Democrat majority) and The Democratic Caucus (51 Senators consisting of 49 Democrats and 2 Independents) is in a narrow majority over the Republicans (49 Senators) in the Senate.

The Democrats outnumbered the Republicans everywhere in 1993 and have control of both House and Senate in 2008. The method was used by a minority in 1993 and by a majority in 2008. The President was in favor of the subject in question both in 1993 and 2008.

Quoting Michael Barone:
"Gingrich then, like Pelosi today, wanted to give his members shelter against what some would consider demagogic attacks. The minority party in the House ordinarily has little power; on much legislation, it is no more than a bystander. But in situations like this, when the majority party in the House needs cover for its members, the minority party in the House can suddenly have more power than the majority party and both sides of the Senate put together."

Well the way I see it in 1993 Gingrich's demand was for the majority to lead the way and take their share of responsibility for their decision while in 2007 Pelosi's demand was for the minority to lead the way and take their share of the responsibility for the majority's decision (and until McCain stepped in Pelosi asked the minority to do so without giving those in the minority who disagreed any say at all).

I think Michael Barone simply had a brain fart here, it's not the same; one is reasonable and the other is unreasonable (and water under the bridge by now I hope).

And maybe I should mention it even though it's damn obvious but arguing that the minority can have all that much power (and he's obviously talking about the 2008 situation there) when the original so-called precedent was not in any way related to the minority having any such power (in fact it's the total opposite in that situation) really makes the point that these situations are very different.

> it is not unusual that one branch will want a certain amount of bipartisan buy-in to do something, especially if it's large or controversial.

It may not be unusual, but it tells us something about how important they feel it is and whether they actually think that it's a good idea.

If Dems believed in the bailout, they'd want sole credit, which they can easily have.

And then there's the "hey, that's a large pile of money, shouldn't we get something" attitude.