No wonder Pelosi wanted 100 Reps. She needed them for cover. I guess they work either way this way. The bill failed, blame the Republicans, had the bill passed and it’s the crapshoot they knew it was, blame the Republicans.

Haven’t I always said Democrats never admit they’re wrong about anything and they never apologize. We saw that just a few minutes ago, didn’t we?

I feel the icy hand of death upon me (Monte Python quote) …

To me, a lot will come down to Palin.

The public perception — and reality — is that McCain put himself more on the line than Obama to get the bailout passed. It was McCain who “wanted to go to Washington to get this done” while Obama wanted to debate. I agree that John McCain should leadership while Barack Obama did not. But the downside of leadership is that you get the blame when something fails and, for better or for worse, the bailout bill failed.

Unfortunately, politically, I think Barack Obama comes out as the winner on this.

As for the failure of the bailout plan itself, I am personally ambivalent. I think the idea of the government essentially purchasing over $700,000,000,000 in private securities and bad debt to be repugnant and a long term debacle. I have consistently argued that the real solution to this problem is to loosen the capital markets by eliminating capital gains taxes; although the injecting $630,000,000,000 in the market is a good step, it also potentially weakens the already (IMHO) too weak dollar. But, unfortunately, my solution was not on the table.

The one very good thing passing the bailout bill would have “reassured” capital markets. Sometimes government “action” has a positive effect, even though the government action itself is not “positive”: the sort of political equivalent of the Hawthorne effect.

So while in the long-term, economically, I think it is a good thing that the bailout plan failed, short-term I think the economy losses.

Obama gains, capitalism and the economy loses. And it’s a Monday. Not a good day.

But fortunately, the election is still 36 days away.

(Hey, I can sorta cross-post a comment. Right?)

It’s the same old leftist office politics on steroids.

This is like the situation with the Russian invasion of Georgia. Whether or not that was a “shrewd move” or a “stupid mistake” depends on the reaction and countermoves over a multi-month period of time.

She clearly let things get to this point with the notion of a chance to play a seemingly no-lose game.

Basically, her tenor was that “All this mess is the fault of President Bush and Congressional Republicans, and by voting for this bill you are agreeing to that contention and confessing your sins.”

So what follows? One of two things:

1) Congressional Republicans go along for the good of the situation and then get hammered for the next x weeks/months by Neutron Nancy and her dance troupe shouting “SEEEEEEEE!! They confess their sins!!”

2) Enough are taken aback by this office politics sneak attack that they pull out their support and the bill fails – in which she is counting on being able to make the mess by intent herself yet fix the blame elsewhere.

We need to come up with effective countermeasures to make sure that she regrets this stunt – painfully.

Here’s a place to start. Over half of American households own equities directly – and if you add in the indirect ownership (mutual funds, 401-k’s, pension plans, etc.), methinks that number goes north of 70%.

A huge chunk of the citizenry thus took a very big financial hit today because of Neutron Nancy. Let’s make sure everyone understands that.

and Bush has checked his power in east eur

and I can’t get my bearings.

You want to put all the “blame” for defeat of a socialist incursion by our federal government into the banking system on Obama?!?

Wouldn’t this be a bill you would want defeated — essentially a Nationalization of several Banks? A camel’s nose of more government control under the Wall Street tent?

The public opposes this bailout. And you want Obama to bear responsibility, so I guess you actually want Obama to get credit and more public support for opposing a bad bill.

Certainly I can read your disdain for Obama so I really can’t figure why you want him blamed for killing a crappy bill.

is very dangerous for America. He is destroying the economy in order to make the U.S. more dependent on the Saudis.

The $700 billion bill…
Democrats are falling over themselves to credit Obama for getting them to switch votes.

Some Democrats are touting calls from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as an explanation for why they are switching their votes to support the financial recovery package the House will consider Friday.

The announcements by at least seven Democrats that said Obama had helped sway them suggest the bill could pass without significant additional Republican support.

The Democrats — most of them freshmen — held a press conference during the floor debate on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout to announce that they were switching their “no” votes to yes.

Each gave a different rationale for now being supportive of the bill they voted against on Monday, including billions in individual and business tax cuts, disaster assistance aid and even a swing in constituent reaction.

But all emphasized that they were buoyed by assurances from Obama that Congress will be a full partner in climbing out from the larger economic crisis if the Democrat is elected president.

Freshman Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) said she organized a conference call with Obama on Thursday, in which a number of freshman Democrats laid out their concerns to the Illinois senator.

And what they heard in return was enough to secure their votes for the bill, Sutton and others said.

Sutton said that “commitments made by Obama and the Democratic leadership that an economic stimulus bill will be a top priority” convinced her to support a bill she still disagrees with. She was joined by freshman Democratic Reps. Bruce Braley (Iowa), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Donna Edwards (Md.) and John Yarmuth (Ky.).

Obama secured this bill’s passage with an assurance that more dangerous and destructive policies are sure to follow.

5