the kool-aid. It is the Democrats who have politicized it, but it failed because it was flawed.

Otherwise, those patriotic Democrats (as opposed to the “unpatriotic” Republicans) could have just passed it on their own, without Republican cover.

90+ Democrats voted against it. Sounds like a bipartisan defeat to me, no matter what “Sylvester” Frank says.

If killing the bailout turns out to be exactly what the economy needed, would you give the Dems half the credit (or more) for shooting down George and Hank’s excellent adventure?

Didn’t think so.

The Dems left to their own devices would have passed this because it ultimately fits their philosophies. They give money to an identified interest group that often supports them, and they increase the role of the federal government.

But, being practical politicians, they don’t want to do anything that would be unpopular at the polls, and there is the possibility that giving $700 billion or so to the richest institutions in America could just be unpopular in the midst of an economic slowdown.

So, pretty clearly, they said, we are in this together or we are not in this at all.

The Republicans chose not to be in at all.

Now, I’m not saying that the House Republicans are wrong. Over the long haul, I tend to believe that letting the chips fall where they belong is the right policy.

Two caveats: 1) maybe we are, as more informed folks want to tell me, in a short term kink where something has to be done to avoid a meltdown. If so, maybe it’s in my long term best interest to mail a chunk of my savings to the CEO of Citibank; 2) There’s an election five weeks away. Since the pain of letting the chips fall hits well before the corrective bounce back, maybe it’s tactically smart to keep things together until after the election.

Point is, though, this was a Republican rejection of the bailout. It’s stupid to go claiming that the Democrats should have passed it on their own so we could have both gotten the short term benefits while reserving the right to rip them for passing it.

If it’s the right thing to do, let’s have the courage to own it.

is his resignation. Does this guy have no shame?

I’ll quote you. (But no offense taken.)

If killing the bailout turns out to be exactly what the economy needed, would you give the Dems half the credit (or more) for shooting down George and Hank’s excellent adventure?

Didn’t think so.

Don’t think so fast. I would absolutely give the ones who voted against it the same credit I’d give the ‘Pubs who did the same. Especially since the ‘Crats were under enormous pressure (presumably) to vote “yes.” OTOH, maybe SanFranNan was secretly pushing it towards failure.

But, being practical politicians, they don’t want to do anything that would be unpopular at the polls, and there is the possibility that giving $700 billion or so to the richest institutions in America could just be unpopular in the midst of an economic slowdown.

Could be unpopular? Calls to Congress were running 80-1 against, according to one report. I’m surprised anybody voted for it.

Now, I’m not saying that the House Republicans are wrong.

I don’t know either. One thing missing from the debate is verified information on the details of the bill that they were voting on.

Two caveats: 1) maybe we are, as more informed folks want to tell me, in a short term kink where something has to be done to avoid a meltdown. If so, maybe it’s in my long term best interest to mail a chunk of my savings to the CEO of Citibank; 2) There’s an election five weeks away. Since the pain of letting the chips fall hits well before the corrective bounce back, maybe it’s tactically smart to keep things together until after the election.

I don’t think that a bill that creates a massive government expenditure and a legislated opportunity for feeding public money to entrenched Democrat support groups is exactly what’s called for to fix “a short term kink” or even “to avoid a meltdown.” Even though this is probably as big a problem as it’s billed, the solution doesn’t necessarily have to be just as big. Sometimes smaller corrections can do what’s needed. We have no way of knowing, because it was left to fester until it became a “crisis,” shortening the time frame available to solve the problem.

To throw in some politics, I’m watching at this moment a bunch of Democrats tell us (in 2004) that there is “nothing wrong” with Fannie and Freddie, and that Franklin Raines was an admirable administrator, while the ‘Pubs were warning of the impending danger.

Considering the nearness of the election, a meltdown will only hurt the ‘Pubs. The ‘Crats will yell bloody murder that if the bill had only passed, all would have been well. And voters will forget that they pressured their own Congresscritters to vote it down. It would certainly be smart for ‘Pubs to keep things together until after the election, and advantageous for the ‘Crats if all H breaks loose. Maybe that’s Pelosi’s strategy.

Point is, though, this was a Republican rejection of the bailout. It’s stupid to go claiming that the Democrats should have passed it on their own so we could have both gotten the short term benefits while reserving the right to rip them for passing it.

It’s only being pointed out that 94 Democrats voted against it (a switch of 10 would have passed it) because Pelosi has claimed that the “unpatriotic” Republicans should have ignored their constituents to protect the ‘Crats who wouldn’t or couldn’t ignore their own folks at home. She couldn’t do her own job, so she found a scapegoat.

Instead of blaming anybody, maybe we should be thanking them. Just a thought.

And to be clear, I don’t know enough about the details to know who is right.