Balkinization: Not So Mighty Mouse

Comments:

Jack:

The so called "consensus plan" was a partial agreement on three points between Paulson on behalf of Bush and a handful of Dem Senate leaders with no real input from the House. As you noted, these Dem Senate leaders were not going to act on this partial agreement until the GOP was on board, so there was no real consensus between the President and Congress.

As we post. McCain has been working on an agreement for much of the night trying to bridge the gap between the White House and the Dems on one hand (interesting alignment) and the center right GOP and not a few Blue Dog Dems on the other hand.

Apart from rather childishly snotty partisan snarks that Mr. McCain has not finished a grand compromise in less than 24 hours, it is rather illustrative that the Dems in general and Mr. Obama in particular have contributed nothing to crossing the aisle in Congress to unify their own branch around a plan. Rather, they are sitting in a corner pouting that they will not act until the GOP agrees with them, with Paulson literally pleading with them on bended knee not to blow up the rescue.

In comparison, it appears that Mr. McCain is one of the few grown ups amongst all these electioneering drama queens.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:43 AM

The Democrats have agreed on what they think a bailout should look like--they announced the terms yesterday. The Bush agreement has conceded and agreed to their terms, because of what it sees as the urgency of the situation.

The Democrats have a majority in both the House and the Senate. They need not a single vote from Republicans to pass this bill.

So why won't they do it? And why won't Obama lead them? Is he incapable of leading? Or is he a coward?

# posted by

Thomas : 8:45 AM

thomas:

The Dems themselves are not unified on this. It is doubtful that the compromise between Paulson and the handful of Senate Dems would gain enough Blue Dog Dem support to pass the House.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:50 AM

The Dems themselves are not unified on this. It is doubtful that the compromise between Paulson and the handful of Senate Dems would gain enough Blue Dog Dem support to pass the House.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:50 AM

Do you have anything at all to back up this claim?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 8:54 AM

Apart from rather childishly snotty partisan snarks

If there is an expert here on childishly snotty partisan snarks, it is Baghdad Bart.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 8:56 AM

Just one of several similar reports: Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) was just on CNBC and said that his mail and calls on the bailout plan are running 50-50: 50% no and 50% hell no.

For some reason, tax payers are not thrilled with the idea of a $700 billion dollar bailout. Paulson has not done a particularly good job explaining that the plan will not cost nearly that much and indeed may produce a profit for the government in about 2-3 years.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:01 AM

Bart wrote:
The so called "consensus plan" was a partial agreement on three points between Paulson on behalf of Bush and a handful of Dem Senate leaders with no real input from the House.

You've seen the plan? Could you kindly link to it?

Thanks.

# posted by

John : 9:12 AM

It just doesn't get much better than this. The death spiral spin, the drooling hypocrisy, the angry electorate itching to pull the trigger in just a little more than a month...

This is where we get to test the limits of just how far you can fool some of the American People some of the time.

Aside: it takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring a bill to a vote, though I suppose that if the Administration and the Democrats actually agreed on something, they could "go nuclear" (tee hee).

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 10:50 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 10:53 AM

"Bart" DeFlacka:

The so called "consensus plan" was a partial agreement on three points between Paulson on behalf of Bush and a handful of Dem Senate leaders with no real input from the House.

The Republicans (and apparently McSame) sand-bagged everyone (including the preznit and Paulson). The house minority leader was in on the talks, in on the agreements as to the shape of the legislation, etc. The house Republicans walked in at the last moment and plunked down an entirely different proposal (which was DOA), and McSame seemed to voice agreement (to the extent that Mighty Mouse™ here said anything above a mumble). If Boehner doesn't know what his caucas is saying or doing, that's his freakin' problem, and if he doesn't convey their issues in a timely manner, that's just "unhelpful".

It's pretty obvious to all but the brain-dead and the Rethuglican Borg (or is that the same thing?) what happened here. McSame couldn't afford to let the Democrats produce an agreement before he flew into town with his cape and underwear on the outside, so the Rethuglicans decided to have their House people torpedo the agreement.

All political theatre. All show, no "go".

Whether or not the agreement is the best way to go, it was at the very least negotiation towards something acceptable to all if not perfect. But that doesn't save McSame's hide. so they had to throw out poison stuff like capital gains tax cuts to sink it.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:44 PM

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:46 PM

More on McInsane's shenanigans:

During the late afternoon meeting at the White House (a meeting which was McCain's idea), McCain sat silently at the table until nearly the end, according to a Hill source who was briefed on the meeting. At that point, I'm told, McCain vaguely brought up the proposal being pushed by the Republican Study Committee, the group of House conservatives that is bucking the GOP leadership. But McCain didn't offer any specifics and didn't necessarily advocate for the plan, according to the Hill source.

Responding to McCain, Treasury Secretary Paulson said that the RSC proposal was unworkable, my source says, at which point McCain didn't really advocate for it or state his own position. The meeting adjourned soon after, amid confusion over where negotiations could go next.

Democrats were incensed. "It sounds like Sen. McCain has sided with the House Republicans who want to start with a completely different approach," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Reuters later, after being briefed on the meeting.

And more:

In fact, House conservatives did float a mortgage insurance proposal today, though it's exact outlines were apparently a mystery to Democrats and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson alike.

McCain also met during the day with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), but I'm told that Boehner is ready to sign off on the plan negotiated by Paulson and the Democrats -- he simply doesn't have control over his caucus (although other reports place Boehner as aggressively leading the charge).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:27 PM

As we post. McCain has been working on an agreement for much of the night trying to bridge the gap between the White House and the Dems on one hand (interesting alignment) and the center right GOP and not a few Blue Dog Dems on the other hand.

If that's what he is really doing, the math isn't on his side. The days of building congressional coalitions from the right and trying to get some Democrats to cross over ended after the 2006 election.

Also, the ideology isn't on his side either-- the House Republicans don't really want a deal; they want to oppose whatever deal comes out. They have both honest ideological disagreements as well as a free pass to let other people cast the tough votes.

For these reasons, whatever deal has to be built from the left on out, and McCain's choice is best described by George Clooney in "Ocean's Eleven"-- "you're either in or you're out, right now".

# posted by

Dilan : 2:39 PM

Dilan:

If that's what he is really doing, the math isn't on his side. The days of building congressional coalitions from the right and trying to get some Democrats to cross over ended after the 2006 election.

Sad to say, but that's not totally true. See, e.g., efforts to put limits on the Iraq war, and the sell-out on FISA amendments. I hope this gets remedied this time around (and to help expedite this, please give to Act Blue").

But it is getting harder and harder, as Dubya slips below 18% and Republicans refuse to even use the word "Republican" in their ads (much less the toxic words "Bush").

But make no mistake: The conservative Republican last-minute counter-proposal is simply DOA ... not that these conservatives don't know that; in fact, that's not the point of their obstruction at all....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:16 PM

And it's becoming more undeniable every millisecond that McInsane wanted to torpedo any agreement, most particularly any such agreement that had already been reached and would have shown him to be an eedjit, an irrelevancy, and a spotlight-stealer with his theatrical Return To Washington™....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:58 PM

So what you're really saying is that the Democrats are afraid to take the blame for the bailout, so they need the Republicans to go along. The Republicans don't want to because their constituents don't like it and damn near every economist in America thinks that it's a bad idea and may well not work. McCain gives them the license to vote no. So really, we should be applauding him for saving us from a bad bailout, or, if you like the bailout, blaming the Democrats for being too cowardly to accept responsibility. If (a) our economy is in danger of collapse, and (b) the bailout really will save us, and (c) the Democrats believe a and b, it seems incredibly irresponsible to refuse to vote for the bill unless Republicans come along.

# posted by

Asher : 5:02 PM

Tray,

As I stated on a later post, Republican supporters proposed early on to use a Democratic vote on this proposal against them in the election. So much for putting politics to the side to deal with this crisis, Mr. McCain.

If (a) our economy is in danger of collapse, and (b) the bailout really will save us,...it seems incredibly irresponsible to refuse to vote for the bill... Why are you not blaming the Republicans for this stance, then?

Caveat: I myself am not in favor of the bailout, and have notified my Rep and Senators, and the local media of my reasons. But trying to defend McCains actions, the man who "rushed" to help with the crisis 10 days after it started (h/t Jon Stewart), is literally silly.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 8:50 PM

Republican supporters proposed early on to use a Democratic vote on this proposal against them in the election. So much for putting politics to the side to deal with this crisis, Mr. McCain.

McCain has no standing to claim leadership unless he actually proposes a solution. The Dems in Congress did propose one, and they got the Administration to agree with it. McCain torpedoed it without offering one of his own. That's not leadership, that's irresponsible.

Here are the two possibilities:

1. The proposed bailout is good for the country, but is politically unpopular.* In that case, the House Republicans and John McCain are putting their electoral prospects before the interests of the country. That's despicable.

2. The proposed bailout is bad for the country. In that case, McCain should come out, say so, and offer an alternative; that would be leadership. He hasn't done that.

This leaves us with a choice: McCain is acting to hurt the country in order to further his own election; or he's irresponsible.

*If it were both good for the country and politically popular, there'd be no dispute about it.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:05 PM

Following the 2006 Congressional elections, is it possible that the Republicans panicked that a Democrat would be elected President in 2008 and decided upon a September, 2008 surprise that would ensure Republican succession to George W OR put a Democrat President and Congress in such a deep hole that 2010 would see a Congressional shift to the Republicans and a Republican President in 2012? The problems with the economy were well known in 2006. Were Bernanke and Paulson, knowingly or unknowingly, putting in place this September's surprise as surrogates for George W? Let's see how Republicans in Congress vote on the bailout to test this conspiracy theory. Bush wants to avoid being Hoover-ed and just as with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeks to pass on the problems to his successor; and if his successor is a Democrat, then the successor will be Hoover-ed. And let's see how much Wall Street adds to the coffers of McCain's campaign up to early November. Country first? No way, no how for McCain, whose refrain is "My country 'tis of ME ...." We are watching McCain in a Tim Conway moment, "my friends."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:04 AM

Here are the two possibilities:

1. The proposed bailout is good for the country, but is politically unpopular.* In that case, the House Republicans and John McCain are putting their electoral prospects before the interests of the country. That's despicable.

It's also impossible, because "House Republicans and John McCain" can't prevent the "bailout" from passing. If it isn't passing, it's because Democrats, not "House Republicans and John McCain," are refusing to vote for it. In which case, they're putting their electoral prospects before the interests of the country.

# posted by

David Nieporent : 12:21 PM

It's also impossible, because "House Republicans and John McCain" can't prevent the "bailout" from passing. If it isn't passing, it's because Democrats, not "House Republicans and John McCain," are refusing to vote for it. In which case, they're putting their electoral prospects before the interests of the country.

You missed my previous post explaining the political legitimacy issue. Normally speaking, the existing officials -- Congress and President -- have political legitimacy which gives them the authority needed to pass legislation which may be in the public interest even if it's unpopular. This is not the case for the President right now because (a) Bush is term limited; and (b) Bush is extremely unpopular.

Given these conditions, the political legitimacy of the Presidency is now shared (or divided, if you prefer) between McCain and Obama. Thus, in order for the government to pass a bill which is necessary but unpopular, they both need to consent. Obama is willing to do so, McCain is not. That makes McCain the one who's causing the problem.*

This assumes you agree that the bailout plan is right. If you don't agree, then we get to my point #2.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:44 PM

mark field said...

McCain has no standing to claim leadership unless he actually proposes a solution. The Dems in Congress did propose one, and they got the Administration to agree with it. McCain torpedoed it without offering one of his own. That's not leadership, that's irresponsible.

McCain backed up the demands of the House GOP. While the Dems and the Dem press were rather effectively lying through their teeth that McCain 'blew up" a "deal" which they knew did not exist, the Dems and Bush (interesting pair that) have now been forced to negotiate with the House GOP demands to protect the tax payers and force the bankers to pay towards this rescue package.

Roll Call reports:

House conservatives are feeling a renewed sense of relevance after a Friday morning Conference meeting. Sources in the meeting said Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received a standing ovation as he briefed Members on the state of play of the $700 billion bailout proposal.
There was “unanimous support for the leadership and the position they have taken,” the source said. “Not a single Member stood up to object” to GOP leadership efforts to have Wall Street finance part of its own bailout.

Another source said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a strong critic of the administration plan, praised leadership for insisting that free-market principles be part of the solution to the financial sector meltdown. He also said he was pleased that Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now at the table advocating these views. ...

[Financial Services ranking member Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)] said he continues to advocate giving loans to Wall Street firms as opposed to spending taxpayer dollars outright. Administration officials agreed last night to consider this option, he said. ...

Bachus said Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) significantly helped GOP Members by returning to the Hill this week because his message was that “House Republicans are relevant” and “we’re not going to roll the House Republicans.”

McCain has “turned the negotiations around” within 48 hours, he said.

Bachus said he told McCain early in the week that it would be helpful if he took part in negotiations on the rescue package. ...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:02 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

McCain backed up the demands of the House GOP.

Indeed. Let's be clear on that; McInsane went with the House Obstruc... -- umm, sorry, "Republicans" -- and their "insurance" shell game. See here for what's wrong with the 'insurance' and why it's a supreme con (and with the deregulation and capital gains tax cuts rolled in as 'pork' for good measure).

But the Rethuglicans have given up on this pile'o'crap 'alternative' (as well they should). But that leaves McInsane as siding with such arrant nonsense nonethelesss.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:18 PM

newsflash for the clueless:

["Bart"]: [T]he Dems and Bush (interesting pair that) have now been forced to negotiate with the House GOP demands to protect the tax payers and force the bankers to pay towards this rescue package.

Those were two of the four items that Obama and the Democrats insisted on being put into the original Paulson package. <*SHEESH*> Wake up, "Bart"!

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:21 PM

To clarify, what I meant was that if the Democrats believe we need the bailout to save us from disaster, they have an obligation to vote for it with or without Republican "cover." Now, someone countered and asked, don't the Republicans have the same obligation? No, because they don't believe that we need this bailout to save us from disaster - they seem to sincerely believe that we don't need an immediate bailout and that a different package would do a better job.

# posted by

Asher : 5:30 PM

No, because they don't believe that we need this bailout to save us from disaster - they seem to sincerely believe that we don't need an immediate bailout and that a different package would do a better job.

I am not sure of this read, if their first known reaction was how they could use it against Democrats in the election, but agree to disagree.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 10:00 PM

I am not sure of this read, if their first known reaction was how they could use it against Democrats in the election, but agree to disagree.

It really doesn't matter what the House Republicans think of the plan or whether they plan to make political use of it. McCain is the only one who's approval really counts because, as DMN noted, the Dems have the votes to pass the bill.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:21 AM