Now let’s hear from the Republican press…

Time Magazine, September 29th 2008

Joe Klein; Staff Blogger for Time Magazine’s Swampland

I don’t blame John McCain for not rounding up enough Republican votes to get this bailout bill through the House of Representatives–he’s not a member of the House, he’s never held a leadership position and therefore doesn’t know how to whip votes and finally–well, uh–there is one tried and true method for getting members of Congress to vote aye and McCain opposes it: a sweetener, like say, funding for a bridge in their districts. That is one reason why we have earmarks. McCain is opposed to giving away baubles for the greater good.

I do blame McCain for his puerile histrionics and for dragging this issue–which should have been above partisanship–into presidential politics. Let’s make no mistake about it: his various gimmicks had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the issue. He doesn’t know all that much about the substance of the issue. The gimmicks were a failed attempt to make it seem as if he had powers, and knowledge, he didn’t have. Clearly, he was in a more difficult position than Obama–the populist conservative wing of House Republicans was unwilling to take responsibility for the fruits of the deregulation that they promoted–and that might have required a more aggressive effort to move votes on his part, but the flailing about only confused Republicans (was he for, was he against?) and made matters worse.

As for Barack Obama, his visceral aversion to showboating did him a service. He laid out four requirements for his support of the bill–requests he had, clearly, coordinated with the Democratic Leadership (and which McCain supported). He made the necessary calls to keep up with the negotiations (as McCain did). He made it clear, without ostentation or fuss, that he supported the compromise. Even today, after the bill failed, Obama warned against panic and advised the Congress to get back to work and, “Get it done.”  Click here to read more at Time Magazine.

Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain

Associated Press, September 29th 2008

WASHINGTON - The house always wins, gamblers are warned, and the U.S. House made John McCain pay Monday for his politically risky, high-profile involvement in a financial rescue plan that came crashing down, mainly at the hands of his fellow Republicans.

The bill’s defeat can hardly be blamed on the GOP presidential nominee, and it’s possible that a revised measure might succeed. But by his own actions last week, McCain tied himself far more tightly to the failed bill than did his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

McCain argues that action is better than inaction in times of crises. His efforts, however, were aimed squarely at House Republicans, the group mainly responsible for the bill’s demise, which triggered a record drop of nearly 800 points in the stock market, the most ever for a single day.

If Congress’ impasse leads to a credit crisis, “it’s not going to be good for McCain,” said veteran Republican consultant John Feehery.

Another prominent Republican strategist, who would talk only on background to avoid antagonizing associates, said the vote was trouble for McCain.

As recently as Monday morning, only minutes before the House’s stunning vote, McCain suggested that his call for a White House summit meeting Thursday, and his visit with unhappy House Republicans that preceded it, had helped clear the way for the bill’s passage.

“I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington,” he told a crowd in Columbus, Ohio. “Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, top adviser Steve Schmidt said McCain managed “to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this.”

The comment suggested that McCain took responsibility for rounding up the needed GOP votes, “and that was probably a stupid thing for him to promise to do,” said Democratic adviser Jennifer Palmieri.

On Monday, only 65 of the House’s 199 Republicans went along. The defeat dealt a major blow to President Bush and threw another twist into a presidential campaign already drawing record numbers of Americans for rallies and televised events.

In a sign of the difficulty he faces, McCain made no direct comment on the House vote for about four hours. His campaign initially issued a sharply worded statement by economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, who blamed Obama and other Democrats.

Just before House members voted, he said, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.” House Democrats already had denounced that argument, saying it suggested GOP lawmakers based a crucial vote on pique rather than conviction.

A few hours later, a grim-faced McCain read a statement to reporters in Iowa. “I was hopeful that the improved rescue plan would have had the votes needed to pass,” he said. “I call on Congress to get back, obviously, immediately to address this crisis.”

Obama “and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process,” McCain said, adding: “Now is not the time to fix the blame; it’s time to fix the problem.”

Obama, of course, does face risks in the financial and political meltdown, and his party is hardly blameless for the legislation’s collapse Monday. From the start, however, Obama kept more distance from the infighting, and questioned the wisdom of injecting presidential politics directly into the negotiating mix, as McCain did with the White House meeting that Obama had little choice but to attend.

Obama gave the legislative package tepid support Sunday. If several Democratic-backed additions stayed in it, he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “my inclination would be to vote for it, understanding I’m not happy about it.”

On Monday, many of the House Democrats who opposed the bill were blacks, who rank among Obama’s strongest supporters. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., was one. “I do not believe that we have explored or exhausted all possible options to directly ease the pressure on financial markets without causing an undue burden to taxpayers,” he said. Click here to read more at Yahoo News from the Associated Press.

One should remember that Tom Delay is in prison for his lobbying activities on behalf of Native American casinos.

New York Times, Sept 28th 2008

Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.

A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.

The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain’s campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world’s second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations. Click here to read more of this story at the New York Times.

Many observers think John came off as an angry old man, stuck in narrow paths (Iraq and earmarks). Obama appears to win economic portion of debate and also showed impressive command of foreign policy nuances.

McCain and Obama Meet in first debate

New York Times, September 26th, 2008

Senator Barack Obama made a stinging attack on the Bush administration’s economic management on Friday night — and, by extension, Senator John McCain’s ties to Mr. Bush — while Mr. McCain sounded optimistic notes that Washington would come together to deal with the American and global financial crisis.

In the opening minutes of their first presidential debate, at the University of Mississippi, Mr. Obama criticized Mr. McCain by name twice in response to the first question of the forum, about their positions on the $700 billion bailout plan for financial firms. He linked Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush on Republican economic philosophy, and noted that Mr. McCain noted recently that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

“We are at a defining moment in our history,” Mr. Obama said, standing at a podium several feet to the left of Mr. McCain. “This is a final verdict of eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by Senator McCain.”

Mr. McCain replied by saying that he was “not feeling too great about a lot of things lately,” noting the problems in the economy, but said he was heartened that Republicans and Democrats were negotiating together on the bailout plan. And he sought, as President Bush did in his prime-time speech on Wednesday night, to bring home the potential fall-out of the Wall Street crisis for voters across the country.

“We’re talking about failures on Main Street and people who would lose their jobs and their credit and their homes if we don’t fix the greatest fiscal crisis in our time,” Mr. McCain said. “This isn’t the beginning of the end of this crisis — this is the end of the beginning.”

Mr. McCain indicated that he would ultimately vote for the bailout agreement that Congress is negotiating, and both men said that they did not plan to roll back any of their major spending and tax proposals as a result of the bailout’s high costs.

About 40 minutes in, Mr. Obama launched a broadside against Mr. McCain’s repeated support for cutting spending.  Click here to read more at the New York Times.

Palin should step down, conservative commentator says..and several others echo the thought.

News Cloud.com, September 26th

(CNN) – Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is “out of her league” and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

The criticism in Parker’s Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.

It was fun while it lasted,” Parker writes. “Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league.”

Palin’s interview with Couric drew criticism when the Alaska governor was unable to provide an example of when John McCain had pushed for more regulation of Wall Street during his Senate career. Palin also took heat for defending her foreign policy credentials by suggesting Russian leaders enter Alaska airspace when they come to America. Palin was also criticized last week for appearing not to know what the Bush Doctrine is during an interview with Charlie Gibson.

“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself,” Parker also writes. “If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.”

Parker, who praised McCain’s “keen judgment” for picking Palin earlier this month and wrote the Alaska governor is a “perfect storm of God, Mom and apple pie,” now says Palin should step down from the ticket.

“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves,” Parker writes. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country.”

Parker’s comments follow those by prominent conservatives David Brooks, George Will, and David Frum who have all publicly questioned Palin’s readiness to be vice president.

“Sarah Palin has many virtues,” Brooks wrote in a recent column. “If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”

Is John McCain prepared to risk financial meltdown to “save” his campaign? In this article, Senator Obama clearly states six principals that will Democrats will insist upon. Lastly, let us repeat, Democrats will not vote for a bailout without clear support from a large majority of Republicans. This is their mess, George Bush and the Republican administration cannot expect Democrats to give them a blank check.

Political Insider, Tegan Goddard

September 26th, 2008

Last night around 8:30 p.m., Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain released a “joint statement” pertaining the the crisis in the financial markets:

“The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American people are at stake.

“Now is a time to come together - Democrats and Republicans - in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people. The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.

“This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.”

However, the Obama campaign also released a “set of principles” that Obama wanted McCain to support. However, Marc Ambinder reports McCain would not agree to this so they were left on “the cutting room floor.”

Here are the five principles outlines by Obama:

First, there must be oversight. We should not hand over a blank check to the discretion of one man. We support an independent, bipartisan board to ensure accountability and complete transparency.

Second, we need to protect taxpayers. There should be a path for taxpayers to recover their money, and to turn a profit if Wall Street prospers.

Third, no Wall Street executive should profit from taxpayer dollars. This plan cannot be a welfare program for CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility has contributed to this crisis.

Fourth, we must help families who are struggling to stay in their homes. We cannot bail out Wall Street without helping millions of families facing foreclosure on Main Street.

Fifth, we both agree that this financial rescue package should move on its own without any earmarks or other measures. We have different views about the need for other action, but this must be a clean bill.

Interestingly, when President Bush addressed the nation just minutes later, he essentially agreed to the exact same set of principles in his own speech. So the question is: Why wouldn’t McCain agree to a fairly innocuous, Mom and apple pie set of conditions for a bill?

Democrats fear this morning that McCain is setting up a scenario in which he will vote against the bill, rally conservatives to his side and, most importantly, distance himself from both President Bush and Congress before the election.

John McCain is yet to endorse the bailout proposal that runs counter to years of statements and positions.  Democrats demand oversight and accountibility, return on the public’s investment, executive pay restrictions and help for besieged homeowners. Democrats will not pass this bill if Republicans do not join in.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

New York Times, Published: September 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — The status of a rescue plan for the nation’s financial system was in doubt on Thursday, at least for the moment, as lawmakers emerged from a White House meeting with President Bush to say that negotiations have a ways to go.

“My hope is that we can get a deal,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, hours after House and Senate negotiators had announced that an accord was at hand. It had also been President Bush’s hope that an agreement could be announced after the late-afternoon meeting.

Looking tired and annoyed, Mr. Dodd complained that late complications were making the episode sound more like “a rescue plan for John McCain,” the Republican presidential candidate, than one for the country’s financial system.

It does no good, Mr. Dodd said, “to be distracted for two or three hours by political theater.”

The senator was apparently alluding to a growing revolt by conservative House Republicans against the proposed $700 billion rescue, and the fact that Senator McCain has not yet endorsed the plan, whose concept runs contrary to the policy positions he has taken for years.

Mr. McCain and his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, left the White House by a side entrance without commenting. The initial silence of the presidential candidates reinforced the impression that thorny issues still need to be addressed before an accord is achieved.

Shortly afterward, Mr. Obama said in an interview on CNN that he was confident that a deal would be reached “eventually,” but he said, “I think there’s still some work that needs to be done.”

Mr. McCain said he, too, was optimistic, at least in the long run. “I am confident that we will reach an agreement that gets a majority of my colleagues on my side of the aisle as well as a majority on the other side,” he said on CBS.

The impression that much remains to be done was only reinforced by Mr. Dodd’s comments. After saying he still hoped for a deal, the senator said it was important to take “whatever time it takes” to arrive at a good arrangement, since the effects will be felt for “years and years to come.”

It has become abundantly clear, that members of Congress are hearing from their constituents, many of whom are furious about the proposed rescue.

Earlier Thursday, House and Senate negotiators said they had reached a deal on a $700 billion rescue for the nation’s financial system, authorizing unprecedented government intervention to buy distressed debt from private firms in a move to prevent what President Bush warned could be a widespread economic collapse.

Emerging from a nearly three-hour meeting in the Capitol, Republicans and Democrats said earlier Thursday that the legislation would include limits on the pay packages for executives of some firms that seek assistance and a mechanism for the government to take an equity stake in some of the firms, so taxpayers have a chance to profit if the bailout plan works.

The announcement that lawmakers had reached an accord came on a day of high political theater at the Capitol and at the White House — in a drama whose ending may be quite unpredictable, it seemed after the late-afternoon White House meeting broke up.

“We’re in a serious economic crisis,” Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began, shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room of the White House, adding, “This meeting is an attempt to move the process forward. My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly.”

Mr. McCain was seated at one end of a long conference table, Mr. Obama at the other, with the president and congressional leaders between them. Neither spoke, though Mr. McCain smiled broadly as reporters shouted questions that went unanswered by Mr. Bush.

Mr. McCain threw a kink into talks on the rescue package on Wednesday, announcing that he would suspend his campaign and return to Washington to forge a deal that he said the Bush administration could not broker on its own. That set Congressional Democrats in high gear to put a deal in place before Mr. McCain could claim any credit.

At one point in the talks, Mr. Obama telephoned Mr. Dodd while the negotiating session was under way. Mr. Dodd passed the telephone to several participants.

“I now expect we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate, be signed by the president, and bring a sense of certainty to this crisis that is still roiling in the markets,” said Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah. “That is our primary responsibility and I think we our now prepared to meet it.”

And Mr. Bennett, one of the senior members of the banking committee, made a point of describing the meeting as free of political maneuvering. “We focused on solving the problem, rather than posturing politically and it was one of the most productive sessions in that regard that I have participated in since I have been in the Senate,” Mr. Bennett said.

Click here for more theatrical farce at the New York Times.

The Administration wants the power to make decisions as to who and how much aid goes where.  All of these decisions are specifically not subject to review by any agency, court or administrative authority.

Dirty Secret of the Bailout: Thirty Two Words in the fine print!

Huffington Post, September 22nd, 2008

A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that’s so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one’s hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.“

In short, the so-called “mother of all bailouts,” which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People’s duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.

Is this starting to sound familiar? Robert Kuttner cuts through much of the gloss in an article in today’s American Prospect:

The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street’s dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson — a provision that evokes the Bush administration’s suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security. [...]

The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.

Click here to read more at Huffington Post.

Obama/Biden surges in CNN Poll, now leads nationally 51% to 46% for Palin/McSame team.  That’s a five point swing in the past five days.

CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains

• Story Highlights
• Nearly half of those polled blame Republicans for current financial crisis
• Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday
• Majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues

WASHINGTON (CNN) — By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests.

That may be contributing to better poll numbers for Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible.

Twenty percent blame both parties equally and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.

The poll also indicates more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee.

Click here to read more of this CNN Story.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times reveals that John McCain and Sarah Palin want to apply the same financial reforms we have come to know and love in Wall Street to America’s health care!

Paul Krugman, New York Times, Sept 19th

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!  Here is a link to Mr. Krugman’s blog at the New York Times.