Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Poll: Who's To Blame?

The blame game is already well underway in Washington as both presidential candidates and their parties seek to lay the responsibility for the House's failure to pass the bailout bill today at the other sides' feet.

We want to hear from you. Take our poll below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 29, 2008; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Analysis: The Failure of the Bailout Bill
Next: Palin's (Conservative) Problem?

Comments

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system.

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to. - Dennis Kucinich

Posted by: carolm62 | October 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

You're so right Varrezzano!!!!!!!!

Watch Franks here.

Listen carefully to this 8 minute video from a hearing committee meeting from 2004. It is pretty clear as to who is to blame. Quite an eye opener.

In their own words covering up the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Economic Crisis.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Posted by: xvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwx | October 1, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

Listen carefully to this 8 minute video from a hearing committee meeting from 2004. It is pretty clear as to who is to blame. Quite an eye opener.

In their own words covering up the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Economic Crisis.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Posted by: xvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwx | October 1, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Verrazzano,

"Babble" is what you can't or don't choose to understand.

Bottom line: majority of Democrats vote for Republican President's plan.

Majority of Republicans vote against Republican President's plan.

Spin that as you will, it speaks for itself. The Republicans are in disarray.

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Actually the most shocking portion of the speech was the Forgiveness part - coming from Torricelli who was the most RUTHLESS AND UNFORGIVING PERSON TO EVER BE IN CONGRESS.


Torricelli was one of the most self-centered and evil men in politics.


Torricelli is the one who had no credibility on the way out the door - and for Torricelli again to say that David Chang was a liar when NBC News showed the EVIDENCE on television the night before was a complete joke.


Torricelli had many other scandals.


Clearly the Torricelli situation was several different scandals converging on Torricelli at once - he deserved every one of them - plus there were other allegations which people were urging the FBI and Department of Justice to investigate. Believe me Torricelli was a disturbed and sick man who should have never been allowed to hold public office in the first place - you can blame his own democratic party for not getting rid of him earlier in his career when they had several chances to support other candidates.


The pathetic nature of the democratic party led to Torricelli's rise.


In addition, one has to take notice that the democratic party officials CHOSE TO SIT BY AND DO NOTHING FOR YEARS WHEN ALLEGATION AFTER ALLEGATION CONCERNING TORRICELLI TURNED UP. Harry Reid in particular chose to look the other way when allegations came to his office.


CLEARLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PLACE FORTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RESPECTABLE AND SOLID CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.


The lesson should be: the democratic party should get rid of their officials when it is clear that allegations are true - instead they have no mechanism and they always look the other way - the democratic party is at fault.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 30, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

What's in a Vote?

The following Democratic Representatives voted against the bailout package:


1. Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
2. Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
3. Rep. Joe Baca, CA
4. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
5. Rep. David Scott, GA
6. Rep. Al Green, TX
7. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
8. Rep. Lincoln Davis, TN
9. Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
10. Rep. Andre Carson, IN
11. Rep. Don Cazayoux, LA
12. Rep. Travis Childers, MS

What is the significance of these 12? They all serve on the House Committee of Financial Services, chaired by Barney Frank! That was the difference between passing the bailout.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The Private Federal Reserve Bank is THE cause of this crisis and gets the Blame. Here's how it works.

The Fed is a Private Bank, owned by a few rich European and American Banking families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans etc. They have had us by the financial throat since 1913, when they last wiggled their way back into monetary control of America, by bribing 3 members of the Senate to re-create the Fed on Christmas Eve when everyone else had gone home. The Fed Families, deliberately cause boom and bust cycles and profit from them using an old criminal practice from the early gold traders and money lenders called "fractional reserve banking." which they have paid legislators to legalize here in America. This means that 90% of the money they create is imaginary, though they demand real value interest on all of it.

http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm
(How The Fed Creates Money)

. They have been kicked out of America 5 times in the past (in different incarnations) by courageous Presidents. Kennedy was quietly destroying them with his Executive Order 11110, ordering the Treasury to again begin printing silver certificate dollars, when he was assassinated. They currently control the creation of money in 107 different countries. Their goal, is said to be to control the entire planet eventually, in a feudal system where only members of their families and class, would be able to own property.
In the 1920's their American Lieutenants set about buying up all the most influential newspapers, through surrogates. These included both the NY Times and the Washington Post, hence the lackluster, ZERO reporting against the Banking Cartels, The Federal Reserve, etc. in America. More surrogate buyers then slowly but surely acquired control of the television networks and even the great Film Studios. Americans have been manipulated into Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan etc. by these puppet news sources.

from "The Money Masters" film on Google on the Internet. and from : The History of the House of Rothschild by Andrew Hitchcock, an essay available on the internet (note: biased against Jews, in my opinion, but a great and accurate time line of events and quotations.)
******************************************************************************************
At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9 of 1991, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild associate) made the following statement,

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

***********************************************************************************
and finally : source : SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks?
A: Rich dynastic families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich"

Q: Can I buy this stock?
A: No. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich". Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans. (note: this stance is actually Criminal as it is discriminatory and of course, NO FOREIGNERS should be in charge of creating American currency!!!vrc)

Q: Is the Internal Revenue Service a governmental agency?
A: Although listed as part of the Treasury Department, the IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal Reserve System.. All personal income taxes collected by the IRS are required by law to be deposited in the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, under Sec. 15 of the Federal Reserve Act, "The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury may be ....deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States."
**************************************************************************************************
So, the Fed will be issuing orders to all its subsidiary and criminal banks, NOW to block the money supply to create such a mood of fear, panic and crisis on the streets that the next effort to pass the bailout will succeed. (though it WON'T in my opinion.)

Yet, a tried and true solution, proven to work 5 times in past American History, remains ignored and never discussed by the Congress, or the Media.....both owned by the Fed families, in my opinion. We must simply order the Fed closed, and have the Treasury begin printing and distributing immediately the green back dollar silver certificates, as Kennedy was trying to do, when he was assassinated. Though Johnson, his successor, immediately stopped the process, Kennedy's Executive Order was never rescinded. Greenback dollars can therefore, legally be printed tomorrow and distributed. The Treasury, with new people at the helm not associated with the Fed Families, can then provide all the money necessary to run America quite nicely and not charge any interest for doing so. End of crisis. (except for the Treason Trials)

Posted by: vcompton1 | September 30, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Could someone compile all the data and see what % of these horrible loans foreclosures and overpurchased mcmansions or debt in general which is at the root of this entire problem are republicans and what % are democrats.

Who wants to bet which party would be the majority??

Posted by: goosedude | September 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Nodebris - You ask me if I believe my own story and then write some babble about about Pelosi negotiating in good faith? I certainly do not believe your version.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

TO BLAME??

Who should be praised is more like it? IF that were the question I would praise the 60% Republicans and the 40% of the Democrats who bothered to stand on principle and protect our free market economy from the false security of a socialistic bailout for a sector of society which already is given every competitive edge possible and still can not succeed. To heck with them lets get the pain over with and get on with some sound economics.

Posted by: MJMJ | September 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Verrazzano,

An interesting, if fantastical, interpretation of the facts.

If Republican legislators do not believe their own administration's declaration of a financial emergency, I suppose your interpretation makes a wee tiny little bit of sense -- even as it raises a host of other doubts about the Republicans.

But basically, your post smacks of the worst sort of self-serving, partisan delusion.

John McCain "suspends" his campaign, "cancels" the debate, and demands that Obama meet with him and the President to hammer out this agreement -- and it's Pelosi that is "pushing" it?

Bush and Paulson hold press conferences virtually every day stating that this emergency legislation must pass immediately -- and it's Pelosi that is "pushing" it?

Pelosi negotiates in good faith with Republicans throughout the weekend to reach a compromise that Republicans assure her they will support, and schedules a rush vote before the Rosh Hoshanna break because the administration demands immediate action -- and she's playing Cinderalla?

Do you even believe your own story?

You're clearly fond of fairy tales. You should probably keep away from newspapers and stick with your Mother Goose and Rush Limbaugh, where unpleasant facts will not intrude on your fantasies.

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Partisans so ready to blame Democrats in Congress are missing the point, perhaps intentionally, that this problem developed with Bush in the White House, during eight years in which Congress was absolutely controlled by Bush's party for 75% of the time, and had the power to sustain a Bush veto during the remaining 25%.

Bush and his appointed officials proposed this bailout...its THEIR plan. It is the most idiotic hypocrisy to expect Bush's opposition to do all the heavy-lifting to enact it, if Bush's own partisans won't support it. Why should they?

Personally, I'm glad that Bush's "No Banker Left Behind" plan wasn't enacted. I've read that Wall Street's exec's took away $38 billion in bonuses last year alone: BONUSES! Lets not talk about their bloated salaries and other perks. And some of them received these rewards after running their companies into the ground.

No more welfare for the rich.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | September 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Nodebris - While this plan was created by Poulson under the blessing of the White House, it was the Democratic leadership that was pushing this legislation and adding its pork to it. Pelosi could have easily rejected it from the beginning and say that Congress will handle it. But she didn't and she was the one who was championing it to pass. The agreement has always been between her leadership group and the White House. Fortunately, there were many among her own party that rejected the bill. This was not a straight down party line vote. Democracy actually worked for once.

Poulson decided to play fairy Godmother and declared the Cinderella hour. The market took a hit yesterday but today, the DOW has been up near 300 all day. None of this makes any sense. Everytime Congress has had a reactionary bill put in place, it has been a disaster. The need to rush this plan is clearly not needed. Obama mocked McCain when he suggested putting together a review committee to tackle this situation. It looks like McCain had it right. Chris Dodd and Barney Franks are not the people to resolve this mess.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The fanatical ideologues of the Republican party have sabotaged our financial system in pursuit of their crackpot philosophy. Newt Gingrich backstabbed Rep. Boehner. Rep. Cantor backstabbed Speaker Pelosi.

Only Barney Frank spoke the truth yesterday when he sardonically lampooned GOP claims that their poor little feelings were hurt by Pelosi's speech.

McCain undermined the bipartisan leadership of both houses of Congress with his wildly irresponsible parachute tactic last week. He "suspended" his campaign in order to save it, not the financial bailout plan. He succeeded in making a colossal mess of both the Congressional negotiations on the rescue package AND his campaign. Way to go, flyboy.

Obama emerges as the only calm, adult, intelligent figure on the national scene.

Can't we make Obama president this week? We really need him now.

Posted by: dee5 | September 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"We are looking at 95 members from Pelosi's party. She only needed 12 of them to pass the legislation."

Republicans have to get out of this fantasy land where Democrats are going to pass the Republican administration's hugely unpopular Republican emergency plan without a majority of Republicans on board.

I know you'd like us to do all the dirty work for you while you keep your precious little hands clean and get back to blaming us for all the problems you won't deal with.

But if Republicans won't trust the Republican leadership, don't expect us to trust them.

A bill this big is bi-partisan, or it doesn't pass. End of story.

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"If Congress was a parliament, Pelosi just received a no vote of confidence."

But Congress is not a parliament, and Pelosi is not Prime Minister.

In our system, the vote of no confidence was delivered directly from the House Republican caucus to its own leadership: Bush, the minority leaders, and John McCain.

Unlike the Republican leaders, Pelosi delivered exactly what she promised: a solid majority of Democrats. Her position as majority leader, and thus Speaker, wasn't at all damaged by the vote.

Posted by: nodebris | September 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The fault for the failure of Congress to reach agreement on the buyout rests squarely with the Republicans, who got us into this mess to begin with. Suppose you're out of town and someone burglarizes your home- totally empties it. Then the burglar calls you and says, "I just burglarized your home. I took everything. Now, if you'll pay me an extra ten thousand dollars, I'll leave it locked. Otherwise there's a vandal coming after me who will come in and burn the whole place down from the inside." This bailout- however undesirable it is, has become a necessary evil to save us from a greater evil of total collapse. Our economy has come to this because the Republicans have allowed it to become a lawless free-for-all. There is a continuum in economics between money earned by labor, that is wages, at one end of the scale, and at the other end, money earned by other money- investments. The smart people make their money work to gain them more money. The really smart people put other people's money to work. But the smartest guys in the room make money that doesn't exist work for them. That's where all these exotic, new investment products came from, and the kind of trades that never would have been allowed under the proper regulation. The farther out on the scale you go in that direction of deregulation, the more risky it is and the more illusory equity is and the more precarious the money situation becomes. Ideally, there should be a balance somewhere in the middle, to be fair to ordinary Americans, and leave room for Business to thrive. But since the Republican Party has careened to outrageously far to the Right, "Center" has become "The New Left." Republican economic policy has favored increasingly lawless and risky practices. Like a Ponzi Scheme, eventually something gives and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards. Here's the rub. We still have to pay the bandits for robbing us, so we won't suffer the greater catastrophe. We have no choice. The right way to follow this up is to vote those puppets of the Robber Barons out of there. But guess what? We'll keep voting in the Republicans who give the bandits all the license they want to rob us again and again. We'll vote for them, because people see Sarah Palin on TV and they say, "Oh, she's a Hockey Mom- and I'm a Soccer Mom- she must be on my side!" Or, "The guy on the radio down at the shop got me all inflamed and angry about (something totally false, and totally irrelevant, misrepresented and out of context) so I'm votin' Republican." There you go. More of the same, because Americans are sheep.

Posted by: Telaquapacky | September 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Those who voted no were representing their constituents....they were doing their job. I am glad they did it.

Posted by: ca67klein | September 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If Congress was a parliament, Pelosi just received a no vote of confidence. She would be asked to step down as Prime Minister. The question is not why did so many Republicans vote against the proposal. The question is why did so many Democrats vote against it. We are looking at 95 members from Pelosi's party. She only needed 12 of them to pass the legislation. In the end of the day, it was her own members that let her down and as the leader, she was unable to convince them to vote for her proposal.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I think we're seeing this all wrong. The question should be... Who is responsible for the success of stopping this "bailout" from passing? Who out there will pay off my credit cards for me? I've assummed some bad debt in my life, will you pay it for me? There is a reason no one will buy these debts from the banks. THEY'RE BAD!!! People in that line of business aren't stupid enough to buy these debts. Why should taxpayers be forced to be stupid and buy these debts. These bad debts have already destoyed a few banks. They'll do the same to the taxpayers if we're forced to buy them. The bill didn't pass, the market crashed, now go to your bank today, mine is JPMorgan Chase now, and withdraw some money and then put it in your gas tank. I know it's bad, it will get worse, but see, no end of the US economy. Fear is their weapon. Don't let these rich boys scare you into paying their debt. You wouldn't pay mine...

Posted by: at14tao | September 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE MORTGAGE MESS

The Mother of All Bailouts has many fathers. As panicked politicians prepare to fork over a trillion dollars in taxpayer funding to rescue the financial industry, they’ve fingered regulation, deregulation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, both Bushes, greedy banks, greedy borrowers, greedy short-sellers, and minority home ownership mau-mauers (can’t call ‘em greedy, that would be racist) for blame.

But there’s one giant paternal elephant in the room that has slipped notice: How illegal immigration, crime-enabling banks, and open-borders Bush policies fueled the mortgage crisis.

It’s no coincidence that most of the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure wave – Loudon County, Virginia, California’s Inland Empire, Stockton, San Joaquin Valley, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, for starters — also happen to be some of the nation’s largest illegal alien sanctuaries. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure.

Regional reports across the country have decried the subprime meltdown’s impact on illegal immigrant “victims.” A July report showed that in seven of the 10 metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates, Hispanics represented at least one-third of the population; in two of those areas – Merced and Salinas-Monterey, Calif. – Hispanics comprised half the population. The amnesty-promoting National Council of La Raza and its Development Fund have received millions in federal funds to “counsel” their constituents on obtaining mortgages with little to no money down; the group almost succeeded in attaching a $10 million earmark for itself in one of the housing bills passed this spring.

For the last five years, I’ve reported on the rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket. The top banks clamoring for their handouts as their profits plummet, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns to woo illegal alien homebuyers. The quasi-governmental Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority jumped in to guarantee home loans to illegal immigrants. The Washington Post noted, almost as an afterthought in a 2005 report: “Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group, have been courted aggressively by real estate agents, mortgage brokers and programs for first-time buyers that offer help with closing costs. Ads proclaim: “Sin verificacion de ingresos ! Sin verificacion de documento !” — which loosely translates as, ‘Income tax forms are not required, nor are immigration papers.’”

In addition, fraudsters have engaged in massive house-flipping rings using illegal aliens as straw buyers. Among many examples cited by the FBI: a conspiracy in Las Vegas involving a former Nevada First Residential Mortgage Company branch manager who directed loan officers and processors in the origination of 233 fraudulent Federal Housing Authority loans valued at over $25 million. The defrauders manufactured and submitted false employment and income documentation for borrowers; most were illegal immigrants from Mexico. To date, the FBI reported, “58 loans with a total value of $6.2 million have gone into default, with a loss to the Housing and Urban Development Department of over $1.9 million.”

It’s the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to lax Bush administration-approved policies allowing illegal aliens to use “matricula consular cards” and taxpayer identification numbers to open bank accounts, more forms of mortgage fraud have burgeoned. Moneylenders still have no access to a verification system to check Social Security numbers before approving loans. In an interview about rampant illegal alien home loan fraud, a spokeswoman for the U.S. General Accounting Office told me five years ago:

“Considering the size of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston, and other large cities throughout the United States known to be inundated with illegal aliens, I don’t think the federal government is willing to expose this problem for financial reasons as well as for fear of political repercussions.”

Chickens coming home to roost. And Washington wants law-abiding, responsible taxpayers to pay for it.


INSIST THE 'NAY' VOTE STAND!!

Posted by: AJAX2 | September 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The media is to blame, of course. You suck.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac packaged poisonous mortgages and sold them off in financial markets worldwide.

If this was from China, your guys wouldn't allow it go unnoticed so long.

Posted by: gousaphe | September 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The problem is simple: leadership commited the inexcusable political sin of not counting their votes. You don't bring a bill of this magnitude to the floor without a clean and clear vote count. Washington is simply leaderless.

Posted by: fulrich | September 30, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Chris of the Fix...Now is not the time to assign blame, but if we must it is evident that HOUSE REPUBLICANS caused the bill to fail!

Nearly 70% of the House Republicans voted against the bill while 60% of Democrats voted for the bill!

The question is going to be as we go forward, how bad does the economy have to get before House Republicans react responsively? Will it take an employment rate of 7.5% or higher? Or will it take a GDP number of -5%? What?! What?! What?!

Posted by: AJ2008 | September 30, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Hi,

Great thread - it’s refreshing to read so many insightful and/or amusing posts!!

I realise this is a little bit off-topic, but I need some help.

I’m with an online business TV network called yourBusinessChannel, and we’re looking to collect opinion on Obama and McCain’s performances as persuasive communicators during the debate on Friday.

Ask yourself - politics aside, who would you buy a used car off?

We’re looking for comments and contributions from people who have been following the 2008 campaign closely, who can offer really valuable insights. Clearly, there are many such people commenting on this thread, and elsewhere blogosphere).

A bit about us - yourBusinessChannel produces short internet business TV shows providing advice to business people and entrepreneurs on all aspects of business. Our shows feature advice and insights from a pool of the world’s leading business experts.

We’re interested in the 2008 presidential race because of what it tells us about the power of persuasion, and how to give a really amazing presentations.

Yesterday we posted this three minute summary of the first presidential debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD2DqHqK2Cw

We are currently producing a series which focuses on how to be really persuasive when making business and sales presentations.

Obama and McCain have very different styles, and it’s fascinating to watch what works with the public and what doesn’t. Clearly there are lessons here for businesspeople who have to prepare presentations in their professional lives.

I’ve been reading the comments thread on this blog and I’ve been impressed with the level of discussion here - so I’d love any or all of you to reply to this post with your views and opinions…

I want to know - in your opinion - which candidate:
- Had the most persuasive tone of voice?
- Made best use of body language?
- Seemed genuinely passionate about their message?
- Used humour to good effect?
- Showed total mastery of policy details?
- Rebutted his opponent most convincingly, and dealt best with criticism?
- Was relaxed and confident in making off the cuff comments?
- Avoided major faux pas and screw-ups?
- Came across as a real human being, not a robot regurgitating talking points?

…and why do you think so?

I’m looking forward to hearing your comments!!

cheers,

Steve Kerr
http://www.yourBusinessChannel.com

Posted by: YBCsteve | September 30, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Hi,

Great thread - it’s refreshing to read so many insightful and/or amusing posts!!

I realise this is a little bit off-topic, but I need some help.

I’m with an online business TV network called yourBusinessChannel, and we’re looking to collect opinion on Obama and McCain’s performances as persuasive communicators during the debate on Friday.

Ask yourself - politics aside, who would you buy a used car off?

We’re looking for comments and contributions from people who have been following the 2008 campaign closely, who can offer really valuable insights. Clearly, there are many such people commenting on this thread, and elsewhere blogosphere).

A bit about us - yourBusinessChannel produces short internet business TV shows providing advice to business people and entrepreneurs on all aspects of business. Our shows feature advice and insights from a pool of the world’s leading business experts.

We’re interested in the 2008 presidential race because of what it tells us about the power of persuasion, and how to give a really amazing presentations.

Yesterday we posted this three minute summary of the first presidential debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD2DqHqK2Cw

We are currently producing a series which focuses on how to be really persuasive when making business and sales presentations.

Obama and McCain have very different styles, and it’s fascinating to watch what works with the public and what doesn’t. Clearly there are lessons here for businesspeople who have to prepare presentations in their professional lives.

I’ve been reading the comments thread on this blog and I’ve been impressed with the level of discussion here - so I’d love any or all of you to reply to this post with your views and opinions…

I want to know - in your opinion - which candidate:
- Had the most persuasive tone of voice?
- Made best use of body language?
- Seemed genuinely passionate about their message?
- Used humour to good effect?
- Showed total mastery of policy details?
- Rebutted his opponent most convincingly, and dealt best with criticism?
- Was relaxed and confident in making off the cuff comments?
- Avoided major faux pas and screw-ups?
- Came across as a real human being, not a robot regurgitating talking points?

…and why do you think so?

I’m looking forward to hearing your comments!!

cheers,

Steve Kerr
http://www.yourBusinessChannel.com

Posted by: YBCsteve | September 30, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

We have met the enemy, and he (really) is us. Dick Nixon knew 60 (yes, 60) years ago that appeals to polarized, black and white, all or nothing, always or never, right or wrong, all-good vs. all-bad thinking was the single best tool a politician had. Ask any cognitive therapist: 80 percent of the population thinks in polarities 90% of the time. We have been trained to do so.

The bailout bill was DoA because the people could not see -- and ACCEPT -- the ambiguities. The polarized thinker cannot see -- nor will he accept -- his addiction to simplistic solutions (not to mention more, More, MORE!). He was raised on absolutism and intolerance for subtlety.

The what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too crowd knows this. And they played the gimmee-gimmee suckers with cheap credit and Things You Cannot Live Without. Dig around for something called "The Real Story." It's a PowerPoint presentation. Nicely explains the narcissistic antisocial white collar imperative back of the whole deal.

But even if the thieving dukes and abbots of the land have succeeded at the biggest wealth grab in human history, the rest of us may have little choice other than to bail them out.

And then string them up by their...

Posted by: not_moses | September 30, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

We have met the enemy, and he (really) is us. Dick Nixon knew 60 (yes, 60) years ago that appeals to polarized, black and white, all or nothing, always or never, right or wrong, all-good vs. all-bad thinking was the single best tool a politician had. Ask any cognitive therapist: 80 percent of the population thinks in polarities 90% of the time. We have been trained to do so.

The bailout bill was DoA because the people could not see -- and ACCEPT -- the ambiguities. The polarized thinker cannot see -- nor will he accept -- his addiction to simplistic solutions (not to mention more, More, MORE!). He was raised on absolutism and intolerance for subtlety.

The what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too crowd knows this. And they played the gimmee-gimmee suckers with cheap credit and Things You Cannot Live Without. Dig around for something called "The Real Story." It's a PowerPoint presentation. Nicely explains the narcissistic antisocial white collar imperative back of the whole deal.

But even if the thieving dukes and abbots of the land have succeeded at the biggest wealth grab in human history, the rest of us may have little choice other than to bail them out.

And then string them up by their...

Posted by: not_moses | September 30, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

McCain is the big loser in all this. His dramatic trip to Washington to fashion a deal fell flat and makes him look even more foolish now.

Posted by: MadameSelena | September 30, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

We have met the enemy, and he (really) is us. Dick Nixon knew 60 (yes, 60) years ago that appeals to polarized, black and white, all or nothing, always or never, right or wrong, all-good vs. all-bad thinking was the single best tool a politician had. Ask any cognitive therapist: 80 percent of the population thinks in polarities 90% of the time. We have been trained to do so.

The bailout bill was DoA because the people could not see -- and ACCEPT -- the ambiguities. The polarized thinker cannot see -- nor will he accept -- his addiction to simplistic solutions (not to mention more, More, MORE!). He was raised on absolutism and intolerance for subtlety.

The what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too crowd knows this. And they played the gimmee-gimmee suckers with cheap credit and Things You Cannot Live Without. Dig around for something called "The Real Story." It's a PowerPoint presentation. Nicely explains the narcissistic antisocial white collar imperative back of the whole deal.

But even if the thieving dukes and abbots of the land have succeeded at the biggest wealth grab in human history, the rest of may have little choice other than to bail them out.

And then string them up by their...

Posted by: not_moses | September 30, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

We have met the enemy, and he (really) is us. Dick Nixon knew 60 (yes, 60) years ago that appeals to polarized, black and white, all or nothing, always or never, right or wrong, all-good vs. all-bad thinking was the single best tool a politician had. Ask any cognitive therapist: 80 percent of the population thinks in polarities 90% of the time. We have been trained to do so.

The bailout bill was DoA because the people could not see -- and ACCEPT -- the ambiguities. The polarized thinker cannot see -- nor will he accept -- his addiction to simplistic solutions (not to mention more, More, MORE!). He was raised on absolutism and intolerance for subtlety.

The what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too crowd knows this. And they played the suckers with cheap credit and Things You Cannot Live Without. Dig around for something called "The Real Story." It's a PowerPoint presentation. Nicely explains the narcissistic antisocial white collar imperative back of the whole deal.

But even if the thieving dukes and abbots of the land have succeeded at the biggest wealth grab in human history, the rest of may have little choice other than to bail them out.

And then string them up by their...

Posted by: not_moses | September 30, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

the republican party is in it's final throes.

I say, mission accomplished.

Posted by: Mysticalsister | September 30, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

the republican party is in it's final throes.

I say, mission accomplished.

Posted by: Mysticalsister | September 30, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

It's the end of the GOP as we know it...and I feel fine.

.
"Our economy is structurally sound for the long term"
George W Bush - Feb 11, 2008


"The American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system"
Henry Paulson - Sept 15, 2008


"The fundamentals of our economy are strong"
John McCain - Sept 15, 2008


"The economy is fundamentally sound"
Herbert Hoover - October, 1931

Posted by: DrainYou | September 30, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH TRULY DOES HURT......
and maturity is measured in the response after the hearing. Speaker Pelosi did the correct and need and responsibloe thing. She laid the blame where it belonged. With the pigs in the mud, with the dung, and the filth. Right where the ELITIST AND LYING PIG John 90%w/Bush McCain lays his head to rest and take comfort. The Rebushagains responded in truth...IMMATURITY. UNWILLING to buck up and take responsibility for w/ this administration the almost total ruining of a country with tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%.

THE BLAME GAME .....FROM "Fact Of The Matter"
http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

As Nancy Pelosi laid the blame squarely where it belonged. The FAR RIGHT FRINGE OF THE rebushagain party put anger at being called on what their irresponsibility accomplished, and angrily put selfish pride ahead of Country today and rebelled against a bill that we actually needed passed.

I have no doubt that this bill will be passed but we the people will not forget who was responsible for the financial mess at the polls. Our voices will be heard loud and clear far and wide state after state after state. The Rebushagain party will feel the nation reject their politics of steal from the poor and give too the rich DEEPLY

need4trth

Posted by: need4trth | September 30, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

I know it's uncomfortable and you wont like it much, but instead of acting like the French Encyclopedists' determining the number of teeth in a horses mouth (they thought they could, by debate and deliberation, determine that), travel over to the Fox News site and read what the right wing nuts are saying, have been saying since the very idea of a bailout was proposed. They view this as a political opportunity, a chance to show the voters that it was the evil liberals who got us into this mess. That was a horse they backed and thought they could ride on into November. It has, of course, blown up in their faces, but that hasn't stopped them from plotting new hare brained schemes, placing blame for the economic train wreck and the subsequent death of any possible remedy on the Democrats. Come on! If you really want to understand what the devil is thinking, watch him at work ... from a safe distance. (On, and don't even think about posing your opinion. They wont allow it if it conflicts with their delussions.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 30, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

George Bush and his Treasury Secretary are responsible for bringing to the Congress a sound proposal. What the Administration gave the Congress was a huge misunderstanding of governmental process; there is no way a Cabinet Member gets unilateral Congressional discretionary authorization for $700B. The proposal was a one-way street deal seemingly to heal Wall Street's financial transgressions. This action reveals how unprepared the Bush Administration has been and continues to be in governance practices; the historical record shows more of the same type administrative incompetence. (Additionally, John McCain in running his campaign has shown similarly poor organizational tendencies.)

Posted by: louismraskin | September 30, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/great-moments-in-american-history.html

Monday, September 29, 2008
Great Moments in American History

The Signing of the Declaration of Independence:

House Republicans: "We were going to sign. We were. We had dipped our quills in the very ink. However, it was then that John Witherspoon made a rude noise, directed at our very standing area. Therefore, we refused to sign."

The Gettysburg Address:

Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago...Why are you looking at me like that? No, I mean like that. Don't look at me like that. I refuse to continue."


D-Day:

General Eisenhower: "Men...off the carrier and to the shore! No...No...I said it nicely. I was just trying to be enthusiastic. No, I didn't mean that you wouldn't get off the carrier. No, that's the usual tone of my voice.

Man's Landing on The Moon:

Neil Armstrong: "That's one small step for man, one giant...What, Buzz? No, I'm not trying to imply anything. No, I've never even thought about that. Yes, we all have the same size suits. No. Size 9. Yes, double E."

The Stabilization of the American Economy in the 21st Century:

"You hurt our feelings."

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/great-moments-in-american-history.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | September 29, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

The House Republicans are automotons who have, up until today, followed Bush and Cheney in locked step. The fact that they revolted is a direct reflection on how far Bush has fallen and how little credibility he has, even with his own troops.

McCain, never popular with his fellow Members of Congress, cannot be expected to have great influence on them. But couldn't he have gotten even ONE Republican House member from ARIZONA to vote "yea"? Come on, after taking premature credit for the bill passage, not even ONE?

Today's vote means that the Republicans have given up on both Bush and McCain. Ironically, the only time a Congressman gets blamed for his vote is when he votes on the prevailing side. Having voted the prevailing "no", the Republicans will now get blame for whatever ill occurs. They should have sacrificed the votes of a dozen uncontested members to pass the bill, then could have been on the losing side, thus no longer culpable.

Karl Rove is basking in the realization, slowly dawning on the public, that he was doing the thinking for the entire Rebublican apparatus.

Posted by: Stonecreek | September 29, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

17% of you people think McCain is to blame? What is wrong with you people!

If you bothered to read the morning news, McCain was the one who made sure this thing was going to pass.

That's sarcasm. The flip side of being too stupid about economic matters is the ability to distance yourself from things once they jump the track.

If Sarah Palin was an option, I would have voted for her.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | September 29, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

It is hard to believe there are that many people who view this blog. I think you are able to vote as many times as you want that accounts for the number.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 29, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

They are all to blame.

--------------

No. WE are all to blame.

You only get to blame the government when you live in a dictatorship or monarchy or theocracy.

In a democratic republic, the blame is always on we the people....we who elect our government.

And only WE can fix it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 29, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

I Completely resent the question. When you start with "who is responsible for the failure of the bailout," you're implying right away that it should have passed. Stating "who is responsible for successfully blocking this bill" would give a completely different outlook. Something more neutral would be worth voting for. Chris, you're bias (I'd label it the conventional wisdom bias, neither liberal nor conservative) is showing.

Posted by: keilprti | September 29, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

They are all to blame. This crisis has been percolating for a long time now. President Bush was out bicycle riding yesterday. Why wasn't he on the road educating and drumming up support for this? Why didn't McCain or Obama put out a commercial urging support for this? (or a joint commercial). The House Republicans were beyond lame for blaming a speech from Nancy Pelosi for not voting their consciences. The House Dems could have found a few more votes if needed. Plenty of Dems in strong Democratic districts voted against it, they could have corraled into voting. This entire bill was hashed out in secret negotiations! No one knows how it was going to work. What were the alternatives? We have every right to say no to this. Just as the real estate market was artificially high, so was the stock market. This adjustment sucks, but this bailout was just gonna delay the inevitable. The bottom line is that they are all to blame. The public is fed up with all of this garbage and totally cynical toward Washington and Wall Street. We all have to learn to live within our means. And what about the hedge funds, which are limited to the very wealthy, and they are totally unregulated. The list goes on and on........

Posted by: gckarcher | September 29, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112, your efforts are not in vain, I've silently cheered on every one of your comments that I've read. I agree with every point I've seen you make, and you're very clear about the points you're making.

Of course, I'd trade them all for a good pastrami sandwich, but still....
---------------------


Me, I prefer mayo and very rare roast beef.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 29, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I love the Republican excuse.
"She said mean things!!!!"
I'd like to thank the die hard Republicans who read this, it's almost been worth the last 8 years of failure and debacle just to watch the Republican Party turn into a troupe of fourteen year old girls. Did it hurt our widdle feewings?
Don't you think OBL tivo'd that so he could watch it over and over? You chest thumping nimrods always seem to forget, he never threatened to take over the US, just bankrupt us.
The cosmic joke of the century is, his allies in that endeavor are the same impotent clowns who bragged they'd get him dead of alive. When incompetence contests with insanity, is irony not the logical outcome?
It's enough to make you weep, sic gloria transit mundi, "Thus passes the glory of the world".

Posted by: dijetlo | September 29, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

They are all to blame. This crisis has been percolating for a long time now. President Bush was out bicycle riding yesterday. Why wasn't he on the road educating and drumming up support for this? Why didn't McCain or Obama put out a commercial urging support for this? (or a joint commercial). The House Republicans were beyond lame for blaming a speech from Nancy Pelosi for not voting their consciences. The House Dems could have found a few more votes if needed. Plenty of Dems in strong Democratic districts voted against it, they could have corraled into voting. This entire bill was hashed out in secret negotiations! No one knows how it was going to work. What were the alternatives? We have every right to say no to this. Just as the real estate market was artificially high, so was the stock market. This adjustment sucks, but this bailout was just gonna delay the inevitable. The bottom line is that they are all to blame. The public is fed up with all of this garbage and totally cynical toward Washington and Wall Street. We all have to learn to live within our means. And what about the hedge funds, which are limited to the very wealthy, and they are totally unregulated. The list goes on and on........

Posted by: gckarcher | September 29, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk wrote: "As is typical of the Libs, they will not want to take the blame for their leadership. but adults know that when something goes wrong, it is the person at the top that gets the credit/takes the blame."

Hmm . . . isn't Bush the President of the United States and thus the "person at the top" when things went wrong?

I don't hear a lot of Republicans accepting the blame for that. So, set an example, maybe we "Libs" will be more inclined to follow.

Republicans: always "do as I say, not as I do."

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk wrote: "As is typical of the Libs, they will not want to take the blame for their leadership. but adults know that when something goes wrong, it is the person at the top that gets the credit/takes the blame."

Hmm . . . isn't Bush the President of the United States and thus the "person at the top" when things went wrong?

I don't hear a lot of Republicans accepting the blame for that. So, set an example, maybe we "Libs" will be more inclined to follow.

Republicans: always "do as I say, not as I do."

Posted by: nodebris | September 29, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

They are all to blame. This crisis has been percolating for a long time now. President Bush was out bicycle riding yesterday. Why wasn't he on the road educating and drumming up support for this? Why didn't McCain or Obama put out a commercial urging support for this? (or a joint commercial). The House Republicans were beyond lame for blaming a speech from Nancy Pelosi for not voting their consciences. The House Dems could have found a few more votes if needed. Plenty of Dems in strong Democratic districts voted against it, they could have corraled into voting. This entire bill was hashed out in secret negotiations! No one knows how it was going to work. What were the alternatives? We have every right to say no to this. Just as the real estate market was artificially high, so was the stock market. This adjustment sucks, but this bailout was just gonna delay the inevitable. The bottom line is that they are all to blame. The public is fed up with all of this garbage and totally cynical toward Washington and Wall Street. We all have to learn to live within our means. And what about the hedge funds, which are limited to the very wealthy, and they are totally unregulated. The list goes on and on........

Posted by: gckarcher | September 29, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

A Dr. Strangelovian John McCain has mounted his trillion dollar Wall Street meltdown bomb bomb and is going to ride it into oblivion. Too bad Palin didn't have a qualified running mate. Maybe next time, Sarah. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Posted by: optimyst | September 29, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Pretty solid rumor, Palin is going to be out. Maybe even before Thursday.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 29, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112, your efforts are not in vain, I've silently cheered on every one of your comments that I've read. I agree with every point I've seen you make, and you're very clear about the points you're making.

Of course, I'd trade them all for a good pastrami sandwich, but still....

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

When all you ask of life is pastrami on a kaiser with mayo, a (non-lite) beer, a good cigarette, and no heart attack, it's tough.

Running for office is out of the question. Living till November is dubious.

Oh wait...this has nothing to do with the topic. Excuse me.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

" I am suspending my campaign until we have a solution."

Yeah, right.

"Country First"?

Mmm. Don't think so.

Bipartisan skills?

LOL.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 29, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

In the end, Fox News jumped in and spooked a majority of Republican's.
-----------------------

Nope. It was neither Pelosi (they never listen to hear any way) nor Fox (they only listen to hear themselves) but their own young advisers who totally messed up explaining what this bill was all about.

Cantor et al really messed up.

If anything, it all points to the importance of good solid education and how deficient we have been in providing it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 29, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

You're missing an option: "no one's to blame."

The bill deserved to fail and thankfully it did.

Posted by: info42 | September 29, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Mccain this afternoon before the Bailout Bill failed was on the stump trying to take credit for the bill he thought was going to pass. Mccain blaming Obama for what? It was Mccain looking for a game changer by running to congress when they were negotiating the Bill, then there wasn't a deal after Mccain arrived. Then after Democrats forced Mccain out the negotiating process picked up. Mccain inserted himself into the Bailout process on Washington, Sen. Obama said that they should stay out of it because presidential politics would make negotiations worst. Now that Mccains big save the country B.S. failed now he wants to blame Obama because of it. It was the republicans that failed to vote for this bill not the demaocrats. It was the same republicans that Mccain claimed he brought to the table inwhich he really didn't. Obama didn't and wasn't involved so how can Obama be blamed for the lack of republicans who don't trust or like Mccain anyway? Mccain is a liar and a cheat and now the whole world can see what kind of president Mccain would be. Worst than Bush.

Posted by: amosdefnails | September 29, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Carolm62, if the only thing this mess makes you worry about is your retirement account, you haven't grasped the dimensions of the mess.

When's the last time you saw governments all across the industrialized world rescuing banks? When's the last time you saw so many major Wall Street firms belly-up? When's the last time you heard a Republican executive and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury begging for money to bail out market failures?

This is not your garden variety fiasco.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener, Lyndon LaRouche has already staked out the territory you are trying to claim.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

There is another possible culprit: the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

FIXISTA, BEWARE: IS BIG BROTHER HACKING YOU?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/parallel-internet-big-brother-screening-censoring-political-blogs OR (if the link becomes disabled)
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "The Parallel Internet..."

p.s. If my links don't work, could you please contact nowpublic.com site administrators via their "contact" page or a post to another nowpublic.com blog? My blog site apparently is under constant attack...

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 29, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I regard Nancy Pelosi was most responsible, but given the choices, I selected "House Republicans", who are too opportunistic to support Dubya has he falls beneath the waves for the third and presumably final time (Iraq, Katrina, Economy).

I'm somewhat amused by the placement of "all of the above" 2'nd in the list.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 29, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Some people is worried about who to blame, we is worried that we is going to lose the Bait Shop here in Punkin Center, Missouri. We is voting for Obama. ...........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/29/redneck-bait-shop-and-bank-loans/

Posted by: glclark4750 | September 29, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Mark, all - The math on his is simple. The Republican leaders claimed they would have a majority of Republican's. The Democratic leadership promised to have the vote from a majority of Democrats. In the end, the Democrats voted for this 2 to 1 while the Republican's voted against it 2 to 1. In the end, Fox News jumped in and spooked a majority of Republican's. These toxic dirtbags even started using it for campaign fodder and the Swift Boater crowd actually was shooting commercials to use against Democrats! So, under the idea of Karma, the attack dog style politics of the Republican's has returned to bite them.

I imagine that Congress will need to return to some sort of bailout. I am pretty sure it wont work, none of the models show it as working, but the threat is too dire and the consequences too horrible to imagine Congress doing nothing. This time, I thin the Democrats will re-write this with bankruptcy protections for borrowers, oversight, an investigatory arm to look into wrong doing by the financial industry and by corporations, too It will be the sort of thing that Bush wont like, that Wall Street will loathe, but will be precisely the first course of the sort of medicine that is needed. Best of all? Democrats can and will support it across the board and the Republican's can ask Bush to veto it and risk disaster at the voting booth. Mark this as a red letter day - the beginning of the end of neoconservativism. Of course, next week has some truly horrible things in store, which will only spur on passage of the Democratic plan. And...I am rather fond of the notion of sticking it to KOZ, AsperGirl, and the other assorted right wing twits here.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 29, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I asked on the previous thread for a link to Pelosi's remarks and no one responded, but I have now seen them. They were ill - timed, at the least.

Because most of the "ayes" are not up for reelection and most of the "nays" are facing November votes, the political resolution would involve a "bridge" cash bill, perhaps at $50B for month, coupled with the reform proposals, until after the election, and if necessary, until after the Inauguration.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 29, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I asked on the previous thread for a link to Pelosi's remarks and no one responded, but I have now seen them. They were ill - timed, at the least.

Because most of the "ayes" are not up for reelection and most of the "nays" are facing November votes, the political resolution would involve a "bridge" cash bill, perhaps at $50B for month, coupled with the reform proposals, until after the election, and if necessary, until after the Inauguration.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 29, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

As has been reported in various sources, virtually every Congressman who feels that he might be in a campaign for his political life voted against this bill. Notably, two thirds of the Republicans in Congress feel threatened enough to vote down the best deal they are likely to get out of the Democrats on salvaging the banking industry.

Now that the Republicans have been in the van in scuttling the bail out TWICE, they have to go home and explain the continued bad economic news to their constituents. Blaming Pelosi and Obama is so obviously incredible that they won't keep up that chant very long. When the next bill is crafted to bring on board half of the dissenting Democrats, and therefore is REALLY PUNITIVE toward the corporate governors of any business seeking Federal Stupidity Relief, like requiring that they resign, for cause, and to pay for the bail outs the old high tax brackets get reinstated, since CEOs are the ones who ought to pay for the cleanup, not working stiffs, the way Big Business usually does it, and their conservative base is disgusted because they gave away the more than half a loaf that they won over the week end, perhaps they will really be endangered. Maybe, come the Fifth of November, the number of republicans left in the House will be 66. (And for Sarah Palin and her millenialist friends, that is just two thirds of the mark of the beast, how appropriate.)

Posted by: ceflynline | September 29, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Now for even more scare tactics!

They'll be saying that if we don’t give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary “the stock market will drop even more, which will reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet!

Left unsaid, naturally, is that WITH the bailout -- and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it -- the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. - Ron Paul

Posted by: carolm62 | September 29, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

As has been reported in various sources, virtually every Congressman who feels that he might be in a campaign for his political life voted against this bill. Notably, two thirds of the Republicans in Congress feel threatened enough to vote down the best deal they are likely to get out of the Democrats on salvaging the banking industry.

Now that the Republicans have been in the van in scuttling the bail out TWICE, they have to go home and explain the continued bad economic news to their constituents. Blaming Pelosi and Obama is so obviously incredible that they won't keep up that chant very long. When the next bill is crafted to bring on board half of the dissenting Democrats, and therefore is REALLY PUNITIVE toward the corporate governors of any business seeking Federal Stupidity Relief, like requiring that they resign, for cause, and to pay for the bail outs the old high tax brackets get reinstated, since CEOs are the ones who ought to pay for the cleanup, not working stiffs, the way Big Business usually does it, and their conservative base is disgusted because they gave away the more than half a loaf that they won over the week end, perhaps they will really be endangered. Maybe, come the Fifth of November, the number of republicans left in the House will be 66. (And for Sarah Palin and her millenialist friends, that is just two thirds of the mark of the beast, how appropriate.)

Posted by: ceflynline | September 29, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

McCain told us he had "saved the economy" and had negotiated a fair bill. Not exactly...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | September 29, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

McCain told us he had "saved the economy" and had negotiated a fair bill. Not exactly...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | September 29, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

This is NOT a bail out of Wall Street ...it is a lifeline for Middle America. When credit lines disappear and people start losing jobs, businesses start to default, small banks start closing and the economy grinds to a crawl....the howl will be deafening....90% of Americans have NO idea what this bill is attempting to do and Bush has created all the panic....and teh House Republicans, cowards that they are...have pushed the panic button again...and possibly begun the destruction of millions of Middle Class Americans.

This won't even touch Wall Street crooks.

Blind leading the blind.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 29, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

THE GOP WAS LAISSEZ-FAIRE AND CLUELESS.
THE DEMS WERE SPINELESS AND CLUELESS.
AND THE WORKING STIFFS WILL PAY.


Your question presumes that the bill's failure to pass was a bad thing.

By that metric, House Republicans saved the day by refusing to go along with a taxpayer-funded corporate dole to the greedy.

But these are the same forces that got us into this mess with their laissez-faire philosophy. Unbridled markets led to unbridled greed, at the public's expense. Now the taxpayer is asked to socialize the risk, while the profits remain privatized.

Complicit in this blackmail are Congressional Democrats, who lack the backbone to stand up to Wall Street's extortion demands, or the creativity to fund a bill that really puts the people first -- by mandating a "workout" system to help homeowners stay in their houses, thus guaranteeing the solvency of mortgage instruments held by financial institutions.

So both parties share equally in the blame.

So do the presidential hopefuls. Both Barack Obama and John McCain sold out the people. Obama's ads convey the right message: Put the homeowners first. But the bill did not do that. Instead, it's a welfare program for Wall Street fat cats and their corporations, with one man, the Treasury secretary, in charge of doling out the goodies with little more than window-dressing posing as oversight and accountability.

As for McCain, he's mouthing the same people-first rhetoric, even as the collapse of the bill sets the stage for widespread economic travail that could lead to social unrest -- the sort of climate that endangers civil liberties and spawns despots who promise to restore law and order with the application of an iron fist.

We're guessing here that McCain would gladly fill that role.

It could be argued that some extremists would like to see the economy tank, as a means to create a mechanism for their peculiar brand of "social engineering"... much as the Nazis benefitted from burning down the Reichstag. In this survival-of-the-fittest world view, it takes an End of Days to bring about the Rapture. Who's to say that's not the secret agenda here? A couple of the key players subscribe to apocalyptic views, or so it's said.

Had the Democrats crafted their OWN bill, truly putting the people first, they probably could have attracted enough Republican votes to let such a measure pass. Instead, they took the easy way out, equivocating and compromising and letting the administration largely draft the bill -- and ended up giving Paulson and the Bush administration nearly everything they asked for.

So the biggest villians could be the Deomcrats, because they were spineless, lazy and clueless, more beholden to their campaign donors than to the people they represent. The people expected more from the Dems, but they (predictably?) let them down.


BUT DID THE GOV'T ITSELF HELP SPAWN THE MELTDOWN
BY "TARGETING" CITIZENS FOR RUIN VIA "EASY CREDIT"?

See http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "Government Targeting of U.S. Citizens: A Root Cause of Financial Crisis?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 29, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

THE GOP WAS LAISSEZ-FAIRE AND CLUELESS.
THE DEMS WERE SPINELESS AND CLUELESS.
AND THE WORKING STIFFS WILL PAY.


Your question presumes that the bill's failure to pass was a bad thing.

By that metric, House Republicans saved the day by refusing to go along with a taxpayer-funded corporate dole to the greedy.

But these are the same forces that got us into this mess with their laissez-faire philosophy. Unbridled markets led to unbridled greed, at the public's expense. Now the taxpayer is asked to socialize the risk, while the profits remain privatized.

Complicit in this blackmail are Congressional Democrats, who lack the backbone to stand up to Wall Street's extortion demands, or the creativity to fund a bill that really puts the people first -- by mandating a "workout" system to help homeowners stay in their houses, thus guaranteeing the solvency of mortgage instruments held by financial institutions.

So both parties share equally in the blame.

So do the presidential hopefuls. Both Barack Obama and John McCain sold out the people. Obama's ads convey the right message: Put the homeowners first. But the bill did not do that. Instead, it's a welfare program for Wall Street fat cats and their corporations, with one man, the Treasury secretary, in charge of doling out the goodies with little more than window-dressing posing as oversight and accountability.

As for McCain, he's mouthing the same people-first rhetoric, even as the collapse of the bill sets the stage for widespread economic travail that could lead to social unrest -- the sort of climate that endangers civil liberties and spawns despots who promise to restore law and order with the application of an iron fist.

We're guessing here that McCain would gladly fill that role.

It could be argued that some extremists would like to see the economy tank, as a means to create a mechanism for their peculiar brand of "social engineering"... much as the Nazis benefitted from burning down the Reichstag. In this survival-of-the-fittest world view, it takes an End of Days to bring about the Rapture. Who's to say that's not the secret agenda here? A couple of the key players subscribe to apocalyptic views, or so it's said.

Had the Democrats crafted their OWN bill, truly putting the people first, they probably could have attracted enough Republican votes to let such a measure pass. Instead, they took the easy way out, equivocating and compromising and letting the administration largely draft the bill -- and ended up giving Paulson and the Bush administration nearly everything they asked for.

So the biggest villians could be the Deomcrats, because they were spineless, lazy and clueless, more beholden to their campaign donors than to the people they represent. The people expected more from the Dems, but they (predictably?) let them down.


BUT DID THE GOV'T ITSELF HELP SPAWN THE MELTDOWN
BY "TARGETING" CITIZENS FOR RUIN VIA "EASY CREDIT"?

See http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "Government Targeting of U.S. Citizens: A Root Cause of Financial Crisis?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 29, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Someone on the Republican side needs to pull McCain aside and tell him to quit playing freaking politics with this bailout.

Our economy is on the verge of collapse and McCain who is an economic know-nothing, is only making things worse.

Posted by: DrainYou | September 29, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi knew that the bill was unpopular with House Republicans. So why did she choose to antagonize them with her speech immediately before the vote? And, remember 40% of the House Democratic caucus voted against it. Knowing the bill was unacceptable to most House Republicans, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership failed in their task to get enough votes from their own caucus. Getting 12 more Dem's votes would have done it, and that's sure not Boehner's job. With a sizeable majority in the House, how can the Democrats possibly blame the Republicans for any bill's failure?!

Posted by: acasilaco | September 29, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi knew that the bill was unpopular with House Republicans. So why did she choose to antagonize them with her speech immediately before the vote? And, remember 40% of the House Democratic caucus voted against it. Knowing the bill was unacceptable to most House Republicans, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership failed in their task to get enough votes from their own caucus. Getting 12 more Dem's votes would have done it, and that's sure not Boehner's job. With a sizeable majority in the House, how can the Democrats possibly blame the Republicans for any bill's failure?!

Posted by: acasilaco | September 29, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

What a loaded question! Asking who was to BLAME for the failure of the bailout plan ASSUMES the bailout was a desirable outcome. It is a horrible proposition with catastrophic long term fallout.

Perhaps the question should have read, "Who gets the credit for the defeat of the abominable Wall Street Bailout?"

Remember, the Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

If you want to ask who was to blame for creating this situation, then I can say "All of the Above."

Posted by: carolm62 | September 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I am liberal through and through, but all I can say today is thank you republicans! This bill was a travesty. We've been propping up an overinflated real estate industry for too long. I say let this Wall Street created mess implode and start over again.

Posted by: billyvw | September 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

What a loaded question! Asking who was to BLAME for the failure of the bailout plan ASSUMES the bailout was a desirable outcome. It is a horrible proposition with catastrophic long term fallout.

Perhaps the question should have read, "Who gets the credit for the defeat of the abominable Wall Street Bailout?"

Remember, the Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

If you want to ask who was to blame for creating this situation, then I can say "All of the Above."

Posted by: carolm62 | September 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I am very liberal, and I didn't think I would ever say this. But thank you republicans! I am 100% against bailing out crooked bankers and irresponsible borrowers. I've been living well within my humble means, because I did not want to end up in trouble. Do not ask me to help clean up this mess. Overinflated house prices have repeatedly been propped up by Washington. The bubble deflation is finally going to happen, and I couldn't be happier.

Posted by: billyvw | September 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Travesty of Repug leadership.
They were more interested in keeping Terry Schiavo alive than in providing life support to working Americans and the US economy. Shame. SHame SHAME.
Way past time for the demise of the reactionary Dinosuars who charge foolishly into private personal affairs, yet grossly fail to protect and defend American citizens from the financial tsunamis caused by their abject failure to "police the area."
Adam Smith wrote not only of the "invisible hand" of the Market, but also of the visible hand of Government that was needed to ensure Morality and Ethics in the Marketplace. Every town in America counts on cops to protect citizens from theft and robbery; why should Wall Street investors not be subject to the same police protections from fraud and skullduggery.
We can only hope that this day will go down in Infamy as the Beginning of the End of RightWing Demagogy and Topsy-Turvy self-righteousness. If there's any justice, there will be runs on the bank in every district where elected leaders failed to lead, and buckled under pressure to do what was right for the country.

Posted by: morphnmomma | September 29, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"The man in charge of Fannie Mae in 1999 was Franklin D. Raines, a name that has come up in connection with Sen. Barack Obama as an “advisor” on housing issues. Another former Fannie Mae CEO, Jim Johnson, led Obama’s vice president search team."
---
Franklin Raines NEVER was an advisor to Obama, his relationship amounts to a phone call that was received by an Obama staffer. Jim Johnson was fired for the very reason you pointed out.

But while we are on the subject of "relationships" let's not forget McCain's CAMPAIGN MANAGER Rick Davis who up until August was receiving 15k per month for apparently "doing nothing" for Fannie Mae.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 29, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

What a loaded question! Asking who was to BLAME for the failure of the bailout plan ASSUMES the bailout was a desirable outcome. It is a horrible proposition with catastrophic long term fallout.

Perhaps the question should have read, "Who gets the credit for the defeat of the abominable Wall Street Bailout?"

Remember, the Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

If you want to ask who was to blame for creating this situation, then I can say "All of the Above."

Posted by: carolm62 | September 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

What a loaded question! Asking who was to BLAME for the failure of the bailout plan ASSUMES the bailout was a desirable outcome. It is a horrible proposition with catastrophic long term fallout.

Perhaps the question should have read, "Who gets the credit for the defeat of the abominable Wall Street Bailout?"

Remember, the Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

If you want to ask who was to blame for creating this situation, then I can say "All of the Above."

Posted by: carolm62 | September 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, House Republicans are responsible for the failure of the bailout bill today. But if we want to know who is responsible for the mess that got us to needing a bailout today, we would need to include all Congressional conservatives for the past 28 years that believed free markets would regulate themselves.

Markets are like teenagers in that they are smart, canny and almost adults, but under no conditions do you give them the keys to your liquor cabinet, your car and spending money while you're on a getaway trip for the weekend.

Posted by: carole2 | September 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Travesty of Repug leadership.
They were more interested in keeping Terry Schiavo alive than in providing life support to working Americans and the US economy. Shame. SHame SHAME.
Way past time for the demise of the reactionary Dinosuars who charge foolishly into private personal affairs, yet grossly fail to protect and defend American citizens from the financial tsunamis caused by their abject failure to "police the area."
Adam Smith wrote not only of the "invisible hand" of the Market, but also of the visible hand of Government that was needed to ensure Morality and Ethics in the Marketplace. Every town in America counts on cops to protect citizens from theft and robbery; why should Wall Street investors not be subject to the same police protections from fraud and skullduggery.
We can only hope that this day will go down in Infamy as the Beginning of the End of RightWing Demagogy and Topsy-Turvy self-righteousness. If there's any justice, there will be runs on the bank in every district where elected leaders failed to lead, and buckled under pressure to do what was right for the country.

Posted by: morphnmomma | September 29, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, House Republicans are responsible for the failure of the bailout bill today. But if we want to know who is responsible for the mess that got us to needing a bailout today, we would need to include all Congressional conservatives for the past 28 years that believed free markets would regulate themselves.

Markets are like teenagers in that they are smart, canny and almost adults, but under no conditions do you give them the keys to your liquor cabinet, your car and spending money while you're on a getaway trip for the weekend.

Posted by: carole2 | September 29, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Travesty of Repug leadership.
They were more interested in keeping Terry Schiavo alive than in providing life support to working Americans and the US economy. Shame. SHame SHAME.
Way past time for the demise of the reactionary Dinosuars who charge foolishly into private personal affairs, yet grossly fail to protect and defend American citizens from the financial tsunamis caused by their abject failure to "police the area."
Adam Smith wrote not only of the "invisible hand" of the Market, but also of the visible hand of Government that was needed to ensure Morality and Ethics in the Marketplace. Every town in America counts on cops to protect citizens from theft and robbery; why should Wall Street investors not be subject to the same police protections from fraud and skullduggery.
We can only hope that this day will go down in Infamy as the Beginning of the End of RightWing Demagogy and Topsy-Turvy self-righteousness. If there's any justice, there will be runs on the bank in every district where elected leaders failed to lead, and buckled under pressure to do what was right for the country.

Posted by: morphnmomma | September 29, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The man in charge of Fannie Mae in 1999 was Franklin D. Raines, a name that has come up in connection with Sen. Barack Obama as an “advisor” on housing issues. Another former Fannie Mae CEO, Jim Johnson, led Obama’s vice president search team.

In 2008, after a civil suit revealed that Raines had “manipulated earnings over a six-year period” with two others to enrich themselves. Raines agreed to pay $24.7 million, including a $2 million fine. In addition, he also gave up company stock options valued at $15.6 million. Between 1998 and 2004, according to a New York Times article, Raines and two others pocketed “hundreds of millions in bonuses.”

This makes the political campaign funding Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac gave Sen. Obama even more shocking given the fact that he reaped more than any other politician, $42,116 for every year he was in the Senate. It is worth asking why Sen. Obama received roughly four times more money than any other politician during the four years he was in the Senate.

Sen. Obama’s close ties to both Raines and Johnson are being largely ignored by the mainstream media as efforts are being made to make it appear that this is a Bush Administration scandal. It isn’t.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 29, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

As is typical of the Libs, they will not want to take the blame for their leadership. but adults know that when something goes wrong, it is the person at the top that gets the credit/takes the blame.

so if you need to know who is in charge of the House to figure this out, you may be perplexed to find out - No one is.

aka - the worst speaker in history

with her clueless minions Reid and Obama - dumb and dumber.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 29, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Whose to "blame?" About about "who is responsible for saving us from flushing good money after bad?"

And to that I'd say a few responsible people on both sides, some who actually know this is useless, others who at least capitulated to popular opinion rather than to bad leadership.

Posted by: mjb_ | September 29, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned this on an earlier thread. If you're glad the bailout failed, "thank" the House Republicans. If you're angry the bailout failed, "blame" the House Republicans.

If you want to blame someone for how we got here, blame the Bush Administration, which took a decidedly laissez-faire approach to regulating the nation's financial industry.

If you want to figure out what to do next: don't panic. The Republic will stand, life will go on, everything will be okay. With or without the bailout. Does anyone HONESTLY want to believe the same nitwits who told us the Iraq War was worth it when they say the sky is falling? I've ready countless opinions on this from people with substantial pedigrees, and no one can agree on a course of action.

Posted by: PDiddy | September 29, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party is in such disarray. Bush and his party are completely responsible for this mess. I hope McCain and congressional Republicans are trounced in November. What a fiasco. It's just infuriating.

Posted by: harlemboy | September 29, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party is in such disarray. Bush and his party are completely responsible for this mess. I hope McCain and congressional Republicans are trounced in November. What a fiasco. It's just infuriating.

Posted by: harlemboy | September 29, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company