What if the world doesn't end today?

There's always tomorrow.

Looks like Congress has the day off:

Nothing will be done for at least a day and a half as Congress is in recess because of the Jewish New Year. The Senate won't be back until Wednesday afternoon and the House of Representatives is adjourned until Thursday.

Stephanopoulos: What's Next? Congress Mulls Four Options, lays out the details, here's the four (he's got more detail) with political considerations:

1. Muscle Bailout Bill Through House-- get 12 unlucky schmucks to cave under pressure. Usually works, but does McCain/Bush have any capital with Republicans in the House? Well, they do know where the votes are.

2. Pass Bailout in Senate First-- could happen, but that just leads back to the House, and how do we know that the Republicans that are endangered (Wicker, McConnell, Smith, Coleman...) are going to back this?

3. Make Small Tweaks to the Bill-- the best 'save your face' way out, but it also takes more time. This depends on which way, Democratic or Republican, for who the tweak caters too.

4. Get More Democrats On Board-- makes it even more of a Democrat-Bush thing and less of a Republican bill. Not great politics, even worse if its Obama that gets involved. And who's to say that if they do get more Democrats on board, that more Republicans go ahead and bail?

What about McCain? Does he continue the ownership of this by twisting arms of a dozen Republicans or wait and see if Democrats want to own it with Bush? Does he get House Republicans on board or could he possibly go native with the Republican ideologues?

What about Obama?  Does he leave it at arms length or does he now get involved and pull over members in the CBC or the Hispanic Caucus with phone calls to Democrats that voted no? He's got the capital, but does Obama really want to kick off his policies by owning part of this Bush bill, and doesn't he leave it open to McCain to then vote no?

Update [2008-9-30 9:26:11 by Jerome Armstrong]: The RNC ad starts the Republican running quasi-against the bailout, while attempting to tag it onto Obama:

The RNC ad is going up in WI, OH, MI, PA, VA, and IN.

Tags: 2008 (all tags)

Comments

29 Comments

Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

this was always a bad bill as far as the next president is concerned, especially Obama who would be further strapped to not enact policies and reforms he has promised for lack of money. Big Liar John has set himself up for a free ride for at least 4 years and probably 8 inasmuch as the only thing of consequence he's promised to do other than more, and endless  wars is balance the budget either in 2012 or 2016 depending on who's speaking and what minute it is.

Overall the bailout helps Big Liar John because it gets him out of his balance-the-budget-while-cutting-taxes nonsense, so he should be all-in.

by gak 2008-09-30 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

That's what they're afraid of!

They're afraid we've called their bluff!

Let's calm down, have the election, then let the new Congress return and address the multitude of woes of the American society while the new President restores our diplomatic relations and brings the troops home.

Don't fall for the sky-is-falling rhetoric.

by Paul Goodman 2008-09-30 04:20AM | 0 recs
Let's CALL their bluff

Especially since the Republicans have the chutzpah to pin this on the Democrats. Limbaugh, et al are already in full bald-faced lyin', distortin', form.

The sky hasn't fallen. The stockmarket has - oh well. Fallen 401K balances will be a sobering reality in the voting booth. Once leeches like Paulson have been kicked to the curb, a new administration and congress will be able to better address this issue in January.

by Sumo Vita 2008-09-30 08:08AM | 0 recs
Obama has to lead here

One, he isn't going to be left off the hook much longer.  He has floated above this for a couple of weeks by saying he'd just make things worse if he got involved, and that Congress would act soon.

Well Congress hasn't acted and things can't get much worse.  

Lastly,  this crisis will just get worse if left unattended.   If nothing is done now imagine the mess in Feb.  Plus, from a political calc there is no good solution here so he may as well have Bush claim the final ownership now, instead of him doing it in Feb. '09.

Barring a miracle whoever gets elected is probably looking at being a 1 termer.   The situation they will inherit makes the job Bill Clinton took over in '92 look down right rosey (and early into his term many inside his admin were thinking they were doomed to 1 term).

by RichardFlatts 2008-09-30 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has to lead here

To the contrary, whoever takes over will get some added leeway because of the mess we are in.  The crisis will allow Obama to push for some major changes instead of tinkering around the edges and it could usher in a new progressive era of politics.

Obama should not try to pull additional Democrats. The onus is on the Republicans to bring more votes to the table.  If they won't, we should push a progressive solution without any Republican votes.

by Marylander 2008-09-30 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has to lead here

What would be a "progressive solution" here.   What makes you think that if there was one that Obama would propose such a thing?   We are talking about Obama, not Kuchinich.

by RichardFlatts 2008-09-30 05:33AM | 0 recs
I love how the first instinct is to hit minorities

Hispanic caucus?  Black caucus?  The first instinct is for Obama to go after minorities... why?  Because he is a minority?

I hate calling the race card, but this is just silly season.  They don't need more Democratic votes.  They got 60% of those already.  The Republicans need to own up to their responsibility here.  It's their gravy train, even if it's gone off the rails; personal responsibility is what the conservative revolution was all about, right?

This is a good opportunity for a money-minded Democrat to put forward a better proposal that isn't tainted by Bush and Paulson's transparent power grab.  They can say, after it passes, that they wrote it based on Obama's four core principles, and everybody except Bush and McCain wins.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 05:30AM | 0 recs
race card hack

That's where he's got the most capital, having just won big in most of their CD's.  They are also the ones least likely in competitive CD's against Republicans, most of them in majority-minority CD's.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-30 05:36AM | 0 recs
Sure, I take your point

I'm not disputing that Obama could get them or why, I just think that what needs to happen is that they devise a bill that doesn't need just the votes of people in safe districts that the Republicans will own, too.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-30 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

I think the Dems need to own this, especially Obama.  If the bipartisan plan sucks, and it sounds like no one actually likes it, coming up with a better plan is their job.  They have the house and the senate and are about to have the presidency, and in my view fixing this sort of problem is why we work to elect our guys.

From a political perspective, at least in this election cycle, people attribute the problem to Republicans/Bush, and Democrats taking a leadership role in the solution is not going to change that.  People trust Democrats on economics right now and I think there is a lot to be gained by them standing up and saying, "Here's how we want to fix it.  Republicans can hop on board if they want to be a part of the solution."  And, of course, that's what they're there for in the first place.

by syrinx 2008-09-30 05:34AM | 0 recs
It can wait 4 months

Let the Congress et. al. spend a solid 4 months crafting a new direction for America AND DO IT RIGHT!

Now, they are squandering this time trying to put LIPSTICK ON A PIG!

...yes, I went there ;)

by Paul Goodman 2008-09-30 06:10AM | 0 recs
It CAN'T wait.

We are seeing banks fall one after the other.  Without the deal, stock market will hemorrage as investors flee, credit will become scarce affecting all sorts main street activity, and foreign capital may start scooping up the better pieces.  These would be the immediate effects.

by vinny 2008-09-30 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

You are right. I completely agree that they need to get rid of these bullshit concessions and get something planned that encompasses progressive values. Something that doesn't undermine the American economy with more failed GOP politics.

by vcalzone 2008-09-30 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

That's what I'm thinking.  Why not use the failure to pass this tank (that is flawed form every angle) as an opportunity to create a new bill without the stink of Bush all over it?  

People (constituents) aren't seeing a bill that helps home-owners and fixes the credit cruch.  They see this thing as BUSH GIVES MORE MONEY TO RICH PEOPLE.

Dems need to create a bottom-up home-owner bailout that the American people can get behind and push it through along party lines.  Let the majority of House Republicans oppose that!

 

by fogiv 2008-09-30 08:15AM | 0 recs
Option 4

I think if the Democratic caucus could craft a smaller bailout bill, with better taxpayer equity provisions and real mortgage default relief, and pass it along party lines, it would be the best outcome.

Bush would be suicidal to veto it.  House Republicans would continue to oppose, to their long lasting discredit.

by looty 2008-09-30 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Option 4

That's my preferred outcome, but not smaller. I'd like to see an aggressive, progressive plan come out of this. Things do not appear to be headed in that direction, however.

I expect to see the plan moved to the right, at least superficially, in an attempt to get a few more Republicans on board. Then the Dems are afraid to carry this alone.

by souvarine 2008-09-30 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

Is option two unconstitutional?  Money bills have to originate in the House.  How could they get around this?

by TheUnknown285 2008-09-30 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

I believe the Senate comes up with a bill and then attaches it to a bill that originates in the House.

by souvarine 2008-09-30 06:29AM | 0 recs
no because

there will have to be a house/senate reconciliation of the bills anyway.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-30 11:34AM | 0 recs
MSNBC had it right yesterday

If the dems want to pass a bill, let them make it a good bill for the consumer and pass it on on straight party lines.  Dare Bush to veto it.

by activatedbybush 2008-09-30 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: MSNBC had it right yesterday

My thoughts exactly.  Let 'em fight the ghost of FDR.

<samueljackson>Go all medieval on they asses!</samueljackson>

by fogiv 2008-09-30 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

Wouldn't you know it?  The market is heading sharply up, is heading to +300 fast.  Perhaps the market gets back more than half of what it lost yesterday in just one day?  Some who were predicting a major market collapse "within days" may just not be quite as right as they thought.    

by devilrays 2008-09-30 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

Market turns on a dime and bounces around. It never forms a straight line. It crashed about 300 points in less than 100 seconds when the bailout plan didn't pass. Try again, tex. It was the plan that made the crash.

by vcalzone 2008-09-30 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

So, what made this upwards surge happen?  It is now at almost 400 points.  In one day the market has regained at least 50%, as much as 60% back from what it lost yesterday.  If we are saying that the market tumbling was a catastrophic reaction that took away $1.1 Trillion from the market and caused panic, alongside other groups, amongst those who have their retirements and 401k accounts in the market, then today's infusion of about $600 Billion back into the market should be greeted with a sigh of relief.  Many had foreseen a further collapse, and it is safe to say that that is not going to happen.  Perhaps another surge tomorrow brings us back to the level right before the 777 drop yesterday?  Who knows.

Point is that if you argue that the market drop showed the precariousness and urgency of the  situation, then today's major boost makes the case for the opposite.

by devilrays 2008-09-30 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

The stock market did fine. The credit market still did poorly. One is a leading indicator for the other. What you saw was a day of people pulling out their money, then either some fools thinking it was a bargain or some pros trying to push the prices back up to regain some money.

by vcalzone 2008-10-01 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

Not only that, the market is 100% reactive. Nobody means Wall Street when they say financial failure, they mean businesses that get traded on Wall Street will start laying people off.

by vcalzone 2008-09-30 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate

Actually, I believe option 2 in this post (passage in the Senate first) is actually NOT an option. If I remember my con law correctly, all taxing/spending bills are required to originate in the House.  That means that constitutionally speaking, the House MUST act first on any bailout package.  I don't know where Stephanopoulos was getting his info, but that option is likely wrong.

by AmericanJedi 2008-09-30 07:34AM | 0 recs
no they can get around that

easily.

All appropriations bills technically have to originate in the house but most bills are different as passed in the house and the senate and then the two houses just get together and iron out the differences which then get voted on.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-30 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the world doesn't end today?

Apparently, it's Newt Gingrich working behind the scenes thinking it's 1995 again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30 /report-gingrich-stabbed-b_n_130487.html

That worked out so well for them 13 years ago, why not try again!!

by LordMike 2008-09-30 07:44AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads