Senate Bail Out Vote : Measure Passes, 74 to 25

The Senate is about to vote on the bailout bill. Here's a thread to discuss bailout issues and the vote.

Update: So far it's 55 to 18. Looks like it will pass easily.

It's a done deal: It passed 74 to 25. Vrey few Democrats voted against it. Among them: Feingold, Johnson, Landrieu, Tester, Nelson,, Stabenow, Wyden, Cantwell, Dorgan.

Update: Here comes the self-congratulations: Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are giving speeches about how great the Senate is. Reid says Chris Dodd did a yeoman's job. Reid said he was Dodd's lieutenant.

< CBS Poll: Economy Pushes Obama To 9 Point Lead | Biden and Palin Discuss Roe v. Wade >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And on this day (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by dutchfox on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    And on this day the debt passed the $10 Trillion mark. What, me worry?

    Personally, I would have voted for it (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:41:53 PM EST

    I said something similar ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    ...to a mate who got a gun shoved in their ribs and told to hand over their wallet and refused.

    "Personally, I'd have handed the wallet over."

    I said as he lay in a hospital bed with a great big lump of his chest shot out.


    Well, that's Krugman's comparison (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    I think it had to be done.

    Did he mae the same joke? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    heh, If so I'm in teh superlative company of giants.

    See (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:30:27 PM EST
    I'm wondering if other people... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    ...will have their own stylings.  Who are these

    Speaking only for myself, I'd have handed the wallet over.

    My Friends, I'd have handed the wallet over.

    Let there be no mistake, I'd have handed the wallet.

    Hand it over or I'll shoot you in the face.

    Uh oh... I'd have uh handed it over ummm.

    I'd have handed it over, nothing to be ashamed of my fellow compatriots, I was the first to hand it over in my family.

    I'm the governor of the biggest handover in the union. And it borders Russia too, gee, and Canada I suppose.


    You forgot (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:28 AM EST
    No one has done more for wallets.

    pathetic (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM EST
    still no commitment whatsoever as to what the net out is, no job creation although Harry Reid said it will CREATE jobs.

    Do you know why there is no net out being told to us?  Because like Iraq there is no net out to the american taxpayer.  Avoiding armageddon, that is our net out?

    When you cannot say what 700 bn is going to get you, how many jobs it is going to create, how much credit it is going to free up and how it is going to pay for itself, you are essentially telling us that you have no idea.

    I hope and pray the house does not pass it.  Any bill without investment in immediate job creation when we just lost another 100k jobs is an insult to hard working americans.

    In 4 months we will have not made up any ground and in fact will be worse off as a country and the new pres gets to blame it all on the old pres, that is not representation that is protecting the hands that feed them.

    Who wants to wager that bankruptcies of private citizens will be at record levels next year?  Who wants to wager that small businesses will be out of business in record levels next year?  Who wants a piece of the wager that foreclosures will be at a record level next year?

    This helps the american workers how?

    Hillary cited a study (none / 0) (#27)
    by Manuel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    that estimated a loss of 120K jobs in NY alone.  We should know if the plan is working soon enough.

    If something like Hillary's HOME program is implemented very early in an Obama administration, foreclusures should be down next year.  If the recession isn't deep and long, bankruptcies may be avoided.

    Clearly, the government will have to invest in infrastructure and a sensible energy plan.  I expect that to happen if Obama wins (less so if McCain wins).


    thank M (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    it will take too long and too many people will lose too much.  It will take 6-9 months which is about 6 months too long.

    Hillary didn't vote for that (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    Did she?  

    Yes, she did (none / 0) (#69)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:21:53 AM EST
    and she laid out a good plan for follow up.

    A chunk of the "corporate tax breaks" (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:10:10 PM EST
    everybody's railing about is the extension of the break for alternative energy R&D.  That's been estimated to be worth 100K jobs or so, FWIW.

    If the Senate had allowed that tax break to lapse, I wonder what kind of screaming and yelling we'd be seeing.


    i will get a big relief from amt (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:42:45 AM EST
    and I have no intention to create jobs with it.  I will bank it and hold it.  My guess is that many of us who have been amt will not reinvest into hiring people.  I do not speak for all small biz owners by any stretch of the imagination and am curious if there are others here what they will do with their extra money with elimination of amt.

    No one should be happy about this (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Manuel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    No self congratulations please.  They are all paid to make tough decisions.

    Let's hope the house acts quickly and let's pray the plan actually works.

    Is there a chance some of the irrelevant provisions will be removed through reconciliation?

    I don't know how many (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:11:51 PM EST
    of those there are.  The tax package was simply continuing tax breaks we've had in some cases for many years.  They were going to get passed anyway, so anybody in the House who's putting up a fuss about it is just posturing and blowing smoke, IMHO.

    They could have easily passed them (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:18:57 AM EST
    separately. As it is, we have a few hundred pages to read through now to know what they really voted for. Imo, they should have kept this bill clean. Heck, they should keep all bills clean. I just don't understand this pile-on BS with unrelated items. Infrastructure projects should all be individual bills. Maybe then they could actually deal with needs first and prioritize the budget. The spending bill they just put through is massive and also has a lotta junk in the trunk ;) And if Bush won't sign certain things, then he would be held accountable. Maybe he wouldn't have made 2 terms. Instead, the Dems cave to him.

    Sorry for the mini rant!


    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by koshembos on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:56:45 PM EST
    There are two Republican parties in the Senate. One supports Bush and admires him while the supports him but doesn't admire him. The latter party is headed by Reid.

    What a travesty. "Warren Buffett said Wednesday he is confident the U.S. financial sector can get through its troubles without a government bailout and remains bullish about the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy."

    Buffett supports the bail-out (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:29:54 PM EST
    Link on that quote, please.

    Buffett has been a strong supporter of the bail-out (see this LATimes story, for example) from the get-go.


    Obama listed what else we won't get (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    because of the bailout bill.  Just saw a local interview from his campaign stop in my state today.  The middle-class tax cuts may not be affordable for our gummint to give . . . what with all the pork we would have to pay out from the bailout bill.

    It really will be interesting to see what the House does with this, especially the young rebels.  Btw, one of the threesome who authored the alternative bill, Ryan, represents Feingold's original turf, southwestern Wisconsin.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    I don't think Bill Clinton took a lot of grief for dropping the middle-class tax cut he promised during the campaign.  There wasn't really money to pay for it, and polling showed that people really weren't that hyped up about it, so they quietly abandoned it.

    Would the same be true in this election?  I dunno, Obama has probably focused more on the tax cut promise than Bill Clinton did (I'll never forget the ad in which he claimed that, unlike Hillary, he would never pander to the voters - and then promised a $1000 tax cut mere seconds later) and also, if voters get the sense that the reason they can't have a tax cut is specifically because of the Wall Street bailout, it's hard to see how that doesn't get ugly.


    I was pissed when Clinton did not give his (none / 0) (#72)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:37:28 AM EST
    promised $650 to each american -  it was proof that he was just like every other politician after he told us that he was different - I never believed anything else he said after that!

    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:29:17 AM EST
    if Clinton's pollsters had talked to you, the course of history might have been changed!

    The middle-class tax cuts may not be affordable... (none / 0) (#55)
    by jerry on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:44:42 PM EST
    It's as if there was a conspiracy, and we played right into it.

    no wonder he pushed so hard for the bail out - can (none / 0) (#73)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:39:19 AM EST
    now use this excuse to scrap a never doable tax cut when the country is so broke!

    Well then.golly gee (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    I guess they won't be able to handout so much of our money to their personal little pork projects.  booFrigginhoo.  The rest of us have to live on budgets, why not them?  

    Why do you accept that as a given? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Manuel on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:40:10 AM EST
    From Larry Summers

    Congressional negotiators have now completed action on a $700bn authorisation for the bail-out of the financial sector. This step was as necessary as the need for it was regrettable. There are hugely important tactical issues regarding the deployment of these funds that the authorities will need to consider in the weeks and months ahead if the chance of containing the damage is to be maximised. I expect to return to these issues once the legislation is passed.

    In the meantime, it is necessary to consider the impact of the bail-out and the conditions necessitating it on federal budget policy. The idea seems to have taken hold in recent days that because of the unfortunate need to bail out the financial sector, the nation will have to scale back its aspirations in other areas such as healthcare, energy, education and tax relief. This is more wrong than right. We have here the unusual case where economic analysis actually suggests that dismal conclusions are unwarranted and the events of the last weeks suggest that for the near term, government should do more, not less.

    good (none / 0) (#82)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    What everyone can agree on is that we are broke and have been broke for years.

    Balancing the budget and paying down the debt should be the first item on the agenda.


    Did they skip Biden? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:11:18 PM EST

    Hillary too for that matter. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:12:01 PM EST
    Why didn't they vote yet?

    Clinton Aye (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:34:14 PM EST
    Did not skip her.

    Biden aye.

    Obama Aye.

    Feingold, Bill Nelson, Tester, Wyden, Cantwell, Stabenow - NO.

    Good for them.


    Sanders voted no n/t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dutchfox on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    Sanders is an independent (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM EST
    I think, not a Dem.

    Yes he is.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dutchfox on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    In Vermont, they call him the 'socialist' [sic] senator! haha!

    That's because he actually is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:02:09 PM EST
    a socialist, no bones about it.  We don't call him that as a joke, that's what he's always been.

    Sanders.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by dutchfox on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:40 PM EST
    Yeah, they call him quote socialist quote in the VT media. Eugene Debs may be his hero (with a photo of him on his office wall), but Sanders is what would be in Europe a democratic socialist (at least that's what my socialist Dutch cousin told me).

    Social Democrat (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
    Now, Tony Benn or George Galloway...they be socialists.

    Oh, gotcha (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:06:48 PM EST
    Yes, he'd be very moderate in most of Europe.  But since we haven't really got a political left in this country, Bernie's a pretty wild-eyed revolutionary by comparison.

    Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:39:21 PM EST
    is an Independent (actually a Socialist) but caucuses with the Democrats.

    He's listed under left. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:21:48 PM EST
    in the Senate Almanac.  

    I think she and Biden waited until McCain (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    voted. They skipped the first round, at least by CSpan's list on the screen. Maybe they just didn't hear them.

    I think there are a bunch of calls to come vote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
    and you don't have to get there for the first call.  That's how it worked when I visited Congress. A buzzer would go off telling everyone to go vote but no one ran...they go through the roll call a few times for those that came later.

    The Senate has a "15 minute vote" (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    that often takes a half hour. First the clerk calls the roll all of the way through, meanwhile taking down the vote of any senator who wishes to vote out of order.

    Then, the clerk sits and waits for the rest, who can vote at any time out of order until the vote is close.

    The House is electronic until the vote period is finished, and then members can cast or change their vote with a Green, Red, or Yellow card.


    Are any of them up for re-election? (none / 0) (#17)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:56:04 PM EST
    Some of them are blue dogs, aren't they?  

    I am just not getting this.  Republicans and the real democrats voting FOR this bailout?   How did these strange bedfellows happen?  


    ah you see they are Modern Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    Capital M

    Easy, they are all bought and paid for by Wall St (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:42:27 AM EST
    and corporate America! Time to step up to the plate for all of these campaign contributions and to hell with what is good for the country as long as they are bailed out!

    Maria Cantwell gave a cogent, (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:29:25 AM EST
    persuasive speech.  Someone to watch?  

    are any dems voting against it? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    Colorado's Wayne Allard (retiring Republican) voted no. Are any Dems voting no?

    Stabeenow, Tester and Wyden (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    are Dems who voted no.

    Feingold and Cantwell I think. Also Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    of Florida.

    I believe Widen ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    of OR as well.

    Good for Nelson (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    Must have been that email I sent him ;-)

    Good for Feingold -- when I heard Reid (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    give his speech just before the vote, his speech all about how good all the pork in this bill is for everyone west of the Mississippi, I decided I was against.  And my Senator Feingold agreed.

    Bragging about pork? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:58:02 PM EST
    Good grief.  What have we become?

    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:11:34 PM EST
    How I long for the real Democrats of old, who shunned pork in every form.  When exactly was that, 1791?

    You brag about it after you get it (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    and are back home where it's appreciated.

    You don't brag about it just before the vote, and on national tv, where all those of us east of the Mississippi just got told that to pay off billions of bucks in pork for Harry Reid's region, we will pay even more for this mess.

    That would seem to be a message to us to not vote Dem.  But heck, we're only the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan . . . and Indiana, wisconsin. . . .


    Maybe we should move Wall Street westward (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:57:19 PM EST
    then. Harry can have his pork and eat Wall Street too!

    They already have the #2 casino (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    Vegas Baby!  Let NYC keep the #1 casino.

    One mans pork (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    is another mans vital infrastructure project.

    Yawn (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    The Senate is so orderly and boring.  On to the chaotic House.

    Now that we have (none / 0) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    a gun to everyone's head let's roll out the goody machine and get some business tax breaks in there.

    The SEC ruling on asset valuation sounds something like a Republican wet dream.

    Well, my Dem. senator(Wyden) (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    voted "no." Too much to expect that the Rep., Gordon Smith would also vote "no." Smith is up for re-election. Hopefully,  Jeff Merkley, will defeat him.

    Feingold voted against it? (none / 0) (#35)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    Very interesting.  Anyone know his reason?

    Obama and McCain didn't have the political guts to vote no on this one.  But something needs to be done and no one wants to take the time to figure it out properly.  We are in a meltdown, I understand that.

    But no one in the Congress should be patting themselves on the back considering they allowed Bush to deregulate the money so these financial house can get drunk on greed.

    This is a nasty pill to swallow, fer sure.

    Here's what he said (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    after the House vote about what a good bill would give us -- it's a list of a lot of what we didn't get in the bill tonight.  Plus, it was full of pork, and Russ doesn't vote for that crap.

    "Yesterday's vote on the bailout proposal in the House of Representatives gives Congress an opportunity to address the major flaws in the proposal. We can do so and still act in an expedited manner.

    "First, the negotiators should offset the cost of the proposed bailout so that taxpayers don't get saddled with it. There are plenty of proposals out there that can be considered, including asking Wall Street to bear at least some of the cost.

    "Second, negotiators should add meaningful provisions to help families facing foreclosure. This is more than just a matter of fairness - the housing crisis is the root cause of the credit market collapse, and unless we address it, any rescue package is far less likely to work.

    "Finally, negotiators must address the deeply flawed regulatory structure that paved the way for this crisis. The administration and others have said such reforms must wait for another day, but once a rescue package is enacted, we lose the leverage needed to enact tough reforms to get the financial sector to clean up its act, and we risk having to deal with this same mess all over again."

    Thank you for the quote (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:31:31 PM EST
    Feingold was always a man who stuck by his convictions.  I have much respect for him.

    Not everyone is a lemming in the Congress.


    What "pork," Cream? (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST
    Seriously.  Maybe I've missed something major here, but I haven't heard anything about "pork" provisions.  There are a bunch of what's called "tax extenders," which are just continuing various tax breaks for things like alternative energy (and that weird thing about the wooden arrows) for another year.  Some of those may be sort of silly, but they've all been around for a while and surely stretch the definition of "pork" to the breaking point.

    But maybe you're talking about something else in there I hadn't heard about?  Sincere question.


    Here's what I heard (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:41:08 PM EST
    in bits and pieces from the Senate floor, even in just the few minutes I had to listen amid much else tonight.  Feinstein thanked the Senate for lots of money for greatly expanding railroads in California, and Reid thanked the Senate for paying back western states for all the taxes they can't accrued by developing land that is federal land there -- he said Nevada is 87% federal land, and so his state and many other western states with a lot of federal land would get lots of federal funding in payback for it.  And some Senator I didn't recognize (and being busy, I missed the on-screen ID that flashed by) talked about more money in the bill for one of his projects also for "infrastructure" (but I didn't hear whether it was railroads or bridges or what) for his state.  I don't think that he was from Minnesota, but Reid also closed by calling on everyone to vote for the bill for the sake of the late Paul Wellstone!

    Feingold is a man of integrity and of principles (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:44:16 AM EST
    and did not fall for the scare tactics!

    Reid said he was Dodd's lieutenant. (none / 0) (#37)
    by jerry on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:29:01 PM EST
    Somehow that reminded me Group Captain Lionel Mandrake "feeding" General Jack D. Ripper.  I remain hopeful this episode will have a happier ending.


    Well of course the answer to that is, boy, no one ever does. And my advice to you, Jack, is to give me the code now. And if those devils come back and try any rough stuff, we'll fight them together, boy, like we did just now, on the floor, eh? You with the old gun, and me with the belt and the ammo, feeding you, Jack! Feed me, you said, and I was feeding you, Jack. pats Ripper on the shoulder


    No, Mandrake. I happen to believe in a life after this one, and I know I'll have to answer for what I've done. And I think I can.


    Yes, well of course you can, Jack, of course you can. You can! I'm a religious man, myself, you know, Jack. I believe in all that sort of thing, and... I'm hoping, you know, Jack, rises to follow Ripper, who is walking despondently about the room, dragging the 50 cal. which he lets fall. You dropped your gun, Jack, yes... picks up the machine gun and carries it you know what I'm Ripper begins removing his jacket here, no, Jack. Let me take that for you. I'll take that for you, Jack. takes Ripper's jacket and drapes it over the gun. And, ah, you know what I'm hoping, Jack? I'm hoping you're going to give me the code, boy. That's what I'm hoping. And, ah... Ripper enters the washroom. oh, you're going have a little wash and brush up, are you? What a good idea. Always did wonders for a man, that, Jack. A little wash and brush up. Water on the back of the neck, and... makes you feel marvelous. That's what we need, Jack! Water on the back of the neck and the code. Now, ... now supposing I play a little guessing game with you, Jack, boy. Ripper shuts washroom door. I'll try and guess... I'll try and guess what the code is, a gun shot rings out from within the washroom. Mandrake gapes at the closed door, drops the machine gun, and pushes on the door, which is blocked after opening a few inches.

    you'll answer to the coca cola company... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:39:48 PM EST
    ...for that one.

    You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company (none / 0) (#53)
    by jerry on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST

    At the moment for various reasons, laughing hurts quite a bit, but this youtube video is worth it.


    But Obama said in his speech (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:39:39 PM EST
    that opened the Senate debate that he did it.  A politic message to send in a campaign.  Wasn't Reid listening?  He's not supposed to say Dodd did it.

    That exchange reminds me (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:42:59 PM EST
    of the conversation Blair and Bush must have had. Christ what aamzingly potent & immortal writing.

    Thanks Senator Wyden (none / 0) (#50)
    by DeanOR on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:12:36 PM EST
    I just wrote to my Dem Senator, Ron Wyden, thanking him for his principled "no" vote. Our Repub Senator, Gordon Smith, of course voted for it. The US Chamber of Commerce has been running ads here supporting Smith and opposing Jeff Merkley, the progressive who is trying to unseat Smith in a very close race. Merkley opposes this turkey bill as Wyden does. The C of C knows where their bread is buttered.

    Maybe this will work (none / 0) (#54)
    by mg7505 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    indirectly -- bailout fails, economy tanks further, voters get angry, Democrats win the Presidency plus huge majorities in both houses, and real reform finally happens. Given how awful this bill is, that seems to be the best we can hope for.

    That's an insane and sick (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    thing to wish for.  If the economy tanks, the fat cats will do just fine.  It's you and I who will lose our jobs and probably our houses.

    the economy has tanked. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:36:30 PM EST
    and the fat cats are getting 700 billion to play with.



    not if we act like Mexico and start (none / 0) (#67)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:46:40 AM EST
    nationalizing everything...

    I mean, if no one is going to play a game with rules, then by all means really stretch the rules...


    The economy tanks - democrats lose because the (none / 0) (#76)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:49:34 AM EST
    overall concensus of the american people is against this bill and it was sold by mainly the democrats - it's theirs and if it doesn't work, they will pay the price for it!

    Personally, I think this larded up bail out will hurt the democrats and might lose them the elections because they sided with corporate america and wall street instead of listening to their constituents who told them to vote against it, which they didn't!

    I'm pissed at them for siding with Wall St and the republicans and will not vote for them as a result! I'm third party all the way! I've had it with all these elitist politicians who think they know best and are responsible for the dire position our economy is in now!


    You have a good point (none / 0) (#79)
    by stefystef on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:04:57 AM EST
    I said in an earlier post that if the Republicans are able to successfully convince the American people that Republicans fixed this problem despite the Democrats, it might play well for McCain.

    If the (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:46:39 AM EST
    bill fails it certainly doesn't help the Dems because they voted for it. Failing, imo, would only help the candidates running against incumbents.

    So, in summary (none / 0) (#83)
    by Iris on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    1. Bush proposes blank check bailout

    2. Obama rejects blank check, lays out four core principles for him to support any bailout

    3. Halfway decent compromise bill comes up in the house; populists on the left and right (see Corrente and Ian Welsh at Firedoglake today) mobilize to defeat it.

    4. Senate passes revised version, with "sweeteners" for Republicans that make it worse, pressure increases to pass in the House

    5. Populists on the left blame Obama for voting for passage, accuse him of betraying the middle class, and pledge to vote third-party.  

    If the House passes this version, doesn't the blame for the GOP tax-cut provisions lie equally with those on the right AND left who worked to defeat the first version?  Politics is the art of the possible, and I hope those people are happy with what they've accomplished.  The funny thing is that over at Corrente, they put Hillary up on this pedestal (rightly so in my eyes), and are tearing Obama to shreds, yet they BOTH voted for this bill!  Explain that to me, lambert.  How is Obama a corporate sellout but Hillary is a populist hero?  Either Hillary is also a corporate sellout, or Obama is not bought and paid for.

    Oh and the talk about voting third party, that takes the cake.  It's 2000 all over again!

    Oh, and one more thing (none / 0) (#84)
    by Iris on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    who wants to bet the PUMA's either turn on Hillary, or completely ignore her vote for this?