It's only a "Democratic' bill in that sense, and that you demonstrated your reflex to put blaming the Democrats above other considerations, like logic and the facts at hand.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, after all, I'm not against people speculating on the Internet.

That says a lot about the leadership skills of Obama...

Yes, you have to have your tiresome shot at Obama, who is responsible for every political misstep taken by either side in this campaign.

What about the 'leadership skills" of the guy who suspended his campaign in order to deal with the issue?

If you're implying that the electorate will come to its' senses and vote for the candidate you believe has better leadership skills, dream on.

I'm surprised you haven't written about Pelosi pushing the election towards McCain, but you'll wait until you have no other excuse to cite in predicting a McCain victory.

Here's a cogent analysis:

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon -- give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the "bailout" label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a "rescue" measure, it was too late.

............................................

4) Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn't like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives' most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill's failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a "bailout" of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn't have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

5) Partisanship? House Republican leaders gave a press conference right after the vote, and they have strongly suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) floor speech toward the end of the debate was at least partly to blame for the loss. "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house," Boehner said.

It's too early to know whether Pelosi's speech, which laid much of the blame for the whole financial crisis at the foot of the Bush administration, really made much of a difference. But if several House Republicans actually did switch their votes on a momentous piece of legislation just because they were irritated by a speech, what does that say about them? As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mockingly characterized the GOP's argument: "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I'm going to punish the country."

It's possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren't taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today's vote.

Of course, Republicans should put party position over helping the country, nothing wrong with that, but that the Democrats didn't supply the necessary
10 votes is a horrible thing.

Got it.

In response to the criticism, the Times editor Bill Keller was "surprised by the volume" and "by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish the article]". [26] The diverse sentiments by the readers were summarized in a separate article by Clark Hoyt, the Times public editor, who concluded: "I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed." [27]

So, they shouldn't have been rumor-mongering, but it doesn't make Weaver 'disgruntled'.

And, to make the logic explicit, if Weaver was disgrunted, he'd do more damage to McCain by talking to the NYT on record than by the remark you're so dismissive of.

ROFLMAO

dominated by silly Repub media