is, because of this uncontrovertible legislative incompetence, blowhards and bad guys like Virgil Goode get to crow with false populism for six weeks until election day about saving the taxpayers from those greedy financiers, and good people like Tom Perriello have an even steeper hill to climb.

I'm against this legislation, but it's crazy to have these kind of optics. We need new leadership in the Congress, top to bottom.  

to Goode and other such jackass Republicans is that they got us into this mess.  Who cares if they voted against legislation that isn't popular when they're the ones responsible for allowing this meltdown to happen.  As long as they get the blame they deserve a little grandstanding won't do 'em any good.

but the thing is that Virgil has a long history of this fake populism, and so a lot of low information voters might buy his act. His entire schtick is to vote against free trade acts (and bills like this) and spend the rest of his time voting for every lobbyist and Wall Street sop and deregulatory scheme, but still paint himself as a man of the people. It's a total farce, but the grey truth is rarely easy to explain in politics.

I'm not saying that Tom and his campaign aren't smart or hard-working enough to combat that, but it makes it tougher.

With all these bad faith actors in the system (House Republicans, the President), I find it unreal that Pelosi et al would get played like this. They should know better. Moreover, you can't separate politics from legislating. There's no such thing as 'coming together' for the common good this close to an election with this group of Republicans. And until Congressional Dems learn to play legislative hardball, Republicans will be able to continue to muddy the waters and lie about who they are and what they stand for.

exactly describes the candidacy of John McCain, who annointed this legislation and now will have to scramble to pretend he did not, I imagine.

That's the one positive out of all this mess, is that McCain tied himself to its passage. He looks even more inept and useless than the rest of the leadership.

I don't know who is right but Paulson, Warren Buffett, and other financial experts claim a meltdown is imminent without this bill. I don't know what their definition of "imminent" is but my definition doesn't allow for 6 weeks of doing nothing. We need to pound the republicans nonstop.  Their philosophy of unregulated free markets is clearly the cause of this mess.

John McCain: Nothing But More Of The Same

My comments on the Commercial Paper Market and the Fed serving as intermediary for every lending transaction didn't help?

I wrote in a different thread to Al (aznew) that I have seen enough from you and him that I trust your intellectual honesty and your intentions, so it definitely gives me pause that you both support this. And again, I absolutely believe that there is an affirmative role for government here to prevent this crisis from spiraling out of control.

But I don't believe it has to be today, or nothing. The language they proposed was bad, and very much like Paulson's original plan. The other models to recapitalize these financial institutions seem much better to me, and I stick by that.

To the extent that our government is run by people that are no longer trusted in almost any way, shape, or form in the executive branch, and to the extent that Congressional Republicans are bad faith actors that might sink everything out of pure petulance, I definitely understand the desire to pass this bill.

But we can do better. I do agree a mass intervention may need to wait until January 21, 2009 (or thereabouts), and so the Congress needs to do something to start right now. If that is a miniature version of this system, then so be it -- but it had better include much more stringent limits on compensation, balance sheet clarity, and oversight. And if taxpayer money is used to recapitalize these banks or to take these illiquid assets, I want much more strict language about equity (dollar for dollar) in the bill.

Dodd and Frank bent over too far for Paulson and Bush, and that is completely unwarranted at this point. Can they get something done after this meltdown? I guess we'll see.  

Their fat cat friends will drop them like flies.

Many are strongly identified as Republicans, so their identity works against their own interest.

I live in an apartment. But I'm sure I can find a plot of ground around here somewhere to bury some cash.

It's FDIC insured.  Your employer may not be able to borrow to fund payroll.  So, I would be more worried about where you will get the money from to put in these mason jars.

Equities are a sideshow to all of this anyway, a public face on a problem that it is tougher for Main Street to fully grasp.

I presume Treasury and the Fed have a Plan B.

Blaming the bill's failure on alleged partisan speech Pelosi gave on floor.

Uh-oh - GOP has tanked market. Spinning furiously to avoid blame.

They are bad people, they act in bad faith, and they care not one whit about what's best for the nation writ large. They care only about their perches of power. How they expect to maintain such power without the help of the big lobby shops is a bit beyond me, but there you go.

I truly feel for Pelosi, I believe she has good intentions. But the actors on the stage are known at this point, and she should know how they operate. Bring a strong, progressive bill to the floor, address any authorities the Fed may need until February 2009 to amelioriate the credit crunch, and then let Bush either veto it or not (while putting pressure on the Republicans in the Senate).

Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor ALL voted for this bill. They are the Republican leadership ... and they are blaming Pelosi for a mean speech for causing them not to provide or push for the votes from their caucus? What scumbags.

The only good thing about this situation, is that perhaps these people will now be seen for what they are.  

We have been waiting for this to happen all along. Well, here it is. A definition of swift boating is that you discredit your opponent on their strongest asset.

The Republicans are using this crisis to attack the strongest credentials of the Democrats: the economy. It is no coincidence that the vote fails and Republicans are out there trying to blame this on Democrats.

McCain tried to do this last week, but it didn't work. This is the second wave. I really hope that it doesn't stick.

on MSNBC.  Works for me.

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, campaigned around America for him in 2000 and 2004, still brags about that. He admits he knows nothing about economics, but he LOOOOOVES deregulation and "supply side"/"trickle down" economics.  He voted for the Bush tax cuts that brought us huge budget deficits which contributed to the current financial crisis. He voted against measures to get us off of foreign oil dependency and to help build a strong U.S. economy, infrastructure, etc. He supports spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, maybe for 100 years, while our own country's economy crumbles. He recklessly injected presidential politics into an economic crisis facing America, putting himself NOT his country first. He completely failed to convince his fellow Republicans to support this bill, demonstrating lack of leadership abilities  (note: McCain was not voted "Miss Congeniality" because people don't LIKE HIM, not because he's a supposed "maverick" - which he most certainly is not!!!).

In the end, these are the Bush/McCain chickens coming home to roost...

He makes the point that the House leadership simply failed to deliver the votes  they promised to deliver. McCain, who declared himself the head of the party, is therefore responsible.

Hardball should be fun tonight!

He never won "Miss Congeniality" awards in the Senate NOT because of any so-called "maverick" tendencies, but because his colleagues DON'T LIKE HIM.  How's he going to lead people who think he's a hotheaded jerk?

He tried to paint himself as one, was my point.

All he was good for is dropping into town to stir things up and sack any agreement.  Now he's (through his senior policy advisor) blaming Obama for the failure of this vote.  Unbelievable.

No leadership.  He didn't ask a single question at the WH meeting.  He offered no solutions.  And then he threw a tantrum and walked out.  AWOL McCain then went to Congress to block any solution in favor of allowing a market freefall.  He weakly said he could support the bill yesterday.  But he delivered nothing, not even his own party.

When negotiators were trying to deliver votes Sat night, McCain was out with his wife at an expensive restaurant.  2/3 of House Republicans voted against this.  Pelosi delivered more than half of the Dems (2/3).  AWOL McCain did nothing, except blame Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!!!! He is right now giving a speech in which I heard him blame Obama.  Really pathetic.

No wonder he picked a Miss Congeniality to be is soul/running mate.

Eric Cantor has done more than any single person I can think of to challenge the stereotype that Jews are smart.

Everyone in the library just looked at me weird for laughing so loud

the funnier it gets :)

It's their president and their constructed crisis.

It's time to play hardball with putting this mess squarely where it should be.  I knew when Pelosi was talking about who brought us to this point (before the vote) that things were bad.

I personally hate this plan.  But I am not sure the administration and the Congress can come up with a program to fix what needs to be fixed.  

Meanwhile there is no escaping who caused this.  The Republicans don't even support their own president, but hide behind Dems.  Who loves their country more?  It is obvious, the Dems.

Meanwhile we need to kick the economic blogging up a notch.  This is a Republican-caused crisis.  They caused it.  They won't do anything constructive to help.  All they are good for is shameless partisanship, grandstanding and pretense.  Bottom line: At the WH last week, John McCain had nothing to say.  He asked no questions.  After an houror so, when Barack Obama asked "What do you think, John?" McCain got up and stomred out.  He left the WH.

AWOL absent without leave from this the candidate who claims to put country first.  He takes a mental hike, plays mighty mouse and then parades the halls of Congress pretending to solve the crisis, while helping to sack it. This is the most shameful thing I have ever seen from a candidate.

So now the GOP house leadership is blaming Pelosi.  What a joke.  And so they are using petty excuses for not voting.  They are still saying "we have to put partisanship aside" when they have done nothing but BE partisan for 8 years, and especially this past week.  We are not in a majority, they say?  They didn't even support their own bill.  Now there's buffoon Erick Cantor blaming Pelosi.  This was staged, carefully planned.  And Pelosis speech was obviously after she knew they were bailing.

an excellent new moniker for McSame. Secondary name: AWOL John

"AWOL McCain" could be the title of a new song!  Mmmmm...

This is a Republican-caused crisis.  They caused it.  They won't do anything constructive to help.  All they are good for is shameless partisanship, grandstanding and pretense.

Look, at the end of the day, even though I disagree with it, this was Democracy in action. Public opinion ran strongly against this thing, and Congress voted the way people wanted.

This will make recovery tougher, and the pain for many people -- unfortunately, probably mostly the middle class and poor -- more severe.

But voter education to make sure people understand who got us into this mess is now essential.

Read fivethirtyeight.com today. If you ask the question does congress need to pass a bailout it is unpopular.  If you ask does congress need to pass legislation to stabilize it is wildly poopular.

Which is why members of Congress should be voting their conscience and their informed opinion and not voting the latest polls.  It is called leadership and moral courage.

I suspect most people would agree that something needs to be done, even if you use the loaded term "bailout" in the phrasing of the question.

I also suspect that if you ask people if they want to give control 700 billion to Secretary Paulson with no oversight; the answer is a resounding no.

It's pretty clear that congress, and the American public need more time to hash this out; and that is a good thing.  I hope calm minds prevail and do the right thing whatever it is.

It would be interesting to see how our Virginia Congress-critters voted.

Lots of ignorance being traded today as news...anytime Dennis Kucinich and Virgil Goode are on the same side of an issue, then mob rule has overtaken reason and judgement.  People who oppose this so-called "bail-out" have no idea where their credit comes from, be it spending limits on their credit cards or car loans.  The consumer, and our economy in turn, is going to take it in the shorts thanks to this nonsense.

Both from the extreme wings of their parties, both nuts.

But if House members can't come to an agreement and the economy really starts heading South, then maybe voters will wise up.  Though at the point, it may be a little late in the game for even a $700 billion deal to do the trick.

I just hope that the banks don't start cutting their revolvers.  If that happens, with no commercial paper, businesses will be closing doors en masse.  We will be in an economic crisis that most Americans have never experienced before.

Oh, there will still be some melodrama to be sure; but most of the congress will figure out they need to do something, but that need to carefully consider the details.

I suspect we'll get a better plan and bill either late this week or early next week.

Yes the delay will hurt, a lot...  but we'll survive.

I do think we are going into hard recession or depression for a few years no matter what congress does; but I am confident we'll survive and that the markets will too.

They cut off Obama's remarks and put the GOP spinners back on the screen.  Boehner had the temerity to claim the majority didn't deliver the votes when they didn't deliver the voters for their own president.  

just called out the GOP on the Pelosi caused this BS.

Roubini, who saw this train wreck coming a year ago, cites an IMF study of how other countries have handled toxic debt and the recapitalization of failed banks. His bottom line assessment is that a vague commitment to buy up toxic debt really is no solution at all. Here is the full Roubini article.

Frankly, I'm happy that this abomination of a bill failed. Now let's see some adults (especially adult economists--not neocon ideologues or Wall Street scam artists like Hank Paulson)--enter the room and propose some serious solutions.

Maybe in 2009 we could also start thinking about some competent new leadership for Democrats in the House--i.e., not including Steny Hoyer (a legendary jerk) or Nancy Pelosi (inept is as inept does).

Just in case, now is the time to go out and buy those bags of rice and beans, and to make sure that you have a down comforter for those cold winter nights without heat. And fill up the gas tanks in all of your cars (have you noticed the gas lines lately in Atlanta and Charlotte?).

Roubini makes a fatal logic error in his argument.  He assumes, like most in the media, that this "toxic" debt is worthless.  It is not; it is merely not liquid in the current market.  Under the rules of Sarbanes-Oxley, therefore, investment banks cannot give it any value it in their balance sheets.  Think of how your house is appraised.  It is normally done by "comps" or sales of similar properties nearby.  Suppose there were no sales of any houses in your zip code for the past 12 months.  Does that mean that your house is worthless?  Under Sarbanes-Oxley it does, but in reality you eventually will be able to take value from it when the real estate market improves.

Lawrence Summers, the last Treasury Secretary under Clinton, has an excellent op-ed in today's Post.

First, note that there is a major difference between a $700 billion program to support the financial sector and $700 billion in new outlays. No one is contemplating that $700 billion will simply be given away. All of its proposed uses involve purchasing assets, buying equity in financial institutions or making loans that earn interest. Just as a family that goes on a $500,000 vacation is $500,000 poorer but a family that buys a $500,000 home is only poorer if it overpays, the impact of the $700 billion depends on how it is deployed and how the economy performs.

The entire piece is at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Roubini also assumes (like Kugman did last week) that the government would overpay for the distressed securities.

So, sure, if you make those assumption, the plan was not a very good one.

It makes sense in common sense terms, I agree. The argument seems to go like this: since many derivatives (such as collatoralized sub-prime mortgages and assorted credit default swaps) should be considered to have some sort of value that could be extracted at some point in the future, they should be priced somehow to reflect what somebody thinks that value in the future should be. Who decides? Hank Paulson would like Treasury to decide. Congress would like to impose some oversight on those kinds of decisions by Treasury.

But when the derivatives markets value their instruments at several times the level of the country's GDP, what does "value" mean? It means what someone is willing to pay in open market transactions. I think one could argue that these derivatives markets have essentially served as huge liquidity sinks that have soaked up excess money by hyperinflating financial assets, thereby keeping prices in the real economy of goods and services under control. The real estate market--and the sub-prime mortgage instruments--were adjuncts of this hyperinflation scam. And when the sub-prime market ultimately collapsed, the rest of the house of cards inevitably came tumbling down.

The moment when no one is willing to bid any longer on those instruments is the moment that the vast derivatives Ponzi scheme (first con man out wins, last sucker in loses)--what Warren Buffett has called the "financial instruments of mass destruction"--collapses.

We have been witnessing that moment for the past two weeks.

The CDOs are not vapor -- there is a real economic value to them and therefore, theoretically at least, a fair price. In typical Ponzi schemes, there is no value except the contributions of later investors. This isn't quite that.

Paulson was not saying the Treasure will determine what that price is. He suggested a reverse auction as a means of setting at least an initial value, didn't he? That probably would have arrived at as good a price as can be set right now.

The CDSs are a different matter. I'm not sure there is any there there, so they would only work as a hedge for so long. But the plan did not include Swaps, right?

The Paulson Plan would have slowed the unwinding down, which is about all we can do a this point, and which would have given folks a fighting chance.

I've heard the Ponzi Scheme argument.  It is only a Ponzi if the last investor's capital is paid to the earlier investors, leaving no residual value.  In fact, over 95% of all mortgages in effect today, including the sub-primes, are not "distressed," according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.  About 2.75% are in foreclosure to one extent or another with an equal amount in the 30-60-90 delinquent catagories.  There is no reason to believe that derivatives and other credit swaps based on mortgages are worthless unless you apply the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules.  Statistically, they have about 95% of their book value.

However, the MBA statistics could change quickly if we actually go into a real recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), unemployment grows, consumer spending nose-dives, and investors flee the securities markets for bonds and hard assets.  That is what Congress pushed us towards today with the vote in the House.  

The Act makes no requirement for mark-to-market accounting treatment.  These treatments are standards published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).  The most recent big one, which Accountants are grappling with, is FAS 157 - Fair Value Measurements.  Incidentally, ultimate authority to govern accounting standards has rested with the SEC for a long time.  They have chosen to defer that to a private body, FASB.  But at any point in time, the SEC could eliminate or suspend an accounting standard.  That's my reading of section 13b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

that this vote went belly-up.  The markets, both domestic and international are in a tailspin and the credit markets are following.

The same voters who called their congressman to vote no on this will be the same voters who piss and moan that their investments and 401k accounts have dropped, they can't get credit to buy a car or re-finance their mortgage or they lost their job because the business of company couldn't get loans for their business.

What a mess.

The combination of the end of the quarter (hedge fund redemptions) and Rosh Hashanna (many people will not be working for two days), combined with the failure on Congress to pass this, suggests to me that people will trying to liquidate as many long positions as they can, esp. in financials (about 25% of the U.S. markets) in the next hour.

Wow. I thought it wasn't going to happen, and then it occurred:

Free market fundamentalists on the right were going to derail an unsavory but necessary bill for ideological reasons.

God granted us the blessing to get to live in interesting times....

The Swedes' temporary seizure and nationalization solution from their 1992 financial meltdown would probably end up taking a lot smaller chunk out of our GDP and growth potential.

And while we're at it, maybe it is time for Hank Paulson to submit his resignation today and go back to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs with his tail between his legs. Can't we expect our officials to take responsibility for colossal incompetence--as the Japanese do, for example?

It is clearly time for Obama to step forcefully into this leadership vacuum. He has smart people around him (Summers, Rubin, Volcker--especially Volcker). Let's see a better solution from them.

You put the fires out. Was I happy that it was going to bail out corporations? No. But quick action is necessary to control the markets.

The signal that was sent is that the U.S. government won't act.

Do we have the political will to implement a Swedish solution? I doubt it.

This was pretty much it, considering that Bush is in the White House and that Republicans have so much power in the House.

something out and vote on a new bill to pass it this week--very likely a better bill than the current one.

Will the markets continue to tank until then? Of course. Will more banks collapse or swiftly agree to be bought out this week, as we have seen with the sudden disappearances of Washington Mutual and Wachovia? Probably. But the crumbling markets will compel even some intransigent Republicans or rebellious Democrats to vote for the new version of the bill. Let's hope that they get the next version right and produce something that they can also sell to the public. They didn't do a very good job selling the current version.

I have to admit that I'm watching the whole mesmerizing fiasco with a certain detached equanimity. Taking observers like Roubini seriously (as well as bonddad, Jerome a Paris, billmon, and New Deal Democrat over at Daily Kos), I pulled my investments out of the market last year and moved entirely to money market cash. We need to be a little concerned that even the money markets may lock up for a while (as did a Putnam money market fund two weeks ago), but any Treasury and Fed solution will have to ensure that the money markets survive intact.

I continue to think that out of this meltdown will come a tremendous leadership opportunity for Obama and for progressive Democrats, perhaps even a chance for a "Renewed Deal." Will they seize the opportunity?

about a year ago as well and put them in government bonds.  Smartest move I ever made, but I really thought the fundamentals of the economy were completely unsound.  I warned everyone I knew, but most people were like, "yeah, yeah."  I'm glad I trusted my gut for once and did NOT trust the "all is well" happy talk from McBush.

After the collapse, perhaps you'll have a new--at least part-time--career as a financial adviser, if there will be any customers left to serve.

FYI - so far, despite last week's and yesterday's losses; my portfolio is actually up year over year this morning, not by much... and probably not by as much as your money is with bond interest...  ;-)

I just wanted to say that as bad as the bloodletting looked yesterday, it's not the end of the world by any means.

She saw some companies suddenly trading at the old school conservative thumb rule for valuing stocks (20 times earnings) and where those companies appear to be fundamentally sound for the long term, she bought stocks in them.

She totally rocks...

I was thinking there'd be some good buys and hemming and hawing about it... she just did it.  So whenever you-all think I am optimistic, just remember; I'm the voice of reason in the house - she's the optimist.

This bill was a neoliberal bailout; I know that very well.

And that is what worries me: if the free market fundies rejected something tailored made for them, they are not going to go along with a truly better bill.

I believe Krugman said that this was a bad bill, but a start, and we could come back to it after the election. I agree with that.

We got to get something passed to stabilize the market. Once the markets are stable, then we have enough breathing space to go item by item, fixing the mess.

I don't have anymore to put it in any kind of market. I am not losing my life work during this crisis.

Yet the macro economics worry me a lot. Most Mexicans in the 80s and in 94 didn't have money in the market either, and they have been paying dearly for mishandled crises for more than 25 years now.

would be something resembling the collapse of the Soviet economy, when pensioners ended up selling old clothes and packs of cigarettes on the street in order to get enough kopecks to buy potatoes and firewood. Hyperinflation made pensions absolutely worthless. The ruble collapsed. The national budget collapsed. Factories closed. The real economy came to a standstill. People survived by barter.

Could it happen here? I'm beginning to wonder. The party of Herbert Hoover seems intent on taking us to the point of systemic collapse once every century or so.

If I recall the vote, there were more Democrats voting NO (95)than Republicans voting yes (64-65?).

The Bush bail-out plan failed- it means there is more work to be done. Those who voted against the bill had their minds made up (Democrats and Republicans). Incidentally, didn't the Republicans "reject" Cheney when he made his pleas to the Republicans?

Republicans crying "She made me do it" (vote no)just doesn't fly. Back to the drawing board.
     

Sniff Nancy Pelosi said mean things about us, so we're voting against this legislation and letting the national economy melt down.

Check it out.

http://www.intrade.com/

338, but now he's gone down some. Evidently some are buying the GOP spin.  But not too many.

I know it's ironic for this to come from me.  I can be as mouthy  as a person can be.  But we really need calm right now.  All this panic talk feeds on itself.  

We really need to stay calm.  All Americans.  And reckless talk about buying down comforters and putting money under mattresses is, well, just that, reckless talk.  We spend our blogging lives trying to move public opinion.  But we really should take care about increasing the nation's propensity to panic anyway.

This is our country.  We have a a moral imperative.  I am not saying that the moral imperative necessitates supporting the vote.  It might.  I don't think so, but it's unclear.  It is imperative that another constructive approach is attempted.  

But let's not make this worse for our countrymen.  Panic is the last thing we want to fan. PS Anyone putting money under a mattress and talking about it in public is really taking a chance.  I do not think that is the answer.

What is also questionable is the empty talk by Repugs of "bipartisanship" is just empty.  They've manipulated this crisis from the get-go.  

Yeah, McCain did a "heckuva job" here.  Wow.

Again, the only good thing to come out of this is to show -- again, but this time in big flashing lights -- how much better prepared for the Presidency Barack Obama and his team are.

Schmidt was atrocious on MTP. They need to keep him off camera. Actually, they don't have any reasonable media surrogates except maybe Nicole Wallace. They're screwed.  

The update by Ron has Bobby Scott voting both Aye and Nay.  Bobby Scott voted against the bailout; the Democrat you're missing is Jim Moran, who voted for it.

You're right, I just noticed that the second before you mentioned it.

Yes, Moran voted for it, Scott no.

Thanks.

h/t to Oliver Willis for the image

If she doesn't have an ad up bashing Wolf by tomorrow, I'll be thoroughly disappointed.  It might be her best chance at actually winning her race.

What's the opening? "Bad, bad Frank Wolf voted with Jim Moran!!!"

WTF?

And you'll be disapointed if she doesn't have an ad up by tomorrow? So, what, you think money grows on trees?

You can't use either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote as a campaign issue now, no matter which party you're running with.  A huge part of the Democratic caucus voted no; a huge part of the Republican caucus voted yes.

Which is why, I think, John McCain is such a freaking idiot for trying to claim influence here.  He's going out saying it's Obama's fault the legislation didn't pass, but in doing so he's throwing all the Republicans who voted "no" under the bus.  What a moron.

When he dropped everything to get the bill passed, and it doesn't.

They care about their own Congress member.  Feder is in her own race.  It doesn't matter what other Congressmen voted for, Wolf supported it.  She needs to put an ad up.

She lost by 16 in a Democratic Wave year, she can't run a traditional campaign and expect to win.

How about this, then: Mark Warner is on record as saying that he thought we needed government intervention to save the market from collapsing.  Barack Obama said he was optimistic the bill would pass but would reserve further judgement until he learns from the members voting no why they voted the way they did.

You want Judy Feder to run away from the other Democrats on the ballot in her district?  Including Mark Warner??

I want her to focus on getting elected.  That's why she's running, to get elected.  It's not her job to get Warner or Obama elected.  They can defend their own positions.  

...is that she should say anything necessary to get elected, regardless of the soundness of her position?

BTW, just what is her position on this?  She's pretty well educated.  Does she agree with Dennis Kucinich and Virgil Goode?

Just things she differs from Wolf on.  I searched the news media and found nothing to say she supports the bailout, so I'm assuming she opposes it.  If she actually supports it then my idea won't work.  

If she opposes it as I assume she does then she should pursue my option.

It seems to be everyone else's strategy in Virginia is to try and swaddle in Warner's 60%+ approval rating and 90%+ name ID like a warm, electable blanket.  But I'm sure ceding that ground to Frank Wolf in order to take a firm position on an issue where there still isn't any real public concensus has some sort of benefit, even if I'm not smart enough to know what it is.

Every member of Congress would tell you that the public opposes the Wall St. bailout.

Being Warner's best friend is not a ticket to Congress.  It might be a decent help, but it doesn't make up 16 points

If a third of people support it, a third of people oppose it, and a third of people can't form a coherent opinion at all, there's no public concensus.

It's easier when you're our age to be outraged by this, but the DJIA dropped nearly 800 points today.  There are a ton of retirees and people near retirement out there who just saw a huge part of their 401(k)s get wiped out.  The vocal minority may be burning up the phone lines, but I promise you that there are millions of Americans out there who are hurting today because the legislation didn't pass.

Then why did almost every Congressman in a tough or semi-tough re-election fight oppose the bill?  At least they think the public opposes the bill.

specifically that members of Congress know more about what's going on right now than everyone else.  Boehner and Cantor trot out griping about how this is Pelosi's fault because she made a partisan-sounding speech before the vote?  If they thought this was a victory for their vulnerable incumbents, they would be saying it's a victory for the American Taxpayer, not trying to pass the blame.  Ditto John McCain trying to blame Barack Obama--after the weeks he's been having McCain in particular wanted this issue off the table so he could say "well now that I've solved that, let's talk about Islamo-fascists" or whatever buzzword it is they're using today.

Bobby Scott voted no today.  I'm pretty sure he's running unopposed; his seat is so safe that I honestly have never bothered asking.  Bobby Scott didn't vote no because he's scared of his electoral chances.  Whatever made him decide to vote no, it ain't fear of his electorate.

Excellent comment.

What message do you think this supposed ad would have? What "attack" is she going to make on Wolf? Please, enlighten us all.

Feder cut Wolf's lead in half in a Democratic wave year. sure, it's not a win, but the truth is she did what no other Democrat has EVER been able to do against Wolf.

And I'm not saying she should run a traditional campaign, I'm just saying that hitting Wolf on a vote that a majority of Democrats voted for is just plain bad strategy.

Frank Wolf voted in favor of using taxpayer money to bail out wall street.  Say no to Frank Wolf's corporate grab bag on the federal dime.  Elect Judy Feder to Congress November 4.

The content of this ad was paid for by the committee for the people who drafted the plan that Frank Wolf voted for and largely also voted for it, except when we didn't.

but your initial language is a great start.

This is a good start for her...

"In this economy, who's really on your side?" the ad opens. It goes on to attack incumbent Republican Sen. Gordon Smith with a litany of offenses, including "tax breaks for billionaires," and "shipping our jobs overseas." It winds up: "And now, a trillion-dollar blank check for Wall Street."

Merkley, the Oregon House speaker, "took on the payday lenders, cut golden parachutes and Merkley says no bailouts until CEO bonuses are cut and middle-class taxpayers are protected," the ad says.

you on board with my suggestion or do you agree with the other 900 people?

Not sure what you're talking about, but I strongly believe we need to pass a financial rescue plan ASAP, even if I have some issues with this particular bill.  If I had been a member of Congress, I would have voted "yea" today, as did my representative (Jim Moran).  My guess is that after the Dow's decline today, and god knows what will happen tomorrow, the House will be scared s***less and approve this - maybe with a few tweaks - later this week.

VA-10 isn't exactly middle class. OR is one of the hardest hit areas economically.

many people in VA-10 think the bail out is a good idea.

Congressman Wolf has served VA-10 for 28 years...you really think they're so stupid that they voted for a bill the whole district opposes?

You can't run an ad that does will in the pacific northwest and think it's going to play in VA. Just doesn't work that way.

Wolf voted for the bill because most of the voters in the district want a bail out, it's got the one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

If she doesn't have the money to run an ad, she is going to lose.  She has raised cash, she can afford TV ads.  

Please...if you don't really understand campaigns and politics don't pick a fight about it.

It's not that she can't afford an ad, it's that pretty much no congressional candidate would ever have enough money available to turn around a response ad in a day in one of the most expensive media markets in the country.

She's already been up on TV with two ads.

Are you seriously suggesting that she should drop out because she doesn't have the cash to put up a new ad tomorrow?

News flash: Frank Wolf doesn't have enough money to do something like that.

She would just need to spend it on this ad instead of another ad.  I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

but honestly, the problem was with your odd "needs to run an ad tomorrow" comments.

and again, it's a bad strategy. The voters of VA-10 are FOR the bill.

Are the Republicans who voted against this trying to bring on the End Times?

This was before the vote, but AFTER Pelosi actually knew the votes were not there.  And Boehner (and wrecking crew) claim her "partisan speech" caused this.  In point of fact is was known lst night that it probably would not pass, but Pelosi was trying to move some votes by shaming them to show their responsibility in fixing the problem.

Right now they are replaying McShame's partisan comment on events.  Shameful.  He ripped up the first agreement.  Meddled in the second and then went off and didn't lead.  He offered no real help.  Then he falsely asserts Obama sat on the sidelines when McShame did.

Now Harold Ford is doing a GOP-like routine condemning shaming.  Sorry, but the GOP has failed us and they haven't solved the mess they made.  They owe the country NOW.  (I do agree with Ford that the FDIC limits should be raised.)  However, Larry Summers doesn't really expect a run on the banks.  (Again let us stay calm.)  Blowhards like Buchanan are right now using fatalistic language.  They need to shut him up.  The damage he does is beyond the pale.

BTW, also regarding the crisis talk here.  It is indeed a crisis.  But if cool heads prevail we have a could of weeks to resolve all issues, the rest of the week, at minimum.  So let's just urge our reps to get something done.

The TED spread (the difference between what banks pay to borrow v. the US Treasury) is up to 3.59%!  LIBOR jumped again.  US Treasuries all fell in yield.  We are not at .02 percent on the 3-month treasury, but 27 basis points tomorrow and we are there.  It dropped a full 55 basis point today to 0.29%.  Commercial paper is at whopping 180 basis point spread for the highest rated companies.  That's crazy!

It's best just not to pay attention to the markets at this point.  

But the DJIA, as meaningless as it is, is a signal for a lot of people who don't know TED spreads from buttery-flavored ones, so that is its significance.

99% of the American people understand what it means when the stock market goes down. I doubt that a large percentage know what LIBOR, the TED spread, and basis points are.