remember in 2006 when the dems were elected to end the Iraq war and didn't - their approval dropped like a stone.

the dems in the senate refused to even try to get a timeline for withdrawal with funding passed.

Now the public is against the bailout bill that gives Paulson enormous powers and ignores his conflicts of interest e.g. he still owns goldman sachs shares.

Now rather than passing a bill with Democratic votes in the house - a bill that would be more progressive including actual measures through bankruptcy court to keep people in their homes or perhaps mandated transaction fees for wallstreet to pay for it they appear ready to cave to the GOP by adding tax breaks.  Nothing for people to keep them in their homes or charge wall street for their crimes... Why not add provisions to attract Dems? Why try to get GOP votes? (I know they want to say "bipartisan" but if they don't get a majority of GOPers (which they won't) they will own it anyway.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601 070&sid=aoJ7Et81o4c8&refer=polit ics

Also linked to the legislation is a two-year extension of tax breaks that will save individuals and corporations about $149 billion over the next decade, another move popular among House Republicans. Two-thirds of House Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats defeated the bailout plan on a 228-205 vote. President George W. Bush and Senate leaders vowed to revive the legislation.

Obama doesn't seem to realize having an actual economic crisis is good for him.

Talking about real issues helps Obama - talking about lipstick and soldiers' bracelets and brittany spears does not.  As soon as the crisis is "averted" the media will go back to talking about fluff.

I hope the new bill loses enough Dems in the house that it fails to pass again.

Obama made a huge mistake by embracing this thing tighter yesterday in Nevada.  Josh Marshall at TPM noticed the risk.  I somehow hope that Obama can vote against this though I fear he has McCained himself on it now.

Why do we elect dems to congress and the senate only to see them move to "sweeten" the bill for the GOP????

Should Obama lose (which I hope he doesn't) you will be able to trace it back to the day the senate passed this Turkey.....

check out this ..

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2008/09/sarah_palins_terrifying_ ignora.php

The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day.

too short for a diary I know.

but wouldn't it be great if Obama said the best way to help working americans is to suspend the bush/mcCain policies of the last 8 years starting this November...

watching this hearing it's really clear that the Dems will get killed if they vote for this.

Schumer asked why can't we give you a small amount now (150$ billion) and see how it works?  Paulson says they can only spend 50-100$ billion a month anyhow.

read Krugman...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09 23/balance-sheet-baloney

I mean, any bank that wants to remove toxic assets from its balance sheet can do it at a stroke -- just declare them worthless, and poof! they're gone. But of course, that would reduce confidence and capital, not increase it -- and that's not what Hank and Ben are talking about. They're talking about turning the assets over to Uncle Sam, and getting cold hard cash in return. And then the question is how much cash they get in return. It's all about the price.

Now, if the price Treasury pays is very low -- anything comparable to what financial institutions are able to sell the stuff for now -- it's going to do nothing for confidence and capital. If the price is high, confidence and capital will improve -- but taxpayers may well take a big loss. The premise of the Paulson plan- though never stated bluntly -- is that these assets are hugely underpriced, so that Uncle Sam can buy them at prices that help the financial industry a lot, without big losses for taxpayers. Are you prepared to bet $700 billion on that premise?

But how can we help the financial situation without making that bet? By taking an equity stake. That way, if it turns out that the feds are pumping money in at above-fair prices, at least they get ownership, just as a private white knight would have.

There is no, repeat no justification for refusing to grant equity warrants that provide some taxpayer protection. This is, for me, an absolute deal or no-deal point.

since obama has been delivering some great lines like "if mccain wants to take on the old boys network he just needs to call a staff meeting"...

and many others...

HOwever, I'd love to see Obama say" if you've seen the movie "wall street" you probably know more about the economy than McCain.  McCain just this week discovered that there's greed on wall street.  He was shocked I tell you. He needs to rent the movie wall street to get a clue on the economy".

I really wish someone for Obama would tie in McCain's past touting of privatizing social security with what's going on in wall street.

Imagine if you had invested in Lehman Brothers or AIG ?

You lost 90 or 100% of your investment.

This is another golden opportunity to tie the economic disaster with McCain's horribly wrong judgement on economic issues and retirement.

this is a concrete way for low information voters to understand why McCain is horrible for the economy.

I'd love to see an ad with McCain saying "social security is a disgrace" with Fiorina saying he couldn't run a company.

the NY Times editorial board has called McSame's ad in Spanish full of "lies".

amazing a bilingual liar - must be some  kind of record.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 9/15/whats-spanish-for-lies/

Mr. McCain once was a moderate on immigration -- and steadfast. Now he's slippery. Marching in step with the Lou Dobbs crowd, he talks of border security first and foremost. He says he would have voted against his own McCain-Kennedy bill. He leads a party whose convention platform pushes a hard restrictionist line.

But at the same time Mr. McCain panders to Latino immigrants, in Spanish, accusing Mr. Obama of not being on "our side" -- the pro-amnesty side.

Does this mean that Mr. McCain truly regrets the demise of the "path to citizenship"? That he really supports it, and will push for it harder than Mr. Obama will? Is he willing to stand up to his own party on that?

If he is, let's hear him say so -- in English, too.

unbelievable.  McSame even lies about who bought his daughter's car.

A daughter who has never worked and was given a 700,000$ condo in NY.

http://info.detnews.com/redesign/blogs/a utosblog/index.cfm?blogid=442

The Prius came up again last week, in a interview with WXYZ (Channel 7) in Detroit. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain denied buying his daughter Meghan a Toyota Prius -- a statement at odds with a previous comment he made.
"Actually, she bought it -- I believe -- herself, but yes she does have a Toyota Prius because it ... saves on fuel efficiency," McCain said.p>
In October 2007, the New York Times reported he made a speech in South Carolina in which McCain said he had bought his daughter a Prius, after briefly forgotting the car's name. "OK, Prius, Prius," McCain said. "I ought to know the name of it; I paid for it." His daughter Meghan wrote about her Prius in a blog posting on Oct. 9, 2007. "Climate change is a very important issue to me; in fact, there are few issues other than the war in Iraq I find as relevant. I try to do my part by driving a Prius, recycling, using eco-friendly light bulbs, etc. but I know that I can always do more and so does my dad. It may not be one of his most highly publicized issues but anyone who watched the debate or who has followed his efforts in the Senate, would recognize his commitment and passion for the issue of climate change and the environment.