Programming

Liberals programming the children. Very reminiscent of communist China and Russia footage we've seen through the years.

Celebrating Diversity

One of the great benefits of the Obama candidacy has been the exposure of Democrats as purveyors of bigotry. They've had America snookered for a long time with all their talk about celebrating diversity. But they couldn't handle having a woman running, they attacked the exposure of Barack's racist buddies in the black church, and they've injected race into the campaign as part of their regular spinning.

Now, Bill Maher demonstrates how good liberals are at inclusion, sensitivity and celebrating diversity when it comes to the bitter class.

Slide Over

It appears that the debate Friday night, which many observers thought Barack had won, did nothing to change to race, or perhaps moved it towards McCain. Both daily tracking polls now show that McCain's slide in the polls, which began when the Wall Street crisis began, is over.

Barack's 8 point lead from yesterday has dropped back to 6% according the the Gallup poll. Rasmussen also shows 6% separating the candidates.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday—the first update with results based entirely upon interviews conducted following the first Presidential Debate--shows Barack Obama attracting 51% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. Obama opened a five-point lead heading into Friday’s debate and has retained a five or six point edge every day since.

Surprisingly, the debate, in which he went toe to toe with McCain on international affairs, didn't help Barack on the experience question.

Forty-six percent (46%) now say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, 29% say McCain is too old.

The end of the Obama surge is reflected in numbers from Colorado, where Barack is making the traditionally Republican state competitive.

The latest Fox News/Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Colorado finds Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 48%.

A week ago, a Rasmussen Reports survey found Obama with a three-point advantage. Two weeks ago, McCain had a two-point advantage in a Fox News/Rasmussen Reports poll.

Likewise in Virginia.

The latest Fox News/Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Virginia finds Barack Obama leading John McCain 50% to 47%.

This is the second consecutive poll in which Obama has held the advantage in the toss-up state—he had a five percentage points advantage in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted just four days ago. A week ago, McCain held a two-point edge in the previous Fox News/Rasmussen Reports poll. Other than Obama’s five point edge last week, neither candidate led by more than three points since March.

Palin Under Attack

A good performance Thursday night will put all this to rest.

Faux Leadership

As has been the case throughout his career, Barack Obama has ducked the opportunity to lead on the biggest issue of the day. For example,

Obama and his wife, Michelle, were among thousands attending the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual awards dinner at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. He hailed the caucus, founded nearly 40 years ago, as laying the groundwork for his nomination, and he asked the crowd to join him in his historic run for the presidency.

There he was, in the midst of a group of congressmen, one third of whom voted against the bailout. Did he lobby them to support the measure?

Obama was given the foundation's Harold Washington Award, named after the late Chicago mayor and honoring the senator's work in coalition-building. He saluted Washington, who he said had inspired him to move to Chicago and become a community organizer.

If he was privately twisting arms, his work was not very effective.

Obama (D) then devoted the rest of his 20-minute speech to economic issues and to emphasizing the differences between his positions and those of his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R).

"Change isn't just a slogan, saying, 'I'm for change, too. I'm a maverick,' " he said, pausing for the crowd's laughter and applause. "He's taking my stuff."

If Barack has any stuff that's effective, he wasn't throwing it Saturday night.

Palin's Pakistan Problem

McCain and Palin sat down with Katie Couric and addressed the controversy over Palin's remarks about Pakistan. I don't know why they're elevating this by complaining about 'gotcha' journalism. We regularly cross the border in hot pursuit of terrorists, and that's all Palin said.

Back in August of 2007, Barack created his own Pakistan controversy:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Here's Sarah:

A Real Lemon

What faith Americans have in our country. A deep trust that no matter what happens, our nation will always prosper. We are utterly confident in the future - or, at least, in our own ability to manage it. Consider the rejection yesterday of the bailout.

...a majority of those politicians anointed by the U.S. Constitution to reflect the will of the people voted no. This is a remarkable event, the culmination of an historic sense of betrayal that Americans have long felt for their representatives in Washington D.C. The nation's credit crisis exposed Monday a much deeper and more fundamental problem — a political credibility crisis that now threatens to harm our nation further, should the markets freeze up and more companies begin to fail, as many experts predict.

We were promised by the most powerful people in the country that the solution offered may have been ugly, but it was entirely necessary. We didn't believe them.

Asked to take a leap of faith regarding a dizzyingly complex problem, a critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders, turning down the medicine that was offered. And so the politicians who are most exposed to popular whims have run for cover.

The deal was too cozy - the players too interconnected, the problem too abstract - for us to buy in. We've always heard that our trust in politicians was just a notch below car salesmen, and yesterday we confirmed it.

Years ago, the trust between the people and their politicians was broken. The credibility was lost. The reserve of goodwill went bankrupt. And when they needed it most, our nation's leaders found they had squandered their ability to exert influence over the people who chose them to lead.

Our elections reflect this disdain. We're willing to throw anyone into office, figuring it can't make things any worse. A governor from Arkansas who chases women uncontrollably? Sure. An inexperienced Texas governor whose main claim to fame is that his father was president? Ok, we'll try that.

We're passive aggressive. We don't feel any control over what our government does or what our society is becoming. Like teenagers bending rules to escape their feelings of powerlessness, we express our resentment with an "I don't care," shrug of the shoulders.

Nearly every major political leader in America supported the $700 billion financial bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote "yes."

We wanted a "no," so that's what they gave us.

I don't know if it's unique to our country, or unique to our time. Perhaps it's just human nature. Sometimes being impetuous feels good... very good. Even when the stakes are incredibly high.

Which is why the worsening economic situation bodes well for Barack.
If anyone can be made the American Idol, then why can't anyone be made president? The more we need someone with proven abilities, the less faith we have in experience. The more we need someone we can trust, the more intrigued we are by someone who hasn't earned it.

Because we don't really think that it's all about the government. We figure, in the end, it's about us. And we trust in our own ability to pull through. So we'll take it our way rather than theirs. And we'll live with the outcome. No matter how painful.

The irony is that the desire to act out cuts across party lines. The same instinct that makes Republicans want to lash out at the corruption in Washington by refusing their imperfect bailout makes Democrats want to elect the man so uniquely unqualified to be president.

Sea Legs

What does Sarah need to get her confidence back in advance of Thursday's debate? Most of the answers are 'should have' options, with the time well past for implementation. But Laura Ingraham was asking yesterday why she's being kept from her friends in conservative talk radio. Could there be a more natural place for her to get her sea legs? There's an option that could be implemented today to help Palin get her groove in advance of the campaign's big night.

Ed Rollins, David Gergen and others discuss on CNN what the McCain campaign has done wrong.

Banned in Canada

The liberal perspective on Sarah Palin was articulated for them, before they realized how, and why, they hated her so much, by Canadian writer Heather Mallick. Her column at CBC.com describes Palin has been vigorously criticized for saying Palin offers

the "toned-down version of the porn actress look," and attacking people in small towns as she charged that Palin "added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right."

Based on her small town Canadian upbringing, Mallick claimed familiarity with all the ugliness of the Palin mindset.

Canada has lots of hockey moms. They're called Fran and Nancy. They have cruel haircuts and their voices shake the rafters of the rink as their rink-rats play. How can I translate the hearty, jollying-along Palin for British audiences? ...It's those volleyball shoulders and field-hockey thighs, the energy, the bullying, and the utter self-confidence in every lie she tells.

Salt-of-the-earthers don't lie! But Palins do. I watched Palin last night, my mouth open, my eyeballs drying out, my hand making shaky notes. I read them aghast.

Mallick doesn't small towns, or the people they create.

She also lied when she slobbered over small-town folks (an American version of British farm life, except British farmers have a point). The granite honesty of hicks is a cliche, a fantasy, a meme of American life, as much as the working-class solidarity of Tony Blair was in 1997, and where did that get anyone?

Malik wrote this insightful bit of liberal bigotry on September 5. On Sunday, more than three weeks later, the CBC website apologized for having printed it, and took it down. The version offered on Mallick's own website has the most controversial parts removed.

Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.

And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site.

I'm not sure what benefit is derived from blocking the publication of opinion pieces like this. Don't we all benefit from knowing exactly what liberals think?

Brains, Interrupted

Hollywood heroes offering thoughtful analysis is a rare thing, and I have none of that to share. Instead, it's just more of the same - people who make their livings reading scripts reciting the words they hear repeated constantly. First, Ashton and Demi with a talk that speaks for itself.

And then there's Ashley Judd, who has her own delightful interpretation of the definition of privacy.

Michael's Fault

Wondering who is to blame for the failure of the bailout bill to pass? Must be Michael Moore, who campaigned against it on his website.

This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!

He seems to have convinced the American people, who opposed the bailout 3 to 1.

I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately:

Obama, like McCain, offered only lukewarm support for the measure - trying to avoid being connected to it through his support, or opposition.

1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street.

The power of Mike - underestimated again.

Where Was McCain?

Should John McCain have been leading the mutiny?

The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive into recession without it.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

If it's really about pandering for McCain, this would have been a beautiful opportunity to separate himself once and for all from the President. Instead, Nancy Pelosi is taking the heat for the defeat of the bailout, as a result of a nasty, partisan speech she gave in advance of the vote.

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.

Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."

Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."

But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., scoffed at the explanation.

"Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them," he said. "If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough."

More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.

A Different Kind of President

The liberal mind is a wonderful thing to behold. The New York Times has a story today indicating the difficulty union activists are having flipping their voters to Obama. They blame that difficulty on racism.

Still, Mr. Obama’s race has complicated labor’s efforts. When canvassers knock on doors, some voters do not acknowledge race explicitly, said Mr. Rainey, the U.A.W. leader. “The main reason you get is, ‘I don’t trust him because I don’t know him.’ ”

Which, I suppose, we are all to assume is because they're bigots. Couldn't be because, like they say, they don't know him?

Karen Ackerman, political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said: “We’re very conscious of the fact that many voters have never voted for an African-American for any office. For some voters, including union voters, particularly older voters, there is a reluctance.”

It wouldn't have anything to do with Barack having no track record, not a single accomplishment that he can point to that would indicate a desire, and ability, to be the change agent he claims to represent?

Ms. Ackerman said Mr. Obama was also new to the political scene, so people have not had time to get used to him. “We are trying to peel away what obstacles people have, union member by union member,” she said.

The above three paragraphs that I've excerpted from the Times story are taken in order. Notice that in the first one, the claim of Obama's newness as an impediment is offered as code for "he's black, and I'm a racist." Two paragraphs later, another leader mentions that Barack is new to the political scene, apparently as a legitimate reason, in her mind, for why members are slow to embrace him.

The story further argues against it's own thesis by presenting evidence that once union members learn about his positions on issues, they're more inclined to vote for Barack.

Mr. Rainey said his wife had warned him that Mr. Obama would lose if voters were not able to distinguish his economic policies from Mr. McCain’s. “There hasn’t been anything on the issues and it’s going to be crunch time,” Mr. Rainey said, “and people have to understand where these presidential candidates stand on economic issues.”

Why are they having success with this approach, providing information about the new guy, if race creates so much resistance?

Yet union canvassers are also confronting an unprecedented factor in this election — Mr. Obama’s race — making the effects of their door-to-door appeals less predictable.

MacDavis Slade, a political activist with the painters’ union, said that was why “some people are having a hard time seeing things for what they are or hearing what he has to say.”

“I think race is playing a major part,” Mr. Slade said. “I think that’s why some people say, ‘Isn’t he a Muslim?’ ”

It wouldn't have anything to do with his being new on the political scene with no experience to justify his being given a job of this magnitude? Wouldn't a better theme for the story have been - Obama inexperience makes for tough sell to union members?

Real Clear

Barack's lead continues to expand as post debate surveys from Saturday are included in the trackers. Rasmussen has Barack up by 6% for the second day in a row.

This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters, McCain by 55%.

What's McCain's problem?

As the economic crunch continues, just 11% of Americans now say the nation is heading in the right direction. That’s down dramatically from 24% two weeks ago when the failure of Lehman Brothers first brought the Wall Street debacle to the world’s attention. Since then, consumer and investor confidence have plummeted and nearly 80% of the nation’s adults now believe the economy is getting worse. Adding to the frustration is growing opposition to the proposed rescue plan and doubts about the motives of those promoting it.

Gallup has Barack up by 8%, also with 50% of the vote.

These results, from Sept. 25-27, span the time period since John McCain made the announcement that he was temporarily suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work for a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis, and since Congressional leaders first announced progress towards the resolution of a financial bailout bill. The results also include one complete day (Saturday) after the first presidential debate on Friday night. McCain had reached a point where he was tied with Obama earlier in the week, but Obama has gained steadily in each of the last three days' reports. Overall, Obama has gained four percentage points over the last three days, while McCain has lost four points, for an eight-point swing in the "gap" or margin.

Barney's Baloney

Who is responsible for the financial crisis? Barney Frank says it's the private sector.

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe's conservative columnist, picks apart Frank's position.

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Did the mortgage industry get the idea all by itself to loan money to people who were bad credit risks?

...Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

It sounds like another case of Killer Compassion.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

It's news that should make everyone look at Barney Frank, and the Democrats in Congress, a bit differently.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he'll find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

The Democrats' Crisis

Democrats are responsible for having blocked GOP attempts to reign in Freddie and Fanny, the government agencies responsible for having created the mortgage crisis by implementing the liberal policy of giving mortgages to unqualified people.

If you find this debate interesting and want to see how the GOP can use this to its advantage, watch former Congressman Bob Schaffer kick the crap out of Rep. Mark Udall in a debate on Meet the Press today. The two are running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, so the race is a big one.

The whuppin' begins about 5 minutes in, and it's a real pleasure to watch.

As of four days ago, Udall's lead was down to 2%.

A day after two polls showed Democrat Mark Udall leading Republican Bob Schaffer by 8 percentage points in the fight for the U.S. Senate seat, a survey by another national polling firm released Wednesday showed a much tighter race.

The Rasmussen Reports poll gives Udall a slim two-point lead over Schaffer, 46 percent to 44 percent. Rasmussen gave Udall a six-point lead in its survey a month ago, and the survey's authors said the latest numbers suggest the race is tightening. The telephone survey of 700 likely voters was conducted Tuesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Bracelet

If you haven't seen this yet, it's funny to watch Obama call on his bracelet, but have to check who gave it to him.

McCain on the Bailout

McCain was on This Week today, expressing support for the bailout plan. I'm surprised that he was so positive about it.

The Joy of Video

If you really want to upset the Barack supporters in your life, send them a link to this.

Truth Squads

Remember when Bill Clinton was running for president? At the beginning of the primary cycle, the Jennifer Flowers affair was big news, and word came from Arkansas that Clinton's slimy behavior earned him the nickname "Slick Willy." We had evidence enough to know that Clinton would self-destruct in the White House.

This demonstrates that the question of experience speaks to an issue larger than simply does the candidate have the skills to perform the job. We need to know who the candidate is and whether he can be trusted with power. The fact that Barack has very little experience as a leader is less important than the fact than when he's held power, he's never used it. Since he's never demonstrated leadership, how can we know what kind of leader he'd be.

The Missouri Truth Squads offer some insight for those who might question what the danger is.

The campaign wants to use the court system to scare broadcasters out of airing perfectly reasonable, and accurate, ads like this one, created by the groug American Issues Project.

What does a Truth Squad of government officials do?

The Missouri Truth Squad will “respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively when John McCain or his allies launch inaccurate claims or character attacks about Barack Obama, or when they distort Barack Obama’s record or plans.”

In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.

Isn't it odd how Democrats believe in their hearts that the Bush administration has trounced on our constitutional rights because he did things like check phone records to find Americans who might be chatting with terrorists overseas, but there's not outrage over using the authority of the state to scare people away from speaking out against their candidate during an election?

Barack's had his chances to show that he's a leader. Had he been a leader in the U.S. Senate, for example, against the war in Iraq - a vehement and vociferous opponent who had expanded his importance by becoming a focal point for the frustration and anger many Americans felt over it - then you might have an argument.

While Barack has always shown himself to have the potential to do outstanding things, he's never done them - prefering to use access to those who have power to gain power for himself, and prefering to use his own power not to lead, but to gain more power.

What we know about Barack Obama's judgment is that he build a political base in Chicago by building close relationships with outrageous radicals who virtually all Americans will reject out of hand when they're fully exposed to them. Voters will not vote for Barack if they learn of his relationships with these awful people.

Without evidence of a desire and ability to affect change, we are left to look at the scrappings of Barack's short career for evidence of what he would do with power. His truth squads, and his partnerships with Ayers, Wright, Pfleger and Rezko, are really all we have to go on.

Partners

A deal was announced early this morning that may save Wall Street, for now - but it is moving ahead without regard for what will be destroyed in the process.

The bill includes pay limits for some executives whose firms seek help, aides said. And it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

This video explains how Democrats got us to this point.

Too much meddling by Washington in how loans were given out led to this crisis. The solution? Step up the meddling exponentially.

In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

We'll own a piece of Wall Street, and Wall Street, more than ever, will own us. Democrat's criticism of President Bush's social security privatization plan seem humorous in retrospect.

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program.

The administration had initially requested virtually unfettered authority to operate the bailout program. But as they moved toward clinching a deal, both sides appeared to have given up a number of contentious proposals, including a change in the bankruptcy laws sought by some Democrats to give judges the authority to modify the terms of first mortgages.

Occasionally, the fact that our government is controlled by lawyers has a positive side effect. Even Democrats were scared of the idea of letting judges take away the ability of the mortgage system to function on a retail level.

What happened to the alternative plan favored by some congressional Republicans? They gave up on it.

Officials said they had also agreed to include a proposal by House Republicans that gives the Treasury secretary an additional option of issuing government insurance for troubled financial instruments as a way of reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent up front on the rescue effort.

The Treasury would be required to create the insurance program, officials said, but not necessarily to use it. Mr. Paulson had expressed little interest in that plan, and initial cost projections suggested it would be enormously expensive. But final details were not immediately available.

Where are Barack and McCain on this? They've been briefed, but are apparently too focused on winning the White House to worry about how it is financed.

What Scheiber Says

I agree with Noam Scheiber.

I'd guess the CW will be that McCain won on points, with nothing close to a knockout, and I'd echo that judgment. McCain had Obama on the defensive over earmark requests and his $800 billion in new spending, then later on the surge and those rogue-leader meetings. Obama did do a decent job shifting the focus back to the original invasion of Iraq and was effective at highlighting Bush's serial foreign-policy failures (North Korean nukes, Iranian centrifuges, growing Chinese influence), but was generally less punchy and more reactive.

My biggest problem with Obama is that he cedes almost all the emotional ground to McCain. For my money, the exchange that defined the debate was McCain sarcastically suggesting Obama would just tell Ahmadinejad "no" when he threatens to annihilate Israel. Obama tried to interrupt McCain several times during this mini-rant, then just kind of let the matter drop when he had a chance to respond. What he needed to do was look straight into the camera and inject a little emotion of his own. Something like, "Israel is one of our most loyal allies in the world. Their security is absolutely sacred to me. And if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or any other tin-pot dictator thinks he can threaten Israel in my presence or anywhere else, he's in for a rude awakening. I would leave absolutely no doubt in his mind how we treat countries looking for fights with our allies."

Sure, it wasn't Dukakis whiffing on his wife's hypothetical murder. But it was a missed opportunity to stand up both to McCain, who couldn't stop sneering, and to potential adversaries. Obama missed similar opportunities all night long.

Debate Numbers

Expectations went unmet Friday night, as the first McCain/Obama debate wasn't as big of an audience draw as the first Bush/Kerry four years ago - but then again, their's wasn't on a Friday night.

In the meter-market overnights, Friday night's 90-minute debate in Mississippi received a preliminary household rating of 33.2, according to Nielsen Media Research.

That's 16% lower than the national number from the 2004 debate, which aired on a Thursday -- generally TV's most-watched night of the week. Friday's number is only slightly above George W. Bush and Al Gore's first debate in 2000 and the Clinton-Dole debate in 1996.

The McCain-Obama rating represents 55 of the 56 largest TV viewing markets in the country and includes ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, CNN, Telemundo, TeleFutura, and BBCA.

A firmer sense of the debate's popularity will be available Monday when Nielsen releases the national numbers -- including total viewers -- so the debate's overall rank could shift. One media report is extrapolating that the rating equals 57 million viewers, but Nielsen will not confirm this. The St. Louis market had the largest debate audience, with a household rating of 52.1, while the Phoenix/Prescott market had the lowest rating, 24.8 (top markets here).

The first 1980 bout between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter still holds the record as the most-viewed televised presidential debate, with a 58.9 household rating and 80.6 million viewers.

The Lonely One

I thought McCain did well last night. Glad I'm not the only one.

It was one of the most substantive debates in recent presidential campaign history and John McCain won it.

The Arizona senator was cool, informed and forceful in Friday’s first presidential debate of the general election campaign.

He repeatedly put Barack Obama on the defensive throughout the 90 minutes session. Obama did little to ease voter concerns that he’s experienced enough to handle foreign and defense policy. That was his number one task Friday night and he failed.

Instead he was often his old meandering self, unable to state a quick, forceful position. Polls taken in the coming days should show McCain holding on to his trump card in the race - the view that he’s better equipped to be commander in chief.

He condescendingly called Obama “naive” at a couple points in the debate, like an old master lecturing a young understudy. Obama never seemed able to attack back.

McCain’s victory came at a good time for him in the race. He has fumbled around for a week on questions involving the economy and the federal bailout of Wall Street. His vice presidential candidate has become a running joke of late night comedy shows. As a result, his poll numbers sagged.

Slip Sliddin'

McCain's attempt to rest control of the economy away from Barack hasn't turned around his poll slide. It may have worked - he may now be linked more strongly to the Wall Street meltdown and attempts to cool it - but it may not be working to his benefit.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 54%.

Gallup tells a similar story.

Barack Obama leads John McCain, 49% to 44%, when registered voters are asked who they would vote for if the election were held today, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update.

Americans are very distrustful of attempts by Washington to save Wall Street, and that's why McCain's willingness to step in front of this speeding bullet, while bold, may not turn out to be healthy. Unless he's Superman.

Support for the economic rescue plan is down to 24%, while opposition has increased to 50%. Voters are evenly divided as to whether or not the nation’s politicians are trying to scare voters into supporting the bailout plan by making the economy seem worse than it really is. A majority believe they politicians are more interested in gaining power for the government than in fixing the economy.

Wall Street isn't trusted, Washington isn't trusted, the Bush administration isn't trusted, and the GOP isn't trusted. How does McCain rise above all that? While Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid also suffer from this problem, they're not viewed as relevant enough to take the blame.

Missed Point

If the polls prove correct, Barack swayed Independents last night by being Mr. Congeniality. Why, then, would the McCain campaign not see that this video of Barack saying multiple times that McCain was right is a double edged sword.

The McCain campaign is at risk, I think, of relying too much on campaign craft, as if the craft is an end unto itself. The craft is supposed to be used to deliver a coherent message, a storyline that resonates with the country. The technique was great at poking a whole in Barack's offensive line, but it will take message to make the sack.

Barack Won?

Was McCain disrespectful of Obama during last night's debate? Post-debate polls indicate that more people think Barack won the debate. The thought of this makes me sick.

CBS Insta Poll shows Barack Obama won 39% to John McCain's 25% with 36% saying the debate was a draw.

Insider Advantage reports those polled Obama won 42% to McCain's 41% with Undecided 17%

CNN reports voter opinions that Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%

The CNN poll showed men were evenly split, but women gave Obama higher marks 59% to 41% for McCain.

This gender imbalance may provide the key if the debate creates movement toward Barack - women might of thought they were seeing McNasty, while men thought they were seeing acceptable male behavior.

McCain appeared angry and dismissive of Obama and generally impressed as someone who would slap colleagues across the aisle if reaching over to them. He said several times in the debate that he hasn't won the Miss Congeniality contest in the Senate, and he proved why during the debate.

The Bush administration is very male - aggressive, preferring confrontation to conversation, lacking in compassion - so for females, the desire for change might be satisfied by seeing a metro-sexual candidate like Barack.

I suspect that women voters especially would be turned off by McCain's sarcastic tone because women do tend to be the conciliators in our society and saw Obama display those conciliatory qualities very well in the debate. Obama looked at McCain, and McCain wouldn't return the eye contact but rather glared or displayed a tight and angry expression.

In an era in which TV controls elections, the subliminal signals a candidate sends out are critical. McCain isn't one to worry about the subliminal.

I also suspect (but don't have the data to support) that older voters were also turned off by Senator McNasty. I believe older voters will also be reassured that, though McCain has been around longer, Obama has a good grasp of foreign affairs and can learn quickly. He impressed as a statesmen, in marked contrast to McCain's warrior demeanor.

The Wall Street news cycle of the past two weeks has pushed the narrative of this campaign so strongly in Barack's lap that it's going to take more, perhaps, than being aggressive in trying to solve it, as McCain was this week, to pull things back his way.

McCain referred to Obama as naive or as not understanding on many issues when the listener probably saw a mere difference of opinion. McCain's condescension felt annoying; to the listener who might agree or disagree with Obama, Obama nevertheless was making good points, not naive ones.

Is it possible that McCain's age isn't really an issue for voters, but being of a different era is? Making the allegation about his lack of computer use one of symbolic importance to voters?

In general, I think the country is tired of negativity, and McCain's performance didn't give anyone the impression that age has mellowed him. In fact, he seemed rather proud of his continuing bellicose manner. The country seems ready for a change from the "fighting as first choice crowd."

I thought McCain was very good last night, and that while Barack was presidential in demeanor, there was a clear lack of sparkle. Being a male in his 50's, perhaps that response is predictable, and unrepresentative of where America is today. We'll see.

The Debate

Both candidates are doing well tonight. The attempt to deliberately misrepresent each other has been generally kept to a minimum, and they've spent some time discussing issues.

While neither would say they entirely give up any of their proposals because of
the cost of the bailout, McCain said he would be willing to consider a spending
freeze for everything except defense, veterans' care, and entitlements.
Obama opposed a general spending freeze, saying that some programs, such as children's health care, are starved for cash.

It seems to me that expectations are low for McCain - he's viewed as being a hothead, as likely to misspeak, as vulnerable to the failings of advanced age.

Obama continued trying to tie McCain to the unpopular president, saying that
McCain's pledges to control spending and help middle-class families after
supporting Bush for eight years is "hard to swallow."
McCain replied that he had bucked the president on torture, Guantanamo Bay, and other issues. "The American people know me very well, independent, the maverick of the Senate," McCain said.

As a result of the low expectations, my impression is that McCain is coming out on top tonight. He is lucid, more to the point than Barack - very sharp in his presentation. His answer on Russia was delightfully rich with detail and understanding. Any concern of McCain being too old - a concern shared by 20% or so of the population, should largely be satisfied.

Debate

Todd is anchoring debate coverage this evening on WRKO Boston until midnite. Listen in at wrko.com.

Them Apples

The debate isn't the big thing that came true. Word is there will be a bailout plan completed over the next few days.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that negotiations over a proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan is back on track and lawmakers
would work through the weekend to pass a plan.

Apparently wanting a break from the important stories they've been covering this week, the mainstreams are looking for sexier storylines. Which has the New York Times wondering, is he just too cool?

However forceful and passionate Mr. Obama can be, his speeches and public appearances this week have underscored how he is sometimes out of sync with the visceral anger of Americans who are losing their jobs and homes. He often talks about growing up on food stamps and about having paid off his student loans only recently, yet his tone and volume, body language, facial expressions and words convey a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel.

Call me crazy, but I think "cool" is just code for "black." Isn't it obvious that the Times is injecting race into the conversation?

“People want presidents who lead and relate to them — they don’t want
presidents who analyze and seem above it all,” said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster
and director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin &
Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “Obama still comes across as dispassionate to
the point of coolness. He is so comfortable in his own skin, he can be hard to
connect with for people who are struggling.”

When they say, "People want presidents who lead and relate to them," are they really saying, "People want presidents who don't have Muslim names." It sounds like hate mongering.

For Mr. Obama, the financial crisis poses different risks. He wants to
appear fired up over the economy, but he has written before about wanting to
avoid appearing like a stereotypical angry black man. Unlike Jesse
Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders whose fulminations could scare white voters, Mr. Obama is not from and of New York, Detroit, or the segregated South; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. To some degree Mr. Obama faces the opposite challenge from fiery black leaders who came before him: Is he too cool for a crisis like this one?

See - I knew it!

Makeup

David Letterman's lambasting of John McCain on Wednesday night is causing a ruckus at CBS. Seems Dave used "internal" CBS News video from Katie's interview with McCain.

McCain canceled his appearance on Letterman's show late Wednesday, several hours before he was due to appear - claiming he had to return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis.

But when Letterman discovered the Senator sitting down with Couric at the same time he was supposed to be taping "Late Night," he unloaded on McCain.

"I'm more than a little disappointed by this behavior," Letterman told viewers. "This doesn't smell right."

"This is not the way a tested hero behaves. Somebody's putting something in his Metamucil," he said.

Letterman got his revenge.

Later in the show, Letterman showed an internal, live video of McCain being tended to by a make-up artist before the Couric interview. Both Couric and Letterman are on CBS.

Bouncing

Yesterday the presidential race was a tie according to Gallup. Today, Barack's pulled back into a 3 point lead. Rasmussen, which had Barack up 3% yesterday, now has him up 5%.

It’s stunning to note how rapidly the dynamics of the campaign have changed. Two weeks ago, just before the Wall Street financial crunch became visible, McCain was up by three points in the aftermath of his convention. One week ago today, the candidates were even. Now, Obama’s lead is approaching new highs entering the final few weeks of the campaign.

Obama now leads by five among unaffiliated voters. Last week, the unaffiliated voters were leaning in McCain’s direction.

In a new Battleground poll, Democrats have a 5% advantage over the GOP in generic party preference, but McCain leads the presidential race by 2%.

All this poll watching is largely recreation today, as the bailout bill combined with tonight's debate provide such large potential to redefine the race.

See all the polls at realclearpolitics.com.

Debate is On!

McCain has decided to take part in tonight's debate. Why would he not?

McCain has transformed a minority in both houses of Congress and a losing position in the polls into the key role in the bailout package, the main man around whom the final package will take shape.

Dick Morris explains that the Democrats had crafted a bill with the President that is unpopular with the American people. McCain now gets to design, with Republicans in congress, the revised measure.

Instead of signing on with the Democratic/Bush package, the House Republicans are insisting on replacing the purchase of corporate debt with loans to companies and insurance paid for by the companies, not by the taxpayers. That, of course, is a popular position. McCain would be comfortable to debate this issue division all day.

Will Democrats fight over the new provision?

...the Democrats are not about to be stubborn. They know their package is a lemon and need the political cover of Republican support. So the Republicans can write their own ticket…and they will. John McCain will be at the center of the emerging compromise while Obama is out on the campaign trail kissing babies.

Isn't McCain taking a big risk? What if he can't pull the legislation together?

By Monday, at the latest, the Democrats have to cave in and pass the Republican version. They don’t dare pass their own without GOP support, so they will have to cave in to the Republican version.

Then McCain comes out of the process as the hero who made it happen when the president couldn’t and Obama wouldn’t. He becomes the bailout expert.

No wonder Democrats are acting so snarly.

With or Without You

There's a debate tonight, John. With or without you. Obama says he'll be there, and the commission says the forum will be held, with or without you.

Jim Lehrer, the respected PBS journalist tapped to moderate the first
presidential debate, has announced that the event’s designated focus on foreign
policy will not preclude a discussion of the current economic crisis.

I happen to think that McCain has every intention of showing up, now that he's promoted it into an event that could be the most watched debate in history.

It's estimated the first Obama-McCain debate could draw 100 million viewers
and set a record, if it happens, Schwartz noted.

McCain has done well promoting his events in the past, and this promotion looks to be another great play.

It's still not clear whether John McCain will take part in tonight's scheduled debate with Barack Obama in Mississippi. He had said he wouldn't take part unless there's an agreement first on a Wall Street bailout plan. But a leading McCain ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, tells NBC that McCain just wants to be sure that "Congress is working" and that there's at least an "outline" in place.

Stunt?

The Obama campaign, in a fresh display of the new kinda politics, is calling McCain's return to Washington/campaign suspension a "stunt."

So make no mistake: John McCain did not “suspend” his campaign. He just
turned a national crisis into an occasion to promote his campaign. It’s become
just another political stunt, aimed more at shoring up the Senator’s political
fortunes than the nation’s economy. And it does nothing to help advance this
critical legislation to protect the American people during this time of economic
crisis.

Ben Smith reports at politico that McCain's suspended campaign still seems pretty active.

* McCain's "Straight Talk Air" landed at National Airport just after noon,
and McCain's motorcade sped toward the Senate. But by then, senior Democrats and
Republicans colleagues were already announcing that a deal in principle had been
reached. [WaPo,
9/25/08]*

McCain Campaign Surrogates Continue to Attack Obama On Television.* “In the
five hours after McCain’s speech, aides Nancy Pfotenhauer, Tucker Bounds, and
Mike Duhaime appeared on Fox News and MSNBC five times, frequently criticizing
Obama and Democrats.” [Think
Progress, 9/25/08 ]*

“Despite McCain's claim that he's put his campaign on hold, two of them
directly attacked Barack Obama in political terms on television this morning.”
[TPM,
9/25/08 ] *

“Readers in Iowa and Wisconsin emailed to say that they saw seen McCain ads
on the air this morning, though he's said he's taking them down.” [Politico,
9/25/08]*

“Aside from the trip to Washington, the suspension seems not to take in
fundraising or surrogates attacking Obama on television, and the ads haven't
come down all that speedily. A reader reports seeing on in the Tampa area at
12:45 this afternoon.” [Politico,
9/25/08 ]

McCain Campaign Offices Continue Normal Campaign Activity.* “The Huffington
Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in
various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting
operations because of the supposed "suspension" in the campaign. Several, in
fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work. Others hadn't
even heard that the candidate for whom they were devoting their time had
officially stopped campaigning.” [Huffington
Post, 9/25/08 ]*

“So, I called as well, and was told specifically that "volunteer activities
are still ongoing" and that people are welcome/encouraged to come in and do so.”
[Raising
Kaine, 9/25/08 ] Governor Palin Held a Press Avail and Campaign Rally.

Those are just a few examples. Smith hypothesizes that poor communication in the McCain campaign is responsible rather than an intention to decive.

Zogby: McCain Up by 2%

In addition to Gallup's Daily Tracking poll showing the presidential race tied, a move from a 3 point Obama lead yesterday, Zobgy's new poll shows that McCain has retaken the lead.

McCain now leads Obama, 45.8% to 43.8%, the survey shows.

The Horserace	Sept. 23/25	Sept. 19/20
Obama	43.8%	46.8%
McCain	45.8%	43.4%
Not sure/Other	10.4%	8.8%

The big shift in the race appears to have come among independent voters, where McCain now leads by nine points, 43% to 34%. In the survey conducted over the weekend, Obama led by one point among independents.

The shift to McCain occurred in response to his announced campaign suspension.

The survey, half conducted before McCain's announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign to concentrate on the financial crisis and half conducted after the announcement, shows movement in McCain's favor after his announcement. Before the announcement - which included about half of the total polling sample - Obama led by one point. But McCain led by 5 points in polling completed after his statement about the suspension of his campaign. Overall, the interactive survey, conducted Sept. 23-25, 2008, included 4,752 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

The Alternative

While Democrats are trying to make it look like John McCain somehow killed the administration's Wall Street bailout proposal, it is House Republicans who are unhappy with the proposal.

A group of conservative Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives offered a mortgage insurance plan on Thursday as an alternative to the Bush administration Wall Street bailout.

As Congress struggled to find agreement on modifying the massive Bush proposal to attack the housing market crisis, three members of the Republican Study Committee criticized the administration's proposal and presented their own ideas.

"We think this insurance model works... This is an alternative," Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said at a press briefing where he distributed a one-page proposal.

He said dozens of House Republicans are involved in the group developing the alternative insurance approach.

Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the study committee, said its more than 100 members "remain skeptical, fearful and unconvinced" about the administration's plan.

"The insurance model is one that appeals to us," he said.

The Age Card

Suggesting that McCain is too old to be president, a new TV advertisement tries to scare voters away from him because of his bouts with Melanoma.

‘‘John McCain is 72 years old and had cancer 4 times,’’ the ad’s text says over a black-and-white image of McCain with the left side of his face bandaged after surgery in 2000. ‘‘Why won’t McCain release his medical records?’’

The ad is being produced and run only on a liberal news network - by two liberal groups.

The 30-second ad, so far airing for $50,000 only on MSNBC, is paid for by Brave New PAC and Democracy for America, a political group headed by James Dean, the brother of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Stalled

They met, they photo-oped, they failed. So far, no deal.

The status of a rescue plan for the nation’s financial system was in doubt, at least for the moment, on Thursday as lawmakers emerged from a White House meeting with President Bush to say that negotiations have a ways to go.

Looking tired and annoyed, Mr. Dodd complained that late complications were making the episode sound more like “a rescue plan for the Republican presidential candidate, than one for the country’s financial system.

It does no good, Mr. Dodd said, “to be distracted for two or three hours by political theater.”

It seems that Democrats are so depressed over the reality, setting in over recent weeks, that Barack is going to lose this election, that they can't buckle down and focus in on solving the crisis. They feel compelled to claw at the GOP.

The leading Democratic negotiator on the Bush administration's $700 bailout plan accused John McCain of undermining the proposal and prodding House Republicans to lay out a wholly different approach that is opposed by the White House.

"This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "This is McCain at the last minute getting House Republicans to undermine the Paulson approach."

Republican leadership aides reacted incredulously to Frank's broadside, saying there was no way McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could undermine a deal with House Republicans that has never had rank-and-file support.

Republicans expressed their concerns this morning, they said, well before McCain's arrival, and before Democrats started telling the media that a deal was close. Were Democrats trying to sandbag McCain - saying a deal was done when it wasn't so they could blame him for breaking it up?

(McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas) Holtz-Eakin met this morning with Boehner, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), but the GOP leaders did virtually all of the talking, and what they told him was how little support the $700 billion package had with their rank-and-file.

The senator was apparently alluding to a growing revolt by conservative House Republicans against the proposed $700 billion rescue, and the fact that Senator McCain has not yet endorsed the plan, whose concept runs contrary to the policy positions he has taken for years.

The more time that goes by, the more unhappiness with the plan can fester.

Conservative Republicans, in particular, have said that such a huge government intervention violated their free market principles.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has made clear that she does not want to approve the bailout plan without rank-and-file Republican support.

A group of Republicans, led by Representative Eric Cantor, a House leader, were circulating an alternative plan that would rely on mortgage insurance, provided by the government, rather than taxpayer purchase of frozen mortgage assets.

A senior Republican lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to undermine the party leadership, said there is a ‘’violent reaction” among House Republicans to the Paulson plan. He said backers of the alternative, one of several that have been proposed in the House, are calculating that they can force the negotiators to accept it as part of a larger deal.

Word is, things got ugly at the White House meeting when Senate Democrats realized that House Republicans, unhappy with the notion of the huge bailout, were pushing an alternative approach.

Tie

Gallup now shows the race between John McCain and Barack Obama as a tie.

John McCain has gained ground and is now tied with Barack Obama among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Sept. 22-24, with each candidate getting 46% support.

Yesterday, Obama was up 3 points, so the loss of those 3 points is the result of dropping Sundays results and adding in Wednesdays. A big swing for one day's results to make happen.

Rasmussen, which generally shows a tighter race than Gallup, has Barack up 3%.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. Other than the bounces related to his convention and speech in Berlin, this is the first time Obama has had 49% support on back-to-back days since early July. It’s also McCain’s lowest level of support in nearly three weeks.

Almost

Meeting Over - And the deal is almost done.

Confident but not yet celebrating, congressional leaders agreed Thursday on a multibillion-dollar bailout plan for Wall Street aimed at staving off a national economic catastrophe. President Bush brought the two men fighting to succeed him to a historic White House huddle on how to sell a deal to lawmakers who were still resisting.

Welcoming Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, Bush said, "My hope is that we can reach an agreement very shortly."

It's hard to know how legitimate opposition is at this point. Those who express displeasure might just be grandstanding.

The tentative accord would give the Bush administration just a fraction of the $700 billion it had requested up front, with half the money subject to a congressional veto, congressional aides said. Under the plan, the Treasury secretary would get $250 billion immediately and could have an additional $100 billion if he certified it was needed. The last $350 billion could be blocked by a vote of Congress under the arrangement, designed to give lawmakers a stronger hand in controlling the unprecedented rescue.

What Would You Do With $700 B?

What is $700 billion worth? Here are some estimates from an article in The Progressive - which would love to see each of their comparative expenses government funded.

• Covering health care costs plus out-of-pocket medical expenses for all of America's uninsured: $100 billion

• Universal preschool: $35 billion

• Rebuilding New Orleans: $100 billion

• Free college education for everyone: $50 billion

• Total energy independence for the United States, with a shift to renewables within the next ten years: $500 billion

What these comparisons fail to mention, of course, is that we can't afford the $700 billion in the first place, so longing for the other things it can buy is beside the point.

The scale of spending on the Iraq War plus the Wall Street bailout is such that it is clear that political, not budgetary, restraints account for our country's educational, infrastructure, and energy failures.

Not true. We have the budgetary restraints already, which liberals gladly ignore in order to push for more unaffordable commitments.

The national debt is now more than $9 trillion.

Government budget analysts predict, however, that at the current pace of government spending the national debt could balloon to more than 250 percent of the gross domestic product by 2040.

Entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare simply will not be able to keep pace with the estimated 77 million members of the baby boomer generation now beginning to retire, Peterson and Walker contend.

About 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits each day for the next two decades, and the government already spends more than $4 on older Americans for every dollar spent on children's education, healthcare, and other basic needs.

Near or Not?

Ready to go into a 4pm White House meeting, it's unclear whether congress has hammered out acceptable terms for an agreement.

Key Republicans and Democrats reported agreement Thursday on an outline for a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, but there was still resistance from rank-and-file House Republicans despite warnings of an impending panic.

"I now expect we will, indeed, have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate, be signed by the president and bring a sense of certainty to this crisis that is sill roiling in the market," Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said as members of both parties emerged from a two-hour negotiating session.

"We're very confident that we can act expeditiously," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman.

Some are being much more reserved in their analysis. Are they delaying the celebration on behalf of John McCain? No reason to think that Republicans won't be as willing to politicize this as Democrats have been.

Not everyone in the closed-door talks was as optimistic. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the only House Republican in the bargaining meeting, stopped short of saying he agreed with the other lawmakers on an imminent deal.

"There was progress today," said Bachus, the senior Republican on the House Financial Services panel.

Later, he issued a statement saying he was not empowered to strike any deals and there was "no agreement other than to continue discussions."

Both houses' Republican leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, also issued statements saying there was no agreement.

Good old Bill Clinton comes through again, reminding people that Democrats share some of the blame for the current situation.