I see over on Intrade this morning that Obama is at 62.5 and McCain 37.7.

Gee, it seems that the longer this crisis goes on, the more Obama rises in the polls.  Maybe Pelosi didn’t lose yesterday at all.

Jeffersonian,

I can’t help but think Pelosi’s tirade against republicans had a deeper motive than simple stupidity.  Why would she do something so amazingly counter-productive?  She either displayed in a spectacular fashion the inability to take the high road when it really mattered OR she and her party have no vested interest in fixing this problem until after the election.  Given Congressman Frank’s comments just after the vote, I have to believe it’s the later. 

How else to explain her speech other than an attempt to sink the bill and blame the republicans (Frank’s immediate response) and hope the economy really tanks in the next few weeks?

Or is she that much of a partisan (or a dimwitted moron) she really didn’t care what happened as long as she got her talking points on TV that night?  There’s more here than the obvious.  I don’t think she did it because she’s stupid. IMHO.

Brian

It is unfortunate but the socialist liberals in the United States will sacrifice the whole nation to gain power.  They will try as much as possible to look like they are trying to solve the problem while at the same time they are undermining it for political advantage.  They are people that want to foist controlling big government on all.  They proclaim freedom and then do all they can to force regimentation and right-think on people.  They have total disregard and contempt for the Constitution of the United States going so far as to say that it should not be used as a foundational document for legal decision; they rather have judicial decision made on their whimsical thoughts of what justice is at the moment.  Sorta sounds like the way TEC operates.

“Or is she that much of a partisan (or a dimwitted moron)...”

I hate to say that I think it is both.

BillB

“socialist liberals”

Funny.

Although given that the democrats have decided to socialize the risk perhaps I know what you mean.  It’s like socialism for rich people, while the rest can take care of themselves. 

Although your comments seem more like a laundry list of personal complaints than a coherent analysis.  Perhaps you might use examples, Billb.

As Far as Obama goes, he’s going to be a real conservative.  Of course, he will also show some empathy for the poor and middle class.

John,

We were on the verge of the federal government owning a large piece of the home real estate market.  It was socialism in the classic sense; real property taken by a national government under the guise of “helping the little guy.”  It’s scary beyond belief.

Brian

Regardless, Pelosi’s speech was unhelpful.

Survey Say:s Polls Have Problems
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080928-political-polls.html

#7 - and that was Obama and the “socialist liberals” responsibility? The bill was introduced by a conservative Republican president and his appointees.

Um - is it socialism to hold banks accountable?  Well, I guess I’m a socialist then, because banks haven’t been doing their job.  I believe in a commercial society just like the next guy.  I’m a big fan of Adam Smith.  I’m mostly a libertarian.  But I’m not an ideologue.  The facts are that those who told us that deregulation was best for the system did not regulate themselves.  This should not have been a surprise to Christians - who know we’re sinners.  A big pool of money was created, and people grabbed it when the government didn’t know what was going on.  It’s now time for the adults to come in and clean it up.  The cult of tax-cuts/ supplyside/ deregulation has demonstrated that it is ruinous even to those who thought they could benefit from it who are now whinging for the government to take care of them.  Its too bad they don’t extend that kind of charity to the middle class.

It’s not the Swedish system.  The government will hold it until it’s paid for bailing out the banks.