Senate bails out the bailout

By Jennifer J. Foster

The U.S. Senate approved tonight the reworked, revamped and readjusted “financial rescue package” (I guess that’s what they’re calling it now, instead of “the bailout package”) after adding a whole bunch of tax breaks to it.

But House Democrats now worry that the measures, meant to attract conservative House Republicans who abandoned the deal in an incredible development on Monday, may alienate many of their members.

The Blue Dog Democrats are known for their fiscal caution. More than once, their members have blocked, or at least managed to blunt, tax cuts when those cuts are not offset in the budget; i.e., tax increases elsewhere, spending reductions, etc. They are known as “budget hawks” for their opposition to anything that will increase the federal deficit.

Here’s the problem: In sweetening the deal, Senate leadership incorporated uncompensated tax cuts into the don’t-call-it-a-bailout package.

That’s a problem for the Blue Dogs, because it means that the package now adds up to more than $700 billion—and it will increase the national debt, at least in the short term.

After Monday’s incredible developments in the House, leaders needed to swing just 12 votes to pass the plan.

But the “Blue Dog” Democrats number 49.

The pressure is back on in the House to see whether Pelosi-Hoyer-Boehner-Kantor (good gracious, another sign that the Armageddon is upon us—those four working together) can manage to net 12 votes. Pelosi has indicated that she’d like to try for a vote on Friday, but she will under no circumstances call for a vote on the bill without absolute certainty of its passage.

On Monday, Democrats voted for the bill 140-95; Republicans rejected it 65-133. My guess is that Pelosi-Hoyer-Boehner-Kantor will be able to scare up enough votes to pass the Senate’s version. They’ll likely lose a bunch of the Blue Dogs—maybe as many as half—but enough Republicans likely won’t be able to resist the tax cut bait, especially with Election Day right around the corner.

Can’t you just hear the radio ads now? “Representative So-and-So is working hard for you in Washington. He supported changes to the ECONOMIC RESCUE PACKAGE that would protect Main Street, not Wall Street. And he supported tax relief for working families, too.“

Blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, I’m thinking that Friday’s vote will likely be similarly close, but the not-a-bailout will squeak through this time.

And then, those ladies and gentlemen with the congressional immunity had better spit-shine those sound bites ... because there will be bunches of angry voters waiting to welcome them home. 

See also:

“Senate passes bailout,“ from CNN.com

“Candidates Leave Campaign Trail, Head to DC for Bailout Vote,“ from ABC News

More on Ifill

By Jennifer J. Foster

PBS personality Gwen Ifill is striking back against her critics as news of her perceived conflict of interest spreads across the Internet, and one thing has become clear: She might have credibility problems, but they certainly aren’t affecting her confidence.

“I’m in great demand—everyone wants to talk to me,“ Ifill told CNN’s Howard Kurtz in a Sept. 4 interview in the Washington Post.

Well!

I don’t want to injure Ms. Ifill’s feelings, but with the possible exception of one or two instances, one of which might have been around the time of the other VP dustup back in 2004 (I can’t remember for sure), I had never heard her name before last night, when the story broke about her book.

CNN reports, “Ifill told Kurtz that as Obama accepted his party’s nomination for president, a white television reporter asked her: ‘Aren’t you just blown away by all of this?‘ She said she was not.“

(Yes, she was completely underwhelmed. And that’s why she entitled her book “BREAKTHROUGH.“)

Ifill told Kurtz that she’s still weighing whether Obama would make “a good president.“ But in the meantime, she doesn’t see any conflict of interest.

“No one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate,“ she told him.

Yes, because, you know, objections to her perceived conflict of interest have everything to do with her skin color, and nothing to do with her book.

Give me a break.

There have been plenty of times when people have complained about the objectivity of reporters interviewing candidates to whom they are sympathetic.

News flash to Gwen Ifill: Some of those reporters and candidates are—GASP!—white!!

George Stephanopoulos moderating the debate with Hillary Clinton. Sean Hannity interviewing Sarah Palin just a couple of weeks ago.

It may be that Gwen Ifill will conduct herself in a professional manner, as John McCain’s staff has said they believe she will.

Ifill assures us her conflict of interest problem isn’t real.

Maybe. But her attitude problem sure is.

Josh Segall and the 95-10 Initiative

By Jennifer J. Foster

Democratic congressional candidate Josh Segall appeared on “Viewpoint” this morning in Montgomery. One of the many questions he fielded from callers had to do with his position on abortion.

Segall is pro-choice. But he has said, both in an interview with me and again on “Viewpoint” this morning, that he supports the 95-10 Initiative being advanced by Democrats for Life.

We have talked about 95-10 here before, but I wanted to put the link to it up again in case anyone reading this blog heard the show this morning.

Unfortunately, Dan Morris and Mark Montiel were more interested in eliciting certain responses from Segall – responses that fit their pre-approved, GOP sound bite template – than in actually getting their questions answered, and when Segall’s responses didn’t match the template, Morris repeatedly cut him off. This happened throughout the interview.

By cutting off Segall, Morris assumed his listeners weren’t interested in what Segall had to say. That’s a very big—and very arrogant—assumption for someone to make. Morris substituted his judgment that of his listeners. By continually cutting off the candidate, Morris robbed his listeners of getting good information they could use in making their decisions.

Of course, Morris and Montiel patted themselves on the back when it was all over, congratulating themselves for “posing tough questions” and holding the candidate’s feet to the fire.

Morris’s attitude is exactly what’s wrong with politics: People think the answers are in the black and white. Anyone who knows anything about politics and government knows that policy is made in the middle. The 95-10 Initiative is one example. People who are pro-life should be interested in Segall’s support for this package, regardless of his position on abortion in general. Democrats are likely to retain control of the Congress, so if pro-lifers want to make any progress over the next two years, it will be through things like 95-10—and with the support of people like Segall.

Gwen Ifill and the VP debate

By Jennifer J. Foster

Given Sarah Palin’s problems with the press since her announcement as John McCain’s VP pick about a month ago, nothing short of something truly extraordinary could take the focus off of her performance at tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate.

This is why we love politics, folks.

Truly extraordinary? How about the pending release of a book that sheds “new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power”—written by the debate moderator?

That’s right: Gwen Ifill, the PBS personality set to pose the questions to Joe Biden and Sarah Palin tomorrow night, is the author of “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.“ (Check out the Amazon listing for the book here.)

SIDEBAR: “The Age of Obama.“ Is that what they’re calling it now? END SIDEBAR

In her book, Ifill makes the case that “the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s.“ She profiles Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Alabama’s own U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, among other “up-and-coming figures from across the nation.“

Hmm ... all Democrats.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Ifill also interviews Vernon Jordan (remember him from the Monica Lewinsky scandal?), Jesse Jackson and Obama himself.

... All men. Maybe Ifill includes some women in the book, but if she did, they aren’t mentioned in promotional materials.

With the exception of Colin Powell, all of the people mentioned in the promotional materials are Democratic men.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

The book will release in January.

But not just any date in January.

Jan. 20—otherwise known in Washington as INAUGURATION DAY.

But I’m sure the release date is a coincidence. I’m sure they didn’t plan a book about The Age of Obama to drop on the day that a President Obama would be inaugurated.

Back to the debate: Ifill also moderated the 2004 VP debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. She came under fire from conservative groups for her perceived bias against Cheney.

I’m not saying the Commission on Presidential Debates should have gotten another moderator based solely on that.

What I am saying is, did the commission know about this book? If not, why not? And if so, why would they stick with Ifill—especially given the concerns from 2004?

You would think that the CPD would want its debates to be as clean as possible. Why would they allow the GOP an opening to argue bias like this, especially given the pressure that is on Sarah Palin to finally perform on the national stage?

Now, no matter what happens, Republicans will be able to point to Ifill and complain about bias.

This has taken some of the fun out of tomorrow night for me.