A Vote of No Confidence

Hey, hey, one of my stocks went up today!

That would be my play-money bet on Obama to win the election on Rasmussen Markets.com.

And, since that's the one I'm cashing in sooner (Nov. 4), I may end up ahead on the day.

As for the American people, we didn't invest $700 billion, but we did lose $1.2 trillion on the stock market.

If we were in a parliamentary democracy, the government would immediately have fallen, and the Head of State would have turned to the Democrats' head of party, Barack Obama, to form a government. Either that, or, if the HoS were a Republican, he might have given the first shot to the leader of the Republicans' dissident faction (Eric Cantor!?)

Sigh. At least we can be happy that this total fiasco occurs so close to the end of the current Administration, and not in, say, February, 2007.

This defeat was a very public repudiation of the Bush Administration, and essentially also of Boehner & Blunt (Republican leadership, who urged its passage), and finally of John McCain. I will give the House Repo Men credit for listening to their constituents, but that's about all. This "mark-to-market" red herring is just promoting squishy accounting, which, after their squishy records of fiscal responsibility, doesn't convince anyone. The Republican House members don't like this approach, wish it were something else, but it isn't. Same thoughts expressed as those who supported it.

Now, the game should be on. The target date should be Thursday, and the contest should be to see who can turn more Reps in favor of the bill (slightly modified), Obama or McCain.

The vote is not a real no-confidence result on Pelosi, Frank, and the House leadership, though it does put into question either their good faith or their strategic approach. If they really wanted the bailout to pass today, they would have put more effort into the count, and into manipulating the count a few votes toward ensuring a safe outcome. I get that the tactic was to put the bill out and then vote fast, before opinion out here could consolidate against it, but the impression was one of haste, which as we all think we know, makes waste.

I saw some of the debate, and I was struck by the number and identities of some of the Democratic Representatives who said they would vote against. It appears clear to me that many of them would vote for it if: they got minor concessions, or were properly "whipped" by their leadership, or Barack Obama asked them to do it for the good of the nation and of his administration.

McCain should feel equally challenged on his side. Minority leader Boehner was supposed to deliver 50% of his votes for the measure; 45% would have been enough. They got 34%. He's either got to convince his backbenchers to come around, or let them convince him to do something different (which, by the way, doesn't have a chance of happening, either now or in the next session of Congress).

I had to go to work on voter registration and so did not hear the results until an hour or so after the scheduled vote. I was shocked by that, and worried: I had thought they had thrown their best shot. On calmer reflection, though, close attention to some of the Reps who had a close call but voted against will turn up some minor adjustments to get the necessary votes.

The problem will be if the public opinion remains strongly against the bill and it sends some of the wavering supporters over the side. Otherwise, this should pass comfortably on Thursday, picking up 15-20 votes on each side of the aisle. The oversight provisions could be strengthened and FDIC insurance broadened (as marginal changes which will help with both sides), but this is not such a bad bill. People are just scared by the potential price tag, which pales in comparison with the real price tag they will pay if it all continues to slide downward.