If Obama lets this go through, Paulson will have spent at least the 700 billion and probably more, by the time Obama gets in power. He will have set the terms for the bailout, and his terms are “no penalties, no investigations, status quo ante”.

FDR refused to endorse Hoover’s plans, and as such Hoover held them off and only those parts that FDR agreed with were implemented when FDR took power.

Bush and Paulson are not going to do the same thing for Obama, not if they have a choice.

He can fight back, or he can let them make his first term, Bush’s third.

I will not vote for any Dem that supports it. I do live in a swing state.

League of Conservation Voters:
Obama – 67%
McCain – 0%

NARAL:
Obama – 100 %
McCain – 0%

ACLU:
Obama – 80%
McCain 50%

National Education Association
Obama – A
McCain – F

Campaign for America’s Future (energy issues)
Obama – 100%
McCain – 17%

Children’s Defense Fund:
Obama – 100% (2006)
McCain – 10% (2006)

Citizens for Global Solutions (foreign aid & policy issues)
Obama – A (2008)
McCain – F (2008)

AFL-CIO:
Obama – 100%
McCain – 0%

Americans for Democratic Action:
Obama – 75%
McCain -10%

Alliance for Retired Americans:
Obama – 100%
McCain – 0%

Disabled American Veterans:
Obama – 80% (2006)
McCain – 20% (2006)

NOW:
Obama – 91% (2006)
McCain – 13% (2006)

They don’t look the same to me.

He recites his CHANGE mantra.

except that he has never shown that “change” is anything more than how he is being sold to us. it’s not only about his advisors – it’s about the fact that almost everything he’s done screams same-old same-old.

he’s asking us to take him on faith.

It is true that Hoover attempted to pull FDR into endorsing many of his plans after FDR had defeated him in November, and before the March 4th Inauguration. However, after November 8th, FDR had a mandate (won all but 6 states), and while there were no polls in those days, Hoover had zilch standing. FDR understood power, and that as of March 4 he would have it, but prior to that date, he had none except at Governor of New York till the first of the year, and it was in his interests to leave Hoover with the responsibility for EVERYTHING when he left office, and then take full responsibility when he assumed office. They had profoundly different ideology and belief systems — Hoover did not believe Government should intervene in the Market, FDR did, and had campaigned on that platform. FDR made that clear during the transition, and as the depression deepened during that winter, the anticipation that the New Deal would be “something different” was heightened. He would neither bless anything Hoover might do, nor would he strongly criticize it — instead he kept pointing to Hoover being responsible until he left office in March. Yes — there were persons who Hoover sent to meet with FDR — and FDR chose to meet with the Secretary of State, Stimson — who had served as Sec of War in Taft’s administration, State in Hoover’s, and ultimately would be Secretary of War in FDR and Truman’s administration. But while FDR was willing to talk generally about Foreign Policy with Stimson, and receive Hoover’s messages about economic matters, FDR made absolutely no commitments. In fact for most of February, FDR went on a cruise and fishing trip along the coast of Florida, and spent several weeks in Warm Springs swimming with his Polio Patients in rehab.

But in fact what FDR did during his first days in the Presidency was pretty much what had been proposed by Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury, (Bank Holiday — Emergency Banking Act). Only in the last few days before March 4th, was he willing to allow his nominated Secretary of the Treasury meet with Hoover’s people, and in fact the Emergency Banking Act was largely written by Thomas Lamont, head of JP Morgan (yea, that Lamont family,) who FDR subsequently fed to the wolves on the Hill for a series of indepth congressional investigations into pre-crash Wall Street Practices, that FDR cheer led over the next couple of years. All of these actions were essentially about power — FDR needed as much as he could get, unshared, in order to sustain his ability to convince congress and the public to allow market interventions in a big way (Regulation, Bank Inspections, and vast expenditures for public works). He acted so that on assuming the office he would be able to take that power. Part of doing that was making clear that until noon, March 4, 1933, the whole thing was Hoover’s responsibility — and then real power would shift.

I suspect Obama has people around him who know this political history, because some of the things he has done really point that way. With respect to many issues, he points to Bush and says “one President at a time.” He holds back from either blessing or sanctioning details. He points to the big shit-pile and says big mess resulting from a flawed economic philosophy. He recites his CHANGE mantra. If voters want something else — then consider how you vote this fall. All this is as much about getting elected as getting some sort of mandate for change — and that is very much about getting power to act, power to guide Congress, but not now — not till the voters decide.

I frankly could care less about who Obama meets with for consultations at this point. Those familiar faces from the Clinton Years may bring some votes to the box in November — they don’t tell us who would be selected to be in the Cabinet. They don’t put potential policies up front to be kicked like a ragged football during the campaign. (FDR never defined the New Deal in detail during the 1932 Campaign. In fact, he spent a good part of the campaign talking about the blessings of a balanced budget.) The more he quotes John McCain about the glories of running the US Health Care System the way Wall Street runs the Banking System — fine. All of this is about getting the votes to get elected in the first place, and then to really assume power and create his own working power center, which is, afterall, what is necessary for any change.

I think that is the proper read of FDR’s approach to the 1932-33 transition, and I suspect Obama’s people are smart enough to update it, and use it profitably.

We really need a third party, don’t we?

some day’s i’m tempted by the thought. but most days i think that if we have not yet learned to hold the Ds accountable, why would act any differently with another party?

i think the first thing we need to change is ourselves – and then we’ll know if another party is needed. or not.

p.s. i’m not suggesting any particular way of holding our party accountable – other than always judging them by the same standards we use for our opposition. and never cutting them any slack, just because there is a D after their name.

Thanks for the link.