Is there really a crisis?

More and more, I think not particularly considering the behavior of Congress on Monday.

Just before the vote, Pelosi makes a speech ranting against Republicans. This may have caused some of the Republicans to vote against. But why didn't it pass if this is a crisis and they have a majority. They have the majority, they make the agenda, all they needed to do was change 12 out of 95 Democrats votes. Why didn't they? Malice or incompetence? [Link]

The fact is, 95 Democrats - 40 percent of the party's House membership - voted against the bill.

Pelosi - who allegedly controls the chamber - couldn't even deliver her own members. How humiliating is that?

Republicans at least had long-standing philosophical objections to a massive expansion of government power over the economy. And, frankly, Pelosi's boneheaded speech sure didn't help matters.

Didn't she use persuasion or the Whip? [Link]

But considering that only a dozen votes needed to switch in order to provide a different outcome, and 95 Democrats in the House voted against it, critics are now wondering why couldn't House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have assured a different outcome considering how important she said its passage was?

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., told me yesterday that he felt no pressure at all to vote for the bill.

No pressure here. How about from the Whip himself? [Link]

As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.

It may be a crisis, but maybe it was too tempting not to play politics. [Link]

John McCain set up a dramatic moment where he would come in and save the day by convincing Republican lawmakers to support the bailout. But he made this move in a Congress completely controlled by Democrats.

And the Democrats clearly didn’t like it. Harry Reid demanded to know where McCain stood on the bill — but after McCain surprised Reid with his overly dramatic campaign “suspension,” Reid told McCain he wasn’t needed. He told the press that McCain wasn’t being helpful or even articulate in the meetings.

McCain worked the phones, while Obama didn’t call a single Democrat lawmaker. McCain reportedly turned around about 60 lawmakers. It wasn’t quite enough.

People are now arguing about where the blame lies. Democrats point out that Democrats supported the bill, while Republicans opposed it. Also, we’re told, Republicans promised a certain number of votes, and didn’t deliver. Meanwhile, Republicans point out that Democrats controlled the chamber. If they really wanted a bill passed, a bill would have passed.

Who’s right? I don’t know. But I remember hearing before the fact that Democrats didn’t want to pass the bill without a majority of Republicans in favor. Did they change their minds?

And isn’t it odd that this all ends up making John McCain’s gesture look empty and incompetent?

Somehow this is always the Republican's fault. [Link]

Here's what I don't understand:

When Republicans have control of Congress, it is Republicans' fault for not passing legislation to stave off economic trouble.

When Democrats have control of Congress, it is Republicans' fault for not passing the bailout. Must be nice...

Another reason this looks like no crisis. [Link]

SO THE HOUSE WON'T RECONVENE UNTIL THURSDAY? That seems like a sure loser. If things get better over the next couple of days, it'll make it harder to do a deal and make them look irrelevant; if things get worse it will make them look like they slacked off at a crucial time.

And. [Link]

As a general proposition, when told by unanimous elites that a particular course of action is urgent and necessary to avoid disaster, there's a lot to be said for going fishing*. If the entire global economy is so vulnerable that only the stalwart action of Barney Frank stands between it and ten years of soup kitchens, can it, in fact, be saved? Or look at it the other way round: Given any reasonable estimate of the number of headless chickens running around, was the five per cent fall in Asian markets and seven per cent "plummet" on the Dow in reaction to the House vote really the catastrophe some of my pals round here seem to think it was? If fear of seven per cent falls is enough to justify massive unprecedented government intrusion into the private sector, we might as well cut to the chase and go for the big Soviet command economy.