I wrote this yesterday morning but didn't get it finished. In light of the Senate's asshattery today I'm going to add a little update at the end.
Here's how I would sum up the state of things in Washington right now with the financial crisis.
A = A lame duck President who may be sincere about the need for action or may be cynically using the crisis to rob the federal piggy bank one last time before he leaves office.
B = The Democratic leadership (Pelosi/ Reid) who believe they need to do something or they'll get blamed with the inevitable collapse.
C = The actual Democratic segment of the Democratic congress who won't sign on to any plan that doesn't help regular Americans through this crisis.
D = Die hard Republican members of congress who want to use this crisis to push through more deregulation. Plus they want to pose as populists who actually care what voters think.
A proposed the original $700 billion dollar bailout and in negotiation with B they worked out a "compromise" that was really just the initial plan with progressive bobbles attached.
C and D hated the plan and torpedoed it. After the vote D blamed B for their votes because B said something mean about them.
There appears to no situation in which A and B working together will be able to provide a bill that would appeal to either or both C and D.
Any solution generated by D would be no solution at all and should be rejected out of hand. They need to be removed from the equation.
I say we let C propose a solution and push it through. They seem to be the only group that have the country's best interests in mind.
UPDATE 10/1 - The absolute worse thing we could do would be to ignore my suggestion about rejecting solutions from D out of hand, but that appears to be exactly what Senate Democrats are trying to do.
Fuckers are tacking right. God, I hate our Democratic leadership.