Take a look at these results from a gallup poll about the bailout:
http://www.gallup.com/...
I can't post the image, but here are the results:
Favorable/Unfavorable:
Obama: 46/43 (+3)
Democratic Leaders: 39/50 (-11)
John McCain: 37/53 (-16)
Republican Leaders: 31/58 (-27)
Henry Paulson: 28/51 (-23)
George Bush: 28/68 (-40) <- haha</p>
Obama and the dems beat McCain and the republicans, and bush takes the hardest hit of all.
Nobody walks away clean, but the democrats and Obama walk out the least-un-clean.
What does this tells us? Follow me below the fold to hear why I think we've played it as correctly as possible.
- Everybody hates Congress. Surprise! Nobody is every going to win an election, argument, or popularity congress by siding with congress. It's the dilemma of a congressperson that what is right and what is wrong rarely match up directly with what constituents want - and like it or not, we're in a republic for the very reason that we elect those we trust more than ourselves to handle the difficult decisions.
- The Republicans are taking the blame for the mess and for the failure to resolve it. Look how hard Paulson, Bush, and the Republicans are being hit. Even if this is bad for everyone, the Republicans are being hit the worst. In a case of massively unpopular legislation that our leaders feel needs to be passed, that's the best we can hope for.
- Obama edges out McCain on handling the crisis. Note that he is the only one with a net 'favorable' rating on his response. This either means people sincerely approve of how he's done, or supports the conclusion that enough Americans have a general trust/approval of him to say 'yes' when asked the question in a poll. Undeniably good news.
- Congress isn't trying to play politics. Think about it - this is probably the most important conclusion to be reached. If Congress thought the economy could handle living without the bailout, then there's no way in hell they'd proceed given the outcry it has received. I'll be first in line to suggest that they did a poor job of either framing the issue or of informing the public about its necessity, but their action here to me suggests good intentions. They may lead to hell, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. You want to see a difference between this and Iraq? The invasion of Iraq was popular and the vote seemed to be motivated by politics. Nobody is making political hay on the bailout, and so I tend to think that Congress truly believes this plan will stop the economy from getting any worse.
Executive summary? Everyone hates congress, but they hate the Republicans more. Obama walks out relatively unscathed, so he's played his hand correctly. At the end of the day I think the situation is fundamentaly different from the Iraq war's rush to acceptance, and so I think we need to give Congress the benefit of the doubt because, as is artfully articulated in this diary, we're not financial experts. Congress has access to many, and like it or not, they've got more and likely better information than we do.
I'm cautiously optimistic. I think this is tough leadership, and I don't think it's Democrats capitulating. Looks like Kos (and most of its readers, I'd guess) and I fall on opposite sides of this issue, but I think it's extremely worthy of study because guess what folks: the next few years are going to have many, many similar conflicts - and hopefully the Democratic Party is going to be at the helm to steer us through.