Crying In Congress Over The Bail-Out Bill; Also, A Little First Presidential Debate Analysis

OH DEAR, SOME OF US ARE JUST SO INCREDIBLY OFFENDED AND HURT BY NANCY'S COMMENTS...and...SOMEHOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE SO FUNNY NOW, JOHN

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) was right about the dozen or so Republicans who today voted against the Wall Street bailout bill because of what appears to be their over-sensitivity. He suggested that it is utterly pathetic that these folks voted against the bill due to the apparent fact that their "feelings were hurt" over pre-vote statements by the Speaker of the House. I agree.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you think the bill is awful, then of course you should vote against it. If, on the other hand, you think the bill is a necessary evil, you should do the following three things: take a deep breath, pinch your nose, and vote for it. But stop crying about being "deeply offended" by what you perceive as partisan statements by the Speaker of the House. (And let's not even factor-in to the equation the fact that the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives features a constantly-partisan atmosphere--though I for one wish that this were not the case--so members ought to be more than used to a few verbal barbs by now.)

Personally, my emotional response to this bail-out bill is a negative one; it seems wrong that pseduo-"intelligent" financial sector folks should be bailed-out for the dumb speculation choices that so often derive from their own goose-stepping, automaton-esque corporate myopia. (I doubt strongly that many of these ueber-corporate folks are well-rounded, cultured thinkers....) So my first reaction to today's "No" vote in the House of Representatives is one of approval. (After all, if this bill stunk as badly as it seemed to stink, and IF AND ONLY IF some sort of bailout absolutely needs to occur, why not take a step back and begin working to craft a better piece of legislation that is more socially acceptable to the Average Joe and Josephine American taxpayer?) I do, however, admit that I haven't personally seen the bill, so I cannot speak with technical authority one way or the other.

But I feel as though it is certainly fair to criticize crybaby members of the United States Congress who voted against the bill because their feelings were hurt. Either that's an excuse and they don't have the guts to speak in a public manner about why they voted against it (and, given how unpopular the bill seems to be nationwide, why would they be scared to talk about their reasons for voting against it?), or they are so callow they seem to have regressed to a quasi-junior-high level of emotional override. (I wouldn't necessarily bet against that second possibility, perhaps in combination with the first.)

Everyone gets offended. Given how many people don't think much at all, I'm offended in some way, shape, or form nearly every day. But I get over it (and, to a certain extent, I use it for blogging material). And these folks, who were given the honor of being elected to serve at the national level, ought to be adult enough to get over it, too.

Oh, by the way, Senator McCain spent this morning making fun of Senator Obama for "monitoring the situation" regarding this bill. Senator McCain went on to say that, by contrast, he showed leadership by (semi-) suspending his campaign and heading back to the halls of Congress in order to help get the deal done. Yet interestingly enough, two-thirds of his own party's congressional members voted against the bill, while approximately sixty percent of Democratic legislators voted for it.

No matter how you feel about this bill--and it's understandable why so many people are inwardly conflicted about it--Senator McCain's roll of the dice regarding his "leadership" declaration looks absolutely silly right now, as does his having mocked Senator Obama this morning. Perhaps this is a new, post-modern "too-cool-for-school" manfestation of this so-called "maverick leadership" we all keep hearing about? If so, perhaps Senator McCain can now explain the merits of such a confusing thought process to the rest of us.

DEBATE RECAP: SENATOR OBAMA LEADS 1-0 AFTER THREE INNINGS, BUT THERE ARE STILL ANOTHER SIX TO GO

Senator Obama let Senator McCain go on too long about earmarks during the domestic section of last Friday's debate. Or, perhaps more accurately, he let Senator McCain go on too long before pointing out that, while important, earmarks account for a relatively small percentage of domestic spending, and he failed to question thoroughly how well-rounded Senator McCain's domestic plans are if in a nationally televised debate he insists on focusing so heavily on earmarks. (Earmarks and tax cuts seemed to constitute about 95% of Senator McCain's domestic policy statements during the debate.)

When Senator Obama did finally speak to this issue, it was done in a rather timid way. But at least he did it, and at least he followed this up by personalizing and humanizing the economic situation in America in an effective manner. He seemed to be able to draw connections between the struggles of ordinary Americans and the necessity to reform how both Washington, D.C. and Wall Street work; he did this in both a narrative and technical manner, whereas Senator McCain did it in a stodgily repetitive technical manner alone. Perhaps this is why Senator Obama wound up winning fairly soundly the domestic section of the debate, according to several post-debate national polls.

Regarding the foreign policy portion(s) of the debate, I thought that Senator Obama held his own versus Senator McCain on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also helped him that Senator McCain failed to hit the ball out of the park regarding the present scenario with Russia. I have no idea whether that means they "tied" one another regarding foreign policy, though several post-debate national polls suggested that this may be close to what happened. (Apparently, when the major polls were taken together in order to find an overall average, Senator Obama scored a few points higher than Senator McCain regarding the foreign policy section of the debate, but given error margins it seems they came out even in this section, generally speaking.)

The big news, as far as I'm concerned, is that while the candidates ran fairly even with male viewers/listeners, Senator Obama seems to have won fairly big with women viewers/listeners. Some polls suggested that he beat Senator McCain amongst women by 20% or so, but even if that's inaccurate and Senator Obama's advantage amongst women was closer to, say, 12%, that may (I repeat, may) indicate that he has made some in-roads amongst independent-voting women who may have been intrigued by Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate.

There were no haymaker knock-out punches this time around, but did anyone really expect any? I didn't think so.... So, using a baseball metaphor, we're through the first three innings of the presidential debate process (the first third of the game; this week's vice presidential debate is in a sense its own game rather than part of the presidential debate game), and so far Senator Obama has managed to scrape enough hits together to push one run across the plate, while pitching proficiently enough to keep Senator McCain off of the scoreboard.

I don't think I need to mention that these two gentlemen have got another six or so innings left to go....