A purely political observation.
I don't recall where I read or heard it but someone posed the question: Why does the House have to vote so far ahead [and I do think two days is a lot given the stakes] of the Senate on such a touchy issue [giving the Senate time to assess voter/poll/market reaction after the House vote]?
For those on the hot seat in an election year, the timing seems really unfair to the members of the House. I still think the "bailout" plan is big flyer so I'm not displeased with today's result but from a political standpoint I understand the House Dems' reluctance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I haven't heard an explanation of why the Senate was two days later. That was strange. But both candidates were on record supporting the bill, so it was no favor to them to provide a delay in which dissent might forment.
Bugs me even though I think the timing hurts dems more than rethugs.
Not sure about the political fallout. If employers can't make payroll tomorrow or Friday, then this may hurt all the Nay votes more than the Yea. I guess we'll see.
If payrolls aren't made this week then I'll gracefully say I have grossly underestimated the crisis. And I admit I may have.
There's no way to know from where we sit, I don't think.
Post a Comment