As the two hangmen at 2Hangmen.com, we exchange a lot of emails about ongoing events. Unfortunately, our schedules don’t always allow us to blog about them. But given the ongoing, shenanigans in Washington about the bailout, we thought you might enjoy seeing some of our raw, unedited email.

Ben starts it off:

Ben: Another good day to not have your money in the markets…

Jim: So how does this play out if Dems don’t decide to pass it on their own?

Ben: Dunno… if the bill had 228 against it that means Dems had to have voted against it as well right? There are at least a few Republicans saying that they can’t only support the free market in the good times which is what I think they SHOULD be saying. The reporters are saying there is no alternative or plan B right now so I wouldn’t expect to see anything else happen quickly.

Did you read through the bailout bill? I dl’ed it but haven’t had time to look at what it would actually do.

Jim: Well, according to the first Republican, Pelosi gave a partisan speech on the floor this morning and that’s why it failed. But we need to come together in a bipartisan way and get something done. The Republican 2 came on and ripped Pelosi a new a-hole and blamed it all on the Democrats.

About 60% of Dems voted for it and about 30% of Republicans.

I’d say it’s dead unless a 500 or 600 point drop today matters to the house republicans OR the Dems just decide to strip out all the concessions to Republicans and pass it on their own without republican help and then dump it into the Senate where republicans can block it if they want (but seem unlikely to). That might put McCain in an interesting spot although since a deal didn’t get done, he doesn’t look to effective with his antics of the last week.

Jim (again): I haven’t read the plan but I’ve tried to follow the details. I thought a couple the concessions they made to the house Reps were good and I think the oversight and other changes that they put in earlier were good.

I really think the Admin screwed the pooch (as usual) by not offering a plan with oversight, and some checks on companies participating in the first place. Then they did a terrible job of selling it. They should have got their own troops on board first, presented a plan and then negotiated with the Dems (who have buckled in the past).

Ben: Yeah, blame being flung all over the place now. 133 Repubs voted no, 95 Dems voted no. Either both parties are to blame or neither one is. I really don’t understand why McCain supported it. Would be in a MUCH better position if he’d come out against it as the majority of the public seems to be.

Have you seeen anything like this before? It’s fairly broadly disliked (at least from what I can tell and from what Reid said about their offices being slammed with calls) in the public but is fairly broadly supported at the top of the government. Now we’ve got the lower house of Congress telling their leadership to piss off… It’s really interesting (and more than a bit confusing) to me.

Ben (again): So, McCain takes credit for the bill and then it loses, now he’s blaming Obama for it losing (even though McCain’s party accounted 40 more no votes). He’s supposed to be his party’s leader and yet he can’t deliver the votes to get it through.

Obama now says that this is the greatest economic crisis since the great depression even though the media (and I thought people in his campaign) blasted Palin last week for telling Couric the same thing (when Couric introduced the terminology in the question she asked). But at the same time tells people to remain calm, that things are always rocky in Congress, and like McCain he hasn’t exactly stood up as his party’s leader and delivered the votes on this one.

Pelosi and Frank are blaming the Republicans even though they only needed THEIR party to vote with them.

All the while we have everyone telling us that it’s needed but no one is willing to man up and actually pass it because they can’t really explain to the public WHY it’s needed.

I think it’s time for a reboot.

Jim: Nope, never seen anything like it.

Both candidates look bad although I think McCain looks worse. At least if he was against it he could go with public opinion. I guess he could say he’s bipartisan since he went with the other party (although he sided with Bush).

The Dems claim they could only get 2/3 of their party to go along with them (which isn’t bad for a proposal from a republican admin).

It’s a pretty tough call for the Republicans to say a) it was bad so we didn’t vote for it AND b) it was important for the country and we would have voted for it if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t hurt our feelings.

Like I said, I think the admin played it badly. Don’t know what will happen if the market is below 10,000 by Thursday. Just waiting to hear all the financial consultants say this is a buying opportunity.

Jim (again): From the NYT (I know, I know):

“Some Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way.”

So she complained about Bush’s economic policies and they taught her a lesson by voting against him on the biggest economic issue of his presidency. Yep, that ought to do it.

Ben: Yeah, by making a bigger issue out of this McCain definitely suffers and I think after the debate on Thursday it will be all but over.

If this is as important as the Dems have been saying it is, they should have been able to get 11 or 12 more votes that they needed no matter which admin proposed it.

The Republicans took a golden opportunity to say they’re listening and representing the people, and tried to blame Pelosi for being partisan. Why not just say “Our constituents don’t want it so I can’t support it.”? Is that too simplistic for them to grasp?

It’s like the flipping blind leading the blind! They screwed up the fix for their own screw up!

BTW, I realize this video is edited to paint the democrats poorly but I can’t help but be amazed that Barney Frank is a leading figure in this whole process of “fixing” things even though he was defending Freddie and Fannie just 4 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Jim (quoting and responding):

“Yeah, by making a bigger issue out of this McCain definitely suffers and I think after the debate on Thursday it will be all but over.”

But if Palin can walk on stage without tripping she will exceed expectations.

“If this is as important as the Dems have been saying it is, they should have been able to get 11 or 12 more votes that they needed no matter which admin proposed it.”

One commentator said that basically no one in a tough election campaign is voting for it. So to get the Dems, they’ll probably need to throw back in more money for keeping people in their houses or change bankruptcy laws.

“The Republicans took a golden opportunity to say they’re listening and representing the people, and tried to blame Pelosi for being partisan. Why not just say “Our constituents don’t want it so I can’t support it.”? Is that too simplistic for them to grasp?”

Apparently

“BTW, I realize this video is edited to paint the democrats poorly but I can’t help but be amazed that Barney Frank is a leading figure in this whole process of “fixing” things even though he was defending Freddie and Fannie just 4 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs”

I think the Dems definitely got on the wrong side of that one.

But, I don’t think anyone believes that Fannie and Freddy were the only problems or even the only root cause. And the republicans have a hard time presenting themselves as reformers when they’re still proposing tax cuts and deregulation as the solution to the current problem.

Ben: Like you asked me last week.. why do you care what the Republicans do?

In all honesty, if you can’t get anyone to stand up and take “credit” for the bill, wouldn’t you think you could find people to take credit for killing it? It’s just amazing. It’s important, but not important enough for the Dems to push it through without the Repubs, and it’s also not important enough for the Repubs not to vote for it even though Pelosi made some speech they didn’t like.

The only guy really trying to get something done on this is the guy getting the check!

Jim: From the Boston Globe:

[Barney] Frank, one of the major architects of the bailout package, said he was “appalled” that members of Congress would put “hurt feelings” ahead of the good of the country.

“Frankly, that’s an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would never have thought of making,” Frank said.

“Here’s the story: There’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity….But think about this: Somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean, that’s hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America but not if anybody insulted them.

I’m not necessarily a Frank fan but the Republican’s put it right over the plate and he hit it out of the park. You know that sound bite is going to be on all the news shows this evening.

Jim (again): I do think some action is needed but maybe it will have to wait until a lame duck session after the election. Of course the cost might (or might not) be higher by then.

Jim (yet again): Do you have any idea what the McCain camp is trying to say?

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

Does that mean McCain was for or against it. That it shouldn’t have passed but would have if Obama hadn’t been partisan so shame on him????????

Not trying to make a point here, I just don’t get the argument.

Ben: No I think they’re trying to say that it SHOULD have and would have passed if not for Obama staying largely on the sidelines and Pelosi playing partisan politics. Of course those two points are quite flawed as we’ve already discussed.

Ben (again): But any Republican that voted for the bill can now use Frank’s comments to attack the 95 Democrats that also didn’t vote for the bill. In fact, they don’t even have the hurt feelings to fall back on as an excuse.

Yes, the Republicans put it out there and he hit it but I think he clocked himself pretty good on the back swing. No one comes out of this looking good no matter how hard they try.

Jim: True BUT the Dems who were against it can say they voted on principle. The Pelosi excuse, as you pointed out, contradict that.

Jim (again): The ultimate political moment: everyone looks bad and nothing gets done.