I think many of them see that it is their last chance to throw a temper tantrum on a national stage, before they head off to that lobbying gig for ChiCom Industries.

To Ezra it seems amazing, almost a crime, that elites in Washington had a plan for immigration and the electorate reared up on its hind legs and flatly said "NO!".

It seems he would like the elite to rule in the mortgage meltdown financial crisis as well and for the governed to stay the hell out of it.

Maybe he feels this is just too important for the "little people" to have a say.

El V:
What's McCain's solution? You know, the one he swooped in to offer?

What's McCain's solution?

I'm not sure he had a predetermined solution when he went to Washington, but I'm glad he went.

I'm just hoping that he will inspire others to consider something other than a 700 billion dollar givaway to those who fucked this up in the first place.

that was a fair question.

An equally fair question would be what is Obama's plan.......call me if I'm needed???

The difference between the bailout bill and the immigration bill is that for opposers of the immigration bill, there was nothing about the status quo that the opposition felt would be fixed by the immigration bill, and there was nothing in the immigration bill that they would benefit from if it passed.

Supporters of the immigration bill who were Democrats, however, had a huge incentive not to go to the mat for the bill: the opposition and demagoguery of the opposition could be leveraged into political dividends for Democratic supporters, in the form of a return of Latino voters to the Democratic fray (which, remember, had started to weaken in the 2004 elections).

Here, we have the opposite problem: opposition to the bill can be parlayed into electoral dividends by the opposition while also ensuring that it passes, allowing them to reap the economic benefits. Supporters of the bill are supporting something that is very unpopular but has (supposedly) major economic consequences if it isn't passed. Supporters face a lose-lose dilemma that they can only extract themselves from if they hag the bill around everyone's neck so that no one who wants the bill to pass gets to oppose it for political benefit.

What's pathetic is that McCain is being just a passive participant, but that's his "way."

Tyro,

The only possible reason there would be political benefit in opposing this is the governed don't want it.

Remember them....the people?

I think Democrats are so wrapped up in "ruling" they forget they are representatives and not Gods.

McCain's actions this week are despicable. The Republicans are bogging down in ideological wars, and their infighting is killing any chance at a solution.

And McCain went to Washington and essentially endorsed this political squabbling. He didn't just politicize delicate negotiations. Worse, he is the leader of his party but he isn't getting his party in line and telling them to cut the s*** out and figure out a solution. Instead, he's playing the same game House Republicans are--hoping someone else passes a solution which he can then condemn from the sidelines. Because OF COURSE it's going to be unpopular--there are no good solutions to this crisis that the Republicans got us into. Just a lot of bad and worse options.

If McCain actually believes what he says this week--that the fundamentals of our economy aren't strong and that if we don't do something we risk another Great Depression, then he as the leader of his party is failing our nation by allowing his party to put politics first.

It's utterly despicable.

ElV: the question is whether a politician who wants to reap the political benefits of opposing the bill would be willing to accept the economic consequences of seeing the bill defeated... or if the congressman merely wants to say he opposed the bill while also ensuring that the country doesn't have the face the (claimed) economic consequences that come with not passing the bailout (the free rider problem).

I'm disinclined to support any but the most tentative of bailout options for the very reason that there's little benefit to passing something until there is massive public demand for economic relief from the public till. But I don't want Republicans to get away with opposing it while also implicitly supporting its passage.

It's becoming ever more obvious that Democrats don't give a rat's ass in hell for democracy, for what the American public thinks. They may well court the voters to get into office, but after taking the oath, they govern like unaccountable, unelected bureaucratic demigods. They seek nothing less than the systematic imposition of an absurd and blatantly unjust vision of society on the other 300 million of us, whether we like it or not. You Democrats should change your party's name before you get sued for fraud. You sure as hell are working to destroy democracy in this country.