That being said…
Lee Terry has emerged, apparently, as one of the hundred or so House Members who has “revolted” (Rep. Barney Frank’s words) against the Treasury Secretary’s original plan on the banking crisis.
However, Terry, who is in favor of Congressional action, was quoted in the L.A. Times, saying, “Whatever is going to be done has to be done this weekend. Allowing it to go beyond Sunday into Monday will devastate the markets.“
Senator Chuck Hagel has noted that constituent reaction coming into his office is 50 to 1 against the bailout as originally proposed (we hear from our sources that it’s actually more like 100 or 200 to 1). Voicing this position, Terry notes, “There is no way in heck any Congressman would support putting that money into the pockets of these CEO’s that caused this problem.”
No word right now as to whether Terry is or was on board with the Wall St. self-insurance proposal that was thrown out by some House GOPers. But, assuming that a deal does get made, and the markets don’t tank, Terry could be on the right side of this.
However, there will likely be no real political “winners” in this matter.
Jim Esch tried to make some political hay a few days ago as this came up. Esch put out a release saying that Terry was wrong to agree to a plan that would “give Wall Street a blank check“.
While Esch may have jumped the gun on this, we would guess that he would be joining Barney Frank and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position now. Does that include the blank check that Esch alluded to a few days ago?
We are not sure, though we would assume that he will be coming out with another statement on the crisis shortly.
We were a bit stunned by a report from leading pollster John Zogby who said the Presidential election could be a “landslide”.
And who does he pick? John McCain.
Interesting. (Though we’re sure he could change his mind at about any time.)
If the debate comes off tonight (which it now looks to be), feel free to come back to Leavenworth Street and give your comments on what happened.