[…] Every economic story, I don’t care whether it is down or up, is unexpected, from the AP, from Reuters, from wherever it comes. “A day after the House of Representatives rejected the proposed $700 billion rescue plan to reduce the US financial sector, investors held out hope that leaders in Washington might work around any disagreements.” How do they know this? The consumer confidence report is for the month of September. It was not taken after yesterday’s bailout vote failed. It’s for the month of September. If it is reflective, it’s because the American people overwhelmingly are happy that this bailout bill did not happen as it was written. There was nothing new in what was voted on yesterday from the original proposal. Yesterday’s proposal that went down the tubes was the same as first proposed, it gave the Treasury Secretary — and that could mean Paulson for the next three months — if Obama wins, could mean Franklin Raines is back as secretary of the Treasury or somebody like that. It puts them in charge of ensuring the economic well-being of every citizen — it’s not possible. Karl Marx, number five, Communist Manifesto. If he knew what was going on in the United States, he would be thrilled today. I’ll share with you why in mere moments.
Everybody is misunderstanding what happened yesterday. CNN is destroying the Republicans. Our friends at National Review Online and their blog The Corner are destroying the Republicans. Well, I know, Snerdley, you may not read ‘em but people on the Hill do, and the Republicans on the Hill do not understand what’s happened to Mr. Buckley’s organization because they’re being ripped to shreds by conservatives at The Corner and other places. The fact of the matter is Nancy Pelosi got exactly what she wanted yesterday. She got an economic disaster, perceived economic disaster. The bill went down to defeat. It was by design to go down to defeat. Nancy Pelosi didn’t do one thing to stop renegade Democrats from voting against the bailout. There are a lot of Democrats in very unsafe seats, unsafe districts right now. They had to vote “no” because the overwhelming majority of the American people wanted no part of this, as written. They understand. As complicated as the language of this is, it’s not complex for the average citizen, which understands that the market and the government are two different things. They understand that the government has botched every attempt it’s made to toy with, fix, promote, whatever, the market. They instinctively understand that this is not how these things are to be done. They also understand that for $700 billion, you could give every American $75,000 toward retiring their mortgage, and if this is a mortgage crisis, then give every American $75,000 or $50,000 bucks instead of giving it someplace elsewhere shore up so-called liquidity. They understand if you’re going to start passing out money, give it to us. Our mortgages are the things that are in trouble. If you’re really concerned about this, they’re saying, if you’re really, really concerned, imagine the economic activity that would be spurred on — if we’re going to give $700 billion away, now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not suggesting this should happen, but I’m saying the American people say, “If you’re going to give $700 billion away why give it to people who made these bad loans in the first place just to make them healthy? Give it to us, let us retire a lot of our mortgages and watch us go to town here in the economy causing economic growth. I mean, if our objective here is to bring the economy back, save the economy, then hell, give it to us.” They instinctively understand this.
[…]The speech by Pelosi was irresponsible. She is stupid. One trillion of wealth was lost yesterday with that 777-point drop. But it’s coming back a little bit today as it’s up 264 points at the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Now, I think what happened — this is pure politics — the Republicans in the House are sitting there watching the vote go, and they’re seeing all these Democrats vote “no.” Do you know that 12 members of Barney Frank’s committee voted “no”? Barney Frank wasn’t running around trying to change any votes. So the Republicans are watching all these Democrats vote “no” after being told all week it was their responsibility to join with Democrats to make this happen, and after knowing full well that the Democrats really wanted this to happen, they could have passed it on their own without Republican help. That was the spin. And then they sit there and they see all these Democrats voting against it, voting nay, and they say, wait a minute, what’s happening here, and they figured it out. They figured out that the vast majority of public opinion around the country is dead set opposed to this, isn’t even close, and they see Democrats in crucially close districts voting against it so they can run around and campaign, “I voted against that bailout, I knew it was the wrong thing to do, but our Republicans voted for it.”
Le parole del popolare commentatore radiofonico, conservatore, hanno creato un vero e proprio caso perchè Politico.com le ha interpretate come una crisi di leadership in casa Repubblicana, dove i deputati sarebbero pronti ad andare contro Bush e prepararsi al dopo McCain per rilanciare una leadership conservatrice del Partito Repubblicano. Ma Limbaugh si è risentito perchè sostiene che Politico ha volutamente forzato la sua interpretazione. Rush Limbaugh difende i 12 Repubblicani che hanno votato contro il piano Bush alla Camera, a dispetto di quanto hanno fatto gli altri media conservatori.