Castigating the Culprits

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:33 AM

Finally, something that Washington is good at--yelling about who's to blame.

Having failed once again to tackle a major national problem, members of Congress, backed by media prognosticators on both sides, are indulging in that favorite Beltway pastime, finger-pointing. Soooo much easier than actually passing legislation.

And hey, the Dow went up 485 yesterday after Monday's panic selling. Who said there was a crisis, anyway?

Except, of course, that the credit markets are still paralyzed, the mountain of bad debt still exists, Wachovia is the latest bank to fail, and the White House, the Hill and the candidates seem no closer to coming up with a fix. King Henry, as Newsweek called Paulson in a cover story, has been dethroned, and no one, at the moment, appears to be in charge--least of all the lame-duck president who pushed the ill-fated bailout bill.

When you add up the major issues on which Congress has failed to do much of anything--the Wall Street mess, immigration, Social Security, health care, the deficit--it's a pretty sweeping list. Now maybe doing nothing is the preferable course on some of these controversies. But we elect politicians to solve problems, and in Washington, they mostly seem to dither. And, in a pinch, print more money (as Treasury would under the $700-billion legislation, since Congress is loath to either raise taxes or cut spending).

The House will try again tonight at sundown--now, with higher bank deposit insurance!--the minute that Rosh Hashanah ends.

The L.A. Times takes on Nancy Pelosi:

"She did not look like a speaker of the whole House this week, as the financial industry bailout she helped negotiate was unexpectedly defeated . . .

"Pelosi's handling of the issue provided a window onto her leadership style -- revealing the limits of her ability to win the trust of Republicans, to lean on her own rank and file, and to dispel her reputation as a polarizing figure."

And another problem: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she voted to ban last year," says the Washington Times.

Barney Frank is also taking some flak:

"In Newton, the core of his left-leaning base, where many constituents consider themselves on a first-name basis with the 14-term representative, Frank has suddenly become synonymous with the subprime mortgage scandal and stock market woes," says the Boston Globe. "Many yesterday said they were unsettled by his alliance with the Bush administration on the bailout, and troubled that Frank seemed to be trading in his outsider status to broker an inside deal."

The House Republicans are taking perhaps the biggest hit, since they defected en masse, deserting their own leadership as well as George Bush. And David Brooks, who has all but broken with the GOP establishment, makes his disdain clear:

"They have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.

"George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? . . .

"House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

"Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they've taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it."

McCain isn't getting rave reviews, and neither, for that matter, is Obama, even among liberals. Time's Joe Klein:

"I don't blame John McCain for not rounding up enough Republican votes to get this bailout bill through the House of Representatives--he's not a member of the House, he's never held a leadership position and therefore doesn't know how to whip votes . . .

"I do blame McCain for his puerile histrionics and for dragging this issue--which should have been above partisanship--into presidential politics. Let's make no mistake about it: his various gimmicks had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the issue. He doesn't know all that much about the substance of the issue. The gimmicks were a failed attempt to make it seem as if he had powers, and knowledge, he didn't have . . .

"Obama didn't pretend that he could, or should, do something that he couldn't do. He didn't lead, but then, he wasn't in a position to lead. (McCain's games were the opposite of leadership--they were an unnecessary distraction.) There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that. It was the time for a cool head, something McCain has yet to demonstrate."

Mother Jones's Kevin Drum is also out of patience:

"John McCain deserves to be tarred and feathered. His behavior over the past week has been almost unbearably craven.

"Barack Obama's behavior has been a little better. But only a little. He hasn't exactly displayed a backbone of steel on this issue."

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett holds out (slight) hope for McCain:

"In case you're looking for political ramifications, the news is not good if you're of the Republican persuasion. As much as I would like to lay all of our forthcoming problems at the feet of the House members whose feelings Nancy Pelosi so easily bruised, they're a bit player in this drama. A Republican occupies the White House, and the buck stops with him. It's a Republican economy, and it's a law of political physics that we will pay the price for its shortcomings . . .

"As far as Obama is concerned, his 'prudence' by now is a known quantity. We won't see any game changing propositions emanate from this preternaturally cautious politician. Obama lags events--he doesn't lead them.

"That leaves it up to McCain. Frankly, whether he can politically overcome a millstone the size of this economic crisis is questionable. Let's face it--the financial meltdown is the equivalent of Mark Foley's salacious instant messages on stilts."

You might expect the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal to blame the Dems, but no one is spared:

"Monday's crash and burn of the Paulson plan on Capitol Hill reveals a Washington elite that has earned every bit of the disdain that Americans have for it. This crowd can't even make sausage.

"The 228-205 defeat reflects badly on all concerned, starting with the Democrats who run the House. The majority party is responsible for assembling a majority vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed in that fundamental task.

"Her highly partisan speech on the floor -- blaming 'right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation' for the financial distress -- is no excuse for Republicans to vote no. But it is indicative of the way she has governed for the past two years -- like Tom DeLay without the charm. The cynics are saying Ms. Pelosi deliberately tanked the bill by giving 95 Democrats a pass, knowing failure would hurt John McCain, and given her track record we can see why people would believe it.

"House Republicans share the blame, and not only because they opposed the bill by about two-to-one, 133-65. Their immediate response was to say that many of their members turned against the bill at the last minute because Ms. Pelosi gave her nasty speech. So they are saying that Republicans chose to oppose something they think is in the national interest merely because of a partisan slight. Thank heaven these guys weren't at Valley Forge."

Yeah, they'd be debating whether to start a commission to assess the feasibility of crossing the Delaware.

Some are also chastising the media, including former NYT reporter David Cay Johnston:

"The administration has failed to make its case, instead assuming that just as with the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, it could stampede Congress into thoughtless action and terrify the public into going along.

"Also, do not get stampeded by the awful, ill-informed, and heavily one-sided coverage on cable TV, which I have been monitoring. Several friends have emailed me in a panic asking if they should sell their holdings. Politicians and cable news deserve a lot of blame for fostering fear."

Kos is also cheering the bill's defeat:

"I'm glad this thing failed. The right and left may have had different reasons for voting this bill down, but fact is, the 'consensus center' rushed into this bill with little transparency or public input deserved to die . . .

"The polling is clear -- the American people, me included, aren't pretending there isn't a finance crisis. But they want a solution that doesn't reward the 'evildoers'. This one did."

Did Newt help blow up the bill? That's what Andrea Mitchell reported on MSNBC:

"I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute comes out with a [supportive] statement when the vote is already in place."

Sarah Palin was back last night with Katie Couric, who asked three times what newspapers and magazines the governor reads. "All of them--any of them," Palin said. She did not name a single publication. Not even the Anchorage Daily News.

Those who aren't picking the bones of the bailout carcass are looking forward--to tomorrow's Sarah-and-Joe show. Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel sees a gender element to Palin's latest stumble:

"It took a woman to expose Palin.

"CBS News' Katie Couric's empathetic interviewing style and smart (but not tough) questioning fully and finally exposed that vice-presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin is not qualified to be vice-president . . .

"Palin may have a spunky frontier spirit and a life story ready-made for Alaska's first reality show but she is as, as conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (also citing Couric's interviews) pointed out last week, 'Clearly Out of Her League.'

"Couric's well-paced interviewer's pauses --leaving Palin to hang herself --revealed a politician who is not only inexperienced but also Bush-level incurious. It was clear by the end of the CBS interviews that Palin has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone judgment about what to do in a geopolitical or economic crisis. She may be able to field dress a moose, and all power to her, but as The Economist has observed, 'the moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience.' "

And because someone had to do it: an analysis of Palin's "Fargo" accent.

You'll also be thrilled to hear that a Chicago tavern has displayed a nude painting of Palin. I don't think Joe Biden has this problem.

An LAT blog goes with an Internet rumor that Joe Biden might drop out, and then be replaced by Hillary. Right. I thought we were done with Hillary scenarios.

I disclosed in Monday's Media Notes that the McCain team had barred NYT columnist Maureen Dowd from its campaign plane. MoDo elaborates to reporter Tim McNulty:

"I had had a great relationship with John McCain for 16 years, through columns he liked and didn't like. So at first I thought it was a mistake and doublechecked with the press office. They said I was banned from both planes for 'the foreseeable future.' Then [McCain spokeswoman] Nicolle Wallace was gloating about it to reporters on the Palin plane.

"It was disappointing because I didn't think John McCain would ever be as dismissive of the First Amendment as Dick Cheney."

Big Apple voters may still be able to kick Mike Bloomberg around if his plan to throw out the city's term limits succeeds, the New York Post reports:

"Mayor Bloomberg plans to announce tomorrow that he'll seek to change the city's term-limits law so he can run for a third term and steer the Big Apple through the fiscal crisis."

"After months of speculation about his political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday morning that he will seek a third term as mayor, according to three people who have been told of his plans."

Even Rudy, after 9/11, failed to get his term extended.

It was hard to miss in the New York Times Book Review piece on Bob Woodward's "The War Within." The paper's managing editor, Jill Abramson, turned to her own paper's shortcomings during the runup to the Iraq war. Which drew the attention of the New Republic's Gabriel Sherman:

"Abramson trains her critic's eye back on herself and reflects on the Times's controversial pre-war coverage of Saddam Hussein's W.M.D program. She writes:

" In 'Plan of Attack' Woodward acknowledges an error of his own: he admits he should have pushed The Washington Post to publish a front-page article about the flimsiness of the intelligence on W.M.D. I was Washington bureau chief for The Times while this was happening, and I failed to push hard enough for an almost identical, skeptical article, written by James Risen. This was a period when there were too many credulous accounts of the administration's claims about Iraq's W.M.D. (including some published in The Times and The Post).

"I found this fascinating. In the way that Abramson notes that Woodward's personal evolution as a reporter infuses another layer of intrigue to the arc of his Bush books, Abramson's review offers a candid rebuke of a period of difficult history in the Times's Washington bureau, when the flurry of Judith Miller bylines channeled the Bush administration's W.M.D claims onto the front page. This was the time when Miller had titled herself 'Miss Run Amok,' and tensions boiled between Abramson's Washington bureau and then-executive editor Howell Raines.

"Abramson told me that she felt it was neccessary to discuss the Times's reporting in her Woodward review. ''I just thought it would be disingenuous [not to], since basically I was dealing with more or less the same subject,' she said. Abramson told me that she couldn't recall why Risen's skeptical piece didn't make it immediately into the paper. 'I can't recall if it sat in the Washington queue, or the foreign queue, or what,' she said. But whatever the reason, she called the episode 'egregious.' "