What Bush Left Out

"Signaling a possible concession, Mr. Bush said the plan should be 'designed to protect taxpayers.' He even appeared to open the door to limits on compensation for executives of some companies, another provision many Democrats and some Republicans have demanded. Mr. Bush said there is emerging consensus that the plan 'should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars.'"

But as McKinnon notes: "Two people familiar with the situation said Mr. Bush envisions compensation restrictions only in cases where the government is helping out a failing institution." In other words, it could have almost no effect.

Andrew Leonard writes for Salon: "We didn't hear anything about slowing foreclosures or getting equity for taxpayers from Bush. The president said he understands the 'frustration of responsible Americans,' but I'm not sure he gets exactly how much anger there is in this country at what has happened not just recently, in the economy, but over the entire course of his administration. Most Americans know that the economy is in trouble, even if they don't quite grasp how close we are skittering to a major meltdown. But what makes some of us maddest is to think that the people who have benefited most from the culture of deregulation and hands-off government that are supposed to be the watchwords of the Republican Party will be the recipients of one of the greatest disbursements of government largess in history."

Putting It On the Line

Peter G. Gosselin, Richard Simon and Maura Reynolds write in the Los Angeles Times: "Putting his battered prestige on the line, Bush painted a stark picture of the country's financial condition: 'We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis. . . . Our entire economy is in danger,' he said. 'America could slip into a financial panic.' . . .

"With financial markets still jittery and credit for day-to-day economic activity apparently freezing up, Bush said he would convene a White House meeting today with leading Democrats and Republicans, including the two parties' presidential nominees, to seek agreement on a plan."

James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The White House is engaged in multiple skirmishes -- trying to fight the notion that the president has been AWOL in what it certainly hopes to be the final crisis of his tenure, while also seeking to win over a skeptical Congress and populace on a key point: that the extensive authority the legislation would grant the president's representatives and their successors is necessary."

To that end, Gerstenzang writes, Bush was sending two messages last night.

"One, to Congress and the nation, about the need to act with unprecedented alacrity on the economic bailout proposal drawn up in his name -- though his hand has been barely seen in its development.

"And a second, to the same audience, that the election 41 days away notwithstanding, the country has but one president at a time, and right now it is George W. Bush."

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "After ceding the lead role in responding to the crisis to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., Bush last night grabbed the largest megaphone available -- a prime-time White House address to the nation -- to make the case that the economy could collapse without extraordinary government intervention in the workings of the financial markets. . . .

"With the president's approval ratings as low as ever -- 26 percent in a new Fox News poll-- his credibility among Democrats virtually nonexistent and his influence minimal among Republicans in Congress, it is not at all clear that the president's exhortations will move the emerging legislative package over the finish line in the face of opposition from vocal factions in both parties.

"But Bush and his aides concluded that they needed to at least try to explain to the American people the consequence of inaction -- and the reality, in their view, that the well-being of Main Street is inextricably linked to the recovery of Wall Street.