Then again, it’s a giveaway to teh evil corporations, so I’m clearly some sort of non-sentient shill. But the alternative is being complicit with murder, so hello persistent vegetative state.

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Harry Reid is so hardcore that even releasing accused terrorists so they could be moved is not acceptable. In transit they won’t be in prison, so that counts as released.

I guess.

Claire McCaskill claims she uses it to “drive thought and discussion.” I dare you to reconcile that with what’s there right now. There are comments about her schedule, personal comments, and approximately four comments that you could claim drive discussion. One of them is a one word comment on Specter (“Wow”) and another is a generic statement of support for Kathleen Sebelius. So I see two defensible comments. Out of twenty.

McCaskill also claim it’s a way of staying “connected.” That’s dubious and has a significant downside: her followers are more connected to her. Personally connected, given the contents of her feed. That makes them less objective when it comes to evaluating her job performance, which means she can get away with more. Maybe it’s a small effect, but being connected isn’t necessarily a plus for rational evaluation.

I don’t really care if members of Congress want to use Twitter. I have a (seldom used) Twitter account. It’s amusing. But let’s not pretend it’s a useful source of information from politicians or political commentators.

Glenn Greenwald has some thoughts. They’re mostly good points, though I must note that saying “it is mystifying why [Democrats] would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views” and “Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics” is a little odd. I think the latter explains the former. Those who switch parties do drift in that direction (Jeffords being a good example). So given that Specter does seem fairly principle-free, I think Democrats can reasonably expect Specter to become relatively solid Democratic vote in the future. He won’t be the next Ted Kennedy, but he probably won’t be the next Ben Nelson, either. Though that’s unfair to Nelson, who seems to have some principles. Evan Bayh, maybe?

You have my word.

Sirota’s progressive populist victory was apparently very short-lived. It’s almost like it wasn’t progressive, populist, or a victory.

Hopefully this bill will help us limp through the current crisis and start to get things back on track. It may not, but it seems like a necessary step.

The really important part of all this is still to come. That’s what new regulations will be enacted to keep this from happening again. That’s the real battle and far more important than the bailout.

First off, let’s clear up what I meant in my first post:

“Pseudo” populism? I think a lot of opponents to the bill are real and genuine populists. Whether they’re right is moot, but I don’t think someone like Michael Moore, say, is faking his politics.

I was using pseudo more like someone would say pseudo-intellectual. I don’t think people are faking their outrage. I think their outrage is driving them to conclusions that are absurd. When you oppose the bailout because you don’t want to bail out those on Wall Street, it’s not a victory for populist politics. It’s a victory for irrational mob outrage. I’ll say it again: the fat cats on Wall Street are going to be fine. Maybe they have to give up a yacht and they may whine, but they’ll be fine. A small business owner who can’t get a loan to get through a rough patch? He and his employees aren’t going to be fine.

That’s if you’re ok with doing nothing. The other side of this is if you’re holding out for a better bill. I still say that’s fantasy. Republicans and blue dog Democrats didn’t vote against this bill because they wanted a more progressive bill. It wasn’t voted down by progressives, but conservatives. We’ve all seen the pattern of the last two years with progressive legislation: it passes the House, then dies in the Senate. If it makes it past the Senate, Bush vetoes it. That’s the fate of significantly more progressive legislation. We aren’t going to get conservatives on board with a more progressive bill, as much as we’d all like that.

The other thing in Jay’s post is a quote from Chris Bowers saying the bill failed because supporters failed to convince non-supporters. You can take that two ways. Whenever a bill fails, it’s trivially true that proponents failed to convince opponents. That’s sort of inherent in something failing. Bowers is using it to excuse opponents of blame for the bill’s failure. The second way you can take that is simply wrong on the merits. Nate at 538 has a good analysis of this. Swing state Congressman voted overwhelmingly against the bill. Outgoing Congressmen voted overwhelming for it. The rest were split. As in, it wasn’t arguments that convinced them, it was their electoral prospects. Those who had nothing to lose and should be the most open to argument voted for the bill. Those who had to deal with irrational mob outrage voted against it. This is why the bill will probably pass on the next go round. The bill is not unpopular; the polls were all over the place, depending on wording of the questions. The consequences of doing nothing are becoming more apparent and the outrage generated by people like Lou Dobbs will subside. Jay says he’s never seen a coalition like this, one that spans ideologies and parties. That’s correct. Guess what common interest those people have? Staying in power. That’s the key here.

To be clear, I don’t mean to belittle anyone who disagrees with the bailout. I have my opinion, you have yours, none of us are certain. What I am pretty sure of is that basing your opposition on populist outrage and a fantasy about what kind of bill Congress can pass is wrong.

I haven’t really figured out why Pelosi is pushing this, either. Does her district have a large Armenian population? I suppose it could be a roundabout way to restrict the war in Iraq, but that seems colossally stupid and irresponsible.

I suppose this will trigger lots of entertaining hate mail for him. Assuming people pay attention to the Secular Coalition, that is.

UPDATE: Is it odd that I seem to be less enthusiastic about this than Colby? Perhaps I should be less negative.