Monica Crowley

Washington, We Have a Problem

What we have seen over the past few days is breathtaking in its range and scope. I refer to the utter and complete failure of leadership in this country.

In the whirlwind the financial crisis has wrought, there has been a complete and total collapse of leadership. It's everybody. Across the board. Comprehensive. Leave no politician behind. It's everybody.

The president. His administration. The Democrats in Congress. The Republican leadership caving in. The presidential candidates, who look totally irrelevant in all of this.

Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman. Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan. None of these men would have let a crisis like this spiral while they sputtered and became paralyzed.

They weren't wusses. They were men. They were leaders. They didn't run and hide in the Congressional cloakroom when a tough vote came up. They didn't contemplate their navels or say a bunch of nothing. They didn't spew a bunch of gobbledegook and hope people thought it made sense.

They were leaders. And they led, with vision and testicular fortitude.

Where are our leaders today? Running for the hills, tails up, like antelope.

There is no authority. Isn't it amazing? We've got layer after layer of government: federal, state, and local. We're smothered in bureaucracy, rules, and taxes. We've got authority figures everywhere we turn, and yet, no authority.

With one exception: the House Republicans, who had the guts to stand up to the socialist behemoth of a package and say "no." Not this time. Not now. Their point-men in their leadership succumbed to the charms of Nancy Pelosi, but they did not. They stood with the people. They are the guardians of the people's money.

They have become the new, bright, shining lights of the conservative movement: Congressmen Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Ted Poe, Thaddeus McCotter, and others. Watch them and support them. Because right now, they are the only ones saying "the fix is not in," and they are the only ones defending you and your hard-earned money.

Necessary Roughness

Today, a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats killed the mammoth $700 billion Wall Street bailout package in the House of Representatives. The bill died its quick death because the American people hate it, by a margin of 2:1.

The market responded twice: once at the opening bell, when a vote was anticipated (it fell about 300 points) and then again, after the bill collapsed, closing down 777 points.

The meltdown continues. The original bill was bad: way too much government intervention with too few guarantees for the folks ponying up the dough (the taxpayer.) So the death of the bill was proper and correct, but even correct paths have unintended consequences. The total market loss today was $1.1 trillion, $400 billion MORE than what the bailout would have theoretically cost. And since the Democrats need only a handful of votes to get another version passed, the next bill may be worse than this one. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democratic leadership are already making noises about loading up the next version with all kinds of liberal goodies in order to secure the votes of more left-wing members, who voted against this bill because they didn't think it went far enough. (Hello, Dennis Kucinich!)

So, while this bill should have met a timely death, I worry that this might be a case of "be careful what you wish for." We need some federal action. We can't sustain more days like the one we saw today in the market, and we can't have the credit markets seizing up even further. But while this so-called "cure" was going to be worse than the disease, the next so-called "cure" may be even worse.

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT!

The Monica Crowley Show is launching in weekday syndication, starting tomorrow! On Monday, September 29, 2008, we will begin broadcasting live Monday through Friday from 3pm to 6pm ET. You will now be able to get your MonicaMania 6 days a week! Please call your local radio stations and demand that they carry my new show. The weekday show is going to have the same brilliant analysis and giant laughs that we have on the weekend. I hope you'll join me for the ride. And as always, thank you for your wonderful support. I'm grateful for it always.

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us this weekend for The McLaughlin Group. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.mclaughlin.com for more information.

Debating Point

Tonight's first presidential debate put one point in bold relief:

This race is between a talker and a doer.

The question for voters is: do you want an eloquent BS artist, or a sometimes gruff, action-oriented leader?

More this weekend on the radio show.

Brother, Can You Spare A Vote?

The begging is really unattractive.

The scene yesterday: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson falling to one knee to beg House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to get the House to approve the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. So desperate. Man up, Hank.

One problem: if Pelosi wanted to get the package through, she could do it in the blink of an eye. The Democrats are the MAJORITY. And yet, she and Barney Frank and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are screaming about how "impossible" the Republicans are being in opposing this behemoth bill.

But remember: Pelosi has 230 plus votes. Girlfriend can pass whatever she wants, and often does, from opposing the Iraq war by underfunding it to last week's sham drilling bill. Her party is the MAJORITY. She and Hoyer cry out for the need for Republican votes on the bailout, when in fact, they need none.

So why all of the drama?

Because the Democrats need cover. They are so eager to fork over $700 billion of YOUR money to...whom? Wall Street. Bankers. Plutocrats. They are so quick to pass off your money to these villains that they need the Republicans to go along so they can ALL get the blame if it goes south.

The Democrats, who get more money from Wall Street these days than the Republicans do, are supposed to be the party of "the common man?" "The average Joe?" Sure.

The latest is that Pelosi now threatens to ram through the bill, to which the House Republicans say, "Be our guest." The vast majority of Americans oppose this package as currently constituted: it's way too much government intervention for them, with too few guarantees that they'll get their money back. The Republicans know this, and it dovetails with their basic philosophy of limited government and fiscal discipline.

Voila! Huge victory for the Republicans, and for John McCain. Suddenly, the Democrats are working with President Bush (whom they still loathe and deride) and his administration (which they've called "incompetent" for years. Is it still incompetent? The Dems suddenly think the administration is wise and swell.)

The Republicans are now marching with the average American while the Democrats have thrown in with Wall Street.

And now McCain---who has completely eclipsed the feckless Barack Obama on this----can say that reform, transparency, accountability, caution, humility, and taxpayer protections will be the order of a McCain administration.

Those things have always been true for McCain, and they are truer still.

Deal Or No Deal?

The old maverick---the John McCain so many liberals claimed to have always liked and miss oh-so-terribly---is now back. McCain is a gambler. It is his pattern. The young flyboy who took chances---some ending in heroic success, some ending in fiery crashes----has returned. (Still waiting for the libs to re-embrace the maverick with open arms.) He threw the dice with the surge. He won. He threw the dice by sticking out his presidential campaign. He won. He threw the dice with Governor Palin. He won.

And now he throws the dice over the behemoth known as the financial bailout package.

With his move yesterday to suspend his campaign, call for a postponement of Friday night's debate, and return dramatically to Washington, McCain upended this campaign---once again----in ways his younger but far more tentative opponent could never do. In one fell swoop, McCain pulled the rug out from Obama, stopped his momentum on economic issues, reframed the economic debate, and took control of the negotiations, even from the president.

While McCain was doing that, Obama was washing up.

Senator Deer in the Headlights is doing what he does best: gassing around about an issue in an obtuse and ambiguous way, not saying much of anything at all, while contemplating his navel.

This gets right to the heart of Obama's problem. By huge majorities, voters believe Obama is a "talker." An eloquent and gifted talker, but a talker. They also believe McCain is a "doer." Sometimes a clumsy doer, but a true hands-on, pedal-to-the-metal doer.

While Obama issues more cotton candy spin about dealing with the economy head-on, McCain is actually doing it. The fate of this bill rests with McCain, and he knows it. He's the only one who can deliver the Republicans, and he's the only one who can deliver the administration. He's running against Bush, so it's in his interest to be seen opposing the president on this. He's also running against Obama, who holds no cards, and who looked like a kid at the grown-ups' table during today's meeting at the White House.

Will it be deal, or no deal? McCain is running the show. How will he deal with conservatives? How will he deal with the Democrats? How will he deal with the president? The timetable is his.

The flyboy is back. His flight is perilous. But with high risk, comes great reward.

Back To Their Day Jobs

In a dramatic move, John McCain announced that he will unilaterally suspend his campaign tomorrow morning to return to Washington to work on bipartisan efforts on the economic bailout. He also requested a postponement of the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday night.

For all of those phonies in the media who claimed to have liked and admired McCain before this campaign and who wondered aloud where the "old McCain" went, well: here he is! The maverick they all claimed to have once admired is back on the scene, and this time, he's brought ammo.

The nation's financial crisis continues, even as all sides dither about what measures---if any---might be best to resolve it. Is the proposed $700 billion package necessary? Sufficient? Does it provide enough oversight? And by whom? And how can anyone put a price tag on any of this when nobody knows what the toxic assets are worth? Republicans argue the package goes too far; Democrats argue it doesn't go far enough. The President is set to make a primetime address about it tonight.

Deck chairs are being rearranged on the Titanic.

And then, true to his "off the reservation" persona, in rides McCain, doing what he has always done: putting the country first. He did it when he backed the surge of forces in Iraq, saying he'd rather lose an election than have his country lose a war. He did it when he refused early release from POW hell in Hanoi. And he's doing it now, by suspending his campaign in order to take the lead in resolving the financial storm.

McCain's ingenious move forces Obama to put his money where his mouth is: for all of his talk about wanting to work across the aisle (which he has almost never done) and foster a new spirit of bipartisanship (also which he has almost never done), will he engage in bipartisanship now? Will he put the country first, or will he continue to campaign for himself?

McCain is going back to DC to do his day job: take up his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator and exercise leadership on these urgent economic issues. The question is: will Obama---who has spent the last two years of four years in the Senate running for president---put down his own ambitions for a few days to serve the greater good?

We know what his past suggests. Will his immediate choice be any different?

His Own Worst Enemies

Pity Barack Obama. Sure, he's got a bit of momentum on economic issues, and sure, the polls are see-sawing back and forth, at times putting him slightly ahead of John McCain.

But two people who are supposed to be his biggest cheerleaders are dissing him. Big time. In public.

First, our 42nd president---and national treasure---Bill Clinton alighted on the set of "The View" yesterday. Perhaps overwhelmed by Joy Behar's magnetic personality, Clinton dropped all defenses. He spoke of Hillary "not really" wanting to be Obama's vice president anyway. "I think that [Obama] felt more comfortable with another choice, and you have to respect that," he said. Does it dawn on our Chief Egomaniac that the reason Obama "felt more comfortable with another choice" was because of HIM? But I digress.

Then Clinton proceeded to wax poetic---for almost four minutes! An eternity in television!---about the virtues of John McCain. He refused to utter a single critical word. In fact, he sung McCain's praises as a hero, a patriot, and a bipartisan savior of sorts. And just as interestingly, Clinton refrained from uttering a ringing endorsement of Obama. I'm for him, he said, "because I'm a loyal Democrat." And only because he's a "loyal Democrat."

That's it? Yup! If Obama is really expecting more from the Skinny Santa, then he's out to lunch.

Then there was Obama's vice presidential pick, Joe "Hillary would have been a better choice" Biden. This is a man who is supposed to be Obama's most loyal soldier, the guy taking on the flak, throwing the javelins, and defending the ticket to the death.

So what does he tell Katie Couric? That the Obama team's decision to produce an ad making fun of McCain's lack of computer skills was "terrible." Biden, like everybody else, got word after the ad aired that McCain can't use a keyboard because of injuries related to his torture as a POW. Whoops! Biden shook his head in sorrow that the ad had been produced and aired by his campaign. It was only later, when Team Obama flipped out over his comments, did Biden try to say that he'd never actually seen the ad. Sure.

Obama had to clean up another Biden mess when his VP announced last week that he was opposed to the bailout of AIG. Obama had to rein him in, stating, "Joe should have waited" on that one.

Mouth before brain. That's Joe Biden. Can't wait for the VP debate with Sarah Palin.

With friends like these, Obama doesn't need the Republicans. It makes you wonder if the people who are supposed to be the most fiercely devoted to Obama think he should win at all.

Where "Credit" is Due

Donald Rumsfeld.  Paul O'Neill.  Michael Brown.  Harriet Miers.  Alberto Gonzales.  John Ashcroft...

The list of Bush appointees who have come under withering criticism--some justifiably, others not---is long. The President has taken a battering over their--and by direct extension, his---perceived mismanagement of their respective jurisdictions.

But what the President's critics never do is give him credit when one of his appointees performs extremely well in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Exhibit A: General David Petraeus, who was castigated by the far left until his astonishing success in turning Iraq around could no longer be refuted.

Exhibits B and C: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Over the past few months, as the financial system began to melt down, Paulson was ahead of the curve, managing the bailout of Bear, Stearns effectively. Then came the implosions of quasi-governmental mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Paulson successfully saw us toward a resolution (albeit an incredibly expensive one) of that mess. Last week came the biggest bankruptcy in American history, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, about which Paulson exercised the government's discretion NOT to intervene.  His lead in the $85 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG is getting widespread positive reactions, as is his major contribution to the plan to have the government absorb banks' toxic assets to get credit and lending flowing again. And throughout the crises, Bernanke kept the markets as reassured as possible, the money supply controlled, interest rates stable, and inflation in check.

Paulson's and Bernanke's steady hands are winning rave reviews. And yet, nary a peep of credit to the President for choosing them and deferring to their expertise in this financial storm.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' idea of financial leadership is Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, Chairmen of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees. Where were they when the you-know-what started hitting the fan?  Dodd was busy getting sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide (also up to its eyeballs in the subprime corruption) and Frank was busy stonewalling reform of Fannie and Freddie while rolling in their contributions (Dodd too).

And remember the guy Democrats used to consider a "god" of finance?  Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin?  He got a ton of credit for presiding over a prosperous economy during the nineties, but then he returned to head CitiGroup, and stumbled. His third act?  He's now a leading economic adviser to Obama. Lucky Barack. 

The Democrats have relentlessly attacked Bush's past lieutenants, but their own so-called "leaders" in this area have failed miserably.

Furthermore, Democrats are rejoicing that all of this government intervention is a repudiation of the conservative approach of laissez-faire and deregulation. They should be reminded that the mess began with the liberal idea of making homeownership available to everyone, even those (especially those) who couldn't afford it. This was the brainchild of the Clinton administration, championed by guys like Rubin.  Social engineering of that part of the economy put us on the path to disaster.

Meanwhile, there were a few actual leaders who were raising the warnings about the mortgage mess and the contagion it was unleashing. One of them, John McCain, had the vision and the judgment to blow the whistle. (Isn't this exactly the kind of "vision and judgment" for which Barack Obama is exalted for his early opposition to Iraq?)  McCain was screaming into the wind, while Democrats like Obama ignored him in favor of slurping at the trough. (You can feed a pig contributions from Fannie and Freddie, but it's still a pig.)

Paulson, Bernanke, and McCain:  two Bush appointments, and one seeking to succeed him. They have shown what real leadership is--not when it's been easy, when times are good, but in challenging times, when it's been difficult.

They deserve "credit," and so does the President.