by Jim Tankersley
One of the most important qualities in a president - and one of the hardest for voters to gauge on the campaign trail - is the ability to move key pieces of his or her agenda through Congress. As we learned in the Bill Clinton years, it's one thing to promise universal health care in a New Hampshire living room and another to gather the votes to pass it into law.
The tribulations of a power-sapped president were on full display yesterday, when a $700 billion financial bailout package that President Bush called essential for the nation's economy died in the House: "If there was any doubt that President Bush had been left politically impotent by his travails over the last few years and his lame-duck status," the New York Times' Jackie Calmes wrote in a news analysis, "it was erased on Monday when, despite his personal pleas, more than two-thirds of the Republicans in the House abandoned the plan."
Oddly enough, the failure gives both men running to replace Bush a rare pre-election chance to flex their vote-hoarding muscles.
It's simple math: Both John McCain and Barack Obama count, among their earliest and most fervant congressional supporters, at least 10 House members who opposed the bailout on Monday. These are representatives who endorsed McCain and Obama this time last year, well before the Iowa caucuses, at a time when Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were leading their respective parties' Capitol Hill endorsement races.
In other words, these are the true McCain and Obama believers in Washington. If just 12 of them change their votes - out of 22 - the bailout passes.
The endorsement list, compiled by Roll Call last October and archived on the Wayback Machine, is here. Monday's final vote on the bailout is here.
The overlapping list of "nays" and endorsers, for McCain, includes three of his home-state congressmen and a pair from Illinois (Reps. Peter Roskam and John Shimkus). Obama's includes three from his home state: Illinois Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jerry Costello.
Both candidates have endorsed the bailout, and both say they're monitoring the situation from the campaign trail - with frequent phone calls to congressional leaders and administration officials.
If they're serious about passing this bill, maybe they should dial some old friends, instead.







Comments
Barack Obama's two closest allies, in Chicago, are Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush.
They both voted no yesterday.
So much for his leadership!
Posted by: Pat H | September 30, 2008 10:59 AM
McCain announced before the vote that it would pass because of his intervention.
So much for his leadership.
Posted by: cta | September 30, 2008 11:39 AM
Obama couldn't even get the all the Democrats in Illinois to vote for the bailout. How is he going to lead?
Posted by: Ryan | September 30, 2008 11:53 AM
How much in touch is Obumble? He sent out a press release congratulating the House on their vote FOR the bailout!
Posted by: Bruce | September 30, 2008 12:24 PM
Obama and the Dems came up with more than their agreed upon number of votes. It was the Republicans who failed to do the same. This is hardly news, but why not just re-write history anyway, right?
Posted by: slag | September 30, 2008 12:32 PM
McCain couldn't get any of the Republicans in Arizona to vote for the bailout after he postponed his campaign in order to solve this crisis. How is he going to lead?
Posted by: Nick | September 30, 2008 12:32 PM
McCain couldn't even get any of the Republicans in Arizona to vote for the bailout. How is he going to lead?
How much in touch is McSame? He and his aids congratulated themselves yesterday morning for their role in House's vote FOR the bailout!
Posted by: Nick | September 30, 2008 12:37 PM
"Obama and the Dems came up with more than their agreed upon number of votes. It was the Republicans who failed to do the same. This is hardly news, but why not just re-write history anyway, right?"
*
Posted by: slag | September 30, 2008 12:32 PM
*
Actually, this only proves that Congress is made up of individual representatives who each represent their own constituency, rather than herds of politicians. It also means the so-called "leaders" do not command their votes. That's a good thing, friend. The moment the situation changes we will no longer have a representative democracy.
Posted by: John W. | September 30, 2008 2:34 PM
It also means the so-called "leaders" do not command their votes. That's a good thing, friend. The moment the situation changes we will no longer have a representative democracy.
Posted by: John W. | September 30, 2008 2:34 PM
You are absolutely right. Problem is....you only see this in October every 4 years.
Posted by: bill r. | September 30, 2008 4:55 PM