Republicans Literally Want To Push Obama Into A War… So They Can Blame Him For The Inevitable Consequences

Drunken Speaker to ravenous GOP funders: "Somebody's boots have to be on the ground"

Call me crazy but I didn't get the idea Obama was all that enthusiastic about jumping into another amorphous Middle East war, especially with traditional allies England, Germany and Turkey all saying "good luck but we'll sit this one out, if you don't mind." The Times responded to Obama's speech very differently from the way the congressional warmongers did by pointing out that "as President Obama prepares to send the United States on what could be a yearslong military campaign against the militant group, American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East."

The response from Congress has been less about rational deliberation and more about ugly partisan calculations. And it's not just knee-jerk bloodlust sociopaths like McCain and Lindsay Graham. Of course they want war… they always want war-- anywhere and everywhere. They're both mentally unbalanced.

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”

“It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems-- all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.

Mr. Obama has spent years urging caution about the perils of wading into the Syrian civil war, a position that has led critics to argue that his inaction has contributed to the death and chaos there. Now, he faces criticism that he has become caught up in a rush to war with no clear vision for how the fighting will end.

In his speech Wednesday night, the president acknowledged that intelligence agencies have not detected any specific plots aimed at the United States. ISIS is a regional threat, he said, but if the group is left unchecked it could ultimately directly threaten the country.

…Kenneth Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Brookings Institution who rose to prominence in 2002 for advocating the toppling of Saddam Hussein and later expressing regret for that position, said in a July interview that he had deep reservations about sending the American military back to the volatile region for fear of “opening Pandora’s box.”

Now, some of Mr. Pollack’s concerns appear to have taken a back seat to his alarm over ISIS and the destabilizing impact of Syria’s civil war. In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pollack wrote, “the rationale for more decisive U.S. intervention is gaining ground.”

Its a stretch to call CIA agent Ken Pollack "an analyst" or assert that his CIA ties are somehow "former." That said, Paul Waldman at the Washington Post reviewed the evidence that many of the worst Republicans in Congress are relentlessly pushing for war again. And it went considerably beyond McCain's embarrassing senior moment on TV when he started shrieking at Jay Carney or what sounds increasingly like Ted Cruz advocating we just nuke everyone-- even if brilliant GOP foreign policy strategist, McCain's handpicked candidate for vice-president, agrees.

Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: “War is hell. So go big or go home, Mr. President. Big means bold, confident, wise assurance from a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief that it shall all be worth it. Charge in, strike hard, get out. Win.” Which is about the “strategy” you’d get for defeating ISIS if you asked a third-grader.

The only one who was clear on what they would do instead, oddly enough, was Dick Cheney. He pronounced Obama’s strategy insufficient in a speech bordering on the insane, in which he essentially advocated waging war in every corner of the earth.

At least we know where he stands. But other Republican critics have to get more specific if they’re going to present a credible case against the President’s plan. You can claim that Obama should never have ended George W. Bush’s war, but what is it that they support doing now? If they believe we have to re-invade Iraq with a force of tens or hundreds of thousands of American troops, they ought to say so. If that’s not what they support, then what is it? The hints we’ve gotten sound a lot like, “Pretty much exactly what Obama is proposing, just, you know, more.” He’s using air power, so more air power. He’s saying we’ll be bombing not just in Iraq but in Syria, so they want that, but more. He says we’ll be training and supporting Syrian rebel groups to act as a counterweight to ISIS, which Republicans like, but they want more.

…In this context, if you look carefully at what Obama said last night, you can see that he was trying to put this conflict in a more sober context. There was no talk of “existential threats,” or American cities engulfed in flames. He spoke about both the danger, and the action we’ll be taking, in limited terms. After September 11, George W. Bush ramped up the fear we were supposed to feel and promised a grand victory. Obama is doing neither.

That in itself no doubt infuriates many Republicans. But if what they’re after is a full-scale war, they ought to have the courage to say so.

And don't forget, spending more on the Military Industrial Complex means more cash flowing towards slimy conservative warmongers in Congress-- more profits = bigger campaign contributions and bigger bribes, legalistic or not. And more money spent on war means less money spent on programs and policies that promote any degree of economic equality, anathema to all Republicans and their financiers. Progressives are, impotently, demanding a vote before any substantial monies are spent on war. Warmongers-- on both sides of the aisle-- are adamantly opposed. Greg Sargent is already hoping maybe we can get a vote after the midterms, which circumvents democracy entirely. Establishment leaders from both parties have figured out a way to muddle through this without a real war vote before the midterms, completely circumventing basic democracy. The Boehner/Hoyer scheme is to sneak a vote to authorize arming so called "moderate" Syrian rebels into the CR that keeps the government from shutting down on October 1. Brad Sherman (D-CA): "We're likely to end up with the sneakiest of maneuvers. We'll pass that package. The president will claim that since we funded and authorized the training of Syrian dissidents, we voted for his entire plan… Members of Congress can say they had no choice but to vote for the Syrian provision but didn't actually like it, never voted for it, they just voted to keep the national parks open." Take a look at this stream of tweets from Fox News DC Bureau Chief Chad Pergram:

House Foreign Affairs Committee-- Another Leadership Battle

Sherman (with the tefillin) & Engel (with the flag) may also be pro-American

Sherman beat Berman-- and he beat him convincingly (mostly, no doubt, because most of the new district had been part of Sherman's old district. The San Fernando Valley district gave Sherman 111,914 votes (61%) and gave the more senior Berman 72,979 (39%). The two congressmen were so-so garden variety moderates. Neither joined the Progressive Caucus or the New Dem Coalition, but Sherman was more populist on economic issues, less a friend of Wall Street and more a Fair Trade rather than a Free Trade guy. But where the two congressmen are tweedledee and tweedledum is on Foreign Affairs. Both are Zionist AIPAC shills on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Berman was the chairman and then the ranking member. Three on the worst warmongers in the country, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, as well as a shitload of far right Republican congressman like Ed Royce, Darrell Issa, Buck McKeon, Mary Bono Mack, Dan Lungren, even dangerous psychopath Wally Herger, all endorsed Berman. That probably helped defeat him.

So now Sherman, currently the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, would like to be the ranking member of the whole committee. [The chairman of that subcommittee, racist hatemonger Ed Royce, is running for the chairman of the committee. He and Sherman don't get along well.] Sherman is up against another lockstep Likkud-oriented Zionist, Eliot Engel (NY), ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

What's odd about this Democratic leadership battle-- which will decided next week in the caucus-- is that Republicans have inserted themselves into the intraparty dispute. and the Republicans, predictably, are opposing Sherman and backing Engel. And who's leading the interference? Ed Royce, of course.

“If Sherman wins the chair and so does Royce it could make for an interesting dynamic in the committee,” a House Republican aide told The Hill, unprompted.

Royce and his office declined to comment. But in joining a majority of California's Republican congressional delegation in supporting Berman last month, he said that “in every measure of a legislator, from his command of the issues, to his effectiveness, Howard stands head and shoulders above the rest"-- an indirect jab at Sherman.

A third candidate, American Samoa Del. Eni Faleomavaega, has also announced his intention to run for the top Democratic spot.

Engel, well aware of Berman's positive reputation as a low-key champion of bipartisan compromise, has sought to portray himself as being cast from the same mold. Sherman, by contrast, is widely seen as being more abrasive.

“I have worked with Mr. Royce for a number of years on the committee. We're friends. We have reached out to each other, we've talked about the possibility of the two of us being respective leaders on the committee of our parties,” Engel told The Hill in a phone interview. “And I have no doubt that should he be the chairman of the committee, that I would work very well with him. And I think that's important, to have someone at the helm as the leading Democrat who works with people, who doesn't come with any kind of antagonisms.”

That's “one reason why I think it would be much easier and smoother for me to be the ranking member.”

Engel said he has also had a good working relationship with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who is running against Royce to take over the panel from term-limited Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Sherman, for his part, pointed out that the other party doesn't get to vote in leadership races.

“I have worked cooperatively with many Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee including Rep. Ed Royce and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,” Sherman told The Hill in a statement. “However, I am not seeking support from Republicans in my efforts to become the ranking Democratic member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”

It should be interesting to see if Democrats will allow the GOP to pick Democratic ranking members of committees now. Berman and Engel were supporters of the corporate "free" trade agenda. On October 12, 2011 only 31 Democrats went along with the horrific GOP Colombia Free Trade Agreement and 158 opposed it. Sherman was one of the Democrats fighting the bill. Berman and Engel joined Boehner, Cantor and Ryan in backing it. Berman and Engel also pushed the Panama Trade Agreement, which Sherman voted against.

Steve Israel's Success: Undermining Rob Zerban To Protect Paul Ryan's Seat

AIPAC has given the thumbs up on both the rabidly Zionist prospects to replace the defeated rabidly Zionist Howard Berman as the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY). Both backed Bush's attack on Iraq neither ever stray from the most extreme Likkud positions. Engel is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and Sherman is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. Ironically, it was Sherman who defeated Berman (60.5-39.5%) for reelection Tuesday. Foreign policy came into the debate because Sherman is a Fair Trade guy and Berman is a Free Trade corporate whore. Sherman, in fact, is generally more progressive than Berman on everything except Israel. Both-- as well as Engel (and the GOP chair of the Committee, Ilya Ros-Lehtinen) are complete pawns of the Israeli right-wing.

Next week the new Democratic caucus, which will include around 50 new members [from Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Lois Frankel (FL), Beto O'Rourke (TX), Joe Kennedy (MA), Matt Cartwright (PA), Joe Garcia (FL), Mark Pocan (WI), Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Annie Kuster (NH) and 11 new members from California alone-- Jared Huffman, Ami Bera, Eric Swalwell, Julia Brownley, Tony Cardenas, Gloria McLeod, Raul Ruiz, Mark Takano, Alan Lowenthal, Juan Vargas and Scott Peters-- to reelected former members like Alan Grayson (FL), Ann Kirkpatrick AZ), Dan Maffei (NY), Dina Titus (NV), Rick Nolan (MN), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) and Bill Foster (IL)] will meet to pick the next Congress' leadership team.

No one good is running and the big question, of course, is whether or not Nancy Pelosi will retire. The quality of the leadership team will go down regardless. Other than Nancy the House Democratic leadership team is pure dreck, as horrible and out of touch with the grassroots as the GOP leadership team. Corporate whore (and the Congressman from K Street) Steny Hoyer will be Pelosi's replacement if she steps down, #2 if she stays. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is demanding a special position be created for her that will eventually lead to the top slot and Hoyer-- not wanting to battle with her now-- has agreed. Don't expect any surprises in the decisions about committee ranking members, although it will be interesting to see how they handle the delicate matter of a replacement for Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee. (I can't imagine they'll give Fox the pleasure of announcing it's Maxine Waters but, who knows; the caucus is so utterly dysfunctional and useless than anything can happen. Except something good.) Much-liked Nita Lowey (NY) will challenge much disliked Marcy Kaptur (OH) for the Appropriations Committee ranking member slot and Richard Neal may challenge Sander Levin for the Ways and Means slot. Yawn.

As for leader of the DCCC... Steve Israel has been on a propaganda blitz since his disastrous performance Tuesday to persuade the caucus that he's earned another term as chairman. More than a dozen congressional offices-- including some way up on the top-- have asked me for a written analysis showing why Israel doesn't deserve another term. I'm waiting for the last ha;f dozen races to be called before I publish it. Meanwhile, let me just mention today a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel-- which doesn't mention Steve Israel, but indicates why he led the DCCC to ignominy rather than the great victories at the DNC/OFA (Obama landslide) and the DSCC (the Senate sweep).

We've talked for years and ad nauseum about how the DCCC has a set policy of protecting Paul Ryan's blue-leaning seat. They always give him a free pass to reelection. Emanuel did. Van Hollen did and Israel did. But Emanuel and Van Hollen are slicker than Israel; each made sure, by manipulating the primary process, that Ryan's general election challengers would be a joke. Israel forgot to do that and Ryan would up with a plausible challenger, Rob Zerban. So Israel was in the uncomfortable position of privately tearing down a person who could beat Ryan and persuading big Democratic donors to not contribute to Zerban's campaign, while publicly mouthing worthless platitudes about beating Ryan. All the usual DCCC lies were ineffective. Normally they claim grassroots progressives like Zerban can't raise any money-- while they make sure none of the regular sources give-- and that they can't support him for that reason. But Zerban raised more money-- all of it from the grassroots-- than most candidates the DCCC backed. In Wisconsin, for example, Israel got behind two candidates up against GOP backbenchers with no power, Jamie Wall who was battling Reid Ribble and Pat Kreitlow who was battling Sean Duffy. Predictably both the DCCC-backed candidates lost, Wall 55.9 to 44.1% and Kreitlow 56.1% to 43.9%. It was similar to how the Ryan Zerban results looked: 54.9 to 43.4%. But the similarities stopped there. The DCCC hampered Zerban's fundraising, telling big donors to not waste their money on him, while urging contributions to Wall and Kreitlow. In the end Wall brought in $1,016,688, Kreitlow brought in $1,176,147 and Zerban brought in $2,117,162. The DCCC and its affiliates also spend $2,205,515 on Kreitlow's race and $87,664 on Wall's race. Keeping his promise to their mutual backers on Wall Street, Israel made sure the DCCC spent nothing to oppose Ryan. If they had, Zerban would be a congressman-elect and Ryan would be looking for a job at K Street or Wall Street or at some crackpot think tank.

Wisconsin voters delivered a mixed verdict on Paul Ryan this week.

His House constituents returned him to Congress. They also voted narrowly for the Mitt Romney-Ryan ticket.

But his congressional victory margin was his smallest ever (11.5 points).

He lost his hometown of Janesville twice: by 10 points for Congress and by 25 points for vice president.

And the GOP ticket lost the battleground state of Wisconsin by 7 points in a race Republicans thought would be far closer. In Ryan's southern Wisconsin district, the Romney-Ryan ticket ran about 3 points behind Ryan the congressional candidate.

In the end, there's little in the numbers to suggest Ryan provided a meaningful home-state boost to Romney.

Ryan, expected to continue on as House budget chair, is on everybody's shortlist of potential Republican presidential candidates in 2016.

Here are some yardsticks for measuring his election performance in Wisconsin Tuesday:

Ryan in his hometown. Democratic congressional challenger Rob Zerban defeated Ryan in Janesville 55% to 44%. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden defeated the Romney-Ryan ticket in Janesville 62% to 37%. Ryan had never lost Janesville in a re-election campaign before. Of course, he had only faced token opposition in past re-election races. Janesville is also a Democratic city that gave Obama 66% of its vote in 2008.

But even in Ryan's backyard, there's not much evidence of a Ryan boost to Romney. The drop-off from the Ryan congressional vote to the Romney-Ryan presidential vote was much larger in Janesville (7.2 points) than it was in the rest of the congressional district (3 points). Put another way, there were more Ryan ticket-splitters in Janesville than other places: people who voted for Ryan for Congress but against Ryan for vice president.

Ryan's congressional district. Ryan won his previous House re-election campaigns with 63% to 68% of the vote. He got 55% this time. As noted above, he had very weak opponents in those races. Democrat Zerban was a first-time federal candidate but ended up raising more than $2 million, thanks to national interest on the left in unseating Ryan. The incumbent was still favored heavily and while he didn't actively campaign for Congress, he spent more than $5 million on his House race.

How did the Romney-Ryan ticket do with Ryan's own constituents? Presidential results aren't gathered by congressional district on election night. But when you aggregate the unofficial vote returns from the different counties, communities and wards that make up Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District, it adds up to a narrow win for Romney, 51.6% to 47.4%. (Ryan's district was just redrawn slightly; Romney would have won Ryan's old district by less). Romney's margin in Ryan's modestly Republican district is consistent with historic patterns. Romney did 5 points better in Ryan's district than he did in Wisconsin as a whole. Four years ago, Republican John McCain did 5 points better in the district than he did in Wisconsin as a whole.

So will Zerban run again in 2014? I'm betting on it. You should too. 

Brad Sherman Explains Kabuki Theater

Populist Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles seems unhappy with the way Wall Street is still dug in at the public trough.

The first act: Washington tells the American people "We understand your anger at Wall Street." In the second act we nitpick to death any proposal that actually adversely effects Wall Street. And then in the third act we bestow another trillion dollars on Wall Street under extremely favorable terms.

Watch him grilling Bernanke and Geithner at the House Financial Services Committee today:

Boehner Frets About What He Calls Republican "Knuckle-Draggers" Opposing The Bailout

The Bush Regime's Shock Doctrine strategy worked so well for them-- if not for us-- in the run up to the attack on Iraq. They figured they would use it again to get what they wanted on the way out: $700,000,000,000. Moderate Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman exposed their perfidy on the floor of the House yesterday. They threatened to use martial law if they didn't get what they want. Watch:



The House debate is in full swing now and the dramatic vote will probably come this evening after Emanuel, Hoyer, Boehner and Blunt-- between them recipients of millions of dollars in legalized bribes from the firms that caused the mess and the firms that will most benefit from the Paulson bailout/giveaway-- have worked their magic. Before we get into the magic, let's look at the real life context this debate is proceeding under (or around): today's monthly job report:

The government is out with more bad economic news this morning: The job market began to deteriorate even before the financial crisis reached a more serious stage two weeks ago.

Employers cut 159,000 jobs in September, more than twice as many as in August or July, the Labor Department reported. It was the biggest monthly decline since 2003, when the economy was still losing jobs in the wake of the 2001 recession.

Forecasters had been expecting a loss of about 100,000 jobs in September.

The new number was especially worrisome because the government conducted its survey during the week of Sept. 8, before the credit crisis took a new turn for the worse on Sept. 17.

“The U.S. consumer is in major trouble, with wage and salary income growth evaporating, credit extremely tight or unavailable, home prices continuing to decline, and food and energy costs consuming a large share of household budgets,” said Joshua Shapiro, an economist at MFR, a research firm in New York. “Whatever the government might or might not do to try to bail out the financial system, a consumer-led recession is upon us, and it promises to be a serious one.”

Obama's reaction, in light of the way he teamed up with McCain to pass the odious bailout bill Monday, rings a little hollow. “Today," he said "Americans woke up to the sad news that 159,000 jobs were lost last month alone, making September the ninth straight month of job loss. With three-quarters of a million jobs lost this year, and millions of families struggling to pay the bills and stay in their homes, this country can’t afford Senator McCain’s plan to give America four more years of the same policies that have devastated our middle-class and our economy for the last eight. Instead of Senator McCain’s plan to give tax breaks to CEOs and companies that ship jobs overseas, I will rebuild the middle-class and create millions of new jobs by investing in infrastructure and renewable energy that will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. I also call on Congress to pass an immediate rescue plan for our middle-class that will provide tax relief, save one million jobs, and save our local communities from harmful budget cuts and painful tax increases."

As for the magic we promised above, if Brad Sherman's warning about Shock and Awe being employed against members of Congress wasn't enough, this morning's Congressional Quarterly gives a little look inside the sausage factory. Boehner has picked out the Republicans he plans to press into switching votes for his cause: Charlie Dent (R-PA), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Tom Cole (R-OK), Doc Hastings (R-WA), Steve Buyer (R-IN), Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), John Mica (R-FL), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Phil English (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Tom Latham (R-IA), Steve Pearce (R-NM), Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Mike Turner (R-OH), and Rob Wittman (R-VA).

As we explained earlier, Dent's corruption and spineless nature makes him the most likely Republican to grasp the Senate's fig leaf, throw in the towel and go along with Boehner's demands. “I like the increase in the cap on deposit insurance,” he said. Yes, we all do. By all means, pass that. And then get to work and come up with a good rescue bill the addresses the people who live in the Lehigh Valley and across America. His buffoonish Pennsylvania colleague Phil English offered an even moire idiotic answer when asked by Congressional Quarterly about today's vote. "I’m not going to show my hand... But I do believe it’s essential we move something this week." And it's Friday!

Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy whip, said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the GOP presidential nominee, was continuing to make calls urging Republicans to support the bill.

“He’s been behind the scenes talking to members all week, telling them the urgency of the situation,” Cantor said.

So far Boehner says he has 5 Republican converts in the bag (Zack Wamp, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John Shadegg, Jim Ramstad and John Sullivan) and Emanuel succeeded with two Democrats Emanuel Cleaver and Shelly Berkley. Jim Clyburn, the Majority Whip, claims that "some members of the Congressional Black Caucus like the new version of the bill better than the first iteration because the Senate added an extension of property-tax breaks for non-itemizing tax filers."

Boehner continued to face tough going even with friends, such as Bob Latta, R-Ohio, who represents a neighboring district.

“If they haven’t resolved the issues I had with the bill, I think I’ve probably got to vote no,” said Latta. “I like John. This is not a referendum on John.”

Like many of the foes of the bill, Latta said most of the constituent calls to his office continued to run heavily against the measure, even through some callers had also expressed concern about the volatility in the stock market.

Iowa’s Latham, one of Boehner’s best friends, declined to say how he would vote.

“I’ve got to look at my district, and at the issues. It a tough decision,” Latham said.

Another longtime Boehner ally who remained on the fence described the conversation he had with the top Republican. “He told me he knew he would lose some of the knuckle-draggers, but when he lost me, he knew there was a big problem,” said the lawmaker, who did not want to be identified.

The bill passed 263-171 with 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans voting in favor. 108 Republicans opposed it, as did 63 Democrats. Quite a few good Democrats, like Jesse Jackson and Donna Edwards changed their votes after calls from Obama. Boehner was able to get Charlie Dent, Mean Jean Schmidt, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John Shadegg, Randy Kuhl, Tom Cole, Zach Wamp, Charles Boustany, Pete Hoekstra, Jim Gerlach, and Judy Biggert to flip.

Annette Taddeo, like many Democrats, was not satisfied that the bill would address, let alone solve, the serious problems working families are facing because of the mortgage crisis brought on my market manipulation, wholesale deregulation and shoddy, incompetent governance. Annette: “Bush Rubberstamp Ileana Ros-Lehtinen flip-flopped on the bailout bill under pressure from President Bush and special interests in Washington. We need a bill that protects homeowners and those of us on main street, not just Wall Street and special interests. Ros-Lehtinen stood by the sidelines instead of speaking up for South Florida’s homeowners and small business owners. When I get to Congress, we will have work to do to make up for the inadequacies of this bill.”


UPDATE: OBAMA ON THE RESCUE PLAN

“America is facing one of the greatest financial crises in history, and today’s passage of an emergency rescue plan was absolutely necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe that could have cost millions of jobs and forced businesses across the country into bankruptcy.

“I’m glad that Democrats and Republicans put aside their differences, came together, and took this step. I am also grateful to the House Democrats I personally spoke with who supported this rescue plan. While the Administration initially asked for a blank check to solve this problem, over the last few weeks we were able to include important taxpayer protections to prevent golden parachutes for CEOs, provide independent oversight, help struggling homeowners, and ensure that taxpayers get their money back when the economy recovers.

“Now we must ensure that this Administration uses the authority it has been given wisely and in a way that protects American taxpayers. We also must do more than this rescue package does to help homeowners stay in their homes. And while we will all hope that this rescue package succeeds, we should be prepared to take more vigorous actions in the months ahead to rebuild capital if necessary.

“This is not a moment for celebration, but a sobering day when we found out that three-quarters of a million jobs were lost just this year. Passing this rescue plan cannot be the end of our work to strengthen our economy – it must be the beginning.

“I call on Congress to pass an emergency plan for the middle-class that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. It’s a plan that should extend expiring unemployment benefits for those Americans who’ve lost their jobs and cannot find new ones.

“I will also continue to lay out the clear choice in this election between myself and Senator McCain: four more years of policies that have killed jobs and devastated our middle-class, our a change in Washington that will provide tax relief to 95% of workers and create millions of new jobs by investing in clean, renewable energy. It is time to end the era of greed and irresponsibility in Washington and on Wall Street so that we can come together and restore American prosperity from the bottom-up.”