Our leaders "have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority."

Says David Brooks.

So they not only fail to lead, they fail to look like they are leading. Clowns on all sides.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists...

Does McCain now wish he'd taken the Obama-style low-profile approach to the bailout?

The NYT reports on yesterday's meeting at the White House, where the supposedly worked-out bailout plan broke down. Was it that John McCain came to town to show off his leadership, and he couldn't be allowed to get credit for the plan? Or was it that "once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan"?

After spending Thursday morning behind closed doors, senior lawmakers from both parties emerged shortly before 1 p.m. in the ornate painted corridors on the first floor of the Capitol to herald their agreement on the broad outlines of a deal....

But a few blocks away, a senior House Republican lawmaker was at a luncheon with reporters, saying his caucus would never go along with the deal. This Republican said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy whip, was circulating an alternative course that would rely on government-backed insurance, not taxpayer-financed purchase of mortgage assets....

House Republicans have spent days expressing their unease about a huge government intervention, which they regard as a step down the path to socialism.

And McCain "declined to take a stand."

Why did McCain arrive showily, as if he was the man to close the deal, and then not do anything? Has McCain said one word about whether he thinks now is the time to build a bulwark against socialism? And can John McCain explain why government insurance as opposed to government asset-purchasing is the key to saving us from socialism?

Unless McCain talks about some of these things, I don't see the point of his swooping onto the scene to be the leader. Was he just betting that it would look good? But why should he have counted on Democrats allowing him to look good? And, insanely, it seems that Republicans have undercut him.

Belatedly, he must realize that it would have been better to take a low profile and let his congressional colleagues steer their deal to a conclusion -- which is what Barack Obama did.

And then there's the debate. Obama will be there, winning by forfeiture, unless McCain's ultimatum -- he can't debate unless the deal is closed -- was a bluff.

"McCain — more of a gambler than Obama — could take a big risk."

"While assuring the public and the financial markets that his administration will act forcefully and swiftly to deal with the crisis, he could decide that he must oppose the bailout as the panicked product of a discredited administration, an irresponsible Congress, and a feckless financial establishment, all of which got us into this fine mess."

William Kristol, stirring things up.

Read the whole thing. Who do you think was calling him on the telephone in paragraph 1?

A friend serving in the Bush administration called Sunday to try to talk me out of my doubts about the $700 billion financial bailout the administration was asking Congress to approve.

Paulson?

On the left-side column on the same page of the NYT, we have Paul Krugman, also sounding the alarm about the bailout, and Krugman has name "Paulson" 8 times. How many times does "Paulson" appear in Kristol's column? Zero!

The conclusion is obvious: Paulson was the friend of the phone, personally begging Kristol to support the plan, and he didn't. Shouldn't we be very worried?