The Ball's in Your Court, Mr. Country First

(updated below)

The Bush administration's $700 billion bailout request, coming just a month before a major election, has created a high stakes game of legislative chicken. And, at least so far, it looks like the Democrats understand the contours of the game.

Yesterday, in response to the noises being made by many prominent Republicans and conservative pundits about voting against the bailout, I wrote:

It's time to call their bluff. Unless a sizable majority of the Republican caucus is willing to sign on, the Democrats should refuse to pass any sort of bail out. This is a game of chicken and there's no reason the Democrats should flinch first.

Today The Hill reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling Democrats that she will not support President Bush’s $700 billion bailout of the financial sector unless there is significant Republican support for the controversial plan.

The politics of the bailout are tricky and dangerous for both political parties, particularly since it comes weeks before the presidential and congressional elections.

As a result, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has effectively sent the message that if she is going to jump off a cliff to rescue Wall Street, she wants House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and George W. Bush holding her hands when she leaps.

Pelosi made this scenario clear at a lengthy closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Tuesday. Many of those present said they took Pelosi’s message to mean that a “majority of the minority” needs to support the bill before she will bring it to the floor.

Smart lady. I would take that one step farther, though. I would make a 'yes' vote by John McCain a condition of moving forward. Fortunately, it appears Democrats agree:

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reports: If Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, some Republican and Democratic congressional leaders tell ABC News the plan won't pass.

"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican tells ABC News.

A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no -- that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along.

So it looks like the fate of this legislation is in McCain's hands. Will it be country first, or McCain first?

As you know if you've been reading this blog regularly, I think that this crisis is very much real. I think that doing nothing is not a viable option here (or at least that if we do nothing, things will get very bad very quick). And I think John McCain believes that too. So will he do the responsible thing, or will he try to defect at the last moment and demagogue the issue. We'll see.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias questions this Democratic strategy:

May I just observe that it’s distressing to see the news reports — and even worse, the rumors and gossip in DC — that have Democratic legislative leaders putting their primary emphasis on making sure that there are enough Republican votes for a bailout package to provide adequate political cover. Not only is it a mistake to put a primary emphasis on politics rather than on the merits of the bill, but focusing on trying to make sure that the Republicans don’t stick Democrats with the blame for a bailout guarantees a bad bill. After all, when was the last time you saw conservatives clamoring to get on board with a good bill?

While there's a kernel of truth here, I think Matt is badly missing the big picture. Yes, under normal circumstance--particularly when the Democrats are working on their affirmative legislative agenda--it makes little sense to sacrifice quality for bipartisan support. But these are hardly normal times. This is an emergency bill that--no matter how well written--will be deeply unpopular and easily demagogued. And we are about a month away from one of the most monumental elections this country will ever see. It would be utterly insane for Democrats to ignore the obvious short-term political ramifications of this bill. If they pass a bailout that has no Republican support, it could instantly change the course of the election and set progressive goals back a decade. John McCain and the Republicans would demagogue the hell out of the bill and harness the intense public outrage at having been forced to bail Wall Street out of a mess of its own creation. It would be political suicide to pass this bill without significant bipartisan cover.

UPDATE II: Quiddity raises a good question in the comments:

Where does the bill start out, in the House or Senate?

If McCain defects at the last moment, wouldn't the House have to vote on the bill (and vote NO to deprive McCain an issue)?

The bill is proceeding on parallel tracks at the moment in both chambers. But this is a good point. The Democrats should have the Senate vote first. That way, if McCain defects, the House could still vote the bill down.