First, nice work Pete.  CG&G readers haven't seen everything Pete's done this week and weekend to stay up-to-date on what's been happening on Paulson-Frank-Dodd (Or is it Paulson-Dodd-Frank?), but I doubt that many other people outside those in the room knew as much as soon as Pete did.

Now, about the plan...

One of the things I've learned over the years is that, while there's nothing wrong with having an opinion about something, there are times that you have to allow those who know, or should know, more than you to make the decision.  That's what we call leadership.  Even in the blogosphere world of alpha males and females, where everyone purports to be an expert on everything, there are times that you need to let others take the lead.

For me, this is one of those cases.  I am willing to bow to Paulson, Dodd, Frank, and Bernanke, etc. because I am assume they know a great deal more than me on this situation.  It's not weak to admit that; it's called delegation.

Actually, more than any of the people above, what gives me the most comfort on this is that Tim Geithner, the president of the New York Fed, is also on board, both with the notion that something is necessary and with the plan that has emerged from the negotiations.  I have enormous respect for Geithner and without hisdeep involvement I would beexperiencing extreme agita.

This is anything but foolproof.  I remember telling my Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) not that long ago that I assumed that George W. Bush had access to better information that I did about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  My willingness to believe anything he or his administration was saying, doing, or proposing ended when it became abundantly clear that he was wrong, or lying, about that.

And that's my point: leadership implies accountability.  Paulson, Bernanke, Frank, Dodd, Geithner, and whoever else steps up to claim paternity or maternity on this plan need to know that I'm going to hold them responsible for it working.  I don't want to hear that it was implemented differently than it was written or some other such "the-dog-ate-my-homework" excuse.  My take will be that they should have anticipated any such problems and been as intimately involved with the implementation as they were with the formulation.  In other words, they should have known that the dog was hungry and in the room.

Paulson will be the hardest to hold responsible because he'll be out of office in four months (I almost think the next president should reappoint him just so that he has to take full responsibility for this).  But he and the others will all be around in some capacity and I vow, and hope others will as well, to give them the credit or blame they deserve no matter where they are and what they are doing.

A few other points:

1.  I doubt this will be the last thing the federal government needs to do on this subject and no one should be surprised when, in spite of Paulson-Frank-Dodd, other financial and economic shoes drop in the coming months and more rescues and bailouts are needed.That won't detract from the value of this plan, which doesn't purport to fix everything immediately.

2.  The Republican congressional participation in the drafting effort for this legislation requires that they share the accountability.  Pete tells me that it's not clear how many House GOP members will end up voting for the bill.  But it sure looks as if there will be some, and that a majoity of Republican senators may vote for it as well.  Add the participation of the GOP House leadership in the negotiations that led to a final bill and the Republican administration's efforts to get it passed, and there's no doubt in my mind that both parties should be held responsible for it working or not working.

3.  As I've said before, getting this legislation negotiated, drafted, and debated in two weeks is an extraordinary achievement.