Nancy Pelosi is Second not Third in Line for the Presidency

My wife Tina called my attention to a funnily annoying meme last night:  commentators on MSNBC keep saying that Nancy Pelosi (as Speaker of the House) is "third in line for the Presidency".  I just heard Stephanie Ruhle and Malcolm Nance say that.

But, actually, the Speaker of the House is second not third in line.  The President is not first in line - he's already there (unfortunately) in the White House.  The first in line to succeed him is the VP.  And the Speaker of House is second in line.

Look at it this way: if you're waiting in line to see a concert, the person who is lucky enough to be first in line is not yet seated or even in the theater.   If the line has been moving, everyone who was first in line who entered the theater is no longer on line.  (They could be online, reading their email or tweeting, but that's something else.)

Ruhle and Nance and everyone who has been getting this wrong could benefit from Bertrand Russell's theory of logical types.  If you're counting all the clothespins in a bag, you don't count the bag, too.   I realized a while ago that even people who pick up the trash understand this.  You empty the garbage pail, but don't take the pail away with the garbage.   The pail itself is not garbage.

Regarding the President, whoever is in that office is not on any line of succession.  That's because the person in that Oval Office has already assumed that office.   It's even incorrect to say that Nancy Pelosi is third in command.   The responsibilities of government don't work that way.   In many ways, the Speaker of the House is far more powerful than the Vice President.

But she does stand behind the Vice President in one very significant regard.  She's second in line to succeed the President, behind the VP who is first in line.

McCain Will Be the Bigest Loser in the Bailout Failure

McCain rode in on a white horse last week, put his campaign on hold, asked to delay the Presidential debate, and accomplished ... bupkis.

The bailout failed to pass the House. Introduced by the Republican administration, supported and improved by Democrats in the House and Senate and Republicans in the Senate, supported by Obama and McCain (who unilaterally suspended his campaign last week to "help" with the bailout's passage) - but ultimately defeated by Republicans in the House, who said they were offended by Nancy Pelosi's partisan speech earlier today.

What impact will this have on the Presidential election?

The Republican explanation for why they didn't vote is laughable. As Democratic Representative Barney Frank said, are we to believe that these Republicans sacrificed the good of nation because Pelosi hurt their feelings? Once again, Republicans show contempt for the common sense of the American people. (I'd have a little more respect for the Republicans who voted against the bailout if they explained their ideological objections, rather than blaming Pelosi.)

But I think McCain will be the biggest loser in this - so much so that, who knows, as my wife suggested, maybe Nancy Pelosi deliberately tried to rile up some Republicans so the bailout would be defeated .... She was only kidding about that (I think). But what's not a laughing matter is McCain looking ineffectual, floundering, having ridden into town to save the day and not getting enough of his Republican party members to save it. Clearly the House Republicans like neither Bush nor McCain. It's good to know I at least have that in common with them.

As for the country, the election of Obama will be the best thing that could happen to it. Not that he has all the answers - no one does - but he and the Democrats appeal to a sense of reason, of dedication to doing the right thing for the country, that the Republicans seemed to lack today in the House of Representatives.

I hope, for the good of the country, that some kind of legislation is passed in the next week to help with this crisis. I therefore hope that no Republicans who may be voting on whatever new bill comes along read this - I wouldn't want them to get angry.

Posting Financial Bailout Bill Online Big Step for Democracy

I just saw House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discuss some of the details of the Wall Street bailout bill - the one that most people think Senate and House Democrats and Senate Republicans will approve, but some House Republicans may not - and announce that the bill is available for everyone's scrutiny, the American people and well as elected Representatives and Senators, on the Web.

I want to take a moment to record the importance of posting this legislation on the Web. Regardless of what we may think of the bill - I think it's necessary to help the American people, to keep unemployment from burgeoning, etc - we are certainly taking a very significant step in democracy when such important, controversial, urgent legislation is so swiftly placed online for lawmakers and everyone else to see. (Bills are of course posted online all the time - but not with this speed, as they are almost literally being voted upon.)

Democracy has been intimately tied to modes of communication and dissemination of information ever since ancient Athens, and the view of its leaders that the best size for a direct democracy was no larger than the number of people who could gather in a stadium and hear a speaker, and each other speak. Our representative democracy in America was clearly created with newspapers as a bedrock - the reason that Jefferson thought a First Amendment and freedom of the press was so crucial.

Ever since the 1980s and the dawn of online communication, I and other media theorists have been urging that the Internet play a more crucial role in our democratic process. (See my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution and Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium.) Someday, we may well decide to have more of our decisions - such as this very bailout legislation - voted up or down by the people, via computer, not our representatives.

But in the meantime, the immediate putting of important legislation online for everyone to see is a big step in the right direction. The financial crisis is not good for America. But the placement of legislation that seeks to provide a remedy online for all to see certainly is.

PS - The bill is at financialservices.house.gov - but you may have trouble getting on the website to see it, since the site is being flooded with viewers. Whether in-person or online, congestion is always a problem.