Martial law, in this context, is a fast track approach to Congress, but the question remains: are the numbers there for passage tomorrow? If the House Republicans were reluctant to vote for a bill on Monday that they read beforehand, are they going to be more willing to back another slate of legislation that is admittedly obscure? Especially when placing one's full trust and reputation on the reliability of the originators... behind close doors, away from the spotlight, with the public howling for blood.

Notwithstanding the clamor from Wall Street and the big boys from the Executive, I would say the odds of passage have diminished not improved since the beginning of the week.

One would think clandestine activities would only heighten the wariness of elected officials to stand against the public outcry.

Then again, what I know about American politics up until now could be written on the cover of a matchbook.

No, is a different reference. The speaker in question was the final speaker before the session was closed on Thursday. He was not talking about Pelosi nor the House's processes, he was talking, quite clearly, about the scare tactics used by Paulson. (How the hell does Paulson invoke Martial Law? I doubt seriously Paulson knew of such a provision. I didn't.) He described the public events Paulson claimed might flow from not acting. The representative in question was discussing the initial meetings in which Paulson did his best to scare the hell out of them.

He could not have been discussing Congressional Martial Law because 1. that was done by Pelosi and 2. that WAS enacted.

Our Congress was told the US would essentially fall into chaos if they didn't pass this bill on Monday.

Totally inappropriate.

Cheers