"Strict conditions" and "European-style" nationalization?

Some choice quotes from today's the NYTimes on Paulson's bailout and his Democratic Rubber Stamp Congress that foolishly claimed to have included safeguards (By EDMUND L. ANDREWS):

“The consequences of a collapse of the American automobile industry would be particularly troublesome,” said Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Mr. Frank said the assistance would come with strict conditions aimed at protecting taxpayers.

Some Republican lawmakers have already objected, saying the effort would amount to throwing good money after bad. But the White House on Wednesday left the door open to a legislative compromise with Congress.

Strict conditions? Just like those "safeguards" that Barney put in place?

Continuing on:

In September, Mr. Paulson went to Congress and urgently pressed for authority to spend as much as $700 billion to unclog the nation’s financial pipelines by buying up unsellable securities from banks and other financial institutions.

But by the time Congress approved the bailout law in early October, Mr. Paulson and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, were already shifting to a strategy he had actually opposed: buying equity stakes directly in American banks, a move that was reminiscent of European-style nationalization.

European-style nationalization?

Interesting analogy, but when it comes to nationalizing industry I have some other not-so-nice guys come to mind.

I'd love to see a bipartisan coalition of the unwilling emerge from this fiasco. Maybe Senators Russ Feingold and Jim DeMint should get together for a coffee. They seem to me to be among the few clear-thinking members of Congress remaining.

Tim White