but if not, it could turn into the most craven framing imaginable, and that's saying a lot for the Beltway Ds [But see UPDATE 2 below. Perhaps, for once, I'm being too cynical.*] WaPo, assuming the reporters, Lori Montgomery and David Cho, aren't lying:

Democratic leaders have broadly embraced the administration's proposal to spend up to $700 billion to take troubled assets off the books of faltering firms and are not questioning the need to give the Treasury Department expansive authority to halt the meltdown in world markets. But by attempting to limit executive pay, they risk alienating key Republicans [that's the poison pill part] who object to such restrictions and delaying passage of the rescue plan, which in turn may stir renewed fear in the markets.

So, the Ds propose not to give the Bush administration a blank check... And their solution will be to write in the amount, sign it, date it, and then hand it to be Bush administration.

And then lynch a few bankers. Well done, all.

Say, where are the headlines from Obama on this?

NOTE * How I wish there was a Daily Howler for financial reporting...

UPDATE 1 Krugman in cash for trash:

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might — might — break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms — and their stockholders and executives — a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that I’m not happy with this plan?

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

But I’d urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded — if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we’ll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.

What's Krugman's problem? The Republican base gets an infusion of cash in the form of deposits and fees, with no oversight all. What's not to like, here?

UPDATE 2 I don't know if the WaPo reporters are lying, but they're sure leaving out a lot of material. I'm encouraged by what a more serious journalistic outlet, Bloomberg, has to say, because at least some Ds are talking about accountability as well:

Democrats are questioning the legality of an important provision in the Bush administration's financial rescue plan: a proposal to bar judicial scrutiny of the U.S. Treasury Department's acquisition of up to $700 billion in troubled assets.

``I think that may be illegal, not to be able to challenge things,'' Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters. ``I'm not sure that would hold up anyway.''

Democratic Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would change that provision by giving oversight authority to the U.S. Comptroller General and the Government Accountability Office, Congress's financial watchdog.

Frank's proposal would address concerns that the Bush plan would be an unconstitutional delegation of congressional spending power, said Walker Todd, a former Cleveland Federal Reserve attorney who is now a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.

``The number one thing in play here is the constitutional principle that no money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury except pursuant to appropriations by law,'' Todd said.

Well, er, as Stirling keeps saying, a change in the Constitutional order, and after FISA reform, we're not a nation of laws anyhow, so again, what is the problem?

So, just perhaps the Ds don't completely suck on policy. But, and as usual, they sure suck at framing the conventional wisdom, otherwise the WaPo's story, which frames this weeks debate coming out of the gate, would not have been written as it was.