I don't know who the "reliable source is" but I don't think that what he said happened is too far from the truth. From Talking Point Memo:
A quick update from a knowledgeable source who works in that big building with the dome ...
I don't think it'll be hard to explain why Senate Republicans had the final say: that's what the Constitution and Senate rules require. How else would we have passed anything?
I do think it'll be hard for Senate Republicans to explain themselves.
They were invited, repeatedly, to participate in more than a week of negotiations with a Republican White House. They declined.
They were asked to provide an alternative bill. They refused.
Finally, one of their members - Senator Corker of Tennessee - participated in a day-long negotiation with Senate Democrats, the UAW, and bondholders. Everyone made major concessions. Democrats gave up efficiency and emissions standards. UAW accepted major benefit cuts and agreed to reduce workers' wages. Bondholders signed off on a serious haircut. But when Senator Corker took the deal back to the Republican Conference, they argued for two hours and ultimately rejected it.
Why? Because they wanted the federal government to forcibly reduce the wages of American workers within the next 12 months.
Heard this morning that President Bush may still use TARP money to rescue the automakers. He reportedly doesn't want to end up as the next Hoover.
The emphasis are all mine.
Well. Believe it or not, in this particular instance, I hate to be right.
I hope some real journalists will ask some real hard questions to Republicans pretty soon and stop acting like corporate hacks.
If you want a comparative study of Bush and Hoover's presidencies, you'll find a good one on the Center For American Progress web site. It's interesting but you'll see that sadly the differences are merely cosmetic and unfavorable to Bush. I know: no surprises there...