The Great Photo Op

So the Great Photo Op occurred. President Bush was, properly, flanked by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. McCain was at one end. Obama was at the other.

The entire circus was a bad joke. This was a disastrous play by John McCain imo. He looks like a fool playing politics, and lousy politics at that.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Agreement in Principle On Wall Street Bailout | ACLU Asks Court to Reinstate Secret Rendition Lawsuit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    I was watching the news coverage at lunch, with all the smiling people making announcements (mostly Dodd, Schumer, and Frank) and commenting to my colleagues "John McCain must be going crazy trying to figure out how to get himself into one of these photo-ops."  Even the Obama-haters laughed.

    Nobody loves the photo op more than Obama (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    so he would make sure he's in the photo too.

    They all want the free press.


    "Nobody loves the photo op ..." (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    Is that just a random smear?

    Drive by smear (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    Pretty silly. After all, McCain is the one who wanted the meeting, and Obama was just accepting the invite from Bush. I'm betting McCain finds a way to crop it.

    Difference being (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    Obama has shown no interest in trying to take credit for negotiating this bailout.  Whereas for McCain, if he can't get credit somehow, his entire stunt yesterday is rendered worthless.

    I had a conversation with a McCain-backing colleague today.  "See, McCain is the fun one in this election," he said to me. "Every time he starts getting behind, he's not afraid to mix it up a little.  Sarah Palin!  Suspending the campaign!  You never know what he'll do next!  Meanwhile, Obama just plays the prevent defense.  Boringggg!"

    "But you agree, don't you, that this whole thing is just a total stunt by McCain."

    "Oh yes, of course," he said.  "No doubt about it!"


    Sure. It's all stunts (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM EST
    as after all, nominees used to make their acceptance speeches from their front porches.  That would have saved several million this year. :-)

    That wouldn't have worked very well (4.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    as we would have had to listen to McCain deliver the speech from every one of his front porches, as well as the commentary about how Obama had Rezko help him buy his front porch, etc...

    Yeh. You see the many reasons (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    for stunts. :-)

    That was the funniest most arcane (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    conversation. Hilarious. matt it and frame it stick it on the wall.  who down rated that comment, bloody Obama fanatics.

    It would have taken about 2 clicks for (none / 0) (#66)
    by JoeA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:04:55 AM EST
    you to realise that the downrater was the hardly an Obama fanatic.  

    NO2WONDERBOY -  with a string of comments criticising Obama.


    Oh yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    lets please vote in the "fun" one who pulls stunts to shake things up. Good for our foreign policy. Fun exciting foreign policy stunts. And fun exciting economy stunts. Are these the kind of thing your colleague is looking foreward to?

    Go go shock doctrine politics.


    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST
    I think you are missing the point.  He was not trying to advocate for McCain or anything!

    I voted for Kerry in 2004 but that doesn't mean I refrained from making fun of him, both before and after election day.  Sometimes when your candidate embarrasses you then you have to be a little honest about it!


    Yeh, I voted for Kerry but (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    I still just can't delete from my files the picture of him on a bike in those spandex shorts and the goony helmet, wheeling down my lakefront.  Looked like a grasshopper on wheels.

    poor kerry (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    he would have been an awesome president.

    heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    fair enough

    Stunt? (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    Sure, it's McCain version of the Sullivan show unicycle and plate spinning act, but now it's like watching Ed Sullivan doing these things rather than just pointing our attention to them.

    McCain plates are dropping all over the place...


    Because he,............. (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:16:14 PM EST
    like everybody knows it is a very RISKY deal!
    Obama is no risk taker, but he sure does like to take the credit for the things that work.

    Also, the reason "he has shown no interest in trying to take credit for negotiating this bailout"., is so that if it fails he can say 'I told you so' like he has reminded the electorate Ad Nauseum how he was against the war!


    Uh (none / 0) (#43)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    Do you read these through before you post? Is that where you weed out the sense and logic?

    Oh, notice I didn't give you a low rating because I don't agree with you, but thank you for the ones and twos you give me. Lets me know who my friends are.


    I am not above it (none / 0) (#45)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    that guy has a clear agenda.

    No problem (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    I support your right to give out ones.

    Glad they are so happy (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    about the deal that guarantees the next president only one term in office.

    Yeah, I have a really bad feeling about this deal.  I don't see it working out well over the next 2-3 years.

    That's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    what an oped in the WaPo said today. I forget the author but he said that this will go on for about 7 years. The next President will be booted out after only one term because the house of cards is going to continue to disentegrate according to him,

    James Galbraith (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    and he's not the only one with that opinion.

    well. (none / 0) (#23)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:00:35 PM EST
    I actually agree with Mark Shields who said many years ago that a crisis that continues through an election tends to favor the incumbent (see Bush in 2004 wrt Iraq) whereas a crisis that is averted favors the new guy (see 1992 Bush 1s second term).

    In this case, we have an economic problem, which would be the Democrats issue, extending through the 2012 election. Therefore, my prediction is this: if the economy is still the problem, we get 4 more years for predident Obama, but ZERO more years for president Mccain because it's not the GOP's issue.


    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    wouldn't that also work in McCain's favor for Nov according to the reasoning? Things are too unstable to change right now.

    only if the crisis was in foreign policy (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    I concur ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    It's like the used car dealer... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    ...stripping the vehicle right before the sale.

    Image is important (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    A lot of effort has been spent on the right and the left railing against this "bailout".  A show of unity is important in reassuring the public that government knows what it is doing.

    Especially when restoring confidence is (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    the main goal of the plan.

    The very definition of a con game.


    It is all a con game (none / 0) (#46)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    The psychology of the markets is an imprtant factor.  Unless we go back to some absolute standard inmense amounts of money disappear based on confidence.

    Teh Manuel Doctrine. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:00:40 PM EST
    IMO, nobody thinks they know what they're doing (none / 0) (#33)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    at this point, as far as I can tell.  I don't think "unity" will improve people's confidence on that score....my confidence will become even more shaky if they do sign onto the bailout.

    My Confidence Grew (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    that this plan, primarily by people like Dodd and Frank, is a reasonably good one, given the situation.  My guidepost has been the railings of Shelby (R. Alabama) and Bunning (R. Kentucky), who, at first bounce,  seemed to have a reasoned argument, but, in my view, quickly betrayed their positions by invoking terms like socialistic and communistic, as well as, likening the plan to Hugo Chavez-like actions.  The failed ideology of right-wingers like these opponents got us into this mess, but they seem to think that the governmental intervention now needed  will adulterate the purity of the marketplace.

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    pretty sad if the only weapon in their arsenal is to throw around Chavez etc. Certainly, this could be opposed on grounds that the government would be owning too much etc.

    lol (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    One rather thinks this prevents a socialistic take over of the healthcare industry in the next 12-16 years.

    Link, we need a link! (none / 0) (#2)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    Gotta see it to believe it.

    Just google: Trainwrecks (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Thanin on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    Ha! Indeed. (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    He looked dumb (none / 0) (#6)
    by bluegal on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:34:48 PM EST
    He was the only one laughing and smiling and looking goofy.  Bad Photo op.

    Will he be attending the debates? I'm having 15 people over and am baking a pie.

    Sounds fun. Am I the only (none / 0) (#14)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    one that gets so nervous I can't watch until it is over and I know that a terrible mistake/gaffe wasn't made?  DVR time.

    I could never do that! You aren't doing it (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    right. If your guy starts messing up, you change clothes, if he does it again you change seats at halftime. I mean at the next commercial. :)

    Seriously though, when I watch a replay, I hear all kinds of things I totally missed the first time because of nerves.


    Missed the first time... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    ..because I was screaming at the screen.

    A local theatre showed the second Bush/Kerry debate live.  My husband said "I am never going to do that (with you) again." because I was yelling "Answer the danged question!" as Bush stumbled his way through a non answer on an education question.  (Come to think of it - why was it so hard to answer a question on a standard campaign topic?)


    Because they forgot to turn the sound on (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    for his ear piece? What was that box on his back, anyway?

    That was Bush's Personal GPS (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    as you have noticed that after he stopped wearing it, he couldn't find doors.  (One of my fave videos.)

    Does this mean game on Friday? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST

    not so fast (none / 0) (#17)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    From MSNBC.com: "McCain was optimistic an agreement between Congress and the Bush administration would be completed but that the afternoon developments had not changed his plans not to debate."

    Panicky yet, McCain?  After Palin's performance w/Couric, Johnny boy is pulling all the stops to put the breaks on this thing.

    meant to reply (none / 0) (#20)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    to post re: does bailout plan mean McCain will attend Friday's debate

    Palinpalozza continues (none / 0) (#31)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    Though I am amused by the latest bit of spin from some quarters that McCain is doing all this just to push the Veep debate back.

    well, he DID (none / 0) (#38)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    say that the first presidential debate could be moved to the VP debate night, so I guess people took that to be an attempt a ducking the VP debate.

    Of course if you believe that it was an honest and helpful suggestion by the McCain campaign that's your perogative.


    That would only make sense (none / 0) (#39)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    If he suggest that the Veep debate be canceled outright but, as you already know, he didn't so you are just playing the spin game.

    No. not really. (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    But you are free to continue your belief.

    Gee thanks (none / 0) (#50)
    by ks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:51:13 PM EST
    I REALLY needed your permission to continue to believe the facts.  

    spoken like a true zealot (none / 0) (#61)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    Sorry, allow me to give you a more resonable (none / 0) (#65)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:06:33 PM EST

    facts are facts, but you are confusing your OPINION that McCain's choice to suggest moving the VP debate has nothing to do with Palin's rookie status with facts.

    My OPINION is that it has everything do do with McCain's fears that his bad judgement will be revealed in his choice of VP if the debates go as planned.

    See the difference?


    I think (none / 0) (#26)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    Obama has an opening here if he can swing Pelosi (or she makes it appear so) to vote for the thing without house republicans signing on.   The story will be his persuasive leadership in a crisis broke the deadlock and irresponsible house republicans just wanted to play politics.

    McCain can do the same with the conservative house republicans but they are less inclined to play.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    Its a sure loss for McCain if they can push a vote that doesnt have house republicans onboard.  He will look like a man who cant control his party.

    That might be a good thing right now for (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    vote getting purposes. The Republicans I know (and I'm surrounded) are just as mad as Democrats about this.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#32)
    by jar137 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    we want the Democrats to own this bailout because then subsequent hiccups (and I expect a few) will be blamed on them.  (This presumes the Democrats will not do the courageous thing, but instead will leave things pretty much as they are with a slap on the wrist of Wall St. and a huge bill for the taxpayers.)  Both parties have to get on board this train to avoid the blame game.

    Obama was there today to make him own it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    too, in the public perception.  That was the reason for him to be brought to the White House.

    He has to reject and denounce it to not own it now -- and that's not going to happen, as it's better to own a piece of a risk than to own no action taken at all and being obstructionist on a bipartisan blah blah.

    They got him.  Now his hope is that it doesn't come tumbling down until after November 5.


    he's completely effed really (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    Bush simply looted thtreasury and The next bozo foots the bill career-wise. JEB will be back in 2012 and win.

    hmm (none / 0) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    Senate Republicans seem to be onboard, so it would be a mixed message.  But its true that it would put more ownership on the Democratic side.

    For Obama though, it could be a feather in the cap.

    I dont really see how McCain wins here. I can't see his play for riding in as the fearless leader unless the conservative house gop suddenly signs on and cites his influence.  Which would be good for a laugh.


    They will -- too late for him to debate (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    Don't you see it?  Couldn't it be buying him time?

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#49)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    McCain can use this to gain ground with independents showing that he can stand up to his base (despite his total pander on Palin).

    ha (none / 0) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    Yeah, true.

    Or he could change position, oppose the bill, rally the base and play out Custer's last stand. Results may vary.


    Photo Op gone wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    I don't pretend to know who this will help politically but apparently the deal has broken down.

    On the one hand, there is a lot of antipathy towards this deal from the public.  The Republicans may be seeking to capitalize on that.  On the other hand if the markets go south and the Republicans are seen as the obstacle to the deal, Obama and the Democrats will benefit.

    On the third hand, if they end up doing nothing and things go to hell in handbasket we are all in deep trouble.  I guess there is always the hope that things won't get as bad as feared.