McCain's Desperate Gamble

More and more media articles I'm reading tonight agree: McCain's suspension of his campaign was a political stunt, a second Hail Mary pass to deal with falling poll numbers and growing worry among voters that Sarah Palin just is not qualified or prepared to be Vice President and that he makes rash decisions out of self-interest and tries to pass them off as patriotism.

Here's one I like a lot, it covers almost all the bases: Sell! Sell! McCain is Tanking in the Boston Globe.

Between his grandstanding on the economy today -- claiming he was going to suspend his campaign because his presence was needed in D.C. to ensure a bailout deal was made, when he has little economic expertise and has never served on a banking committee, and then failing to arrive until mid-afternoon, well after Dems and Republicans had crafted their tentative agreement but finding time to appear on all three networks and still refusing to abide by his debate commitment tomorrow night -- and the woefully inept performance of Gov. Sarah Palin on the Katie Couric interview -- he's got to be toast.


McCain has proven himself to be the ultimate opportunist who makes rash decisions. Sarah Palin was one, suspending his campaign and injecting himself into the bailout talks was another. These are not the traits of a leader. Obama, on the other hand, has been cool and collected, responding appropriately, coming across as honest and forthright while displaying the leadership skills and characteristics voters want to see.

If McCain doesn't show for the debate tomorrow night, he might as well kiss his campaign goodbye. As far as I'm concerned, the faster Sarah Palin returns to Alaska the better. That McCain would have such poor judgment as to risk our future by putting her in the second most important political position in the free world is, as I've said from the day he chose her, criminally negligent.

When McCain goes down, it won't just be on issues like the economy. It will be because he put his judgment at issue and has shown us multiple times now, between his Palin pick, his phony campaign suspension and his attempt to weasel out of the debate, that his judgment is a failure.

< Thursday Night TV and Open Thread | Why The GOP Blew Up The Deal: McCain's Political Stunt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Friday could be bad for McCain (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by klem4708 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    Between the lack of progress on a bailout and the closing of WaMu, Friday could be a bad day for the market...and McCain. If the market tanks, how long will it be before fingers start pointing at him--the guy who killed the bailout?

    He might not be able to show his face in Mississippi...

    What about all the people (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
    who don't want the bailout?  I don't think the bailout is enough on its own, it's a combination.

    One thing I havent heard yet is... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Thanin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:21:36 AM EST
    how many jobs will be lost with the WaMu collapse?  And I dont mean CEOs/Chairpeople/board members, but arent actual banks closing shop?  So all those tellers, low level managers, security guards, etc., if they are closing, seems like a lot of hard working people unemployed.

    The thing I've not heard is (none / 0) (#99)
    by dutchfox on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    How the hell did they come up with $700bln? Neither the MSM nor the mainstream Dem blogs nor the Congressional leaders and appropriate committee chairs are asking that question. They are arbitrarily accepting King Paulson's word! Amazing! It boggles the mind!

    "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

    They just made it up.


    I posted that quote a couple days ago... (none / 0) (#101)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST

    Crickets in the MCM as well-Isn't that interesting (none / 0) (#104)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    The MCM has accepted the Maladministration's line on this and it has become the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) Narrative.

    There are some few cracks in the Wall of Obfuscation, but, on the whole, the MCM is holding for the Paulson Fix (Is In).

    Big Dems have for the most part bought in to The Narrative as well, with a few tweaks. Bernie Sander's plan which would put the cost of the Fix on those who benefitted the most? Hah. Clinton's HOLC appraoch?  

    I have not seen Roubini on any major shows lately--he'd been on NewsHour and Charlie Rose at the very beginning. Now? When his analysis could be helpful in understanding the permutations of the Paulson Fix? I have not caught anything from him on the MCM. But I don't watch everything, so maybe I just missed him.

    This is so similar to the runup to the Iraq Invasion and even the post-mortems. The people who called it correctly, who made the realistic observations based on knowable facts--those people were not only TV screens. And, now, for some amazing reason, they are also not on our TV screens!

    Don't go to the people who pointed out truth to power. Stick with the Very Serious People. Who caused the problems or at best enabled them.

    Crickets indeed.

    Actually, we get the noise fog of shilling and spinning.


    In the meantime, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:24:27 AM EST
    today's Gallup Tracker showed them tied again in the 'national' and numbers are wildly up and down in the states.

      This is an insane election and very unpredictable.  
    Latest mainstream news I read, including out of Chicago, and also descriptions of tv ads being run soon, indicate the polls will go back and forth no matter what.

      I certainly agree with you re McCain's choosing of Palin, but I'm not as sanguine about the economic situation.

      Today I returned from being out, to find out my bank is no longer my bank! and it's been taken over (thank god, not left as just seized by the FDIC with the latter trying to 'save' it and thus depleting the FDIC monies by half, which have been insuring our deposits) by another bank at the last moment after the FDIC seized it.

      JP Morgan took over and THEY have been listed as one of the large entities in trouble, and they are 'banking on' this action helping them out if they can just get more capital.

      Personally, I can wait for the debate to happen a few days later or a week later.  We are in a really critical situation, and I imagine the only folks bent on seeing the debate Friday night are heavy partisans viewing it as almost a sport.

      Both McCain and Obama are facing the possibility of becoming President and VERY MUCH AFFECTED by whatever deal is hammered out.

      As Senators and the two men running for the presidency, they should be involved in this, in my view, and concentrating on it.  It's not just any old mild emergency.


    Agree. Where is Obama on this? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:47:52 AM EST
    Seriously, he needs to be a leader on this.  

    It's ridiculous for them to debate tomorrow night on Foreign affairs when everyone is so focused on what to do about this financial mess.  


    Obama is voting present-he's said his and McCain's (none / 0) (#105)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    presence in Washington is "injecting presidential politics" into the delicate negotiations.

    Okaaay. Except, of course, that one of these men will the president when this Fix is being implemented. I would think they ought to be at the negotiations--and taking responsibiity.

    By staying "out of it," Obama can wash his hands of the poor decision made by BushCo. Maybe.


    In case everyone has forgotten, (none / 0) (#113)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    Obama stated pretty plainly days ago that he was opposed to a "blank check" for Wall Street.  He said that he had four conditions for any bailout plan, Here are those conditions:
    Adding some specificity to proposals he has already made, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, called for a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds; a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout; limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives; and aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.
    Here is a description of the agreement (which is not the same as the 'blank check' Paulson plan) that had been reached this morning and that the House GOP torpedoed:
    Dodd says the bipartisan agreement takes into account the role of taxpayers, executive compensation, the need to give the U.S. Treasury Secretary authority to act, and the need to simultaneously address the issue of oversight
    Obama's conditions sound remarkably similar to what was in this agreement.  Not only has he kept his cool during this crisis, but his conditions are guiding what came out of Dodd's committee.  Some of the continuing criticisms of Obama perplex me, and I wonder if it isn't just people seeing what they want to see.  It's possible that for some people, nothing from Obama will ever be enough.  As for this Hillary supporter who always just wanted some substance from him, I am pleased with the job he's done lately.

    Also, I'm amazed that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:36:14 AM EST
    could even THINK that they could ram through a takeover of the government in this way, essentially by int'l money people (who are already running most of it) who insisted on being given the right to dole out/take $700 billion with NO Oversight, NO questioning of what is done.  It is just unreal to me.

    It would have been a coup d'tat the way they wanted it.  And likely still is.

      And Bush doesn't want executives' severance payments or bonuses to be touched, EVEN when WE the taxpapers would
    be bailing out their companies and 'giving' them all that money despite their poor, destructive conduct -- all the while ourselves suffering from something like an average $2300 taken from each American for this bailout.

      Whatever deal they hammered out for awhile doesn't sound as if it dealt enough with also helping the taxpayers, themselves also hurting from the same economic problems.
    If they won't include this now they never will in later sessions w/o the urgency there is now.  Pelosi should take advantage of that.

      No, only the people with less money would have to pay and pay.  It's just insane.


    For once I side more with House Republicans (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:16:02 AM EST
    I'd like to see an insurance fund type bailout, funded more by Wall Street, and less by tax payers.

    Combine that with HOLC to restructure loans for the people on the verge of losing their homes due to these foolish loans (foolish for both lender and borrower).

    If McCains stunt - and I agree it was just that - moves things in the right  direction policy-wise, I fail to see how he pays a political price.


    Anything to slow down this train wreck--time is so (none / 0) (#106)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    necessary. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail, perhaps a wise plan can be discussed.

    This s no much like all the Rush-Rush-Rush! legislation BushCo has crammed through. To our national detriment.


    HOLC is exactly the kind of thing (none / 0) (#114)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    the House GOP is opposed to!  It's too 'big-government' for them.  They are not on your side on this.  They just torpedoed an agreement that included several Democratic modifications that could have made the bailout acceptable.  It's all political posturing for November...the 'alternative' they proposed included idiotic ideas like having a capital gains tax holiday.  Do you favor cutting taxes on Wall Street as a solution?

    McCain is in trouble.. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by laila on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    I mean when I look at the decisions he made.  He could have had a chance at this.  His desperation to be president has clouded his judgment. I honestly thought he was trying to throw the election when he announced Palin as his pick.  As it turns out he wants this bad. I almost pity him. Almost. The one I pity is Palin, He completely ditched her.  I can't believe that he used this women as a pawn and now he tosses her away like a used dish cloth.  If he losses the long term ramifications for her career may be unrepairable.  What a destructive little man he is.  
    Market confidence is low, and Wamu news plus bailout news could end up being a really bad thing.  I hate that we the tax-payers are held hostage by the bail-out but I can't see any immediate solutions. Tonight the congress folks were trying to spin confidence in all there talk for fear of a meltdown, I wonder if this will have any effect at all.

    WaMu isn't CLOSING, it has been sold (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:10:19 AM EST
    No interruption in service to its customers, JP Morgan isn't even going to change the account numbers.

    Doesn't seem like anything that will raise anyone's blood pressure.


    Yes and No (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:22:34 AM EST
    It was sold only after it was seized so stockholders and bond holders have wallpaper.

    But yes you are correct. All accounts are good.

    And in one of the great quotes of the day...Alan Hess, professor of finance and business economics at the University of Washington's Foster School of Business, pointed out that the company would be quite strong if it weren't operating under the weight of so many bad loans.

    or loosely translated...if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bus


    Will the wallpaper always be wallpaper (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:31:31 AM EST
    or can it gain value again?

    Using your methodology (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:20:03 AM EST
    one would come to the conclusion that nothing is guaranteed.  Oh yeah, that's is the truth and whether or not this bail out will accomplish much of anything over time is not guaranteed either but the debt of "trying" it is.

    And the FDIC sold most of it to JP Morgan (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:36:00 AM EST
    It's an earthquake when regulators have to seize a bank in what's described as the largest bank failure in American History (and when it's one's own bank).
    Customers of WaMu, based in Seattle, are unlikely to be affected, although shareholders and some bondholders will be wiped out.
    By taking on all of WaMu's troubled mortgages and credit card loans, JPMorgan Chase will absorb at least $31 billion in losses that would normally have fallen to the F.D.I.C.
     ... PMorgan will also take on Washington Mutual's big portfolio of troubled assets, and plans to shut down at least 10 percent of the combined company's 5,400 branches in markets like New York and Chicago, where they compete. The bank also plans to raise an additional $8 billion by issuing common stock on Friday to pay for the deal.
    But the seizure and the deal with JPMorgan came as a shock to Washington Mutual's board, which was kept completely in the dark:

      And get this!

    Mr. Fishman, who has been on the job for less than three weeks, is eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance and will get to keep his $7.5 million signing bonus, according to an analysis by James F. Reda and Associates.

      What a sick system.  He comes on for less than 3 weeks and will get $19 million for his time.

      The NY Times article is, as usual, a very interesting read.


    Now, hold on. (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:06:47 AM EST
    If this guy was an outside hire, presumably he's not responsible for the bank's failure -- he was brought in to fix the problem.  If he was working on that and the bank was pulled out from under him by the Feds -- even if it was a necessary action -- he probably left some other highly paid job to take this one and finds himself out of work after three weeks through no fault of his own.

    The payments he's in line for are still absurdly high, but it's exactly this situation that those payments are designed for -- to entice a highly paid person to take an undesirable job without undue risk to their income.

    The size of those payments may help to illustrate how out of whack executive compensation in general is in the US, but it's not a case of an incompetent manager benefiting from helping his company fail.


    Who said he was 'incompetent' ?? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:04:26 AM EST
    I said something about the TIME spent.

    One would think that $19 million was beyond the pale considering the circumstances.  One does not need to worry about his being in the poor house.

    I read the below in the New York Times yesterday:

    In 2007, the total compensation of chief executives in large American corporations was 275 times that of the salary of the average worker, the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization, estimates.

     In the late 1970s, chief executive pay was 35 times that of the average American worker.

     Things have gotten out of hand, to put it mildly.


    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:14:47 AM EST
    He's a gambler. And here's what concerns me: as he sinks in the polls, he'll resort to god knows what other gambles to stay afloat.

    Is he beyond race baiting? I hope so.

    David Brooks Takes Another Swig (none / 0) (#72)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:07:01 AM EST
    of McCain Kool-Aid:

    Nonetheless, when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney. I saw him. A half-century of evidence is there.

    If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all -- and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign -- a serious man prone to serious things.

    Shorter Brooks: Pay no attention to that lying, unprincipled man behind the curtain!  The Wizard will be back as soon as the election is over!


    I am really surprised (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    that McCain managed to squander his comfortable position as the "safe bet" in this race.

    I wouldn't count on that quite yet (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    I am still not convinced that this will all turn out ok for us.  McCain and republicans make me nervous.  If Obama doesn't own this issue soon, like tomorrow, I fear McCain will do something to make sure he wins.  

    Who is everyone talking about today, ALL day?  It's not our guy.  It's the bad guy who is dominating the news and discussions everywhere.  I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.


    I'm not. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:00:26 AM EST
    McCain has a reputation as a hothead.  He also strikes me as someone who's far from immune to the "I'm entitled to win" feeling (nor is our candidate immune, either).

    Put those together with the facts that he's not an especially good campaigner, that Obama has at least as much mojo in the press as he does, and that this is simply not a Republican year and it was always likely that at some point he'd lose his composure.

    Frankly, I think there's more McCain meltdown goodness to come.  I'm looking for him to lose it during one of the debates if closely questioned.


    What debates? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:14:41 AM EST
    We don't need no stinkin' debates. We need more heroic maverickness busting up meetings and semi-suspending their campaigns.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:24:41 AM EST
    Quite a transformation.

    If some of the House Republicans, (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
    led by Rep. Boehner, oppose the bailout, isn't there a danger the whole mess will be too prominently the responsibility of the Dems who are willing to sign on?  Seems like a trap to me.  Paulson proposes, Dems. say, yes, yes; Republicans say no no.  

    The Dems have smartly conditioned (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:27:26 AM EST
    any bill on significant Republican support.

    According to the NYT (none / 0) (#73)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST

    In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson, literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to "blow it up" by withdrawing her party's support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

    "I didn't know you were Catholic," Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson's kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: "It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans."

    Mr. Paulson sighed. "I know. I know."

    Nancy has said (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM EST
    that she's not going to bring anything to the floor unless it has bipartisan support.  I think she is trying to head off exactly the scenario you describe.

    "Nancy has said" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:44:47 AM EST
    Thanks.  I'll sleep ever so soundly tonight.  

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:48:05 AM EST
    I report, you deride.

    Ive only been following... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Thanin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST
    presidential campaigns since 92 so I know my experience doesnt go back too far, but is this becoming one of the whackier general elections to have happened?  Or have there been far weirder?

    I'm no historian (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:42:45 AM EST
    but this one is really weird.  The Palin pick alone is one for the books.

    1992 was a bit weird (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cynicor on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    With Perot in, then out, then in with Stockdale, then in the debates basically to attack Bush.

    But this is beyond weird. I personally think that by doing nothing, Obama looks better by the day. And Palin is enough to make sure that no one pays attention to the weird stuff that does and will emanate from Biden.


    Seems so to me (none / 0) (#18)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:35:29 AM EST
    It's that wacky McCain, and his 'Maverick'  stuff.  Just never know what he'll do.  

    2000 was weirder than this year, but (none / 0) (#22)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:39:16 AM EST
    2008 is getting stranger by the week.

    Historically, the Presidential elections of 1800, 1824, 1860 and 1912 were all unusually interesting, for various reasons.


    Well shoot... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Thanin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:52:19 AM EST
    now Im gonna have to look up all those elections.

    If you kick back a few minutes, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    I'll bet Cream City is composing an essay on just this topic.

    Nah. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:36:44 AM EST
    I just don't have the patience to parse through this minefield, not after the other day here.

    Don has picked some good ones, and they're in the books for those who care.


    Don't lose heart, CC. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:56:45 AM EST
    As if.:-) Losing a good place (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:11:44 AM EST
    for discourse is hardly cause for losing heart.  I've got plenty of that and just channel it elsewhere.  Still gotta stop by for you, Steve M, and some others though, oculus -- you have been especially good today.  Cheers.

    Thanks. Weird day here Thursday. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:19:14 AM EST
    Here's book recommend for your (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    spare time, if any:  Annie Proulx's new set of stories about Wyoming:  Fine Just The Way It Is.

    From your lips (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:23:11 AM EST
    to the swing voters' ears.

    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by eric on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:24:54 AM EST
    that he didn't really suspend his campaign.  He still is running ads, has staff working, and is making appearances.

    He is a liar.

    Now, with that being said, there is question if the meme about him going back to Washington will be called out by the press.  Dave Letterman sure called him out last night.

    Will the press treat him with kid gloves and let him get away with these lies, or will they call him out?  I don't have a lot of faith, but what he has done is so outrageous that I can't image the big-time pundits won't be questioning him on this.

    Here is how NYT (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:42:55 AM EST
    deals with Obama's ads:



    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by eric on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    too much equivalency stuff there. Anway. I think this is all insane!

    I love politics, but am increasingly tempted to just turn if off and go for a sail.

    It hurts sooo bad.


    While it may be a political stunt/gamble (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:07:44 AM EST
    I do think both should be involved in the process. After all, the last thing I want to hear down the road is the blame game on this (the  "solution" that is). I want who's ever in office to own it. Accountability. Apparently neither side is happy with the bailout and we the people are going to get "?". The willingness to push some stuff "down the road" as far as Main Street is concerned makes me uneasy as does the "urgency of now" hysteria.

    While McCain may not have said much in the meeting, apparently Obama did go back and forth with a Republican or 2. Obama may not think "delicate negotiations" need presidential politics, but in the meetings, there's the option to just observe or enter discussions to clarify points etc. Why wait until it's a done deal? How many times do we hear excuses from politicians after it's a done deal? They're playing with a h&ll of a lot of our dollars here . . .  And while they (congress) say they agree on principles at this point, there's no guarantee we will see those principles in the bill and/or if they'll get kicked down the road or just outright axed. Again, accountability/feet to fire in the future rests on what those 2 do now. imo :)

    McCain's Stock Tumbles (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:58:30 AM EST
    McCain's stock has take a sharp dive due, in part, to the increased volatility in the candidate.  Buyers have lost confidence in McCain citing poor judgement, an irrational management style, and lack of credibility.

    This was seen as a long overdue correction as McCain's stock was as overvalued as his ego was overinflated (if only he had used Obama's tire gauge).

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:05:33 AM EST
    McCain looked like a fool sitting at one end of the table with nothing to say.

    This, after posturing as if his presence was somehow necessary to the solution to the crisis in the economy.

    I think Obama must have been wondering what the hell he was doing there, but he didn't have much choice after McCain's b.s. and Bush's idiotic invitation/summons to the candidates.

    Things like this don't give me much hope for our future.

    McCain is acting like a person who has come completely unhinged.
    Can you picture him with his finger near the proverbial button during a sudden international confrontation?

    Truly nerve-racking.

    Nothing to say because (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by DFLer on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    he (McCain) revealed that [as of Tuesday], he could not comment on the Paulson proposal, because he had not read it yet "on paper". It's only two and a half pages. Good lord!

    If you don't read other notes here (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:33:56 AM EST
    then read this article

      The guy IS needed, as a long-time senator who could be President and would then be saddled with the results of the haggling over the bill that most agree must be completed before Monday, because he can be instrumental in getting enough recalcitrant Republicans to come around to vote on whatever modified agreement -- as Pelosi wants at least 100 Republican votes to make it a two-party bill and Boehner hasn't been able to round up that many yet.  At this point it's up to him and McCain to make that happen.


    Republicans on board? (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:31:59 AM EST
    The article to which you link in the Atlantic says, "After all, if not to get these recalcitrant Republicans on board, why did McCain go to Washington in the first place?"

    Is there any evidence that McCain is doing that?

    I'm only asking because if he is, he and the media are keeping it a secret.


    msnbc reporter said he apparently did (none / 0) (#112)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    Supposedly they're on board and working together toward a solution.  He said things were very positive now.

    I thought that only Bush spoke in front... (none / 0) (#88)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM EST
    of the cameras and then Bush left the meeting.

    Palin second boat anchor around mccain's neck (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:14:04 AM EST
    exposing porkbarrel palin for the inept extremist wingnut that she is was essential and benefical - she has become another boat anchor around mccain's neck to go along with bush.

    cant say that about PALIN (none / 0) (#77)
    by mpBBagain on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:25:22 AM EST
    anything negative said about PALIN  will be called a sexist attack.  The PUMAS are watching.

    what's sexist is treating Palin (none / 0) (#115)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    with a different standard than other candidates.  Hillary didn't need to be treated with kid gloves because she knew her stuff.

    I love your statement (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jake Left on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:48:07 AM EST
    "he's got to be toast."

    Alas, I'm afraid you have a much higher regard for the sagacity of our electorate than I do. I used to, but bush twice really pushed me into cynic land.

    Yes, and this one too... (none / 0) (#89)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:58:02 AM EST
    McCain has proven himself to be the ultimate opportunist who makes rash decisions. ... Obama, on the other hand, has been cool and collected, responding appropriately, coming across as honest and forthright while displaying the leadership skills and characteristics voters want to see.

    My independent friend in Colorado, who had been leaning toward McCain, had said last week he was now leaning toward Obama because of what he was learning about Palin and how this reflected badly on McCain.  This morning he's told me that while he hasn't completely made up his mind, he's now heavily leaning toward Obama because of McCain's recent stunts (suspending his campaign, trying to cancel the debate, etc.).


    I would like Obama to show some leadership (none / 0) (#15)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    on this issue.  Does he support the bailout?  If so, he needs to come out and say so.  If he has ideas for a compromise, he should be up on the Hill sharing those ideas, convincing them to back his ideas.  Leaders lead by convincing others to go along with their ideas.  

    Obama can win on this issue if he takes a strong stand, no more of the "call if you need me".   Take charge!  Tell us what you are going to do.  Lead!  It's a winner if he just reaches out and takes the lead.  This could put him over the top, to a landslide win.

    He doesn't want to be all that closely (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:37:21 AM EST
    linked to such a huge expenditure, especially if it doesn't work.

    Jeeze Louise (none / 0) (#32)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:54:16 AM EST
    He has to take a stand!  He can't just vote ''present" or whatever.  This is a HUGE issue for our country.  As a voter, I am not impressed with a candidate who can't make a decision, a leader who can't lead and persuade others to follow his ideas.  

    I hear you. He wasn't my first choice. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM EST
    He was never my choice. (none / 0) (#81)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:41:50 AM EST
    The press might not be talking about it (none / 0) (#116)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    but Obama came out clearly against the "blank check" bailout.  A bipartisan agreement had been reached this morning that included his four conditions (payback, CEO pay, mortgages and oversight)...and the House GOP torpedoed it.

    I understand the tendency to just assume that Obama is not leading or is doing nothing, because it seemed like he wouldn't before, but reality is smacking Obama's detractors in the face.  If you want to get mad, demand that the media cover Obama's positions instead of just following McCain's meaningless stunts!


    Exactly the wrong tact.... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:51:20 AM EST
    Obama should let the CONGRESS propose what needs to be passed, and he, as a sitting Senator, should vote yea or nay on it.

    McCain has tossed another Hail Mary.

    The first two haven't worked out for him.  

    This one won't either.  He's being blamed, already, for the possible failure of the bill.

    Think of the headlines Saturday morning: "McCain screws up Bailout Bill. Refuses to debate Obama"

    That might happen. If so, it's over.


    76% of the American People want a debate on Friday. If he doesn't show up, it's over.


    Why can't Obama take a lead on this issue? (none / 0) (#35)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:55:58 AM EST
    I am not impressed with him simply waiting and deciding how he will vote later.  Why can he interject his ideas?  Why can't he tell us where he stands on this rather major issue?  

    Because... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:05:42 AM EST
    1. He's not on the Banking Committee in the Senate.
    2. He's not on the Commerce Committee in the Senate
    3. He's not on the Banking Committee in the House.
    4. He's not on the Commerce Committee in the House.
    5. There is no system in place for him to take the lead on the issue.

    To your point... How would he do this (take the lead) exactly?  

    What, specifically, could he do to "take the lead" on the issue?

    If you don't know where Obama stands on the issue, it's because you're not listening, not because Obama hasn't stated it. He's spoken on the subject almost every day for the last 10 days.


    He needs to say (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    We're in trouble and we need to do XYZ to get out of it.  If we do those things, these other XYZ things will result.  It will be better for America because (he needs to fill in the blanks).  Then he needs to say that he is headed to Capitol Hill to lobby the Congress to do these things that are right for America and to encourage Bush to sign such a bill to get us out of this mess.  

    That's what leaders do, they lead others to their point of view.   They don't wait for a bill to be prepared and then decide what to do with it.  That's a follower, not a leader.


    Um.. No. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:19:40 AM EST
    Wrong.  The problem with your scenario is that... NO ONE KNOWS HOW BAD THE PROBLEM ACTUALLY IS.

    Obama doesn't know. McCain doesn't know.  Bush doesn't know. Right now, they're all HOPING that this bailout helps in the next year.


    Obama CANNOT say "We need to do XYZ to get out of it" because no one knows if ANY XYZ will get us out of it.

    It's much more complicated than you make it out to be.  Bottom line is that we should all be scared if this bill doesn't go through. I say that as someone who has too many friends in the banking business. They're scared.

    Obama should give counsel where he can, and vote on the package, yes or no, when it's presented for a vote. Anything else is silly at this point, and would be seen, like McCain's gambit, as a cynical stunt.


    It's not a stunt (none / 0) (#49)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:31:11 AM EST
    To propose real solutions and tell us why he supports them.  Honestly, if everyone on the Hill has to take a position, why shouldn't the next President have a position, one that he can explain and defend?  There's nothing tricky, or stunt like, about a Presidential candidate having a position on a VERY important issue to our nation.  

    I am very surprised that I seem to be the only democrat here who thinks that Obama should have a strong position on this major issue and take a lead on it.  I guess I am the one who is expecting too much.  I just hope that McCain doesn't come out on top of this issue because Obama isn't taking more of a lead.  


    Obama asked questions at the meeting (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CCinNC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:19:07 AM EST
    while McCain sat silently for 40 minutes.  Per the NYT.  Jim Lehrer said he isn't limited to asking questions about foreign affairs at the debate.  I'll bet we hear tonight where Obama stands.  I doubt McCain will come out smelling like a rose.  This crazy grandstanding may have hurt him badly.

    And who are the "sources" ? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    Same as the "unnamed" sources that NYT used in the lead up to the Iraq war?  Sorry, attribute the sources, or don't report this.

    Maybe in this new political world (none / 0) (#56)
    by alsace on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:58:10 AM EST
    of post-partisans and mavericks, "stating a position" is what passes for "taking the lead," but it's not quite what I would hope for from a couple of guys vying to be the top leader in less than 4 months.

    He is the Party's Presidential.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:45:58 AM EST
    Nominee and thus, the leader of the Party.  He should be leading on the Democratic proposal.  

    He has been leading (none / 0) (#117)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    did you all just miss it?

    you've asked the same question three times (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:15:49 AM EST
    we heard you.

    Sorry, I keep hoping someone will answer (none / 0) (#44)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:18:41 AM EST
    And tell me what I missed today, where Obama came out on the issue.  

    I'll stop and just read.  

    BTW, do you watch Forensic Files?  I'm watching one now about an innocent man convicted for rape.  


    Pointing you here >>> (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by bluejane on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:42:50 AM EST
    On Sept 23, Obama (not my first choice either) stood up and clearly outlined 4 principles that act as a frame or container for whatever bailout is done, starting with the $700B which is mainly to loosen up credit and prime the pump as I understand it (not a whole answer), to wit (see WaPo):

    1. Replacing Paulson's absolute authority over the bailout's execution with a bipartisan (I would prefer nonpartisan) independent oversight board made up of experts who thoroughly understand what's going on who are not involved in current mess (per Barney Frank this board will track every single transaction).

    2. Equity investment stake for taxpayers on whatever assets are sold if any profit accrues. Maybe get some money back, maybe not, but try.

    3. Asistance for homeowners in danger of foreclosure, including giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly, instead of the mortgage-backed securities that have cause the banking woes.

    4. Controls/limits on executive pay/bonuses.

    He also wants a stimulous package not attached to this bill as well as reinstatement of regulations (like Glass-Steagall) to prevent the abuses that led to current disaster, to be tackled after elections when (presumably) he'll be in WH to sign the legislation.

    These are a good start on protections to contain whatever solution is decided on. They can be improved. Maybe you have improvments?


    Sure, I can try (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    First, I do NOT want the government taking over mortgages.  I can hardly imagine a bigger disaster.

    I am not so sure about bailing out homeowners who have lived in houses they couldn't afford for several years and then get our money to pay their mortgages which are really more like rent since they had no down payments and have never really 'owned' the houses that they live in.  I would support paying people's mortgages if that included paying the mortgages of the honest, hard working, poor and middle class people.  The folks who played by the rules, did things right, shouldn't be penalized by having to bailout those who lied and cheated to get mortgages that they couldn't afford.

    I don't want any do nothing "bipartisan" committees on anything.  Those things never work and are just an excuse for a bunch of pols to give speeches.  I'm with you, make it a group of economists who are NON partisan.  

    I agree that we cannot let Paulson alone use all of this money.  

    Will a stimulus package include tax cuts?  Or does Obama mean something else?  I do not support tax increases during times like these.  We need more money in the economy, to create more jobs and products, not less money.  We need money in the pockets of Americans so that they can buy American goods and products.

    Since Barney Frank was so opposed to any regulations on Freddie and Fannie, as recently as 2005, I do not fully trust what he says now.  He seems to have swung way over to the other side.  I have to wonder why the change?  And does he still fully support Freddie and Fannie without regulations?  

    I would need to know more details about regulations on businesses.   What would the regulations be?  On what companies?  For how long?  The last thing we need are regulations that prevent companies from expanding and hiring more workers.  We need more jobs to lower our growing unemployment numbers.  

    Overall, I would like more details from Obama before I sign on to the taxpayers footing this enormous bill.  Perhaps we will get some of those details tonight.  


    thank you for pointing this out (none / 0) (#118)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    I think some of the people who say Obama isn't leading just haven't done their homework.  As usual, the media isn't covering it well at all, but that's par for the course.

    The problem is not getting. . . (3.66 / 3) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:54:53 AM EST
    someone to answer, it's unblocking your ears sufficiently to hear the answer.

    Obama has spoken in favor of action and outlined principles to which any action must adhere to have his support -- principles considerably different from the original Administration proposal.

    Only someone who is willfully ignorant of the news, or deliberately misstating the situation to disfavor Obama, could possibly believe Obama has not taken a stand on this issue.


    Taking a stand on a issue and leading.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47:21 AM EST
    are not the same.

    Obama's four conditions (none / 0) (#119)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    (taxpayer payback, CEO pay, oversight and mortgages (?) guided what ended up in the bipartisan agreement that had been reached this morning.  He is leading, much much more than John McCain is.

    Troll rating it, (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:26:20 AM EST
    Doctor, does not make it any less true.

    Jeeze, you sound just like Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    Sorry but speaking in favor of action and stating principles, with no details of what that means, just doesn't cut it for me.  I expect more of our candidate than just meaningless slogans.  That's what republicans do!  Morning in American dribble!  

    McCain was wrongly blamed, per Ambinder (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:48:31 AM EST
    Ambinder quoted, without checking, Dodd's earlier blaming of McCain ... and Dodd's accusations of what he said McCain did during the meeting.  5 others have refuted his account, and Ambinder updated his site to correct the record for his site.
    Though Sen. Chris Dodd implied that Sen. McCain sandbagged the rest of the negotiators by bringing up alternative proposals, McCain himself did not bring up those proposals, according to four independent sources briefed by four different principals inside the meeting, including two Republicans and two Democrats.
     ..."McCain has not attacked the Paulson deal," said a third Republican who was briefed by McCain directly.
     And here's the important part about McCain's presence in Washington.  The Republicans don't have the votes as of yesterday to the extent Pelosi wanted to ensure the Dems aren't alone in backing a bill considered essential but which conservative Republicans aren't supporting in sufficient numbers.

      So people are looking to McCain to get a consensus of some kind of support (for whatever add'l language) by Republicans to produce a bill before Monday.

      Ambinder closes with:

    The fact is that Boehner doesn't have 100 votes from his conference -- 100 votes that Nancy Pelosi really wants. And that's not McCain's fault.

    But Boehner and the White House -- and McCain -- if they want to get something passed -- do have the responsibility to persuade these Republicans to support the bailout .

    After all, if not to get these recalcitrant Republicans on board, why did McCain go to Washington in the first place?

    Who ever said McCain agreed (none / 0) (#110)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    With the bailout?  I thought he went to do something else entirely.  

    If Democrats think this is the right thing to do, then they need to do it.  Period.  If Obama thinks it's the right think to do then he needs to say that.  He needs to tell the democrats on the Hill to pass it, with, or without, republicans.  That would show leadership, imo.


    What say you to idea (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:47:15 AM EST
    Warren Buffet be asked to act as a kind of ombudsman on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer re any bailout proposal.  [Warning:  Idea floated in a Huff Post column.]

    Buffett... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:07:50 AM EST
    has already cherry picked his ten billion in investments. He's a brilliant investor. He buys good companies when they are down. He doesn't want bad companies when they are down. Bush is about 5 trillion in the hole. No one in their right mind wants to touch what he has done.

    In addition, The GOP would scream. Buffett thinks the rich should pay higher taxes.


    WWWD (none / 0) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:22:26 AM EST
    What would Warren do?  I would really like to know.  Has he expressed an opinion?  I would like him at the table.  I trust him with my savings.

    Intriguing (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:30:22 AM EST
    Speaking as a trained (but not housebroken) economist and long-time market/business news junkie, I have to say that Buffet is one of the very few people I would trust in such a position.

    victory in november is not enough (none / 0) (#40)
    by max penny on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:13:50 AM EST
    I agree with everything Jeralyn is saying but I'm also worried that a Republican defeat will end up getting attributed to the grievous failures of John McCain the candidate.  What this country needs, in order to recover from the last 8 years (or the last 30), is so much more than that: a clear repudiation of the whole republican brand -- the militarism, the longing for patriarchy, the embrace of torture, the union-gutting, the sneering abandonment of basic civil rights.  So if John McCain is going down, we need to make sure he goes down carrying the brand with him.  He is a symptom of conservative ideology -- not just an inept proponent of it.  

    I like this anti-McCain spot that's been bouncing around the web.


    It tags McCain with the sin of being way too rich to understand what's going on with the rest of us.  This might seem a facile point, but it's a crucial one for turning our political culture around.  There's way too many people walking around terrified of the underclass when it's the upper class that's screwing them every day.   Anything that makes this point sink in is part of the change that needs to happen.  And tagging John McCain with the sins of conservativism -- that has to be our strategy now so that if he loses, he pulls their whole awful movement down with him.

    Oh Please, (none / 0) (#43)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:16:28 AM EST
    JOhn Kerry is VERY rich and no one thought he was to out of touch to be President.  Ditto John Edwards. Let's not go down this road again.  It's a loser for us.  

    FDR too. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:28:18 AM EST
    And JFK too. (none / 0) (#68)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:52:07 AM EST
    Good old Prohibition money made 'em rich.

    Lady Bird was pretty well off also. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    Thanks, you are right on the money n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:49:37 AM EST
    This country is really split (none / 0) (#66)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 06:47:00 AM EST
    I appreciate TalkLeft but I also read more conservative websites because my mamma always taught me to know what your "enemies" are saying.

    While left-wing sites are critical of Palin and McCain (and rightfully so), I don't see a decrease of support for them.  In fact, I see more attacks against the Democrats from conservative pundits and conservative Americans alike.  

    I know many feel that McCain's stunt may backfire, but it may also work in his favor if, while Obama is in Mississippi, McCain is in Washington hammering out a deal and he marches into MS triumphant with an economic issue that was his weakness.

    One caveat (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    I sincerely hope no one here takes offense, but reading online political blogs is like paying close attention to the endless tales of certain, Y2k-induced doom in the months before 1/1/2000.  Read them for fun, and if you have a very selective filter you can find some genuinely useful information.  But never consider them to be totally accurate, e.g. what pundits and bloggers say is in no way representative of what voters in general think.

    I see your point, Lou Grinzo (none / 0) (#97)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    But never consider them to be totally accurate, e.g. what pundits and bloggers say is in no way representative of what voters in general think.

    I agree with your statement.  You have to have a filter to read any of these blogs, even this one.  Cut through the BS and see the real agenda.

    My friends, who are voters, in general are saying one thing to me, but the polls and pundits are saying something different.  That's why this race is so tight and the outcome will be a real reflection of the current mindset of Americans.  Shouting "change" in a crowd is very different from actually working towards "change".


    Can we set the expectations for McCain any lower (none / 0) (#69)
    by Richjo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM EST
    going into this debate? Cause we all saw how well that worked out in 2000 with Bush.

    Yes and Palin too. (none / 0) (#87)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:50:26 AM EST
    Let's see how the "brain impaired", "volatile", "reckless", McCain does tonight.  Shades of Reagan in 1980.

    Shades of Reagan (none / 0) (#98)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    And Reagan won two terms ~ugh~
    And Bush won two terms (well, was giving two terms through fraud and violation of the Constitution) ~double ugh~

    Col Klink? (none / 0) (#78)
    by mpBBagain on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:33:11 AM EST
    Will someone explain to me what McCain is actually doing in DC to PUSH foward the Bailout?

    Does McCain know anything about what is going on?

    He is just sitting there looking dumb avoiding OBAMA on the frontline.

    Remember on Hogans Heroes how Col Klink would do anything to avoid going to the Russian Front.

    Thats McCain.  Col Klink

    Bailout = Democratic plan (none / 0) (#80)
    by Munibond on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:38:08 AM EST
    I fear that the public perception of this bailout, which seems to be hugely unpopular with the masses, may be that what is currently on the table is a Democratic plan, rather than a flawed administration proposal with some bandaids.  Might this not backfire - if not on Obama, then on the down ticket Democratic candidates - with the Dems appearing to be the party that is in the pocket of the banks?

    NOPE (none / 0) (#92)
    by mpBBagain on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    McCain the Maverick came to DC to save the day..

    its his baby now.


    The Maverick will come against it (none / 0) (#111)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    While claiming to be on the side of the American people.  

    Is this NYT article for real? (none / 0) (#83)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:42:26 AM EST
    Article says Paulson knelt before Pelosi yesterday.

     In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to "blow it up" by withdrawing her party's support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

    "I didn't know you were Catholic," Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson's kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: "It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans."

    Mr. Paulson sighed. "I know. I know."

    McCain's Plan (none / 0) (#95)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    Put finger up, see which way the wind blows.

    Isn't that also Obama's plan? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    Perhaps they will reach a bi-partisan accord after all.

    Obama already stated his position (none / 0) (#120)
    by Iris on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    And it's not hard to understand

    1. No blank check.

    2. Pay back the taxpayers.

    3. Oversight.

    4. Handle Mortgages.

    5. Limit CEO pay.

    While I'm not certain to what extent the agreement this morning (the one the GOP sank) dealt with mortgages, the broad outlines of Obama's conditions align pretty well with what was in that agreement.  It's not the same as the Bush bailout plan, and whatever the media/public perception is, we at least should keep that in mind.

    One newspaper account sd. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    Obama stated relief from homeowner mortgage defaults was not a necessary part of the bail out bill currently under consideration.

    Bankruptcy "Reform" (none / 0) (#122)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    I'm surprised that no one has brought up the effect of the so-called BK reform bill of a couple of years back. I think making it harder for folks to file for BK is a root cause of the current housing/foreclosure debacle.