Why The GOP Blew Up The Deal: McCain's Political Stunt

NYTimes reports:

In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr. . . . pleaded with Nancy Pelosi . . . not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal. [Pelosi responded] “[i]t’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.” Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.

It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations. . . . [A] top aide to Mr. Boehner . . . , Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.

(Emphasis supplied.) So Republicans ADMIT that they blew up the deal because it "den[ied] McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement." The admissions is shocking and revealing. John McCain and the Republicans blew up this deal to further McCain's own political ambition. Country first my ass.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain's Desperate Gamble | John McCain:Thinking Of Himself First, Last And Always >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Extreme political grandstanding. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:45:15 AM EST
    Normally, I consider grandstanding SOP for politicians, but this really went too far.  This is close to using the attack on Pearl Harbor for a photo op.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47:26 AM EST
    They probably think this is a clever way to put some of the blame for a Republican revolt on the Democrats - "it's not our fault, the Democrats made it partisan by trying to deny John McCain credit!"

    But there's no way this can work out for them.  There was already broad, general agreement that McCain was there as a political stunt in the first place.  And at the end of the day, the Republicans just look incredibly reckless and irresponsible.

    I'm pretty sure I'm going to be hearing a lot of anger against the revolting Republicans today from the Wall Street wing of the GOP.  I'll probably also get asked why, since the Democrats are the majority, they don't just ram it through anyway.  I think the answer is that they probably will, if it really comes down to that.

    A diary on the comments you hear (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:50:17 AM EST
    might be worth while Steve.

    The Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dave B on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:09:13 AM EST
    They will not ram this through without Republicans.  They understand that this deal is very unpopular.  They also understand that in a year that Republicans are extremely unpopular, this is the long ball for them.  It can potentially change the entire political landscape, painting the Democrats as the irresponsible ones willing to put enormous sums of taxpayer money at risk bailing out the criminals on Wall Street.  The result, Republicans take back all three branches of government.

    Perhaps this was meant to highlight (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:33:01 PM EST
    John McCain and that was too clever by half, but the deal that the Dems seem to be willing to take seems to be equally foolish.  What did the Dems get in the Bush/Paulson revised plan? More oversight and executive compensation limits?  Anything truly more substantive than that?  The American people do NOT want to bail out the companies and Gailbraith and others have challenged the Paulson/bush proposal.  What am I missing?  Last time the Dems wanted to get out of DC so they hurredly agreed to FISA.  Is this rush to "get it done" more of the same?  Do the House REpublicans have anything of substance to fight for?

    Big question is... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    Do the House Democrats have any substance at all?  They are supposedly  in charge.  They need to act like it!  I am tired tired tired of them.  The DNC and the party both need a huge shake-up.

    If the markets start to tank... (none / 0) (#8)
    by klem4708 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    I believe the Dems should and will ram something through. How the markets open and react will be key.

    If I understand the crabby economists, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    one of the problems with the Paulson plan is that they are not sure buying the mortgages is the nub of the problem, which means a plan that  buys and fixes mortgages won't do that much good to get the credit market moving again. Nor a lot of agreement as to which of the many available problems is the heart problem to address, fixing the mortgages, fixing the securities based on them and other similar consumer debt, fixing bank capitalization, or the widget problem which has not yet been discussed in public or apparently with Congress.

    Another theory that some of them, including the Congressional Budget Office  have (forget the 'french socialist' wing) is that the real problem is that financial institutions have huge untaken writedowns on various assets not necessarily ones discussed in public yet, which will have to be realized and publicly  quantified under this deal, which will leave them undercapitalized in public and subject to what just happened to WaMu. So the proper solution is putting in cash, so that they have enough capital to keep going despite the funky assets or removing them in exchange, and start lending again. Then clean up or kill off the funky later and out of the spotlight.

    Shelby was waving the economists' letter yesterday, but didn't happen to mention what their opinion was or how the alleged alternative plan addressed that, which, if the summary above is correct, it most seriously does not, either.

    The one thing about the Paulson plan which is vague and may make sense for it is exactly what e is going to buy, and why. It may well be that he at first thought he'd buy at discount the stinking mortgages, but on examination, there is a different actual nub which must be addressed once some serious information comes out, and he wanted the flexibility to switch a bit when the real nub where money would help appears. Not sure he is in fact thinking that, but there is not enough out there now about where the actual nub is to be sure.


    I agree with you about MCain's ambition (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47:51 AM EST
    But I also think it is politics rather than 'country first' that made the Dems rush to get this done so fast when Bush and Paulson proposed it.  Yes, I know tat Dodd made it a lot better, and I am grateful for that.  But it did not have to be done at all in one week.

    I'm pretty disgusted with everyone this week.

    Incrediible (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:03:21 AM EST
    Some of you have such disdain for Obama that you will excuse anything McCain does.

    I am rather disgusted by your attitude.


    It is not disdain for Obama on my part (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM EST
    It is disbelief in Bush when he calls 'crisis'. I just don't buy it and am angry at Dems for not even bothering to question his motives.

    Come on. This isn't coming from Bush (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:57:04 AM EST
    he really has no idea what is going on.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    To paraphrase Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now:

    He's not a president.  He's a clerk sent by shopkeepers to collect the bill.


    Awesome quote!!! (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    and soooo appropo

    My favorite movie line of all time (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    I thought earlier this week that it was appropriate. You gave me the perfect chance to use it.

    Brando is the man (none / 0) (#93)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    and that line is awesome...

    I disagree completely (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:00:45 AM EST
    The urgency is very real.  The negotiators from both parties have been working around the clock since last Friday, and it was being reported Wednesday afternoon that a deal was close - even as the McCain campaign was announcing "it looks like negotiations are getting nowhere, I need to rush back to Washington to save everything."

    There is no way the deal was somehow rushed to attempt to deny credit to John McCain.  The chronology just doesn't make sense.  Keep in mind, the Senate Republicans are still largely on board by all accounts; why would they be cooperating in a political stunt by Dems aimed at John McCain?


    I don't mean it was done fast to deny McCain (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    credit.  It was done fast to avoid being accused of endangering the country.  Same reason the Patriot Act was done fast.

      I believe that you believe the country is in danger if this is not done this week.  Maybe the Dem leaders really believe that too.

    I just don't believe this whole crisis story.  I've heard Bush call 'crisis' too many times.


    That is not what you wrote (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:12:14 AM EST
    in your first comment. You excused McCain. Inexplicable the attitude some of you display.

    I agree with you about McCain (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:17:25 AM EST
    He's grandstanding and thrill seeking, for his own political purposes.

    I don't want this bill passed.  That is my opinion on this issue. There are Dems that agree with me.

    It is the acceptance of Bush's word without question that is inexplicable to me.


    well hen (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:41:18 AM EST
    if you don't want it passed and there are dems who agree with you, why do the dems keep claiming it is house repugs that are stopping this?

    Because there aren't enough Dems to stop it (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    Most of them will go along with it.  My point is that just because I oppose this, and am angry at Dems that support it,  does not mean I am not a Dem.  Since it looks like it will pass, for the sake of the country I hope they are right and I am wrong.

    Who accepted Bush's word without question? (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    Barney Frank?

    Nope. You haven't been following this very closely.


    Most took Bush's and Paulson's word that (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    we have to do something huge this week. I didn't see Frank or Dodd arguing with that premise.

    2/3 - 5/8 economists agree (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    on that part of it that I can tell...and you know what they say about economists and agreement.

    Where did you see that, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    Ruffian started out that McCain was grandstanding.

    Um...so McCain (none / 0) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:10:05 AM EST
    can claim credit and ride it to victory? He won't. But that's the idea behind it.  Are you seriously giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt (as if there is any) on this?

    Weird (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM EST
    Seemed to me Steve said the exact opposite.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    he was trying to give McCain credit for answering the call to the crisis.   I feel it's the exact opposite.

    Um (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    I would ask that you read my comment again and try to get the full flavor.

    I did. Apparently, (none / 0) (#37)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:41:54 AM EST
     I'm still not sure what you're saying then. My apologies.

    well (none / 0) (#46)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    The House republicans dropped a last minute bomb on the plan for unknown purposes.  McCain in the meeting didnt even have a position as he's clearly using the house republicans to make a stink, so that he can heal the stink and look like the king.  All while the markets suffer from the uncertainty generated by the ploy.

    Reports are that McCain is shuttling to and from Boehners office this morning.

    This story about "1000s of phone calls" to their offices just started getting pushed hard yesterday.  Were the phones out last week? That is being used as cover for the gop to provide McCain cover.


    But even Barbara Boxer's office is (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    reporting that they are getting deluged by calls.

    Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, has received nearly 17,000 e-mail messages, nearly all opposed to the bailout, her office said. More than 2,000 constituents called Ms. Boxer's California office on Tuesday alone; just 40 favored the bailout. Her Washington office received 918 calls. Just one supported the rescue plan.

    well (none / 0) (#97)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    THe polls I saw yesterday had it split 30/30/30 and change.  Maybe its just a very vocal group.

    The FOX polls I saw today had 50%+ wanting a different plan but the only plan category was "Bush's plan".  So that could sweep up anyone who didnt see the modified Paulson plan as the Bush plan.  It was very tricky.


    given sen. mccain's (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM EST
    admitted complete lack of knowledge of economics, exactly what was it that he intended to contribute to the conversation, in a substantive way?

    personally, i'm opposed to the bailout, for both fiscal and social reasons. the difference between me and sen. mccain is that i actually understand what's going on.

    Yep but remember they are politicians and (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST
     politicians do what they must do to win.  I will vote for Obama but to be fair though didn't Obama do what he had to do to catch up in the polls.  After he was elected he flip flopped on many things in order to win votes and he learned how to throw people under the bus when he had to.

    This will blow up in McCain's face (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:59:40 AM EST
    Just like his debate stunt has. They are so ridiculous.  The Republicans want less regulation and MORE corporate tax breaks in the bill.  If it continues like this Obama will win 55/45 IMO.  

    Brinkmanship (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:00:59 AM EST
    I think this whole mess can be explained as a pretty simple political calculation.  McCain and some of the more right-wing Republicans in Congress know how bad the economic mess is and that we need to do something drastic to avoid a much worse situation.  They also know that it will be political suicide if they simply go along with the Paulson/Dodd plan--their base will drop them like a red hot rock.

    Their solution: Throw a hissy fit, put the entire country into a state of high anxiety for a few days, propose some cockamamie plan of their own that only their base would like, and finally go along with a plan that's very close to P/D.  They can then go home and make lots of noise about how they fought the Washington insiders and won, blah blah blah.

    And McCain will crow the loudest about how he showed leadership and Obama voted for "his" restructured plan.

    It's one enormous political ploy.  In poker terms, McCain and the Republicans are going all-in with not their money, but the whole freaking economy, all to win reelection.

    It makes me sick to my stomach to think any one person, let alone dozens of people in any one political party, would stoop to that level in the country I love.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    I made a similar point yesterday.

    Are you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    really surprised that they are doing this? I'm not. It's what they've been doing for literally years and years. It's why I have been so set against the post partisan crap the Dems have been shoveling this year.

    and if the dems are (none / 0) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:23:14 AM EST
    sure that this is what's happening, they could cut the legs right out from under the repugs and pass the dem version of the bill with no repug support.  The repugs would go home with nothing to "crow" about and the dems could go home and say they were willing (without repugs) to do what needed to be done for the good of the country.

    Nothing to crow about? No, sir. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    If this became an all Dem bill, the Repubs would run home to their constituents who hate the very idea of a Wall Street bailout which leaves them out, and say "RE-elect us. We fought for you and will keep fighting for you and your view against the evil and stupid dems who pushed this piece of trash forward over our not quite dead enough, screaming bodies." And it might work.  Unpopular rescues only work when everybody is on board for them, so nobody can do what I just suggested.

    Then the Dems (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    should quit yelling about it. If it's important then they need to show leadership.

    The real problem is that NO ONE supports this bill. It's the reason why the GOP can so easily oppose it. the latest ap poll says that only 30% of voters support it. It's to my eternal frustation that the Dems continually do what an unpopular President wants them to do. The sad thing is that the GOP is balking against Bush and the Dems are doing his bidding. Dem leadership has been played once again I fear.


    Except that most people (none / 0) (#96)
    by jar137 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    are opposed to the bailout.  The Dems can't be left holding the bag on this huge expense.  Also, there is no guarantee that things will get better.  If conditions don't improve, it would be solely the fault of the Dems.  I wouldn't sign on for that if I were in Congress.

    Um, did you not read the part (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:04:19 AM EST
    about the Democrats trying to "jam through the agreement"?

    So who was engaging in politics here?

    I'd of course like to know exactly what this aide to Boehner said. Given he's an aide to Boehner, somehow I just doubt that, as he actually expressed it, it came out the way the NY Times reporter cast it. I don't trust these reporters to paraphrase anything without distortion.

    Look, the reality is that, independent of McCain, Conservatives were going to have an enormous problem with a governmental program of the size of 700 Billion dollars. Indeed, one would expect that, as a right wing Republican, McCain himself would have an enormous problem with such a program.

    Why imagine that the balking of both the Congressional Conservatives and McCain himself at this package is not sincere? On ideological grounds, if McCain was to be consistent, wouldn't one expect him to be seeking some alternative to this bailout, or at least some way of shaping it far more to his point of view, and that of the Conservatives?

    If McCain is the right wing politician you and most people claim he is, shouldn't he be doing exactly what he's doing, simply out of ideological consistency? Why claim that he's simply throwing a monkey wrench into the works?

    I think what we really have to see is what McCain and the Republicans come up with as an alternative. My guess is that it won't be pretty, and that it won't be so because it will conform to their own ideology.

    If you're going to attack McCain, why don't you wait until you see what he and his cohorts actually produce, and attack it on policy grounds?

    I certainly wouldn't conclude that McCain and the Republicans aren't wedded to their ideology, and would, if Presidential politics weren't at issue, simply throw it over for a "bipartisan" bailout plan -- which, however, violates that ideology 700 Billion ways.

    And honestly I would not trust -- as you seem to do -- anything that the Democrats have to say about how this deal went down, as if they only speak the truth and the whole truth, and are incapable of distortion. Dodd and Frank and Reid and Pelosi have distorted in the past, haven't they? I think we've seen that by now, haven't we? Of course, the same caveat applies in spades to the Republicans.

    And neither would I trust the media's accounts. Even the quote I started with above, and the reporter's paraphrase (wouldn't it be nice to see an actual quote from the aide, so that we can evaluate what he said on its own merits? Think we'll ever get that?), show how careful one must be about how they might twist things to make a point.

    I think that we're not going to have anything like a true picture of what's going on until we read multiple accounts of the business over the next number of days, and can piece together what seems to make coherent sense about what really went on.

    Disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:10:18 AM EST
    Your attitude and comment is simply disgusting.

    You Obama haters are simply pathetic.

    Defend McCain to the end.

    Why do you even call yourselves Democrats?


    All you have to offer (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    BTD, is McCain hate.

    Yeah, we get it, BTD, everything that McCain does is horrible, ugly, vicious, and unspeakable. And of course, you say that while being completely dispassionate and unemotional.

    Look, you can't even begin to deal with the points I've raised.

    As I said, I don't know yet anything like the full story here. Everything that has been said about what was really going on here comes out of partisan mouths -- Democrats, Republicans, and a media that can no longer -- if was ever able to -- try to present things in an objective way.

    As I said, the real thing to look out for here is the actual product of this negotiation, and to see how it might be twisted to the desires of right wing Republicans.

    You, consumed with McCain hate as you are, can't see that larger picture -- the picture that will, in fact, affect profoundly both the next term of whoever is elected President, but also the American people more largely speaking.

    Just don't preach to us about how you care about policy anymore, OK?


    I'll take being called a McCain Hater (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    and a Democrat than a MAcCain lover and A Clueless PUMA which is what you have become.

    You are a useless freaking waste of a commenter and if you are offended by my treatment of you I hope you decided to leave my threads forever.

    No Quarter is calling for you. We do not need PUMA idiots here.


    well (none / 0) (#100)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    Well, you can't be so naive to imagine that McCain running down to fling himself at congress wasnt going to get the partisan juices flowing?  Of course democrats wanted to promote the idea of a done deal before his arrival.   As Obama said, introducing these presidential stakes into the debate would lead to mistrust.

    I used to support McCain in 2000 so I really dont need a lecture on being fair minded.  This was a low-rent stunt by McCain and it should be called out for what it is.


    And one further point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    You can't even be consistent in how you hate McCain.

    One day, it's because he's a right wing ideologue, who won't deviate from what the right wing wants.

    The next day -- today, that is -- it's because he's only pretending to care about right wing ideology, and his right wing base. In fact, according to you, he of course has no legitimate objection to the bailout on his own principles: it's nothing but a political fabrication.

    And, of course, while you're claiming all that, it's the people who demur to your characterization who are contemptible.


    Violation of Republican SOP (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:15:08 AM EST
    Look, the reality is that, independent of McCain, Conservatives were going to have an enormous problem with a governmental program of the size of 700 Billion dollars. Indeed, one would expect that, as a right wing Republican, McCain himself would have an enormous problem with such a program.

    I agree, I don't see why we're so surprised that the republicans did this.  That it syncs up nicely w/the themes the McCain campaign is pushing is an added bonus for them.  In addition, it makes whatever plan that comes out at this point more of a Dem plan, thus we own it should it bomb during the next president's term.  I think a little more deliberation here is good for us long term.  If the markets really are in such dire straits, then it would seem to me it's in their best interest to wait it out like the rest of us, and feel confident at least that something will be passed that is a benefit to us all.


    What will happen to the markets (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    if this isn't done by Sunday night? Hmmm?

    Funny how day to day (none / 0) (#75)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:47:12 AM EST
    people change their sense of "urgency" depending on its political implications.

    A couple days ago, it was just absurd that McCain should want to suspend his campaign to deal with the crisis, because it just wasn't that urgent, and it should just be done right and in its own time. Presidents should be able to multitask, and needn't focus to the exclusion of other things. Republicans were nothing but Chicken Littles.

    Today, it's crazy that there should be a single day's delay -- the market will crash, OMG!!!

    Of course the reasonable view was always that 1) it is very urgent to do it but 2) it shouldn't be so rushed that one botches the job.

    A little consistency and common sense would be appreciated. I'm not naive enough, though, actually to expect it.


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    Who are the people who said it wasn't that urgent a couple days ago?  Did I miss all the Democrats saying "come on, this is no big deal"?  Did I miss all the talking heads on TV saying "what's he in such a hurry for, there's no urgency"?

    What people said is that it's ridiculous for McCain, who hadn't even read the proposed bailout plan as of Tuesday, to suddenly decide on Wednesday that it's the most urgent thing ever and it can't possibly happen without him.

    What you're missing is that "urgency" does not necessarily imply "we need John McCain right now."


    HE DIDN"T NEED to suspend his campaign (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    NOT because it wasn't urgent, but because he did not need to be involved.

    He hindered the process with his self-promoting act.


    Coming out for more and better regulation (none / 0) (#91)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    this week, and less regulation in the alternative plan, is certainly consistent with McC, who will say anything with no need for logic or consistency.

    If the dems are sure (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:20:01 AM EST
    that this bailout plan is the right thing to do, then go ahead and do it.  They don't need house republican support to do it.

    Are the dems in congress any more willing to put country ahead of party than the repugs appear willing to do?  Not so far.

    And, if they aren't sure that this bailout is the right thing to do, then it's a good thing that it doesn't pass immediately.

    The dems have spent years whining that the repugs have "stopped" legislation from passing.  Well, the repugs can't stop this if the senate has enough votes.  So, it's time to stop your whining and do something if you want to.  And, if all you want is political "cover", then stop whining about it.  Sh!t or get off the pot, as they say.  

    If they aren't willing to bet their political futures on this bailout plan, then I'm not sure I want the plan thrust upon me.

    Nancy -impeachment off the table - Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    is never going to take that risk. She will do it with political cover or not at all.

    well then (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:39:44 AM EST
    anyone who cliams to need "political cover" to do what needs to be done, should not be complaining about anyone "injecting" politics into the situation.  Because claiming to need "political cover" is just another form of injecting politics into the situation.

    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    never claimed to need "political cover."  That was a characterization by a blog commentor.

    Didn't you type just last night (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    Pelosi sd. it must be a bi-partisan bill or no bill?  What do you infer/imply from that?

    Not quite like that (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    Pelosi said, and maybe I should go look for an exact quote at this time, that she would not be bringing any bill to the floor without bipartisan support.

    I did not take that to be a fixed and immovable position, but rather a statement of where she stood at the time.  I do not think "no bill" is an option for the Democratic caucus - people like Dodd and Frank are too cognizant of the consequences to ever let it come to that - but she was certainly saying that the Dems would make a priority of trying to reach a bipartisan agreement rather than simply voting on the first bill that has a chance at 50% + 1.


    Both Pelosi and Kissinger seem to (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    have risen in the esteem of Talk Left w/i the past 24 hours.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    I've always felt that Nancy Pelosi gets a bad rap on the blogs.  Kissinger, not so much.

    I think TL commentors respect Kissinger's opinion only to the extent of saying that it's a little scary to have a foreign policy stance to the right of Henry Kissinger.


    No segue. What sources (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    do you rely on to understand what is happening and the merits of various proposals to shore upthe economy?  I assume you come to these issues with a great deal more expertise than the average voter and/or Congress personn.  Thanks.  

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    I've learned about the industry just by being around it and soaking up info over the years.  On day-to-day stuff I formulate an opinion through discussions with colleagues moreso than by reading financial blogs or anything of that nature.  In fact my friends tend to be more tuned into the details of what's up and what's down since I, personally, am not a big-time investor.

    Around Wall Street people just tend to talk about the markets the same way people in Washington tend to talk about politics, even in their free time.  It's like an obsessive hobby for people.  Me, I'm sort of on the perimeter keeping an ear to the ground.


    Interesting interview yesterday (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    [I think on Marketplace on NPR] of a man [whose name I forgot] who is quite successful at figuring out which distressed stuff is worth acquiring.  He sd. he doesn't listen to Mozart, read novels, or do anything but read financial reports, listen to lectures and symposiums on financial stuff, listen to conference calls, etc.  He did say that if he was any good at golf, he might do that, but he isn't.  

    More on Pelosi. She's (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    standin' by her man:

    At the session Thursday night with the Democratic Caucus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to sources, told members that Obama is "our messenger," suggesting that he should call the shots. Her stand did not sit well with members seeking to add amendments to the legislation.
     [Snipped from Tom Edsall's article on Huff Post.]

    i didn't say (none / 0) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    Nancy Pelosi specifically.  But, there were certainly many dem pols last night claiming that repugs were injecting politics into this and at the same time claiming  this MUST HAVE BIPARTISAN support.

    Why MUST it have bipartisan support?  There are enough votes in the senate to pass it and the dems have a majority in the house.  If they want it, then pass it.


    Because it is incredibly unpopular (none / 0) (#42)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    all of (Dems & GOP) them are getting swamped by calls from constituents against any bail-out.
    Just the word "bail-out", and the fact that no one trusts Bush, makes it toxic.
    Unfortunately, the crisis is real, and they have to do something unpopular to address it.

    Indeed. She didn't say politcial cover ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    ... but pretty much all the articles from the MSM have said that she won't let it go to the floor for a vote unless she knows that the GOP will vote for it. One article mentioned wanting 100 GOP votes.
    Maybe the MSM is lying, that's always possible.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    As Scarborough said this morning, the dems got slaughtered in 94 after they signed a spending bill in 93 that the house gop was against. The bill was needed and the dems felt they were being responsible by doing it but they walked into machine gun fire to do it.

    Obviously the idea of a repeat doesnt seem attractive to them.


    then it must not (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    really NEED to be done to avoid the financial ruin of the country..... or ..... the dems are willing to let the country go into certain financial ruin in order to save their own poltical butts....

    and thus both parties are (none / 0) (#95)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    considering what's going on in Congress, right?

    well. (none / 0) (#101)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:22:27 PM EST
    I think they will pull the trigger if needed.  I think that's what the republicans want.  THey dont want to be responsible adults for anything so they can build their little forts and play deregulation pirates, like kids.

    I think the GOP house really wants it to happen, they just dont want to be blamed for it or own it.


    I'm with Chris Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    It's not about rescuing McCain's campaign.

    What I don't get is why these House Repubs, who have always detested McCain, are now running to him.

    Shows the shallowness of the Republican bench (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    If they oppose Bush, McCain is the only other one who can get press attention. John Boehner can't buy press coverage on his own this week.

    Or else it was the other way around and McCain who put Boehner up to voicing more opposition than he actually has. There seems to be that school of thought.  I have no idea which is true.


    I think that's just an excuse (none / 0) (#98)
    by jar137 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    They are likely more afraid of the impending election.  Dems are polling strongly even in squarely Repub districts.  This bailout is going to be very unpopular with the people, who could easily turn on the Repubs for creating this mess in the first place and then fixing it by selling the people out a second time.  I can understand their skittishness.  

    Time for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    to show us how his bipartisans skills can fix this.

    You McCain lover you. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    Yeah...right. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    I hated McCain before they all started hating McCain, the number of "liberals" that had such love for McCain makes my stomach turn.  

    I'm having trouble seeing what's (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    wrong with the idea of both Obama and McCain simply being in Congress now: present, listening, and learning.  Unless they have a much better grasp of what is happening and how to "fix" it than I do.  

    They should be there (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    but I am looking for leadership...not Mr. Brash and Mr. Cool.  

    Maybe tonight? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    Sen. McCain, given your seniority in the Senate and my very great respect for your military service to our country, which I love so very much, I humbly request that you tell the American people your plan for fixing our broken economy.

    That (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    last item is what scares me. What if we put all this money from the treasury out there and then banks continue to fail? It's not like the treasury is in such great shape right now either with the huge deficit we're running imo.

    All I have (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    got to say is that the Dems had better get out there and show some leadership on this issue and quit whining about how the GOP won't go along. Forget about the GOP and go directly to the voting public and tell them WHY we need this plan.

    That's a good idea. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    And they should include (none / 0) (#99)
    by jar137 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    all the regulations necessary to ensure the financial industry does not run amok again.  And reinstate the usury laws for good measure.

    sure (none / 0) (#102)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    I think they should insist that Bush denounce the house republicans as unserious and irresponsible before the dems sign it.

    According to NPR yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    afternoon, Chinese government barred all Chinese banks except numero uno from lending to U.S.  

    Hooverism to Birchites to Exploiters. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    The evidence of crisis is glaringly apparent,  but some Republicans are reacting to solutions like Hoover, and, others, including the Ron Paul-types, are invoking the specter of looming socialism and communism.  Their answer seems to be even less, if not the total absence of regulations and lower capital gains taxes.  The Bush administration's credibility is justifiably in the  negative zone, so even the scholarly Ben Bernanke and his motivations and opinions have been made suspect. The Bush posture on any crisis has been to capitalize on it and to exploit it--the three-page Paulson plan did not pickup on the realities of the times and was geared to invest even more in an autocracy.  The Hooverites and Birchites appear to want to use the crisis to continue and expand their delusions of an unfettered and free market. The reasonable solutions of Dodd and Frank, given the dire and real circumstances, have reeked havoc on Republicans all--McCain oscillates between these and other factions more than a Sears room fan on high.  All the while, the country's economic, not only its financial system, is in jeopardy.  Maybe it is because McCain has, admittedly, no understanding of economics that he feels free to exploit the situation with campaign antics.

    Hey! I just cited that in a comment on (none / 0) (#3)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47:32 AM EST
    Jeralyn's thread. :)
    Except you left out the best part, where it says Paulson went down on one knee, and Pelosi said "I didn't know you're Catholic."

    McCain engages in thrill-seeking (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:55:54 AM EST
    behavior to get himself pumped up.  This whole episode was his version of debate prep.  Look for something similar next time.

    And when does John Q Public (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    get this?  Does the media report this or do they cover for McCain in the same way they covered for Reagan, Bush I and W???

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    our newspaper was blaming Boehner for the deal falling through mostly though it seems all the players took a hit.

    The Deal (none / 0) (#94)
    by bobbski on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    How can the house GOP blow up the deal when the democrats, having a majority in the house, can simply approve the package.

    Seems like there are democrats that do not approve this sellout, oops, I mean  bailout.

    This will backfire and blow up in the faces of the incumbent democrats.

    Me?  I plan finding the incumbents on the ballot and voting for the other candidate, regardless of party.