John McCain:Thinking Of Himself First, Last And Always

NYTimes analysis:

Senator John McCain had intended to ride back into Washington on Thursday as a leader who had put aside presidential politics to help broker a solution to the financial crisis. Instead he found himself in the midst of a remarkable partisan showdown, lacking a clear public message for how to bring it to an end. At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.

. . . [T]here was no evidence that he was playing a major role in the frantic efforts on Capitol Hill to put a deal back together again. . . . [T]he day’s events succeeded most of all in raising questions about precisely why Mr. McCain had called for postponing the first debate and returned to Washington to focus on the bailout plan, and what his own views were about what should be done. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Eugene Robinson explains: [More...]

[I]n trying to put himself at center stage, McCain managed to insert politics into the situation. . . . McCain succeeded in focusing attention on himself, but not necessarily in a good way. . . . Putting himself at the center of events -- making any situation all about him -- is more than a political tactic for McCain. It's his nature, and I wonder if most Americans won't be unnerved at the prospect of electing a president who's always so ready for his close-up.

(Emphasis supplied.) John McCain, the Norma Desmond of politics. Country first my a*s.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why The GOP Blew Up The Deal: McCain's Political Stunt | The Polls - 9/26 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's hard to know what Republicans believe anymore (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:14:46 AM EST
    And McCain has become so unprincipled -- seemingly deciding everything based solely on how it can help him win this election -- that it's gone from hard to impossible to know what McCain believes.

    With respect to the economy, I suppose, the only thing for sure is that he'd want us to believe that he's a fiscal conservative.

    He was (4.25 / 4) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM EST
    never principled. The media told us that he was for many years. He's always been an unprincipled, nasty man willing to play games with the populace.

    ya (4.25 / 4) (#23)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    Yeah, McCain has that effect when you first see him.  People believe the shtick, I did in 2000, but then you watch him for years you understand why the republicans don't like him.

    It's not principle, its grandstanding self-interest on such a scale that many politicians can't even stand him.


    CFMA (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:17:37 AM EST
    sounds like a good response to PUMA.

    Cajun French Music Association? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    That can't be it.  ????

    Country First My Ass. . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    as per BTD.

    any poll (none / 0) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    who isn't willing to act on this bill without the political cover of ALL pols acting for this bill certainly also qualifies as CFMA status.

    I wonder if, eventually, even conservatives... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:23:01 AM EST
    will start to see through McCain's phony stunts.  I saw on Fox yesterday that Dick Morris called McCain's suspension of his campaign a "stunt".  He went on to say that he meant that as a compliment and thought it was brilliant.

    But Fox reports today that Huckabee seems to be calling McCain on it:

    You can't just say, 'World stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'

    Hope people see through tMcCain's stunt (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by vector on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:26:42 AM EST
    I hope all of the current bad press against McCain will change a few minds.

    I was a Clinton supporter in the primaries.  Until recently, I was not really looking forward to November, and was only intending to grudgingly vote for Obama.  However, the Democratic Convention (and obviously all the recent financial calamity) has completely changed my attitude.

    I am now very excited, and I am looking forward to casting my vote for Obama.

    Unfortunately, here in Ohio, the polls keep showing Obama tied, or 2 to 5 points behind.  He is also tied or trailing in Pennsylvania and New Hamphire - where he should be well ahead.

    I saw the NYT poll results, with a big Obama lead, and I truly hope this isn't merely him overperforming in states where he is already ahead.

    Remember, this is still a state-by-state race.

    I could easily see him winning a big popular vote, and still lose the electoral vote, depending on which states he carries (or doesn't carry).

    Sheesh, this is like trying to determine the condition of a forest by having to separately examine each leaf.

    I've heard some political analysts say that, if people are nervous or angry about the economy, then they will generally vote for the candidate who represents "change" - in this case, Obama.

    But, if things get worse, and people start to feel panic, then they will vote for the candidate who reprsents stability and experience - McCain.  This possibility scares the heck out of me.

    hm (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:45:52 AM EST
    I cant believe I ever had any respect for McCain.  Has anyone asked him whose capital he's using for all of his gambling? His every choice seems designed to put us at risk for his own gain.  

    What's interesting about the counter proposal (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by OldCity on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    is that's entirely unfeasible.  There are no structures available to do what the conservatives want.  How they can possibly expect to insure anything is beyond me.  Insurance companies do not write risks with the kind of exposures these programs present.  It just ain't gonna happen.  And, if they want to create a gov't insurance company, then they have to reserve funds equivalent to all the risks they take.  

    It's obvious that these jokers don't know anything about business, the markets, certainly not about insurance.  

    Worse, they actually want less regulation.  Are they slow learners?  Do they have amnesia?  How do they think we ended up in this ridiculous predicament anyway?  There program is a true example of closed minds...they refuse to admit that their economic philosophies are the root cause of our economic crisis.  

    It's sad that they're being taken seriously.

    I don't want to imply that I'm solidly behind the plan as written, either, but theirs...Good Lord!

    Exactly right (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    This is why Paulson told the House Republicans that their ideas were total non-starters.  It's not an ideological disagreement.  It's just a case of one side being financially literate and the other side not.

    They aren't financially illiterate (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    They are financially INSANE.

    It also cannot be done (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    in the short term.

    Huckabee is 100x scarier than Palin (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    imo. He's a true religious theocrat.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    The fact that he is more articulate just makes him more dangerous.

    Harry Reid: (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    "Where was the White House, when we had to sit through filibuster after filibuster when trying to address the housing crisis"

    Righteous anger Harry.

    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    when there is no threat of a senate filibuster neither Harry or Nancy Pelosi are willing to act and pass the legislation without the house repugs signing on.

    gotta love these vague negative (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    overgeneralizations about congress. They are OH SO useful in our discussions, and so rare.



    While it is true that mccain (3.50 / 2) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    has tried to pull a stunt to help his campaign, the Obama campaign is hardly a paragon of virtue. I seem to remember them doing anything to beat Hillary a few short weeks ago. But I guess all is forgiven.

    It has to be (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    Sorry but for me, it is imperative that we not allow McCain to be elected.  Obama was not my first choice and I remain as angry as h*ll at the Deaniac wing of the party and what, imo, was cheating.

    But for now, the first and most important issue is to keep McCain out of the WH.  Seriously.  Choosing Palin alone ought to make anyone see how McCain's ego is running this.  He will NOT put regular citizens first.  He has never been a regular citizen.  He sees the world through a "we vs them" mentality.  He is every bit as scary as W.  

    After November, Dems have to face our own demons within the party.  But for now, we must not allow them to keep the WH.


    It's called (3.50 / 2) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:24:37 AM EST
    not cutting off your nose to spite your face. I have many leftover issues with what happened during the primary campaign. But I don't recall one  of them being Obama using a major national crisis that affects us ALL to win a primary.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

    Incredible (3.50 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:32:41 AM EST
    Any more excuse making for McCain from you?

    I can not tell you how much respect I have lost for a whol;e bunch of you.


    I was just saying this stuff (none / 0) (#85)
    by kenosharick on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 04:56:26 PM EST
    happens on both sides. I guess you believe Obama is without fault. or sin. Sorry if I disagree.

    Eugene Robinson comment is disingenuous (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Yotin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    From the candidates past actions, putting himself in the center of attention is an Obamian disease. Obama has to be a star and can't share the stage with someone who can upstage him. Hence, his non-pick of Hillary, millions spent on stage props and foreign trips while people are foreclosed, etc. It made me wonder how he'll spend tax dollars the way he spent his campaign contributions.

    One can point to many events in McCain's life where he self-negated for the greater good and shared his life's bounty with others. Just one example, he and Cindy has adopted and 2 dying babies and raised them. The Obamas are all about themselves. Heck, they couldn't even share their lives to own a dog or pet and they have grown kids to care for pets. My daughter, who works hard to make ends meet has adopted 2 rescued dogs. The Obamas are arrogant and full of themselves.

    but that is his biography (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    He's Louis the 14th in terms of Roccoco spending habits.

    McCain that is. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:27:36 AM EST
    at the end of the day he's bought and paid for by bankers 100%.   Obama is mortgagaed out to about 70% of his political value to Wall Street though.

    both politically and personally (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yotin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    Obama obtained favorable terms on his home mortgage. Is there anyone who's just like joe/jane blow on main street among our candidates?

    Disgusting. (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:11:38 AM EST
    McCain is playing games with our country's financial future. What an idiot and a fool.  

    both sides are playing games (none / 0) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    The dems don't need the repugs to do this.  If they want it bad enough and feel it is necessary, then DO IT and take full credit for saving the country without any republican support and use it against the republicans in the election.

    actually (none / 0) (#84)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    I believe I heard on Faux News that Bush will veto any bill that has stipulations about executive pay in it...

    so the Dems can't just pass anything they want, unless they like wasting their time...


    Is Nora Norma's sister? :) (none / 0) (#3)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:17:19 AM EST

    Thanks (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:33:13 AM EST

    This is all very bizarre (none / 0) (#11)
    by gtesta on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    However, there are roles to play for both McCain and Obama in this debate but they are purely political.  Their jobs would be to explain unpopular legislation to the country as part of the campaign.  They are definitely not there for their financial expertise.  I found it telling that Obama brought a senate staffer to the meeting while McCain brought a campaign staffer.  That tells me that Obama and the other democrats there do not understand him role.  Obama had no business presenting the "Democratic proposal".
    Obama needs to get the h*ll out of there.
    Paul O'Neil made some interesting comments in that he thought the government could help insure against default (like Ginnie Mae's role) without actually owning the bad debt.
    If a solution can be found without putting up $700B of public funds, this could turn out bad for Democrats who are putting their butts on the line now.

    We need to get in front of this issue...... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kefa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:28:46 AM EST
    with some answers. Not let McCain seem the smarter one. The voters seem to be afraid to turn the keys over to Obama. GW/Battleground Tracking has it 48/46 Obama behind this morning. Not good.

    A historic example (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:31:36 AM EST
    of poll cherry picking like I have never seen.

    There is exactly ONE poll that has McCain ahead. And you found it.

    You ignored the 15 polls that have Obama ahead.



    Both candidates... (none / 0) (#17)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:32:52 AM EST
    ... were as useless as t*ts on a bull.

    Quelle surprise.

    which is exactly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:40:59 AM EST
    why Obama didn't want to go.

    but when the President of the United States calls for you to come to the White House you don't say no.

    McCain should have never asked for this.

    John Harwood on CNBC: McCain will own any market sell-off today.


    Obama was right (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    Obama said at the outset that it was a mistake to introduce presidential politics into delicate talks.  He was absolutely right.

    Highlights from the "agreement". (none / 0) (#19)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    "ABC's Charlie Herman reports: The one page "Agreement on Principles" from the Senate Banking Committee released at the White House outlines four major categories for the relief package."

    "Funding:  Only $250 billion will be initially funded immediately and an additional $100 billion will be provided when the Treasury Secretary asks for it.  The final $350 billion can be denied.  To do so, Congress would need to make a "joint resolution of disapproval.

    Taxpayer protection:  Treasury Secretary is to reduce inappropriate executive compensation for companies that participate.  Taxpayers are to receive some sort of equity (shares?) in the companies that participate.  And most of any profits are to be directed to pay down then national debt.

    Oversight:  Similar to the Dodd plan, an oversight board that can issue cease and desist orders; regular reports to Congress but no timeframes specified;  a new Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary;  GAO audits of funds.

    Struggling Homeowners:  The government is required to modify mortgages which it owns or controls outright to prevent foreclosures and where possible coordinate efforts to modify loans it does not control.  Also, a portion of future profits from the plan are to be used to fund existing affordable housing programs."

    So, no mention of HOLC and weak language on modifying loans but, "future profits for the plan are to be used to fund existing affordable housing (ACORN anyone)?  Never heard this before and this is a signature Obama issue with ACORN.  I thought this was to be "clean" bill without any "extraneous" macroeconomic policy such as investment in alternative energy and infrastructure?

    Who's playing politics?  The answer: both are playing politics. Dems cave on the homeowner mortgage protection but add a gratuitous "affordable housing" line?  Repubs continue to posture on "no tax payer bail out for Wall Street". Political gamemanship from both.  Again, I urge the Democrats to pass their bill and get out there and explain why this helps ordinary Americans.

    You are mistaken (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:38:50 AM EST
    The reference to "existing affordable housing programs" refers to Chris Dodd's HOPE for Homeowners bill that was passed a few months back.  I don't think it has anything to do with Obama, aside from, you know, the hope part.

    Whatever... (none / 0) (#28)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM EST
    I really don't care if it is or not Dodd's or Obama's (although, no peep from either on why it is in the "agreement").  This is an "extraneous" piece and is certainly one that the Repubs will and have used to say why the "agreement failed".  Why was language concerning foreclosure judges having the ability to restructure mortgages not in there, but this is?  And why are the Dems earmarking future profits for this?  This is easily being spun by the Repubs as a misuse of tax payer monies - why have it in the "agreement". Disclosure: I'm all for affordable housing - a good Democratic principle, but, if the HOLC can't make it - this certainly shouldn't be there.  Finally, would this preclude "non-profits" such as ACORN from getting the "future profits for existing affordable housing"?

    Serioulsy, if HOLC and macroeconomic investments are not part of this agreement, why is this?

    Answer: Dems caved to lobbyists on the mortgage restructuring and threw a bone out for future profits being used for affordable housing; although, this bone is now being used as the "deal breaker" by the Repubs.

    I'm not one of those that believes that there isn't a liquidity crisis - there is.  But, either pass a "clean" financial bill to address this crisis (not my preferred choice), or, pass a real Democratic bill.


    Please link (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    to where this specific provision is being cited by Republicans as the "deal-breaker."

    Wow... (none / 0) (#56)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:21:58 AM EST
    Just because deal breaker is not the exact word being used by the Republicans, one can surmise by the spin from Repubs such as Graham (yes, McCain's Chair) and throughout the right wing blogs (Malkin, etal) and probably Limbaugh etal, that this provision is being pushed as the "deal breaker" and the Repubs are making a "principled" stand against misuse of tax payer money by "funneling" it to "corrupt" Democratic backed groups like ACORN.  It is like a wildfire - Graham started it on Greta's show last night.

    Oh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    Sounds like the right wing blogs are just making stuff up again.  There's not an earmark for ACORN in this bill in any sense.

    It's silly to fret over the provision in question, there's nothing objectionable about it and the White House was just fine with it.  If we removed that excuse from the bill, the holdouts would just find something else to complain about.


    It isn't just the right wing blogs. (none / 0) (#65)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    And if you can't see their framing of this issue, particularly, since polls state Americans hate this bail out, then fine.  I'm done with this.

    BTW, Senator Graham was on Fox last night pushing this meme.  Who has more audience with voters - NYT or Fox?  


    Blogs didn't make it up (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    Lindsey Graham made it up, if it was made up, which seems likely.  I saw him on Greta's Fox show last night, too, and I was so baffled by his railing against ACORN being in the bill that I spent some time trying to find some reference to it in any news reports on the bill and couldn't.

    As for the "affordable housing" provision itself, seems possible to me it got put in there only so it could be taken out again at GOP insistence in order to give them a little victory to help get their concession on more central stuff.

    Don't know, but that's my guess.  Dems can campaign on having tried to do something about affordable housing, Repubs can campaign on having forced the Dems. to back down on an "earmark."  Everybody's happy.  Except the folks who need affordable housing, of course.


    Great posts alexei (none / 0) (#35)
    by ks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    I love the phrase ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:59:51 AM EST
    "joint resolution of disapproval."

    The idea is fine, I guess.  But it's a hilarious linguistic construction.


    Yeah, that was another one. (none / 0) (#29)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    IMOP, why couldn't this be "approval" and put the onus on the performance of the Treasury to show that the monies are being used as intended and that is is working, instead of on Congress, to "disapprove" if either of the above is not the case.

    Financial crisis, leadership, and governance (none / 0) (#27)
    by dutchfox on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    Helena Cobban

    Financial crisis, leadership, and governance

    I have to say, first, that I think it's completely inappropriate for any presidential candidate to be injecting himself (and thereby, the whole business of election-campaign politics) into the present situation of crisis-time economic governance. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has any responsibility under the law for dealing with the current crisis that is any greateer than that of any of the other 98 US senators. They are not the leaders of-- or even, as far as I know, members of-- any of the relevant Senate committees. Yes, they need to be kept informed of what's going on in the negotiations in Washington (which are reported to be nearing completion.) But they are not members of the current congressional leadership. It is that leadership, the leadership of the administrative branch, and the heads of the Federal reserve and SEC who between them need to reach agreement on the size, terms, and modalities of the bailout package.

    McCain's rushing around acting as though he is currently the "leader" of something is childish at best, an active distraction at worst.

    I think the person who is going to be (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    administering this program for the next 4 years has every right to be involved.  That means both McCain and Obama.  

    The difference is that Obama was involved quietly and responsibly and McCain was involved loudly and disruptively.

    That much is objectively true regardless of my opinions of the bill in question.


    You miss the point (none / 0) (#38)
    by dutchfox on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has any responsibility under the law for dealing with the current crisis that is any greater than that of any of the other 98 US senators. They are not the leaders of-- or even, as far as I know, members of-- any of the relevant Senate committees.

    If you (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    really want to get to the crux of the matter it's Pelosi and Boehner since the house controls the purse strings.

    That is true (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:56 AM EST
    They are not legally responsible for any of this.  Good for them - they can't be blamed for it later.

    there will be blame (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    whether fair or not.

    That is what the politics of this is all about.



    I know (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    My sarcasm was more veiled than usual.

    Legal responsibility has nothing to do with the politics of this.


    After Bush, the 2 are the most important players (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yotin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    McCain and Obama are the commander-in-chiefs of their respective parties. The 2 parties need to come together to get this done. Only an active participation by its leaders can be effective at this time. Second guessing the good intention of anyone in participating to contribute is politics at its basest.

    Robinson? (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    I'm surprised that anyone reads Robinson anymore.  He has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

    but he pretends to be a journalist... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yotin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    and we're not stupid or crazy to listen to him.

    Reid and Dodd (none / 0) (#50)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    are on MSNBC, live news conference about the $700 billion "plan". They are blasting the Conservative Repuglicans and McCain.

    Good for (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST

    yeah and now work on passing ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    the Dem bill and explaining how their bill is good for us.

    First, they preface their statements with... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yotin on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    presidential politics shouldn't enter the bailout conversation nor should party affiliation. then, proceeded to do exactly that by blasting McCain's exercise to do what's he's paid as a senator and the rest of the GOP.

    they inject politics into this (3.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    everytime they insist that they must have repug sign-on to pass this legislation.

    If the dems aren't willing to pass this legislation without the repugs on board, then the dems have no claim at all to the "country first" mantra over the repugs.


    Now? (none / 0) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    After the comments you quoted (and there was more)?  Now he's a traitor -- no chance he'd be considered for anything after those statements.

    False equivalency (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    Here it is again.  The Republicans' last ditch argument:  They are just as bad as us.

    there's no way (none / 0) (#82)
    by OldCity on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    the democrats should do this stand alone...

    This is a grand iopportunity to really deliver the message that Republicans caused this, so republicans have to bear the responsibility (read blame) for the solution.

    Even thought the numbers are truly wonky, no serious person who has any attachment to businesses involving financial instruments or operates a business requiring access to credit can deny that some sort of bailout is necessary.

    I disagree though, with all of the pundits and politicians who are saying that this is not the time to discuss fault.  This is exactly the time to discuss fault.  Who's fault?  The Republican led Congresses of 2000-2006.  Most certainly the rating agencies (I mean, c'mon...we're supposed to hede their pronouncements as if they were the burning bush.  Where were they, and don't they have some culpability here?).  The executives and product developers.  Marketers.  Financial analysts at the banks.  IB's.  there's a lot to go around, and it's all high level guilt.

    So the Democrats should place the onus of the problem squarely where it belongs.  they must illustrate fault...not just regulatory inaction, but also blind adherence to an economic philosophy that has been proven not to work.  

    Obama has already said some things...he's gotta keep swinging.  More importantly, he's got to keep asserting the fundamental, undebatable truth about trickle down economics...it has not worked.      

    I really gotta start spell checking... (none / 0) (#83)
    by OldCity on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST