McCain Blames Obama and Democrats for Bail Out Failure

Here's the McCain/Palin Campaign's statement on the failure of the bailout bill to pass the House.

McCain falsely implies he brought about the bipartisan agreement for the bill and blames Obama and the Dems for its failure. If you needed a greater reason to see how McCain distorts the truth, this statement is it.

As for Nancy Pelosi's speech today affecting the vote, keep in mind the Dems got 140 of their members to vote for it and only 95 Dems voted against it. If McCain was so influential and wanted the bill to pass, why couldn't he persuade more than 63 of them to go along? Why couldn't he persuade the other 133 to listen to his advice? [More...]

While McCain's stunts of suspending his campaign and belatedly flying to Washington, in truth, had zero effect on bringing about the agreement on the Bail Out bill, his effect on members of his own party as reflected in the final vote was less than zero. It's also not an encouraging sign of his ability to work with Congress if elected.

McCain failed on both counts. He had nothing to do with the creation of the bipartisan agreement or final bill and he failed to get his party to vote for it. A politician who can't admit his own failure and instead tries to blame the other guy? Haven't we had enough of those?

Update: Here's McCain before the vote, giving a thumbs up and taking credit.

< Bail Out Roll Call Vote | Fort Dix Terrorism Trial Underway >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Republicans are going to get the blame (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:09:53 PM EST
    for this. But honestly, the blame doesn't really matter if the markt crashes.

    I agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    ... at least initially.  But here's the test of leadership.  Are Dems content to ride the wave of Republican failure, or will they say, "We gave the Bush Plan a try.  Here's our plan."

    Oh man, I wish. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    This is a good plan (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    This plan truly serves ALL involved, is the brainchild of a committed Democrat and economist, and it even comes with a leaflet now.

    Plan B


    Get the blame? (none / 0) (#25)
    by coast on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    A majority of the country didn't want the bill.  What blame?  I'm thankful.  They need to sit down and work something out that isn't beneficial just to banks and doesn't have a whole bunch of add-ons like money for ACORN or whatever the h$%^ Barry Frank was putting into the bill.

    well (none / 0) (#59)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    Because some didnt believe their would be any consquence. I think a 777 point drop shows them another reality.  

    Events may overtake their opinions.


    Bush & Dems on the same side? (none / 0) (#40)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    You know something is wrong there.

    Thank you R's for voting this down.


    But where is the R alternative? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:07:42 PM EST
    I cannot believe (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    that the Republicans think it is a political winner to claim that some of their own members voted against the bailout because Nancy Pelosi gave a mean, partisan speech.

    Voters who support the bailout are going to be outraged that anyone would vote against a critical bill for such a trivial personal reason.  I guess the GOP is hoping that somehow, those voters will blame Pelosi rather than blaming the Republicans who voted no because of Pelosi, but I don't see how that could possibly happen.

    Voters who oppose the bailout would, one assume, be much happier if they felt the GOP opposed it on principle than if they felt the GOP was going to support it but ended up voting no for a petty personal reason.

    I seriously cannot imagine who came up with this astonishing bit of messaging.

    It was a rationalization from panic (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:26:17 PM EST
    that Boehner & Friends were trying to square the circle between their own support for the bill and their caucus's opposition to it.

    If you support the bill, how come you weren't able to persuade your members to support it?  Uh, er, well, it was Nancy Pelosi's fault.


    as was suggested at mydd (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    I think this was a trap,

    I dont think the GOP EVER had the votes, they were hoping Dems. would pass it alone and they could run against us for caring about Wall Street not main street.

    I don't think they ever thought Dems would let it fail, and now they are scrambling for a reason why they didn't have more votes for this.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by WS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    and to use a military metaphor (from a movie).  Its like that scene in Braveheart when Robert the Bruce's men were supposed to join in battle but he stayed there in the sidelines as part of a plan by the King of England.

    Republicans probably thought the Dems had enough people to vote for it to push this thing through and then turn around and rail against Dems and the special interests.  


    yea (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:42:51 PM EST
    The reason the GOP offered was so idiotic that I agree. Its the stuff of SNL skits, not a reasoned process.

    I think you're right. n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    I also think you're right. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    Apparently Pelosi took into account the opposition among conservative Democrats and promised a particular number of votes, which she estimated correctly and produced.

    Republicans also promised and did not deliver.

    If they had not made the promise, the bill would not have been introduced, but they lied and so it was. And their excuse is now she said some impolitic words which excuses their failure to meet their undertaking in a way that facially the Republican whip can try to duck personal responsibility. Of course, it looks terrible that the excuse the Republicans are using to cause horrible pain to the country is that they took offense at a few partisan words, but that is their excuse.

    Their real problem is that their constituents oppose this bill and they are afraid of death by ballot box. More afraid than the 777 point Dow drop and what flows from that, since, I guess, that is the homocidal will of the free market, which is free of all moral and ethical considerations. Sigh. Now I really do think we are looking at Depression, from a few insulted Republicans.


    I have to say, I've been thinking along those (none / 0) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST

    This is some game of chicken these bozos are playing.

    But I wouldn't doubt the Dems let their caucus go a little loose on this, for fear that many downticket Republicans would run against the bailout through November.


    Who had the responsibility to hold (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    Of course, as Democrats, we shout that it is the Republicans' fault because over 60% of them voted against the bill. Yet--we all know apart from the intense pre-November time--that it wasn't just Boehner who could not hold his Republicans. Speaker Pelosi did not hold 40% of her Democrats. Typically, the Speaker has responsibility to hold the vote and voters. For example, I was just looking at the votes from Colorado (my state too) and noticed that M. Udall and J. Salazar voted against the bill (unless I misread.) Yes...I realize again that the name of the game is to grab the microphone and make political hay.  Make or break time, etc. But, what happened here was inside-inside-the inside of politics. We know that, don't we?

    Boner said he had the votes (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    And McCain took credit for passage of the bill, after having "worked the phones," before the bill failed.

    The Dems delivered every vote that had committed to an aye vote. The Republicans lost 12 votes because their itty-bitties were hurt.


    Trap? How about Truth? (none / 0) (#46)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    The fact is this was not a good bill. I like most I know contacted their congresspeople non-stop to make sure this wasn't passed.

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    that Pelosi thing is beyond stupid.

    That being said the general public apparently didn't support the bill. If they had one honest bone in their bodies why didn't they just say that? I mean, at least people like Kucinich gave a reason.


    Rank and file Republicans are pissed (none / 0) (#14)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    and do NOT want a bail out.  Callers and posters all over the place don't want this deal.  A lot of anti bail out sentiment from the right.  Why?  This is going totally against Bush and his plan to help out his friends on Wall Street.

    But they would rather see the system collapse?  Crazy.


    The system is going to collapse anyhow (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    this will not prevent a collapse and could actually create a life and death situation for our most impoverished families if hyperinflation resulted from the bailout that will actually devalue our own currency even further.  We are ripe for hyperinflation to take over due to a bailout such as this.

    The risk is deflation (none / 0) (#62)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    not inflation.

    Deflation......inflation (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    Your dollar is worth less because it needs to be worth less.  The overly inflated price you paid for your "assets" is going to take adjustment.  Most of our personal wealth lately is been largely imaginary and we spent it and most of us did so knowing that something smelled sort of funny but we had a great time didn't we? The more phoney/funny dollars you put out there the more worthless the dollar becomes.  Why do people think there is a way to get out of this without their ox being gored?  This is the same attitude that people take on the Iraq War as long it isn't their problem.....just figure out how to not make it their problem and they'll carry on pretending they care on some level...just not one that really matters.  This is economics 101 though, not rocket science.....nobody is getting out of this without getting hit.  This bail out bails out big boys and not Main Street, I say Main Street first......the people first.  And by the way, everybody is going to feel this.

    It is economics 101 (none / 0) (#78)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    There is a very real difference between inflation and deflation.  As an economy and society we are much better prepared to handle inflation.  In fact, we depend on it to a large degree.  That is why deficit spending "works".  You pay at today's prices with tomorrow's borrowed dollars.  As long as growth is steady all is well.  With deflation on the other hand, our already large deficit and debt will be looking much worse.

    Our growth though of late (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
    hasn't been real, only bubble markets smoke and mirrors imaginary.

    Of course it is all imaginary (none / 0) (#90)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    We switched to a confidence/growth based global economy long ago.  We won't be going back to a glod standard.  That is what many libertarians and conservatives fail to realize.  We can afford things like universal health care and infrastructure investments and social security if we think we can and if we develop the policies and priorities that get us there.  This crisis is about keeping the economy on track delivering the golden eggs for whatever purposes we see fit.

    bingo (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    bingo to deflation (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST

    McCain is a lousy gambler (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by boot on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    Craps players usually are.

    gamblers (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    I always heard (and read) that if you are going to gamble...craps has the best odds for you. It can be a good gamble. Lets just stay away from roulette, huh?

    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    if you stick to betting the pass and don't pass lines, that's true.  Baccarat has similarly good odds.

    Ce-lo is sexy! n/t (none / 0) (#15)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    If this wasn't so bad for the American people, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by indy in sc on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    it would be funny.  McCain suspended his campaign and parachuted in to supposedly broker the deal just waiting to take credit for it if it passed and now that it fails it's somehow Obama's fault.

    My own biases aside, I just don't think that will ring true with anyone because only candidate made a huge show of inserting himself into the process.  The failure of the bill may not be McCain's fault, but what is his fault is that he will get a good amount of the blame for it.

    For a man who claims superior leadership, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    he couldn't lead his own party to it, even to the extent of half. If he is elected, is this what the Republs are going to do to him for as many years as he can take it? Probably. They still don't like him or respect him. This is the best indication of just how weak a President he will be.

    Thanks for the update Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    I was JUST about to post that.  Someone needs to tell McCain not to take credit unless he's ready to take blame.

    Now, the question is this: will Dem leadership see this as a sign that they need to throw scraps to the far right, or will they close ranks and put on a major PR offensive for a tough, pro-regulation, populist solution?  Well, you see, if they do, then it's "their" issue.  Let's hope they have the balls to make it theirs.

    Um (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    they will start throwing bones at the far right. They will not vote for anything that isn't "bipartisan" meaning the GOP is going to win on this one.

    Whoever killed it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    May blessings be upon them!  This pig of a proposal did NOTHING for Main Street.  I can't believe a majority of Democrats supported it.  FDR is spinning in his grave.

    How do you think the people of main (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    street are going to feel when their life savings is nearly wiped out, and unemployment has doubled or worse?

    Not everyone is in stocks buddy. (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    I take it you are fully invested. Do some DD next time. I got out of the market months ago.

    Bleh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    Socialists and free market idiots converge: You don't believe that anyone should ever aspire to live beyond subsistence level, and the Republicans don't care whether they do or not.

    It's madness.  


    "Give us all your money or you're all going to be lonely, broke, and cold."

    This bail out will not prevent (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    people from having their life savings cut in two and it will not prevent a doubling of unemployment in the next three months.....economists have already come out and said that much.  If hyperinflation takes over though things will be much worse than allowing the market to take some correction.

    I'm sorry MT, but I think you're dead wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    What do you think could cause hyperinflation? Think bank failures might have anything to do with it?

    Should we just abolish the FDIC?


    We are going to have more bank (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    failures even with this bail out.  We still don't know what the CDS market is hiding.  By dumping all this phoney/funny money into the system we risk devaluing our currency even more at a time when the currency already has little intrinsic value.

    So what, buy gold? (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:06:19 PM EST
    I'm sorry, buy standing by to do nothing is ridiculous.

    Why don't these institutions go into (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    bankruptcy reorganization, as specified in our Federal Constitution?  Bailing them out only helps them also, not anyone else.  You watch, you will see nothing that benefits you come from this bail out if it happens. They can file bankruptcy reorganization though and things can be saved that are worth saving and have actual worth.

    When businesses fail (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    because they can't get short-term credit to pay wages and salaries, or finance inventory of materials, it's gonna hurt Main Street.

    where is UE at right now (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    and where will it be in December if the bailout is passed?  Where will it be in March?

    Lots of blather about unemployment yet more than 700k have lost their jobs this year and my guess is we have another 300k (probably more) coming in the next 3 months.  

    What happens to those people?  

    UE is going to explode either way, the question is should it be limited to the working class only or should white collar workers feel their pain as well....


    The analysis is that (none / 0) (#71)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    without the pla UE will accelerate as businesses won't be able to secure the credit they need to keep going.  

    Now the Democrats can act like Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    and pass a bill--with zero Republican support, if necessary--that actually helps people.

    (1)  Help people avoid foreclosures, (2) revenue sharing that repairs infrastructure and provides employment, (3) gives the public an equity share in return for an infusion of cash (which is what they really need), (4) put more money into FDIC, (5) levy a tax on financial services to help cover taxpayer losses, if any, and (6) national health insurance.

    Democrats should not be trying to pass Republican bills.  They should be trying to pass Democratic bills.  


    That would be good politics (none / 0) (#74)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    but bad policy.

    It is not clear how best to do (1).  For example, I don't know how you differentiate between people who really need the help and speculators.

    (2) and (6) are not part of addressing the credit crisis.  Why bundle everything together?

    (3) is already accomplished to some extent by the plan.

    Why is (4) needed?

    (5) is better handled by twiddling the details in Obama's tax plan.

    If we want, we can have a debate about nationalizing the banks but that will take lots more deliberation.


    There is no evidence (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    that this bail out will ensure freed up credit for main street.  

    Of course there is (none / 0) (#75)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    Where is the evidence that it won't?  You don't think the short term interbank rate will go down if the deal is passed.  Why?

    Nouriel Roubini (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    I agree with Roubini (none / 0) (#81)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    that this plan isn't necessarily the best way to achieve recovery.  I also agree with Roubini that the danger of a total system failure is quite real.  However, Roubini isn't arguing for doing nothing which is what failing to vote for this plan does.  I think this plan is better than doing nothing.  Because of the political realities, it is the best we can do currently.  Think of it as a tourniquete that stops the bleeding.  More advanced surgery will be required later.  Hopefully Dr Obama will up to the task.

    I'm not arguing for doing nothing either (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    I'm not just going to argue for throwing all caution to the wind though to pass something that is more harmful than beneficial. This bill needed to die and now it is dead and thank God! Roubini said this bill did nothing to address the inter bank credit crisis and you wanted my evidence.  He's the only evidence I have. Where's your evidence that this bill will/would address that credit crisis?

    My economic and political analysis (none / 0) (#89)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    aligns well with Krugman.  The Democrats don't have the political muscle to push through a significantly better plan.  Don't forget that they have their own faction including the conservative Democrats.  I think this plan is more beneficial than harmful.  I guess we can just agree to disagree.

    Do not be surprised if this plan or something similar makes a comeback.  We really can't afford to wait  until after Obama is sworn in.


    I doubt that Obama will be sworn (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    in before we do anything, but I also doubt that anything manages to get done before the markets take some much needed correction.

    This is a disaster (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by SomewhatChunky on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    There are times when you hope your congressman or congresswomen can rise above partisan politics and do what is best for the country.  This vote was one of those times.  This was a complex yet important piece of legislation that was not at all understood by the average voter.  Nor was it ever explained well by the media.  Was it the best?  Probably not.  But it needed to be passed.

    Pelosi's speech was not appropriate in any way.  At least wait until after the vote.  She blew it.

    The Republicans with their partisan games are no better.  They blew it too.

    I am disgusted with the Congress - all of them.  This wasn't a bailout for Wall Street - heck Wall Street barely exists anymore.  The Investment banking industry disappeared in the last two weeks.   It was to save Main Street.  Main Street just got crushed in the markets today.  And it looks like it is going to get a lot worse.  When credit disappears, business of all sizes get hurt and the economy spirals down.  When your local businesses start laying off employees by the bushel it's not the "fat cats" who are getting hurt.  When your town's tax revenues dry up and the rates it pays to finance it's debt double, it's not Wall Street who suffers.

    Who knows what happens next.   When I see banks failing left and right, municipal money market yields going from 1.5% to over 5% in a week, the stock market dropping 7% in a few hours and even the mighty Vanguard limiting large moves into their treasury money market fund - fear and panic are running rampant.  Who knows what happens next.  If foreigners (who finance a huge amount of our debt) lose confidence and pull out, look out below.  And if I was a foreigner I'd have little confidence in the US right now.  Our leadership at all levels stinks.

    If this continues and we enter into a deep recession or depression, who cares if Obama wins.  He won't be able to do anything he's talked about anyway.   There will be no money for anything.  The Bush days will look like bliss compared to what could happen next year.  It doesn't matter how much you tax the "rich".  If there are no capital gains, there are no taxes.

    Hopefully, Congress will come to its senses and do something Thursday.  

    Only 95 Dems ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
    voted against it?  Only?

    It's a lousy bill and I think it failed on the merits.

    But Pelosi showed once again she's a lousy Speaker.  She needs to be replaced.

    McCain needs to resign his campaign (none / 0) (#1)
    by boot on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    He's going to be Herbert Hoover as a presidential [i]candidate[/i].

    DODD (none / 0) (#3)
    by mpBBagain on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    Dodd was ripping McCain this morning ...saying he pulled a political stunt...period...  

    Politics is being played on both sides n/t (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    Of course that is true (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:24:37 PM EST
    But the Democrat's political games aren't putting our country at risk.

    Yes, they are. Only a dozen or so of the (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    95 Dems who voted against this needed to vote for it. They know it's unpopular, so they are screwing the country over to get elected again.

    No. This is why Pelosi was insisting that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    the Republicans commit to the number of votes they could deliver, a majority of their conference. She knew some Dems wouldn't vote against it, but it is not incumbent on Dems to always make up for abstentions and nos from Republicans who voted yes. All this means is that Bohner and the whip will have no credibility at all.

    Pelosi out Hillary in (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    Hillary would have got the votes necessary.

    Pelosi is an extreme left-winger with 0 respect.


    Hillary is in the Senate. Pelosi is in the House. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    Does Hillary have any history at all of (none / 0) (#82)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    rounding up crabby votes for a difficult bill? Not that I have heard. Feel free to enlighten me at great length.

    This is everyone's fault. Any rep who voted (none / 0) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    against this, Democrat or Republican, is responsible for what is coming. And the Dem leadership did a horrible job of keeping their caucus together. Today was a disgrace.

    More important... (none / 0) (#6)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    <blockquote.If McCain was so influential and wanted the bill to pass, why couldn't he persuade more than 63 of them to go along? Why couldn't he persuade the other 133 to listen to his advice? </blockquote>
    More important, why couldn't George W. Bush, the President of the United States, get his own party to go along with his plan???

    McCain aint the President, Bush still is.

    Bush is a lame duck (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    McCain is the defacto leader of his party now. It's his failure.

    GOPs in Congress (none / 0) (#39)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    are afraid for their political lives. They know the Dems are going to win more seats in the House no matter what. They are all petrified that they will lose their seats.

    McCain about to be making a statement. Shuster: McCain needs to backtrack from his speech this morning taking credit for passing the failed bill.


    The push back against McCain spreading (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    manure has to be intense and continuous.

    This man has shown he is utterly willing to lie, cheat, steal, defame and otherwise make a mockery of anything even resembling the tatters of his personal honor, so as to win the Presidency.

    God help us if he succeeds.

    Obama statement (none / 0) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    This is a crisis for American people, and the Republicans' hyperpartisan comments after the vote are not helpful.

    McCain and Bush... (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    Couldn't deliver half of their vote on a GOP proposal. It's a total failure of the Bush administration that brings us to this point, and a failure of McCain and Bush and the GOP House leadership to deliver the vote.

    you know what i love (none / 0) (#22)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    Pelosi should be blamed for signing on to Republican president's terribly unpopular plan and getting only 140 votes.

    NO republican should be blamed for only getting 65 votes for the Republican presidents plan, its the Dems fault.

    we got 60% they got 33% but its our fault.

    yeah I am soooo glad this failed. I wanna see the GOP run with this argument in the press for the next few days.

    and Dems damn well better put back all the stuff they took out if they revote on this.

    And You Think That The Dems Will be Able to (none / 0) (#31)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    get a majority in the Senate?

    Can't get to the Senate if it doesn't get out of (none / 0) (#84)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    the House. It's an appropriation, a money, bill and the rules require those to be orignated in the House and first pass there. Doesn't matter what the Senate thinks if the House kills it.

    This bailout solution needed to die (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    and to those Democrats and Republicans who refused to vote for this piece of crapola may I just say THANKS.

    The bailout will pass later this week with... (none / 0) (#33)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    some small face-saving tweaks to give the Republicans cover for voting for it.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:40:01 PM EST
    Many in the voting population are flaming ticked about this bail out though.  It isn't just Republicans.......look at how many Democrats said no to this.  This bail out is not a real solution and it will take more than a few "tweaks" to change that.  We are talking about everyones future and I think a few people to include legislators are waking up to the fact that this bail out also has the potential to be devastating to our economy.  

    Look around you. The economy is being (none / 0) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    decimated right now.

    Look, I'm sorry (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    Life isn't always easy or simple.  Just ask this Army wife, I know this all too well.  Somedays the system wasn't going to make it because it had become rife with corruption.  A day six feet above ground is a good day.  Most people who read bonddad already knew much of this was coming though.  I knew it was coming.  I suppose I was mostly surprised because I woke up morning and it was here and I just wasn't reading about it anymore, it was happening before my very eyes.

    Right outcome (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    but as usual the Republicans are making it even more partisan.  Why can't they just say they don't like the bill intead of putting it on Pelosi? On the other hand, if she had persuaded more of her Dems, it would have passed.

    How many busineeses are in dire need of credit to make their payroll? I'd rather see HOLC, combined with a loan program for creditworthy businesses, than anything that was in this bill.


    So true (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    why can't they just say, "this bill stinks Nancy, lets write a different one". It isn't as if most of the capitulating Democrats don't think the same thing.  Pelosi would do much better to write a bill with the presence of the Repubs who refused to vote for this piece of junk bill and our leading economists........who by the way weren't players or even advisors in the Paulson give away to fatcats bill.  Write that bill, let the American people know what that bill is about, then let the Republicans who won't vote for it explain that to Americans!

    Too funny about McCain (none / 0) (#43)
    by wasabi on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    McCain slams Obama for "phoning it in" while he takes credit for the bill passing.  OMG.

    Tweety said it's like McCain is leading the cavalry and they turn around and run away.  What a leader!

    I had a sudden mental flash (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    of that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where King Arthur yells to his knights: "Run away! Run away!"

    Anyone listen to the Talk Radio (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    Conservative/ facist echo chamber to see how they are defending this vote

    The problem this nation faces is that as a nation we don't think anymore.  Most universities teach skills and not critical thought.  Consequently you have smart people saying stuff like" just divide up the 700 billion and everyone can pay off their debt- problem solved" NO, problem not solved.  This is not real money.  The works only because it is paid back (hopefully), but people can't think past the first line of thought.