McCain attacks Obama over bailout failure

[bozothedeathmachine]

Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_11)

133 House Republicans opposed [the bill] and 95 Democrats against it."This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Holtz-Eakin said.So, McCain's party scuttles the bill, and it's Obama's fault? Mkay.

[Pardalis]

"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country"

Yeah, and I'm sure he had the future of his country in mind when he chose a complete unknown newbie like Palin for his VP. :rolleyes:

[Kopji]

I saw this earlier today and thought it must be made up. Sheesh he's such a prevaricator. NO Arizona representative voted 'yes'. McCain could not even get anyone in his own state to follow him - Democrats or Republicans.

I voted that Obama would take all the blame though, I have confidence in the Dem's ability to act like wusses in the face of adversity. :D

[Whiplash]

Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_11)

So, McCain's party scuttles the bill, and it's Obama's fault? Mkay.

Obama's fault? No. Pelosi's fault? Yes, definately. How about you actually investigate and learn all the facts of how things went down today before jumping to conclusions. She begged Republican's for votes all weekend, when she really doesn't need them (they are needed for "cover", to help alay any blame or fault should it all backfire. How courageous of them to insist that Republicans take half the credit!). Then, minutes before the vote, she gets up and makes a hugely unprescedented and partisan attack speech on the Republicans. About 20 of them were very angry and switched their votes because of it. And I don't blame them one bit.

Beg for help from the other party privately, and then right before the vote rush out and publically try to pin it on them, when it was really her parties fault in the first place (Freddie Mac, Fannie May). It was a slap in the face and a political gambit that failed. It is her fault. Not the Republicans. Despite Barney Franks wonderful humor (I can't stand that lisp he has), it wasn't just "hurt feelings". That's like someone robbing someone, the person in question goes to the police about it, and the burglar says "Oh quit crying!". Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. It was a justified response to a partisan attack when she should have been keeping the bi-partisan spirit going that had helped them all weekend long as they finalized the plans.

SHE injected politics. Absolutely. McCain was partially right (at least). Even if you don't think it was the Democrats fault to begin with.. now matter how you spin it, there had been a strongly bi-partisan feeling that was keeping lawmakers working all weekend, together, to fix this crisis. Then at the last minute she gets up and makes a speech that blames Bush and the Republicans for the problems. How can any deny that is injecting politics?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Obama's fault? No. Pelosi's fault? Yes, definately. How about you actually investigate and learn all the facts of how things went down today before jumping to conclusions. She begged Republican's for votes all weekend, when she really doesn't need them (they are needed for "cover", to help alay any blame or fault should it all backfire. How courageous of them to insist that Republicans take half the credit!). Then, minutes before the vote, she gets up and makes a hugely unprescedented and partisan attack speech on the Republicans. About 20 of them were very angry and switched their votes because of it. And I don't blame them one bit.



Hey, Whiplash. How about you tone down your blind partisan rhetoric from insane to low.

Voting against it because someone hurt your feelings is childish, and I think someone pinned it dead on when they said:

And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country."



Beg for help from the other party privately, and then right before the vote rush out and publically try to pin it on them, when it was really her parties fault in the first place (Freddie Mac, Fannie May).

Er... you going to proof this assertion?

It was a slap in the face and a political gambit that failed. It is her fault. Not the Republicans. Despite Barney Franks wonderful humor (I can't stand that lisp he has), it wasn't just "hurt feelings". That's like someone robbing someone, the person in question goes to the police about it, and the burglar says "Oh quit crying!". Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. It was a justified response to a partisan attack when she should have been keeping the bi-partisan spirit going that had helped them all weekend long as they finalized the plans.

SHE injected politics. Absolutely. McCain was partially right (at least). Even if you don't think it was the Democrats fault to begin with.. now matter how you spin it, there had been a strongly bi-partisan feeling that was keeping lawmakers working all weekend, together, to fix this crisis. Then at the last minute she gets up and makes a speech that blames Bush and the Republicans for the problems. How can any deny that is injecting politics?

Because... they happened under Bush's watch?

[Tricky]

I think in this headlong rush to perform the Ceremonial Laying-on of Blame, people ignore the real reason the bill didn't pass. Most Americans don't want it, at least according to every poll I've seen. Granted, most Americans have less than a rudimentary grasp of economics, but representatives still have to report to their constituancy.

And let us not also forget that while it may seem critical right now, delaying such a program is not the worst thing in the world. Yes, it will have some bad consequences in that other banks may fail in the meantime. But it also may mean getting it right rather than rushing through some slapdash band-aid of a bill that winds up doing as much harm as good.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nevermind the Dow fell 777 points at the news, the Nikkei is down 483 points as of now, and the European markets took a small hit..

ETA: Apparently, though, Japanese markets are likely to remain stable, if on a downturn.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Thead title: "McCain attacks Obama over bailout failure".

Obama's fault? No.

So, you agree that it's not Obama's fault, then go on a diatribe about partisan politics.

[Puppycow]

McCain's doubletalk (http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/29/mccain-reacts-to-bailout-from-iowa/)

The Arizonan speaks to the media about the bailout after landing in Des Moines, Iowa, suggests Obama and the party leadership are blocking bipartisan action.

Without any apparent irony, says it’s not time to affix blame while pointing the finger at his rival.

“Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.”

“I would hope that all our leaders — all of them — can put aside short-term political goals and focus on what’s best for the American people.”

McCain is getting increasingly shrill, the more the polls favor Obama.

[Dragoonster]

Beg for help from the other party privately, and then right before the vote rush out and publically try to pin it on them, when it was really her parties fault in the first place (Freddie Mac, Fannie May). It was a slap in the face and a political gambit that failed. It is her fault. Not the Republicans. Despite Barney Franks wonderful humor (I can't stand that lisp he has), it wasn't just "hurt feelings". That's like someone robbing someone, the person in question goes to the police about it, and the burglar says "Oh quit crying!". Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. It was a justified response to a partisan attack when she should have been keeping the bi-partisan spirit going that had helped them all weekend long as they finalized the plans.

I watched about an hour and a half of those speeches before the vote and yes, Pelosi's partisan speech was completely stupid (unless she actually wanted to tank the vote). I've never liked her control of the House democrats and she's a big reason Congress has continued to fail for many years. She was being completely selfish and tactless. I hope she loses her position, because she's terrible.

But come ON. If you saw the other speeches, both democrats and republicans repeated the importance of the vote, that they should vote not out of concern for their party or reelection but for the country. Any republican who believed it was that important to vote for it shouldn't have been swayed into a vote-change by her speech. If the bailout IS crucial, necessary, time-critical, they have no excuse for changing their mind due to that. (btw, while it was technically "minutes" before the vote, there were maybe a dozen or more other speakers inbetween).

But hey, I'm glad it failed as I think it's a bad tradeoff and sets a terrible precedent for future conduct. If either McCain or Obama want to accept the "blame", good for them! And if her speech was intended to tank the vote by preying on weak-willed republicans, good for Pelosi.

[Meadmaker]

John McCain is obviously on drugs.

Obama's fault? No. Pelosi's fault? Yes, definately.

Despite Barney Franks wonderful humor (I can't stand that lisp he has), it wasn't just "hurt feelings". ... It was a justified response to a partisan attack when she should have been keeping the bi-partisan spirit going that had helped them all weekend long as they finalized the plans.


There's a smidgen of truth to the above. Certainly, it seems to me a bad idea for her to make a partisan speech under the circumstances. No good could come of it and she deserves to be taken to task on it. However, let's cut through the BS. Her only mistake was injecting politics one hour before instead of one hour after the vote. Let's really think about what Whiplash, and John Boehner, are saying about this.

They are saying that some congressmen voted the way they did, not based on whether or not this was a good bill, but on some sort of partisan politicking. Here we have a bill, and a congressman who is prepared to vote for it, but changes his mind because someone gave a speech? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a bailout is necessary to avoid economic catastrophe. You are saying that scuttling that bailout, thus bringing on the economic catastrophe, is a "justified response to a partisan attack"?

I'm pretty suspicious of this bill, myself. I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing that it failed. We are told it is necessary to prevent collapse, but I think the collapse is due to a bubble bursting, and so I'm dubious about the ability to prevent the collapse, and I have to wonder if the bailout wouldn't simply transfer large sums of money to bankers who otherwise might have to get real jobs. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the data I would need to make an informed judgement about the bill.

That being said, though, this bill was incredibly important one way or another. Either it was necessary to prevent economic catastrophe, or it was a great ripoff designed to prevent a lot of rich people from being kicked off the gravy train. To say that it passed or failed based on some politician giving a speech makes a pretty sad commentary on some of our representatives.

[Puppycow]

Commentary from AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hocXiEYKKd07OxuNLMOX-vvxQ5sQD93GTFSO0)

McCain at dead end as House rejects bailout plan
By STEVEN R. HURST – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican John McCain has maneuvered himself into a political dead end and has five weeks to find his way out.

Last Wednesday, McCain suspended his presidential campaign to insert himself into a $700 billion effort to rescue America's crumbling financial structure. In so doing, he tied himself far more tightly to the bill than did his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

Then, as the bailout plan appeared ready for passage Monday in the House, McCain bragged that he was an action-oriented Teddy Roosevelt Republican who did not sit on the sidelines at a moment of crisis.

The implication: that he played a critical role in building bipartisan support for the unprecedented bailout.

"I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington," McCain said at a campaign rally in the swing state of Ohio.

Both he and Obama had insisted the plan originally proposed by the Bush administration be strengthened with greater oversight and regulation.

Within hours, however, the measure died in the House mainly at the hands of McCain's own Republicans.

Initially, McCain went silent, choosing instead to send his chief economic adviser out with a statement that blamed Obama, claiming that the first-term Illinois senator had put his political ambitions ahead of the good of the country.

"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," McCain senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said.

It wasn't long, however, before McCain told reporters in Iowa: "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it's time to fix the problem."

All in all, McCain might have been better served by staying out of the mess and above the fray.

If the congressional impasse leads to a credit crisis, "it's not going to be good for McCain," veteran Republican consultant John Feehery said.

Obama had predicted trouble last week when he said the four-term Arizona senator was wrongly inserting red-hot presidential politics into a critical bailout plan even as the package was finding little support among voters.


Wow. He really needs to stop accusing people of "putting politics ahead of country" because he does that all the time. From picking Sarah Palin to reignite the culture war to trying to make this bailout into a circus of presidential politics to trying to pin the blame for its failure on Obama. It's risible, shrill and so obviously not true that it's embarassing.

[MattusMaximus]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_7747488553b0d8cb4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13129)

[Tricky]

There's a smidgen of truth to the above. Certainly, it seems to me a bad idea for her to make a partisan speech under the circumstances. No good could come of it and she deserves to be taken to task on it.
If you agree that perhaps this wasn't the best bill that could have been passed, then maybe some good did come of it. (Assuming you also believe this had an effect on the voting.) But as for slamming the opposing party during an election year? It's not exactly unheard of, especially when it comes to high-profile issues.

Her only mistake was injecting politics one hour before instead of one hour after the vote. Let's really think about what Whiplash, and John Boehner, are saying about this.
Maybe, but IMO, that is strictly cosmetic. I seriously doubt she changed any votes. She did give the Republicans someone to blame for the losing vote though, so perhaps that was impolitic, but as others (including you and Barney Frank) have pointed out, if you changed your vote because of that, then your principles weren't that deep.

As I've mentioned before, I believe the bill failed because the overwhelming majority of Americans are against it.

I'm pretty suspicious of this bill, myself. I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing that it failed. We are told it is necessary to prevent collapse, but I think the collapse is due to a bubble bursting, and so I'm dubious about the ability to prevent the collapse, and I have to wonder if the bailout wouldn't simply transfer large sums of money to bankers who otherwise might have to get real jobs. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the data I would need to make an informed judgement about the bill.
Me too. This is too important a bill to be cobbled together with baling wire and spit. Let's take some time and do it right.

And if the American Public starts to feel the pinch from the "financial collapse", their opposition to some sort of bill may diminish.

[Pookster]

Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080929/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_11)

So, McCain's party scuttles the bill, and it's Obama's fault? Mkay.


An article that highlights those who voted against the bill ...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845655,00.html?cnn=yes

With an election on the horizon, 95 House Democrats and 133 House Republicans opposed the bill. Some portion voted no for clearly ideological reasons. But many more were simply doing what politicians do — responding to the will of the people.

An analysis by statistician Nate Silver, who runs FiveThirtyEight.com, made this clear. Of the 38 incumbent members of Congress from both parties who are considered vulnerable in the coming election, 30 voted against the bill, and only 8 supported the bill. By contrast, members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided — 197 for to 198 against.


If you look at polls, an overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the bill. McCain has injected himself into a very awkward position of supporting a bill that most of his base doesn't support. I'd chalk it up to his being a maverick, but I think he's floundering to look like he can get something accomplished in Washington concerning this crisis.

[not_so_new]

As I've mentioned before, I believe the bill failed because the overwhelming majority of Americans are against it.

I agree... but I think it is still wrong.

Elected politicians should be the voice of the people but there are times (maybe an understatement) when that voice is backed by an unthinking mob.

At these times politicians should not think LIKE the mob they should think FOR the mob. That might mean they act as leaders and go against the mob's immediate wishes for the betterment of said mob in the long run.

I don't know if this bill was good or bad for the economy but I do feel that if they didn't pass this completely because of the mob mentality of the general population who are uneducated in economics I think they made a mistake.


Me too. This is too important a bill to be cobbled together with baling wire and spit. Let's take some time and do it right.

And if the American Public starts to feel the pinch from the "financial collapse", their opposition to some sort of bill may diminish.


I would agree BUT if the public starts to feel the pinch of this whole mess might it be to late to act? I am not an economist, I don't really know and I feel the real economists don't know either.

[pgwenthold]

If you look at polls, an overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the bill. McCain has injected himself into a very awkward position of supporting a bill that most of his base doesn't support.


Can I get a clarification here?

TRUE or FALSE? John McCain supported the bailout plan negotiated by the administration and the congressional leaders.

If McCain supported the plan, why didn't he use his leadership to get his party members to vote for it?

[Pookster]

Can I get a clarification here?

TRUE or FALSE? John McCain supported the bailout plan negotiated by the administration and the congressional leaders.

If McCain supported the plan, why didn't he use his leadership to get his party members to vote for it?


I believe the answer is True. And I believe McCain tried. There are more dynamics at play right now though. You have some House Republicans worried about getting re-elected at a time when most everyone hates Bush and the Congress. Obama's coattails are being altered to be a just a wee bit longer right now too. McCain's prodding isn't going to be as convincing right now as it might have some months ago.

[pgwenthold]

I believe the answer is True. And I believe McCain tried. There are more dynamics at play right now though. You have some House Republicans worried about getting re-elected at a time when most everyone hates Bush and the Congress. Obama's coattails are being altered to be a just a wee bit longer right now too. McCain's prodding isn't going to be as convincing right now as it might have some months ago.

So who does lead the republican party? Not the president. Not their presidential nominee.

How can any republican support the guy? He is going to be the most powerless president since Gerald Ford.

[Pookster]

So who does lead the republican party? Not the president. Not their presidential nominee.



For those Republicans in contested elections, the public is leading them right now.

[corplinx]

Its silly. Then again, we've had over a week of the de-regulation big lie and Bush blame going unchallenged in the mass media. I haven't even seen Fox tackle it.

We're getting this weird double standard where Obama can come out of the summit and blame republicans but the minute McCain points the finger back we get this "OH STOP THAT" commentary from all corners.

[ZenFountain]

Pelosi's fault? Yes, definately.

What Pelosi did was totally unnecessary, but the thought that twelve grown men decided to vote differently on such an important bill because they felt personally insulted is ridiculous. Long, rambling partisan speeches are made day in and day out on the floor. The timing of this particular one was ominous but it would not changed the position of congressmen that had already deeply entrenched themselves. One Republican congressman already plainly said it was an unfounded excuse, as both party leaders are scrambling for cover.

clcREgqjZSU

[dudalb]

I am getting the image of a plane headed for a crash landing, while the two pilots are fistfighting over who is to be at the controls.

[MattusMaximus]

I am getting the image of a plane headed for a crash landing, while the two pilots are fistfighting over who is to be at the controls.


More like they're fistfighting over the last parachute.

[NotJesus]

Can I get a clarification here?

TRUE or FALSE? John McCain supported the bailout plan negotiated by the administration and the congressional leaders.


TRUE. McCain and his surrogates were out early on Monday boasting about how he courageously put politics aside to make the deal happen.

[pgwenthold]

To what extent has Obama boasted about having brokered that deal?

[Drysdale]

Did it occur to anyone else maybe none of them want this bill to pass.

Maybe that was all a show, in private they knew Pelosi would do this to squash the votes needed and both sides could blame the other for it not passing.

Motive? To do just what they did, test the waters on what the public thinks about it.
If there was outrage it did'nt go through do you really think for a minute they would'nt have went back into a meeting and somehow ironed it out.

If the dems wanted this to pass they dont need the reps. But they dont, I think they know this bill is crap and are just posturing for the press and public.

For all the animosity between parties they both want to be the only 2 teams in town.


Just a question on a side from anyone in here who is in a position to know the answer.

Why dont Fannie and Freddie put the loans up for private bids? Or have they already?
Is there any legitimate reason it's solely the governments responsibility right now?

[Tricky]

Did it occur to anyone else maybe none of them want this bill to pass.

Maybe that was all a show, in private they knew Pelosi would do this to squash the votes needed and both sides could blame the other for it not passing.
I seriously doubt that. If we go into a crash, the first people it is going to hurt are the ones with lots of savings and investments, i.e. fairly well-off to obscenely rich people. When their funds dry up, the first thing they will cut back on is discretionary spending, e.g., donations to political parties.

I'm quite sure that even the ones who voted against this bill, even for political reasons, are scared spitless over the implications of a crash.