Post by: agricola on September 24, 2008, 10:58:57 AM
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/NEWS07/80924084
Post by: Balog on September 24, 2008, 11:06:11 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 12:04:04 PM
Post by: jrfoxx on September 24, 2008, 12:05:22 PM
Now, Im sure someone (and I'd agree they are probly at least partially correct) will point out that this is in and of itself, at least somewhat politically motivated as far as doing it just to look good, and thus kiss arse, and get elected, but at least he's doing something useful WHILE he's kissing arse and getting elected. Even that little bit seems to be getting rarer and rarer anymore.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 12:10:50 PM
Quote
Wow, a politician that is actually going to spend time doing his job, instead of focusing soley on getting re-elected? McCain really IS a maverick
He needs to get elected. The best thing he can do for the country as of now (apart from stepping down and letting Palin take over) is do everything he can to beat Obama.
Post by: jrfoxx on September 24, 2008, 12:11:15 PM
ETA:
Quote
This doesn't sound like a good idea.
Hard to say if it is or not , really. I tend to agree that NOT campaigning while the race is so incredibly close is a big deal, but as I mention, whether he is doing this to be genuine, or as a political stunt, or a combo of both, it may actually be more effective than just touring around having rallies, giving speaches, etc, as people may see (again, wheteher true or not) that he is "putting country first", and it will help him.It's a big gamble from a purely political, campaign standpoint, but I think the odds of it having no effect, to some positive effect, on his poll numbers/campaign is more likely than it hurting him.JMHO though, I'm certainly no politacl analyst or startagist, so I may be way off, and you spot on. I guess we'll possibly find out in a week or so through the polls though.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 24, 2008, 12:37:29 PM
The risk for McCain is that the Senate may actually vote on something. No matter what the bailout looks like, it's going to tick off some segment of the population. His safest route would be to follow the Democrats (which is pretty much what he's doing already), and then attack Obama for not even voting "present" during a crisis.
Post by: agricola on September 24, 2008, 12:48:33 PM
It may give him some ammo for ads in the last couple of weeks of the campaign, which is when the undecideds finally make up their minds (my father used to wait until the last Sunday).
The risk for McCain is that the Senate may actually vote on something. No matter what the bailout looks like, it's going to tick off some segment of the population. His safest route would be to follow the Democrats (which is pretty much what he's doing already), and then attack Obama for not even voting "present" during a crisis.
The risk for McCain is that the Senate may actually vote on something. No matter what the bailout looks like, it's going to tick off some segment of the population. His safest route would be to follow the Democrats (which is pretty much what he's doing already), and then attack Obama for not even voting "present" during a crisis.
This is risky, but it is necessary at this stage. The Democrats have managed to thus far successfully blame Bush, McCain and the Republicans generally for their own complete snafu over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which has somewhat extended to today - the same day that Harry Reid was demanding this:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/bailout-triangulation-harry-re.html
Which is perhaps yet another example of be careful what you wish for. If McCain can be seen to get a reasonable compromise here then it will massively boost his own economic credentials. If he doesnt, then some long-overdue attention will be turned on the people who are actually responsible for this. Either way, Obama will be more focused on getting out more negative ads.
Post by: lupinus on September 24, 2008, 01:11:24 PM
He goes back to DC? He's following McCain's lead because he can't follow his own. Even though he did follow, he didn't think to do it himself. It's merely a response to save face cause he was pushed into it. He looks bad.
He doesn't go? He's a capitalizing ahole out campaigning while McCain is doing what's better for the country. He looks bad, and like an ahole.
The great O has no options now to look good, though A looks less bad. Whoever in the McCain camp that came up with this is a genius.
Unless of course it backfires, and the public think it's a political move and John feels a world of burn.
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 24, 2008, 01:21:31 PM
the public think it's a political move
Well, that's certainly what it looks like to me.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 01:30:50 PM
Quote
His safest route would be to follow the Democrats (which is pretty much what he's doing already)
What's the point of having a Republican candidate if he's going to just follow the Democrats?
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 24, 2008, 01:35:59 PM
Quote
What's the point of having a Republican candidate if he's going to just follow the Democrats?
Whoever said McCain was a Republican?
If Obama actually follows McCain's lead and goes back to DC, that's something that could be used later on as well. A commercial could mention that, when Russia attacked Georgia, Obama waited until McCain responded. And, when McCain decided to go back to DC, Obama waited and then followed. "Who's the real leader?" or some line like that.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 01:37:16 PM
Post by: wquay on September 24, 2008, 01:57:18 PM
Risky move by McCain. Will either pay off big, or mark the beginning of the end.
I'm skeptical, especially since by McCain's own admission he knows very little about the economy.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 24, 2008, 01:59:21 PM
Quote
Obama has just stated he will not come back to D.C.
Doesn't make much difference. He wasn't ever there much anyway.
McCain doesn't have to know much about the economy. He just has to look like he's doing something. But it is still a risky move.
Post by: lupinus on September 24, 2008, 02:26:59 PM
Quote
Obama has just stated he will not come back to D.C.
Doesn't make much difference. He wasn't ever there much anyway.
McCain doesn't have to know much about the economy. He just has to look like he's doing something. But it is still a risky move.
Post by: Leatherneck on September 24, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
What McCain should do is stay the course and haughtily say: "I'm gonna go do my job. If Barry feels a debate is more important than addressing the crisis with the economy, then Sarah Palin will debate him."
TC
Post by: GigaBuist on September 24, 2008, 02:40:48 PM
Quote
His safest route would be to follow the Democrats (which is pretty much what he's doing already)
What's the point of having a Republican candidate if he's going to just follow the Democrats?
I've been asking myself that since the primaries. Kinda wish more Republicans did.
Post by: RocketMan on September 24, 2008, 03:22:18 PM
And I am positive that Reid was acting as Obama's surrogate in this.
Quote
"...the same day that Harry Reid was demanding this:"
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/bailout-triangulation-harry-re.html
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/bailout-triangulation-harry-re.html
First Reid demands that McCain had better be on board for there to be any hope for the negotiations to succeed. McCain then had to respond by either asking the debate be postponed so he could go to DC, or by declining to go to DC and continue campaigning.
Either move makes him look bad. Going to DC makes it look like he is trying to dodge the first debate. Obama's camp has already made that claim.
If McCain had signaled that he was not going, then Obama would have scheduled a trip to DC to make it look like he cared about what was happening and was "doing something".
Bad news for McCain all the way around. And he is currently nine points down in the latest poll of likely voters.
I think he's toast.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 24, 2008, 05:02:09 PM
Damn, I was hoping he'd had some health problems and was dropping from the race. Palin for pres.
The left would eat her for lunch. She's not ready....yet....
Post by: Waitone on September 25, 2008, 03:18:37 AM
--Losing candidates are typically the one's who want to debate. Leading candidates can only screw up.
--Leave it to a fighter pilot to pull some unexpected stunt.
--Why is McCain headed to DC?
----Because he wants to exert some leadership and head off a train wreck?
----Or is it because he can't bear the thoughts of a compromise being cut and him not getting credit for it?
----or is it because he heard the GOP could muster only 4 votes in favor of the bailout and McCain simply can not tolerate his buds standing on principle (regardless of what that principle is)
----or does he think he can get better face time by being on the bridge of a ship coordinating damage control rather than pontificating in isolation with his inexperienced opponent,
----or does he want to rub it in one more time by demonstrating the O'Bama just doesn't do votes really. Seems he has a problem with being on the record as having actually done something.
Personally I think debates are a joke. Actually they are a joke of a press conference. I think he done the right think though the jury is out as to the reason for doing the right thing. Who knows, he may have done the right thing for the right reason.
Post by: longeyes on September 25, 2008, 07:29:54 AM
I agree the debates are more entertainment than substance. McCain knows this, as he knows the debates will be spun against him, as he knows that the economic mess will be, regardless of the facts, spun against him and the GOP.
So he's tossing another thunderbolt, as he did with Sarah Palin. Yes, it's risky and it may not work, but it is one way to parry--maybe the only way--what the assembled forces of The Left are doing.
I don't really trust McCain's "bi-partisan" approaches--who does?--but there is one and only one thing to bear in mind about everything that is going on: MCCAIN HAS TO WIN.
He has to win for our side, because as flawed as McCain is, we cannot tolerate Obama in the White House with a Dem Congressional Majority behind him and potentially three Supreme Court vacancies to be filled. That is the bottom-line here, the rest is sound and fury.
Post by: AJ Dual on September 25, 2008, 08:16:03 AM
Last spring when he was the presumptive nominee and beating out Hillary, she piped up, "Maybe that Obama has something..." I called her on it, and she could notexactly what that "something" Obama had was... She was simply falling for the flash, hype, and the enthusiasim surrounding him. 15 seconds of discussion about Michelle Obama's "I was never proud of America until now..." Rev. Wright's "God Damn America" church, and a few other things like Iran, and supreme court nominations set her straight quickly.
So I like to think of her as my "Middle America" sample... i.e. nominally conservative when you lay it all out, just can't retain the information for any length of time. And easily swayed by the MSM, and spin. She does not really understand/believe at a gut level that there is constant bias in the media. It's both funny and scary at the same time.
McCain announces Palin as his pic, she gets a look at 30 seconds of her GOP convo speech w/o actualy paying any attention at the content, and she's dragging me and the kids the very next day to the GOP local office to get McCain signs, for us, and my conservative/Republican-but busy parents, and is crushed they're out of Mccain/Palin signs...
McCain going back to Washington played with her as "putting his duty as a Senator/America first"...
So I hope many others take it that way too.
Post by: Lennyjoe on September 25, 2008, 08:20:55 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 25, 2008, 08:35:24 AM
Others will call it political.
I'm calling it para-political.
McCain, instinctively, grasps the total political scene and realizes he's surrounded and needs to act boldly to have any chance of survival.
Post by: roo_ster on September 25, 2008, 09:09:38 AM
McCain may be a RINO, but he is no knucklehead.
Post by: seeker_two on September 25, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Beware the old dog in the fight.....he didn't get old by being stupid....
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 11:08:29 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 11:09:20 AM
Quote
It seems that McCain's plan worked to some extent. Earlier this week, the Dems declared the bailout as essentially being dead on arrival. After McCain and Bush made their stands, the Dems have agreed to it.
...this is now McCain's lasting achievement?
Post by: seeker_two on September 25, 2008, 11:11:43 AM
Quote
It seems that McCain's plan worked to some extent. Earlier this week, the Dems declared the bailout as essentially being dead on arrival. After McCain and Bush made their stands, the Dems have agreed to it.
...this is now McCain's lasting achievement?
Well, he was gonna need one sometime before the election....
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 11:16:50 AM
Quote
It seems that McCain's plan worked to some extent. Earlier this week, the Dems declared the bailout as essentially being dead on arrival. After McCain and Bush made their stands, the Dems have agreed to it.
...this is now McCain's lasting achievement?
Well, he was gonna need one sometime before the election....
So now we're in the Bizarro universe or something?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
Post by: Pb on September 25, 2008, 11:28:47 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 11:32:37 AM
And now gallup has them tied... maybe McCain's plan is working? I hope so...
Gallup's poll is a rolling average over the period 22nd to 24th.
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 11:38:38 AM
So now we're in the Bizarro universe or something?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
We've been in a Bizarro universe for a while. The Dems blocked increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2005, Schumer called for decreased regulation in 2006, and Barney Frank wanted to increase Fannie and Freddie's ability to buy mortgage backed securities in February of 2008. Yet, everything is the Republicans fault. I'd call that bizarre and counterintuitive, but it's just politics and the media operating as normal.
Post by: agricola on September 25, 2008, 11:43:35 AM
And now gallup has them tied... maybe McCain's plan is working? I hope so...
Gallup's poll is a rolling average over the period 22nd to 24th.
Thats actually better for McCain than it sounds, surely? - since the weekend there has been almost universal derision from the media because of Obama's "better handling" of the economy, via the Rick Davis non-story in the NYT, and culminating with widespread derision towards the suspension of the campaign. He should be in the toilet, according to the mainstream view - but isnt.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 11:55:26 AM
So now we're in the Bizarro universe or something?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
We've been in a Bizarro universe for a while. The Dems blocked increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2005, Schumer called for decreased regulation in 2006, and Barney Frank wanted to increase Fannie and Freddie's ability to buy mortgage backed securities in February of 2008. Yet, everything is the Republicans fault. I'd call that bizarre and counterintuitive, but it's just politics and the media operating as normal.
...wait, nothing about the fact McCain supports this plan gives you pause?
Post by: seeker_two on September 25, 2008, 12:10:34 PM
So now we're in the Bizarro universe or something?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
Democrats oppose huge government projects, Republicans stubbornly ram them through?
Wha?
We've been in a Bizarro universe for a while. The Dems blocked increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2005, Schumer called for decreased regulation in 2006, and Barney Frank wanted to increase Fannie and Freddie's ability to buy mortgage backed securities in February of 2008. Yet, everything is the Republicans fault. I'd call that bizarre and counterintuitive, but it's just politics and the media operating as normal.
...wait, nothing about the fact McCain supports this plan gives you pause?
Except he's stated that he wants more oversight than Bush is calling for....better he get that part in instead of being targeted as a "do-nothing" candidate by the MSM...
Post by: roo_ster on September 25, 2008, 12:26:36 PM
Pelosi & the Dems are likely FOR some sort of bailout.
The majority of Republicans are AGAINST a bailout. The skinny is that Pelosi will only go along with a bailout if she can get 100+ Repubs to vote for it. As of now, they only have ~50 Repubs on board.
FTR, I am against most of the floated bailout terms, but some are less bad than others..
Post by: RocketMan on September 25, 2008, 05:33:57 PM
The Republicans are being blamed.
Here is page one of MSN's take on the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26884523/?GT1=43001
Bailout talks break down
Negotiations to resume Friday morning after Republican revolt stalls efforts
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A Republican revolt stalled urgent efforts to lash together a national economic rescue plan Thursday, a chaotic turnaround on a day that had seemed headed for a success that President Bush, both political parties and their presidential candidates could celebrate at an extraordinary White House meeting.
Weary congressional negotiators worked into the night, joined by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in an effort to revive or rework the $700 billion proposal that President Bush said must be quickly approved by Congress to stave off potentially "a long and deep recession."
They gave up after 10 p.m. EDT, more than an hour after the lone House Republican involved, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, left the room. Democrats blamed the House Republicans for the apparent stalemate. Those conservatives have complained that the plan would be too costly for taxpayers and would be an unacceptable federal intrusion into private business.
Talks were to resume Friday morning on the effort to bail out failing financial institutions and restart the flow of credit that has begun to starve the national economy.
White House meeting
The days earlier apparent breakthrough, announced with fanfare at midday, was followed by a White House summit bringing together President Bush, presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama, and top congressional leaders. But that meeting, aimed at showing unity in resolving a national financial crisis, broke up with conflicts in plain view.
Inside the session, House Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.
The earlier agreement by key members of Congress from both parties but not top leaders would have given the Bush administration just a fraction of the money it wanted up front, subjecting half the $700 billion total to a congressional veto.
But conservatives were still in revolt, balking at the astonishing price tag of the proposal and the hand of government that it would place on private markets.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, emerged from the White House meeting to say the announced agreement is obviously no agreement.
One group of House GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative that would put much less focus on a government takeover of failing institutions sour assets. This proposal would have the government provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than have the U.S. purchase the assets.
Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the idea would be to remove the burden of the bailout from taxpayers and place it, over time, on Wall Street instead. The price tag of the administrations plan to bail out tottering financial institutions and the federal intrusion into private business matters have been major sticking points for many Republican lawmakers.
Post by: longeyes on September 25, 2008, 06:32:30 PM
No, McCain is opposing Big Gov and Big Biz. Old-boy Gov and Old-Boy Biz. He's going for the Silent American who can't stand either. I think he's right.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 06:38:32 PM
Bizarro?
No, McCain is opposing Big Gov and Big Biz. Old-boy Gov and Old-Boy Biz. He's going for the Silent American who can't stand either. I think he's right.
No, McCain is opposing Big Gov and Big Biz. Old-boy Gov and Old-Boy Biz. He's going for the Silent American who can't stand either. I think he's right.
He's opposing Big Government and Big Business by supporting a measure by which Big Government gives Big Business 800 billion dollars?
How do you SUPPORT Big Government then?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 25, 2008, 07:34:40 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 26, 2008, 04:08:29 AM
Inside the session, House Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.
Well, that seems cool. If this is true, I will, I suppose, have to apologize to the other posters in this thread.
Post by: wquay on September 26, 2008, 04:59:21 AM
Inside the session, House Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.
Well, that seems cool. If this is true, I will, I suppose, have to apologize to the other posters in this thread.
Yeah, who knows what the hell is actually going on. I read one report that says McCain and House Republicans are blocking the deal; the next describes how the McCain campaign is scrambling to get a plan pushed through.
Post by: agricola on September 26, 2008, 06:19:29 AM
Inside the session, House Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the emerging plan and McCain would not commit to supporting it, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.
Well, that seems cool. If this is true, I will, I suppose, have to apologize to the other posters in this thread.
Yeah, who knows what the hell is actually going on. I read one report that says McCain and House Republicans are blocking the deal; the next describes how the McCain campaign is scrambling to get a plan pushed through.
Thats still less than the Dems blaming him in the same day for blocking the plan, then blaming him for not actually saying anything at the meeting, then saying his presence in Washington was not helpful, then demanding that he push Republicans along with the bill.
Post by: agricola on September 26, 2008, 06:27:39 AM
Post by: agricola on September 26, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTNlZDMwODViMjM1NjY2YWRmMjVkOWZjZmNhNWY1NGQ=
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 07:27:30 AM
Fox and NRO also reporting that 20% of the proceeds of this bill would have gone not to the taxpayer but to "Community Organizations".
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTNlZDMwODViMjM1NjY2YWRmMjVkOWZjZmNhNWY1NGQ=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTNlZDMwODViMjM1NjY2YWRmMjVkOWZjZmNhNWY1NGQ=
Like Obama's organization? The one with William Ayers?
Post by: agricola on September 26, 2008, 07:46:07 AM
Fox and NRO also reporting that 20% of the proceeds of this bill would have gone not to the taxpayer but to "Community Organizations".
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTNlZDMwODViMjM1NjY2YWRmMjVkOWZjZmNhNWY1NGQ=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTNlZDMwODViMjM1NjY2YWRmMjVkOWZjZmNhNWY1NGQ=
Like Obama's organization? The one with William Ayers?
more info = http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/
apologies - I said proceeds when the truth was it was the profits from the proposed bailout.
Post by: Intune on September 26, 2008, 08:20:00 AM