Oh no, agreeement reached. McCain just lost his ace in the hole

[PapaG]

“Sen. Jim DeMint’s office reports just now that Harry Reid is trying to sneak the oil shale ban — backed by House Democrats — back into legislation under cover of the bailout frenzy.”

Sounds like the Dems got a little bit rider happy, and my guess is that the GOP wanting to cap executive pay-outs is a sticking point. The Dem plan has uncapped parachutes for the execs.

 

[maxiep]

Sounds like the Dems announced the non-deal. Why?

I just heard that the Paulson plan is basically dead at this point.

To embarrass McCain as he hadn't yet shown up in DC. They were banking on the fact that a deal actually was done. Unfortunately as part of the deal, there need to be at least 100 Republicans voting for the deal in the House. Now, there's a revolt from the right, who would prefer the Federal Government act as an insurance agency rather than an investment fund. And the fact is, I don't blame them.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Sounds like the Dems announced the non-deal. Why?

I just heard that the Paulson plan is basically dead at this point.

I read that there were both republican and democrats announcing a deal had been reached.

But I acknowledge that democrats are playing with this issue just as much (or maybe more or maybe only them). I'm cynical but this I feel this urgent issue is being used by both parties for poltical gain with the election upcoming.

Sad.

 

[maxiep]

I read that there were both republican and democrats announcing a deal had been reached.

But I acknowledge that democrats are playing with this issue just as much (or maybe more or maybe only them). I'm cynical but this I feel this urgent issue is being used by both parties for poltical gain with the election upcoming.

Sad.

Yep. Both parties seemed to have put their interests over those of the economy. It makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[Minstrel]

But I acknowledge that democrats are playing with this issue just as much (or maybe more or maybe only them). I'm cynical but this I feel this urgent issue is being used by both parties for poltical gain with the election upcoming.

I don't think it's cynical. I think it's a simple fact of politics: Opportunists feast on both crisis and great periods of success. It's times of uneventful growth that are slim pickings for making big, quick political capital.

 

[maxiep]

I really hope whichever bill comes out is named the Democrat-Republican-Independent-Bush-Obama-McCain-Pelosi-Reid-All-Of-The-Above Bill. Only in DC does who gets credit goes ahead of getting something done.

 

[BlazerWookee]

That's great news. I'll be interested to read the details of the bill.

Is it? I don't know much, but I do know that I get really nervous whenever anything makes it through Congress that quickly. It seems to me that some of the strongest economic times we've ever had came on the heels of prolonged gridlock...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Funny thing about the debate (if it happens) is people will see it the way they see this move to delay the debate.

If you are for McCain, then his answers were sufficient and he won the debate.

If you are for Obama, then his answers were suffcient and he won the debate.

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny thing about the debate (if it happens) is people will see it the way they see this move to delay the debate.

If you are for McCain, then his answers were sufficient and he won the debate.

If you are for Obama, then his answers were suffcient and he won the debate.

Actually not.

Last time, fans of Kerry were sure he won the debate, as if it were some high school debate contest.

Fans of Bush were sure he lost the debate, but he got a big bump in the polls.

In other words, you can try to win it for winning's sake, or you can try go get your message out or otherwise make the "winner" look like an asshole that many won't like enough to want to vote for.

 

[maxiep]

Is it? I don't know much, but I do know that I get really nervous whenever anything makes it through Congress that quickly. It seems to me that some of the strongest economic times we've ever had came on the heels of prolonged gridlock...

It looks like we all spoke too soon. It appears the one sticking point was President Bush delivering 100 House Republicans, and he couldn't do it. So now it's back the drawing board.

 

[Denny Crane]

McCain can deliver most of the house republicans, it's why he's there.

He clearly has issues with the proposal as-is.

 

[maxiep]

McCain can deliver most of the house republicans, it's why he's there.

He clearly has issues with the proposal as-is.

Yep, the GOP is letting McCain drive the train. If somehow he's viewed as being instrumental in getting the private sector to take on many of these loans instead of the government, it could be huge for him. Of course, if he's viewed as being an obstruction, it could really cost him.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yep, the GOP is letting McCain drive the train. If somehow he's viewed as being instrumental in getting the private sector to take on many of these loans instead of the government, it could be huge for him. Of course, if he's viewed as being an obstruction, it could really cost him.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a "huge mistake" by even discussing canceling the debate.

"You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,'" Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it's more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.





My understanding now, is McCain will be at the debate . . . I have a feeling the decision was once again made by the polls as 60% of voters thinks the debate should go on as planned.

 

[maxiep]

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a "huge mistake" by even discussing canceling the debate.

"You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,'" Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it's more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.

My understanding now, is McCain will be at the debate . . . I have a feeling the decision was once again made by the polls as 60% of voters thinks the debate should go on as planned.

To Huckabee, for whom economics is a four letter word, that's not a surprising conclusion. I'd actually like to hear what Mitt Romney has to say. The guy has flaws, but he was the smartest person on the economy from ANY party.

 

[Minstrel]

So far, this isn't turning out to be the brilliant tactical move that a few touted it as. Obama has either not lost ground or actually widened his lead, depending on the polls you look at, and most Americans want the debates to go on as planned. And nobody seems to be lauding McCain's work (what work has he done?) in rushing back to DC.

Perhaps this will still turn into a big win for him, but right now it seems like America views it as an empty gesture.

 

[mook]

My first reaction to McCain's move was pretty enthusiastic. I thought he'd gambled on yet another unexpected tactic and come up ahead again.

But I think it's just not worked out well for him. Canceling on David Letterman might've been the clincher. "I can't do the interview, Dave, 'cause I gotta go back to Washington and fix this mess!"...and then Letterman shows the feed that clearly demonstrates McCain had lied to him. If he lied to Letterman about canceling that, maybe he was lying about needing to cancel the debate in the interest of our country. Maybe he's lying about needing to suspend the campaign. It's not a big leap to make. Suddenly what was statesmanlike looks gimmicky and desperate.

People laugh and say, "Oh, it's just a late night talk show host." And that's true. But it's also David Letterman, the longest running late night talk show host in America. A guy who clearly used to respect McCain. Having Letterman rant for two nights in a row about how McCain lied to him has exposed the fake sense of urgency the McCain campaign was trying to generate about McCain's new and critical involvement in the bailout.

The most interesting thing in all of this to me is Obama. He gets criticized (even by me) for being too cool, too aloof, too much of an intellectual. He never seemed excited by McCain's recent surge in the polls, nor the negative ads against him, nor this week's crazy events, nor McCain's campaign "suspension." He never got excited about Hillary, and only got into it with Rev Wright when all other options failed. People tell him he needs to get fired up, to get mad.

And Obama ignores them all and does what he always does. He organizes, he says his one speech over and over again, and he stays calm. And he keeps winning.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

To Huckabee, for whom economics is a four letter word, that's not a surprising conclusion. I'd actually like to hear what Mitt Romney has to say. The guy has flaws, but he was the smartest person on the economy from ANY party.

So first you aren't surprise when democrats critize McCain for trying to delay the debate . . . I get that.

But now it comes from a high respected republican that supports McCain and you say yea but what does Romney say.

And now even McCain is backing down and going to the debate as polls show a majority of teh Americans want the debate to go as scheduled.

Maybe . . . just maybe it was a bad call for McCain to try and delay the debate.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

My first reaction to McCain's move was pretty enthusiastic. I thought he'd gambled on yet another unexpected tactic and come up ahead again.

But I think it's just not worked out well for him. Canceling on David Letterman might've been the clincher. "I can't do the interview, Dave, 'cause I gotta go back to Washington and fix this mess!"...and then Letterman shows the feed that clearly demonstrates McCain had lied to him. If he lied to Letterman about canceling that, maybe he was lying about needing to cancel the debate in the interest of our country. Maybe he's lying about needing to suspend the campaign. It's not a big leap to make. Suddenly what was statesmanlike looks gimmicky and desperate.

People laugh and say, "Oh, it's just a late night talk show host." And that's true. But it's also David Letterman, the longest running late night talk show host in America. A guy who clearly used to respect McCain. Having Letterman rant for two nights in a row about how McCain lied to him has exposed the fake sense of urgency the McCain campaign was trying to generate about McCain's new and critical involvement in the bailout.

The most interesting thing in all of this to me is Obama. He gets criticized (even by me) for being too cool, too aloof, too much of an intellectual. He never seemed excited by McCain's recent surge in the polls, nor the negative ads against him, nor this week's crazy events, nor McCain's campaign "suspension." He never got excited about Hillary, and only got into it with Rev Wright when all other options failed. People tell him he needs to get fired up, to get mad. And Obama ignores them all and does what he always does. He organizes, he says his one speech over and over again, and he stays calm. And he keeps winning.

Any clips you have on this letterman stuff . . . some of us old folks can't stay awake that long. : )

 

[PapaG]

It looks like we all spoke too soon. It appears the one sticking point was President Bush delivering 100 House Republicans, and he couldn't do it. So now it's back the drawing board.

If the plan is so great and will solve the crisis, WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS NEED ANY GOP HOUSE MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR IT? There is nothing the minority in the House can do to stop a vote. If all of the Dems are onboard, and if this solution is optimal, just vote on the thing and pass it. Bush already is onboard for signing it.

 

[Minstrel]

If the plan is so great and will solve the crisis, WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS NEED ANY GOP HOUSE MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR IT? There is nothing the minority in the House can do to stop a vote. If all of the Dems are onboard, and if this solution is optimal, just vote on the thing and pass it. Bush already is onboard for signing it.

Politics. It's politically unpopular to be standing alone with Bush, right now. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans put the blame for this crisis on him, as the sitting President. Democrats being alone in support for the President would hurt their chances for re-election.

And yes, that's political cowardice. That's what politics is, these days. Both parties are worried about elections. That's what's holding this bill, or one like it, up. It has to be politically viable for all involved.

 

[PapaG]

Politics. It's politically unpopular to be standing alone with Bush, right now. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans put the blame for this crisis on him, as the sitting President. Democrats being alone in support for the President would hurt their chances for re-election.

And yes, that's political cowardice. That's what politics is, these days. Both parties are worried about elections. That's what's holding this bill, or one like it, up. It has to be politically viable for all involved.

Thanks, and for the record, I already knew the answer to my question. It's just nice to see somebody else acknowledge this. Anybody with even a basic understanding of how the House works can see right through these Dem talking points. Unfortunately, that may be about 10% of the electorate.

 

[mook]

Any clips you have on this letterman stuff . . . some of us old folks can't stay awake that long. : )

Here's Letterman from last night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/letterman-attacks-mccain_n_129467.html

Here's from two nights ago:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[maxiep]

So first you aren't surprise when democrats critize McCain for trying to delay the debate . . . I get that.

Yes, it does not surprise me when Democrats criticize McCain.

But now it comes from a high respected republican that supports McCain and you say yea but what does Romney say.

I don't know why you're trying to make me a defender for the Republican Party. I'm not a member. My point was that Huckabee doesn't care about economics, so of course he's going to think the debate is most important. I don't think he has any idea how bad this thing is. I think Romney understands, which is why I'd like to hear from him.

And now even McCain is backing down and going to the debate as polls show a majority of Americans want the debate to go as scheduled.

Yep, it should be a good debate. I know I want to see it.

Maybe . . . just maybe it was a bad call for McCain to try and delay the debate.

First, McCain didn't try to "delay the debate". He put getting this bill hammered out in front of it. He said that because of that, the debate may have to be delayed. I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why McCain would not want to debate Obama on foreign policy.

Second, it may have not politically been the best call, but I'm not going to criticize anyone for putting their country before their campaign. He thinks he can help.

 

[mook]

Politics. It's politically unpopular to be standing alone with Bush, right now. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans put the blame for this crisis on him, as the sitting President. Democrats being alone in support for the President would hurt their chances for re-election.

It's not just being stuck alone on the same side as Bush. Voting for it without Republican cover means they'd also have ads running back in their home states saying things like, "Congressman Smith and the rest of those Democrats voted to spend $700 bil of your money. Vote for Jones."

I don't think either party would enjoy having this price tag wrapped around their neck come November. It may be cowardly, but I don't blame them.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Second, it may have not politically been the best call, but I'm not going to criticize anyone for putting their country before their campaign. He thinks he can help.

No way, he can have it both ways. If his rationale is country first, delay the debate becuase no agreement is reached yet. Well there is still no agreement, why is he going to debate.

Country first, right John?

 

[maxiep]

Politics. It's politically unpopular to be standing alone with Bush, right now. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans put the blame for this crisis on him, as the sitting President. Democrats being alone in support for the President would hurt their chances for re-election.

And yes, that's political cowardice. That's what politics is, these days. Both parties are worried about elections. That's what's holding this bill, or one like it, up. It has to be politically viable for all involved.

So, what reasons do the GOP House members have for supporting a bill that philosophically goes against their beliefs?

 

[Minstrel]

It's not just being stuck alone on the same side as Bush. Voting for it without Republican cover means they'd also have ads running back in their home states saying things like, "Congressman Smith and the rest of those Democrats voted to spend $700 bil of your money. Vote for Jones."

I don't think either party would enjoy having this price tag wrapped around their neck come November. It may be cowardly, but I don't blame them.

That's a good point. Really, rather than calling it cowardice, it's just relevant to note that both sides are using this as a political football. Republicans are probably holding out, hoping Democrats will pass the necessary bill and be alone (with Bush and in spending so much tax-payer money), Democrats are holding out to avoid that.

Meanwhile, Rome burns. Metaphorically. For now.

 

[maxiep]

No way, he can have it both ways. If his rationale is country first, delay the debate becuase no agreement is reached yet. Well there is still no agreement, why is he going to debate.

Country first, right John?

He'll be gone for 12 hours. He'll be coming back. Last night the government tabled discussion for 12 hours. His campaign is still suspended. He's not saying "call me if you need me".

 

[mook]

So, what reasons do the GOP House members have for supporting a bill that philosophically goes against their beliefs?

Because not all prudent things are ideologically righteous.

 

[mook]

That's a good point. Really, rather than calling it cowardice, it's just relevant to note that both sides are using this as a political football. Republicans are probably holding out, hoping Democrats will pass the necessary bill and be alone (with Bush and in spending so much tax-payer money), Democrats are holding out to avoid that.

Meanwhile, Rome burns. Metaphorically. For now.

This is all just really bad timing. I wonder if they'll all come up with a way to kick this can down the road until after the election.