He was for it, but now that it's been voted down will he be against it?
Ed Rollins: Failure Of Bailout Will Hurt McCain
Sam Stein
September 29, 2008 04:09 PM
Quote:
A prominent GOP strategist said on Monday that John McCain handled his role in the bailout process poorly and would ultimately be hurt politically by the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the measure.
"To a certain extent, I think John gets hurt by this," said Ed Rollins, a CNN contributor who worked on former Gov. Mike Huckabee's primary campaign earlier this cycle. "He obviously, at the end of the day, said he was for it. But more important than that, he said he was the one who would bring them to the table and to a certain extent he will be viewed now as not being able to do that."
Rollins added, "McCain is our nominee and {congressional Republicans} will do everything they can to help him, but they are not going to go over the cliff for him. They did that for Bush, and they thought that this measure was just too dramatic for their constituencies."
The GOP strategist spoke to the Huffington Post just an hour after the House failed to pass the $250 billion bailout package by a margin of 205 to 228. Republicans in that body were quick to cast blame on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for giving a "partisan" speech earlier on Monday -- a doubtful assertion given the benign text of Pelosi's remarks. When it came to McCain's leadership qualities, however, Rollins argued that the last week has left much to be desired.
"I think the reality is, he made a big show coming in and at the end of the day it really wasn't realistic for him," he said.
McCain has, indeed, made several obvious missteps since the bailout became the central campaign issue. Calling for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Rollins noted, did little to endear McCain to conservatives in the House, many of whom hold Cox in higher regard than the Arizona Senator. Perhaps more embarrassing were the claims made by Sen. McCain's aides the past two days taking credit for forging the bipartisan compromise that never came to fruition.
i can't believe how anyone can take him seriously after the "shutdown" debacle. His demaverickification is complete. He's just another politician now, and a pretty bad one at that.
09-29-2008
Nbadan
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Oh, it gets worse...
09-29-2008
Yonivore
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
A) Did Obama vote? I haven't heard.
B) What the fuck was Pelosi trying to do before the vote with that partisan tirade? Someone said she was building a concensus... :lmao
C) Who caused this mess in the first place -- and, yes, the truth will out. It's more and more looking like the CRA amendments of 95, the obstruction of Democrats, and the complicity of Obama -- and lawyers like him -- that forced banks to issued bad loans by lawsuit are at the root of this whole fiasco.
D) Who failed to recognize and take action in time to avert this crisis? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama were accepting sweetheart mortgage deals from Countywide and money from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists -- more than anyone else in congress -- to cover their asses.
If the American voters don't recognize what the fuck happened, they deserve what they get. Idiots.
09-29-2008
ChumpDumper
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Who failed to recognize and take action in time to avert this crisis?
The Republicans in complete control of the entire government for six years.
09-29-2008
MannyIsGod
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Yoni, how's that Bush face on Rushmore coming along?
09-29-2008
Nbadan
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
What the fuck was Pelosi trying to do before the vote with that partisan tirade? Someone said she was building a concensus...
:rolleyes
Cause Republicans always vote with Pelosi, right?
09-29-2008
PixelPusher
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
A) Did Obama vote? I haven't heard.
No. Neither has any other Senator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
B) What the fuck was Pelosi trying to do before the vote with that partisan tirade? Someone said she was building a concensus... :lmao
Yeah, it was foolish of her to assume Republicans weren't over-sensitive pussies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
C) Who caused this mess in the first place -- and, yes, the truth will out. It's more and more looking like the CRA amendments of 95, the obstruction of Democrats, and the complicity of Obama -- and lawyers like him -- that forced banks to issued bad loans by lawsuit are at the root of this whole fiasco.
The CRA didn't force wall street to securitize and AAA rate those bullshit loans, which is why this is now everyone's problem and not just the banks who made those loans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
D) Who failed to recognize and take action in time to avert this crisis? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama were accepting sweetheart mortgage deals from Countywide and money from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists -- more than anyone else in congress -- to cover their asses.
If the American voters don't recognize what the fuck happened, they deserve what they get. Idiots.
We always do.
09-29-2008
Nbadan
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
D) Who failed to recognize and take action in time to avert this crisis? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama were accepting sweetheart mortgage deals from Countywide and money from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists -- more than anyone else in congress -- to cover their asses.
If the American voters don't recognize what the fuck happened, they deserve what they get. Idiots.
Funny how Yoni has such a 'carefully' crafted list of donation recipients...
Money and Votes Aligned in Congress's Last Debate Over Bank Regulation
Quote:
The last time Congress seriously debated how to regulate the financial industry, the result was legislation that allowed the nation's largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A look back at that debate, which was over the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, reveals that campaign contributions may have influenced the votes of politicians who, a decade later, are now grappling with the implosion of the giant banks they helped to foster.
Looking back at the vote on the 1999 act, and the campaign contributions that led up to it, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found that those members of Congress who supported lifting Depression-era restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies received more than twice as much money from those interests than did those lawmakers who opposed the measure.
-snip-
Nine years later, Congress is debating a proposal from the Treasury Secretary to assume the bad investments that are weighing down the nation's financial institutions, at taxpayer expense. And lobbyists representing the financial services industry are trying to once again shape fast-moving legislation to their clients' benefit. Whether campaign contributions will again correlate to congressional votes remains to be seen.
The following chart summarizes the votes and money around Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. Below it is a table of all current members of Congress, how much money their campaign committees have received from the financial sector in their congressional careers and how they voted on the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act. An "A" indicates they were absent for the 1999 vote, as McCain was. An empty vote column, as with Obama, indicate the lawmaker was not in office at the time.
-snip-
Financial sector contributions to Congress, 1989-2008
Office FirstLastPState GrandTotal Vote
S Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $31,040,714
S Barack Obama (D) $27,942,613
S John McCain (R) $26,593,411 A
S John Kerry (D-Mass) $19,094,828 Y
S Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn) $13,204,556 Y
S Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $12,795,946 Y
S Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) $9,972,924 Y
S Arlen Specter (R-Pa) $5,652,910 Y
S Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) $4,678,993
S Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) $4,669,788 Y
S Max Baucus (D-Mont) $4,491,183 Y
S Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) $4,437,474 Y
S Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala) $4,360,242 N
H Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $4,117,402 Y
S Evan Bayh (D-Ind) $3,974,396 Y
S John Cornyn (R-Texas) $3,957,686
S Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $3,898,822 Y
S Norm Coleman (R-Minn) $3,864,281
S Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del) $3,714,310 Y
S Jon L. Kyl (R-Ariz) $3,700,309 Y
H Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) $3,699,199 Y
S Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $3,570,557 Y
S Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $3,537,897 Y
S Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
I know, but the media is acting like this was hinging on a McCain vote or something. Where the fuck was Obama all day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
Yeah, it was foolish of her to assume Republicans weren't over-sensitive pussies.
96 Democrats stayed away too. The fact of the matter is, both sides made unsavory concessions to reach a deal and Pelosi shot a hole in it because she couldn't keep her fucking pie-hole shut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
Barney can shut the fuck up...He's a huge reason we're in this mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
The CRA didn't force wall street to securitize and AAA rate those bullshit loans, which is why this is now everyone's problem and not just the banks who made those loans.
Powerline links to a video that answers this question with admirable clarity. I’ll link to the video below. First, here are a few data points from the video and other sources:
* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”
Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)
* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”
* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because
a) they had bad or non-existent credit
b) their income was insufficient or
c) both.
A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.
For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).
But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?
That was the question that led to
”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).
* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.
The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.
* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”
Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.
But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”
A little aside here about Obama's close relationship with ACORN and these worthless loans:
Quote:
The movement's biggest victory, of course, came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up the riskier loans - providing fresh incentive for banks to make even more of them.
No need to recount where all that led.
Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along.
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he told the group last November.
Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.
ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.
Funny this hasn't gotten more attention from the media.
* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.
Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.
Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”
Why didn’t someone try to stop it?
Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.
But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:
* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.
* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?
* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.
Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”
Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here
Democrats caused the problem.
Democrats perpetuated the problem.
Democrats obstructed all efforts to fix the problem.
And, now, Democrats are trying to move blame to the only party that tried to do anything to fix this mess over the years.
Fucking Democrats...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
We always do.
Well, we may have screwed the pooch this time.
09-29-2008
ChumpDumper
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoni
I know, but the media is acting like this was hinging on a McCain vote or something. Where the fuck was Obama all day?
Sorry, McCain acted like the bailout was hinging on McCain's being there for all the negotiations until an agreement was finalized.
Then he didn't show up until the framework was agreed upon.
Then he left before an agreement was finalized.
Then he didn't go back and just talked on the phone with people who were actually in Washington.
Now he's taking off Rosh Hashanah along with everyone else.
No agreement.
No vote.
No crisis?
09-29-2008
boutons_
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
nobody forced the lenders to lend to, to predate on risky borrowers.
CRA doesn't even apply to the entire group of types of lenders. CRA is Repug slime to distract from THEIR deregulation and THEIR lax regulation of what few regs remained.
09-29-2008
Findog
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
The calculus is pretty simple: Getting re-elected in my swing district > helping McCain get the Presidency. The GOP in Congress knows how this is going to play locally and nationally, and they're abandoning McCain to stem the amount of GOP hemorhaging in Congress.
09-29-2008
Findog
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Congratulations President-Elect Obama
09-29-2008
Biernutz
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
McCain Cosponsored Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005; Reform of Fannie and Freddie
The first one alone should dismiss this claim as a farce. The CRA was signed into law in 1977 -- almost 30 years ago. So, what do you think the possibilities of a law passed 30 years ago causing the lending problems now? That's one heck of a law to have that kind of effect. But wait -- Clinton changed the law That was the real problem No it wasn't, regarding those changes:
In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity largely came to an end by 2001.
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as redlining. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses.
The vast majority of the subprime loans over the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts:
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
In other words, the CRA isn't even an issue. But that won't stop the the likes of Rush and his progeny from saying it over and over again until all sorts of people believe it.
While we're on the topic -- the CRA had nothing to do with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac either:
Note, too, that Fannie and Freddie have nonpareil lobbying operations and formidable political strength, owing to their hefty donations and penchant for hiring former political operatives. Besides, the agencies claim they've landed in their current predicament through no fault of their own. As Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently put it, the GSEs have been hit by a 100-year storm in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.
The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.
A simple Google search with help from Wikipedia would have revealed how clueless the CRA caused this mess claim is. But that's not the point. The entire financial system is under tremendous stress on the Republican's watch. It's their policies that are under the microscope right now. And they just don't look that good. So now the political game is to shift the blame to Democrats. And who better then to blame then ... Jimmy Carter.
Powerline links to a video that answers this question with admirable clarity. I’ll link to the video below. First, here are a few data points from the video and other sources:
No, that video and your transcript of it didn't answer that question at all. How is the CRA responsible for the securitization and AAA rating of those bullshit loans? How come this crisis is still ongoing if it was all just Bear Sterns and Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae?
09-29-2008
Biernutz
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So what is McCain doing now?
This is McCain's statement to vote today. Looks like it's on again.
He's right in calling out Pelosi. But if there's anybody that politicized this whole thing was him suspending his campaign and heading to DC. How can you blame the failure of passing the bailout on the Democrats when 100+ of the Nay votes came from Republicans? And for the record, I'm completely disgusted with Pelosi and Dems sheep on this topic.
09-29-2008
Anti.Hero
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Barney fucking Frank. Did someone seriously just post that video of him?
Who knows how this will affect McCain. It was obviously a political stunt.
09-29-2008
Findog
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Pelosi shouldn't have said what she did, but it's fucking pathetic they voted against it out of pique. Well, the market called their bluff to the tune of a drop of 800 points.
The Democrats should just write up their own bill and dare Bush to veto it.
09-29-2008
baseline bum
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Yoni, how's that Bush face on Rushmore coming along?
Wow. :pctoss
09-29-2008
spurster
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
...
Bottom line? It [affordable housing legislation] forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
...
Utter bullshit.
09-29-2008
spurster
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Obama doesn't look so pretty on this either. BTW, he didn't give this speech, but he thought it would pass.
The failure of the government bailout took Mr. Obama and his aides by surprise. A copy of his speech that was distributed to reporters upon arriving here, declared: "Today, Democrats and Republicans in Washington have agreed on an emergency rescue plan that is our best and only way to prevent an economic catastrophe."
...
09-29-2008
ElNono
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Findog
The Democrats should just write up their own bill and dare Bush to veto it.
That's what they should have done from the get go. Or simply opposed it and that's it. At the end of the day this Congress is doing whatever the Republicans want anyways. This is the shit that's been going on since they took control of Congress and Pelosi has been front and center. They don't have the balls to take a stand on ANYTHING. It's truly pathetic.
09-29-2008
Anti.Hero
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Or they could have all voted Yes.
09-29-2008
ChumpDumper
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biernutz
This is McCain's statement to vote today. Looks like it's on again.
Obama never suspended his campaign and vowed to stay in Washington until the crisis was resolved.
Damn, you are stupid.
09-29-2008
PixelPusher
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Will McCain have to re-suspend his campaign when some form of this bill finally reaches the Senate?
09-29-2008
Biernutz
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Obama never suspended his campaign and vowed to stay in Washington until the crisis was resolved.
Damn, you are stupid.
McCain went in to help. He tried to make it happen. He wanted the bill to pass. Obama had to be dragged to D.C. and we all know how much of a big help he was.
Chump do you get tired of cut and paste of the same old insults over and over thru the years. Go on the internet and Google some better ones.
09-29-2008
ducks
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
“Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy,” Pelosi said. “But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans, some in the Republican Party, not all, it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.
WTF
09-29-2008
ChumpDumper
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biernutz
McCain went in to help. He tried to make it happen. He wanted the bill to pass.
He showed up late and left early.
Then he never went back.
After saying he would stay until the crisis was resolved.
Quote:
Obama had to be dragged to D.C. and we all know how much of a big help he was.
As much of a help as McCain minus the stupid, disingenuous stunts.
Quote:
Chump do you get tired of cut and paste of the same old insults over and over thru the years. Go on the internet and Google some better ones.
I do get tired saying you're stupid, but you force me to continue doing so.
Quit being stupid and I'll stop.
09-29-2008
Cry Havoc
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biernutz
McCain went in to help. He tried to make it happen. He wanted the bill to pass. Obama had to be dragged to D.C. and we all know how much of a big help he was.
Chump do you get tired of cut and paste of the same old insults over and over thru the years. Go on the internet and Google some better ones.
Yes. McCain tried to get a bill passed that nearly every economist in the country was SCREAMING for not to happen. Since McCain is proving very aptly that he knows absolutely jack shit about the economy, I'm going to go ahead and say he got fucking owned because he was out of his depth.
Of course, you don't care about what the economists say. McCain will never lead you wrong.
Now it's looking like it may all have been a partisan setup by Pelosi...
Suspicion is growing that Pelosi and the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bill, and that it failed at least in part because Pelosi tried to misuse it for political advantage.
Everyone has heard about the weirdly partisan and inaccurate rant which Pelosi contributed to the debate on the bailout bill. But that speech did not take place in a vacuum. Public opinion is running strongly against the bill, and it required political courage to vote for it. If you look at the list of those who voted "No" in both parties, it is mostly members who are engaged in tough re-election campaigns. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
That being the case, and given the fact that the legislation was in fact a negotiated, bipartisan compromise, the first duty of the majority party is to line up its members to support the majority's bill. But evidence is growing that the Democrats did no such thing.
As of yesterday, the Democrats' House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn't even begun "whipping" Democratic representatives, and wouldn't do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was "whipped" on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top.
This is a classic Charlie Brown and the football maneuver. Pelosi gives a speech that frames the issue, falsely, as the result of bad Republican policies, then allows her own threatened representatives to do the popular thing while expecting Republicans to take one for the team by casting an unpopular vote. Which, of course, their Democratic opponents would use against them, thereby increasing the Democratic majority in the House.
If this was Pelosi's plan it failed, in part, perhaps, because her over-the-top partisan diatribe tipped off Republicans as to what was afoot. If, as it now appears, it's true that the Democrats made no serious effort to pass the bailout bill, it is just one more example of the failure of leadership we have seen since they took control of Congress.
And, if this is the way they're going to play, Republicans might as well wait until they get a bill they want before voting in favor. Otherwise, I dare the Democrats to use their majority to push it through...
09-29-2008
ChumpDumper
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
It looks like a partisan setup by Pelosi because Powerlineblog told Gabbovore to say it.
Pelosi shouldn't have said what she did, but it's fucking pathetic they voted against it out of pique. Well, the market called their bluff to the tune of a drop of 800 points.
The Democrats should just write up their own bill and dare Bush to veto it.
The republicans might not have voted against it because of what she said. All the representatives have had their offices flooded with calls, emails, etc. saying no bailout. I am one that called my representatives office and both senators.
As for the 700+ (was it almost 800?) drop, didn't it make up about half that today? I didn't look at the close, nor am I taking the time to. I just wanted to say, the only reason the market dropped, was day traders were acting on the sure thing that congress was going to do this bailout, then when it didn't happen, things went a bit erratic. If there was no talk of a bailout, or vote, I say this would have never happened to the market. It is already lower than it should be, and when the democrats stop talking about haw bad things are, it will go up again. If the media stops talking about how bad things are (they really aren't that bad) and is republicans take over congress and McCain becomes president, be sure, the Dow will go past 14,000 again.
09-30-2008
SnakeBoy
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
McCain should have come out for the house republicans plan and let Obama be for the Bush/Pelosi/Paulson plan.
Instead he's trying to sell it to republicans who are against it and never were completely sold on him to begin with. It has probably cost him the presidency so you could probably say it has hurt him.
09-30-2008
Wild Cobra
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
McCain should have come out for the house republicans plan and let Obama be for the Bush/Pelosi/Paulson plan.
Instead he's trying to sell it to republicans who are against it and never were completely sold on him to begin with. It has probably cost him the presidency so you could probably say it has hurt him.
Like I said before, McCain idea of working across the isle is working with Republicans! He should be a Demcrat...
09-30-2008
sook
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
mccain failed, get over it.
For anyone to think he will get elected over what happened the last 8 yrs is comical.
Thats why i don't spend that much time debating it, obama is going to win
10-01-2008
DarrinS
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Serious question:
Why would this hurt McCain and not Obama? Is it because of the whole "shutting down" of his campaign?
Because both of these arsewipes are FOR the bailout.
10-01-2008
101A
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Serious question:
Why would this hurt McCain and not Obama? Is it because of the whole "shutting down" of his campaign?
Because a Republican is President.
10-01-2008
JoeChalupa
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
If Palin survives Thursday then the Palin/McCain ticket will get a boost.
10-01-2008
Wild Cobra
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
I just got off the phone with McCain's Tempe office. Had basically the same thing to say as I listed in another thread. I also let them know I was only luke-warm voting for McCain, and that if he votes yes, he probably loses my vote.
10-01-2008
RandomGuy
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It looks like a partisan setup by Pelosi because Powerlineblog told Gabbovore to say it.
Get it to regurgitate the most baseless gossip and slander, all you need is an internet connection and it will do all the downloading from pre-approved websites for you!
No messy critical thinking or evaluation of sources!
Is all that information too confusing for you? No problem!
The Yonibot 3000 will simply edit out anything that isn't 100% rosy for conservatives or 100% bad for liberals.
10-02-2008
boutons_
Re: Will the Bail-out Blunder Hurt McCain?
Poll Finds Obama Gaining Support and McCain Weakened in Bailout Crisis
