A meeting he called, did you know that? He was the one who called the meeting, so says Dana Perino:
Presidential spokesperson Dana Perino on this afternoon's among Bush, McCain and Obama: "Sen. McCain is the one who called for the meeting, and we thought it was a good idea."From Huffington Post:
And:Inside an intense White House meeting over the financial crisis on Thursday, where nearly every key player came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package, Sen. John McCain stuck out. The Republican candidate, according to sources with direct knowledge, sat quiet through most of the meeting, never offered specifics, and spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.
From this dishonest Senator who "suspended" his campaign (but not the ads and not the offices, just, presumably, the David Letterman interview) he shuts down the meeting to aid his floundering presidential campaign:Towards the end, McCain finally spoke up, mentioning a counter-proposal that had been offered by some conservative House Republicans, which would suspend the capital gains tax for two years and provide tax incentives to encourage firms that buy up bad debt. McCain did not discuss specifics of the plan, though, and was non-committal about supporting it.
Paulson, however, argued directly against the conservative proposal. "He said that he did not think it would work," according to the source. At another point in the meeting, President Bush chimed in, "If money isn't loosened, this sucker could go down" -- and by sucker he meant economy.
With 40 days left until the election, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama leads GOP rival John McCain 47 percent to 42 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News/New York Times poll. The five-point difference mirrors the findings in a CBS/NYT poll last week. Likely voters also favor Obama by five points, 48 percent to 43 percent.Country First? I think not.
22 comments:
Washington Mutual shareholders should file a class action suit against McCain.
No, you can seriously ask (although maybe not assert) whether John McCain torpedoed the negotiations yesterday so that he could justify pushing his debate with Barack Obama onto the Vice Presidential debate, and thus justify cancelling the Vice Presidential debate. I'm sure I will be proved wrong in a couple of days, but until then we are left wondering.
David Brooks today tries to distinguish between John McCain the legislator and John McCain the campaigner. Brooks praises McCain for his accomplishments during the Bush years: “I don’t think any senator had as impressive a few years as McCain did during this span of time.”
Brooks cites voting against energy and prescription drug bills, and creating an immigration bill with Ted Kennedy. But the energy and prescription drug bills passed anyway, while the immigration bill did not. I am not as impressed as Brooks is.
Brooks says that in McCain’s time as a POW, McCain saw how other men were maybe more heroic than him. I understand that flying is an inherently dangerous role in warfare, and that there is a strong risk of being captured. But I still have trouble seeing being captured as, in and of itself, heroic. It is horrible, McCain ran the risk and ended up sacrificing time and pain for his country, but I still see heroism as charging a machine gun nest to save your comrades, or marching in a civil rights march knowing you might be arrested or beaten or worse. John McCain followed orders to undertake risky missions, but he himself doubted the validity of the cause (and probably with good reason). Now this ultimately honorable man is playing a cynical game with the country’s future, because he just wants to be President.
Obama is certainly ambitious too, and the validity of his economic proposals can and should be debated. But I think part of why he is running is that he thinks he might be able to make a difference in the lives of some ordinary Americans, and he thinks that is a worthwhile goal. And so do I. I am not convinced that John McCain has the same goals.
John K: McCain derailed squat. The Democrats control the Senate and House. Bush will sign the bill and not veto it. Hence, it is veto proof. The liberals want to lead in congress, so lead. Bring it up in both houses, pass it and have the Prez sign it. Come on here left wingers, you want to lead, so lead. Ed Heath just wants to be able to blame it on Republicans if it doesn't work out. LOL LMAO How easy it is.
John K: Hussein Obama looked like someone sitting at the table wondering where is my teleprompter? How can they expect me to ask questions without a teleprompter? This guy is in way over his head. But if you want to vote it, then vote. Republicans can't stop squat here. Lead like liberals. Onorato and Fitzgerald do the same thing. Leadership thru blame. LMAO LMAO
I've actually been thinking we should take John K's / Boehner's / McCain's dare. Democrats have the votes to pass this. It is being done at President Bush's and Secretary Paulson's behest. Everyone knows it needs to get done.
Democrats should be the adults in the room and pass it without House Republican "cover". Show we'd rather save the economy than play politics.
Let the next President of the United States explain why there's no substantive difference between Main Street and Wall Street, and even though we should had more regulation in the past and will have moreso in his administration, the country needs to come together and clean up its own mess without false populist claptrap. Leave McCain holding the bag.
John K: I am right. The Republicans cannot block squat. McCain cannot stop squat. So have both leaders of the Houses of Congress bring it to their members for a vote and the Democrats will pass it with only Democrat votes just like they did the tax increases of 1993. The Prez said he sill sign it, hence no veto to override. There are enough Senators on board to provide for cloture. What's really stopping the Democrats. They want to pass the blame for the lack of protections for the pubic on to Republicans. They want to blame Republicans for this if it goes wrong. Which is how Democrats lead. Ask Onorato or Burn, they are local folks who do the same thing. So lead Democrats, if you have the balls. LMAO LMAO LOL LOL
John, the Democrats in the Senate only have a one vote majority and that one vote is McCain's BFF Joe Leiberman. Without a 60 vote majority to override the thread of a filibuster , they can't get anything passed without the Republican's help.
John K: First it is funny you brought up Lieberman. Two weeks ago you were trashing Lieberman and throwing him out of the party. LOL LOL Forget it. There are 60 votes in the Senate for cloture. Add in those liberals wackos in the Republican party that always vote with Democrats and you have the votes. So Stand up for Chuck, Democrats. Take the lead here and bring it up for a vote. LMAO If you have the balls.
John K: There have been two votes during the Bush Presidency that matter. The vote to go to war with Iraq in 2003 and this one. And on both issues the Demcorats voted with the President. Now on the first issue the Democrats ran right to the microphones and whined that, Bush lied. And you lefties supported that. So what do you think, Republicans in the House are stupid? You think they are going to allow Democrats to run to microphones and whine, But Bush lied on the bailout. Vote it Democrats. Problem is there isn't a Democrat within range that takes responsibility. So come on left wing kooks, vote it in. LMAO and then whine But Bush Lied.
John K: Can any lefty in here get Dayvoe to post that blog that says McCain voted 95% of the time with the President. Because the Democrats voted with the President in 2003 to go to war and now, along with Hussein Obama, are voting with the President on the only other bill that matters. LMAO And then you will whine, But Bush tricked us.
The media (at least the NYTimes) is portraying McCain as having derailed the apreement, for better or worse. Might bother some undecideds.
The debate is on! McCain says he will show up, then go back to Washington to work on the agreement. It would be nice if there could be something done by Monday.
I (sort of) agree with John K, the House Democrats should take a vote on what was supposed to be the agreement. Presumeably it would pass, and the Senate would feel obliged to act. Then we would see if the Senate Republicans would dare risk the nation's financial system.
John K: The media said that? LOL LOL LMAO Like when has the media supported McCain? Well Ed you ought to look at the numbers. 90% of the people are saying don't do this. Which is why Congress is balking. LOL
Hey John K, I just glanced at Yahoo and there is an AP poll saying 45% oppose, 30 support, 25 undecided. That's probably enough to cause Congress to balk, but still I think probably something needs to be done. We don't want to see more bank failues. The plan the media was talking about, where the 700 billion is used to buy equity in banks (as well as the toxic securities) sounded like a good one to me. Then the banks have the cash they need, and the equity could be sold in six months or a year, to return some or all of the taxpayers money to the treasury. I am not enough of a financial expert to know what might be better (other than not to hve gotten into this mess). If you ave a better plan, please explain.
John McCain went to DC expressly to get a deal done.
That's why he said it was sooooo vital he be there.
And the latest Gallup poll shows that 78% of people feel something needs to be done.
What they don't want is the Paulson Plan, which is not what was agreed to yesterday.
And, dear John, that agreement was reached between Democrats and Republicans - it was only the loony House Republicans who submarined the deal at the last minute with their introduction of two completely insane proposals - more deregulation and tax cuts for the people who caused this.
Now, how does that jive with McCain's call for MORE regulation and to make sure people who helped caused this don't benefit from it?
Is John "The economy is strong" McCain the irresponsible regulator that his career suggests he is, or is he the "Champion of the People" that he's pretending to be this week?
And if McCain's such a leader, why was he silent during the meeting? Why didn't he exhibit some of that classic McCain leadership?
Oh, that's right...Capitol Hill Republicans can't stand the man.
I mean, McCain said this was a crisis - such an enormous crisis that for the first time in recent history, despite other crises, he had to try and wiggle out of the debate. And yet the little meeting he called for did nothing but blow the whole process up.
Something will have to be done - John K. is apparently incapable of thinking out what will happen if credit continues to tighten up.
Figures that Do-Nothing Republicans are sitting on their hands, suggesting the same kind of proposals that led to this mess - they are NOT interested in protecting taxpayers; their interested in exploiting them to protect their friends on Wall Street.
Simply put:
douche.bag.
John K: Well, well, well. LOL As the day goes on we find out more and more and it appears that the article Dayvoe published is a total lie. I mean an absolute fabrication of the truth about what happened. What will Dayvoe stoop to next eh? LMAO You been outed Homer.
John K: And I also see Jaywillie is lying also. What spin did the Daily kos supply to get this lie out. LMAO
John K wrote:
Can any lefty in here get Dayvoe to post...
Hey, John, you want to get a message to me?
Drop me an e-mail like everyone else:
numbah-6@yahoo.com
Dave, your email brings to mind an important question: WHO IS NUMBER ONE!?
I am number 2....OK. Maybe not.
The bottom line here is that EVERYONE was looking for political cover. Period. Too big an issue to not have done due diligence on.
Of course, the real issue is what the hell Paulson was thinking with his one page, "I want all the money in the world and no restrictions" piece. My guess? Another power grab from GWB and his Admin slimeballs. NO issue, including this or 9/11 is immune from their political games....
Clyde
To me the bottom line of all this is that if you just didn't lie about your reasons for canceling in the first place, it wouldn't have been as outrageous.
I suppose when you're used to lying all the time, it just becomes second nature.
Whether or not McCain derailed anything or not, he certainly didn't help anything and really just showed another incident of John McCain having a knee jerk reaction to a problem.
John K: I am number one of course. Sheesh. You Democrats tried to slip a fast one on the people in the middle of the night. Boehner put a stop to that.
John K: So what's the deal Dayvoe? Don't want to post the fact that Hussein Obama is voting with The Prez on this economic issue. Like I said, just for laughs, post that blog that said McCain votes 95% with the Prez so we can all have a good laugh.
Post a Comment