McCain's Political Theater?
Find a Conversation
McCain's Political Theater?
| Wed, 09-24-2008 - 3:39pm |
I think McCain's "suspension" of his campaign to go to DC and sit around while Congress hammers out a bailout plan is just political theater. I am not sure that McCain's presence is required at all. He will need to vote on a bill either way, but he can fly in, vote and be back on the trail. Also, I think postponing the debate is another political stunt. You know, "country first." Our country's representatives cannot work on this program without McCain and his campaign lobbyists sitting there sounds a bit ridiculous. I think this political theater will play well to the base, but I think it makes McCain look like he cannot multi-task well enough to campaign then go vote on a bill.
Sopal

Pages
The way they need to lead is to speak with the Democrat or Republican senators who are on the committee (which can be done on the phone if need be) to discuss whatever their ideas are.
"I am suspending my campaign"
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
You are wrong.
You are right...they are their party's leaders, but they are NOT their party's leaders in the Senate.
Newsweek article on McCain's trip to Washington:
"At first, I was willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on his "amazing gambit." As I wrote yesterday, if he, Obama and Bush had emerged from Thursday's White House summit having ratified the fragile preliminary agreement between Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the Administration, congressional Democrats and Senate Republicans--four of the five parties necessary for consensus--I would've said "no harm, no foul." McCain may have been irrelevant, but at least he wouldn't have been a destructive force. In that case, debate away. But instead he's proven to be a bull in a china shop--or, more accurately, a bull that 1) misleadingly says the china shop is in disarray before he enters; 2) vows not to leave until he cleans up; 3) enters and shatters everything in sight; 4) blames everyone else for the damage and 5) leaves, claiming a job well done.
Here's what happened yesterday, according to the chronology I've cobbled together from news reports.
By 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, "the House and Senate Democrats had settled their most important differences, the White House had caved on CEO pays, and the two sides were coming close to dealing with the bailout's oversight mechanism, its posture toward homeowners, and whether taxpayers would get ownership stakes in taken-over companies." As many as 40 of the 49 Senate Republicans were ready to support the bailout. House Republicans were grumbling, but without anyone to legitimate their revolt, they weren't making much noise. House Minority Leader John Boehner even issued a joint statement with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday night declaring bipartisan progress.
Then McCain arrived, uninvited, in Washington, loudly announcing that "no consensus has developed" and that "the plan on the table will pass." Emboldened, the House Republicans raised the volume of their objections, possibly to save face for McCain and create the impression that he had come to the rescue. As Boehner's top aide told the New York Times this morning, "Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement"--even though Bush and Senate Republicans also favored the renegotiated bailout plan.
At this point, McCain could've attempted to bring the House Republicans on board. He could've explained that government intervention was unfortunate but necessary. That would have given him cover to claim that he'd helped restore equilibrium (even if he was the one who'd disrupted it). But when the Arizona senator arrived at the White House summit arranged for his benefit, he "sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood." He did little else to forge a compromise. As the Washington Post reported, "McCain shuttled between meetings and his Senate office but rarely came close to the Capitol suites and committee rooms where the talks were taking place."
After hours of phone calls and huddles on Capitol Hill, Congressional negotiators finally gave up for the night. It was about 10:30 p.m. The bill's fate was more uncertain than it had been midweek, and the level of rancor among legislators had reached a new high. The Beltway was back at Square One--or Square Negative One. And McCain was the variable.
Then he declares "Mission Accomplished."
When suspending his campaign on Wednesday and threatening not to debate, McCain defined his goal as "achiev consensus on legislation." But at 11:24 this morning, consensus was conspicuously absent on Capitol Hill. Which meant, as the New Republic's Michael Crowley puts it, that "by McCain's original logic, the argument for staying in Washington ha gotten stronger , not weaker." As a result, McCain's nonsensical announcement that he's now flying to Ole Miss--a stark reversal from his earlier insistence on not debating unless a deal is done--only reinforces the impression that suspending his campaign was a stunt (even if it wasn't). First he'd settle for nothing short of "consensus" and "legislation." Now being "optimistic" that "significant progress" has taken place---not certain, but "optimistic"--is enough to declare victory. After insisting that it would be unpatriotic to debate before the deal was done, McCain is debating anyway--even though a deal seems more distant than when he suspended his campaign. McCain wanted to look strong and apolitical. He wound up looking weak and opportunistic instead.
In the Rogers statement, McCain goes so far as to imply that Obama's "political posturing" was the reason he left D.C.--immediately after denouncing "Washington" for "play the blame game rather than work together to find a solution." Some should get the man a mirror.
As far as how this will play, Crowley took the words right out of my mouth--so I'll just pass the mic:
In these situations I'm inclined to think most voters... will only have an impressionistic sense of what's going on. Initially I think the impression was likely to be that McCain showed leadership and took charge of the situation after a stretch when both candidates looked passive. Even if McCain parachuted in just as a deal was passing and played no role, it seemed possible that he could steal some credit. But now the low-information voter, if you will, probably has a sense that the minute McCain hit the ground everything in Washington went to hell in a familiar, absurd, system-is-broken kind of way. And now he's getting out of Dodge. Hard to see how that's a net gain for him.
Congressional negotiators could hammer out a deal before the markets close today. They could settle on a framework that has the support of House Republicans. Or this fragile situation could devolve into a protracted stalemate. Obviously, the first option is better for McCain--who will return this weekend to Washington--than the third. But given that the nominee "got out of Dodge" before the shattered china was reassembled--his stated reason, after all, for putting "politics before country" and suspending his campaign--it's hard to see why voters should give him credit for anything other than making things worse."
I can not believe anyone would vote for McCain - If he wins we will all lose!
Pages