McCain Can't Rally His Own Party 4 Votes

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
McCain Can't Rally His Own Party 4 Votes
86
Mon, 09-29-2008 - 4:24pm

McCain's own party doesn't listen to him. How is he supposed to "reach" across the aisle and "work" for the American people? Barack got 2/3 support. Which one has more clout? And once the American people vote out the GOP dead weight, more responsible GoP leadership should come. All McCain wants to do is point fingers, mark down names, and blame, blame, blame.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html

McCain takes credit for bill before it loses

By MIKE ALLEN | 9/29/08 3:37 PM EDT

“I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now,” John McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio.
Photo: AP




Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain’s campaign’s difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy.

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.

“I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now,” McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation.”
McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up.

“That's not leadership. That's watching from the sidelines,” he added to cheers and applause.

Wisely, in retrospect, McCain initially had been more modest. On Sunday, he said on ABC’s “This Week” that congressional negotiators deserve “great credit” for the bipartisan deal. “"It wasn’t because of me,” McCain said. “They did it themselves.”

But at almost the same time, McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt was saying on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “What Sen. McCain was able to do … was to help get all of the parties to the table. There had been announcements by Senate leaders saying that a deal had been reached earlier in the week. There were no votes for that deal.

“Sen. McCain knew time was short and he came back, he listened and he helped put together the framework of getting everybody to the table, which was necessary to produce a package to avoid a financial catastrophe for this country.”

On Monday morning, McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said on Fox News that the deal would not have happened “without Sen. McCain.”

“Sen. McCain interrupted his campaign, suspended his campaign activity to come back to Washington to get Republicans around a table,” Hazelbaker said. “Without Sen. McCain, House Republicans would not have appointed a negotiator, which would not have moved this bill forward.

“It’s really Sen. McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal that hopefully is in the best interests of the American taxpayer.”

After the vote, commentators were harsh. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said: “He’s like a cavalry commander who said ‘Charge!’ and the Republicans went into retreat.”




Edited 9/29/2008 4:59 pm ET by niteowl08

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 8:43am
I couldn't agree with you more. Partisan politics and posturing are on display here for all to see, on both sides.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 8:56am
They have their fingers in their ears going bush'sfaultbush'sfaultbush'sfault.


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 9:44am

Very true.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 11:34am
Why his own party stiffed him is subject to debate, but I think it may have something to do with his relationship with his own party (kind of like Bush).


Only partially. Yes, there are plenty of Republicans in both the House and the Senate who have little-to-no use for Maverick McFlyboy, either because he's too much of a prevaricating press-hound or because he's a notorious hotheaded spotlight-grabber or both, but even that doesn't fully explain it. If the bailout plan was something that the Republicans thought would either NOT harm them in the upcoming elections, or actually HELP them - i.e., be a club they could use to beat the local Democratic candidate with, then it wouldn't have mattered whether it was being advocated (or hell, even written) by McBush or anyone else. We already know that party trumps country with most of these people, nearly every time. And it's for precisely that reason that the bill failed instead of succeeded: because exactly the opposite was true. House GoOPers, especially the more rabid-wingnutty ones (or ones from districts with a large and vocal contingent of rabid wingnuts) went into this thing with the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, they could demagogue their way on this issue (by claiming that they've ALWAYS been for fiscal prudence and smaller government) right into re-election, by pretending the last eight years of drunken-sailor-enabling of Bush didn't happen. Digby has an excellent, EXCELLENT post on it....and it's a depressing read, indeed, both for us liberals/Democrats (because of the usual suspects of Democratic spinelessness and lack of political instincts) AND - saddest of all, for the country, who are after all the people (all of us) who have to clean up this mess, or deal with the LACK of cleanup. Anyway, here's Digby's post (with liberal helpings - pun intentional - of Paul Krugman). It's long, but WELL worth it (I've put what I thought were a few key bits in bold red - and keep in mind that this was written BEFORE the bill actually failed...Digby was just pretty sure it WOULD fail - and correctly predicted WHY):


Monday, September 29, 2008



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 11:53am
True, the GOP failed us today...but perhaps if Nancy Pelosi didn't open her big mouth and tick them all off before they voted we would have had a bill passed. Like I said....BOTH sides are acting like a big bunch of babies.


So....it's your contention that because of Pelosi's (supposed) "partisan floor speech," a bunch of Republican representatives got their panties in a wad and put the interests of their own constituents and the country as a whole in the back seat, behind their own petulance, which was given primary consideration in their decision? Not a particularly flattering picture of those GoOPer Representatives, is it?

Fortunately, although John Boehner attempted, in true weasel-a$$ fashion, to claim that this was the reason, at least those Reps who DID wind up voting against the bill had the self-possession to stand up in public and say that was flat-out false:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) threw cold water on a key rationale House Republican leaders have been employing this afternoon to explain why they couldn't deliver more GOP votes for the Wall Street bailout package.

At a Monday afternoon press conference, GOP leaders argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) cost the measure a dozen Republican votes by delivering an overly partisan floor speech in support of it.

But Bachmann, speaking at a Republican Study Committee press conference, told reporters, "I want to assure you that was not the case. We are not babies who suck our thumbs. We have very principled reasons for voting no."


And she wasn't the only one, either:

"To be honest, somebody finding out that Nancy Pelosi made a partisan speech? I’m shocked,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout package, who tells the Crypt that the idea that her speech shifted votes is “nonsense."


Sorry, Boner-boy, your own rank-and-file just stabbed you in the back. Publicly.

The real problem yesterday was that this bill was a stinker - and nobody trust the White House an inch, not even the Republicans. That doesn't mean something shouldn't be done, and pretty soon, too....it just means that despite the fact that both items are essentially carbon-based, no amount of pressure will convert a turd into a diamond.



Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry new born baby cries

Wherever there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air

Look for me ma'

I'll be there

Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand

For a decent job or a helpin' hand

Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free

Look in their eyes ma,

You'll see me!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 12:06pm

Honest to God, fleur? I don't really give a crap about executive compensation. I mean, sure, in a perfect world where the evil are not only vanquished but also punished for their sins, yeah....that'd be great. But in terms of what's at STAKE here? It's just not that much of a priority. I'm much more concerned with getting in place a proper regulatory framework that makes sure these cheese-weasels and their ideological descendants don't ever have the chance to get this country this close to a second great depression (which we may still not avoid, if you read Nouriel Roubini's latest thoughts) ever again. Second to that would be getting it done in a way which forces the Republicans to sign off on it, publicly, or no deal, so that they cannot crash around the country like fiscal bulls (or bullcrap, more like it) in china shops, claiming that it's all the big-spending Democrats' fault, and if we'd ONLY been even MORE deregulatory, etc, then people would have seen the true majesty of a completely unregulated market, yada yada yada. If this gets done solely on the backs of the Democrats, you can bet that every campaign ad between now and November - and well into the next midterms, as well as four years from now, will be centered on this "historic money and power-grab by the Democrats," etc.....and we will be punished with another four-to-twelve years of the kind of reality-averse GOP codswallop which got us here in the first place. And that's something the entire COUNTRY can't afford. The Republicans simply aren't interested in that; they honestly feel - the bulk of the ones running for office, anyway - that they are ENTITLED to run the country, and that if they need to demagogue, BS and lie to the country about what's already happened and why, as well as what THEY'LL do (and the magical effects it'll have) if elected, they consider that just part of the "battle." And since right now, they're the odds-on favorites to lose this fall, they've literally got nothing TO lose by going all-in with the mendacity and outright falsehoods, as long as they think whatever piece of fragrant horse end-product will actually help reverse their slide in the polls.

Judged on that scale, I say who CARES about executive compensation? If it stands between the Congress and getting a bill passed which will help ensure the fiscal health of the country going forward, then I say it's a VERY small price to pay. Let these fiscal buccaneers swashbuckle off to St. Moritz and Bermuda with their millions (billions?). If we have to, once the serious issues are settled, we can stick it to 'em by jacking up the estate and gift tax on the top 1/10 of 1% to 90%. That would be fine with me. We'd have to wait until they actually DIE before we got any of their ill-gotten gains back....but it'd come back, slowly but surely. But to insist upon punishing these scorpions for simply acting like scorpions....at the cost of getting any real reforms passed? Too high a price, IMO.




Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry new born baby cries

Wherever there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air

Look for me ma'

I'll be there

Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand

For a decent job or a helpin' hand

Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free

Look in their eyes ma,

You'll see me!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 12:07pm
Are you serious? They got ticked off by something someone said and voted against the bill??? So because their little feelings were hurt they let the American investors lose 1.2 Trillion dollars????


Exactly. Posted the same thing (more wind-baggishly, LOL) before I saw your post.



Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry new born baby cries

Wherever there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air

Look for me ma'

I'll be there

Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand

For a decent job or a helpin' hand

Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free

Look in their eyes ma,

You'll see me!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 12:16pm

Yes, yes, YES!

If the Republicans are allowed to vote in a manner that lets them say "Bush? What Bush?" on the campaign trail; if they are allowed to vote, en masse, as if they've always been stalwart defenders of fiscal prudence and proper regulation, it will cost the entire country dearly.

There will be voters out there who - even though they don't study these issues as closely as a lot of us on this board do - will be able to put two and two together and see that eight years of George Bush and John McCain and "deregulate everything in sight" as the mantra from the vast majority of the Republicans, the vast majority of the time equals the current crisis, and they will vote against the Republicans who are primarily responsible for getting us into this mess. But those voters who, even though they may not be political junkies, will try hard to use their heads and think about what really happened, will be (as they always are, which is what the GOP counts on to win elections) in the minority.

There will be far more low-information voters who "know" (because they've seen enough ads with GOP daddies in expensive suits and serious expressions) that the GOP IS the party of fiscal responsibility - because they SAY they are....and who will buy the ensuing crap-storm of lies which the GOP will undoubtedly fling, like monkeys in a zoo cage, if they are allowed to evade responsibility for - and in fact, to RUN AGAINST - this bill. They MUST be made to stand WITH the Democrats....or no deal. This is poker-table time, folks. The Democrats could wade in and pass this thing by themselves, if they had to, probably (though possibly not). But to do so would be a MASSIVE, EPIC strategic blunder. People will NOT see it as evidence of their willingness and ability to put policy above politics, country over partisanship.....they will listen, in the main, to the Republicans ads when they say that the inevitable pain and suffering which occurs over the next months and years (which is coming, no matter WHAT happens, we can only help ameliorate it, not get rid of it altogether) can be traced to those darn Democrats and their vote for socialism. And around and around we will go - again.




Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry new born baby cries

Wherever there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air

Look for me ma'

I'll be there

Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand

For a decent job or a helpin' hand

Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free

Look in their eyes ma,

You'll see me!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 12:18pm
You should absolutely vote for Ron Paul.



Ma, whenever ya see a cop beatin' a guy

Wherever a hungry new born baby cries

Wherever there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air

Look for me ma'

I'll be there

Wherever somebody's strugglin' for a place to stand

For a decent job or a helpin' hand

Wherever somebody is strugglin' to be free

Look in their eyes ma,

You'll see me!


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 2:34pm

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages