After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?
After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hasn’t been involved in the deep negotiations over details of the bailout bill. In fact, he was largely silent during a meeting with President Bush and top congressional leaders. As the AP reported, the one role that both Democrats and Republicans alike were counting on McCain to play was to “deliver GOP votes” for the bailout bill.
Over the past week, McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign has already been to touting the senator’s success and casting his role as pivotal to bringing the parties together. His supporters have hit the airwaves, giving McCain credit for negotiating a deal:
“[T]his bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John McCain. … But, you know, this is a bipartisan accomplishment, a bipartisan success. And if people want to get something done in Washington, they just watch John McCain.” — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, 9/29/08
“Earlier in the week, when Senator McCain came back to Washington, there had been no deal reached. … What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all the parties to the table, including the House Republicans.” — Senior adviser Steve Schmidt, 9/28/08
“But here are the facts, and I’m not overselling anything. The fact is that the House Republicans were not in the mix at all. John didn’t phone this one in. He came and actually did something. … You can’t phone something like this in. Thank God John came back.” — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 9/28/08
“Before John McCain suspended his campaign yesterday, the situation that we’re looking at today looked very different then. After he showed leadership and called for bipartisanship, for us to partisanship aside and tackle this solution head on, here we are.” — Spokesman Tucker Bounds, 9/25/08
However, today Republicans failed to deliver the 70-100 votes needed from conservatives for the deal to pass. On the Republican side, 133 lawmakers voted against the bill; just 65 voted for it.
If the McCain campaign was willing to take credit for the success of the bill, does McCain also deserve credit for its failure?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
60 Responses to “After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
CNN just said McCain blames Obama for "phoning it in" and not getting the bill passed.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pmThese poor, happless chumps speaking on behalf of Senator McCain: haphazardly lurching from one position to the other, as 'the situation' develops.
Not driven by intended outcome, but clearly and purely by partisan politics. In the meantime, the effort to craft a bailout bill is largely torpedoed by the 133 Republicans in the House of Representatives who chose to vote against it. The last time I looked, 133 was bigger than 95. But, in these times, who knows which is really the larger value?
Tell me again how the inability of the minority Whip and the rest of the House leadership on the Republican side is NOT responsible for this outcome?
Kabuki.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pmGuess John will need his "Mighty Mouse" persona to emerge again!
Here he comes to save the day!
Not.
Idiot. Dangerous idiot.
PEACE
September 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pmSomething tells me the House Republicans have pretty much conceded the presidential race. If McCain wins it is hard to see how he is going to govern. He seems to have exactly two friends on the hill and I don't think Lieberman and Graham have a whole lot of pull these days.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pmIs this another 'Victory' for McCain?
Yes...because he wasn't responsible for it, he can't have 'lost'.
Yes...because he was for it all the way, & now it's Obama's fault.
Yes...because, on 2nd thought, he was never really for it.
See how it works for McTeflon?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pmIts Clinton's fault. Some dipshit republican is going to say it. Only a matter of time.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pmWhy didn't John McCain, with his supreme leadership ability, just suspend the Economic Crisis? That would have put to bed all of the partisan finger pointing that is to come.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pmI see, you take something you just know can't fail and say that your man's responsible for it's success.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pmGreat idea!
But wait, it did fail.
That's gotta hurt.
McTeflon: Even his own shit doesn't stick to him
September 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pmYAY! it's 1929 all over again.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pmThey're Republicans. It CAN'T be their fault. Can it?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pmIt hasn't been pleasant watching the descent of the pathetic John McCain.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pmThe fact that the McCain surrogates can say he is responsible for the bi-partisan legislation with a straight face astounds me. He talked to zero Democrats and he had nothing to do with the crafting of the bill. All he did was to torpedo the original bill. I would also like to know what part of the bill was his suggestion? I know which parts were Obama's but I have no idea which part was McCain's. And if anyone says the part about insuring the debt, that wasn't McCain's idea, it was the uber conservatives in Congress' idea.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pmThankfully John McCain is "really, really Happy" about his choice in VP. The campaign, counter-intuitively, thinks Palin should be available to the press and are happy were her to this point, so McCain's pending suspension isn't a problem! The only problem now, with McCain needed so desperately in Washington and Palin having to over on the trail - there is just no time for a debate - the American understand that!
Any takers?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pmCheney lobbied for the bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-us-financial-bush-statement.html
That and a blockade on Iran...
September 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pmVerbalKint Says:
It hasn’t been pleasant watching the descent of the pathetic John McCain.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
______
Speak for yourself - I'm having a grand old time watching this slow-motion train wreck...
September 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pmIt's amusing to me how truly bipartisan this issue really is. I think the people hoping for the bailout are themselves invested in the markets which are failing. Doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you're on, if you bought stock in the failing banks, or bought investments from them, you're worried about your bottom line. On thedailykos you can see lefties arguing vehemently both for and against.
Which I could certainly understand. My own bottom line, though lower than those doing this investing, is of course something I worry about. Everyone does.
Which is why I ask, why on Earth should I (through my taxes) pay for your or your banks failure in judgment? Yes, a market crash still scares me and I understand how it affects everyone. But taking from those who have never even had a chance to participate in these financial markets to pay for their mistakes? It's just wrong.
The homeowners at the bottom of the mortgage meltdown are the ones who get screwed the most of course. They pay for the bailout with their taxes and still lose their home/
My rescue plan: take a big chunk of money (not $700 billion, that's ridiculous) and help homeowners. Lower their mortgages. Let's try "trickle up" economics for a change.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pmCount Istvan Says:
YAY! it’s 1929 all over again
Yeah, I always did like living out of van or tent for months on end, go to deli's and get crackers and packets of ketchup and make ketchup soup. Picking young dandelion greens and miners lettuce, wild liquorish bark, wild onions, and root of devils club, sometimes you could catch a fish or some clams too.
Looks like the good old days are going to be coming back real soon.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pmYeah VerbalKint, I have to agree with HT. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. But the Rethugs are complaining Nancy hurt their feelings so the voted against the bill that their president said was needed to save the country. Well if Pelosi can so easily hurt their feelings how would they deal with McCain's constant snide comments.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pmDennis Kucinich had some really good ideas this morning on how to craft a bailout plan that'll actually help the country instead of a few bankers:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress
September 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pmNeither the old Leader or the new (older) leader of the GOP can get their own party to follow their "lead". says it all, doesn't it ???
FALIURE TO LEAD !!
September 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pmThe local Reichradio afternoon guy is saying that "Obama's Democrats are blocking progress, just like offshore drilling, because the worse things get the better his chances". The callers aren't buying it.
Methinks the "folks" are staring to pay attention.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pmIt's simply amazing the people in Congress that feel the need to play politics when they should be working together as one to resolve a crisis. As one of the little people, we have yet to feel the full force of this meltdown. Bu$h is very much aware of what's going to happen and he's scared! Will all the money his family has, I would think he would not be afraid of a recession or a depression. I think it's far greater than anything we've ever imagined. It tells me he knows it'll be more like a tsunami. People's lives will be consumed, washed out to sea, and lost forever.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pmOops! "starting to pay attention".
September 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pmFrom what Ive been able to learn about this bill, it basically planned to give the crooks who created the problem an immediate 250B, oversight by the same crooks who not only failed to provide oversight but supported the lack of it, to give Bush $100B in discretionary spending (say WHAT?!!!) and effectively gives Bush another $350B to throw around has and when he wishes IF the Congress chooses NOT to vote for the final tranche, by virtue of his veto power (weird I know).
Judges are meanwhile barred from helping to renegotiate mortgages.
So this is all effing awful and deserves to fail. But why would the Repubs vote against it? As Bush was urging them to vote FOR, well they just threw him under the bus for the first time in 8 years!
Are the R's listening to public discontent?
Could be, but then why are they blaming Pelosi and why is McCain blaming Obama?
Are they against the bill 'on principle'?
It never stopped them during Keating and it didn't stop them with Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so why is this bill now "socialism"?
AH HA! This bill is SOCIALISM and Democrats are "SOCIALISTS" and they simply can't allow scary SOCIALISM to take root in the US.
But aren't the GOP then shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their big financiers? Actually no, because they have so much damn money they aren't personally going to be hurt in any meaningful way.
So it's not even 'anti-socialist' principle at work, but a political ploy---not they aren't criticizing the details of the bill they are instead blaming the Democrats for the failure AND AT THE SAME TIME calling it 'socialist'.
If this is a victory against socialism, why aren't they singing their own praises for the defeat of it? Because it's bullshit, its the way they play politics and that;s all it is.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pmFor the first time ever, I feel proud and privileged to have nothing to lose. None of us poor folks do.
Folks with "much to lose" can all get bent (and broken), far as I'm concerned. It would serve them right to actually have to work for some money for a change.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pmpete Says:
The local Reichradio afternoon guy is saying that “Obama’s Democrats are blocking progress, just like offshore drilling, because the worse things get the better his chances“. The callers aren’t buying it.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
______
And it's especially asinine considering how much Obama has already capitulated on things like offshore drilling and this ludicrous corporate welfare.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm"After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?"
No. Of course not.
He'll probably say it's all Obama's fault.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pmAnother strike for McCain. His stunt to be part of the solution made him part of yet another problem. Looks good on that resume.
As for Obama, I guess "call me when you need me" was the smartest, level-headed approach.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm"Oh Snap!! now we done it"-George Bush
September 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pmahhhhh yes, nitwit mitt romney is just the prophet of all things good for america.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pmDon't be silly. It's the minorities fault.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pmThis was a failure for a number of reasons. To suggest that Rethuglcans followed the thinking of Nancy Pelosi and voted it down because of what she said, and expect the American People to swallow that is presumptive to say the least. Repuklicans were recognizing that to vote for it, was to support Bush in a time when the majority of Americans, R's & D's despise this man and this was his plan. That is why they voted it down. With the elections weeks away they want nothing to do with anything that has his taint on it. They know they will pay dearly for all the damage the Chimp has done.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pmThe Republicans wouldn't vote for it because Nancy hurt their little feelings.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pmI think this was a stunt of a McCain who was not in touch even with his fellow Republican senators when he began the stunt.
There's an even more interesting facet, though.
The GWB administration has spent all political capital that it had - both domestically and internationally. Bush only provoked shaking heads when he spoke about terrorists in front of a UN general assembly that focused its thought mostly on the economy.
He's also spent so much of his domestic political capital that he needed Petraeus to spearhead the political efforts for the surge - because he, the supposed leader, couldn't mobilize the necessary support on his own.
Finally, he's gone completely bankrupt in terms of political capital when today two thirds of his party didn't accept his administration's proposal even after thorough changes.
It's really about time to get rid of him (actually, since almost eight years).
September 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pmMcCain wouldn't have more political capital in foreign policy, btw. He'd be incredibly harmless because he'd be incredibly powerless in foreign policy.
Joe Scarborough of all people just said the two biggest losers are John McCain and Nancy Pelosi. Maybe we can get rid of both of them now.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm36 -I caught Tarbro's jabber too - for some reason he thinks it impossible that the failed vote today was the result of Republican't treachery (which it very clearly was).
Why is "savvy insider" Joe Tarbro such a naive sucker??
September 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pmOf course McCain will suspend his campaign this week! He has to get Palin out of her VP debate!
September 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pmCast demagoguery upon the waters and it will return seven fold.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pmWhen George W. Bush took the oath of office, the Dow Jones stood at 10,587.
Today it closed at 10,372.
If you had invested your social security in the market, as George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain III wanted you to do, you would have less money now than you did eight years ago.
Something to think about.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pmMcCain has NO CLUE how to be an effective leader!
The man and his judgment are PATHETIC.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:29 pmScarborough is not the sharpest tack in the box AND he's a jerk.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pmMcTeflon; sticking it to Americans while nothing sticks to him.
'I don't know much about economics, but I know a lot about lying'
September 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pmMaybe we should see if China wants to take over our economic mess for one dollar. Then the Republicans would stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm- To pass a bill in the House, you only need a SIMPLE MAJORITY.
- The Democrats control the House by a wide margin, so they can always get a simple majority WITHOUT any Republicans.
- In other words, even if every single one of the House Republicans threw a temper tantrum, the Dems could still pass this. They are in COMPLETE control.
- Add to that the fact that 95 DEMS VOTED AGAINST THE BILLS (according to the House clerk: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml)
So one is forced to ask why Dems are so determined to paint this as a Republican sabotage, when the Dems could do this without the Repubs, and 40% of Dems voted against it?
September 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pmRoberta McCain needs to insulate her baby boy even further now, because that awful Nancy Pelosi just doesn't know how to put country first.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pmHas Bush gone back to his friends Bud and Miller now that the economy is hovering where only Herbert Hoover dared?
September 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pmMcCain is UNFIT to SERVE.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When George W. Bush took the oath of office, the Dow Jones stood at 10,587.
Today it closed at 10,372.
If you had invested your social security in the market, as George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain III wanted you to do, you would have less money now than you did eight years ago.
Something to think about.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Actually , the Dow's final closing number was 10,365.45.......
September 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pmMcCain claiming responsibility for the bill's passage is a whole lot like his ad claiming victory in the first debate -- posted hourse before the debate happened.
That crystal ball he got for a bargain during one of his Iraqi visits ain't quite as good as he thought.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm... ok, posted HOURS before ...
September 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pmUm, kit? It wasn't a Democratic sponsored bill. It was a version of the plan submitted by the White House. It was submitted with the support of the White House and the GOP leadership. It was submitted with a presumption of party loyalty. Party loyalty did not result in the hoped for result.
Compared to the lockstep herd voting we are used to, this is huge news. What is most newsworthy is that the GOP herd has been scattered and House Republicans are voting on the merits, regardless of their motives, instead of to show unity. And, to all appearances, the House functioned as it should have and stopped a bad piece of legislation.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm"When George W. Bush took the oath of office, the Dow Jones stood at 10,587.
Today it closed at 10,372.
If you had invested your social security in the market, as George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain III wanted you to do, you would have less money now than you did eight years ago.
Something to think about."
Actually, there are also dividends.
"- To pass a bill in the House, you only need a SIMPLE MAJORITY."
This was designed as a bipartisan bitter pill, if it was only up to the Dems to vote for it, they could have written a Democratic bill that suits only their ideas.
I think the tactic was this:
September 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pmThe Republicans wanted the Democrats to vote for the bitter pill, but wanted to vote so much against it that they'd be able to tell everyone afterward that most of them voted against the bill if it doesn't work as advertised.
Gambling gone wrong.
Kit Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- To pass a bill in the House, you only need a SIMPLE MAJORITY.
- The Democrats control the House by a wide margin, so they can always get a simple majority WITHOUT any Republicans.
- In other words, even if every single one of the House Republicans threw a temper tantrum, the Dems could still pass this. They are in COMPLETE control.
- Add to that the fact that 95 DEMS VOTED AGAINST THE BILLS (according to the House clerk: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml)
So one is forced to ask why Dems are so determined to paint this as a Republican sabotage, when the Dems could do this without the Repubs, and 40% of Dems voted against it?
September 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I'd prefer to have a political party that didn't walk in lock-step ; unlike what we all saw for the 1st 6 years of Chimpy's godawful presidency , with a totally complicit GOP dominated Congress..............
September 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm@pete, MCMetal:
I absolutely _agree_ with you. If anything, this is _independent_ thinking on the part of House Repubs, and thinking critically about the bill rather than voting with Bush. One would think that's a _good_ thing.
But the point is that the Dems are out hitting hard with the narrative that somehow the Repubs have killed this thing. But that's not even mathematically POSSIBLE.
So why are they doing it? Why not push it through, if that's what they want?
Let me offer another narrative: The Dems are scared to DEATH that this is a hard decision they'll have to take credit for. They want it to be bipartisan so that if we second guess it five years or ten years later, they can say, "Hey look - the Repubs were for it, too!"
We need action, and we need it very soon, and I would consider it a serious failing of the Dem party if during this moment when they have the power to act unilaterally, they stall to hold press conferences and score partisan points. That's not leadership.
To say that Repubs have the power to stall this is an out-and-out lie.
September 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pmMcCain blames Obama for everything going wrong.
Interesting theory...
====
September 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm@Kit:
You assume that this bailout is a good thing, and that the Dems should be united in thinking that it is a good thing.
While your perspective is sincere, your assumptions are incorrect: Not only is this Repub-spawned bailout ("We'll take all of your bad debt so you can go about your normal business") a very BAD idea, but it's a creepy miracle that a majority of Dems actually supported it, preferring (apparently) to project the image of bipartisanship for the purposes of protecting themselves whichever way the wind blew rather than to make a reasoned judgement and then be able to defend it.
There are many arguments made in support of taking NO action, and letting the hoodlums who have been gaming the system for decades take the fall. Or of taking no action to "save" Wall Street but to rather taking action to support "Main Street" when the bottom falls out. Or of taking no action in any case, and to simply let the free market do what it needs to do to correct this.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:12 pmOne other note needs to be made that this is an incredibly superficial bill that puts WAAAAAAY too much power in Paulson's hands. Remember that $700B is a number that was picked out of a hat, because those who crafted the 3-page framework for the bailout wanted a "big number".
In the real world, people who want loans (and not the no-doc or other sleazy vehicles, but the "normal" loans) typically need to be able to define what the money will be used for, down to the dollar.
If Bush, Bernake and Paulson haven't done their homework and cannot even apply for a loan from us, the taxpayers, (how ironic is that?) without documentation of what the money will be spent on, then we, my friends, will BECOME the banks that pushed no-doc loans as a means to an end. Let's not fall for that. Sure the market is tanking, but, contrary to popular belief, investors still want to make money, and they would appreciate something that first works on paper being used as the basis for the bigger plan.
We have the time to plan carefully, prudently and wisely, based on what we are even now learning. Let's not jump head-over-heels into another bad scenario that could easily result in making the crisis WORSE, and ALSO leave us with no more money left to throw at it. I mean, sure, we've got $700B lying around just for this purpose, but where will the next $700B come from?
September 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pmOop ... it's kind of a moot point, now. Today Bush authorized the release of $630B into the global banking market to help shore up the world financial system.
That's a true maverick ... throw our money around like it was candy. Who needs Congress, right, George? Don't need 'em to go to war, don't need 'em to bail out your buddies. Sweet.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pmUsually we don't have a direct cause and effect relationship. This failure to pass a bill is different. John McCain is the single largest reason for this failure. It will be his signature legislative "achievment". Thanks John "Herbert Hoover" McCain.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am