Comments on: Contradictory Views On State Of White House Congress Wall Street Financial Bailout Proposal Talks

By: BobinHouTX

BobinHouTX — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:50:40 +0000

There was never a deal! That was BS. Also, last I checked, you only need 218 votes in the House and 51 in the Senate to pass something, and the Democrats have at least that many seats in each. No, it's not veto proof, but if they were on board with Paulson and the President and NONE of the Republicans were, they could still pass the bailout. Clearly, there is a LOT of spin going on in the MSM, most of it attempting to wound McCain, who was their darling this time last year.
What I want to hear from the MSM is nothing about the Deal…I want to hear how Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton Justice Department flunkie (you remember from the 9-11 hearings…the one who wrote the document that constructed the “wall” between the CIA and FBI)…how did SHE nail a job (and just what was that job) that allowed her to walk away from the Fannie/Freddie issue with something like $25 million. The Dems control the House and Senate and had the oversight responsibilities for Fannie/Freddie. It is documented they ignored warnings until the meltdown occurred. BTW, the key players in this thing are tied at the hip to Mr. Obama, who was committee chairman for the Senate oversight committee. If this was their idea of oversight, i think I will opt out of voting Dem to avoid this type of “oversight” for Social Security and the coming socialized medicine!

By: JLM

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:18:00 +0000

it is difficult to believe that any proponent of any plan would not have consulted with and solicited the input from each of the caucuses in the House and Senate. This seems to be a lack of experience in dealing with well established legislative protocol. It comes across as amateurish in the science of American legislative politics.

Bomb throwers are not going to solve the problem so the comments and characterizations of elected officials like Rep Frank and Sens Reid and Schumer are particularly troubling. In part because they are not constructive but more troubling because they appear not to be true. Why would any honorable man lie about a situation as serious as this; and, if one would lie about this what would be necessary to extract the truth from them?

We desperately need some adult leadership.

If you could model Sen McCain's behavior yourself, would you have wanted him to have been dominating the conversation or would you have wanted him to listen to every voice before making any comment? The toughest challenge in solving a problem is to let everyone's voice be heard.

It is pretty clear that the sky has not yet fallen and that the fundamental question raised --- taxpayer money v private sector money --- is a damn good question. Clearly the House Republicans favor private sector money buttressed by logical tax reform. Warren Buffet seems to have voted for the private sector with his money.

Who is being bailed out here? Wall Street or Main Street? It is becoming pretty clear that it is Wall Street but Main Street is being asked to pick up the tab.

Let the guys who created the problem provide the capital to solve THEIR problem.

By: jchem

jchem — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:27:19 +0000

“And as far as McCain supposedly wrecking the meeting, seems to me that Sen. Obama was on the other side of that table and participated in that chaotic meeting.”

I agree. Both of these men have proclaimed themselves to be uniters, to work across party lines, and to compromise. So what has Obama done to bring unity here? I'm not picking sides, but I do think it's important to recognize that neither of these two are acting like they want to reach across the aisle.

By: Manchester2

Manchester2 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:21:25 +0000

Marlowecan -

President Bush is counting the days until he can get out of town. What GOP politician wants to even be in his toxic presence? Any GOP Representative our Senator would dread their opponent running that photo ad nauseum in attack adds for the next 6 weeks. No, Bush will stay in the West Wing and do the minimum he needs to so that history can at least say he tried SOMETHING.

By: Manchester2

Manchester2 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:17:57 +0000

Can you imagine the Democratic take if Sen. McCain had stayed AWAY for the negotiations? “McCain confirms that he is out-of-touch,” “McCain consoles himself with his seven houses while you lose yours,” etc. No matter what the guy does, someone will criticize him. And as far as McCain supposedly wrecking the meeting, seems to me that Sen. Obama was on the other side of that table and participated in that chaotic meeting. Oh yeah, he's a Democrat, that doesn't count…oops.

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:28:32 +0000

LOL. If Obama put his country foirst, he would have stepped aside for Hilliary.

By: Marlowecan

Marlowecan — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:59:16 +0000

Well, to be balanced, if one doubts the legitimacy of (1) and (2) -- which favor McCain -- should not one also doubt the objectivity of the (Update 3) "Huffington Post" whose sources have, well, never tended to be Republican.

The Source (for Update 3) clearly favors the Democratic view of the whole deal, and has Paulson sucking up to the Democrats and slagging the Republicans. Yes, that will SURELY make Republicans happy with Paulson, if true . . . which it probably is not quite.

Democrats have been playing politics with this one as well. Most notably what struck me as Frank's bizarre triumphant declaration last night that the Democrats solved the whole problem among themselves . . . and thus it was totally pointless for McCain to show up.

And . . . why . . . WHY is EVERYONE giving President Bush a pass on this one?!!!

No one is mentioning him. It is all McCain and Obama.

Senator Obama was right when he questioned what he could do in Washington.
The media may think he can walk on water . . . but he is just a junior senator with no power and no authority. Obama said as much.
McCain is far more senior . . . but he is a divisive figure in the GOP.

Bush is President of the United States! He should be on the phones. He should be going to the Hill himself to press the flesh, and strong-arm people.

Isn't that what Presidents are supposed to do?!!!

By: elrod

elrod — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:20:02 +0000

What utter chaos.

By the way, the NYT poll included a full night after McCain announced his "suspension."

And Gallup explicitly said that the movement in their tracker was NOT connected to McCain's decision to suspend his campaign; rather it was a "return to the norm" before the economic crisis hit.

Note that state polls conducted last night, after McCain's suspension decision, show substantial leads for Obama. And Rasmussen showed a drop in support for McCain last night, while Research 2000's tracker showed Obama jumping two points in the tracker.

In other words, the trackers are inconclusive, but the overall trend is still bad for McCain. The only thing that will change that for McCain is if he really does develop a bipartisan solution. The problem is that he has so politicized these negotiations that the Democrats will not be baited into accepting his plan.

It's very possible that there will be no bailout plan and the market will crash tomorrow.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:18:50 +0000

John McCain first. Country last.