Obama Opens Up a 9-Point Lead

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Guess what, most of the rank and file WERE rumbling about it, from Monday onward. If you read the articles about it you always had a quote from a House Republican who was unsettled (Cantor especially), who usually referred to it as socialism.

Boehner wasn't one of them, and felt he could win them to his side, but he couldn't.

And what evidence do you have of that? Yes, its been obvious that various house republicans have been angry about the whole bailout idea, but I have seen nothing to indicate that this anger only grew and grew. After all, everyone else thought that this was a done deal, including Senate Republicans and the WH, all of whom were also in the negotiations.

Again, everyone says its a done deal - then McCain and Obama meet in WH, then it falls apart, and then the quote from Kevin Smith, which, no matter how you cut it, states that electoral politics got in the way. Had McCain not made his stunt of "postponning his campaign" (and then taking his sweet ass time to get to DC), and just let negotiations go on with some imput, would this have happened?

[Ramo]

Yes, I realize you want your spin to win... but its quite obviously spin.

How exactly is repeating what the man said, that trying to get McCain credit for the deal was a major concern, spin? I know you want to ignore this quote, but it was said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap


And what evidence do you have of that? Yes, its been obvious that various house republicans have been angry about the whole bailout idea, but I have seen nothing to indicate that this anger only grew and grew. After all, everyone else thought that this was a done deal, including Senate Republicans and the WH, all of whom were also in the negotiations.

Again, everyone says its a done deal - then McCain and Obama meet in WH, then it falls apart, and then the quote from Kevin Smith, which, no matter how you cut it, states that electoral politics got in the way. Had McCain not made his stunt of "postponning his campaign" (and then taking his sweet ass time to get to DC), and just let negotiations go on with some imput, would this have happened?

Yes.

According to Bob Schieffer (not exactly a right wing hack) at CBS News:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/did-mccain-answer-a-3-am-call/

(there is a video backing this up on the page if you are frightened by the link)

I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

He has gotten what he wants, he’s going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I’m told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

Yes, I realize you want your spin to win... but its quite obviously spin.

How exactly is repeating what the man said, that trying to get McCain credit for the deal was a major concern, spin? I know you want to ignore this quote, but it was said.

He was saying that the Dems were probably trying to push this over the House Rep's heads, and ignore their concerns, in to deny McCain credit for it! Jesus Christ, its ****ing obvious but you have to spin, spin away trying to make this about the House delaying for McCain... like that makes any sense!! The House going along and then saying McCain got them there makes FAR more sense if you want to help McCain than basically voting this thing down!

[Ramo]

He was saying that the Dems were probably trying to push this over the House Rep's heads, and ignore their concerns, in to deny McCain credit for it! Jesus Christ, its ****ing obvious but you have to spin

Right. Senate Republicans and Bush have it in for McCain. That's clearly ludicrous. Subtract that bull****, and you have exactly what I said.

The House going along and then saying McCain got them there makes FAR more sense if you want to help McCain than basically voting this thing down!

Stopping the deal from going through in the immediate future was the point wrt this concern. Not killing it. But momentum's pretty significant in politics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, they wanted to make McCain look bad. The House Republicans have it in for McCain. They knew he'd have to go to the debate and now he looks like he completely went back on his no debate until the deal is deal statements. Talk about ludicrous!

Is there anything you WON'T spin?

[Ramo]

Yes, they wanted to make McCain look bad

I never said anything like that.

Getting a deal passed before McCain had a chance to do anything, and after he fake-suspended his campaign to save the world, would've made him look bad.

[Ramo]

Is there anything you WON'T spin?

He explicitly said it was about McCain. You're spinning this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Getting a deal passed before McCain had a chance to do anything, and after he fake-suspended his campaign to save the world, would've made him look bad.

McCain looks bad because he said he wouldn't go to the debate until this was worked out. They knew McCain would go to the debate... and guess what... no deal!

No deal would have had a chance to pass before the meeting at the White House regardless.

And as the CBS News clip I linked to said that before McCain even suspended his campaign only FOUR House Republicans said they would vote for the bill, making Paulson implore Sen Graham to call McCain to help out.

He explicitly said it was about McCain. You're spinning this.

Yes, he explicitly said McCain in order to try to blame the Dems for pushing this so quickly over their objections. That was his spin.

Your spin is no better. Like I said, is there anything you won't spin? You've already shown you won't accept reason.

[Ramo]

They knew he'd have to go to the debate and now he looks like he completely went back on his no debate until the deal is deal statements.

Yeah. That's why the suspension was a stupid idea in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

They knew he'd have to go to the debate and now he looks like he completely went back on his no debate until the deal is deal statements.

Yeah. That's why the suspension was a stupid idea in the first place.

And the House Republicans didn't know how that would look? If they really were putting the brakes on to help McCain, don't you think they'd realize it'd be pretty bad if there was no deal when McCain went to Oxford?

I mean, how blind are you?

[Ramo]

Yes, he explicitly said McCain in order to try to blame the Dems for pushing this so quickly over their objections. That was his spin.

Your spin is no better. Like I said, is there anything you won't spin? You've already shown you won't accept reason.

He said it was about McCain. That he lodged an incoherent attack in the process doesn't change that fact.

[Ramo]

And the House Republicans didn't know how that would look? If they really were putting the brakes on to help McCain, don't you think they'd realize it'd be pretty bad if there was no deal when McCain went to Oxford?

I mean, how blind are you?

It also looks bad if there's a deal after McCain gets out of a debate so he can save the world, and before he gets a chance to do anything. I'd argue worse. How blind are you?

Both situations look bad, that's why it was a stupid idea.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's my understanding that they plan to purchase the securities at book value. That's a gift.

So then no, you don't understand the distinction between a purchase and a gift. Thanks for proving my point.

Even if Congress buys up mortgage-backed securities for $700 billion now and ultimately can only recoup $400 billion after they're all resolved by being eventually paid in full, foreclosed, refinanced, and/or assessed & sold off to private investors over the years, that losing purchase still doesn't comport with how most of the simplistic idiot public perceives this plan. They still think it's simply "giving" a bunch of Wall Street fatcats $700 billion taxpayer dollars to light their fat cigars with.

This is mostly the fault of Bush and Congress for failing to even try making their case to the wider public, and also of the media for incessantly harping on "the bailout" instead of a term that actually distinguishes this from the sort of balance-sheet padding that has been done with other companies (e.g. auto manufacturers). The quality of dialogue on this has been truly pathetic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

And the House Republicans didn't know how that would look? If they really were putting the brakes on to help McCain, don't you think they'd realize it'd be pretty bad if there was no deal when McCain went to Oxford?

I mean, how blind are you?

It also looks bad if there's a deal after McCain gets out of a debate so he can save the world, and before he gets a chance to do anything. I'd argue worse. How blind are you?

Both situations look bad, that's why it was a stupid idea.

You know what looks good? If McCain shows up, talks to the House Republicans, gets them on board. They show up to the meeting, they say they have a few issues, McCain works with them during the evening and fixes it up and they have a finished deal by noon today and then McCain says, everything is done and he can go to Oxford.

If they were really trying to delay to help McCain, THAT is what they do, not deny the deal and then make McCain look silly on his debate stance.

Lay off the kool-aid.