Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

If Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, the plan won't pass, some senior Democrats and Republicans in Congress told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican says.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

BetelG

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

McCain must actually choose, and he hates that.

So, which way will McCain go?

The Dems won't be on the hook for this, as they can see the laughable Republican populist strategery a mile away.

It's up to McCain.

Boyd's back!

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-09-23 11:37 PM | Reply

Watch out. You're gonna have company soon.

I do wonder which way McCain will go. He's said several different things in the last week. He's against bailouts, and for them.

Ouch. It has to hurt to be a presidential candidate who has to make a real presidential decision before the election and be held accountable for it. (This goes for both of them.)

He is a busy guy. How can anyone expect him to go to work and do the job he asked, and was elected to do?

He will tack on some 'family values' bullshit and pass it.


This is rich, my friends. You can't make this shit up.

He will not vote for it, quaranteed. If he votes for it, he is a bush look-a-like. To maintain the so-called 'maverick' image he has to vote it down.

Why don't we get Mrs. McCain to pay for the bailout? She's got it. I'll drink more beer if that'll help.

Typical Democrats. Always looking for some one else to lead.

"He will not vote for it, quaranteed. If he votes for it, he is a bush look-a-like. To maintain the so-called 'maverick' image he has to vote it down."

-#8 | POSTED BY LIPZOIDIAL

My bet as evidenced in post #6 is that he is a no show, and since the media doesn't hold any pols accountable no one will question why his campaign came before his prior duties.

"Typical Democrats. Always looking for some one else to lead." COOKFISH

Bush embraces Obama style timetable. McCain says that he, not Obama, is the agent of change. Who's following who.

Ugly. Playing politics with our Economy. The bailout as proposed is unacceptable to me. The constraints that both Republicans and Democrats have hinted at are a compromise that definitely helps make it more palatable. Doing nothing is extremely risky. Taking the proposal as offered by Paulson is idiocy. Oversight, accountability, making sure that tax payers benefit from any gain, and some limit to payout for CEO/CFO/COO's, legal options to challenge need to be part of the final bill.

The choices are bad any way you cut it, and the politics of it will be exploited. Who holds their vote until McCain votes? WIll McCain vote at all (he's missed 430 votes so far)? Who holds their vote until Obama votes? How will the vote be spun and politicized?

High stakes game politically and economically.

Hmmm... not Obama...

really, nobody in the senate is caring what the Junior Senator with only 2 real years experience thinks on the matter...

That's interesing. He's gonna be a superstar president...

McCain is being positioned by Republican strategists to be able to vote either for or against the bailout depending on how Obama votes and on public opinion polls. If there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the measure without his vote then he can vote against it and then rail against Obama for giving away one trillion dollars.
If, on the other hand Obama were to vote against then he can vote for it and rail against Obama for not supporting the measure which is designed to keep the economy from collapsing.
Never, ever, ever, ever believe the hype that Republicans are creating this bill for the welfare of this country, they never operate that way. They are using this "crisis" (which they created) to create a scenario that will allow McCain to appear to be the responsible "maverick" and Obama the weak, follower.
Anyone who thinks that the Bush administration's primary consideration is the economy is crazy, their primary consideration is to prevent Obama from becoming president and opening investigations into their wrong doing for the past 8 years.
I smell Rove.

If Congress authorizes a bailout then shouldn't Congress be the ones to administer the bailout and NOT the Treasury Department? There are some serious constitutional questions about giving the executive branch access to the public purse strings.

There are some serious constitutional questions about giving the executive branch access to the public purse strings.

#16 | Posted by igmoramus

LOL... not if the legislature doesn't do anything about it.

If Congress authorizes a bailout then shouldn't Congress be the ones to administer the bailout and NOT the Treasury Department?

I think they should have a lot of oversight, but no, they should not be in charge of administering it and the reason why is that the treasury does not have to care about being reelected, or what polls say about them, along with the fact they are more qualified. Congressmen don't all have backgrounds in economics and such... I think they would likely make a larger mess of things trying to keep their constituents happy.

The whole bailout is an unConstitutional giveaway of both power and money to the very private parties who created the mess.

Sort of like an arsonist sending you a bill after they burn your house down.

Let em go BK; they have no trouble watching the average taxpayer go BK.

"I smell Rove."

Of course you do. His scent is permanently affixed to your and many other democrats' noses. You can't help but think that every occurrence in daily life has been orchestrated by Karl Rove.

Long line at the grocery store? Karl Rove.

Lose your sunglasses? Karl Rove.

Trip on a crack in the sidewalk? Karl Rove.


It's okay Danni. Rove won't hurt you.

"treasury does not have to care about being reelected . . . along with the fact that they are more qualified". ROB THE A HOLE

ROB,
Last month Paulsen said the economy was on solid ground. How qualified is he?

I wonder how ACORN and all their community organizers would handle this?

"Rove won't hurt you." JOE
Right; neither will cancer.

"I wonder how ACORN and all their community organizers would handle this." THEONEBS

I don't know. But I can't help believing that a couple community lynchings wouldn't hurt.

I seem to remember fear tactics in other elections though they were not based on economics but instead boogey men in caves. Fear works, that's why Rove and the Republicans use it every election season.

BTW, it was only a month or so ago that they were trying to make us think Russia was going to be invading or something. "Remember....we are all Georgians..."?? Unfortunately for the Rethugs that didn't work...thus Paulsen and his economic terrorism.

I wonder what Sarah and the First Dude think about all this. If Mccain is elected, his term will be finished by Sarah the silent and those fun kids from Wasilla.

When they discuss the bailout they talk about "assets" which will be purchased by the government. These "assets" I assume are failed mortgages. The financial talking heads are going around saying that these "asstets" are not worthless but that their value cannot be determined.
I'm no expert, but isn't what they are really saying is that because of our bankruptcy laws these "assets" are really opportunities to force payment from former homeowners who have been foreclosed??? Isn't this just an attempt to shift the burden of collecting from them from the private sector to the public sector. It will eventually come down to a choice by the American taxpayer. Either we force these people to have their wages garnished for decades to pay off the balance of these mortgages after the auction of their homes or write off the money we spent to acquire these "assets." This is a very bad deal for American taxpayers and it has not been proven to me that the economy will melt down if we don't give them their trillion of blackmail.

American taxpayers are a bad deal for American taxpayers. They keep on electing these dem teefin pirates that make this mess possible.

When they discuss the bailout they talk about "assets" which will be purchased by the government. These "assets" I assume are failed mortgages.
#28 | Posted by danni

If they're so valuable, who do their possessors need a bail-out?

Question; who votes first, McCain or Obama?

What's pathetic is that neither candidate is taking a leadership position on this issue one way or another. They are simply waiting to see what the other one does so they can criticize their position or find a time in the last ten years when they said something different. Our leaders are afraid to show their true colors. Maybe it's because they don't have any.

Obama took a position. He said he would support the bailout if it met his four main conditions which he listed. How is that not taking a position???

He side-stepped two questions about whether he would vote against bailout legislation that did not include his priorities, and he also did not commit to returning to Washington to go on record and cast a vote on a final package.
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com


That's how.

no bailout let the market collapse


Obama took a position. He said he would support the bailout if it met his four main conditions which he listed. How is that not taking a position???
Just about every one has the same high level talking point positions. Its working out the details that takes leadership.

"no bailout let the market collapse"

What if we don't bail out the banks and the market doesn't collapse???
What if we call their bluff and find out this really is a scam???

Shouldn't there be consequences??...or will we do as we have done over the lies that they used to go to Iraq and just do nothing???

"Its working out the details that takes leadership."

I don't think it is hard to work out the details as much as it is hard to say "NO...I won't vote for the bailout without these conditions being met."

Joe is right, Obama is trying to play this too close to the vest, he needs to tell us whether he will or will not vote for the bailout if the conditions are not met. We need to demand leadership not politics as usual in a crisis like this. From both parties.

Shouldn't there be consequences??...or will we do as we have done over the lies that they used to go to Iraq and just do nothing???

#37 | Posted by danni

My guess is we'll settle for the latter.

Does anyone really know what the hell is going on? We all need much more imput and facts before deciding whether or not to piss away 700 billion dollars. Both candidates would be smart to insist on more time to get to the bottom of this mess.

" insist on more time to get to the bottom of this mess."

Schumer put it best, when he suggested they just give $50 billion a month, and reassess in January.

#40 | Posted by igmoramus

LOL, are you new to this country, igmo?

Our representatives never even read the patriot act before they voted on it, you think this is going to be any different?

HAGS,
The patriot act taught our representatives a lesson they should not have forgotten by now (I hope).

The patriot act taught our representatives a lesson they should not have forgotten by now (I hope).

#43 | Posted by igmoramus

Ha Ha... I think we should put that question to McCain and Obama. I think you'll be sadly disappointed.

"no bailout let the market collapse"

That worked great in 1929, didn't it?

'"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican says.'

""Typical Democrats. Always looking for some one else to lead." COOKFISH"

Since when is a "top house Republican" a Democrat?



I wonder what would happen if Congress put a clause into the bailout that stated that the Sec. of Treasury gave up the right to seek employment in the banking industry when and if he leaves his position with the government. If the economic melt down is really so imminent then you'd think Paulsen would be willing to forego the opportunity to return to Goldman Sachs or any other investment bank in the interests of the nation. If he objects to strenuously then I think it indicates that this crisis is being overblown by those who stand to gain substantially from the bailout.

Last July 2nd, in Counterpunch, Ralph Nader described a robbery about to happen and blew the whistle. In "Economic Domino Theory, Greed without Accountability," Nader warned readers that Americans were about to be robbed of the future value of their dollars by financial institutions, corporations, both unregulated and out of control. Here is an excerpt:

"Today, there is no real momentum in a frozen Washington, D.C. to bring regulation up to date. To the contrary, in 1999, Congress led by Senator McCain's Advisor, former Senator Phil Gramm and the Clinton Administration led by Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, and soon to join Citibank,(ed note: and, later, the Obama campaign as its financial advisor) de-regulated and ended the wall between investment banks and commercial banking known as the Glass-Steagall Act.
Clinton and Congress opened the floodgates to rampant speculation without even requiring necessary and timely disclosures for the benefit of institutional and individual investors.

Now the entire U.S. economy is at risk. The domino theory is getting less theoretical daily. Without investors obtaining more legal authority as owners over their out of control company officers and Boards of Directors, and without strong regulation, corporate capitalism cannot be saved from its toxic combination of endless greed and maximum powerwithout responsibility.

Uncle Sam, the deeply deficit ridden bailout man, may have another taxpayers-to-the-rescue operation for Wall Street. But don't count on stretching the American dollar much more without devastating consequences to and from global financial markets in full panic.

Consider the U.S. dollar like an elastic band. You can keep stretching this rubber band but suddenly it BREAKS. Our country needs action NOW from Washington, D.C."

As you read Ralph Nader's July 2nd warning, perhaps for the first time, the terms of the largest bankers' robbery of America's wealth are being hammered out by the bankers and those who neglected to regulate them. Nader's call to action was not picked up by major media. Censorship of Nader is not too strong a word. But that the crime is occurring before our eyes and that its impact will be massive and long-lasting is now certain.

The libs in Congress are just doing their dog-and-pony. There is no chance--none, zero, nada--that they go home without a bill by Sunday night. Because if Monday opens and the market is down a thousand at the open, it'll be Congress' fault, then they'll rush back to pass it anyhow.

BTW: don't the Dems have a majority? And isn't Barack Obama running to be the head of the National Democratic Party, as well as the presidency? Yet--the glue of the Congress is still being held by the likes of John McCain. Interesting. One would have thought that all the commercials about Obama "reaching across the aisle" and "transcending politics as we know it" would have a longer shelf life than just a few days. But here we are, with a great opportunity for the Great One to show some leadership, and he's in Podunk, Iowa cleaning up behind his foot-in-the-mouth-of-the-week wonderboy Joe Biden.

Well, he has his priorities, we have ours.

What's sick about this is the White House has reportedly been aware of this looming crisis and had this plan drawn up for months. Did they confer with anyone in Congress? No.

Now, they want it passed like lightning.

Same old Bush tactics.

No wonder Sec. Treas. Paulson, with his $700,000,000 worth of Goldman-Sachs stock is itching for it to pass.

Paulson's Conflict of Interest

"Yet--the glue of the Congress is still being held by the likes of John McCain."

McCain sits perched atop the fence waiting to find out which way the wind blows and you compare him to the "glue of Congress?" McCain demonstrates in this situation that he is simply a politician who puts career ahead of country. Ambition..the one thing McCain himself attributed as the motivation for his candidacy.

I hope the market collapses. I bought gold thanks to Ray. My money is fine.

American "I saw it in Slate so it must be true!" Unity is wrong again. How unsurprising.

MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
AP Online
06-22-2006
Dateline: WASHINGTON
Goldman Sachs chief Henry M. Paulson Jr., President Bush's pick as the next Treasury secretary, will sell his substantial holdings in the Wall Street investment firm, the White House said Thursday.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino said Paulson is making the sale in order to conform with federal conflict-of-interest rules.

"Joe is right... ... We need to demand leadership not politics as usual in a crisis like this. From both parties."

#38 | POSTED BY DANNI

I applaud you!

"Because if Monday opens and the market is down a thousand at the open, it'll be Congress' fault, then they'll rush back to pass it anyhow"

How so? Wouldn't it be the fault of the people who ran their companies into the ground and of panicked investors who sell good stocks at the worst possible time for no reason? What about the people who put together the shitty no-account bailout plan? Maybe if they had done a better job up front there wouldn't be a deadlock now. And instead of trying to fix their horrendous plan, their first instinct was to use scare tactics when they met resistance. I'd say the architects of that piece of crap are 99% at fault for it not passing.

"Yet--the glue of the Congress is still being held by the likes of John McCain."

Being undecided makes one "the glue"? If McCain is the deciding vote that means everyone else has stated a position and they are at a deadlock that will be broken once the undecided voter makes up his mind.

McCain demonstrates in this situation that he is simply a politician who puts career ahead of country. Ambition..the one thing McCain himself attributed as the motivation for his candidacy.

#51 | Posted by danni
* * * *

LMAO. And this from an Obama supporter. "Troops out of Iraq now! . . . or maybe later, depending." "SAY NO TO FISA! . . . until July" "No more offshore drilling!" . . . until August. "No money from lobbyists!!!!!" . . . but wives and children of lobbyists are fine, and please send along a list of 10 of your friends.

RiR

Has it been reported he actually sold it, or was just planning to sell it as per your 2+ year old 'statement'?

Perino didn't take over until September 2007, and yet your alleged quote is dated June 2006.

Find something CURRENT backing up your claim. A statement he intends to sell the stake is worthless.

We were 'rounding the corner on the insurgency' for 3 years. We all know that circle jerk too.


How so? Wouldn't it be the fault of the people who ran their companies into the ground and of panicked investors who sell good stocks at the worst possible time for no reason?
* * *

Which one is it? That the stocks were badly managed? Or that investors are panicking? The market has already priced in moving these bad assets off the sheets of the banks, so that lending to Main Street can start up again. Otherwise, it won't happen. Stocks will collapse because liquidity will dry up, completely. Check out the LIBOR rate. Check out the first-time-ever par price on t-bills.

No problem, though. As long as Obama stays out of Washington with his blowhard rhetoric where he rambles on and on and doesn't really say much--that's true, really; quick, now: can you reprise me one line from the DNC? or from his big race speech? me either--anyhow, we have a chance of getting this done before Easter 2012.

ROB,
Last month Paulsen said the economy was on solid ground. How qualified is he?

#21 | Posted by igmoramus

Very...

en.wikipedia.org

"Stocks will collapse because liquidity will dry up, completely. Check out the LIBOR rate. Check out the first-time-ever par price on t-bills."

Shouldn't that be directed towards fence sitters???

RiR

This is all I could find on the Googles:

"I did find this:

"When, after considerable agonising, he took the Treasury job in 2006, Paulson sold his 3.23 million shares in Goldman. They were worth $500 million at the time but he didn't even have to pay capital gains tax because of a rule introduced to stop wealthy people from being penalised for taking a government job and having to sell assets." (Nice tax free profit!)

www.telegraph.co.uk

I did admire his purchase, on Goldman-Sachs behalf, of the hundreds of thousands of acres in Chile for a natural reserve.

"Find something CURRENT..."

-#57 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

RIR found an article that quoted a press release. You have an article that itself said:

"Given recent activities in Washington, the notion of suggesting that we make exceptions to ethics rules seems highly dangerous. But here's a bold idea: Maybe we should just let Paulson keep his shares. That would be the simplest and least costly thing to dofor him and for the government. The transparency provided by Goldman's daily trading would act as a great inhibitor to favoritism."

A bold idea, a wild suggestion? There is nothing other than speculations as to what he planned to do with his money.

Not to mention that your article is from June of '06 itself.

"Today, there is no real momentum in a frozen Washington, D.C. to bring regulation up to date. To the contrary, in 1999, Congress led by Senator McCain's Advisor, former Senator Phil Gramm and the Clinton Administration led by Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, and soon to join Citibank,(ed note: and, later, the Obama campaign as its financial advisor) de-regulated and ended the wall between investment banks and commercial banking known as the Glass-Steagall Act.

#48 | Posted by nutcase

See how you get ignored mentioning the N word?

McCain has Gramm and Obama has Rubin, and the majority of the country is more interested in being on the winning team than being on the right team.

We as a nation will get what we collectively deserve.

MEDIAN

See 1:19 pm

"MEDIAN
See 1:19 pm"
#64 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Yes. Thanks, I was just reading it.

"Which one is it? That the stocks were badly managed? Or that investors are panicking? "

Why does it have to be one or the other? It depends on which stock you are talking about. That is why I mentioned both.

Godalmighty. Two years ago it was scandalous on lefty blogs that Paulson sold his Goldman stake without having to pay millions in taxes, courtesy of the fact that he did so to take a government job. Now, in a bit of Orwellianism embraced by retards on the DR, we're going to pretend the sale of the stock never happened at all, and that he kept his shares of Goldman so that he can engineer a giant multibillion dollar wealth transfer to his old firm.

Unbelievable, the mental gymnastics you have to be capable of to be a lefty blogger around here. Congratulations. To hold so many self-contradictory ideas in your head without becoming a schizophrenic is a feat in and of itself.

Whatever, though.

If Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, the plan won't pass, some senior Democrats and Republicans in Congress told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican says.

this dick has to protect his wifes assets.. or his assets are screwed..


Typical Democrats. Always looking for some one else to lead.

#10 | Posted by cookfish
============
You can't be serious, LOL. McBush wants to cancel the debate so he can work on the economic mess that he himself knows nothing about but is associated with all the idiots the caused this mess.Secondly he wants to cancel the debate until this is wrapped up. What the problme with your candidate, can't he handle more than one problem at a time? LOL! This makes him look old and stupid.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable