Bailout plan busted in the House
Posted on September 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm by David Kaiser, EditorThe $700 billion bailout plan for imperiled financial institutions was defeated in the House this afternoon, sending stock markets plunging.
The impact on the campaign remains to be seen, but it is unlikely to be good news for the McCain campaign, who’s poll numbers have taken a considerable hit in the days since the first cracks in the dam started appearing two weeks ago.
Look for the Obama campaign to continue to paint the current economic mess on the policies of the Bush Administration, and then make the link that a vote for McCain is a vote for those policies.
McCain needs to tighten up his economic message, and try to bring Obama into the mess with him to keep the crack of daylight that has opened between them in this race from widening into full blown landslide mode.
16 Comments
Leave a comment
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I’m going to have to disagree (respectfully) with you here David. The Pelosi didn’t need a single republican vote to get this bill passed. Barry spend the weekend bragging about his involvement in the details of this bill.
Both The Pelosi and Dusty Harry Reid deferred to Barry during the White House sit down. If anything, this whole mess gives us a glimpse into Barry’s management style. He hasn’t the faintest idea how the DC process works and today it really shows.
Well, John McCain didn’t get it done either Cordy, and Obama wasn’t the one who suspended his campaign and asked to delay the debate to go to Washington to help resolve the fiscal disaster.
The McCain campaign made far more of this bailout plan then the Obama, and it’s failure will be easier for Barack to spin than McCain.
Remember, the vast majority of the voting public are not as well read in the reindeer games played in the District, they just see the final results.
If you were one of blissful ignorant and saw the following headlines, what would you think:
“McCain suspends campaign; asks for delay in debate to return to D.C. and address fiscal crisis”
“McCain agrees to debate after a deal on bailout plan is reached”
“Bailout plan defeated in the House”
A lot of people gave McCain points for being “bold” and “decisive” during the last week, and called Obama “weak” for not jumping right into the fray.
In light of the results, perhaps “measured” and “thoughtful” could be used for Obama?
Maybe not, but McCain did as McCain always does, jumps in with both feet first. This is bold and decisive when it works. When it doesn’t, it becomes reckless and thoughtless.
The bill would have passed had Pelosi not stood up right before the vote to give a very partisan speech and told all the Dems who are on shaky ground with their re-election to vote against it.
I agree with you that the American people probably won’t see that side of it, but it’s absolutely infuriating that she would do something like that at a time like this.
I can’t stand Pelosi, but any Republican who voted against the plan because of what a moronic Majority Leader said (especially because most of her rails against the Bush Administration have some legs) was just looking for any excuse to vote against it.
The reality here is those who voted against it voted with their constituency and used Pelosi’s comments as a life raft. Pelosi’s rant ment little, it was just a good excuse.
Maybe, but Nancy “I’m allergic to leadership” Pelosi did a bonehead manure-ver and used her moment at this critical to grind a dominatrix heel into the feet of a good number of conservative lawmakers (both Dems and Reps); and instead of using the moment for statesmanship, used it to look like some iron-madam. Regardless of outcome, it was an idiotic move for her (becoming a veritable habit, I must add).
It was completely idiotic to do, no doubt. It gave Republicans the life raft they were looking for to jump ship on the bill.
That this didn’t pass is a good thing. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill. There are alternative plans that should be considered.
well, I suspended my campaigning for the weekend for family reasons, but now I’m back. What did I miss? (hee,hee)
Yes, I was one of those “people” who thought Mac was being “bold” and “decisive”, which now looks a little like “desperate” and “wild”.
I’m getting one of those sinking feelings that this will be over before November 4th, and I am emotionally steeling myself for a rough ride over the next 4 years.
Don’t lose hope!!!
“Keep hope alive! Keep hope … ” whoops, wrong candidate!
Haha… How about Babe Ruth? “It ain’t over ’til it’s over!”
I actually thought about that sounding a little too much like Obama when I hit the save button, but it was too late.
I think that one is Yogi Berra.
I know that I will get lots of replies to this, but I have to ask, since I am still new to the political arena. And perhaps this information I seem to believe or have heard has been fed to me from the liberal media. I don’t know….
It does seem like things were more stable in the nation (economy, budget, world affairs) when Clinton was in office, and that since that time things have gotten pretty bad. Is there a correlation between Bush’s time in office and the turmoil going on in the nation economically, and otherwise?
Does turmoil in a nation result directly from the actions of the President? And if so, does it happen immediately, during his administration, or does it take time for those effects to take place, showing up later on, even after he has left office?
Clinton got credit for the blissful economic years that was created by the 12 years of Reagan and Bush years.
Bush got hit with the tech bubble burst. It was inevitable and going to happen no matter who was President, thanks to the Cliton’s do nothing for the economy years. Then came 9/11. Again, that would have hurt the economy no matter who was President. I know a lot of people hate Bush, but we could have been in a much worse economic situation if it hadn’t been for tax cuts early on and other policies that he implemented.
Without proper regulation, this particular economic crisis would have happened as well. You can place the blame on every person who has been in Washington since 1994 (but please don’t forget the individual consumer, local banks, local politicians, and Wall Street who added to the problem).
I’m playing devil’s advocate here…
Didn’t Clinton balance the budget? I don’t know what “balance the budget” means exactly, but didn’t he do that?
He did, but that’s only a small piece of the overall picture. It takes a lot more than a balanced budget to have a healthy economy.