No Deal, No Debate
That appears to be the smart bet after this memo from the McCain camp was released:
To address our current financial crisis, John McCain suspended his campaign and returned to Washington, D.C., today to help build a bipartisan consensus for a proposal that would protect the American taxpayer.
Despite today’s news reports, there never existed a “deal,” but merely a proposal offered by a small, select group of Members of Congress. As of right now, there exists only a series of principles, including greater oversight and measures to address CEO pay. However, these principles do not enjoy a consensus in Congress.
At today’s cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers.
However, the Democrats allowed Senator Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution.
At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the Administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect that taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street.
The bottom line is that as of tonight, there are not enough Republican or Democrat votes for the current plan. However, we are still optimistic that a bipartisan solution will be found. Republicans and Democrats want a deal that will protect the taxpayers.
Tomorrow, John McCain will return to Capitol Hill where he will work with all sides to build a bipartisan solution that protects taxpayers and keeps Americans in their homes.
Let’s try to shoot down some talking points that are surely going to fly tomorrow, and try to make some sense of where we are at:
(1) John McCain did not torpedo the deal. Nancy Pelosi has stated on many occasions that she would not work to pass the deal with less than 100 Republican votes in the House. The smart count had her at best with 50.
(2) McCain apparently wanted to see if he could bring some consensus around changes to the plan that might get more House Republicans on board. However, having seen what the House Republicans proposed, their approach was so radically different that I cannot take it seriously as a real proposal.
(3) Undoubtedly, the Democrats egged this outcome on by excluding House Republicans from the discussions and giving Obama a lead role in ridiculing their alternative at the White House meeting.
(4) This whole thing is screwed, and maybe us along with it, if someone doesn’t figure out what can be added the the shell of the Paulson Plan that would bring along 50 more House Republicans. Their proposal won’t fly, and they won’t accept what’s on the table right now. I don’t know the answer, but it’s a grim outcome.
As for my own preferences, I wanted to see a deal. Not the original Paulson deal, but I think things were moving in the right direction. I hope the House Republicans will make their ‘price’ known quickly, because I really do fear the bloodletting that the market is going to unleash tomorrow…
McCain’s, and Obama’s, involvement is not helpful to the process of developing a bi-partisan consensus on a detailed plan. Whether he has moved into the middle of the discussion because of his role as Senator or because he perceives an advantage accruing to his campaign is irrelevant, the practical reality is that this highly public involvement is a distraction and unproductive.
I agree that the presence of Obama and McCain has been a distraction, but I don’t think that Obama had much choice. Bush invited him to the White House meeting: if he declines, he gets slammed for playing politics while the house is burning, and if he attends, he risks being a distraction.
Different story for McCain: according to press reports, the idea to have the meeting was McCain’s, and we all know how it turned out.
You’re right that Obama had no choice and it was a no-brainer decision to attend, there was no downside risk to him being there, politically, and while it may have been statesman like to decline, there is no way he could have done so.
I respect McCain’s desire to participate and to leverage his standing as a presidential candidate to move the process along. The only good outcome I see is that the full Congress is now engaged in discussion of a detailed plan – it is pretty clear that the Republicans were being excluded from the process of determining the details of the bailout. But, while I respect McCain and consider him to be the candidate with the most genuine character, this is a perfect example of why I don’t trust his judgment. Said differently, I believe he genuinely is motivated to do what he thinks is best for the country, but his ability to determine what that is is, to me, sadly lacking.
Why do you say that “the Republicans were being excluded from the process?”
They were in the committee hearings and at the White House meeting yesterday. Boehner surprised everyone by saying that the House Republicans couldn’t go along with the deal. Shelby has been against the deal all along. How is that being excluded from the process?
Because Boehner says they have been.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Boehner_letter_to_Pelosi.html
Oh, Boehner. Now there’s a disinterested observer. If he ever does anything constructive to move the country forward, please let me know.
The House GOP has been in the room but their interests/concerns have not been addressed.
Many House GOP members (and Senators) have opposed this from the beginning. The changes in the bill have not addressed their opposition, it addressed the Dem oposition.
Yet, Pelosi won’t let it be voted on unless 110 or so GOP vote for it.
Want their votes, offer them something. They are cheap dates.
I have been on the “unstoppable train” side but now I am unsure if this will pass. What that means???
too many steves-
With Reid and Paulson both reaching out to McCain, begging him to come to D.C. to help bring around fifty or so more House Republicans… he came to Washington and is getting the House Republican objections aired. That seems like a reasonable first step in getting them to come around to supporting a “compromise” bill — whatever that might look like.
Seems rather early to be questioning his judgment on this — if he does bring House Republicans around by Sunday, won’t he have actually done something good for our country?
One final thought — the huge roadblock to this plan is the fact that while most people in Congress believe it’s absolutely essential to pass this bailout, a strong majority of voters — the same people those Representatives will be needing the support of in just a few weeks — are convinced it’s a terrible idea. That’s why House Republicans matter for the first time since 2006. Nancy Pelosi has more than enough votes to pass the bailout as is — but she’s afraid of letting Democratic Reps take the blame for a really, really unpopular plan.
So, what’s the point of a bipartisan high-level meeting with Senator McCain and Senator Obama at the White House with President Bush and Congressional leaders from both parties???
It’s part of the work of convincing the American people that some kind of bailout is necessary.
And that’s hugely important.
Where on earth did you get that from?
Reid, at least, was publicly on-record begging McCain to stay away.
Jacques-
I’m sorry, I know it can be hard to keep track of Senator Reid’s ridiculous zig-zagging.
I’m referring to his statement on Wednesday that he needed John McCain to “let us know where he stands, and what we should do.” More specifically, he wanted political cover — he wanted McCain to “start producing some votes for us” — to move House Republicans to support a compromise bill.
Perhaps Harry Reid expected McCain to accomplish this by picking up the phone, but I’d have to differ with Senator Obama on this: talking on the phone is not the same thing as sitting down with someone and talking face to face. (Amazing that Obama gets this when it comes to Ahmadinejad, but not when it comes to Republican Congressmen…)
for Paulson’s request, see Bob Schieffer’s report this morning
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/did-mccain-answer-a-3-am-call/
But McCain didn’t “let us know where he stands”. He came to Washington, sat quietly through the meeting, and left without either endorsing the Bill in preparation, the “alternative” promulgated by the House Republicans or offering his own proposal.
As of Tuesday, he hadn’t even read Paulson’s plan (all three pages of it).
Wow. hotair.com …
Wading through the series of links, one eventually learns that Lindsay Graham told Bob Schieffer that Paulson called McCain. Did Schieffer confirm this with Paulson? No. With McCain? No. With someone on either man’s staff? No.
Perhaps there was such a phone call; perhaps this is Huckleberry trying to provide some political cover for his friend, John. I don’t know. Do you?
Jacques: I thought we were just supposed to take every single pundits comments at face value…as though they were being 100% straight. Since Schieffer is so unbiased they’re giving him the last debate. It does indeed anger me so.
Mikedbot,
Just to be clear, when a reporter says, “My source, XXX, said YYY.” it means that the reporter was unable to confirm YYY with anyone else. It’s a way reporters have of casting doubt on YYY. If Shieffer had been able to confirm Lindsay Graham’s claim, he would have said “Henry Paulson called John McCain.” instead of, “My source, Lindsay Graham, said …”
In other words, absent some independent confirmation, don’t believe it.
As to Schieffer as debate moderator, yes he’s lousy. I thought Lehrer did a decent job last night. Perhaps that will set the standard for the rest of the debates. But I doubt it.
But, back to serious matters:
If McCain supports the Paulson plan, why didn’t he say so, earlier, at that ‘summit’ in Washington, where his endorsement would have done some good?
Wasn’t rallying support behind … well, behind whatever plan it is that he supports … the whole reason for “suspending” his campaign and flying off to Washington to save the country?
Oh, no doubt McCain’s weakest part of the debate was in talking about the bailout…but he was much, much better as the debate went on…but I won’t defend the weakness of the comment you pointed out. He missed an opportunity (actually, Obama wasn’t so hot on the bailout, either, throwing out the very weak “we haven’t seen the text” when asked his opinion)…
This comment/reply is tardy (I’ve been out in the land of Peter for a week), but, Boehner is the Minority Leader in the House, not just some shill for the GOP.
Steve: play any golf while you were here?
I did. Cal Club on Thursday, Claremont on Friday. Thursday was a total jekyll & hyde round, Friday was much better, but as is said, a bad day of golf is better than a great day at work. The weather was great, as were my playing partners, so it was great fun.
Great!
I hear that part of Obama’s platform is the elimination of forced carries. In my view, that’s reason enough to vote for him. Looking over a vast expanse of canyon or lake causes my knees to turn to jelly, which I ascribe to my general lack of moral fiber.
Oh man, that could swing me over to his side!
I blame my golf weaknesses on:
1. Poor coaching in my youth.
2. A short playing season in the Boston area.
3. A complete lack of the skills needed to be a good golfer.
Btw, both courses had great views of the city, from dramatically different vantage points.
Well, given these weaknesses, my suggestion would be to aggressively employ stealth and rules violations.
[...] On Thursday I wrote: (1) John McCain did not torpedo the deal. Nancy Pelosi has stated on many occasions that she would not work to pass the deal with less than 100 Republican votes in the House. The smart count had her at best with 50. [...]