The Next 12 Hours

Is it clear that McCain wanted fewer regulations than what is in place right now, or that he wanted fewer than were offered in the compromise bailout plan?The difference doesn’t matter much to me as both are indefensible in my mind, but it could provide some coverage for McCain’s position with the media. This is especially the case as I’ve seen reports this morning that seem to be confusing the two positions.

Of course, nothing was said on Morning Joe this morning about the corporate tax breaks or less regulation. Instead, the talking points being drummed are that McCain and Republican Congress do not support “Paulson’s bill.” And McCain is “standing alone” basically in his non-support of “Paulson’s bill.” McCain’s other two stooges, Lindsey Graham and Joe Liebermann, appeared to reinforce this. Scarborough, Buchanan, Murphy and the other mouthpieces are iferrig that the Democrats are supporting the Paulson bill with no conditions. And Chuck Todd stated if McCain doesn’t show, there will be NO tv coverage of the “debate.”

McCain is as politically clumsy as it gets.OK, let’s see:- This guy describes himself as someone who doesn’t understand the economy all that well. And to top it off, he has said things in the last few weeks that have once and for all dispelled any doubts on his utter lack of economic expertise (strong fundamentals, anyone?)- He’s not a member of the Banking committee, so basically he can’t bring anything of real value to the negotiating table.- He has to “suspend” the campaign, but he actually does anything but, giving TV interviews and attending public events completely unrelated to the financial crisis.- He cancels the Presidential debate because apparently it’s the presidential thing to do (!!!) in times of crisis. He says he has to rush back to Washington and “do his work”. Only the public interest would be better served by him staying away from a working group that a) doesn’t need him; and b) Doesn’t welcome him since it wishes to reach a final decision on the bailout plan ASAP, with as little political posturing as possible thrown into an already unstable mix. Not to mention the fact that it’s not “his job” to be there. It’s the Administration’s and the Banking Committee’s.One feels tempted to ask: “Senator, exactly WHAT is that these people need you to do in Washington today? Are they casting the final vote for the bailout plan on Friday NIGHT? If they’re seeking a bipartisan agreement, why is your individual vote so important, anyway?” You’re a Senator, not the President. You have much more important things to do than sitting around hoping to look concerned and presidential enough.His whole excuse for cancelling the debate and appear to be on top of America’s problems, was so implausible, so preposterous, that it was always going to test the media’s gullibility this time. I’m sorry Senator, it has backfired. It’s astounding he thought it would succeed in the first place.

Good points, Bob, but are the details going to be “the story” that mrrricans hear? If McGambler comes out against a bill that is a) promulgated by an incredibly unpopular administration, b) is favored by Democrats, and c) reviled by citizens Dems, Repubs, and Indies alike, who will come out on top? The real question is (from a policy perspective) how dire are the circumstances if we don’t do this today or next week? Are the credit markets so dry and the economy so poised on the precipice that all is lost if another 72 hours goes by without a deal? Or will a measured, more transparent (does anyone know the *real* details of the legislation?) approach be okay? These are the underlying issues/questions that need to be addressed, IMHO.Arianna’s post today raises some excellent points, and I’m wondering if this statement in her posting is true: “Last night, he announced that he’d urged Democratic leaders in Congress not to pursue efforts to include an economic stimulus package in the bailout, or to push for a provision giving bankruptcy judges the power to rework mortgage rates because it might derail a deal.” –If it is, this could be very bad for our guy, because it looks like he’s for Wall Street and against Main Street, to put a blunt jingoistic point on it…

Except Groobie-that is NOT what happened- he did NOT urge Anyone- he never even called Dodd on the phone or spoke to a single person on the Banking Committee- he never even read the Dodd Plan or the Paulson Plan…he snuck into town met with Boehner and other Conservative House Repugs , true he did give Liebermann a big Hug,….but that was it..and then he stirred the Coup from the side , poking and prodding …wanting to save his own campaign more than OUR country….it also show how he would lead- just like Bush, sneaking, lying and sabotaging any DEM problem solving efforts…ANY….We are in a Crisis and this old man can only think about his Cronies on wallstreet and his sinking campaign…..

Has anyone seen any corroborating stories about the mock debate and mock press conference the McCain camp held with Palin? The only place I’ve seen it was at the following link I got from a comment in First Read.http://www.bigeddieradio.com/If this is accurate, which who didn’t think this would be the case anyway, I mean really, but if it’s true AND McCain’s gambit for the debate postponement tonight goes as disastrously wrong as it appears to have gone, I’d say we’ve moved from middle-game to end-game.

Engima, I was referring to Obama, not McCain.

Groobie – what Obama actually said was that other things that people want in the bill – bankruptcy judges restructuring mortages, tax help, etc. – are important, but they could be dealt with later; they don’t need to be part of the initial bailout plan. Get something passed & they can continue working on ways to get in economy moving, but right now, the credit markets need to be unfrozen.I agree with him – the more amendments there are, the more likely the bill will not pass and the more time is wasted voting on various congresscritters’ add-ons & favorite solutions