Things That You Might Need To Know

[billroper]

According to CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, McCain is going to Washington DC to try to get Republicans on board to a solution for the subprime mortgage debacle at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury.

As we dig into the background a bit further, we find that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told McCain yesterday -- after McCain said that he and Obama should get back to Washington and help sort this out -- that McCain should stay away.

Of course, the day before that Reid said that McCain needed to take a position on the bailout and that McCain was supporting it.

To which McCain responded, "I did not say that."

Now, maybe I'm a bit prejudiced about this and maybe I'm a bit cynical about this, but it looks to me like the Democratic objective here was to hang this bailout on McCain without Obama having to take a position either pro or con, thus allowing Obama to campaign against it as "McCain's bailout plan" after the dust settles. McCain, being somewhat smarter than a load of rocks, isn't falling for that particular trick. If this is supposed to be a bi-partisan bailout plan -- and the Democrats have said that they won't pass it without some sufficient number of Republican votes -- then either both candidates are going to have to publicly sign on to it or neither one has to sign on to it.

So, yes, McCain is doing a bit of posturing, but it's absolutely necessary posturing, because Obama has to either be on the same hook that the Democratic Congressional leadership wants to put McCain on or explain to the folks negotiating the bailout plan what his better idea is for solving the problem.

And trust me. If Obama's got a better idea, Congress will be all over it.

Comments

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

Obama has to either be on the same hook that the Democratic Congressional leadership wants to put McCain on

Uh, why? It's a Republic administration, it's a Republican mess, McSame is the Republican candidate. They can swing on that hook all by themselves; they're the ones that installed it.

Obama's not a magician; you can't just stick a big old hat in front of him and demand a rabbit. It's Bush's damned hat.

[billroper]

If you believe that this is strictly a Republican mess, then you've failed to look into any of the history of the problem. If Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- under prodding from Democrats such as Barney Frank -- had not been willing to buy the subprime mortgages from their originators, there would have been many fewer subprime mortgages out there. That's one of the reasons, for instance, that jumbo mortgages are expensive -- because Freddie and Fannie won't buy them.

There's plenty of blame to go around. To their credit, the Bush Administration wanted improved oversight of Freddie and Fannie back in 2003, but couldn't get it through Congress.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

"To their credit, the Bush Administration wanted improved oversight of Freddie and Fannie back in 2003, but couldn't get it through Congress."

Make sure you remember that that was a Republican-majority Congress that wouldn't approved improved oversight.

This is a Republican mess, from start to finish.

The record from the candidates this Congress:

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

From The Hill (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-has-introduced-no-banking-bill-this-congress-2008-09-25.html), today:

McCain has not sponsored a banking bill this Congress
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 09/25/08 12:26 PM [ET]
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has not introduced any banking or housing bills in the 110th Congress, while Democratic rival Barack Obama has proposed five.

Both candidates are traveling to Washington on Thursday to meet with President Bush and congressional leaders to build support for a massive rescue plan for the nation’s ailing economy.

Neither Sen. McCain (Ariz.) nor Sen. Obama (Ill.) sits on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which is taking the lead in the upper chamber of molding the bailout plan.

McCain is the lead sponsor of 38 pieces of legislation during the 110th Congress, none of which have been referred to the Banking panel, according to a review of Thomas, a congressional website.

Obama has introduced 130 measures during this Congress. Five of Obama’s standalone bills fall within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction.

Obama’s legislation calls for bolstering housing assistance for veterans, amending the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation, halting mortgage transactions that promote fraud, authorizing local and state governments to crack down on companies that invest in Iran's energy sector and authorizing a pilot program to prevent at-risk veterans from becoming homeless.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

Bill...show me a specific bill. I saw the NYT article on Bush's comments from 2003, and I've analyzed the House/Senate thrash over Hagel's (http://jrittenhouse.livejournal.com/1047010.html) reform bills of 2005 and 2007 - the first one of which McCain supported a year after it was introduced and after it was dead in the water.

But I have not seen a Bush 2003 bill on this matter. I can wish for all sorts of things, but only bills introduced in the Congress can become law.

[loriruadh.livejournal.com]

Bill, McCain's bolt for Washington may be for something other than the bailout. There is a theory going around some of the policital blogs that McCain has either had a stroke or the melanoma he suffered from has reappeared and metastasized -- compare videos from about two weeks ago the ones from this week. There is a very perceptible droop in the facial area around his left eye.

FWIW...

[billroper]

There's a theory going around LiveJournal that this is a prelude to postponing the elections due to a national emergency too. I think I'll wait for some actual data.

[loriruadh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've heard that one too, and I don't buy it.

Have you seen this -- House Resolution 1452: Establishing the Select Committee on Financial Bailouts?

It's being sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats and seems sensible to me, but I'd like to hear other's take on it.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

As one of the sources of that theory, I too am waiting for data, with keen anticipation. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'll be very happy.

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

Seeing what BushCo has done the last 7+ years, I can see how people would believe this. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it does happen (and I don't consider tinfoil hats as a fashion item). I hope it doesn't happen, but I'll never say never where BushCo is concerned.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Prior to 2000, I would never have believed that a person could assume the office of President while the votes were still being counted and when the outcome was still in dispute. I was loth to believe that any serious presidential candidate would try such a thing, or that his party would let him, never mind fixing it for him. And I was completely thrown when he was let stay. After that, all bets were off.

Your declaration of independence enshrines the people's right to overthrow or abolish a government if it does not serve their needs. Unfortunately, your actual system seems even less responsive to the people's needs than ours, and all too easy to subvert.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Okay. What I'm reading when I check your links is that Reid said McCain was going to support the bailout plan. Then he told McCain it would not be helpful for him to come back to Washington (not the same as telling him to stay away, but hey, if rephrasing helps...).

This to me makes excellent sense. If he goes back to Washington he's one senator, one vote. If he continues to campaign he's a presidential candidate, the man who may be overseeing the consequences of the plan. Whose support for the plan would be more influential?

You haven't included any links to confirm that Obama is not taking a position either pro or con--on the contrary, you've linked to him stating his position very clearly ("he would only support a bailout of the financial markets if it provides the necessary oversight and protects taxpayers")--but you have confirmed that McCain isn't, which means Reid was either misinformed or lying. So one point against Reid, but your idea of the Democratic objective seems to be a bit skew-whiff, and it's McCain who seems to be playing the waiting game while Obama's ready to sort out details.

That's how I read what you've shown me, anyway.

[billroper]

Obama's statements about the bailout (and McCain's as well, to be clear about it) are the sort of general statements that allow the candidate to disavow any specific solution as failing to meet his stringent criteria. "My opponent supported this bill knowing full well that it lacks the safeguards to provide that..."

If Obama wants to sort out the details of a plan that he's willing to support then he needs to be part of the meetings that are devising the plan -- as does McCain. Negotiations of this kind can't be accomplished by remote control.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Neither of them will be part of the meetings, as neither is a member of the relevant committee(s). If McCain wants to go back and vote, great, the senate will be glad to see him in person (and Obama too, to be fair). But McCain the deregulator as the white knight who should supervise the bailout? It's not working for me.

And in any case, he's got a jet--trying to postpone the debate is completely unnecessary and thus, I suspect, related to something else. Whether it's because he doesn't feel prepared, or because he's trying to put everything off a couple of weeks so he can squeeze out the VP debate and protect Palin from scrutiny is unclear, but it's not related to the bailout.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Whether it's because he doesn't feel prepared, or because he's trying to put everything off a couple of weeks so he can squeeze out the VP debate and protect Palin from scrutiny is unclear

And also, I note, not mutually exclusive.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Bill, you've missed a tidbit. Obama has said that, if it's obvious that his vote won't matter one way or the other, he'll skip voting. A perfect way to side step.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

Neither Obama nor McCain are on the relevant committee so until the bill comes to a vote, they really don't need to be there.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Oh, right. I didn't know that. And therefore Obama doesn't need to say or do anything more about it till the committee has brought it to a point where it can be voted on. Nor does McCain. And presumably he knows this.

Necessary posturing?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Posturing, sure. Not sure it's un-necessary, though. One or the other of them will run the Exec branch in just over 3 months. I'd think the committee and country would benefit from ensuring that whatever plan the committee drafts and puts onto paper is one that both the candidates say they will back. Not a good scenario if they draft a massive package and it goes sideways only 3 months from now because the new President doesn't like it.

[billroper]

See my response here.

[billroper]

Yes, they do. Right now, this bailout plan has very little to do with the relevant committee and more to do with putting together a plan that can generate the necessary votes on the floor to pass with a majority from each party. In the current politically charged atmosphere, having both of the candidates on board with the proposed text looks to be important to getting those votes together.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

But surely they can e-mail the text to the candidates wherever they happen to be? It's only three pages.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

John McCain, as of Tuesday at least, hadn't read the Paulson plan. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/219649.php) All three pages of it. Heck, I read the thing.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

So they have the final text ready, then? That was quick. I thought these things took careful consideration.

Or are the candidates supposed to just go back to Washington and sit outside the committee room thumbing through back copies of Time till they're done?

As I understand this, the committee puts together the plan. If Obama and McCain are not on that committee, they don't serve any useful purpose by being there, and may well confuse the issues. Or am I wrong?

I am among the many who are not buying this at the moment. I understand that you are sticking up for McCain (or at least, that's the way it looks and it would be consistent with your previous politics-related posts) and I respect that, but I don't think he deserves the loyalty, for this move at least. I think (quite apart from my blatantly paranoid speculations on other matters) that it's a ploy.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

What's gotten me irritated is this whole "suspend the campaign" BS. It's one thing to say "I'm going to Washington to vote" and entirely another to say "let's stop the world."

Of course, everything I'm seeing is that McCain hasn't suspended squat.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

What's gotten me irritated is this whole "suspend the campaign" BS.

They didn't suspend Presidential campaigning for the Civil War or WWII. Heck, as far as I know nobody suspended even the off-year Congressional campaigning in 1962 when we were one false move away from TEOTWAWKI.

And I'm supposed to believe that it's necessary (for national-interest as opposed to political-convenience reasons) to suspend the campaign for this? I don't think so.

[gorgeousgary]

Especially since it's not like they can't get from DC to MS in a few hours. They even have their own planes; they don't have to deal with the mess that is commercial aviation these days...

Ha! Your logic will not work on us. ;p

[weirdsister.livejournal.com]

Ever get the feeling that you are speaking a completely different language? Oy veh.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

I honestly believe that the bailout plan, as presently constituted, is not going to fly. People either see it as a total Bush sellout to Wall Street or a screamingly bad interference with the markets, or whatever, but practically nobody cares for it at all.

I don't blame the candidates for keeping some distance from the whole thing. Obama stated what he wanted to see out of the whole thing, in specific, but his attitude was to let the negotiators whack things out in general.

As for McCain - I don't know *what* he really wants. He's been all over the map - for and against and rules and no rules and so on, and I really don't know that he knows enough about the whole thing to be able to help much with the negotiations. He hadn't read the plan by Tuesday, so I dunno.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

I think that the negotiations on this were rough enough before McCain talked the White House into the photo-op on Thursday at 4; McCain spent much of Wednesday and Thursday making speeches or other political stuff - so much for 'suspending the campaign'.

There was no reason for either Obama or McCain to go to the White House on this. If the House leadership and the Senate leadership can't deliver its own people, it's hopeless.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Plus I'll just note that McCain "stopping everything" to fly to Washington to work with his party or have a photo op with Bush, whichever interpretation one might favor...

Coincides with the negotiations, which had been reported as very close to agreement, blowing up, burning down, and sinking into the swamp, with much accompanying shouting, fingerpointing and angst.

And the blowup was because a large group of Republicans backed out of the deal.

Now, I'm going to try and take the high road here, but even so, I'd have to say that it looks like McCain's trip to Washington didn't actually help all that much in reaching agreement.

In the meantime, the University of Mississippi had spent 5 million dollars preparing for the debate that McCain was threatening to blow off. When 700 billion is flying around the news, maybe that doesn't seem like much, but my experience is that Universities have tight budgets, struggle to pay their own people, and for them 5 million is a serious chunk of cash.

But it's okay, because now he says that agreement is close enough that he'll debate after all. Which is great--but, um, is the bill closer to agreement now than it was before the spectacular, um, negotiation failure at the meeting yesterday?

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

I doubt that the bill is going anywhere. The House Republicans have made it night-on impossible to come to any sort of agreement, and they're totally uninterested in a deal.