T Nation

Why McCain? I Don't Get It


You guys know that I’ve been praising McCain for his political sauvvy the past few weeks. Really brilliant moves.

But what the hell was he thinking with voting “yes” on this (as SteelyD put it) “Legislative Pork” of a bailout?

He energizes the Conservative base with the Palin move; then turns around and disappoints it???

I think that there is no surprise that Obama voted for this Bill; but McCain I just don’t get.

Any thoughts you guys may have will certainly help increase my political knowledge 10-fold; because I’m at a loss to explain this move.

(Note: Palin better knock her debate out of the park).

Mufasa

There’s no explanation for any of McCain’s moves. With Obama, you know you are getting down-the-line liberalism. There’s no telling what you get with McCain. If you look at where he stands on anything, he’s all over the board. He claims to be bi-partisan, but most of the time he just seems bipolar.

I’m reading you malone;

But why cancel one brillant political move (IMO Palin; some disagee) with one that seems almost a polar opposite?

There is a little more than one month until the election. He should have:

  1. Canceled the first debate (like he initially planned) and

  2. Gone to Washington and Voted with a HUGE “NO” on this Bill.

To me, it would have been “Game Over”…

Now I’m not as sure.

Mufasa

Let’s add another layer; McCain could have KILLED this thing:

“If Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain doesn’t vote for the Bush administration’s $700 billion economic bailout plan, some Republican and Democratic congressional leaders tell ABC News the plan won’t pass”.

“If McCain doesn’t come out for this, it’s over,” a Top House Republican tells ABC News.

"A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no.

There is no deal if McCain doesn’t go along”.

(Abc News)

Wow.

Mufasa

Maybe he wants to see if Rainjack will really vote for a Democrat…

Maybe he just believes it’s the right thing to do.

Dems=Reps=Dems. Those guys sold their soul to the banksters. It’s that simple.

Russo’s From Freedom to Fascism:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA

Many plausible causes:

  • He knows the folks on the right will vote for him, lest they "throw away their votes’. I find the whole concept absurd, but there are many people who seem to think that is the case. So, per the icecream-men-on-a-beach, he tries to get as close to center as possible.

  • He’s in the hands of lobbies who stand to benefit directly from the bailouts. As I understand it, because the American populace is so polarized and busy slinging mud at each other, lobbies get to have all the power to run the show. That is, as long as the crushing majority of people vote for the establishment, the will of the people shall count for jack!

  • After his “Mr. John is going to Washington” move, he didn’t have much choice but to vote in whatever’s on the table. You don’t sell yourself as a figure who-gets-things-done™ and that transcends party lines, to go vote against a bill Bush considers crucial to stop the downward spiral. It doesn’t matter one tiny bit whether he thinks it’s the right thing to do or not. By the time the effects of the bill will be visible (if ever), the election would be over. And it’s not like the old man can run again in 2012, right? What’s certain, is that the passing of the bill would give a punctual boost to the market and McCain can claim partial credit for it.

[quote]JamFly wrote:
Maybe he just believes it’s the right thing to do.[/quote]

Jam:

I’m beginning to wonder if ANYBODY knows what “right” or “wrong” in Washington anymore.

There are simply too many very knowledgeble people, with nothing to gain from this Bill, that feel that its not the right thing to do.

Lixy brings up an interesting point, though.

Does it take some “heat” off the first 2-3 years of his Presidency, should be win?

I have NO freakin’ idea.

And the floor is still open, guys…

Mufasa

Could it be possible that the timing of this thing ( bail out/‘crisis’ is just not right ? What I mean is, what would happen (and I guess this is still a real possibility) if this thing drags on and the effects that all the economists are saying start to happen. It gets harder for consumers to get loans, credit card lines of credit dry up, etc.

If McCain voted no, and as that scenario got worse and worse closer to election day, maybe it could have been used against him if the people began to really feel the effects.

Since Obama voted yes, he does too and it’s a wash ?

I agree with Lixy…if he portrayed himself as the man to get things done, the momentum of Congress was to pass the bill, and if he went to Washington and stonewalled, it may have backfired. Shoot, the Dems started hammering him the minute he got there saying the deal was done but he muddled it up ( which is crock of shit) We all know party politics is very much in play here and that is sad.

[quote]lixy wrote:
As I understand it, because the American populace is so polarized and busy slinging mud at each other, lobbies get to have all the power to run the show.[/quote]

You’d probably know if you lived here, but American’s aren’t as polarized as you think. The vast majority of us are moderates with a few “sticking points” that prevent voting for the other side. News media are increasingly polarized because that makes money, but most of the populace is close to the center.

Elections cause a little bit of polarization only because we have a “this or that” society. There is no middle ground because no candidate could come out being truly bi-partisan. Too many far-left/far-right voters simply wouldn’t vote if one of their “sticking points” were compromised.

With not even a mention of tending to the underlying problems that caused this meltdown - F/F, CRA, ACORN, mark to market, etc. - is this even a bandaid?

I thinks it’s more like giving a crack whore someone else’s ATM card because the crack whore said she was hungry.

I fear that the House will cave in like a bunch of cowed dogs.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
JamFly wrote:
Maybe he just believes it’s the right thing to do.

Jam:

I’m beginning to wonder if ANYBODY knows what “right” or “wrong” in Washington anymore.

There are simply too many very knowledgeble people, with nothing to gain from this Bill, that feel that its not the right thing to do.

Lixy brings up an interesting point, though.

Does it take some “heat” off the first 2-3 years of his Presidency, should be win?

I have NO freakin’ idea.

And the floor is still open, guys…

Mufasa[/quote]

Yeah maybe I am being naive, but you have got to have hope. But it’s like you say he could easily have voted against and become the peoples champion…

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
You guys know that I’ve been praising McCain for his political sauvvy the past few weeks. Really brilliant moves.

But what the hell was he thinking with voting “yes” on this (as SteelyD put it) “Legislative Pork” of a bailout?

He energizes the Conservative base with the Palin move; then turns around and disappoints it???

I think that there is no surprise that Obama voted for this Bill; but McCain I just don’t get.

Any thoughts you guys may have will certainly help increase my political knowledge 10-fold; because I’m at a loss to explain this move.

(Note: Palin better knock her debate out of the park).

Mufasa[/quote]

He obviously thinks it’s necessary to prevent a credit freeze and much greater problems with the economny and great suffering and inability to obtain mortagage/educational/etc… loans by many innocent people. (He’s right. Only problem is that a ‘bailout’ is needed but Paulson’s bailout ain’t it) And thinks it will be successful and ultimately result in a return on the investment for the American people. You may disagree with his analysis and conclusions. I do. A plan is needed. But this isn’t it. But it’s really not that hard to figure out. Certainly not a politically expedient move given the widespread opposition to this particular Bailout. That’s a given.

[quote]borrek wrote:
lixy wrote:
As I understand it, because the American populace is so polarized and busy slinging mud at each other, lobbies get to have all the power to run the show.

You’d probably know if you lived here, but American’s aren’t as polarized as you think. The vast majority of us are moderates with a few “sticking points” that prevent voting for the other side. News media are increasingly polarized because that makes money, but most of the populace is close to the center.

Elections cause a little bit of polarization only because we have a “this or that” society. There is no middle ground because no candidate could come out being truly bi-partisan. Too many far-left/far-right voters simply wouldn’t vote if one of their “sticking points” were compromised.

[/quote]
This is very true. Most of the electorate is pretty centrist and pretty moderate. Candidates tend to be much more liberal and much more conservative than the majority of the people. Partially because it reflects their own views. But largely because they need to be to capture the smaller percentage of more liberal and conservative voters. There’s been many on dissertations on this. One of the problems of a two-party system.

Anybody think Sarah Palin will come out in opposition of the bailout tonight?

It would be a brilliant move to keep the people on her side, and really reinforce her image of an outsider.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Many plausible causes:

  • He knows the folks on the right will vote for him, lest they "throw away their votes’. I find the whole concept absurd, but there are many people who seem to think that is the case. So, per the icecream-men-on-a-beach, he tries to get as close to center as possible.
    [/quote]
    I will be throwing my vote away in a state that will be very tight. I have’t listened to talk radio in a few weeks but the local guy is a bit of hot head and a libertarian. I can only imagine the lambasting of McCain that’s going to happen this week. A lot of people listen to his show.

partially correct. the phone lines and email boxes were jammed yesterday with people apposing this bill and yet we get the result we did. I can only deduce that they are voting with the campaign money, fuck the voters.

[quote]

  • After his “Mr. John is going to Washington” move, he didn’t have much choice but to vote in whatever’s on the table. You don’t sell yourself as a figure who-gets-things-done™ and that transcends party lines, to go vote against a bill Bush considers crucial to stop the downward spiral. It doesn’t matter one tiny bit whether he thinks it’s the right thing to do or not. By the time the effects of the bill will be visible (if ever), the election would be over. And it’s not like the old man can run again in 2012, right? What’s certain, is that the passing of the bill would give a punctual boost to the market and McCain can claim partial credit for it.[/quote]

I simple can’t see how voting no would have hurt McCain other than contributions from Wall Street.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Anybody think Sarah Palin will come out in opposition of the bailout tonight?

It would be a brilliant move to keep the people on her side, and really reinforce her image of an outsider.[/quote]

She can’t go against her running mate. That for sure makes McCain look even worse and lose more credibility.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.