Yeh but McCain should look at the bright side
Took the focus off Cariboo Barbie din' it. That is unless she makes herself available for a comment so she can impart some of her great wisdom.

At this juncture McCain is a presidential candidate full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! -Kevo

The DOW records it's biggest closing point drop in history.

And McCain just came out with a statement blaming Obama for all of this.

This is unbelievable.

The truth is these Republicans were up for re-election and didn't want to lose their jobs, didn't want to vote for an unpopular bill.

They don't give a damn about the country.

This doesn't pertain to this post, but:

""Then something amazing happened: On Friday night, he looked the American people in the eye and said it never happened. My friends, we need a president who will always tell the American people the truth," McCain said."

Couldn't agree more!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/campaign.wrap/index.html

And wouldn't his support of the bailout just remind conservatives of his support of other big-government compromise bills they hated like the Immigration Bill?

Think he's one of you now? Think again. That's how I think it will play with the Republican base.

So does this mean that Obama failed because he did not reach more Republicans or did he fail because so many Democrats wouldn't go along?

This can be spun both ways - McCain has a record of doing things with Democrats but Obama's pull among Republicans is minimal.

I still say that Democrats are in control of both houses of congress - on a purely partisan basis they could have passed this only getting their own party to vote for it.

That 95 votes against is a big number.

Replay. This reminds me of the Georgia situation, where Obama played it close to the vest and McCain went all in and made stupid, over-the-top statements. I have heard people fretting about Obama's lack of leadership on this issue, as on Georgia, but I have little doubt that he is simply thinking over his cards and making decisions. It's no mistake that he pointed out today that McCain plays craps and he himself plays poker.

I guess McCain just learned again how much easier it is to talk the talk than to actually get things done.

add on to my previous post:

Ironic, eh? Telling the American people he'sgoing to be honest??

It's simply too late for McCain to turn around now and say, "Guess what? I hated that bill all along!"

Oh yeah? Need I refer you to your own McCain Flip Flop list?

Steve Benen. Orwell's (eric blair) back. You may wanna to bitch slap again.

"A lot of people lost quite a bit today, but in a purely political context, few look as ridiculous right now as John McCain."

I don't know. Obama looks like much more of an idiot to me for not openly and vigorously opposing it. It indicates that he doesn't understand anything about economics, and puts corporate interests above those of the American people. Rather frightening. I've never said anything good about the Republicans before, but to me it's more than obvious to me that it's the Democrats who look ridiculous here. This bill would have been disastrous for the American people. I doubt the economy would ever have recovered from it. Now we can let it fall and then rebuild. The Democrats are now a laughing-stock.

Trolls in the previous threads have been rolling out the new wingnut message: That the bill's failure is the Dem's fault (even though the majority of Dems voted yes and a LARGE majority of Goopers voted no) because 94 Dems had the good sense not to carry this alone and give the lying Goopers a clear target.

I swear, the damn GOP is the largest collection of complete sociopaths I've ever encountered. It'll be fun watching them get trounced this November.

Oh Moderator!!

Orwell's (Eric Blair) back. Can ya give him a fannysmack once more? It's just so much fun to watch.

They keep saying that John McCain is going to speak to this at any moment...I get the feeling he just keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole--and yet he seems to think this is a game and the only thing that matters to anyone is the last comment made.

It's such an unbelievable joke.

I still say that Democrats are in control of both houses of congress... -Fake Eric Blair

And by saing that, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would have appeard smarter had you stayed silent.

When a Democratic majority relies on Joe Lieberman in the Senate, then no, you can't push through a Democratic partisan bill.

Besides, why would the Democrats want to. They're committed to working with you dunderheads. Shows how much more mature they are than I am.

I'd rather you all just step in front of moving trains.

i hate the bailout with a furor but it's not like mccain didnt want it to not happen. he needed it to happen, ached for it to happen, and showing his complete uselessness as a political hardballing maverick it all blew up in his face. it's just a case of a dumbass backing his way into screwing up something he wanted to do and therefore helping people. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out.

I still say that Democrats are in control of both houses of congress - on a purely partisan basis they could have passed this only getting their own party to vote for it.

Eric - That's actually exactly what the Republicans were hoping for. They knew that this was a risky bill and they wanted us to own it. But it shouldn't have been a Democratic bill and if they were going to play politics with it, it was for the best that it got rejected. The emphasis here is going to be that the Republicans rejected it, not that Dems couldn't get more members in-line. After all, this was supposed to be bi-partisan; not a Democratic bill that some Repubs crossed over for.

As for your part on Obama, that's also not how this is going to play out simply because McCain was involved. If McCain couldn't get his team in-line, nobody's going to blame Obama for not being able to do it either. Both of them were working together to get this done, but McCain couldn't fulfill his part of the deal. That's how this will look, and what really happened.

At this point, I'm hoping the Dems just scrap the whole deal and give us something that looks better and works better. And with Bush being so rejected by his own party, he might just let us have it. The failed bill was only acceptable because both sides were going to own it. But if Republicans want this to be a Democratic bill, by god, we should make it one.

Holtz-Eaken: John, I think you should hang around for a couple days so it looks like you were the hero.
McCain: How about if I show up at Capital Hill with my entourage and a big brass band?
H-E: No, maybe dinner with the Liebermans. That'll give us time to write your victory speech and make the Mission Accomplished banner.
McCain: Figure a way for me to come in flying a Harrier jet.
H-E: Or an Osprey helicopter.
McCain: Too dangerous. Meanwhile, do you think I should read the first two, two and a half pages?
H-E: Nah, we'll save the camera crews until after the House vote.
McCain: What if they don't pass it?
M-E: Then we were against it from the beginning. Don't worry, John, we have plenty of quotes from you on all subjects taking both sides.
McCain: OK, Doug. Country first and all that.
H-E;

"Eric Blair" wrote: I still say that Democrats are in control of both houses of congress - on a purely partisan basis they could have passed this only getting their own party to vote for it.

Of course you still say that -- your job here is to repeat Republican talking points.

The Democrats made clear at the start of this process that there would be no bill without Republican support. No GOP support, no bill. Whether from a grandstand stunt in which the GOP would get to oppose a bill they thought would pass anyway or just plain old incompetence, Republican bad faith sank this bill. "Eric Blair" and his fellow trolls are trying desperately to spin this one, but that dog won't hunt.

"McCain 'suspended' his campaign to get this bill to the floor . . . ."

Sorta. His announced intention in "suspending" was to rush off to DC and make sure the taxpayers were protected. That certainly fits with his confusion of a "financial crisis" with a "fiscal crisis" in Friday's debate; I think McCain has been incapable of understanding that this was anything more than just another budget-buster. It also explains his bewildering ambiguity about his own position; he's had no views whatever about the nature of the financial crisis or the alternatives to dealing with them. His sole concern has been with keeping the spending to a minimum--and the final plan obviously didn't do that. He's straddled this issue just enough to give him room to reverse field--and while that'll do him no good with those who've been following the story and actually know what's up, it might work with a few of the low-information sorts. Let's hope that they're very few indeed.

Steve Benen. Orwell's (eric blair) back. You may wanna to bitch slap again.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 29, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Ah yes, the old liberal tatic of shutting up someone who they can't stand up to in a debate. Steve's in no position to bitch slap anyone since he's so wrong on this point.

As others have pointed out, isn't this a bigger failure of the One who couldn't get 10 Democrats to vote with him and Nancy on the most important vote of the Congressional Session? LOL

The right wing is going with - minority loans caused this problem. They can't take responsibility for anything. John M or someone else high-up (Palin) may end up saying such a thing, that would be intereting.

WHEN THE GAMBLER ROLLS SNAKE EYES....

Has to be the line of the week.
Unless you prefer the plane crash analogy...

If Obama had been a POW, he wouldn't have brought this catastrophe upon his country like he has.

As others have pointed out, isn't this a bigger failure of the One who couldn't get 10 Democrats to vote with him and Nancy on the most important vote of the Congressional Session? LOL

Is innumerancy typical of right wingers? Majority of Democrats voted for this.

The dog that won't hunt David is the one which says it was the Republicans who killed this bill. This was voted down by both parties. Bush put forward this bill and Pelosi wanted it. What happened? Failure in leadership in the house.

30 Democrat votes is all it would have taken.

a Filibuster in the senate could possibly be political suicide for whoever was leading it since the president is ready to sign whatever hits his desk.

I watched the vote on C-SPAN. The interesting thing I noted was how many "NV"'s there were until the last 30 seconds (before the vote was held open).

There was a *lot* of calculated partisan politicking going on.

To me it looks as though the GOP intentionally sunk it to try and hang the failure on the Dems. Little did they know that McCain was already out there attempting a victory lap.

Its keystone cops and what I would give to be a fly on the wall not only in the McCain campaign right now, but in the GOP private cocktail circuit right about now.

Can this man screw up his campaign any worse? Oh wait, VP debate on Thursday. Just saw the Faux News clip of Nancy Pfotenhauer whining that the VP debate questions are going to be stacked against Palin.

Ya think?

As others have pointed out, isn't this a bigger failure of the One who couldn't get 10 Democrats to vote with him and Nancy on the most important vote of the Congressional Session?

No, I'm pretty sure that 133 is a bigger number than 95. It could have been ten votes from either side, and Republicans had a larger number of people those ten votes could have come from.

This was supposed to be a bi-partisan deal, but Republicans decided to play politics with it in the hopes that the Dems would be willing to own the bill. But instead, their play fell through and now they're struggling desperately to spin some way to blame it on us. I don't see how that works.

"It's simply too late for McCain to turn around now and say, 'Guess what? I hated that bill all along!'"

You mean, because it would make him look ridiculous, pathetic and shamelessly dishonest? So what makes you think he won't do it?

Chicounsel,

It's a Republican bill, supported by the administration and John McCain, and it's the Democrat's fault that it didn't pass? You are making no sense.

Obama plays poker, McCain plays craps:

I read the other day that Senator McCain likes to gamble. He likes to roll those dice. And that’s ok. I enjoy a little friendly game of poker myself every now and then.

But one thing I know is this – we can’t afford to gamble on four more years of the same disastrous economic policies we’ve had for the last eight.

I know that when Senator McCain says he wants to bring the same kind of deregulation to our health care system that he helped bring to our banking system – his words – well, that’s a bet we can’t afford. We can’t afford to roll the dice by privatizing Social Security, and wagering the nest egg of millions of Americans on Wall Street. We can’t afford to gamble on more of the same trickle down philosophy that showers tax breaks on big corporations and the wealthiest few. We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work.

With our economy at risk, and our future in the balance, the greatest risk in this election is to repeat the same mistakes of the past. We can’t take a chance on the same losing game.

Obama, 9/29/08
.

What's funny here listening to the people trying to spin this as a Dem failure is that they're making the same base assumption Republicans in Congress were trying to do by rejecting it: Make it a Democratic bill.

But of course, this wasn't a Democratic bill. This was a bi-partisan bill supported by a Republican president and a Republican presidential nominee who is supposedly a tough guy that knows how to get things done. The fact that Republican Congressional leaders, Bush, and McCain couldn't persuade their party to support this bi-partisan bill just shows how destructive rightwing politics truly are. They can pretend all they want that it's the Dems who make bi-partisanship impossible, but the fate of this bill proves otherwise.

This was supposed to be a bi-partisan deal, but Republicans decided to play politics with it in the hopes that the Dems would be willing to own the bill. But instead, their play fell through and now they're struggling desperately to spin some way to blame it on us. I don't see how that works.

Yes. That's the correct context. The mauve kool-aid was to be shared on both sides of the aisle. One side decided to try to transform the purple fluid into political hay. And they might have, were it not for this crunching question:

Anybody know how much a 770 point drop represents in lost wealth?

Darling chicounsel. Whenever I see the obsessive compulsions of people like you and Orwell, it makes me wonder why there are still empty beds in the mental ward. Or at least why there's not a minimal proficiency test to purchase a computer.

Your opinions amount to stagnant pisswater.

BTW: MSNBC just said McCain "took credit for the bill passage", before it failed. Guess he'll take credit for it's failure too? Surely this is all reason enough to cancel the goddamn debate.

As others have pointed out, isn't this a bigger failure of the One who couldn't get 10 Democrats to vote with him and Nancy on the most important vote of the Congressional Session? LOL
Posted by: Chicounsel

Dunce. Pelosi promised 140 Democratic votes. She delivered 141. Ask Minority Leader Boehner why he couldn't deliver the 80+ votes he promised. That is, after you renew your law license by putting a few quarters in the gumball machine.

Chicounsel,

It's a Republican bill, supported by the administration and John McCain, and it's the Democrat's fault that it didn't pass? You are making no sense.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on September 29, 2008 at 4:51 PM |

You're forgetting bill was supported by the One as well as the GOP House Leadership. So yes, when all those forces are in favor of something, it usually gets passed in the House, by a straight-line party line vote if that's what it takes. The fact that a majority of the minority opposed the bill is irrelevant. The fact that it didn't pass is the failure of the majority party, which is the Democrats.

Do any of you people actually believe that if the GOP had the majority, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay would have lost such an important vote? Or are you guys just as clueless as Nancy Pelosi has been exposed as being.

I'm John McKeating, and I approved this bill...before I disapproved it.

Anybody know how much a 770 point drop represents in lost wealth?

I don't think there's a term for it yet.

the Republican hackery on display in this thread is pathetic. A large majority of the Republicans in the House voted against this. Blaming its failure on Democrats is pathetic. Either passing it was good - in which case the GOP congressional majority was wrong - or it was bad, in which case you should be glad the bill failed. It comes across here as follows:

Republicans know the bailout is necessary, but want the opportunity to score cheap political points by voting against it and relying on Democrats to be responsible. Is that correct?

So be it. We'll solve the problems of the country with a better bill - weighted towards the people facing foreclosure - paid for with taxes on the obscenely rich. With a better Congress, and with a whole lot fewer Republicans in it.

Well one thing has become glaringly obvious after reading these message boards:

Republicans and their apologists haven't the foggiest idea what bipartisanship actually means.*

*hint: it means both parties taking share of the credit and share of the blame.

Marc,

I like the way you think.

cheers!

Yes, McCain will look foolish if he says now that he hated this bill all along. So what? Has he or his campaign showed any sense of shame in pulling ridiculous stunts like this up until now? And aren't there enough hacks and idiots out there wiling to swallow this s**t to justify their trotting out more nonsense yet again?

Chicounsel gives the game away: So yes, when all those forces are in favor of something, it usually gets passed in the House, by a straight-line party line vote if that's what it takes. (emphasis added)

Chicounsel, you blockhead, the Republicans were told going into this that the bailout would not be a straight party-line vote. They were told quite clearly that the GOP would have to deliver the necessary margin for it to pass, or there would be no bill, period, full stop.

I don't know if the Republicans tried to double-cross Pelosi and have their cake and eat it too -- venerated Republican customs both -- or simply were too incompetent to hold their caucus together, but the bottom line is, Pelosi delivered her votes, and Boehner didn't. The desperation of Republican dunces like you and "Eric Blair" to spin this one only lends credence to the "incompetence" theory, is all.

Of course he'll say he hated it the whole time.

With a perfectly straight face.

Straight talk from the straight talk express.

The bill sucked. McCain should have been against it from the start but he's too much of an idiot to even know what tie he's wearing.

I still say that Democrats are in control of both houses of congress - on a purely partisan basis they could have passed this only getting their own party to vote for it. -- Eric Blair, @16:25

Yep; so they could have. And then they would have owned a bailout which is deeply unpopular with about half the population, for the Repubs to use as a club.

You guys have *miscalculated*, and badly. You're so used to your caucus voting in lockstep, you thought Dems would do it too. That was the basis on which you figured how many of you could be left off the hook of the bipartisanship. You thought maybe 5-10% of us would "stray" from the party line, so you could afford to have 65% say eff-u and *still* claim victory for having it pass.

You should have listened to Pelosi, when she said she wasn't gonna have Dems bear the entire responsibility for this; she was serious. Had 40% of *you* voted for the bill (and against your party trend) -- the same 40% that Dems vote against (and against their party trend) -- the bill would have passed and in a more bipartisan way.

But, no. You wanted to have your cake, eat it too, *and* claim a tax deduction for donating it to charity. You can now eat crow till you choke on it.

I'm sitting here reading this thread while listening to Darryl Issa from CA babble like a friggin idiot on MSNBC.

Now John, I like calling him that, is bobbin and weavin all over the place explaining he had nothing to do with the bills failure.

All I can say is WTF, people are still going to vote Republican???????

Do any of you people actually believe that if the GOP had the majority, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay would have lost such an important vote?

First off Chicounsel, if the GOP were still in the majority, the big vote of the day would have been something involving a gay marriage ban, partial-birth abortion ban, or flag-burning ban. Paulson's three-page bailout plan would have been secretly approved two months ago and the funds would already have been doled out and spent; with the appropriate "tithing" to Republican campaign coffers, no doubt.

And what exactly happened to Tom "The Hammer"? Oh yeah. Ha ha! Sucks to be you! All your smart guys were crooks! I'll take Pelosi, thanks.

Gah, Chicounsel please stop, stop now.. My sides are hurting from all the laughing. Make it stop.

The pretzel logic and spin is hilarious. Give it another 10 min before another post at least, please.

"Chicounsel, you blockhead, the Republicans were told going into this that the bailout would not be a straight party-line vote. They were told quite clearly that the GOP would have to deliver the necessary margin for it to pass, or there would be no bill, period, full stop."

Posted by: Gregory on September 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Well gee, Gregory, why doesn't Nancy simply tell Boehner how many GOP votes constitute the "necessary margin" that she has to rely on to get something passed?

The reason why they were told this is because the House Dems are a bunch of pussies who needed political coverage from the GOP. Well, like most pussies, they just got royally fucked. Since the 140 Dems who voted for this now have to explain their votes to mobs of angry citizens who are now thinking of voting for the party that saved them from being on the hook for 700 billion dollars and guess what, that party is not the Democrats.

I wonder how many of those 140 Dems are going to be willing to go to mat for their Leadership on the next really big vote.

As for the the 65 GOPers who voted for this abomination, may they all face primary challengers and be defeated in 2010.

Well gee, Gregory, why doesn't Nancy simply tell Boehner how many GOP votes constitute the "necessary margin" that she has to rely on to get something passed?

She did, jackass. And she delivered the votes she promised -- one more, in fact. Whether by bad faith or incompetence, Boner didn't deliver his.

Interesting to know the lengths your desperation to spin this wil take you, Chicounsel. Shame on you.

"Well gee, Gregory, why doesn't Nancy simply tell Boehner how many GOP votes constitute the "necessary margin" that she has to rely on to get something passed?"

Again, Chicounsel, and I'll type real slow so even YOU will understand - the BIPARTISAN bill went to the floor (and it wouldn't have gone to the floor unless it was expected to pass based on this understanding) because Pelosi counted 140 votes that she had and Boehnor promised 85 (McCain said he was seeking 100).

Pelosi delivered 141 votes as promised.

Boehner delivered 65.

Any questions?

Chicounsel wrote: As for the the 65 GOPers who voted for this abomination, may they all face primary challengers and be defeated in 2010.

You do know, don't you, that McCain was taking credit just this morning for lining up enough GOP votes to pass the bill?

Jackass.

Shorter Chicounsel: Damn it, why didn't the Democrats fall for our tricks this time? They've always fallen for them before!

You can spin spin spin all you like, but most of the American people blame Republicans for the mess we're in. Complaining that the problem is that Nancy Pelosi was mmmmeeeaaaaannnnn to you isn't going to win them over.

If the DOW drops another 7% tomorrow I'm pretty certain the republicans will fall all over themselves rushing to vote for this bill.

Chicounsel wrote: As for the the 65 GOPers who voted for this abomination, may they all face primary challengers and be defeated in 2010.

Why wait two years? They can be defeated by democrats in five weeks.

United States Constitution:

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Yo, listen up, Democrats: if you do ANYTHING other than agree to step aside, leaving a clear path to the presidency, and campaign for The Mavrick - you're "putting politics ahead of country".

Just so we're clear on that.

Just wondering if this loss will ripple around the world again and again. Might be time to shut down the markets until a bill is passed...

Lindsey Graham is such a transparent bootlicker, it really does send a shiver of disgust through you. I wonder if he has a John McCain centerfold over his bed.

Three days ago Steve Benen posted Slate's top 10 guesses on what John McCain's next Hail Mary campaign pass would be and invited readers to submit their guesses, too. I thought somebody named Chris had the most genius guess -- "Offer NATO membership to South Vietnam" (still cracks me up) -- and somebody named Lampwick had the best 10 guesses overall. However, I am very proud to report that it was one of MY guesses that John McCain actually used: "10. Suspends his campaign and goes back to Washington D.C. to remind the holy rollers on Wall Street of the old saying, 'A Gramm of lust is worth a pound of woe,' and tell them to stop whining." As my prize, I would merely ask that the Democrats steal my second guess ("40 square yards and fuck the mule for every minimum wage worker in America") before McCain uses it to steal the White House.

To paraphrase Ross Perot:
The great sucking sound we heard today is the sound of the McShameles/Putin ticket going down the toilet.

"He's like a cavalry commander who said 'Charge!' and the Republicans went into retreat," Matthews said."

So, McCain is Captain Wilton Parmenter and Palin is Corporal Agarn, ad of course, the Dems are the Hekawis.

For you youngins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Troop

"He's like a cavalry commander who said 'Charge!' and the Republicans went into retreat," Matthews said."

So, McCain is Captain Wilton Parmenter and Palin is Corporal Agarn, ad of course, the Dems are the Hekawis.

For you youngins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Troop

The Republicans could well get burned on this. Word is lines of credit are being cut off and many companies will not be able make payroll this week. The public can be very fickle. I do have trouble understanding why Joe Six-pack on Main Street is so pissed off about having to cover for Wall Street. After all, the president Joe voted for has been letting Washington and Wall Street pick Joe’s pocket for years.

With our economy falling behind, the war on terror, pork barreling legislation, corruption, and criminal activity on the rise, payday loans should be the last thing on politicians’ minds. Yet, for some reason, high profile politicians like Obama are focusing on this issue. Some states have banned them, such as Georgia and North Carolina, and more are in the process. Instead of fixing the important issues, they are trying to take out the payday loan industry for personal and political gain. Payday loans are simply for short-term financial assistance for the all-American family to cover some cost that wasn’t budgeted or an emergency that they couldn’t pay for at that moment. They provide help to citizens during these financially troubling times with loans that the government otherwise couldn’t provide themselves. Stop the potential loss of thousands of jobs and the loss of a viable financial option by voicing your opinion to the legislature, before a nationwide ban becomes in effect.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Hi friends!!!
Thanks the owner of a site for a good site.
To ask I want at you friends where on the Internet to look the best sexual girls?
Poor-quality bad adult sites have bothered me.
Now I prefer sites with a world name, such as:
http://penthouse.com/go/g1004698

http://www.fotos-de-chicas.xhostar.com
fotos girls penthouse
What do you think of it friends?
What sites are visited by you?