This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
After the cameras left the Cabinet room, Bush thanked everybody for their spirit of cooperation and said he knew it was not an easy vote. He knew elements still needed to be worked out and said he wanted to go around the table to hear people's views.
Pelosi said Obama would speak for the Democrats. Though later he would pepper Paulson with questions, according to a Republican in the room, his initial point was brief: "We've got to get something done."
Bush turned to McCain, who joked, "The longer I am around here, the more I respect seniority." McCain then turned to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to speak first.
Boehner was blunt. The plan Paulson laid out would not win the support of the vast majority of House Republicans. It had been improved on the edges, with an oversight board and caps on the compensation of participating executives. But it had to be changed at the core. He did not mention the insurance alternative, but Democrats did. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Boehner hard, asking him if he really intended to scrap the deal and start again.
No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: "What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?" he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.
A man putting country first would have led. He would have proposed a compromise. He would have offered to stay in that room and help hammer out a deal that could win more votes. McCain did none of that. He couldn't even answer Senator Obama's simple question about the plan House Republicans were proposing (a plan Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke had already considered and rejected because it wouldn't work).
Want to know why McCain didn't look at Obama during the debate Friday? There's your answer: Obama proved in that White House meeting, in front of the most powerful people in the country, that he could lead, and that McCain could hardly follow.
Obama is turning out to be The Big Let-Down of ’08.
ReplyDeleteObama kept insinuating that He is The Second Coming but every time we’ve held our breaths waiting for him to change water into wine, we’ve been disappointed. Obama kept telling us to ‘tune in next week!’ and he never delivers, the miracle never comes. There is nothing there.
Obama’s has a problem with clarity. I have systematically studied both his autobiographies and I still don’t know what kind of man I’m dealing with. When he was first showcased on TV, my interest was aroused. I used to find Obama enigmatic, but now he just comes off as vacuous, empty.
Obama’s two books address the questions of “Journey of Discovery to Where?” and “Who Am I?” We can all relate to such pondering. But Obama does not give us an answer. If he has found the answer since publishing those two books two years ago then he hasn’t told us yet.
McCain has been on a longer and harder personal journey. There can be nothing more extreme than surviving daily torture for five years. Can you imagine that? To be beaten day-in and day-out, starved, your hands and legs bound by chains? McCain already knows what he can take, and humbly knows where he breaks. Every man and woman has a breaking point. It is very human. McCain already knows his, even though he held out as long as he could.
What trials or stories of human devastation has Obama endured? I can’t imagine being Black in America is an easy thing. But Obama was raised in Polynesia by white grandparents and then went on to Harvard, community service, the Senate, and now the presidency. Obama’s journey seems to have been very easy. His skin color opened all the right doors for him instead of slamming them shut. Obama didn’t march against segregation. Obama didn’t fight for affirmative action. He planted no tree. He carried no water for that tree. Obama has just come along and picked the fruits. That is easy street. This is not a great American story. This is not a triumph of will over adversity. This is a story of baby-boomer entitlement. This is the story of the yuppy next door. These stories are a dime a dozen on aisle 3 at Whole Foods.
You may agree or disagree with McCain but at least you know where he stands. He has a long track record to judge him by. McCain has a long list of hits and misses. He has made mistakes (like us all) but that is because he had been trying to do things and change things all his life. Obama markets himself as the candidate with an unblemished record, but that is only because he doesn’t have a record. We have nothing to judge Obama by. All he gives us is his word and we are supposed to put all our trust in his future promises. But these promises keep changing: Obama has produced two contradictory promises on Iraq, two contradictory promises on NAFTA, and two contradictory promises on taxes. Are we supposed to judge him by the original promise he made, or by his most recent one? The candidate who flows with the changing winds of polls is the lightweight. That much we know.
I feel very embarrassed for buying into the Obama phenomena. Maybe now that the weather is changing I see things in a new light. I feel sheepish for falling for the marketing pitch. Where do I go to get a refund?
I think that many voters like me are looking for clarity in our next president. I feel I know what kind of man McCain is, and that I can trust him. McCain gets my vote.
Well said. And I thought that McCain did a great job on the debate and that Obama was his usual vague self. For one thing, even with all this economic crisis etc, he said he would still want his give away programs etc, probably including the huge give-away to the UN thru the Global Poverty Act, which BTW no one in the media covers at all. I am truly afraid for the future of this country if the socialist leaning Obama wins and there is also a Dem majority in Congress and all his programs get passed.
ReplyDeleteIf he is going to raise my taxes, I can and will quit working. Why should I work to support those who don't? Why should I pay my taxes which in turn will be sent to those who pay no taxes? Why doesn't anyone really challenge Obama on his stupid figure that 95% of the people will get a tax cut and what exactly he means by that? He's including those who already pay no INCOME taxes but do pay payroll taxes (which is their contribution to SS), and what he includes in his "tax cut" is returning to them the money they pay in payroll taxes. So they aren't even supposed to contribute to their own SS? Give me a break.
It's socialist income redistribution, and it has been proven time and again to not work.
Obama has not been truly vetted, has never had to answer for his past associations or made to really explain what he will do for this country. And I'm afraid the majority are buying into his oratorical abilities and looking no further than that. Of course, if Obama wins the rest of the world will be happy because he will be a much weaker leader than McCain.
But do we want a weak leader that will make the rest of the world happy? Or do we need a strong leader that will put our country's welfare and safety first? The answer is obvious. The reality of this election and the media coverage etc, however, is playing into Obama's hands. Sad.
In my opinion, both candidates seemed weak in the debate on Friday. Neither of them behaved much like alpha males or leaders, as far as I could see.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:01: "It's socialist income redistribution, and it has been proven time and again to not work"—the $700 billion bailout proposed by our Republican President is the single biggest one-time socialist income redistribution ever proposed... and it redistributes that income up the scale to bankers and brokers. Are you saying that won't work, either?
ReplyDeleteCrying "socialism!" as a way to distinguish Dems from the GOP is no longer a valid argument. That old bull has been consigned to the dustbin of history... just like the old bull on the GOP ticket.
I agree that the $700 billion bailout is a disaster. That money should be nothing but a loan, and all money should be repaid with interest before any money goes to stockholders of said companies. And the CEO's who made the millions and sunk the companies should have to give it all back and go to jail.
ReplyDeleteI still do not agree with the whole income redistribution thing anyway. It only rewards failure or laziness or whatever and penalizes thrift and hard work. What happens when all the payors decide they won't do it anymore and instead become payees themselves? Answer - system breaks down, and eventually capitalism returns. We know this. Why go down that road at all?
It happened in the first colonies in the US. It happened in Russia. It is happening in other countries as well. Our system needs fixing but income redistribution is NOT the answer.