Friday, September 26, 2008

Is McCain Gaining or Losing?

You know, the way it was presented on the front page of the Plain Dealer this morning in Cleveland wasn't good for John McCain. Big picture of Rep. Barney Frank and the gang with the word "DEAL", then, down at the fold, big picture of the White House meeting with Senator John McCain and company, and the words "NO DEAL".

I don't think that anyone remains under the illusion that John McCain went to Washington to seek an apolitical resolution to the financial crisis. I don't think anyone remains under the illusion that John McCain has 'suspended' his campaign. Not with the three major interviews last night. Not with the commercials that were still airing in prime time here in Northeast Ohio.

We had an agreement. Then John McCain landed, had Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) trot out some plan that, from what little we know of it, bore absolutely no resemblance to anything that has been seriously discussed for the last week. Oh yes, I know what you are going to say: "Wait! That wasn't John McCain! That was Republican leader John Boehner who made Cantor come up with the proposal!" Yeah, right, McCain had nothing to do with it. And John McCain still has a bridge to nowhere that he wants to sell you.

On it's face, the plan Cantor and the House conservatives are proposing makes some sense. It is basically a guarantee of the securities instead of outright purchase. There are a couple of problems though.

As Paul Bedard points out:


Continue reading >>

House leaders said that Treasury looked at the insurance idea and initially liked it but then went for the easier fix: Just buy bad loans. House Republicans, however, have balked at that plan, hence Boehner's call to Cantor to drum up a new idea. Insiders say that the insurance plan isn't exactly an alternative to the Bush-Paulson plan because Paulson's blueprint is written so broadly that the insurance proposals could be folded into the larger plan, leaving it up to Treasury to figure out which program to apply to each bad loan.


So, you see, Treasury looked at this, decided it was a little too narrow for what they might need and opted for the full monty instead. Now, I would like to point out that no one really knows what is needed here. I am not in favor of giving the entire farm to Hank Paulson either but exactly where is our choice? That is why the Democrats insisted on the oversight and the restrictions. Paulson does not have a track record of asking for too much lately. Too little? Maybe. Too much? No. So why are we going to cut him completely off? He, unlike most of the House members, has some idea of what needs to happen here.

Another problem. The BIG reason for doing this quickly is to free up credit markets that, at the moment, rival Arctic glaciers. The insurance plan would inject no liquidity. It might keep banks from failing. But only for now. Without freeing up the credit markets, things will undoubtedly continue to get worse and your going to find Secretary of the Treasury Chris Dodd/Phil Gramm knocking on Congress' door again in the next six months.

No matter what. I don't think that this is playing well for McCain. I realize that most American's don't like the bailout plan. But, realistically, all he did by going to Washington was hold it up. Something very similar to what was agreed to yesterday will be what gets approved in the end. If Nancy Pelosi can't get Boehner and McCain to provide the Republican votes, they will just have to pass it by Sunday anyway and frame it as: "Well, they got us in this mess, I guess we have to get us out."

So it turns out that John McCain injected presidential politics into the mix, thus making it a little more complicated to get any sort of deal done. John McCain is part of the problem with blocking a solution, regardless of it's popularity. John McCain is still trying to postpone the debate so he can continue to get in the way in Washington.

I don't know. I don't see leadership here. I see someone desperately trying to get into the spotlight and hoping he isn't getting the spotlight at a bad time.


Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content
blog comments powered by Disqus