Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A chastened John McCain tried to put his damaged bid for the White House back on track yesterday while ducking blame for the economic mayhem that has intensified an already bitter presidential race.

Falling in the polls, the Republican senator called for renewed efforts to patch together an economic rescue package, a week after stirring up fellow conservatives in Congress who ultimately caused the deal to collapse. Read more.

Question: Will the Republicans suffer the fallout from the problematic Presidential bailout plan?


( Comment )
lurkitty wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 12:12 pm (UTC)
I think Sen. McCain, who was supposed to ride in on his white charger and deliver the Republican vote, has egg on his face.
docwoodstock wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 11:35 pm (UTC)
At least he arrived.... and didn't "phone a friend"...

renegade_blue wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 12:44 pm (UTC)
Undoubtedly. If Obama can pin McCain down as a Republican, and the Republicans are the one who brought on the crisis, then they will suffer. I've read that Americans in general regard Wall Street as a Republican institution - it is definitely playing into Obama's hands.

Even if they pass something in Congress there will still be economic failure in other American banking and financial institutions, there will continue to be home foreclosures.
del_burton wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 12:55 pm (UTC)
With the majority of no votes belonging to the Republicans it's hard to see how the Republicans wouldn't suffer.

If Bush is currently a lame duck President, this makes McCain a lame duck candidate.
lavenderfrost wrote:
Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:02 am (UTC)
Bush isn't just a lame duck President - he's a dead duck. The death bell tolled back in the start of election season before the primaries when his own party began distancing themselves from him. These days, he's just hanging in there until he's allowed to crawl home with his tail between his legs.
tyskkvinna wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 01:35 pm (UTC)
It looks especially bad since Bush was pushing so hard for it, with McCain right there beside him pushing for it.

McCain has admitted in the past that economy is not his strength. It's showing. It's definitely hurting him and his party.
jeffxandra wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 02:59 pm (UTC)
In general, the Republicans' fate is more tied to the economy's behavior in this final 6 weeks than are the Democrats. In this election, the answer is yes.

That said, the bill is wildly unpopular and, in my assessment, doesn't solve the underlying problems facing the economy.

So those who vote to pass this bill, (if it does pass and the economy still falters) regardless of party affiliation, will suffer the fallout over the course of the next few elections.
isara wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)
ayep. That's already being reflected in the polls.

The bigger question, though, is how this affects Republican ideology. Deregulation of the energy companies caused the California energy crisis in 2002, and deregulation of the markets finally caused this current mess.

It appears to me that this is highlighting very nicely the problems of the "free" market and Reaganomics. Sure, looking at it from an ideological perspective is all well and good, but they don't take into account the reality that, given no rules, players are going to attempt anything they can in order to get ahead, regardless of whether or it is ethical or good for society.
jedisisko wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
I have been undecided on this bailout plan. The President has warned us this might happen back in his first term. I do not want tax payer dollars to be used to bail out banks..but the morgage crisis was a government made problem started back in the early 90's. My veiw is that if we have to use tax payer dollars that the government people involved in the mandate morgages to lower income families should pay.

The Republicans will suffer if the media ignores all the facts.
takemetothesea wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC)
The money isn't just going to the banks....
It's also going to those unfortunate people who cry if they don't get their $7 million bonuses every year. Because without that they'd be living on the streets.
I think this bailout was without the bonuses, and the Freddie Mac one was.
tsmitty31 wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
Wrong question. Clearly you don't know the difference between a tactic and a strategy ;-)

The bailout plan is a tactic being put in place to support a failed strategy. That strategy is tied to our current president. More than anything, McCain's association with Bush and his participation in D.C. for 20+ years is what's hurting him most.
docwoodstock wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 11:36 pm (UTC)
Odd... it started with a Clinton and was continued and built on by a Democratic Congress
eyenot wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 06:26 pm (UTC)
Americans Believe What They're Told, Period!
Considering that both Obama and McCain have invested a great deal of words and exposure-time to lending creedence to this bill, if it fails then they will both look bad and so will their parties for having supported them. A more important fact is that if the bill passes, then most Americans will have been completely duped by "capitol hill" and "wall street" once again.

Since most Americans are holding this opinion that the bill is a step towards "something being done", why not ask Americans: "about *what*?" Sure, there is a lot of media attention being given to predatory and subprime lending, low rate teasers, ARMs, failure to make payments, mark to market value (oh, actually that's not being brought up but it's at the crux of the matter), securities fraud, overseas investment in American properties, and so on. And sure, there is a lot of money being wasted, but most Americans can't even get out a straight story about how it really comes home to affect them. They have their worries (which are being preyed upon) and they have their doubts and fears (which are being fed by confidence artists) but they really couldn't tell you a straight story, point-a to point-b, about how they are directly affected by a sudden dip in trade volume (most Americans are impressed by any repeated number, especially zero, and have no idea how large sums of money can be used to influence the stock market) or how they are directly affected by an increasingly risky real estate market (most Americans aren't turning over properties for profit and just want to live someplace nice and convenient, really) or how they will be affected by having to pay taxes for the next 30 years directly into the pockets of people who have earned that money by no other action than to make risky investments and lose on them. The average American, furthermore, has no idea what an investment is, how to assess risk in anything from their diet to their work or play, or why the consequences of risk-taking speak for themselves and need no cushioning. Americans, being as lowbrow and as vapid as the average American is, have no choice but to believe what they are being told by media companies (partially owned by or owing vested interests to the same large financial companies that are failing to profit legitimately) and by politicians who have no other interest than to serve their current and future business partners. And what they're being told is that confidence is very important. This is a sort of "reverse-psychology" in strategy: tell the person you're lying to that you're lying but in a way they won't understand, and hopefully they'll buy your story. If Americans don't recall (and they don't, and they aren't reading this any way but...) "confidence" is also the original root for the word "con" when used in short for "confidence play", or "confidence art" -- "con art", also used referentially to "con artists". Our dollar needn't be backed by "confidence", hell it could have been backed by American productivity and ingenuity had Americans been thinking or doing anything these last twenty years besides importing cheap goods, doing mindless labor, and learning how to make shoddy service sector employees. Instead it's backed by, what? "Confidence".

As far as who the lowbrow, duped, American public sentiment will hold "responsible" for the bill not passing, that's simple: whoever they were last *told* was responsible by those who really *are*! Isn't that obvious?
spittingkitty wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC)
It's hard to tell because many Americans still don't understand how important this legislation is. This isn't a question of bailing out banks: it's a question of saving our entire economy. Instead of presenting it as such, there has been a lot of politicking about "bail outs" and whose fault the problem is.

If a bill doesn't go through and the economy collapses because of it, yes, the Republicans will be blamed. If a bill goes through, I don't think anyone will think twice about the original bill being defeated.
the_paulr wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 11:20 pm (UTC)
In general, when there are economic problems close enough to a Presidential election to be a campaign issue, we Americans tend to vote for the party that isn't in power in order to change direction.

Think about Ronald Reagan beating Jimmy Carter in 1980 with the question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Or Bill Clinton beating George Bush in 1992 with, "It's the economy, stupid."

Obviously it's not the only reason, but Americans - again, in general - tend to "throw the bums out" when their incomes are affected. So yes, I think the Republican Party is going to seriously suffer in this election from both the current crisis and the public's problems with the bailout plan.
docwoodstock wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 11:34 pm (UTC)
"while ducking blame for the economic mayhem"

What a biased approach to the question...
What blame does McCain deserve? He warned of this in the past... This mess is the result of a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

will all approaches to questions be this biased?
mightyafrodite wrote:
Oct. 2nd, 2008 06:32 am (UTC)
According to the US Senate, since the Reagan administration, the Republican party held the majority 1981-87, 1995-2001, and Nov. 2002-2007; the House saw a Republican majority uninterrupted from 1995 until 2007. Your argument blaming a "Democratic President and a Democratic Congress" is highly flawed. This does not mean that the Democrats do not share any of the blame for the mess, but you can't make this a partisan issue with any credibility.

Edited at 2008-10-02 06:33 am (UTC)
mightyafrodite wrote:
Oct. 2nd, 2008 06:41 am (UTC)
I must say, though I'm no fan of McCain, that the photo used in the article has to be one of the most unflattering and suggests a certain level of bias against the candidate. The picture makes the case for a man that is clueless about the issues presented in the article. I certainly think he's out of touch with the lives of non-affluent Americans, if he even ever was to begin with, but it's misleading to make him look like a complete dolt.
( Comment )