Reid and Dodd blame McCain; Schumer tells McCain to “Get out of town;” McCain leaves for debate
Scroll down for updates…11:33am Eastern McCain resumes campaign activities, the debate is on…:
Puke.
Unscrupulous borrower Chris Dodd and Dingy Harry Reid are holding a blame-McCain press conference. After stomping his feet up and down and baiting McCain to take a position on the bailout, Reid is now lambasting McCain for going to Washington and getting involved. “We don’t need presidential politics in this,” he whines. Then why did he publicly demand McCain go on record for or against the bailout?!
(Bill Sammon on FNC on Reid’s laughable claim that a “deal” was on the table and ready to go before McCain arrived and messed it up: “Patently false.”)
Thank God for the House Republicans.
Call yours up and thank them today and urge them to keep looking out for us.
Phone: 202-224-3121.
***
More: Chuck Schumer tells McCain to “Get out of town.” A friend on the Hill sends the transcript of Schumer’s remarks (see end of the transcript) and asks: “But what about the Congressmen that created this mess? Shouldn’t they leave town too?”
Exactly.
{09:38:26 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED.
[ram]{09:38:32 NSP} (MR. SCHUMER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. SCHUMER: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND, OF COURSE, WE LIVE IN VERY PERILOUS TIMES, OUR ECONOMY, PARTICULARLY OUR DEBT MARKETS AND OUR CREDIT MARKETS ARE IN VERY SERIOUS SHAPE. TO PARAPHRASE CHAIRMAN BERNANKE, THE ARTERIES OF THE PATIENT, OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM, IS CLOGGED AND THE PATIENT WILL GET A HEART ATTACK. WE DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL BE TOMORROW OR SIX MONTH FROM NOW OR A YEAR FROM NOW. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE DON’T UNCLOG THE ARTERIES, A HEART ATTACK WILL OCCUR. SO WE MUST ACT. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME, PARTICULARLY SOME VERY IDEOLOGICAL PEOPLE ON THE HARD RIGHT WHO SAY DO NOTHING AND LET EVERYONE LEARN THEIR LESSON. WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY AT THE HIGH END OF THE SPECTRUM WHO SHOULD LEARN THEIR LESSON. BUT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WILL BE HURT IF WE DO NOTHING. THE AUTOWORKER WHO WILL BE LAID OFF BECAUSE WE SELL FEWER CARS. THE SMALL BUSINESSWOMAN WHO HAS STRUGGLED TO BUILD UP HER BUSINESS FOR 15, 20 YEARS AND GET — ANT CAN’T GET A LOAN. A WAITRESS AT A RESTAURANT THAT HAS — OF A RESTAURANT THAT HAS TO SHUT DOWN AND CAN’T GET WORK. THAT IS THE DIFFICULTY OF OUR WORLD. IT IS NOT FAIR. IT IS NOT RIGHT. BUT IT IS HOW IT IS. SO WE MUST COME TOGETHER AND WORK IN A BIPARTISAN WAY TO UNCLOG THOSE ARTERIES. AND WE MUST DO IT SOON. WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE HERE, MR. PRESIDENT, UNTIL WE HAVE A PLAN. WHETHER IT TAKES A DAY, SEVERAL DAYS, OR A WEEK OR EVEN MORE. WE CANNOT ABANDON OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND WE SHOULD WORK AND I BELIEVE WE WILL STAY HERE AND WORK UNTIL A PLAN IS AGREED UPON AND WE SEE SOME LIGHT AT THE END OF THIS RAPIDLY DARKENING TUNNEL. THAT IS THE FIRST POINT I WISH TO MAKE. SECOND, WE NEED TO PASS A GOOD PLAN. THE PRESIDENT’S INITIAL OFFERING WAS RECEIVED WITH, LET’S SAY, LACK OF POPULARITY TO PUT IT KINDLY BY BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HERE IN THIS CHAMBER AND PEOPLE OUT IN AMERICA. IT’S BECAUSE IT WAS A A $700 BILLION BLANK CHECK. THERE WAS NO HELP FOR TAXPAYERS’ PROTECTION, SO THEY GOT PAID BACK FIRST. THERE WAS NO HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS.
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE TELLS US THAT HOUSE SOMETHING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. AND IF WE DON’T FIND A FLOOR TO THE HOUSING MARKETS, WE MAY NEED BAILOUT AFTER BAILOUT, UNFORTUNATELY. AND THIS BILL HAD NO PROTECTION FOR HOMEOWNERS. I KNOW SECRETARY PAULSON SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWNS A LARGE SHARE OF THE BONDS, THAT THEY WILL HAVE MORE ABILITY TO RENEGOTIATE MORTGAGES AND AVOID FORECLOSURES. BUT, FRANKLY, IS THAT HOPE OVER REALITY. BECAUSE THE BONDS ARE NOW BROKEN UP IN 40TRAUNCHES AND IF THE GOVERNMENT TENS, 15, 25, OR EVEN 30, IF ONE TRAUNCH HOLDER OBJECTS TO REFINANCING, IT WON’T HAPPEN. WE NEED HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE LEGISLATION. AND
WE NEED TOUGH OVERSIGHT. THIS IS A TOUGH DEMOCRACY. WE ARE KNOWN FOR OUR CHECKS AND BALANCESES. IT HAS SERVED AMERICA WELL FOR OVER 200 YEARS. AND IN AN UNPRECEDENTED TAKING OF POWER TO GIVE SO MUCH POWER TO THE TREASURY SECRETARY WITH NO ONE LOOKING OVER HIS SHOULDER WOULD BE, FRANKLY, NOT THE AMERICAN WAY. AND SO WE NEED TOUGH AND STRONG OVERSIGHT. NOW, THE THIRD POINT I WISH TO — SO POINT ONE, WE WILL WORK UNTIL WE GET THIS DONE. EVEN IF IT MEANS STAYING PAST RECESS.…AND SO WE NEED THE PRESIDENT TO GET THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE IN ORDER. EVEN IF WE WERE TO WANT TO PASS A BILL WITH JUST DEMOCRATIC VOTES, WE COULD NOT. IT’S OBVIOUS. LOOK AT THE MATH. AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. WE BEGAN IT YESTERDAY UNDER CHAIRMAN DODD AND CHAIRMAN FRANKS’ LEADERSHIP WHEN WE MET IN THIS CHAMBER — IN THIS BUILDING, AND REALLY CRAFTED OUT A REALLY GOOD COMPROMISE THAT WAS A BASIS TO TAKE TO SECRETARY PAULSON. IT DID FAR MORE FOR TAXPAYERS, FOR HOMEOWNERS, FOR OVERSIGHT THAN THE EXISTING BILL. UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, WE NEEDED A FOUR-LEGGED STOOL AND ONE LEG JUST VANISHED, THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS, IN A WAY THAT NONE OF US STILL UNDERSTAND. IN ADDITION SENATOR McCAIN’S DESIRE, EVEN THOUGH HE HADN’T BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS LEGISLATION AT ALL, TO FLY IN, PUT ANOTHER FLY IN THE OINTMENT AN CREATED MORE TROUBLE. SENATOR — AND CREATED MORE TROUBLE. SENATOR McCAIN, I HAVEN’T HEARD HIM OFFER ONE CONSTRUCTIVE REMARK. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HE SUPPORTS. DOES HE SUPPORT THE HOW’S PLAN?
DOES HE SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN. BY ALL REPORTS HE HARDLY SPOKE AT THE MEETING, WHICH WAS HIS OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING. HE SPOKE AT THE END AND DIDN’T SAY WHAT HIS VIEWS WHEREAS TO WHETHER HE SUPPORTED EACH PLAN. AND SO WE REALLY NEED TWO
MR. PRESIDENT, ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. AND WE NEED PRESIDENT BUSH TO TAKE LEADERSHIP. WE NEED PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, TO GET THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS TO SUPPORT HIS PLAN OR MODIFY IT IN SOME WAY TO BRING THEM ON BOARD, YET KEEP THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MEMBERS, THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ON BOARD. AND,[ram]{09:45:31} (MR. SCHUMER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
SECOND, WE NEED THE PRESIDENT TO RESPECTFULLY TELL SENATOR McCAIN TO GET OUT OF TOWN. HE’S NOT HELPING. HE IS HARMING. WHEN YOU INJECT PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS INTO SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS FRAUGHT WITH DIFFICULTY. BEFORE McCAIN MADE HIS ANNOUNCEMENT, WE WERE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS. NOW AFTER HIS ANNOUNCEMENT, WE ARE BEHIND THE 8 BALL. WE HAVE TO PUT THINGS BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. SO THIS IS A PLEA TO PRESIDENT BUSH, FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA, PLEASE GET YOUR PARTY IN LINE. GET THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO BE MORE CONSTRUCTIVE, GET SENATOR McCAIN TO LEAVE TOWN AND NOT THROW FIRE ON THESE FLAMES. AND MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE. IN FACT, NOT MAYBE. WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GET SOMETHING DONE. SO, AGAIN, TO REITERATE MY THREE POINTS:ONE, FIRST, WE WILL WORK UNTIL WE HAVE A PRODUCT. THE PERILOUS STATE OF OUR FINANCIAL MARKETS AND OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY, THE DANGER TO AVERAGE AMERICANS NOW UNFORESEEN BUT REAL AND LURKING BEHIND THE SHADOWS SAYS WE CAN DO NOTHING ELSE. TWO, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK FOR A BETTER PLAN THAN THE ONE THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED, WITH PROTECTION FOR TAXPAYERS, HOMEOWNERS, AND REAL OVERSIGHT. AND, THREE, THE PRESIDENT MUST GET HIS REPUBLICAN HOUSE IN ORDER BY GETTING THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS IN LINE AND ASKING SENATOR McCAIN RESPECTFULLY TO LEAVE TOWN, BECAUSE WITHOUT REPUBLICAN COOPERATION WE CANNOT PASS THIS BILL. I YIELD THE FLOOR.
***
Update 11:33am Eastern: McCain resumes campaign activities, will attend debate tonight in Oxford, Miss.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Democrat Thugs | pamibe
- Webloggin » Tonight’s Debate is On - McCain Issues Statement on Progress
- Nicholas Fitzgerald » Harry and the Intrasigence of Stupidity
- WeatherOutpost12
- Battle Over The “Bailout” - Mark Levin vs Bill O’Reilly | BigMouthFrog
- America Needs Me
- What Really Happened At Yesterday’s White House Leadership Meeting « Pocket Change - Now Lint Free!
- Video: How We Got Here - The Mortgage Crisis « Truth and Reason
- $700 Billion Bailout: See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. (UPDATED) « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN
- Hard Starboard
- Heading Right! » The Paulson Sting
- The Weekly Claw 9-30-08 » VAJoe.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Subprime crisis
Right Wing Nut House
» IS ALL THE ECONOMIC DOOM AND GLOOM JUSTIFIED?
Right Wing Nut House
» NOT EVEN A BONE FOR THE NETNUTSGateway Pundit
» Eric Holder Defended the FALN Terrorist Pardons (Video)NewsBusters.org
» 'Regret' Not Enough: Brokaw Calls Lieberman On Lack Of 'Apology'Redstate
» Thus Begins The TerrorRedstate
» The Brutal TruthPower Line
» Obama to Delay Tax Increase?Stop The ACLU
» Left Already Disappointed With Choosing ObamaBelmont Club
» Bad manners
Digdhot, do you ever actually answer a question? Answer a question with a question? I spent 30 years as an air traffic controler. Believe me, that was MUCH easier than talking to liberals like you. Come on.
Wow — you’re really all-knowing / all-seeing, aren’t you? Maybe something has been accomplished, but the details haven’t been released yet. (Personally, I hope there never *is* a bill, but that’s just me…)
Anyway, I’m glad he is going to the debate. He’ll have a much better opportunity to present his side of things than he would if he stayed behind closed doors in DC. McCain has done plenty of things over the years that I have huge issues with, but I think he played this one correctly. As others have said, we’ll see tonight, won’t we?
Oh, and get off the “tried to get out of the debate” crap. It’s not flying here, because we all know who really doesn’t want to debate.
Ok. You can start be explaining why you think that Obama is qualified to be President. You know, given how much noise we hear from the left about how Palin is not even qualified to be VP.
That depends on the quality of the answer. Or non-answer.
McCain chose to make it a sideshow by declaring he wouldn’t go to the debate. He didn’t have to do that. Why couldn’t he have always aimed to do both? Why all the theatrics about suspending his campaign and bragging about his leadership? You can work on the financial crisis all week, John McCain, you can’t spare 90 minutes for a Presidential debate? It’s opportunism.
I don’t know what you’re ragging on Obama for. He was involved to the same degree that McCain was, except he didn’t make it into a political stunt.
The Democrats have the votes to pass the Paulson plan right now if they wanted to.
So what made them stop? If Obama had pressed the Democrats to go ahead and pass the bill, they would have done it. He’s the party leader. So, why didn’t he?
That’s exactly what Obama did by blocking the bill. Screw the markets, the important thing was to make McCain look bad.
This is all silly. The debate will go on as planned. Harry Reid will continue to not have a clue. Nancy Pelosi will continue to save the planet. Obama will continue to be adored. McCain will continue to smile like a cheshire cat, and I think smoke ‘em all in the end. The world will keep on turning.
He’s shown excellent judgment in most cases and I can follow his reasoning on the positions that he takes, and I usually agree with him. He screwed up with his FISA vote earlier this summer and he’s made lots of promises, like health care, that I don’t think necessarily should be a priority, but he’s right about most things.
He’s smart, he’s reasonable, he can explain things well. I trust him to make the right decisions on important issues better than I do McCain.
Digshot,
I have read transcripts of both Sarah Palin’s interviews and Barack Obama’s. At least Sarah can talk in complete sentences and the sentences make sense. Try reading one of Obama’s statements and determining what the hell he just said. If you can find a transcript that eliminates all the uhs, ums, ers, and so on, it helps, but not all that much.
Besides, who cares about these “debates” they are not real debates and the candidates both use the time to give practiced speeches. I’d like to see a townhall style debate with actual follow-ups allowed.
You aren’t going to change anyone’s minds here, and we are not going to change yours - you have already made up your mind and I will not try to confuse you with facts.
The problem with trolls is you have no shame. You know it takes a bit more than 90 minutes to fly from DC, debate, and then fly back.
Ignoring that reality makes you look like an idiot, but you just don’t care. You’re purpose is not reasoned dialogue. Your purpose is to be an annoying di*sh*t.
That’s a terrible answer based on paranoid suspicion informed by your disdain for Obama.
What I expected, honestly.
:rhetorical:
Why does John McCain make me feel like Charlie Brown and he is Lucy holding a football
Digshot,
I will vote for McCain/Palin. My vote at first was against Obama, but the addition of Palin has swayed me to vote for their ticket. I could never vote for Obama and his socialist ideology. Socialism is an ideology for the economically illiterate.
Give me some examples. Was his judgment good when he wanted to start a war with Afghanistan?
Really? An Obama supporter who usually agrees with Obama? How unusual.
But my question was “explain why you think he is qualified”. You know, in light of his less then one term in the Senate and no other relevant experience.
Fine, whatever. Change what I said. McCain can work on the crisis all week, and he can spend 6-8 hours traveling to, from, and participating in a Presidential debate. He can even work on the crisis while he’s on the plane, if he wants.
Why wouldn’t that have worked?
What part of the answer is terrible?
The Democrats have the votes to pass te Paulson bill. True or false?
When you answer “true”, ask yourself why they did not pass it. Then give me your answer.
And what I expected of you was that you would refuse to answer my question. And I was right.
How come you can’t answer?
He knows the answer, and he doesn’t like it.
Corrected.
Well, was it?
Digshot,
John McCain lost 5 Navy aircraft in his career as a pilot. Crashes, flameouts, collisions, missile impact (while on the deck of the USS Forrestal). He always returned to fly another aircraft (except after the last one - which was shot down over Vietnam). Are you telling me that man is “afraid” to debate Obama? Give me a break. You may not be an idiot, but it is impossible to tell from what you have written here today.
For the same reason doing it all on the phone wouldn’t work. And that’s obvious. And you know it. But you’re just a troll.
When did he want to do that? Are you talking about when we went in after 9-11?
I think he’s qualified because of the judgment, knowledge, and reasoning he’s demonstrated during his 2-year campaign. I’m impressed with Obama’s job experience but that’s not what I’m basing my vote upon. I like his stances on the issues, I trust in his decision-making abilities most of the time, and modern day Republicans have to be one of the most discredited political factions in the history of the country.
See #318. Pakistan.
I.e. “I think Obama is qualified because I agree with him”.
Wonderful, but that is not the definition of “qualified”. I’m sure that you agree with yourself in terms of “judgment, knowledge and reasoning”. But I hope you don’t think that qualifies you to be President.
Does it?
It’s a terrible answer because it’s premised on Obama being the ultimate decion-maker in the Democratic party. That’s ridiculous. Like he just orders Democrats around all day?
I don’t even know what your question is. You’re asking why I’m defending Obama for single-handedly stopping the government from fixing everything in a masterstroke, is that right?
Ask a real question, and I’ll answer it.
Gee, and there I was thinking that you’d be the one troll who would have something non-moronic to say. The empirical data tells you that you are wrong. I’m pretty sure that the Democratic Party circa 1860 is the most discredited political faction in American history.
But you don’t care about no stinkin’ facts, do you? You’re here to emote.
Digshot,
You wrote:
Judgment? What church does he attend now? How is it good judgment to abandon TUCC only after it can no longer be denied that Rev. Wright is a couple cards short of a full deck (watch the videos of his National Press Club appearance where he demonstrates the difference between a white marching band and a black one).
Knowledge? Certainly not of US geography, or history.
Reasoning? Is that what you call his changes on several issues - all coincidentally coming after he won the primary and tried to tack to the middle.
His lack of judgment, knowledge, and reasoning is why I could never vote for him.
He can run a campaign?!
Why didn’t you say so! He’s emminently qualified to run our country then.
Don’t you know how to read? Here it is again.
Tell me which words are too complicated for you and I’ll simplify it.
I still think Palin should have showed up tonight to debate Obama.
She’d come across exactly as she is. Articulate, tough, knowledgeable, classy, and ready to lead. (those are not in any particular order). Obama would come across just like he is too…the antithesis of that list.
There is that reading problem of yours again. The name Obama appears nowhere in the question.
How so? So, when the Great Depression occurred and FDR ushered in a new level of socialism that included Social Security and other big entitlement programs… how did that benefit the country? Explain your political perspective on that.
Or the time right after JFK’s assassination when LBJ ushered in even more social entitlement spending and created the War on Poverty and welfare. I’ve noticed that poverty still exists. Explain your political perspective on that.
You show an appalling lack of historical perspective on your party the Dems. What has ushering new waves of entitlement spending and socialism got this country but more dependency, and sucking on the public teat? What is your rationale for this?
Your own political faction doesn’t stand for much but reengineering society and restructuring our republic into a mob mentality whose only basis to vote is getting their hands in the treasury.
You may be able to foist your political ignorance on other sheeple… but not on those who know better. Especially not me who has taught history and has studied it as a professional educator for years. You are lying to yourself and to us if you actually think you’re that educated on both the issues and our political history in particular.
Try again.
Okay, what happened that I missed?
I don’t go through the comments here like I used to and now I find flenser taking a troll out to the woodshed?
flenser, I guess you’re alright after all.
Perhaps he should view his Democratic peers in the Senate as a “community” to organize.
I have not seen anyone suggest that he have absolute authority over Democrats. However, one might expect the Democratic nominee for President to be able to lead them.
Of course, this is one of the few times when liberals are not afraid to remind us that he is only a junior senator. We’re supposed to understand that it’s okay for him to be junior when he cannot lead, but it’s also okay for him to be President based on that experience.
Doing a fine job, too. Fun to watch.
Flenser:
We can agree to disagree about McCain. I do have new found respect regarding your “discussion” with our new troll pinata, Digshot.
Hats off to you!
The story so far;
Digshot believes that Obama is qualified to be President because Obama has (in Digshots opinion) run a good campaign.
Digshot has no clue why the Democrats did not pass Paulson’s bill.
Digshot thinks that a party which equals the Democrats in the polls is ” one of the most discredited political factions in the history of the country”. You’d think the Dems would win 435 House seats and 100 Senate seats in that case.
And now, back to our continuing saga of “As the Troll Turns”.
Then you and I have definitions of what qualified means. I think that if somebody is sufficiently smart, selfless, reasonable, curious, and trustworthy, they are qualified for whatever job they want. I don’t care if you were a community organizer or the governor of Texas.
As for your other question, I’m pretty sure Obama never said he wanted to start a war with Pakistan. But I do agree with him that Pakistan is important to national security and there are problems there that we should be addressing which may include the occasional use of the military.
Did I say it was THE MOST discredited?
Learn to read pal.
Hell, I was taking trolls to the woodshed when you young’uns were still in diapers. Back when computers were made of wood.
He only returned to D.C. after a request from the President. Two days before Obama was railing that this financial debacle was the worst crisis of its kind we had ever faced. McCain’s opinion was the same.
When actually confronted with it his JUDGEMENT was stay put, business as usual, and say “if I am needed they can call me.”
Darn right I am going to jump all over that. Was he lying two days before? If not, if it was that bad, he’s his party’s leader. That’s the response of a leader? When I led, I never sat miles from a critical event and told my people to call me if I was needed. If you are the leader you da*n well are needed. Who is this guy?
People are going to be inspired by that conduct? To ignore it is to drink the Kool Aid!
I’m talking about your Obama derailing the bill question.
Keep up.
Digshot,
What do mean when you say
Are you saying the historically low opinion polls of congress are due to Republican leadership? Last time I looked Pelosi and Reid both had the big D following their names?
What you probably mean is Bush has low opinion numbers. I do not have that low an opinion of him. There was probably nobody with an IQ in triple digits that did not think it was a matter of when, not if, another terrorist attack would take place on American soil. That has not happened - thanks in large part to Bush standing firm on the GWOT.
Bush’s handling of the economy:
You can read the rest of that article here
Well, no, what he said was he’d invade Pakistan. Maybe there’s a difference.
That is a very silly statement there Digshot. I wanna be a center in the NBA. I’m pretty sure I meet all the attributes you listed there but I’m afraid, I didn’t have the Dems to give me an affirmative action NBA position.
Or governor of Alaska?
He said he wanted to invade it. That seems close enough. What, you did not know that about Obama? Google it.
What part of Obama’s background, including his long association with people like Wright and Ayers, makes him trustworthy in your eyes?
I’d trust him to be a Marxist radical. Then again, I suppose that’s what you trust him to be as well.
Like I say, you don’t read too good. Here (again!) is the question.
Why can’t you answer it?
No, actually.
Sure, they have the votes. You happy?
That’s a really nice tactic, by the way. Asking a patently absurd question, having it pointed out that you’re being ridiculous, then coming up with a totally different question, and insisting I answer that one instead.
I really hate using tired debate cliches but that’s moving the goalposts if I ever saw it.
There is. It would only be a war if they resist.
No one will resist Obama.
Digshot wrote:
Obama was (by his own admission) a very heavy user of drugs, stopping at heroin use because of his fear of an air bubble killing him - that’s smart?
Selfless - look at his charitable giving as a percentage of his income. By no stretch of the imagination can that be termed selfless.
Reasonable - must be why he has such a reputation for reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans.
Curious - I’ll give you that. So was that monkey I used to read about as a kid (I suppose that is racist).
Trustworthy - do you think the Rev. Wright trusts him now? Or did Obama just do what politicians have to do to get elected (in which case should you trust him?).
What is absurd about the question?
You don’t read too good. I’m asking you the same question. Here it is again.
The Democrats have the votes to pass the Paulson bill. True or false?
When you answer “true”, ask yourself why they did not pass it. Then give me your answer.
Are we talking about an invasion? Or chasing terrorists down that attacked us?
Do you know the difference?
There’s nothing about Rev. Wright that bothers me and the Ayers ‘relationship’ is so tangential as to be meaningless.
Republicans know nothing about liberalism.
The you never saw it. Please explain what goalposts have been moved. I’ve been trying to get you to answer this same question for the last half hour.
Why can’t you answer it?
I don’t know why they didn’t pass it. I know that you have a theory, about Obama having a strangle-like grip on all of the Democratic caucus, and that’s patently absurd.
If that were only true.
We’re taking about an invasion TO track down terrorists who attacked us.
A unilateral invasion! Without UN permission! Of a sovereign country!
There is nothing abut “God damn America” that bothers you?
There is nothing about “AIDs is a racist honky plot” that bothers you?
They had a close working relationship for over a decade.
Smart people have used drugs. Is this your first day on the planet?
That’s just dumb.
Reasonability is not defined by one’s willingness to work with Republicans.
Okay…
I don’t think he should have distanced himself from Wright, and there are other things he’s done that I consider a total betrayal. He definitely has some work to do in this department with me, but given who you guys nominated, there is no alternative.
Digshot:
You’re not a political expert or know much about history. You seem to suck up the Obummer dope like it’s fairy dust. I don’t want a Messiah I want a leader. Someone who’s actually been tested. How has Obummer been tested? In a campaign?
Liberals tend to ignore history, that’s why they loosened restrictions on the FM’s and the loaning practices that gave out gimme loans to unqualified recipients. That’s why they socially engineered our financial, educational, and now political systems into the ground.
Are you really this ignorant? Another sheeple? Really, are you? Judgement doesn’t count if you’ve never been tested. Never.
The woulda, shoulda, coulda gotcha, partisan games of Obummer and his equivocator apologists like you grow tiresome. You don’t want a debate you want a coronation.
If you don’t even understand the history of our political system, how can you understand what we’re facing now? How?
Rev. Wright gave a sermon where he claimed that AIDS was invented by the US government to eliminate blacks. Are you not bothered by something so blatantly hate mongering to be preached to a church containing children?
Obama and Ayers are not just neighbors they worked together closely on the failed Annenberg Challenge, Obama launched his campaign from Ayers’ house. They have a long history in Chicago politics. Whatever their “relationship”, it is hardly tangential.
Was that so hard? Was it? Now you need to ask yourself “why didn’t they pass this bill which they insist is needed to save the American economy”.
He does not need a “strangle-like grip”. They will do what they can to get him elected even without him threatening their children.
You seem pretty naive about politics.
That’s not at all what Obama said or meant. You’re spiraling?
Not even a little bit.
No they didn’t. You make it sound like they were building bombs together.
Great, you don’t think that he should have distanced himself from the black David Duke. So to you, Obama is just too moderate, really? You’d prefer Malcom X.
Don’t look at me, you’re the one that said Obama derailed the bill.
Yeah, Rev. Wright is nothing like David Duke.
But I’ve been down the Rev. Wright road before with a bunch of Republicans, it’s the dumbest road on the planet. Let’s talk about something else.
Eventually, talking politics with libs devolves into Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic”. I live in a lib town. Believe me, I do know liberalism.
Yes, they did.
Ayers does not make bombs anymore. He’s found safer ways to undermine the country.
Ok. Then I think we can pronounce you a certifiable nutcase and and send for the padded wagon. And not waste any further time here.
Very revealing about your convictions. OK, that’s fine. But you’ve now completely forfeited your ability to be taken seriously. Maybe you should just quit and keep getting ready for that big Debate Watch Party tonight.
Fair enough.
Let’s talk instead about you belief that the evil honkey’s invented AIDs to kill black people.
And that “God damn America” is a reasonable opinion for the close confidant of a President.
Hey - a little O/T - but related:
Did you notice that “we have to pass this bill right now” didn’t pass today and the world as we know it didn’t come to an end?
The markets kinda appeared to yawn with the Dow up and the NASDAQ down. The market (collective opinion of hundreds of thousands of people with money) is not in a panic.
Hate mongering does not bother you, even a little bit? How about the stupidity of such a statement (lets imagine a lab that creates a disease that is 100% preventable, and trusts that the people it is designed to kill will be so obtuse that they don’t take the actions necessary to prevent it). Yeah, that would make sense to a liberal.
What is so dumb pointing out that a truly selfless person tries to help people with his own money, not other people’s?
Digshot,
Why is it that liberals can’t debate on this site without resorting to calling names? I know some conservatives here do the same thing, but just about every liberal, in the end, resorts to name-calling (Chapoutier is the lone exception - that I can think of right now).
Is it because we are pointing out the flaws in your statements and that angers you?
Flenser’s point is that the party’s nominee for president is nominally the head of the party. Obama’s trip to Washington turned out to be a bust. He came off looking as if he was responding to McCain, then he managed to turn an “agreement” into a non-agreement. This whole episode is a huge stumble for Obama and that must have you tied up in knots.
Aha! Just who I’ve been looking for — someone from Nevada. What’s the general outlook on Dingy Harry these days from his voters? Does NV always go Dem? When is he up for re-election?
I’ve actually daydreamed about her walking in if he got elected, saying she couldn’t take it anymore and resigning. So who would be in there in a flash? Liebermann or Goober? Now that’s scary.
Uh, er, John, I can practically guarantee you that the Secret Service or some McCain muscle will make you lose the signs. I heard that there were “No Amnesty” signs and banners taken into the GOP convention and they were summarily disposed of. Try to hide ‘em if you can and at least get them on camera for a sec! I’ll be watching!