Debate Back On: Democrats Ambush McCain With ‘Presidential Politics’

John McCain suspended his campaign to return to Washington to help achieve a deal to resolve the financial crisis.  Harry Reid immediately objected to McCain’s involvement:

“It would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.”

But it is amazing how Reid unashamedly contradicts himself merely to place plame and score cheap political points.  As noted by the Politico, Harry Reid had earlier said:

“I should mention how glad my fellow Democrats and I were to have our nominee for president here to vote on these important bills. Senator Obama has come to work and taken tough stands. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Senator McCain,” Reid said. “Perhaps taking tough stands on important issues is not part of Senator McCain’s campaign strategy. Perhaps he’s just too busy on the campaign trail to do his day job.”

And only the day before McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to help attain a deal, Harry Reid had this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is watching Republicans in both chambers, one after another, criticize the Wall Street bailout, but he says he’s not going to let them off the hook by passing the bill and letting the GOP cast soft “no” votes against the plan.

“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

Reid went on to say in the same statement:

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”

Now, given Reid’s documented pandering, lying, hypocrisy, and political gamesmanship, it should be little wonder that Harry Reid would come out and say this:

“John McCain did nothing to help. He only hurt the process.”

And:

“Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and Senate Republicans agree those principles laid out by Senator Obama are the ones that must be implanted with regards to the issue, what’s called the ‘principles of fairness.’ … The insertion of presidential politics has not been helpful. It’s been harmful … A few days ago I called on Senator McCain to take a stand, let us know where he stands on this issue … But all he has done is stand in front of the cameras. We still don’t know where he stands on the issue.”

Charles Schumer was among the many Democrats jumping on the hard-core partisan Democratic bandwagon:

Schumer also requested that Bush get the his House Republicans in line. “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,” he said.

He added, “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.”

But first of all, can you not see that these tactics themselves are nothing more than naked presidential politics?  Reid and Schumer and all the other Democrats stuffing this “presidential politics” talking point are engaging in presidential politics themselves.   They are cynically and despicably putting presidential politics ahead of the nation’s vital business.

Harry Reid and Charles Schumer deceitfully and disengenuously claimed that a deal was on the table before John McCain arrived, and McCain had ruined it.  As Reid claimed:

“We had [Republican] Senator [Bob] Bennett, a high ranking official, who said these are the principles,” Reid said of the early potential compromise on the $700 billion package. “And then, guess who came to town? And it all fell apart.”

But that isn’t even close to being true; House Republicans had not been allowed to take part in the discussion (which you can even see by way of Reid’s omission of House Republicans above).

House Republicans are balking at horrible elements of this deal, such as giving billions of dollars to the control of voter-fraud organization ACORN.  That was came out in the Senate Republican meeting.

Sen Lindsey Graham: ‘There was never any agreement on a bailout bill – Dems lied’ (Dems want money to go to ACORN – Updated):

Lindsay Graham on Fox Now. Says there was never any agreement on bailout bill between dems and Repubs. Best nugget: Dems have inserted provision into their bill to give several billion (with a “b”) dollars to ACORN. ACORN is probably the most corrupt organized crime organization involved in voting fraud and intimidation.

There is no bill. Rep. Barney Frank was on MSNBC wailing about Repub treachery and bad-mouting all the Repubs who met today with Bush. Chris Dodd said, “I’m going home” and walked out.

My sense is that the Dems tried to bully McCain into supporting the Dem bill. When he refused, they had a tantrum.

House Republicans want to slow this down so that a bailout that is currently opposed by nearly 2/3 of Americans won’t be packed with wasteful and fraudulent spending that lines the pockets of people who don’t deserve the money, while failing to fix the crisis.

There is certainly no reason for John McCain NOT to go ahead with the debates.  When Democrats like Harry Reid repeatedly blast McCain for being THE problem – and for just just wanting to get in front of cameras (which is frankly weird, considering the fact that it’s been Harry Reid and NOT John McCain in front of all the cameras) –  there is little John McCain can do.  When Harry Reid’s are out literally hysterically attacking Republicans in the most politically partisan and demagogic way imaginable, McCain is wise to remove himself.

So go debate, John.  I’m hoping you can clean Obama’s clock tonight, and then return to Washington to help deal with this impending financial meltdown.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Debate Back On: Democrats Ambush McCain With ‘Presidential Politics’”

  1. Puzzled GA Says:

    This morning’s FoxNews daily question poll by readers gives Obama the victoy in the debate by a 54% to 46% margin. It doesn’t seem to me it helps any if I saw Obama still blaming McCain voting for Bush 90% of the time but makes no suggestion of how he would run things if he wins the Election. How do you fight for the people if they don’t want to fight for themselves?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Hmmm. All I saw was the poll that was taken during and after the debate, which had McCain winning 86% to 14%.

    Obama would vote with Nancy Pelosi, which he’s done 97% of the time. Interestingly, a few years ago McCain voted with Bush 77% of the time – only a little higher percentage than some conservative Dems. But Obama has always been in lock step with the liberal Dems.

    I always pray this: God, please don’t give us the leaders we deserve…

  3. Learner Web Surfer Says:

    Thanks for all your wisdom about surfing the Net. But I am still learning and I am worried for the sake of people who take everything from the media as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Someone who reads the following is likely to say: “I saw it in FoxNews so it must be the truth. I copied/pasted this from the FoxNews:youdecide08.com Box yesterday morning:

    Saturday, 27 September 2008

    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    Barack Obama (54%)
    John McCain (46%)
    Total Voters: 20,614

    Purely for myself I went in just now and did the same for this comment and found:

    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    John McCain (52%)
    Barack Obama (48%)
    This is not a scientific poll.

    So, it has changed around a little in favor of our man. You may comment because you put an awful lot of research into your work and you are an accomplished Surfer, deserving to be omplemented, but Small-Town guns and religion clinging Folk have their limitations. Keep up the good work!

  4. Learner Web Surfer Says:

    Thanks for all your wisdom about surfing the Net. But I am still learning and I am worried for the sake of people who take everything from the media as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Someone who reads the following is likely to say: “I saw it in FoxNews so it must be the truth. I copied/pasted this from the FoxNews;youdecide08.com Box yesterday morning:

    Saturday, 27 September 2008

    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    Barack Obama (54%)
    John McCain (46%)
    Total Voters: 20,614

    Purely for myself I went in just now and did the same for this comment and found:

    Sunday, 28 September 2008

    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    John McCain (52%)
    Barack Obama (48%)
    This is not a scientific poll.

    So, it has changed around a little in favor of our man. You may comment because you put an awful lot of research into your work and you are an accomplished Surfer, deserving to be complemented, but Small-Town guns and religion clinging Folk have their limitations. Keep up the good work!

  5. Learner Web Surfer Says:

    Thanks for all your wisdom about surfing the Net. But I am still learning and I am worried for the sake of people who take everything from the media as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Someone is likely to say: “I saw it in FoxNews so it must be the truth’’ because some people believe what they want to believe.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Frankly, bias in reporting has been a problem in reporting since Adam and Eve in the Garden. But it is far worse now than it has ever been.

    Just today, I was trying to find an AP story – which noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority in a Supreme Court decision in which liberals determined that the 50 state attorneys general could not regulate banks (with Scalia and John Roberts opposed and Clarence Thomas recused). That part of the story was REMOVED in almost every paper that picked up the story. Why? Because it tarnished liberals, and the papers are biased. It’s amazing.

    I think ultimately, if a person has a solid worldview, he or she will be able to “ferret” out the bias and lies. But if a person has a flawed or bad worldview, he or she will literally LOOK for biased and lying accounts.

  7. Coenraad Says:

    I copied/pasted this from the daily FoxNews Readers Question of the Day space in their youdecide08 Box last Saturday morning:

    Saturday, 27 September 2008
    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    Barack Obama (54%)
    John McCain (46%)
    Total Voters: 20,614

    And this the day after:

    Sunday, 28 September 2008
    Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
    John McCain (52%)
    Barack Obama (48%)
    This is not a scientific poll.

    You may comment because you put an awful lot of research into your work and you are an accomplished Surfer, deserving to be complemented, but Small-Town guns and religion clinging Folk have their limitations. And my main concern is that most people who “believe what they want to believe” take this nonsense as the holy truth because FoxNews published it. Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: