mccain "i'll take that penalty" (WTF?!?!?)

JSBE

last night when speaking with brian williams mccain said something to the effect of "if me going back to washington to work on the bailout deal hurts me politically, well i'll take that penalty"

i can't find a video link, but it was aired during rachel maddow's show.

this guy is running for president and he says that? are you kidding me? is this really someone you want to be president? i was all for obama before but this should seal the deal for anyone that was on the fence (at least in my opinion)

cincybearcat

JSBE wrote:

last night when speaking with brian williams mccain said something to the effect of "if me going back to washington to work on the bailout deal hurts me politically, well i'll take that penalty"

i can't find a video link, but it was aired during rachel maddow's show.

this guy is running for president and he says that? are you kidding me? is this really someone you want to be president? i was all for obama before but this should seal the deal for anyone that was on the fence (at least in my opinion)

I'm not sure what your problem with that statement is.

Ignoring the question of whether or not it was necessary or a good diea, etc...

What he is saying is he doesn't care if his action cost him politically so long as they are the right thing to do. That's a good thing.

mammasan

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm not sure what your problem with that statement is.

Ignoring the question of whether or not it was necessary or a good diea, etc...

What he is saying is he doesn't care if his action cost him politically so long as they are the right thing to do. That's a good thing.

I agree that if his presense there helps the situation. I was watching Anderson Cooper last night and he had Ed Rollins on and from what Rollins was saying McCain involvement has not helped the situation. And before anyone attacks me for using CNN or Anderson Cooper as a source Ed Rollins is a Republican campaign consultant. He was most recently the national campaign chairman for the Mike Huckabee campaign. Rollins was the one who stated that the Rep members in Congress where playing politics with this issue.

THC

while announcing he was leaving the campaign trail to go to washington...he actually brought up 9/11 within the first minute...

Strangest Tribe

shhhhhh....

In McCain's little playworld, he's the superhero MAVERICK

JSBE

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm not sure what your problem with that statement is.

Ignoring the question of whether or not it was necessary or a good diea, etc...

What he is saying is he doesn't care if his action cost him politically so long as they are the right thing to do. That's a good thing.

it just doesn't seem like he is 100% committed to running for president. that's my problem with the statement. i guess that is just my democratic/liberal/etc thoughts on that. we can agree to disagree, but i would have to think that there is at least someone else (other than my gf) that thinks the same as i do on this.

it is great that he wants to help out with the bailout situation, but he is running as the republican candidate. i just think it comes across as bad that he can't do more than two things at once. i know i'm beating a dead horse on that one.

blackredyellow

mammasan wrote:

I agree that if his presense there helps the situation. I was watching Anderson Cooper last night and he had Ed Rollins on and from what Rollins was saying McCain involvement has not helped the situation. And before anyone attacks me for using CNN or Anderson Cooper as a source Ed Rollins is a Republican campaign consultant. He was most recently the national campaign chairman for the Mike Huckabee campaign. Rollins was the one who stated that the Rep members in Congress where playing politics with this issue.

I've started watching that show more and more... I can't take much of the 4 hour Maddow/Olberman block on MSNBC, and that panel with Rollins, Begala, and Gloria Borger is a pretty good one.

OlDiamondback

I'll be out on the veranda since John's obviously on the cross.

jimed14

I got a penalty for him ...

How about 40 days for unnecessary grandstanding .... first down, Obama.

Brain of J.Lo

JSBE wrote:

last night when speaking with brian williams mccain said something to the effect of "if me going back to washington to work on the bailout deal hurts me politically, well i'll take that penalty"

i can't find a video link, but it was aired during rachel maddow's show.

this guy is running for president and he says that? are you kidding me? is this really someone you want to be president? i was all for obama before but this should seal the deal for anyone that was on the fence (at least in my opinion)

I obviously understand why he would make that statement. It makes him look like he's willing to sacrifice "winning" to save the world. But a presidential campaign isn't really about "winning." It's not like he wins a giant novelty check and then retires to AZ. The winner ends up having to do a really tough job to serve our country for 4 years...and that's why it seems silly to act all flip about "well, if I lose I lose. I'm willing to lose... That's cool." (uh, obviously that's not a direct quote...lol)

But, ultimately, since his words were bullshit anyway, and this was just a stunt to help him win...so it's probably not worth dissecting.

JSBE

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

It's not like he wins a giant novelty check and then retires to AZ. The winner ends up having to do a really tough job to serve our country for 4 years...and that's why it seems silly to act all flip about "well, if I lose I lose. I'm willing to lose... That's cool." (uh, obviously that's not a direct quote...lol)

exactly my point. thank you.

josevolution

news flash mccain didn't help out at all by being there not at all ...

josevolution

Schumer said Bush should also "respectfully tell Sen. McCain to get out of town. He is not helping, he is harming.

cincybearcat

JSBE wrote:

it just doesn't seem like he is 100% committed to running for president. that's my problem with the statement. i guess that is just my democratic/liberal/etc thoughts on that. we can agree to disagree, but i would have to think that there is at least someone else (other than my gf) that thinks the same as i do on this.

it is great that he wants to help out with the bailout situation, but he is running as the republican candidate. i just think it comes across as bad that he can't do more than two things at once. i know i'm beating a dead horse on that one.

Your criticism of not being able to run a campaign and participate in the financial crisis is legit. But I still see nothing wrong with his statement at all. You may believe him or not, but the statement itself on the surface is what we all want, no?

We want someone who does the right thing, not what helps their political career...or is that just me?

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Your criticism of not being able to run a campaign and participate in the financial crisis is legit. But I still see nothing wrong with his statement at all. You may believe him or not, but the statement itself on the surface is what we all want, no?

We want someone who does the right thing, not what helps their political career...or is that just me?

See, this is where I disagree with JSBE when he said "it just doesn't seem like he is 100% committed to running for president. " ...

I think he IS 100% committed to running for president ... and this whole move, and every move he's made, is simply with one goal in mind, become the president.

I don't think he ran back to Washington to help the cause, he did it to try and gain presidential cred. He tried to be a first mover by saying he'd be there first ... but, he took his time getting back there, he had a week to get back there. It was purly a politcal move ... and it's now blowing up in his face.

JSBE

after reading your posts and thinking it about it some more...

cincy - i agree that we want someone to do the right thing BUT...he should be able to do the right thing AND keep his campaign up and running at the same time. i totally agree with what brain of j. lo said - i think his quote to me came across as "well, if I lose I lose. I'm willing to lose..." which rubbed me the wrong way (probably more than it should of seeing as how i am voting for obama).

jimed - i agree with what you said that all of his moves are to be the next president. the line between mccain actually going to washington to help the bill for the sake of the us people and him going to washington for a photo-op and hopes of being "the guy" that brought the deal to completion was very blurry. i knew there was motive behind what he was doing, but you couldn't decode it.

digster

I think, in regards to McCain's motives with this entire situation, the argument is moot because he is going to be debating with Obama tonight, after he specifically said he was putting country first, and would not resume his campaign or debate until there was a deal on the table. With no deal clearly ready (whether politics was involved in that situation or not), how can McCain be doing "the right thing" as cincy said? If he was doing the right thing, he wouldn't give a damn if he was missing the debate tonight; he would be in Washington continuing to work on a consensus package.

I think McCain's reversal today made it clear that it was politics, through and through.

puremagic

My problem with the statement is - that the Office of the President of the United States is not a game. The American people are not pawns to be moved around as politicians deem necessary. The American homeowner didn't create this mess,

--they are victims of Bush/Cheney's promisory notes to China and Japan who financially backed Bush's war on terror by selling them America.

--they're victims of Iraq spending, defaulted US contracts in Iraq, paying countries to be our friend, outsourcing, NAFTA, lower wages, plant closing. Banks didn't extend credit to homeowners, they extended time-extensions. These banks saw the non-payments and pay-one month and skip the next, adding up and let it go until it was convenient for them to call these foreclosures due at one time. This was staged. if you look closingly, you'll see that the bulk of the foreclosures correspond in areas with plant closings (MI, OH, IN, PA), lower wages (NV, GA, TN, FL), outsourcing (double whammy for people in the auto and farming industries) Now Bush wants to declare these large areas of voters ineligible to vote in November.

Take a look, all these corporations and entities and their CEO have survived this mess and retained their wealth. The America people, well, many are homeless; many who considered themselves proud workers are receiving State assistance and food stamps. Obama pointed to this situation long before it became a crisis, but all media wanted to hear was Obama calling those small town people bitter.

Bailing out Fannie and Freddie and AIG was the right thing to do. This 700 bn Bailout, that's a personal promisory note created by Bush and Cheney's need to create a New World Order. You need $700 billion dollars here it is plus leftover -

-the bonuses of CEOs,
- take the personal gains made by Bush, Cheney, Blair and Paul Wolfowitz's from their portifolos to pay some of this cost
- take some of that Iraq money from the Points of Light Foundation
-take some of that money being protected from this crisis that is sitting in all these private equity funds
- take some of the profits of the oil and utilities companies
- take some of the profits of all those defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, GE
- take all the profits of defaulted defense contractors like Haliburton, KBRs,

This should clear our debit to China since you already gave them the oil drilling rights of the Iraq oil fields. Kinda let that slip pass those 4,000+ plus families.

McCain's presence with nothing more than a setup to redirect the debate from foreign policy to economics. I'm sure McCain has been briefed and debriefed on the 3 page Bailout Plan he supposedly never read. Seems to me if he can't get 3 pages read, the Plan being worked on by Harvard, Princeton, Chicago and MIT economist might also go unread. Nothing like seeing lawmakers losing $50 and $60,000 dollars of their own money to turn to the experts to save their homes and children future.