How McCain Let the Election Slip Through His Fingers...Maybe

This was originally posted on September 29, 2008 on my family blog, Gibblets 'n Gravy.

[WARNING!! This is also very long and boring. No attempt has been made to correct previous errors in grammar, spelling, or factual content. This is a blog of my personal opinions, not the New York Times....Wait, maybe it's more like the New York Times than I thought.]

So Thursday was the first presidential debate; placed smack dab in the middle of the financial meltdown on Wall Street. The president submits a bill, Henry Paulsen's bill, to congress. The Dems in congress pick up the bill and run with it adding some earmarks along the way. Meanwhile the American electorate is chiming in on the bail out at a clip of 2:1 or 3:1 against. Congressional offices are reporting calls coming at a 200:1 and 300:1 against. Another report I heard was 95% of Americans were against the proposed bail out plan. Those numbers are pretty dramatic. I suspect that the 2 or 3:1 ratios are more accurate. Anyway, it's a slam dunk against the plan.

The day before the debate, Wednesday, McCain suspends his campaign and heads for Washington. Before he arrives the Dems fake a throw to first base by announcing they and the Repubs have agreed on a plan, which comes as news to the Repubs. McCain, Obama and congressional leaders meet with Pres. Bush in the White House and apparently the meeting "blows up", which Democratic leaders immediately blame on McCain, despite the fact that there had never been a deal to "blow up" in the first place. Of course the media, that group of conscientious journalists is only too happy to go along with the ruse. Thursday comes and McCain agrees to attend the debate after all. By this time the Dems are pointing the finger at the Repubs for holding up passage on the bill, because the Dems want a bipartisan bill, aka. Repubs agreeing with Dems. Again the press seems content to report it as such. Leave it to the Repubs to mess everything up.

Now, curiously, no one in the press seems particularly interested in a couple of obvious questions. First: Although I am no constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that passage of a bill in both houses of congress requires only a simple majority, ie. 51%. Someone might want to look into that, maybe its 53% or 61% or 55.3%. Maybe its 59% and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. But I'm pretty sure it's 51%. Also, the last time I checked, the Dems currently hold majorities in both the Senate and the House of Reps. That being the case, my question is, and should be for any respectable journalist: Why haven't the Dems passed the bill despite the Repubs? Nothing could be simpler. Hold a vote, and if all the Dems vote "Yea" than it passes. The bill is sent back to the President where it originated and he signs it. Done!

Question number two: Did Barack Obama support the Dems version of the bail out? Yes or no?

A little political thought brings us to the obvious answers that no Dem wants to explain or Obama for that matter. The fact is the Dems did not want there fingerprints exclusively on this bill, no way, no how. Why? They knew the bill could potentially blow up in America's collective face, and they do not want to hand the Repubs an easy argument. "Excuse me Mr. Voter, we hate to interrupt that fantastic meal of Alpo and gutter water, but we'd like to point out that the bail out bill which has brought you to this point was passed by the Dems without a single Republican vote. Please remember that in November." Obama did not want to be within a mile of that thing. He's got nowhere to go. For him it's a lose-lose proposition. I'm sure he was ecstatic when Bush called him and requested that he meet at the White House. "Uh...ummm...um...u...yes, Mr. President...ummmm....uh....can I...umm...bring my...uh...ummm biohazard suit?" See Obama can't be for it because America hates it. And he can't be against because, as the public face of his party, if he comes out against it, the bill is dead, dead, dead. There is no way the Dems push their bill if B. H. Obama comes out against it. Consequently B. H. just hems and haws about needing to see the final version of the bill before taking a stance. He maybe an empty suit, but he does at least have some people behind him with a sense of the politico.

McCain is in a very different situation: Oppose the President's bill and your a maverick opposing Bush and standing with the American people, who are almost entirely opposed to the boondoggle.

So they show up at the debate and Mr. Lehrer walks up on stage, sets up a baseball tee, puts a ball on it, and hands McCain a Louisville Slugger and asks, Senator do you support the bail out plan?" This is the moment. I'm watching, I'm waiting. With his response he can possibly secure the election and hand his party a big victory, all the while handing Obama and his Demo club a painful defeat. Hit it McCain. Come on John, big swing. So what does he do? He puts down the Louisville Slugger, grabs the bat his son picked up on bat day at the D-backs game (you know, the skinny, little short ones) and tops the ball off the tee, knocking it into the ground about five feet in front of him. His response? "Um sure, I hope to..."

What?! What was he thinking?

Somewhere in an alternative universe a McCain said: "My friends, I, like the rest of America, couldn't be more opposed to the plan as it currently stands. It's terrible. It would place a ridiculously high and unnecessary burden on the American people. The citizenry of this great nation has spoken loud and clear. They do not want this bill and they are right. I stand with them; the hard working men and women of this country who scrimped and scraped whatever they could, not to play funny money games on Wall Street, but to put themselves and their families in a respectable, modest home. I will not support a bill that punishes the people who did things right, and rewards the fat cats on Wall Street who got too greedy, or protects Washington from the scrutiny that it deserves for their part in this crisis.

"My friends, I suspended my campaign so that I could come to Washington and help produce a bill that protects the taxpayers, holds Wall Street accountable and shines the light of truth on all involved in this fleecing of the American public, from Washington to Wall Street. I sat in that meeting with Senator Obama in the White House and, my friends, the bill being put forth by the President and my associates across the aisle is a terrible bill. You may have seen the Democratic leadership try to suggest that they already had a bill in hand before I arrived yesterday. This is true, however it was not a bipartisan bill. The large majority of Republicans were dead set against the President's and the Democrats', make-the-taxpayers-pay, version of a bail out. I said, No! Senator Obama and the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and in the House and if they want this bill; a bill that punishes blue-collar America, than they will have to pass it without my vote, without the American people's support, and without the support of most of the Republican party. I say again, if President Bush, Senator Obama and the Democrats in congress like this bill and are comfortable with it, then let them pass it by themselves. They don't need me or my party's support in order to pass it. They have a majority. Now, I want to reach across the aisle and work with my friends in the Democratic party to bring about a responsible bill. Something has to be done or our economy could suffer even more. Consequently, it is my intention at the close of this debate to return to Washington to continue pushing for a bipartisan bill that puts the American people first. But as far as the one currently supported by Senator Obama, the President and my associates across the aisle, it stinks and the American people know it stinks; so if Senator Obama, President Bush, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi want that bill passed, they will have do it over the objections of me and the American people.

My friends, the question I'd like to ask, that has never been answered is this: Senator Obama, where do you stand on this bill? I presume you are for it as you have never opposed it. Are you for it or against it? Will you stand with me and the American people in opposing this earmark-ridden, pork-barrel-filled, taxpayer-punishing excuse for a bail out plan? The American people want to know. They need your support. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for bipartisanship. Now is the time to stand toe to toe with your own party, if necessary, in defense of the American people. And do not say that you need to see the particulars. You've seen them. You were in the same meeting with me. The President was there, the congressional leaders of your party were there, and they agree on the bill. Do you, Senator Obama, stand with your party or the American people? We both sat in that meeting and I came away with more than enough information to know that it was a bad bill. Do not tell us that you are not sure? We were there together. Your lack of opposition lends tacit support. What say you, Senator Obama? Are you for or against the existing bail out?

So there you have it. Obama can't support the bill because the people hate it, yet if he defies his party, he kills the existing version and hands control of the situation to the Repubs. It would have been high drama with McCain calling the shots, and he and his party the beneficiaries. I really think that moment could have changed the face of the campaign. Whether or not there was actually a definite Democrat version of the bill beyond basic principles is irrelevant. It was the Democrats who suggested that they had a deal reached and ready to go, and that McCain was not needed in the negotiations. At worst McCain is merely promoting the Democratic version of events, yet with a winning twist.

Now, I'm no big McCain fan. However, for the good of the nation I want him to win. Why? Because at the very least I know that McCain, no matter how much we disagree, will have the best interests of the nation at heart. I don't think anyone doubts that he would put his country first. B. H. Obama, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. So much of his past has been ignored or glossed over that it's apparent that for him no news is good news. Would he put America first? I'm not sure. That alone should cause us all some concern.

Anyhow, that's it. There's my three dollars and twenty-two cents worth. Take it for what it's worth, but if I had been McCain's adviser, that's the counsel I would have given. But alas, it was not be. Whether or not it would have worked will never be known. But it would have been a better response than, "Sure, I hope to support it." Ugh!