Debate Back On
McCain camp statement via Hot Air, with a quick news/navel-gazing roundup:
John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.
In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.
Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure. There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress — especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.
The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.
McCain to House GOP, via ABC: “We need a deal, We need a deal. We need deal.”
Politico: A House Republican leadership aide said McCain’s staff is “acting sort of as a go-between between the White House and the House, trying to push negotiations along.”
Special report on Obama’s leadership efforts in time of crisis here.
WPost’s Fix: McCain wins!
Ex-McCain advisor via HuffPo: McCain, driven by tactics not ideology, blinked
Meanwhile, in deep thot:
SD U-T’s Ruben Navarrette: McCain got it right.
Kenneth D. Lewis at WSJ: Main Street needs the Treasury Plan.
UK Daily Telegraph’s Toby Harnden at RCP: Can McCain deliver? He thinks yes.
Roos Douthat at The Atlantic, irked by the give-and-take of this tiresome exercise of politics, deems it “An Election About Nothing.” He also thinks all the Obama camp has to do is the the clock run out. Pretty much a column about nothing.
Tims of London’s Gerard Baker, on the other hand, thinks it’s about too much and packs a mouthful into his column: “This Is The Election You Wouldn’t Want To Win.”
The US is now indisputably entering the darkest phase of a period that will not only produce real hardship, but could send further shocks through financial markets and cause deeper fiscal damage.
Then there is energy policy. Weaning America off its oil addiction might actually need to be a policy rather than a slogan in the next four years; but that will place new burdens on the budget and require sacrifices difficult to make in good times, let alone in economically distressed ones.
Compared with all this, foreign policy looks like a doddle.
The next president has only to complete the process of transition in Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan, face down a resurgent Russia, continue to keep its foot on the throat of stateless Islamist terrorism, stop Iran from going nuclear and figure out what to do about the challenge from China - the most serious threat to US global hegemony since America became top nation.
Oh, and I didn’t mention Pakistan. Conversations this week with advisers to both campaigns suggest that both now see Pakistan - especially after last week’s terrorist attack in Islamabad - as perhaps the most intractable and serious challenge of all in the next few years: they candidly admit that no one has much of a clue what to do about it.
Don’t worry, maybe not so bleak:
Yet all this might be too gloomy a prognosis. Previous periods of apparently existential crisis in the US have certainly produced one-term disasters: James Buchanan in 1857, Herbert Hoover in 1929, Jimmy Carter in 1977 spring unpleasantly to mind. But the genius of America is that apocalyptic challenges have also, in time, produced the men to match them: Abraham Lincoln in 1861, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Ronald Reagan in 1981.
So who’s your Abraham Delano Reagan?
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:10 pm on Friday, September 26, 2008
2 Responses to “Debate Back On”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
That Politico article was excellent. Some of the libs in the comments were crying foul because it didn’t provide the usual cover for Obama, and actually gave McCain a chance to have his say without snide comments from the reporter. No fair!
October 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden has a roundup of reaction to the news. [...]