Thursday, September 25, 2008

Two views on the bailout

David Broder was fairly more delightful and somewhat more balanced in his editorial about the bailout package that is being proposed by Paulson and company. He managed to take a sharp jab at GW that after 8 years of what can only be described as failed foreign and domestic policies, GW didn't want to put his imprimatur on this particular package. Then I will guess that Broder's column must have appeared about a day earlier than GW's speech of last night in which he was indeed prepared to put his imprimatur on the bailout. I will suppose, engaging in hysteria about what must surely happen if the bailout did not go through. I did not see the speech, I was down at the Kootenai County Farmer's Market. Well, Broder emptied both barrels on the Congress that doesn't wish to make trouble, but shot more particularly at the Democrats as opposed to the GOP. Never mind that the GOP lined up with GW over some major issues in order to score political points on the Dems. Then lead the charge of "do nothing Congress." So, at that point of a balanced editorial, Broder started losing his bearings. The final argument of how both McCain and Obama being creatures of Congress...

Takes me to a Huckleberries online blog post where we debated McCain suspending his campaign so that he can work out the mess of a financial bailout in Washington, DC. McCain is definitely a creature of Congress if he suddenly decides that being president is less important than throwing his 26 year weight around on Capitol Hill. But both he and Obama, while "creatures of Congress" are also running to succeed disaster president, GW. Leadership coming from McCain would not be to abandon his campaign so that he can be a "creature of Congress" all over again; but rather, to debate Obama on the scheduled dates and contrast his own plans for the country as opposed to that of his opponent. And I highly doubt, from the bailout package as originally proposed by Paulson and Bernanke would have "put the country first." Obama's "four principles" did. Do I think that what McCain did, to scurry back to Washington, DC and cancel his appointment with Dave Letterman was a stunt? Yeah. To encourage his presidential opponent to work out a bail out package that was initially more beneficial to Wall Street greed than Main street need? Why not just debate that, instead? McCain wanted to score political points off his opponent. His polls are tanking. So he becomes a "creature of Congress" all over again, putting himself ahead of country. Pat me on the back because I did all of this. Yeah, right. Does McCain want to be a leader of the nation? Then he should be debating Obama and proving why he is qualified.

On the other hand, David Sarasohn minces no words. He has no problem detailing why we got into this financial mess in the first place. His editorial appeared in the Thursday, 25 edition of the Spokesman-Review and speaks very well on its own as a detailed account. So, I truly have nothing more to add to what Sarasohn said. But it does bring up something interesting about the McCain campaign up to the point of yesterday. We all know how McCain liked to attack Obama and complain about his Dem opponent. I'd even like to say that McCain does a lot of projecting. (Same thing that GW did in 2004.) What ever he would accuse Obama of, you can be sure that McCain was there first and making those very market-based legislative mistakes. What Sarasohn pointed to, McCain "creature of Congress" that he is, mostly went along with. Obama was not in Congress for long enough to have baggage equal to that of McCain. Sarasohn's editorial was far more newsworthy than Broder's. ♥

No comments: