GOP rejects President Bush...why?

Only one-third of the Republicans in Congress supported their president on an issue of vital importance. That's how Bush described his $700 billion financial sector bailout scheme - as an issue of vital importance. It's too bad Bush wasn't similarly rejected by his own party when he had sought congressional authorization to go to war against Iraq back in 2002. Wouldn't that have been something?

How on earth can this be spun?

If only 13 Congressmen had voted yes instead of no, this bailout package would have passed. And this wouldn't have changed the support ratio by much:

After the actual vote, the final tally showed that 60% of the Dems and 33% of the Pubbers had given their support.

If the bill had passed with a majority of Dems in support and a majority of the Pubbers in opposition, the Dems could have gleefully claimed: "See! The Pubbers didn't even support their own President...but we did! That's got to be worth some points with conservatives who still think Bush is doing a good job. Maybe some of them will think we're the good guys now and end up voting for Obama." [Hmm...that sounds really lame!]

Or maybe the Pubbers would be able to snicker among themselves: "We managed to demonstrate one more time how often the Dems have no problem giving Bush whatever he wants. So much for Obama's efforts to connect McCain with Bush in the voters' minds. Now they'll see Bush as connected with the Dems who supported this massive Big Government corporate welfare bill." [An attitude like this would serve to reveal the genuine lack of respect the Pub lawmakers had for Bush all along.]

What does this quote imply?

QUOTE:

An analysis by statistician Nate Silver, who runs FiveThirtyEight.com, made this clear. ... members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided - 197 for it to 198 against [the bailout package].

:UNQUOTE [http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080930/us_time/thebailoutdefeatapoliticalcredibilitycrisis ]

Evenly divided? If this bill was seen as being that (obviously) bad, in the eyes of those safe-seat Congressmen, they wouldn't have been "evenly divided" but would, instead, have been overwhelmingly in opposition.

So if we are to conclude this bill wasn't that bad, how is it that 13 more votes couldn't have been scrounged up to assure its passage? Maybe those GOP Congressmen denied their support in order to give John McCain a chance to ride to the rescue by rounding up the additional support necessary to pass the bill on a second vote. If that was the plan, McCain surely spoiled it by speaking as he did in the following article.

QUOTE:

McCain told reporters there were steps the administration could still take "with the stroke of the pen to help alleviate the crisis gripping our economy."

McCain mentioned using a federal stabilization fund to back uninsured money market accounts, which the Treasury Department is already using to guarantee money market mutual funds.

He also suggested the federal government start using its authority to purchase up to $1 trillion in mortgages.

:UNQUOTE [from the Associated Press at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/01/mccain_obama_urge_action_on_crisis/ ]

McCain appears to be suggesting something which Dubya completely overlooked. I can see it now: George picks up the phone and calls McCain: "Mac, I want to thank you for that brilliant suggestion about waving a magic wand - er - using the stroke of a pen to help solve this crisis. I never thought of that. Man, you're a genius - all our number crunchers agree with me on that one."

And that last sentence, with Mac suggesting Big Government spend $1 trillion. I imagine the GOP rank-and-file, in all their various watering holes across this great land of ours, are going just spastic with delight at that prospect.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Right now, John McCain is looking so hapless, he might as well fire Sarah Palin and ask Tina Fey to be his running mate. Hmm...say, that just might do the trick" - Steve

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.