The mainstream media, of course, is already calling McCain's decision to "suspend" his Presidential campaign and go back to Washington to "put his country first" a desperation "gimmick". That is because the mainstream media now hates John McCain. They are "all in" to destroy him, with disgraceful smear after disgraceful smear against both McCain and Palin. In fact, the count of "negative ads" being run by Obama is totally inaccurate, because it fails to include the hundreds of negative "ads" being run by the mainstream media against McCain and Palin, in the dishonest disguise of "news" coverage (just like "infomercials try to disguise themselves as real informational TV programs).
Now the mainstream media used to love John McCain. For example, if McCain had gotten out of his sick bed, or left a campaign, in order to come to Washington to oppose soemthing being done by President Bush, or derail some conservative initiative, the mainstream media would have the same kind of orgasms they will have if Obama wins on election night (and have every time the meaningless polls show Obama ahead). We know this because the mainstream media did have orgasms every time McCain trashed conservatives, or opposed President. Contrary to the view of the dishonest mainstream media, McCain has not changed. Contrary to the view McCain might have, the media has not changed. They simply used McCain to go after their real enemies: conservatives and Republicans (in that order). The mainstream media was always going to turn on McCain, and had before McCain chose Palin (which merely created a foaming-at-the mouth madness in leftists, media and otherwise, rather than change their fundamental intention to destroy McCain).
Okay, we have established that we can, and should, ignore the mainstream media. The headline question remains: Is McCain a statesman or an idiot ("both" remains an option)? Now I heard one media person say that McCain is not going to be there drafting clauses to put in the legislation to "save" the country. So what. How naive--not to say stupid--are "journalists" to even suggest that any Congress person drafts actual legislation. The staff does those things. The most a Congress person does is is approve or disapprove ideas, and perhaps vetocertain language and demand it be changed. You're lucky if Congress people actually read the bills that finally pass. They often don't, and are often given little chance to do so.
It is doubtful, moreover, that McCain is going to bring any fresh, new ideas to the debate in Washington beyond what he has already said. Means nothing. It is entirely possible that McCain is sincere, and thinks his country needs him. I say that as a person who has never understood McCain. I have not understood it when he trashed conservatives, and cozied up to leftists and media people who were ultimately his enemies--often trashing conservatives gratuitously when it could not really do him anything bu political harm. McCain marches to his own drummer, whether you like it or not. I mostly do not (supporting the McCain-Palin ticket because of Palin). But I don't make the mainstream media/leftist mistake of hating McCain, nor of letting that hatred I do not possess cause me to suspect McCain's motives. I don't delude myself that I have any idea what McCain's motives are, and I am sure the mainstream media has no idea (and cannot even discuss the subject rationally). That means that the only alternative is to assume McCain is generally acting for the reasons he states, and ask whether it makes sense. In this case, it actually does..
I watched a few sentences today on this proposed "bail out" legislation from Senator Charles Schumer, who is the most dishonest, partisan leftist political hack in Congress. Schumer was true to form--or so I observed before my gagging and vomiting forced me to turn him off. He started off by saying that "something had to be done", and that the Congress was determined to have a simple bill to handle the immediate crisis rather than make this bill a "Christmas tree" of partisan provisions that would sabotage the bill. Then Schumer proposed a "Christmas tree" of provisions that would (should) sabotage the bill. Did I tell you that Schumer is dishonest, as well as partisan? I know I did.
Xhumer wants to use this bill to let the Federal Government obtain equity interests in companies it helps, like Democrat Warren Buffet (an Obama consultant--have you noticed that more Big Money, Wall Street types are now Democrat rather than Republican, which explains why people at the bankrupt Lehman Brothers have much more money to Obama than to McCainm, which was also true of Democrat dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). This provision alone would sabotage the bill, even if it were to pass, because it will complicate the "bail out" to the point of insanity (besides giving Wall Street a further reason to panic, and not much reason to sign on to the program). Then Schumer wants limits on executive compensation for corporations "participating" in the program (will any? is the question). Oh yes, Schumer wants a "bail out" for individual homeowners, and not just Wall Street "fat cats"--the problem beng that this is probably a bad idea, but he logic behind it is impeccable. WHY should "fat cats" be bailed out and not homeowners? Oh yeah, SChumer also wants to "protect the taxpayer"--not only with that "oversight" board but with complicated provisions about evaluating how this is "working" in stages, so that we can hold back taxpayer money if the first stages do not go well. Have I mentioned the Shcumer desired requirement that every transaction be reported, maybe on a daily website, and be subject to second guessing (by Schumer, Congress, and leftist busy bodied, or just plain busy bodies, everywhere?). Christmas tree anyone? I left here, and Schumer may have had 20 or 30 other things he wanted to put in the bill.
Remember the immigration bill debate? McCain was on the point. It idid not help get the bill passed (thank God again), but McCain was there fighting from beginning to end. For awhile, it looked like he and Kennedy would succeed in pushing the McCain-Kennedy/Bush bill through. As I have said before Obama was missing in action. Oh, he may have voted, but he made no effort to have a high profile on the bill. He wanted to duck responsibility on the bill, and the provisions in it. He was too busy running for President, and more fundamentally saw no political gain to being "out front" on the immigration issue. Think what you want of McCain (and I do), but he has political courage. McCain could have ducked the fight on the immigration bill after it died in 2006, and was deemed dead early last year. Instead, McCain tried to push the bill through (damn him). Obama has done really nothing but run for President since he has been in the Seante, and has ducked all of the hard issues (asfar as leadership is concerned.
Therefore, the reactioins of McCain and Obama here are consistent with their prior record. Obama wants to avoid responsibility for what happens. He does not want to be responsible for the exact provisions of the bill, in terms of taking a definite public stand, and he does not want to be responsible if the bill fails to pass and the country goes under. Obama does not want to be actively involved in the negotiatons over this bill, where he can then be tagged with responsibility if things go wrong.
What is the advantage of McCain and Obama putting their reputations on the line, in person, to get a bill passed? You should be able to see it as well as I do, but luckily you have me to tell you. McCain's party in Congress know that, with him their, their nominee has put himself behind passing a "solution". If they fail, McCain has failed (although I think that kind of failure is superior to Obama staying outside, where he can deny responsiblity). McCain can personally talk to Democrats and Republicans to try to get something done, and threaten to name names if it does not get done. He can read the riot act to people like me (see below) in his own party. Obama, in turn, could could read the riot act to Charles Schumer. He could say: "Chuck, I am not going to let you be partisan on this. The country is at stake and I have put my reputatiion on the line. I don't want you to play games with this bill. Keep it simple." This only works if Obama is there, publicly putting his reputation on the line (something he has failed to do his entire life).
I will put it bluntly: Now that McCain has done this, Obama shows himself unfit to be President of the United States if he does not similarly put his reputation on the line, whether he "suspends" his campaign or not.
Advice to McCain: Stand firm on the debate. Offer to debate foreign policy in town halls next week, after this is done in Congress. Offer to have the last debate open to all subjects, including foreign policy, and expand the debate half an hour. Whatever you do, do not debate on Friday. If the media lets Obama hold an "empty chair" debate, blast the media and blast Obama something along the lines of the above. It is time to show you really know how to stand up to both Obama and the mainstream media. People like me often get the idea that you are, for some reason (surely not lack of courage) are unwilling to take a direct stand against Obama and the mainstream media, when you think they are standing togehter. Sometimes, we conservatives get the idea that you are unwilling to make a direct stand against either. You say you don't care whether people like you, and yet you often act like that is the main thing you do care about (except you don't care if conservatives like you).
McCain appears to have made a stand. He can't afford to back off now. If Democrats attempt to sabotage him in Congress, and the mainstream media tries to do it outside of Congress, McCain needs to call them on it.
P.S. I have come to my own decision. I cannot support this "bail out" that McCain is supposedly going back to Washington to save. As I have said, I regard Bernanke, Greenspan, Paulson, Schumer, Dodd, Barney Frank, and all of the rest in Congress and regulatory agencies as failed central planners. Now these same central planners, including President Bush, want me to betray every conservative principle I have, and endorse central planning as the way to "solve" problems, presumably forever after. How can people ever argue against it again, when the argument is made that we "have to". That includes nationalized health care and everything else. Conservatives might as well fold their tents if they endorse this bail out--at least until the inevitable, Soviet Union style collapse of our entire Federal Government. I have said that I cannot be sure that the central planning "solution" of Bernanke and Paulson is not "necessary" to "save" our financial system, although I am convinced that people who are not central planners at heart could come up with other answers. I could suggest some, but I will not try here, and I don't have enough information to suggest a comprehensive "plan". The point is that central planning eventually fails, no matter how it may seem to work in the short term. That is because human beings are fallible, and always make mistakes. The difference with central planning is that the mistakes are bigger, and fatal in the end. So I don't support what I think is McCain's position here. That does not change my analysis above. A real leader still needs to put himself on the line, whether he is right or wrong. But I stand by my opinion of Bernanke and Paulson as failures, and I regard it as a grave--even fatal--mistake. I would vote against this in Congress, even at the risk of an implosion of our financial system. Somewhere, you have to make a stand (really, you have to makes stands on principle multiple times in your life). I am not sure Obama understands that. I do. I would make, and am making, a stand here--on what I think is the opposite side of McCain and Obama (if he has a "side") both.