McCain said earlier, "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."
Riiiiiiiiiight. Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
The House contains 200 Republicans and 235 Democrats for a grand total of 435. How did the vote break down?
AGAINST: 133 Republicans (66.5% of Republicans) and 95 Democrats (40.4% of Democrats)
FOR: 65 Republicans (32.5% of Republicans) and 140 Democrats (59.6% of Democrats)
ABSTAIN: 2 Republicans ( 1.0% of Republicans) and 0 Democrats.
Tell me again how it's the Democrats' fault?
Let's PRETEND for a second that McCain is right. Surely he's the sort of leader that could rally all the Representatives from his own state, right?
Wrong. All four Democrats from Arizona voted against the measure. Wait?! Maybe it is their fault then! I'm sure he got all the support from the REPUBLICANS in Arizona, right?
Wrong. All four Republican representatives from Arizona voted against the measure.
In McCain's home state, he went 0-8 as far as unity towards passing the bill. That's some fine leadership skills there, buddy.
Correlation
3 hours ago
2 comments:
it seems to me like if there was "partisanship" the vote would have been, well, umm, along party lines. instead both parties crossed the aisle. instead, it was more along regional lines. McCain's region clearly did not come through.
Also, he said he was willing to debate, because he was sure that the bailout plan was pretty much a go.
is there anyone saying "if only he had stayed in washington, instead of going down to mississippi, this whole thing could have been avoided!"?
but, if mccain wanted to take the credit for this package, i believe he deserves the blame for its failure
I'm still waiting for a resuspension of his campaign. Since it wasn't a stunt the first time, and he really cares about America more than being elected.
Post a Comment