Matthews Blames Bailout Crash On McCain's Failed Leadership

Chris Matthews points to John McCain's failure to provide the leadership that he promised -- and took credit for:

McCain said he was going to lead the Republican charge, he was going to make sure that this was a bipartisan success...he called charge, and the Republican retreated. That's what happened here.

Here's video:

Here's what McCain staff and surrogates were saying before the vote:

"This bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John McCain... This is a bipartisan accomplishment, a bipartisan success. And if people want to get something done in Washington, they just watch John McCain. He's been the guy whose name is at the top of major pieces of legislation for a long time."
-- Mitt Romney, NBC's Today show, 9/29/08

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this"
-- Steve Schmidt, NBC's Meet the Press, 9/28/08

"We're optimistic that Senator McCain will bring House Republicans on board without driving other parties away, resulting in a successful deal for the American taxpayer."
-- McCain spokeswoman Kimmie Lipscomb, 9/26/08

Comments

[Tobiasism]

03:18 PM on 09/30/2008

Nice going Little John.
Maybe stay out of it and stop mucking up the works.

[Nia1999]

02:39 PM on 09/30/2008

In light of all of this, why is John McCain saying it's Barack Obama's fault the bill did not pass because he (Obama) infused politics into the mix. Maybe I missed something, but all I heard Obama says is that we should not mix politics into this. How is McCain connecting Obama to the bill not passing?

[sunnydaz]

03:33 PM on 09/30/2008

Nia, Nia, Nia-- you are attempting to infuse this situation with reality-- something we just do NOT do when dealing with the republican base.

The way this works is this: The empty suit with a large "L" on his forehead (no, not "Loser" --too obvious. "Leader") simply releases 1, maybe 2 statements.(It is irrelevant if true or not. Again, don't be trying to force reality into this).

The "base," in turn, now simply "fills in the blanks" with what they think MUST be true. And VOILA! A new republican paradigm is born! See how easy?

Ok, now you try-- Sarah Palin is introduced with only three clues: 1)Governor, 2) Mother of 5 children; 3) special needs baby. . . and VOILA! After only a couple of weeks, she became everyone's #1 choice for president, a kick butt advocate for special needs children the world over, and a righteous reformer of nasty "big government".

Now, see how easy it is to manipulate the republican base?

[ferky123]

12:17 PM on 09/30/2008

The bad thing about crowing before something is done and a sure thing is that ou might have to eat crow.

[brocko]

11:19 AM on 09/30/2008

MUST HEAR RADIO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGpxUEN4RU

[1differentdrummer]

11:11 AM on 09/30/2008

So, a senator tried to lead House members? And everyone is surprised when Neut Gingrich has more clout in the House than Big Bad John? Surely you jest. I wonder, was John's PTSD ever treated? He's way too erratic for me, much too close to boiling, way too impressed with his own importance. Privileged all of his life, maybe his kite has finally lost its tail. Could he be reelected to the Senate if he tries? We'll see.

[stivebanks]

10:24 AM on 09/30/2008

HAAAA!
I can't believe i saw it!
McCain his speeches himself admitted that nothing has been understood in the economy!
http://tubedirect.net/index.php?q=McCain-CNN-interview
He said that what is not understood! )))

[Lucille]

10:14 AM on 09/30/2008

Although I understand the bill eventually must be passed so that regular people's credit cards don't stop working, etc., however, I'm proud of the Congressional Black Caucus whose majority did not vote for this bill. They wanted bankruptcy provisions included that would help all working and middle class Americans, but many Republicans and even some Democrats who want bail out Wall Street, wouldn't help, even a little, the average American who has been negatively affected by this economy, that has been tanking for over two or three years.

[sunnydaz]

10:10 AM on 09/30/2008

I'm no political junkie, so let me see if I have this right. The republican party wants to have a republican president. Check. The republican candidate for president has no political capital with the republican lawmakers. Check. The republican candidate has no political captial with the democratic lawmakers. Check.

And so, if this republican candidate for president were to actually become president, Congress would be a) more productive than it has been over the past (wasted) year? b) Less productive than the past year (hardly seems possible)? or c) total chaos in DC for an additional four years as the US slowly slips away?

Nice.

[NCMiddleman]

12:52 PM on 09/30/2008

You are forgetting the Republican President's most valuable asset in dealing with Congress. One can not question that the Republican VP would be a highly respected liason between the WH and Congress, and that House and Senate members of both parties would frequently defer to her knowledge, legislative experience and leadership in bringing about constructive dialogue regarding complex legislation. Either that, or Orrin Hatch would be constantly reminding her that he requires decaf.

[obamagal]

09:38 AM on 09/30/2008

James Clyburn was on Morning Joe this morning. As well, a report from Andrea Mitchell. There's a Newt Gingrinch angle to all of this. Check out this DailyKos diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/30/75423/1933/961/615335

[BrettinHalifax]

09:35 AM on 09/30/2008

60% of Democrats voted for it.
33% of Republicans voted for it.

The bill wasn't passed because the Republican President, Secretary of the Treasury and Presidential Nominee couldn't get their own party to vote for their own bill.

The Republican economic policy is a failure, but Republicans are so brainwashed by voodoo economics that they would rather kill the economy rather than admit the failure.

[lvrplfc4l]

02:10 PM on 09/30/2008

Great job by the Democratic House leadership to bring a bill to vote without 40% of their party to back it. The Democrat leadership can't say they are surprised by the House Republican vote when they have been against the bailout from the start. My guess is that this vote was all show and that on Thursday the Democrat leadership will roll out the vote with a big thank you to Senator Obama who convinced the no votes to back the plan. I wonder how much we will hear about politicizing the vote then.

[1dogs2]

08:41 AM on 09/30/2008

Matthews' perception that a "maverick," by definition, cannot lead is right on the money. If your primary behavioral characteristic is that you choose to go your own way, deliberately galloping alone away from your social group, how can you lead anyone to anything? If this man is elected, prepare for years in which there is no leadership from the White House and nothing is accomplished but an even greater level of chaos and confusion than we have experienced in the past 7 years.

[Rog49Thomas]

07:17 AM on 09/30/2008

Failed leadership seems to me to imply the possibility of leadership.

Not sure I buy that.

[AnotherTry]

05:56 AM on 09/30/2008

As the bailout bill was failing, Obama spoke to a crowd and no one carried it live. Why? Because he had NOTHING to say!

It is a democratically controlled house and they couldn't write a bill that democrats could get behind?

Why the hell not? This is a democratic failure of leadership.

Blame McCain all you want, but this bill was bad and should have never been brought to a vote.

[DeadHorse]

08:01 AM on 09/30/2008

As the bailout was failing no one carried the Obama rally because THE BAILOUT WAS FAILING. After all the guarentees coming from the McCain camp the actual NEWS story was his failure to bring his "leadership" to bear. If it was a failed bill, then McCain should have stood up to the rest of his party and said..THIS ISN"T IT. He didn't. He took all the credit and the bill failed. The Republican leadership couldn't get behind the bill and did nothing to offer a serious alternative.
Obama said that the bill was flawed but necessary and 2/3 of his party voted for it. McCain said the bill was HIS and he couldn't bring 1/3 of his party to vote for it. so...who failed here exactly?
And does that even matter. Good luck buying a car, a home, or an education.

[wahooligan]

08:04 AM on 09/30/2008

And if the news networks switched to Obama's remarks during coverage of the bailout, you would instead have been on here claiming it as further proof of the media's favorable bias to Obama for going to his remarks at a political rally while a crucial piece of legislation was being decided.

"How dare the media give him free air time during a crucial Congressional vote! He's not president yet! In the tank! In the tank!"

Save your phony outrage.

This was Bush's bill, end of story. It was a bitter pill to swallow for everyone involved, but the Dems sucked it up, decided to play ball, and rounded up the votes they promised to deliver on their side.

The Republicans failed to rally their troops in a likewise fashion.

It's a testament to the Republican Party's vacuum of leadership and political capital that neither their PRESIDENT nor their MAVERICK NOMINEE had the clout to live up to their side of the deal.

And EVERYONE loses as a result.

[likeicare]

05:40 AM on 09/30/2008

This is the first time I've ever been able to say this: Chris Matthews is right.

[Horst]

05:20 AM on 09/30/2008

This is how empires end. It is amazing how so many Americans tolerate ignoramuses like Bush and Palin...not to mention useless politicians like Pelosi and Rangel. Sad thing is there is no one to stand up and take charge. One good thing has that the hyper-partisan bickering (stoked by web sites like this) will accelerate the process of decline rendering it less painful. The masses will just wake poor and get on with their lives.