The house passed the rescue plan 263-171. Republicans voted 91 in favor, 108 against. There are multiple possible conclusions to draw about McCain’s leadership. On the most pressing legislative issue of the day (and of recent memory):
1. McCain couldn’t bring a majority of his own party to vote in favor of a bill he supports.
2. McCain couldn’t get the other side to compromise enough to make it palatable to his party.
Either way, it doesn’t look good for his supposed bi-partisan leadership skills.
Keep in mind, this is not a bill proposed and initially shaped by the Democrats. This is a re-work of a bill originally proposed by the Bush administration. So, add another:
3. Despite being the nominal head of his party, McCain didn’t have enough influence to make sure that the original bill would be one that he could support himself and rally support from his caucus.
That would depend on how much further the economy deteriorates between now and the election.
Since you are correct that Obama is reported as having brought along more converts to support this sham legislation, if the economy tanks badly before th election, McCain will be free to go back on the attack against earmarks which IMO will be the takeaway of the genral public about why this bill passed.
120 Billion in pork made a bad bill good?
This could be a game changer either way but essentialy the dems have put their stamp on what was previously thought of as Bush’s bad economy.
Time will tell.
Most thinking people are figuring out that there isnt any difference between the two.
But it doesn’t change the political dynamic related to getting the bill passed. No matter how you slice it, McCain was unsuccessful in his effort to lead on the rescue plan.
<
p>If it’s his bill (or it’s a bill he supports), he failed to bring along his own caucus.
<
p>If it’s not his bill (or it’s a bill he didn’t support), he failed to lead on the drafting and the vote went against him.
<
p>And, it’s going to be tough to claim that he’d veto any bill with earmarks when he voted for this one even though his vote was not required for passage. He could have symbolically voted against it on the basis of its earmarks without eliminating whatever beneficial outcome it might deliver.
My equation neglected that he voted for the bowl of pork. That would be a stretch to now go and campaign against what you just voted for, but … its not like he hasnt pulled it off before and the electorates choices are quite limited.