He can choose to wear a dress and sing show tunes, too, but he won't.

When push comes to shove, Barbour will support McCain...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

That's what's more damaging to McCain; he keeps pulling these stunts to grab the headlines, and then once he's got the attention he doesn't do anything and it favors Obama.

Barbour doesn't have to come out for Obama. Barbour just has to reflect afterwards that he's disappointed that McCain didn't show and that'll be enough to hurt McCain even more.

Oh boy is McCain out of the loop. First he says he got Paulson's 3 pager on Monday, then on Tuesday he says he hadn't had a chance to look at it, then on Wednesday he flips out, only 10 days after black Monday.

Even Arianna Huffington is saying Obama is the follower on this issue.

Great article, considering who wrote it.

Wow, I'm just blown away. I was about to go to bed but now I've got to take advantage of the opportunity.

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

Now that's a good one, Steve, "When push comes to shove."

There are two things I'm pretty confident about, Steve. First, I'm confident that I know Hailey Barbour A WHOLE LOT better than you do; and second, I am confident that Hailey Barbour will not tolerate either being pushed or shoved.

As I noted above, Hailey Barbour can choose to sit on his hands, and there is nothing a foul-mouthed wanna-be-cyber-bully named Steve can do about it.

Steve's a pussycat; he's no bully. He simply calls people on their bullshit.

Regardles of whom you know personally, it's a really good bet Barbour will not support BHO.

Steve tries to bully everyone who disagrees with him. I'm not the first one to call him on that--in fact, I'm not even the first one in this thread.

Now, you are another matter entirely. Your basic problem seems to fall under the category of "reading and comprehending." I want you to go back through each of my posts above. Read them again. Read them carefully. If there is anything in them you don't understand, get someone to explain them to you. If you'll do that, you might see that I NEVER SUGGESTED that Barbour would "support BHO."

As is so often the case, you have not responded to what was actually posted, but have instead created your own illegitimate issue. Get a life.

If by "constructive" you mean point out obvious and proven facts...sure.

Thanks for the unsolicited suggestion that I get a life and your impliction about reading and comprehending. Shall I link to the reason I see your implication about comprehension as quite silly? I'll remind you of our first interaction on USPOL. You were seriously confused. I'll be more than pleased to provide that link, if you continue with this silliness of yours.

I see you also think I am a bully. No matter. I find folks who play the victim to be pathetic.

And, to get to your silly outrage about what you never suggested. Let us know where I ever suggested that you did suggest Barbour would support BHO. In fact, it is quite silly that you assume that, but those with persecution complexes often do see persecution where there is none.

I did not suggest that YOU were a bully, Si modo. Nor am I "playing the victim," since I am confident that what I posted above made very good sense and was a real contribution to the thread, in contrast to your simpering and false hair-splitting. It is quite apparent to anyone who is following this election that John McCain needs the support of important regional and national Republican leaders like Hailey Barbour. It should be equally apparent that it is not smart politics for McCain to grievously offend those whose support he needs--and Hailey Barbour is a big one.

I don't think that you, Si modo, are any more or less confused than usual. I just don't think you are being very honest, or smart, or nice. But I have never thought you were any of those things in the past, so it makes no difference now.

OK, MS. Clever, go to the post where you jumped in to defend Steve, and which ended with this:

I hope that refreshes your frequently-inadequate memory.

Putting aside your silliness (and if we are to be formal with silly names, it's not "Ms"), your perception that "Regardles of whom you know personally, it's a really good bet Barbour will not support BHO" is suggesting that you said Barbour would support BHO is quite the reach. Shall we go back to discussing comprehension? Me? Steve? Your persecution? Or maybe the campaign would be something we should discuss (as I was before you took us off topic). What do you think?

The only reason you like that article is because it takes Obama to task. If you look at the details of what she's accusing him of, it comes down to not using this opportunity to leverage a lot of Democratic pet issues with only a tangential connection to the mortgage crisis itself. In other words, she was excoriating him for not being an unthinking sort of leftist. (OTOH, maybe you agree with that. If he were an unthinking sort of leftist, then he'd be less likely to win the election.)

I saw Obama's press conference on the subject. He wasn't saying that an economic stimulus package or bankruptcy reform were bad ideas in themselves, merely that the emergency bailout was urgent enough that those issues shouldn't be coupled with it. He also said what things DID need to be coupled with it, and I agreed with that. It's not as if he were accepting the Bush proposal without scrutiny or without debate, just that he isn't prepared to use the debate as a political bait-and-switch to cause the bill to be derailed just so the other party can be blamed for it.

Is the bailout really that urgent? Washington Mutual failed today, and they were only the biggest bank in the nation. They were liquidated, sold off cheap, it cost taxpayers nothing, and the Dow went up 200 points.

A stimulus package for regular people and small businesses, making sure students get their loans, and more oversight I can deal with. But a huge blank check seems ridiculous. If the biggest bank can fail and hardly anyone notices, then why don't they let more of them fail and then get bought up by others?

How could McCain be in favor of the bailout plan? He hadn't even read Paulson's 2 page proposal...

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

I kind of feel bad for him. As a Senator, he is one of those, like Obama, who takes the temperature of a room, and then builds from all sides. In the photo op yesterday, each of them sitting at ends of that long table, Obama and McCain were both inclined to be looking around the whole time, gauging where everyone else was at.

But for McCain he's got to be like, "Oh shit.....these people are so far apart I'm going to have to suspend my thing for at least another good week or so".

Obama's been clear, and from statements on his websites to interviews he did on Monday, you could tell he had read Paulson's proposal, and that's when he came out and insisted on his 4 points that must be in the bill.

But House Republicans don't want that. It's free-market all the way with them, with a guarantee of little or no oversight.

If McCain stands with them, he won't lose his base, but he'll look like a partisan hack who doesn't actually care for reform. And if he signs onto the thing that Obama supports, McCain's base and staunch conservatives will go back to not liking him, and it will confirm that he goes along with Bush on everything.

The hard lesson for McCain is that there really is no credit to be taken for this thing. No easy fixes.

I can't wait to see what happens next.

It's not "quite a reach," it's what you intended to imply. Now you are trying to weasel out of responsibility for your own post. I can't say that I blame you for that--it was a really dishonest attempt to tie me to something I had never said. So you play like Perry Mason or Johnny Cochran trying to trip up a witness. I have a suggestion for you--If you intend to play at being Johnny Cochran, you ought to learn how to rhyme.