Okay. I need to take a bit of a closer look at McSame's attempt to make Obama the scapegoat on the bailout. Not that it's not ridiculous enough in and of itself. According to the LATimes the "reasoning" (please understand that I use the term as loosely as humanly possible) behind blaming Obama was that he
and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.
(In case you find this funny, the very next thing out of McSame's mouth was, "Now is not the time to fix the blame; it is time to fix the problem." ...brain...explodey...*gurgle*...)
However, the numbers on the failed bailout (from the NYTimes article) were hardly split along partisan lines:
The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans turning against President Bush to join 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.
So, if anything, shouldn't we blame McSame's "reaching across the aisle" for the failure of the bailout?? Also, McSame was for the bailout, right? But 133 reps from his party opposed it.
Okay, okay...I feel like a little lost Qualyin here, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around this...let's formulate a brief timeline of the McSame stance on the bailout bill, for my benefit:
This morning: McSame camp applauds its namesake for taking bipartisan action (which all press denies ever happened) to make the bailout work (which it doesn't).
Early this afternoon: Bailout gets shot down bipartisan-ly. Obama tells the people of America to remain calm, that things are often rocky in Congress but that a solution will be reached. McSame spouts angry anti-Obama rhetoric.
Later this afternoon: McSame claims that Obama re-partisaned the bipartisaned-ness of the bailout thus causing it's failure - even though it was shot down by both parties, but mostly republicans.
What were we talking about again?