As the Bush administration on Friday proposed a sweeping government bailout to address the nation's financial woes, CNBC's chief Washington correspondent John Harwood told viewers that such a move could help John McCain's presidential campaign because the "crisis on Wall Street benefits Barack Obama."
This came just days after CNN's David Gergen and Candy Crowley made similar assertions with the latter stating that "horrific" headlines from Wall Street were exactly what the Obama campaign wanted.
What follows is a partial transcript of this exchange from CNBC's "The Call" Friday (video embedded right):
TRISH REGAN, CO-ANCHOR CNBC'S 'THE CALL': How could McCain conceivably capitalize on [this bailout proposal], or do you think John Harwood that it's really going to be something that benefits Obama?
JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, in the big picture, Trish, this anxiety about the future of the economy, crisis on Wall Street benefits Barack Obama for the reasons we just heard. He represents the out-party, we've had eight years of a Republican administration. But I will say that if we get a deal that calms the markets, that stops the turbulence, that lets everybody get back on an even keel, that makes it less of a disadvantage for John McCain than it would be otherwise. The calmer things are, the less people are panicked about the state of the country, the state of the markets, the better it is for John McCain. He's been losing ground. Barack Obama is ahead by a few points in the polls. He was behind by a few points a week ago. But this could stop the bleeding for John McCain to some degree if this thing goes through quickly.
Fascinating. So, if the proposal by the Bush administration goes through quickly, and the recent turbulence in the markets ceases, this will help McCain and hurt Obama.
As such, three questions come to mind. First, how will media report this bailout proposal?
After all, if Harwood is right, and this would help McCain, the Obama-loving press should be strongly against it, correct? Won't it be interesting if the liberal, always in favor of bigger government media take the position tonight and over the weekend that this bailout is anti-capitalistic and bad for the free market?
On the other hand, what will the Democrat leadership in Congress do?
With Congress set to take ANOTHER recess beginning next Friday, will they postpone this in order to address the Administration's proposal? Or, will they delay hearings on this matter until after the elections so that any benefit McCain could get from less volatile markets will be prevented?
Finally, if Congress does recess without voting on this proposal, how will media justify such a move given the currently weak condition of the financial services industry and the markets?
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"crisis on Wall Street
September 19, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Indiana Joe"crisis on Wall Street benefits Barack Obama."
Only because most people don't understand what happened and why.
To the Dems eternal advantage.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
obama "benefits" all right
September 19, 2008 - 13:41 ET by TruthMongeri can just hear everyone thinking "only Barak Obama - community organizer and 143-day junior senator - can fix this...!!"
mainly because we all know democrats have always been great champions of capitalism...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Typical
September 19, 2008 - 12:19 ET by NJ DanTypical of CNN
Why doesn't the GOP counter with Carters 2nd term when the dems say McCain is Bush's 3rd term?
Also, higher taxes would be patriotic if the money wasn't squandered by the gov't.
Also, 95% get a tax cut? and they get reemed by 10 other increases.
The demes hand in hand with
September 19, 2008 - 12:25 ET by bigtimerThe dems hand in hand with the msm have been screaming how bad things are for years now...of course they want people to be in bad shape, or hope make them feel they are daily...
I am sick of this tactic...
As far as I am concerned McCain made some great points this morning in his speech in Wisc. mentioning Johnson and Raines Freddy/Fanny profiteers that worked for Obama, McCain needs to do this every-time he can when it comes to economics ect...it is about time this is made public over and over...
This is way past due...
As far as congress is concerned, they have been a huge part of the problem in so many ways...I don't care one way or the other if they stay in session until after the election, nothing will get passed anyway before the election..heck drilling wasn't important enough to stay...I can only see the dems pretending once again that they really really care.
They only care if it benefits them and their lobbyists.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Then I guess that means...
September 19, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Prester John....the 800 point gain from yesterday and today is real b*tch for the Annointed one, which proves once again that good news for America is good news for Republicans and that bad news for America is good news for Democrats.
Dems know that either way, this benefits McCain
September 19, 2008 - 12:51 ET by superdoughThe smart thing for the Dems to do is put this thing away quickly. If they drag it out, Obama's links to SM and FM will come more and more into light. The MSM will try to squash the story of BHO and the Congretional Black Caucas pressuring banks to underwrite these bad loans and getting kickbacks for backing off when things began to go bad, but it is all going to come out eventually if this thing drags on... McCain wins.
If they vote on it quickly and calm the markets, BHO can't scream about the second great depression that is overtaking America... McCain wins.
needs more cowbell
If this continues...
September 19, 2008 - 13:06 ET by AgentAmericanMeet John Boehner, Speaker of the House...
We have a golden opportunity to take back Congress...this year.
Drill ANWAR
Is this why the Dems refused to change the regs?
September 19, 2008 - 13:19 ET by c5thenTwo years ago when McCain and others were asking that the regulations on selling mortgages be tightened up and he was warning that there might be a coming financial crisis, the Dems blocked the bill and eventually killed it, in effect doing nothing. Was this the reason why? were they actually trying to perpetrate a crisis because they were looking toward the elections?
Obama showed he would rather lose a war to have an issue. The Dems in general would rather trash the country to try and use it as an election issue.
It might be. It could be.
September 19, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Copperhead RidgeI won't say "It is." This could be trouble for the Democrats and a homerun for the GOP, but there's no guarantee for it turn out that way. The media will try to pin it on the Republicans, and a lot of people default to financial problems being a Republican problem.
The voting public will never get their minds around the roots of the problem, especially when they have to dig into the internet to find the truth.
I just can't help to think that the collapse of the lending market will damage McCain.
Obama and the Financial crisis
September 19, 2008 - 13:34 ET by east tennessee johnThere are 3 interrelated events that have this crisis.1.) The repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act which created a "firewall" between commercial and investment banking practices and investments. This was repealed in 1999 with support of Clinton and Sec. Rubin. This allowed for the purchase of "securitized " loan packages of dubious repayment quality. Many of these leading investment bankers, the leader was Bear Stearns, have executives with close ties to the Democrats and show up on donor lists.@.)There was an aggressive application of the Community Reinvestment Act provisions. This gave, with lack of managerial oversight, imputus for writing marginal, if not illegal loans. 3.)The mismanagement of and disregarding of regulations and the definition of what a "conforming" loan was. These actions were insulated by polittical support actions taken by both Freddie and Fannie which included direct political contributions to politicians and to supportive special intrest groups. This debacle and its aftermath is the type of change people really want. It is a clear case of D.C. insiders lining their pockets, with no accountability. This is the type of change McCain and Palin are talking about, not the implementation of policy goals from 1948. Where's Obama? His speech today avoided the real issues. He can't even tell you where the money is going to come from for the people he plans on raisng taxes on. It can only come from 2 places. They eat the increase and reduce their disposable income, or they raise prices on the goods and services they provide on every body else. 100% more inflation for everyone, higher taxes on the job creators and this is a formula for economic growth? His Black Liberation theoelogy belief system, which he has NEVER discussed, advocates democratic socialism as a replecement for capitalism. Can he name 1 democratically socialist economy that is, even with our problems, that is superior to ours? I don't think he can, nor does he really want to try.
Answer to Noel's 3 questions
September 19, 2008 - 13:37 ET by DanSchwartzFriends, I don't know if any of you were watching CNBC last night (9/18/08) about 8:30PM when the Senate & House leadership emerged from the Speaker's office after being briefed by Paulson & Bernanke: They were all ashen-faced, and more than one actually had fear in their voice, like they just had a near-death experience... Especially Barney Fwank.
Folks, this is a serious problem: Reports from that meeting on Fox News this morning said that they were warned by Paulson & Bernanke that "the whole financial market is within days of a total meltdown".
To answer the second question, Pelosi already stated this morning that she'll keep the House in session past next Friday if needed.
Please visit my Home Page at
http://users.snip.ne...
Why did so many 'conservative' Wall Street companies
September 19, 2008 - 14:08 ET by c5thenthrow out their financial wisdom and caution and essentially bet the farm on 'double zero'?
This makes no sense to me. There had to be some sense that if their long-shot high risk/high gain bets didn't work out, they would be rescued. These firms didn't just all independantly decide to become compulsive gamblers all at the same time.
DON'T PANIC ... Pelosi is on the case!
September 19, 2008 - 14:17 ET by Jack BauerYou mean she cancelled her weeky hair appointment and botox injection.
Yikes -- things must really be GRIM!
Thank goodness this superbly qualified brainbox is on the case!
I feel so reassured that the lovely Grandma Nancy (as she is called in MY family) is a mere two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Update to "Answers to Noel's 3 questions"
September 19, 2008 - 15:55 ET by DanSchwartzAlthough NB is for debunking the MSM, I feel obliged to update my prior post to add attribution with this quote from the NYTimes at: http://www.nytimes.c...
"As Senator Christopher J. Dodd,
Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program “Good
Morning America,” the congressional leaders were told “that we’re
literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial
system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”"
And, to update my remark about a certain congress-critter from Massachusetts, he looked like he saw a vagina for the first time...
Please visit my Home Page at
http://users.snip.ne...