Reid to McCain: Don't Come Back to Capitol

A Democrat tells ABC News that, in a phone call late this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that it would NOT be helpful for him to come back to Washington, D.C., to work on the Wall Street bailout bill.

McCain this afternoon suspended his campaign and said he would skip the first presidential debate in order to return to Capitol Hill to work on the log-jammed Bush administration legislation, which, as of Wednesday afternoon, was in peril.

McCain had phoned Reid to ask about the prospects of him, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and others to sit down and work together on hammering out a bipartisan proposal.

Reid then read McCain the statement he had just put out: "This is a critical time for our country," says the Reid statement. "While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis. I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Sen. Obama’s suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op. If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.”

A source close to Reid said McCain didn't have much to say after that. Reid, the source says, thinks McCain's maneuver is a gimmick born from bad poll numbers and the fact that "debate prep must not be going very well."

UPDATE: McCain senior adviser Mark Salter emails: "Yesterday, Harry Reid said that consensus couldn't be achieved without John McCain's leadership. John stepped up and is providing that leadership. Now Senator Reid seems to have changed his mind for reasons we'll let him explain. But what he should understand is that this isn't about Harry Reid or John McCain or Barack Obama. It's about the American people and, in the words of Warren Buffet, the financial Pearl Harbor they're facing. John's committed to doing his part to help avert that calamity. We hope Senator Reid is too."

You must've cut and pasted your post for the thousandth time.

WHAT???? Show me where I've done this. You won't be able to do it, because I'm not normally on these threads.

same mantra the nonthinking here use over and over. Your threats aren't even valid ones - time to change your script.

Not a "threat", and I don't have a "script". But I stand by what I've said, that if we choose to sit out this election or vote third party, we can say "hello" to President Obama with a majority in the House and Senate, and it's gonna be Katie, bar the door. Not valid, you say? I'll bet that you're one of the ones who voted third party or sat out to "teach the RINOs a lesson". Well, how's that workin' out for ya, bud? After two years of insanity and show hearings, and dealing with the consequences of the actions of those who wanted to "teach the RINOs a lesson", I was actually looking forward to a chance at getting some of those freaks out and holding on to the White House. I am also VERY concerned about judges, because if liberals can't press their agenda in the legislature or at the ballot box, they fall back on the judiciary.

The oldest justices are all libs. If they are replaced with libs - that status quo hasn't changed.

Not good enough. I want to have at least a chance that they will be replaced with something other than libs.

statistically, not one will die or retire in the next 4 years anyway. It's the 8 after that that count.

A couple of them have been making noises about retiring. I believe they're waiting for a Democrat to be elected President, first, so that there will be a greater likelihood that they'll be replaced with someone of like mind.

Besides, McCain already said he wouldn't appoint someone like Alito (because he's too conservative) and he voted for Ginsburg.

Wrong again. McCain has said he WOULD appoint strict constructionists. And yes, he DID vote for Ginsburg along with Hatch and other Republicans. Their reasoning was that the President is entitled to appoint whomever he wants to the Court, as long as the appointee has the proper credentials and doesn't have any scandals or other issues in their background. Ideology didn't count. Of course, the Democrats in the Senate don't see things the same way.

I think YOU'RE the one who doesn't have his/her thinking cap on.

WHAT???? Show me where I've done this. You won't be able to do it, because I'm not normally on these threads.

Ok, if you've never posted like this before - sorry. Your post is just exactly like so many others posted over and over. I'm sure many of 'them' cut and pasted it.

I'll bet that you're one of the ones who voted third party or sat out to "teach the RINOs a lesson". Well, how's that workin' out for ya, bud?

No, I voted for Bush as the lesser of evils. And got screwed for it when he spent our money like crazy and pushed for amnesty. After that, I said never again. Although, I'm likely to vote for McAmnesty because he is showing some great leadership skills throughout this campaign. But I have big reservations because he loves illegals and hates conservatives. And likely will not appoint a conservative to the SC either. And I voted for - and will continue to vote for - my R rep because he is a true conservative.

No, I voted for Bush as the lesser of evils. And got screwed for it when he spent our money like crazy and pushed for amnesty. After that, I said never again. Although, I'm likely to vote for McAmnesty because he is showing some great leadership skills throughout this campaign. But I have big reservations...

Likewise, although I didn't think of Bush as the lesser of the evils. I have been VERY disappointed with him for losing his veto pen for so long, increasing the size of government, and pushing the amnesty for illegal immigrants. But I keep thinking about what Reagan said years ago, about not needing a third party, but needing a revitalized(?) Republican party. Can't remember the word he used, and too lazy to google it right now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.