Democrats mislead media about a deal being 'close'

Stephen Hayes:

Yesterday afternoon, I went to CNN to talk about bailout politics. When I arrived, I was surprised to learn from the other two panelists--CNN's Gloria Borger and the Washington Post's Dana Milbank--that a deal on an amended version of the Treasury Department's $700 billion bailout plan was close. I was surprised because I had been hearing the opposite--that House Republicans were increasingly opposed to a deal and that such a deal seemed less likely yesterday than it was when the plan was originally proposed. But others, including the Associated Press, were reporting that a deal was imminent.

Then, earlier today, the AP reported that such a deal had, in fact, been reached. The Washington Post soon followed, in an article that strongly suggested McCain was irrelevant to the process and reported that he had arrived after a deal had been struck.

McCain's "Straight Talk Air" landed at National Airport just after noon, and McCain's motorcade sped toward the Senate. But by then, senior Democrats and Republicans colleagues were already announcing that a deal in principle had been reached.

The Obama campaign gleefully sent the Post story out to reporters at 4:22 and affixed its own headline: "'Straight Talk Air' lands after deal was announced."

So what happened? I'm not sure anyone knows the full story, but here is my take. When John McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, Democrats moved quickly to portray the decision as strictly political. (Senator Chuck Schumer said as much in an interview on CNN.) An important element of their case was convincing reporters that a deal was close and McCain presence was (a) unnecessary, (b) potentially detrimental, or (c) both.

But that's a hard case for them to make for two reasons. First, Harry Reid. On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had explicitly called for McCain to use his influence as party leader to bring House Republicans along. "We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us," Reid said. "We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do." Reid explained that McCain was crucial to any deal because his approval of a deal would give congressional Republicans political cover necessary to sign on to a bipartisan agreement. The second reason: House Republicans were never on board. Earlier this week, they gave Vice President Dick Cheney an earful about their opposition to the deal. Yesterday morning, a group of about 50 conservative House Republicans got together and when one speaker asked for a show of hands from those who support the bailout, less than a handful said they were likely to support it. One staffer for a Republican in House leadership said: "Understand one thing. House Republicans were never on board."

By this morning, Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank--the two lead congressional Democrats on this issue--were telling reporters that a deal was close. But according to House sources, those claims were nonsense. "This was a smart political move by Senator McCain--working in a bipartisan fashion to try to get something done," says a senior House Republican aide. "It's something he's done in the past." Democrats, this Republican says, immediately began plotting to deny McCain credit for a deal if one was reached and to blame him if a deal was not reached.

...

It appears that much of the media is going along with the Democrat politics of fraud and deceit. It is just more evidence of how much in the tank they are for the Democrats and Obama. They lost a lot of credibility Thursday by claiming a deal was done. They will lose more by blaming McCain for it not being done.