Should Friday's Presidential Debate Be Postponed?
 

The first of the Presidential Debates is scheduled for this Friday and today, McCain has called for a "delay" until Congress acts on the financial "crisis".

Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain's representative in debate negotiations, said McCain will not attend the debate "unless there is an agreement that would provide a solution" to the financial crisis.

McCain has also said he will suspend his campaign activities until a bi-partisan compromise response is voted out of Congress..."putting the good of the country above politics."

McCain senior adviser Mark Salter said that McCain “will suspend airing all ads and all campaign events pending an agreement with Obama, though Salter did not know whether John McCain will suspend fundraising activities. He added that McCain would take part in the debate as scheduled if Congress reached agreement on the measure by Friday morning.”

Several Fox News reporters lauded the “very, very big move” by McCain.......hailed it as “a bold move, a very strong move.” ...adding that McCain is making “some political sacrifice” by volunteering to leave the campaign trail.

Obama responded that a leadership should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time and the American people should hear from the two candidates, one of whom will be the next president.

"With respect to the debates, it’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess. And I think that it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe and where we stand and where we want to take the country."

Delay the debate or go forward?

I don't see why they should delay the debate. The debate is more for those two candidates and regular citizens. I can't see how it influences Congress much. Perhaps I'm naive?

Are they missing the session to go to the debate? If that's the case, then I'd be all for them doing their jobs before finding new ones.

If they aren't going to miss anything, then go forward with the debate.

The results of a poll after McCain's announcement:

Absolutely! And in the debate, they should receive an electric shock every time they don't answer a question or try to change the subject.

could you imagine how toasty everyone would be in the TFP Politics forum if we had such a device?

cyn...McCain hasnt voted on any legislation since April....Obama since July.

They can be fully briefed on any pending bi-partisan solution and the Senate vote can be scheduled before the debate..or even the day after.

Only one thing has changed on the campaign trail in the last week, while both candidates have been addressing the issue in every press appearance or campaign stop......Obama's polling numbers are going up and McCain's are going down.

I don't think they should delay the debate but they should both shelve their current economic policies of tax cuts until further notice.

Sounds like a meaningless gesture that's going to appeal to people too stupid to understand otherwise. The debates should go on, and if they can't both handle a debate and their job in the senate, they're not really prepared to be the president. Pretty simple.
-----Added 24/9/2008 at 06 : 17 : 08-----
Hear hear, and I don't even support taxes.

I would agree. And they should discuss it (w/o shock therapy, but firm moderation) at Friday's debate.

That would require changing the debate focus and format. Friday's was supposed to be about foreign policy/national security and the Oct. 15 debate about the economy/domestic policy.

They should be capable of re-focusing on the fly.

Go forward. I'd like them to stick with foreign policy. I wanna see how it plays out as is.

I heard an interesting take from one of Chris Matthews guests tonight. Moving forward shows the ability to multitask. :thumbsup: McCain should be able to fly in for a couple of days of discussion and be able to easily spare the couple of hours for debate, maverick that he is.

and as we know, McCain can't use a computer... multi-tasking is right out.

As "Senator" Obama said... it is the "president's" job to address multiple crisis. And while I'm sure that the work of the senate is purely a linear thought process requiring laser-like tunnel-vision, the "senators" Obama and McCain still owe the debt of representation to their constituents. Either should resign their senate seats if they aren't doing their jobs.

I suspect it has more to do with this:
washingtonpost.com than anything McCain happens to be posturing about.

and the fact that they suddenly couldn't put the provision through today.... McCain can come in and look like he's saving the day.

I think they should just leave it in the capable hands of Charles Rangel and do the debate.

Do the debate.

Now it sounds like he wants to postpone the VP debate too....

Actually, on the House side, it is in the capable hands of John Spratt of the Budget Committee and Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee.

But thats neither here nor there.

Really, the democratic congress got us into this mess let them work it out.

Funny how 2 years ago the economy was doing fairly well until the mandate of the people in nov. 2006.

i see no reason why the debates should not happen.
move it to washington if there's a need to. it's not that hard.

i wonder if mc-cain would be wearing a superhero outfit as he dashes about trying to look all Involved. and i wonder if he would say anything that is at all consistent with his history in economic matters and with that of his pal phil gramm.

Funny stuff RB, I wonder if Obama is going to walk across the lake in his sandals, robe and halo, to turn bad notes of deadbeats into free homes.

well, recon, it's mc-cain's claim that the "crisis" requires his attention and so forth--so the assumption is that he'd want to be an Impact Player--otherwise it'd look like cheap grandstanding. and if you're going to be an Impact Player, so as to avoid the impression of cheap grandstanding, you'd have to be Maximally Visible for the cameras--you know, like sarah palin was at the un---and so an Outfit seems in order--and a superhero is an Impact Player by definition.


i didn't say anything about cheap grandstanding because, well, i didn't think it necessary. i mean, cheap grandstanding is typically pretty obvious.
who would want to appear to be engaging in cheap grandstanding?
that's why i didn't mention cheap grandstanding.

so you see how nice i was?
and i am still being nice.

Well RB, I am sure you know that McCain has been an impact player for many years in the senate while Obama has yet to get out of the minor leagues of the senate.

Obama might not see it as that important because he has never really mattered much on the senate floor, with all his experience that must be quite a blow to him.

And to be quite honest I could give a rat ass about how nice you play.

Christ Will. What's wrong with you? We're in an energy crisis ;)

Hell yes the debate should continue. in the first place, McCain's help - - thanks but no thanks. He's the fool that authored the McCain-Graham bill 9 years ago that freed up all these bailed-out banks to invest in shaky real estate deals in the first place. In other words, this mess we're in? That's McCain's fault, either because he was too ignorant on the economy (believable, considering he admitted last week that he's an economic ignoramus), or too greedy, to see or care what would happen as a result.

I sure as hell don't want That guy fixing what he broke.

Second, as Obama pointed out, it isn't like there will be anything going on re: the bailout at the time of the debate. This is just an attempt by McCain to get out of having to actually answer questions.

I know that representative Chuck Rangel is not a senator... however, he has set such a fine example and should work out nicely as a role model of financial prudence for all to emulate.

There is enough blame for both sides in this mess. Neither side is completely innocent and this just didn't appear or happen overnight or even in the last two or eight years. This began in the 90's with the passage of NAFTA and all the other "free trade" agreements. Instead of pointing fingers we the people should be demanding to know what went wrong and insisting there is legislation and safeguards to insure it never happens again.

Like maybe not bailing out banks which knowingly made loans they knew were bad to people they knew couldn't pay and then expected the taxpayer to cover the losses they knew they'd incur.

If I'd gone to the Belmont Stakes this year and lost my shirt betting on Big Brown, nobody'd bail me out. The Fed wouldn't steal $.01, let alone 1.5 TRILLION dollars to save my ass. Why should these banks and their idiot CEOs be any different? Let them fail, let them sink, let them blow away like dust in the wind. Then, when it becomes clear that there are consequences for this kind of idiocy, maybe we won't have to worry about this again. This is what happens when you insulate Corporations from the effects of the Market; they become impervious to any kind of sanction, do whatever will make them short-term gains, and then strongarm the Fed into robbing the rest of us to pay for it.

The current situation has little to do with Democratic policies over the last two years (reconmike) or NATFA (scout) and everything to do with how the banking and financial lending institutions have been and should be regulated or de-regulated....and now, with the govt in the position to decide if, how miuch, and with what oversight safeguards, it should step in.

The problem for McCain is that he has been all over the map on the issue. His problem is further compounded by the fact that the conservative base is opposed to any bailout at any level. From the Republican platform:

“We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.”

McCain did the only thing he could...he punted with the idea of postponing the debate ...hoping to stall until he can enunciate a position that he can sell to his supporters....as his poll numbers drop by the day.
-----Added 24/9/2008 at 09 : 40 : 51-----
There will be a bailout...we should just accept that as a given...whether we like it or not.

What the Democrats (and even many Republicans) in Congress have done, and what Obama has articulated in a far more consistent manner than McCain, is a push back against the WH proposal in a meaningful way, with details....that it should include more safeguards (ie regulations) than the WH proposal, provisions preventing more "golden parachutes" for CEOs, more oversight than the WH wants, and a lower price tag...particularly in light of a recent statement by a Dept of Treasury official:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Friday's debate will be held with or without McCain....its up to him...but I dont think he should expect to see his poll numbers rise if he ducks the debate and attempts to play the "country above politics" martyr.

It's interesting to me that the democrats are showing some balls and not completely rolling over for the Bush administration right before the election. It seems to me they've made a pretty consistent habit of rolling over for Bush on any issue that might play a substantial role in anything.

In other words, I like what they're doing, I just wish they realized they could have started doing it sooner.

QFMFT

I can't stand the Democrats. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the color of the sky. But DAMN do I wish they'd start acting like a ballsy "Loyal Opposition" at some point! Czech-style gridlock would be BEAUTIFUL, if only we could get these assholes to hate each other more than they love money and power.

I would let them postpone it for one day. Congress doesn't meet on Saturdays unless something is wrong.

I want to see them debate at their best. If they are too distracted by doing their jobs as senators (can't be in two places at once), I would be ok with waiting another 24 hours.

shakran, I'm glad you pointed this information out; I was hoping someone would bring it up.

The debate should go on, period. There is no reason to cancel it, and McCain's insistence that they do so feels like a cheap political ploy. Obama actually made a good point in his statement today about using the debate to discuss what the economic crisis means on the global stage, and the effect it will have on our place in the wider world.

And Bill Clinton's the asshat who signed the thing into law. I'm no McCain fan, but there's more than enough blame to go around for this mess, and the Dems have their fair share to carry as well.

"The fundementals of the economy are strong." -McCain

So why the need to drop the debate? Does he realize that Ole Miss has spent a million bucks to host the thing? Screw them? It's just kids getting educated, and why would a state like Mississippi need to educate young 'uns?

Hold the debate. Neither on are on the committees deciding things, and any vote can be scheduled around it, before or after.

And I don't think the bailout is the foregone conclusion that some think it is. One will happen, but I think it will be very different than proposed. That's what I'm hearing, anyway.

Do you maybe mean the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 that resulted in teh deregulation? McCain wasn't a co-sponsor but he did vote in favor of it.

bill clinton was a neoliberal. duh.
phil gramm is a right radical version of the same basic ideology. duh again.
he is mc-cain's economic advisor.

it's always funny to read stuff from republicans about shucking and jiving insofar as responsibility is concerned for event x or y when they like to talk so much about reponsibility. i guess that applies to other people, not to themselves. witness the "bailout" for example.

i see no reason why the debate should not go forward.
for all we know, there could be a deal today.
look at the papers.
devils in the details of course.

I don't understand the logic of delaying. Are future problems for the POTUS going to happen one at a time?

I think it's a ploy on the part of the McCain camp to look like they're taking some high ground here, when really they're just trying to stall out their dropping poll numbers. McCain's been anti-regulation since the start of his political career. He was literally against regulation one day, boarded a plane and by the time it landed he was in favor of regulations.

He also apparently converted to Baptist on that same flight.

Y'all did see this?

WhitesCreek Journal: McCain Ditched Letterman, Gotta Save Economy...Well, no...Gotta Appear with Katie

I have a solution for this. We have Al Franken and Anne Coulter running on mouse wheels with a camera facing just in front of them so they'll try desperately to run to the limelight. The power from the wheels can be used to shock them.

/outside the box

My cynical view:

Here are two possibilities -

If McCain actually believed the economy was fundamentally sound and in fact changed his mind coming to the realization that the financial sector was in a melt down, going to Washington to address the issue, putting the debate and the campaign secondary is the right thing to do.

If Obama believed the economy was not fundamentally strong and was at risk as he campaigned either indicates he did not believe things were as bad as he made them out to be, or did not care enough to go back to Washington, do his job and demonstrate leadership.

So, I try to determine where the truth is and I conclude the following:

The economy is fundamentally strong.
Both candidates know the economy is fundamentally strong.
McCain made the political mistake of saying the economy was strong.
Obama made political points from McCain being honest.
McCain dishonestly backs of of his statement.
There are no political leaders in Washington willing to state the truth about the underlying strength of our economy risking being the butt of endless political jokes and political suicide.
The financial sector panics, compounded by the lack of political leadership, and then looks to Washington for a quick fix. The Bush administration uses hyperbole to promote their plan to address the panic (very similar to the Iraq war, giving Congress an excuse of being pressured or lied too).
McCain being a wily politician recognizes Obama's empty rhetoric regarding Obama's jokes and comments about the strength of the economy and Obama' history of not leading on issues - and takes the dramatic position of saying he is going to go to work to fix the "melt down".
Obama is caught having to say the McCain manuver was purely political (which it was), but to some people (outside of his loyal supporters) makes Obama look like a light weight.

So, in answer to the OP question - the debate has actually already begun. McCain made the first shot and is not playing by "the rules". McCain 1 - Obama 0.

Yes, the debate should be postponed. These men are senators, THAT is their job right now, not running for president. We, the taxpayers, pay their salaries to be present and work our nation through problems such as these.

We need our government to start doing their fucking jobs and stop politicking. They need to be there as leaders of their respective parties to show support and figure out how to get through this with as little damage as possible.

So, yes, they have plenty of time for debates, they have very little time to work through this crisis. It is their job to do so, it is what we PAY them to do. If they cannot be there because they would rather stand on a stage and pontificate about bullshit that can wait a few days to be heard, they do not deserve to be president because they are not doing their job nor do they have the best interest of the country they want to lead at heart.

Okay Pan, are YOU going to re-pay the University of Mississippi the million or so they would be out?

There isn't a lot of time. The registration deadline is nigh, and we need to hear some answers from these two guys. We'll be paying one of them to be president pretty soon.

At any rate, it's just a gimmick by McCain to goose his numbers. Just like choosing Palin.

Next he'll wrestle a bear or bite the head off a bat.

McCain's stunt of inserting himself in the process of negotiating a compromise bill is pure politics ...and one too many cooks in the kitchen (particularly one who doesnt know how to cook)

McCain and Obama can meet with Bush this afternoon, discuss the general framework for an acceptable legisaltive solution, have their photo op w/Bush ...then go back and brief their respective caucuses this evening.

AT WHICH POINT.. McCain, Obama (and Bush) should back off and leave it to the principle negotiators (House/Senate Banking chairs/ranking member, Sec of Treasure/Fed Chair) to work out the details....

..which most likely means a bill wont reach fhe floor of the House and/or Senate before Saturday.

NO reaons why they cant be in Miss to debate tomorrow night.

It's most certainly NOT the job of two Senators who aren't on any of the right committees to do ANYTHING about this. A deal will get worked out in the Senate and House Banking Committees, which is where this work belongs. Neither McCain nor Obama are on those committees.

To have McCain winging heroically back to Washington to look like he's doing something is the crassest possible politicizing of the crisis, and I'm frankly shocked that those on this board who have bought it have bought it. McCain and Obama standing around "helping" won't help anything.

The future of this country will lay in the hands of he who pontificates best. Where's your man been for the past six months of voting? That reeks of hypocrisy.

I can't believe you have the cojones to call that bullshit.

cheap grandstanding is not what bothers me.

the way it looks from the outside, the mc-cain base has now been told that the media lies, information is not to be trusted, that there's some Elite out to get them, that competence and education are problems, that something Very Bad is happening to the economy but it's not SO bad that any rethinking of anything is required, that there is no point in debate across party lines but of course the partisanship is a problem, just as there's something Very Bad happening with petroleum the "explanation" for which lay with those pointy-headed environmentalists who prefer protecting tundra and stupid birds to allowing Us to drive our vast metallic transportation environments in exactly the way we always have, and so the solution for which lay in penetrating the ground early and often with as many Manly drills as possible. and we always say those drills are bigger than they are.

strangely, this does add up----to a total rejection of democratic process---of which, like it or not, used to it or not, informed debate is central.

instead, there is a preference for manly men engaging in the manly theater of Being Decisive in a Manly kinda way, of Making Decisions that are symmetrical with the perpetual State of Emergency that makes us all feel so very alive.

and since any trace of hope that mc-cain has of not paying a very considerable price for being the republican who follows george w bush's Decider Act rests on his continuous regeneration of some sense of contact with the base, this cheap theater seems to be about a Pantomime Leadership Style. and since the previous administration didn't do so well with implementation of anything, but managed to hold at least a minimal degree of adherence by appearing to be Manly and Decisive, so it follows that what this theater is about is the Appearance of Decisiveness, of Boldness--and only secondarily is it about anything that might actually happen.

and besides, finding out what actually happened is information and information is bad. the evil press gets in the way. look at what they did to the nice mc-cain campaign's attempts to properly frame palins field trip to the un. she got to sit near kissinger. she learned more by osmosis than most pointy-heads will learn in a lifetime of reading books....

If a candidate feels that they are not capable of multitasking then they should not try to do more than one thing at a time. It is wise to know your limitations.

I also don't think it will do much good to inject the economic genius of these two into this mess except for photo ops and political pandering. Neither one probably has a clue how to price the toxic paper we will be buying. Instead change the debate to economics and let them tell us why they are for more or less government oversight so we know which one is more likely to enable messes like this in the future.

I generally agree with your statement here, however I do think it is the job of true leaders to take a stand , be involved, and act in a proactive manner. If we are in a "melt down" (which I think is more psychological than anything else), I want to know who is going to show leadership, I want to know who is willing to take an unpopular stand doing what needs to be done regardless of political consequences. Real or not McCain simply out maneuvered Obama on this issue up to this point - assuming legislation is passed or agreed upon prior to Friday evening.

I don't believe this is an outmaneuver. I believe this is a way to dodge poor debate timing.

The first debate is supposed to be on national security and foreign affairs, which is an alleged McCain strong point. He doesn't want his "strong" debate lost in a week where he's down in the polls and buried by the economy issue, which is a massive loser for him. So part of what he's doing here is rejiggering the long-agreed-upon debate schedule to something more favorable. As a side-effect, he hopes to postpone the VP debate as well.

The GOP voting tactic is, limit the number of people who can vote. The higher the turnout (ie. the bigger the sample of America the popular vote is), the worse the GOP does. So they're all about knocking out potential voters.

This is a similar tactic, but it's less discourse instead of less voting. The more face-to-face talking the candidates do, the worse off McCain is going to be. So this is all about limiting and diminishing that.

How to "take a stand" and "be a leader" is to speak publicly. Standing around outside the office where the decisions are being made, not being allowed in because you're not a member on that committee? Not presidential.

By the way, the other big story that's NOT hitting the MSM these days, completely overshadowed by the "suspending the campaign" thing is the issue of McCain's campaign manager, lobbyist Rick Davis, getting paid $15k a month by Freddie Mac until last month. So I suspect that this is also a "don't notice the massive sale of the Presidency" move.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...vCcK8__sIXm_4g

McCain's leadership and taking a stand?

to say the economy was sound...then no it wasnt...but the workers are the best in the wordl

to say he was against regulation..then for regulation...then against regulation..then for regulation

to say, as president, he would fire the SEC chair....when the president has no authority to do so

to admit that as of yesterday, he hadnt even read the Paulson proposal.

His polling numbers have been dropping by the day with each passing statement like those above...

and hist latest stunt wont help with anyone but the most conservative base.

Why would we need to postpone anything if the fundamentals of our economy are strong?

what are "the fundamentals of the economy" anyway?
they keep moving around...

I use a number of measures, one is based on my personal observation - I call it the Eating Out Indicator.

One, what is the average wait time for getting seated at a restaurant for dinner? When the wait times trend up, the economy is growing. When the numbers trend down economic growth is going to slow. Lately the wait times have shown no change in the last 6 months, and were trending up a year ago.

Two, how often do I see help wanted signs at fast food restaurants, like McDonald's and what is the age range of the employees. I see help wanted signs every time I go out to eat lunch. The average age appears to be people in their late teens or early twenties with a few older people here and there. In California, while I lived there I saw an interesting trend - starting wages above minimum wage and more and more older people (usually immigrants not proficient in the english language) working in fast food. This was telling me that there was a trend away from middle class teens needing jobs - times were good/booming during most of the time I was there.

Please understand I am weird, I pay attention to these things and I have been doing it for decades. My indicators are just as good as the people featured on CNBC or in financial magazines. I remember reading a book written by a guy featured all over the place were he said the DOW would hit 40,000 by 2016, seems a bit far fetched today.

:eek:

Like it or not McCain has a track record of taking unpopular stands and doing things that did not appear on the surface to be in his benefit, Obama does not. Obama ads reference McCain being instep with Bush 90%, I wonder what percent of time Obama been in step with Pelosi and Reid? Or even what percent of time Obama has been in step with Bush? Certainly Obama did not do anything out of step with party machine politics in Chicago.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 03 : 03 : 37-----
:oogle:Then there is the Costco gas line indicator. When people go out of their way to get gas at Costco, people are taking the first steps toward taking more dramatic actions on energy conservation. It is a leading indicator. Pull right up no problems, wait for one or two cars people are getting concerned, wait more than that people are going to start selling SUV's.

The official answer is: American Workers. Several million individual little hard-working fundamentals. Going off to work with their tin lunchboxes, riveting all day high above the city, then coming home to a house that whups got foreclosed out from under them.

Yes sir, if you don't believe our economy is strong, you must not believe in the American worker.

That was the message last week anyway. This week is, the economy is in such a crisis we have to drop everything and gallop off to Washington to stand around wringing our hands while others fix it. Darn workers. Screw everything up.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 03 : 11 : 17-----
I'm glad to hear that as goes Ventura County's Costco gas line, so goes the nation.

Guess what? Here in my home town, gas prices have been going down, and it's less and less an issue, since the troubles a week or so ago. An hour and a half south of me, in Charlotte, half the stations are without gas and lines are going around the block.

Please go look up the word "anecdotal".

I suggest Peter Lynch's Beating The Street for you. Looking at macro and "anecdotal" data can give a person a slight edge. I have no problem with people mocking small jewels of information, doesn't affect me one way or the other.

ace..the problem with your assertion is......which McCain?

I agree with you, at least to some extent, on the old "maverick" McCain.

But the new "candidate" McCain is:

now for the Bush tax cuts that the "maverick" called irresponsible

now against the "maverick's" comprehensive immigration reform and now for border security first

now using the loopholes the "maverick" created in McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform

not sure at all where he is on regulation..he flips flops from day to day

now silent on a constitutional amendment to ban abortions or ban gay marriage in the Republican platform that the "maverick" opposed

the list goes on and on....

Its no wonder he doesnt want to debate...he doesnt know which personna to bring to the debate - the old maverick or the new campaigner.

Seriously, he has boxed himself in and now has to decide whether he is the "candidate" who will pander to the conservative base or the "maverick" who will move to the center to appeal to the swing voters...he cant do both.

aside: ace--so you're in kali and you don't frequent in-and-out burgers, but instead do macdo?

i don't get it.
in-and-out burger is one of the few things i miss about kali.


occupied with stuff, so more later...

I don't underestimate McCain. I think McCain can address his "changes" and I think he can do it in a manner that will make him look thoughtful and responsive to new and changing information. His announcement was intended to get Obama off of his game plan, rattle his cage a bit. If nothing else McCain is showing how he would lead, and from a foreign affairs point of view "gamesmanship" is a big part of getting what you want. Again, I am not saying it is wrong or right, etc., it is what it is.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 03 : 43 : 19-----
Raise on White Castle burgers in Illinois. McDonald's best fries in the world. Jonny Rocket's best fast food burger. In-and out was o.k.. Now I live in NC. and hate pulled pork.

His announcement was a huge gamble..and he is a gambler. To suggest putting "country above campaign" and that he cant walk and chew gum (do both at the same time) flies in the face of history and leadership....look at campaigns during the Civil War, the Great Depression, WW II.

It is too soon to conclude that it has paid off. The daily polls would suggest otherwise...but we'll know more tomorrow night.

What he definetly is NOT is a Reagan type candidate who made the campaign about his ideology. McCain's campaign is ideologically dynamic and focused soley on crafting images - of himself and Obama.

Oh, man, you thought you and I had differences before?

When Muhammad Ali beat Sonny Liston, Ali certainly was fighter who could walk and chew gum, but he still got into Liston's head. I think many believe Liston underestimated Ali, Liston thought Ali was all talk and was a nut. I listen to Obama joke about McCain, he often says things like "he has to be kidding...", "does he really expect us to believe...", you know what he says - I wonder if Obama and his supporters are getting a bit over confident, perhaps a bit too smug? Bush hired Rove and selected Chaney, McCain doesn't need a Rove or a Chaney because he is a combination of the two. I still don't like him but he is fun to watch.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 04 : 08 : 18-----
Eastern or Western style? I don't like either, give me a good burger any day.

LOL....McCain is surrounded by Roves and Cheneys....or veterans (clones) from the Bush campaign and/or White House "image" machine.

Seems Like Old Times

I'm still trying to understand the latest "gamesmenship" you suggest he displayed.

I see it as totally out of touch....

the economy is strong- no, I meant the American worker are the best - no, we are in a crisis, so I cant campaign

regulation...I dont know..I was against them before I was for them and now I might be against them again.

oh...and I havent read Poulson's plan as of yesterday when I declared a crisis

Particularly after Obama clearly laid out some general principles that should be part of any bailout legislation....and which apparently are included in the compromise being finalized...none of which were in the Bush/Poulson proposal:

"I will support the bailout if it ensures independent bipartisan oversight, reimburses taxpayers, caps executive compensation and helps homeowners avoid foreclosure.....the measures are safeguards that "any package needs to include for me to support it."

If McCain shows up tomorrow night and the question is asked, I'll be waiting to here how his "leadership" (stunt) helped contribute to a bi-partisan solution.

But yes..he is fun to watch...if you like train wrecks.....but I wont get too cocky or confident...I know better.

It's silly grandstanding. McCain wants to look serious, as if he is critical to the solution - when in reality he is one of 100 senators, and I don't think he even is on the relevant committees (I might be wrong about this; if I am, someone please let me know). He also might just be using it to tweak Obama. But substantively it's pure bullshit, left out in the field to attract flies and decompose.

What I think is really going on is that he wants to move all the debates down a few days and this is his tool to do it. Why does he want to move all the debates down? Simple - Sarah Palin needs more time to come up to speed and practice for her debate. Or is this too cynical?

Nope, he's not.

Nope. That's what's happening. Also see my note above about the topic of the first debate and the timing of what's going on in the world right now. He wants to have his "strong" debate--the one on foreign policy and security--when it's not going to get overshadowed by him being behind in the polls and facing this economy mess. He's hoping that later will be better for him than now. Total desperation play, but there it is.

It's way too cynical. Governor Palin can see the debates from her house. She has all the experience debating one might ever need. As for McCain, so what that he's not voted in the Senate since April? So what that he's been for deregulation for nearly 30 years, suddenly changing his mind in the last week? He has an important role, somehow! He has to do... something...! And that something just happens to fall on the same day as a debate with one of the most talented orators to run for president in the past 40 years.

McCain loses the point if it is defined as you describe.

He win if it is - My opponent was locked up in Florida sitting poolside studying foreign policy in preparation for a debate while I went to Washington to help avert the "melt down" of our economy. My friends I don't need to take several days to prepare for a foreign policy debate because I lived it as a POW...I am going to fight for you the way I fought for my country during a time of war...I am willing to lead on the most important issues of the day, take stands against my own party, like remember when I supported the Surge...My oppnent won't even say our brave men and woman in uniform are winning the surge...which I supported before anyone else...

I may not have the exact order, but I would be willing to bet he hits all of those points when he announces the debate is still on.

This in today...

ABC News - September 25, 2008 8:26 AM (link contains video)

Bill Clinton: "Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate"
As I asked in another thread... Why would Bill go to this trouble to make such statements? Is he working against the "multi-tasking" line of the Obama camp? Is this campaigning for 2012?

Curious.

I bet he wears a bigger flag pin too!

At least until the follow up question....And how exactly did your going to Washington help avert the meltdown of our economy?

I saw him say that this morning.

Remember, Bill's the coverboy for diplomacy.

I think it's his way of a gentle reprieve of jumping on the bashing bandwagon. They didn't call him Slick Willy for nuttin'.

Then again, you can be sure the Missus will be back later.

ace....Here's another question that might come up.

How are we winning the surge when Bush clearly enunciated 11 benchmarks of success...and Iraq has only met 4 of those benchmarks?
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 05 : 21 : 39-----
Or a another follow-up:

Sen McCain...From numerous reports, PM Malaki and the Iraqi parliament support the basic concept of Sen Obama's withdrawal proposal, with a marginally longer timetable. Do you agree with Malaki or are you still insisting on no timetable even if the Iraqis demand one?

Wasnt Sen Obama correct when he said we are focusing on the wrong enemy....while Iraq is no closer to political reconciliation and we are still spending $billions/month...Afghanistan is spiraling out of control, the Taliban and al Queda (those who attacked us) are regaining strength by the day.

ace...shame we cant be the moderators :)

well now here's an interesting development. mc-cain arrives, the deal collapses. suddenly, conservative republicans in the house want the same thing mc-cain supports, but before they were ok with the deal and now, suddenly, they aren't.

White House Meeting Fails to Yield Bailout Deal - washingtonpost.com

so let's assume for a moment that dodd's statement on the first page of that article (above) is accurate, and that the republican action "looks more like a rescue plan for jon mc-cain" than one aimed at however you understand the derivatives market implosion to be.

now we know that the republican study committee and that old harridan gingrich have come out in opposition to this deal on neoliberal grounds--they can't say the word neoliberal, but they blab alot about "free market principles" as if these were separate from an ideology. whatever. cowboy george goes on television last night to interrupt the continuum of entertainment and announce that everything is about to tank so hurry hurry hurry. word is from the house banking committee last night that an agreement was close, and then again this afternoon--and agreement was close, all that remained was...

john mc-cain to show up.

now friday is typically bad news day. since the reagan period, if something really shitty is happening and it involves the continuous information management system in the white house, that shitty news does come out, but on friday. preferably in the afternoon. so it looks like that's being set up, but a little early.

do you think that mc-cain is THAT afraid of a debate tomorrow? or is it that his campaign is afraid of the appearance of total irrelevance following on the decision to go act Leadership=full... or maybe there never was an agreement and an already discredited administration decided to buy itself one more day than it thought it had by releasing a fake story. now that doesn't seem right.

what we do know: mc-cain shows up, the republicans in the house decide that NOW is the time to reverse course and say no deal. so maybe now mc-cain can appear to broker a deal and appear bi-partisan in the process, resolving an entirely fake crisis. so that's mean that the house republicans are playing chicken with a pretty serious financial situation, which has now become a "Crisis" because cowboy george interrupted the flow of entertainment, in order to give the mc-cain campaign the possibility of a theatrical Moment and also, in the process, avoid a debate.

would the republicans do that? would the party of karl rove stoop to this?

it's just a coincidence.

I'm curious as to how McCain still has foreign policy cred. Was he hoping Lieberman would be able to whisper in his ear during the debate?

Isn't the debate at night? They have been saying the same thing for the past 18 months, I would think they would be able to work in DC in the morning and afternoon on Friday, get on a plane (they could share to save money), discuss topics/strategy on the plane, and get to Mississippi in time to look good to talk for a few hours.

He's starting to run "scared", huh?

Not surprised. And if they send in Palin for one of these, they really will be toast, dude! :thumbsup:

McCain has now injected politics into the whole bailout plan and it is going to go nowhere. His decision was stupid and now our financial institutions are at even greater risk.

Here is how it went down:

1) Republicans and Democrats come out and say they have reached a deal
2) McCain shows up
3) Republicans reverse coarse and say no deal

McCain is trying to make this a political issue instead of a bipartisan issue and I hope he pays for it dearly.

You've got 2 and 3 in the wrong order. Republicans came out the day before McCain's announcement indicating they were likely not to support the deal.

Republican anger at ‘financial socialism’ Financial Times Sept. 23 2008

Yeah I thought McCain went down there to get the GOP to reverse course again and support the proposal.

Yep, I agree. You can't count out McCain yet. The Democrats would be wise to realize this and act accordingly.



I live in Cali; In N Out is waaaaaaaayyyyyyy overrated. I do like the Christian theme however. But I prefer McDonalds.

no I am right. Earlier today Republicans indicated that they were close to a deal and so did the democrats then McCain arrived and it all went away.

Google online for news stories and you will find lots like this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-20142,00.html
There were multiple politicians on both sides that said a deal was close. And after McCain got in it was not.

-----Added 25/9/2008 at 09 : 28 : 53-----
Now it comes out the McCain is pushing his own plan which is basically less regulation and more corporate tax breaks. So we are going to reward their bad behavior? Isn't this like keeping the fox out of the hen house by adding more foxes?

Thanks for that post. It's hard for me to get news some days. I was watching the BBC in Spanish with English sub's at lunch today. What I got was he went down there to get the GOP on board.

And...

Holy crap! Seriously, the answer is less oversight? The more he talks the more fearful I am of my savings and 401K.

Less oversight? Now we know who's buttering his bread.

well, the media fog machine, which i've been watching a bit on tv this evening, seems to want us to see the house reactionaries as leading this because they're thinking primarily about "rebuilding the party"--they do not think mc-cain is trustworthy, not one of them---they owe nothing to bush and do not know paulson--bush is now worse than a lame duck.

from what the talking heads are saying, during the meeting, mc-cain sat there and the house rightwing republicans did the talking.

i think this was co-ordinated, but it's a little hard to say to what end exactly. i don't see mc-cain able to do much "leading" in this context, but who knows where the theater stops and starts in this?

while all this was going on, the feds seized washington mutual outright.


and as an aside, take a look at this unrelated article, which is beyond startling, and which surfaced this afternoon as well, while the shit was hitting the fan in washington:

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran | World news | guardian.co.uk

lots of fog.

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

Very interesting...

CNN reports that McCain was silent for the first 40+ minutes of the meeting and hardly said a thing at all. They are also saying that Obama did the opposite and was involved in the discussions and tried to bring both sides together.

So tell me who is Presidential out of these two and who is not?

Obama says that a Presidental hopeful should be able to concentrate on more than one thing at the same time. I believe him to be correct about this. The debate should go ahead, there is no good reason why it shouldn't.

Unless of course, McCain only wants to postpone this debate so he can brush up on his debating skills...

It's all part of McCain's maverick image. You should have seen him buzz the control tower, though. It was classic McCain.

Crisis Politics in action folks.

If this were a "normal" crisis I would agree that a president should multi-task. But this is a HUGE fucking crisis that the outcome can negatively affect our nation for YEARS. These men are paid to be on the Senate floor for these problems and should do the job they have NOW.... not be concerned about their own personal ambitions and seeking other jobs.

They have plenty of time for debates later, this crisis demands our governments full attention NOW..... not later. This is what we pay these people for, to do a job, not to pontificate and go elsewhere and ignore what they are originally elected to do.

These men could sit down together, put politics and partisanship aside and show true love of country by working on a plan TOGETHER as the leaders we expect them to be. FUCK POLITICS, FUCK THE ELECTION...... DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ONCE AND WORK TO BETTER THE COUNTRY NOT DIVIDE IT FURTHER. Let them get together with Bush and the Congressional leaders, work a deal and come out with a plan that neither party, nor candidate takes credit for but both sides agree that the plan is the best they could come up with for the WHOLE country, not just their side.

But that won't happen. The powers that be behind the scenes won't allow it.

BTW..... what will the election matter if our economy and this crisis blows sky high before Nov. 4th? Why not demand our politicians work together and do what is right for the country?

Sorry, but I can't fathom ANYONE, stating they have the country's best interests at heart, yet, claiming that a being at a debate is more important right now. Nor can I fathom, ANYONE, saying that, "the college spent a million, they need to have the debate or that money was wasted." WTF??????? That million is chump change compared to the 700 BILLION, maybe a TRILLION when all is said and done that taxpayers will have to pay out.

Sorry, saving our economy and doing their jobs is the most important task they have right now. THESE MEN WANT TO BE OUR LEADER..... THEN THEY NEED TO SHOW FUCKING LEADERSHIP.

I don't know pan, it would probably take Obama more than a week and McCain more than a month to begin to understand what the problem is much less what to do about it. I believe one or both of them may have some economic advisors on their staff who worked for some of the companies generating toxic paper and they may have some insight.

There's no talking to you.

And Pan, no matter how many times you insert the word "fuck" does not make you right nor your point relevant. Should they suspend sleep until the crisis is resolved? Should they wrap themselves in a little cocoon?

I think the worry is more that McCain's foreign affairs experience he wants so badly to tout would look irrelevant in a debate right now.

Also, time to turn in your avatar.

or it could well be that the far right in the house is willing to play chicken with the administration, with the rest of congress, with the economic situation and so forth in order to (a) bring mc-cain to heel and (b) use the crisis inside the crisis to introduce their whacked-out "cut capital gains taxes and reduce regulation" line as if it were a real plan. and this may be happening because the mc-cain campaign decided to engage in the theater of "suspending" the campaign (by moving it to congress)---so maybe this is the price being exacted for mc-cain's little coup de thêatre.

and this is the point where the neo-liberal counter-crisis begins.
confronting an ideological waterloo, the gringrich-inspired wing of the right sends in the True Believers.
their only tactical advantages are surprise and the fact that they have their positions written down. tv works to their advantage because it can give them the illusion of sang-froid.
the weakness of the banking committee/negociation process is, seemingly, that the agreements which were reached were in principle and that the language of the actual bill isn't down yet.
so what set this up, intentionally or not (hard to say) is the 2.5 page, clearly unacceptable proposal from the administration.

mc-cain now finds himself in a terribly awkward situation--to move in the palin direction would require that he embrace the far right's move.
to act "presidential" he cannot embrace their move.
what i suspect the idea is that mc-cain will not "act presidential" but rather that he will carry shit for the far right---you want to be a leader, john? this is what you are doing to do, these are the positions you are going to advocate for, this is how you are going to do it, now go "lead" like a good boy.

what seems clear is that the only weapon these clowns have is going all bartelby in the middle of this accelerating situation of accelerating acceleration (everyone says so, one way or another---and that seems what all this is at bottom)....which means that they must see the writing on the wall and have decided that they've nothing to loose.

so the crisis of neoliberalism is now at a new level of explicitness.


and it is obvious that in this crisis, ideology trumps everything else.
conservatives have little room to manoever, no flexibility---this is the downside of collapsing economic ideology into identity.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what a college's $1 million to host this debate has to do with taxpayers billions that will be used to bail out the economy. And this sounds like you're suggesting these two senators are the be all and end all of the fate of the economy. I'm rather accused by these assertions. They don't add up. They aren't even a part of the same formula.

So, you want them to wait a few months before holding a debate? When will be an opportune time to hold it? After there's a plan? Their plan? Will these two senators come up with their own plan? Will they spearhead a plan? Probably not.

The debate should go on. The American people need it. They need to know how each of these potential presidents would handle the "fucking" economy over the next four to eight years. Or is voting to put someone in such a powerful position meant to be a shot in the dark?

I think we have very different ideas of what leadership is.

Some of the smartest people don't say very much until they have heard both sides and have thought about what the correct course of action is.

i thought about saying something about that too... like that saying about the difference between a wise man and a fool, being that the wise man doesnt' say anything and the fool keeps yappin (as a horrible paraphrase), but then i remembered reading that mccain said he'd support the bailout if it included his 5 points, but then later heard he told reports that he hadn't even read the proposed bailout. didn't seem so wise then.

I do find it odd that the parties were close to a consensus until McCain got there, and then all of a sudden couldn't get an agreement. It also says something that while Obama brought a Senate staffer, McCain brought a political staffer. My guess is that McCain wants to delay the debate until next week so that they'll have to cancel the V-P debate. There's no reason for Obama or McCain to be in DC 24 hrs a day. Neither one is on a relevant committee, and neither one has the necessary expertise. By all means they should brush up on it enough to cast an informed vote, but I don't see any reason why they have to be part of the negotiations.

You realize the entire Senate isn't meeting and neither of these two men are on the committees involved in hammering out the hopeful solution to this crisis, right? Injecting the presidential selection process into this process may not result in a good solution, if there is a good solution. We may have let this get to the point where our only options are bad and worse. But I fail to see how adding more politicians to the mix, especially the two major candidates for POTUS, will result in the best plan.

Ok, so screw the debates, screw the election. How far are you willing to take that plan? Are you suggesting Bush remain in office until the crisis is over? Will we know when the crisis is over?

I agree, it all about what happens behind the scenes. It's all about who can look like they're doing what's right by the country. It's all about who can get the best sound bite. Again, having the two major party candidates in the mix isn't a good idea at all, IMHO.



It's going to matter because the world goes on, life doesn't stop because of a financial crisis. Every four years the US elects a President. When it's a new President, as it will be this year, he inherits whatever problems/benefits the last President leaves.

Believe what you like... which seems to be the most important quality in a win-at-all-costs partisan war. No surprises here.

Hmm, trying to find answers this morning. I don't know what happened. I'm wondering if McCain had anything to do with this (and I seriously question whether his being there is a positive) or whether the GOP people who seemed on board got flooded with angry calls from voters who will be re-electing them (or not) soon.