McCain's challenge to Obama to drop the campaign, cancel the debate and head back to Washington to deal with the current economic crisis should be seen for exactly what it is: A desperation ploy to try and seize command, not of the economy, but of the polls. Polls which, for the first time in ages, are tilting toward Obama. Perhaps prolonged exposure to the dubious merits of Sarah Palin are beginning to sink in, and as people become disenchanted with her, they turn their ire to the guy who picked her. Or perhaps, as Bill Clinton said so matter-of-factly, it's the economy, stupid.
The point is, there's plenty of other senators, not to mention a President, to deal with the economy. Only two people can be in the debate Friday night, and the bottom line is that one of them wants out. Can't really blame him. Not a ton to win, lots to lose.
Obama would be insane to accommodate McCain. I mean, let's look at the record. Months ago, McCain challenged Obama to go to Iraq. Obama took him up on it and went to Iraq. What did McCain do? Turn Obama's popular reception there into a liability. Obama should say, "Sorry, Senator. Last time I took your advice, you bitched about it for weeks, dismissed me as a celebrity, and compared me to Paris Hilton. Considering just last week you were saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong; now you're saying they're so weak that they won't last a few more days without us in Washington? Sorry, no. See you at the debate. And if you don't want to show up, fine. Have your campaign manager show up and tell us all the things you would have said."
Although Obama DID say something rather odd the other day. He said, "The American people cannot give this president a blank check for $700 billion." Well, now wait. If it's a blank check, there's no amount. That's what a blank check IS. So either he should say that the American people can't give Bush a check for $700 billion, or the American people can't give Bush a blank check. Anything else doesn't make sense.
Wonder if McCain will pick up on that and use it against him in the debate to indicate that Obama is no better at expressing himself than Bush. Presuming he shows up, of course.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 24, 2008 05:17 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm a bit confused here. British. Don't really get the full subtleties of the merkan election system.
What power does an electoral candidate have in these circumstances? If that nice Mr Obama were to go to Washington, what would he achieve?
I've seen at least one commentary today that said the last thing these bailout negotiations need is to have the two presidential candidates in the room trying to leverage their positions while the fate of the economy was being worked out.
Obama's already said he'll be at the debate, and I don't think he'll go back on that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "go to Washington," Nick. Do you mean as a Senator, as the nominee, or in January if he wins?
As for PAD's broader point -- yeah, pretty much. The idea that McCain (who has openly stated on many, many occasions that the economy is not his main focus or indeed his strength) is so essential to dealing with this crisis that it must supersede the campaign is a non-starter.
I have to say that I'm actually starting to worry about his stability a little bit. First the apparently last-minute choice of Sarah Palin, then the headlong veering from "the fundamentals are strong" to "we've got to stop the campaign NOW" ... this is someone who seems not entirely stable and sober to me. (That's "sober" in the emotional sense, by the way, not the alcoholic one.)
And keep in mind that on the whole, I LIKE him personally -- this isn't me trying to do some sort of whisper campaign. I think he's a decent man in most respects, but I'm starting to think that all is not entirely right.
TWL
As I said in another thread, I think this is just a ploy. McCain will show up and he'll try to turn the debate away from foreign policy to economic policy and portray his attempt to cancel the debate as an example of his maverick status.
He certainly likes to take chances. Not sure if that's such a great presidential quality.
Obama's already saying to McCain, "Nice try, sucka, but the fight is on!"
And I think what he was trying to say about the "blank check" was that the American people can't afford to hand the administration $700B without first agreeing to a plan. If they're going to hand over that kind of money to save the economy, they need to know first exactly how it'll be spent, and it'll need to be a plan that they can agree with.
I think a better way to say it would have been "a $700B check with no strings attached."
Unless you've heard something I haven't, it's not "polls" but 1 poll, which could just as easily be an abberation. Even if not, NPR just released a poll that notes that in 14 battleground states, the candidates are in a dead heat, which really should be more relevant to the candidates than national polls.
On what power the candidates have: Officially, none, other than that they both happen to be Senators. Practically, quite a bit more, as they're the de-facto leaders of their party, and getting their guy elected is a high priority of virtually every politician. Since they're both Senators, it's not really inappropriate for either of them to go to the Senate and work on bills.
(It is political grandstanding, to a degree, but welcome to democracy.)
The good news for Obama supporters (like me!) is that he seems to not be taking the bait.
John McCain is legitimately in a tight spot here, since he has a long record of being a cheerleader for deregulation, and now we're facing serious economic consequences that the general consensus is could be more easily avoided with more regulation. (I think the consensus is true, but it hardly matters, for electoral consequence purposes.) He really doesn't have a good option - either support a policy that's become extremely unpopular in a now important issue, or do a 180 and hope people find him sincere, and in the meantime try and razzle-dazzle them to make it believable. I don't blame him for trying the latter, as a candidate. In a way he's lucky this didn't happen a month from now, or it'd be almost impossible to recover. (Then again, if it had happened two months from now, he'd be far luckier.)
I think it's going to be hard to recover from this for McCain. This trumps most October Surprises - for one thing, it's real. It affects people. And it disproportionately ties into McCain's policies and staff in obvious ways.
This is McCain doing one of the two things he that he seems to do best lately. He's either grandstanding to try and create the image of himself as someone "putting America above ambition/self" or simply overreacting. Either way it's stupid looking.
"Hi, I'm John McCain and I can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time." I'm John McCain and I approve this message. :)
McCain is not the President of the United States. Neither he nor Obama are major pieces of the Washington puzzle that keep all of the other pieces from being able to deal with this just by their absence. And it's an absence that McCain has exposed Washington to since, if memory serves, April or May. There are any number of people working on this issue that can handle it, likely better, without McCain or Obama in the mix.
It might even be better if McCain and Obama stay out of the mix. If any serious debates or any serious conflicts arise during the hammering out of this situation; you know that the media, and thus the nation, will be focused on the positions of McCain and Obama. If McCain rushes in and tries to show off his status as vital and needed for this and Obama follows him on this it will become about the Presidential election and either of them trying to be prominent figures in this could become detrimental to the overall process.
Both men can reduce their travel, keep abreast of what's going on and show up for the vote with little problem. There's no need to go to the panicky extreme that McCain seems to be going for.
I'd also hazard a guess that Obama would be politically safe in pushing for this debate to continue. What better place to showcase their grasp of the situation and their ideas for dealing with the fallout of this situation than in a debate that would likely have many questions about the candidates' positions on the US fiscal situation.
Of course, that also could be the issue that McCain wants to duck. McCain's statements on the state of the nation with regards to the economy have all been one long stream of goofs, misstatements, backtracking, "this is what I really meant when I said" moments and flat at head scratchers. Maybe McCain is ducking the debate because he's just not prepared.
And, if you really want to go conspiracy with this, it could be a multiple "benefit" strategy to protect Palin. McCain's people could feel that the "America First!!!" image that their presenting with this will gain McCain points. They could also feel that getting footage of McCain "taking charge" in Washington on this will make him look more presidential. And they could also be bashing their heads into the wall trying to coach Palin enough to keep her from looking like a total moron in her debate.
How does the last bit tie in to this mess? McCain later says that, with the majority of the mess behind them they can go forward with the debates. He could claim that they still need to have all three debates and, hey, there's this debate setting that's all set up already for the VPs. Why not, since the Ps are more important than the VPs, just go in and use that forum rather than having a probably pointless and much less important VP debate.
They try to get all of their "Noble President McCain" propaganda in and they protect Dan Quayle 2.0 from looking like Dan Quayle 2.0. If you're in McCain's camp and steeped in the propaganda; that could seem like a good idea.
Obama should stick to his guns here.
What power does an electoral candidate have in these circumstances? If that nice Mr Obama were to go to Washington, what would he achieve?
Nick, being a candidate for President doesn't give someone any explicit power. However, both of the them are members of the Senate (the more powerful house of Congress in most respects).
Also, their position as their parties' candidates for President should give them a good deal of de facto influence within the party. McCain can be expected to have less influence as the Current President is also a Republican and is, in many ways, the head of the Party.
Finally, saying the Presidential candidates of the major parties have an easy time getting TV air time is a huge understatement. The press would follow them into the shower (asking questions the whole time) if they could. The ability to get their message out (even though filtered through the perception of the press) is very real power. Canny message management can influence public opinion which influences Congress.
Dustin: I've heard a lot that you haven't. :-) Polls, plural, McCain is having a bad week.
The best polling site I've seen is: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
The data cruncher is Nate Silver, who also works for Baseball Prospectus. They're very transparent about their methodology and what data they're using. It's a moving target, but they're really trying to apply a scientific and smart approach to electoral projections. Warning: one can get lost in the data there if you're a political junkie.
Heh...
I'm channel surfing the XM and just heard a caller on a chat show throw out a brilliantly snarky idea.
McCain and the Republicans are saying left, right, up and down that Palin is qualified to be the VP and ready to step up and take over in case McCain can no longer serve as President. Fine. If McCain states that he won't show up; Obama and crew should suggest that Palin can step in and debate Bidden Friday night.
Hey, she's supposedly ready and they her supporters keep saying she's more qualified than Obama and Bidden combined...
Tim, I think he's always been this way. You don't piss off that many members of your own party by being predictable.
Obama and Palin seem to be the safest choices in this race. I respect McCain but I have no idea what he's going to do. Biden...may have suffered a head injury at some point. He's Quayle without the bad press. Palin I feel bad for because of the nuttiness of her attackers but she seems to be over her head...or at least McCain seems to think so. That pretty much leaves Obama.
(As an aside, there is a possibility of a 269--269 electoral tie. In that case the presidential pick goes to the House where it would be Obama. In the Senate...nobody seems to know if it's the outgoing Senate or incoming who picks the VP. Imagine if it's the former. Lieberman jumps to the republican side and it's 50-50. Cheney breaks the tie and makes Palin the choice. Or could they choose McCain instead? Or John Goodman? Mucho potential for pundit heaven, although the public would probably be so sick of the whole thing that they'd gladly go for a benign dictatorship by then.
In other words, my plan begins to come together...(Cue music. Minor key.)
It's interesting that you saw it that way. This may be something that people intuitively spin in their heads based on their preferences. A fellow Republican and I were talking when the news popped up that an Obama aide suggested he'd decline to reschedule the debate, and our initial reaction was, "For a smart guy Obama seems surprisingly ready to fall into every trap McCain sets for him." Even if it's a gimmick, it's a gimmick that Obama just needs to roll with. He's already vulnerable to the claim that he has spent half of his time in the Senate running for President. Does he really want to be campaigning for another office while his opponent is in DC addressing a major issue?
You're right. McCain did criticize Obama both for not going overseas and for the way he finally did go overseas. The fact that he was finessed once, and can recognize it now, doesn't keep him from being faced with a poor choice now. If he doesn't go back, the bailout and possibly the entire financial crisis is off the table for him. How does he criticize a bill whose debates he ditched to campaign? If he tries to complain about the crisis generally, he's open to an attack of, "Well, Senator, when it tanked, I went back to Washington to work on damage control. You went to a swing state."
I would think it was more of a desperation ploy except for two things:
1) What's there to be desperate about? The polls are a statistical tie, even following Obama's bailout bounce. Most likely that will fade, but even with it, a win in the debate--which this week should play to McCain's strength, foreign policy-- might give McCain the insignificant lead again, and the electoral college polls look like a 269-269 tie right now.
2) McCain didn't suggest that they both suspend campaigning and go back to DC. McCain unilaterally disarmed and went back to DC, calling on Obama to do the same. That is a very McCain-ish sort of thing to do.
I think it makes McCain look like a statesman and Obama look like a politician. Which news footage do you want for the next few days: your candidate on a stage with his shirtsleeves rolled up giving his stump speech again, or your candidate on the floor of the Senate? McCain essentially gets to say, "You go give some speeches. It's what you're good at. I have work to do." Obama should just accept that he got sucker-punched and go back to the Senate for a few days.
What power does an electoral candidate have in these circumstances? If that nice Mr Obama were to go to Washington, what would he achieve?
Everything and nothing. He's a sitting Senator, so he could cast a crucial vote on whether or not the bailout is approved. Which means he either looks like a leader for making a tough decision, or gets pilloried by people who dislike his vote.
David Hunt "Also, their position as their parties' candidates for President should give them a good deal of de facto influence within the party. McCain can be expected to have less influence as the Current President is also a Republican and is, in many ways, the head of the Party."
And that could be a problem. As I said above, having the two of them playing "Power Player" in this mess right now could actually have a detrimental effect on things. McCain has said that he's weak on economics and most of his recent comments on the subject have been extremely poorly thought out. Obama has said that he would lean heavily on his advisers in a theoretical major economic crisis. This isn't either of their specialty subjects. One thing that we don't need here is the parties playing Redskins VS Cowboys around their presidential nominee quarterbacks.
By all means they should keep up with the issue and vote when and where they need to, but this is an issue where election year theatrics and grandstanding on could be extremely damaging.
they still need to have all three debates and, hey, there's this debate setting that's all set up already for the VPs. Why not, since the Ps are more important than the VPs, just go in and use that forum rather than having a probably pointless and much less important VP debate.
That's really, really evil, Jerry. I like the way you think. Could even work that way.
Tim, I think he's always been this way. You don't piss off that many members of your own party by being predictable.
That certainly could be -- but if so, I still don't know that it's a great qualifier for the job. When you're 1 in 100, being one of the really unpredictable ones can be refreshing -- when you're the executive, particularly given how much power the executive now has thanks to changes in the last eight years, it seems a lot less neat and a lot more worrying.
TWL
Jerry, I'll bet those people suggesting Palin fill in for McCain are Republicans. At the National review blog they've been getting lots of readers making the same suggestion. Obama would have to be half crazy to suggest that and if he does McCain will jump on it with both feet.
What's Palin got to lose? If she holds her own she wins. Unless Obama blows her out of the water with a performance that makes JFK look like Quayle it's no big win for him.
Unless Obama is determined to be a bigger gambler than McCain it would be a very very bad idea.
As for any attempt to keep Palin from debating Biden...am I the only one who has been paying attention to Biden? The man is a human gaffe machine. He could and should beat Palin in a debate...but he has great potential to say that one stupid thing that will erase everything else he says. Joe is amazing. He could talk about how he asked Amy Carter whether or not the Polish people thought they were dominated by Dick Cheney's gay daughter. It could happen!
Hell, if Biden goes on record as disagreeing with Obama on many more issues they could have him
It sounds to me like overt grandstanding by John "Keating 5" McCain, and I think Obama should stick with the debate as scheduled--especially since Senator Reid thinks having the candidates participate risks adding presidential-hopeful politics to the already-muddy waters.
Yes, I know McCain was cleared of charges that he acted improperly re: Keating, but the Senate Ethics Committee still criticized him for exercising poor judgment. Frankly, I don't think his judgment has improved since 1991.
If McCain declines to show up at the debate location, and also declines to send Gov. Palin or a member of his staff/advisory committee, then Obama should take it as an opportunity to give in-depth answers to every question asked. And then he should wait in silence for two or three minutes to represent the viewpoint of the candidate who was too...dare I say chicken?...to show up.
Bill Mulligan: "Jerry, I'll bet those people suggesting Palin fill in for McCain are Republicans. At the National review blog they've been getting lots of readers making the same suggestion. Obama would have to be half crazy to suggest that and if he does McCain will jump on it with both feet.
What's Palin got to lose? If she holds her own she wins. Unless Obama blows her out of the water with a performance that makes JFK look like Quayle it's no big win for him."
Sorry I wasn't clear above. The idea was to have the VP debate, Palin VS Biden, pushed on them for Friday. I haven't heard anyone say that Palin should debate Obama yet and I doubt that very many Obama supporters would go for that. It would instantly elevate her in the eyes of many no matter the outcome and it would do Obama no favors at all no matter how well he did in the debate.
Yeah, I could see the Republicans wanting that scenario to come to pass though. Palin, McCain's junior member on the ticket, gets accepted by the Obama campaign as Obama's equal. The immediate inference is that Obama is also less than McCain. Palin doesn't even have to perform well in the debate since it would be spun in her favor six ways from Sunday since Obama has been prepping for the debate for at least the last week and Palin would have two days notice.
No, Obama's people and his supporters should dodge that bullet with everything they've got.
Bill Mulligan: "Hell, if Biden goes on record as disagreeing with Obama on many more issues they could have him"
Oh no... They got Mulligan in mid statement!!! Well, that'll teach him to talk about his "plan begins to come together...(Cue music. Minor key.)" in a public forum before he has his Royal Army of the Dead up and running. With luck though, it's just a flesh wound.
"And then he should wait in silence for two or three minutes to represent the viewpoint of the candidate who was too...dare I say chicken?...to show up."
Oh, yeah... That would look good. And maybe he could hold his breath while he's at it.
You're right. McCain did criticize Obama both for not going overseas and for the way he finally did go overseas. The fact that he was finessed once, and can recognize it now, doesn't keep him from being faced with a poor choice now.
McCain challenged Obama on his diplomacy cred, and Obama went overseas, opened his hands, and Disney birds dropped diplomacy cred into them.
Also:
Obama's been prepping for McCain for at least a year, and McCain didn't have time to plan for a general election with Obama until he won the republican nomination. Obama's gonna do what it takes to win. You can keep crowding out your observations with the static of your republican bias, or you can take the lesson.
From CNN:
McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
Hats off to Jerry -- called that one perfectly.
TWL
Hey, I have my moments.
I may only see them once a year, but I have my moments.
"As for any attempt to keep Palin from debating Biden...am I the only one who has been paying attention to Biden? The man is a human gaffe machine."
Yeah, but since he's goofed so many times, Biden's now got GAFFE IMMUNITY. Palin doesn't have that luxury, since we barely know her.
As for McCain, it's looking more like he blinked when he saw those poll numbers today. Either that, or he just saw that disasterous Palin interview with Katie Couric and panicked yet again.
KET
"Hell, if Biden goes on record as disagreeing with Obama on many more issues they could have him"
Oh no... They got Mulligan in mid statement!!! Well, that'll teach him to talk about his "plan begins to come together...(Cue music. Minor key.)" in a public forum before he has his Royal Army of the Dead up and running. With luck though, it's just a flesh wound.
Yeah, that didn't come off clear...I meant Obama could debate Biden. Ba dum bump.
Hadn't thought of just switching the VP and pres debates...not a bad idea. But since I don't think this suspending the campaign will play well, there's no reason for Obama to encourage it. Watch Letterman tonight to see how this is going to go.
Didn't see the Palin interview--what happened?
Actually, I'd be personally thrilled if the debate got canceled, simply because I'm going to be at a film festival Friday and I have my priorities.
Bill,
Yeah, I figured that the entire statement was that "they could have him debate Obama." I just thought it was funny the way it just sorta stopped there with half a thought and no period. Too good a tinfoil hat setup there and I couldn't resist.
"Actually, I'd be personally thrilled if the debate got canceled, simply because I'm going to be at a film festival Friday and I have my priorities."
That's why God created the DVR.
Oh no they had better NOT replace the VP debate. I want to see Biden eat Palin with way too much mayonnaise. OM NOM NOM.
All I know is I thought McCain was being "desparate" when he picked Palin and he managed to get quite a bit of milage out of that.
I don't know what he's up to, but I do know that McCain isn't stupid.
"Didn't see the Palin interview--what happened?"
Couric stumped the candidate on any instance of McCain's voting record:
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: Uhhh...I'lllll try to find you some and I'll bring them to ya.
The conventional wisdon is that McCain is better at the town hall meetings, while Obama is better at direct debates. Unfortunately for McCain, he now has a greater liability: The economnic crash, which happened under his party's "leadership," and McCain's promoting deregulation and the blind following of the free market. (His comment that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" can't help either.)
On a semi-related note, I am very curious to see a debate between Biden and Palin. It's ironic that while Palin is the Republican't first female candidate for vie president, they're treating the nominee for such an important post as if she's the most delicate and fragile flower: shielding her from the press, having her meet foreign leaders and only allowing photographers 33 seconds to snap pictures (and no questions, naturally), etc. I wonder if they'll insist she be allowed to write the questions she's asked at the debate? If not, they'll probably claim it's sexist.
Your polling data is obsolete: the ABC/WaPo poll showed Obama break 50%, which John Kerry, the dem candidate with the largest turnout ever, failed to do.
Washington Post and CNN actually... and nobody else. With 1/4 the sample size of Rasmussen or Gallup. Battleground still has McCain up 2%. A week or so ago McCain was up as much as 5% in some polls. Polls vary all the time, and individual polls aren't kidding when they mention margins of error. Which, almost all of the aberrant results are within. I don't believe the ones that have McCain up in Michigan and within 2 in Washington State either. Kerry trounced Bush in some of the polls immediately before the election, and lost by the population of Iowa. RealClearPolitics is probably the best source (with all due recognition of fivethirtyeight.com), and they show Obama with a small but probably real lead of around 3 points. Hardly worth stroking out over.
Speaking of the number 3, here's a trivia question: Name every Democrat since James Buchanan (1856) to break 50% in the popular vote. Hint: there are 3.
Obama's been prepping for McCain for at least a year, and McCain didn't have time to plan for a general election with Obama until he won the republican nomination.
Um... what?
Because Obama knew sometime in 2007 that he was going to be the Democratic nominee? And that McCain was going to be his opponent? Before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes? Really? Man, if Obama had this kind of vision of the future, no wonder he's ahead of McCain in fully 3/4 of the tracking polls.
Can you ask Obama who's going to win the NFL games this weekend? I still have time to get to Vegas...
.
CAREFULLY READ THE PAULSON PROPOSAL
As written, it calls for 700 billion to be spent as he directs. BUT BUT there is no actual limit to the amount of money he might use or spend. He could spend 700 billion on assets, sell off the assets at a loss, then AGAIN buy 700 billion...as many times as he wants.
It is a line of revolving credit as it is written.
You want to trust one of the guys who got us into this mess? Remember he worked for Goldman Sachs while this was happening, and still owns millions in their stock.
Fox guarding the hen house?
On polls, I saw a number today of Obama 52%, McCain 43%.
So what would make one poll any more trustworthy than any other poll? If ALL the polls say Candidate A is ahead by 5%, then we should feel comfortable with the results. If most polls say Candidate A is ahead by 5%, and a few say 4%, then we should also feel relatively comfortable with the results. But this constant listing from one day to the next showing Candidate A ahead, then behind, then ahead again is just confusing and untrustworthy at all.
It seems Obama put forth the idea to McCain this morning of a joint statement between them, but McCain decided to act on his own and call a "Time Out" for the campaign until this financial bill is voted on.
The question being asked now is what will McCain do during an international crisis, ask for a "Time Out" again?
"Hey, we got a crisis here! Time Out!"
If only John McCain had invented a way to communicate with other people while away from home and work, we wouldn't have this problem.
OH, WAIT...
Obama's been prepping for McCain for at least a year, and McCain didn't have time to plan for a general election with Obama until he won the republican nomination.Um... what? ¶ Because Obama knew sometime in 2007 that he was going to be the Democratic nominee? And that McCain was going to be his opponent? Before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes? Really? Man, if Obama had this kind of vision of the future, no wonder he's ahead of McCain in fully 3/4 of the tracking polls.
Why would Obama wait for the primaries to finish to start research for a general election with McCain? Where's the sense in that? Who's going to win a presidential election thinking like that? Are you so incapable of seeing beyond your own self-interest that Obama harboring an actual resolve to win is incomprehensible to you?
Obama went into Iowa with $100M. Did McCain even get through the Iowa caucuses before his campaign's financial collapse? Up until super Tuesday, and maybe even well after, McCain was campaigning in the primaries as being ready to take on "the bitch."
Anything can happen in the last 5 weeks before election day, but you seem to have missed that McCain's cheeks are now spread for a major ass-kicking.
From the 2008 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."
Whatcha gonna do now, Republican John McCain?
I'm shocked by the new Fox News poll, just released:
FOX News Poll: Obama Reclaims Lead Over McCain, 45% to 39%
How in the world is McCain under 40? I'm guessing these pollsters didn't factor in leaners, or something like that. Still not as useful as state-level polling, of course, but interesting.
Because Obama knew sometime in 2007 that he was going to be the Democratic nominee? And that McCain was going to be his opponent? Before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes? Really? Man, if Obama had this kind of vision of the future, no wonder he's ahead of McCain in fully 3/4 of the tracking polls.
Well I'm thinking that ever since McCain announced in March 2007 he was going to run, there have been people in Obama's camp who have been prepping for it. Same as they would have been prepping for Romney and Guliani.
Was it perhaps a little bit of a misspeak? Maybe but c'mon McCain's had this wrapped up before Super Tuesday.
As for McCain descision to suspend the campaign
It's already gotten off to a bad start if his cancelled appearance on Letterman is any indication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
It comes off as not knowing what to do, and trying to hide from anything that might make things worse.
I was about to post the same link, Jasonk, but I was waiting around for it to air here (since I am apparently not bright enough to check YouTube :)).
Yes, Letterman was priceless tonight. To summarize: McCain was to be a guest, but pulled out at the last minute because he was to head back to DC. So, they got Keith Olbermann as a replacment guest. But before Olbermann comes on, Letterman spends a couple of minutes to talk about how 'this doesn't smell right' that McCain would suspend his campaign. And he questions why Palin can't simply go and campaign in his stead. After all, she's ready to be president, right?
However, Letterman, while interviewing Olbermann, got wind of the fact that McCain was giving an interview with Couric only a few blocks away. Real @#$% brilliant, that John McCain is.
So McCain kicks Letterman in the nuts by going on CBS News for an interview, and CBS kicks Letterman in the nuts in the same way.
But man does Letterman hit it on the head: if Palin is ready to be president, shouldn't she be able to step in McCain's place in the campaign? Is the angle soon going to be that the vice presidential debate should be canceled?
"On polls, I saw a number today of Obama 52%, McCain 43%."
-Alan Coil
That's the Washinton Post/ABC poll that I assume Peter is refering to, and that is making the news. Looking at RealClearPolitics.com, as David suggested, the aggregate spread is only 3.5 points, while fivethirtyeight.com, which Kirby suggested, gives only a 2.1 point spread. It seems that only looking at a single poll, and ignoring the rest, do you see any massive swing toward Obama. Otherwise, it seems to be a dead heat on a national level.
Heh, you have to love Bill Clinton. What a pisser. He could not be any more obvious that he hates Obama and would love to see him beaten by McCain...but he does it in a way that nobody can pin it on him. Witness:
1- Bill, totally off the Democrats talking points, "defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward."
"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
(http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_268230433.html?keyword=topstory)
2- Clinton told CNN's "Larry King Live" on Wednesday that he doesn't think "dumping" on McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin, is a winning strategy. He said undecided voters aren't interested in attacks but solutions for the problems they face.
"I just don't believe that getting up here and hyperventilating about Gov. Palin, or Sen. McCain for that matter, is a productive use of a former president's time and is not a vote-getter," he said, adding that he admires McCain even though he disagrees with several of his positions.
3- Bill tells the ladies on The View that Hillary didn't want to be Obama's VP anyway...hmmmm. Considering that the only way she is likely to get another shot at the presidency is to either be on an Obama winning ticket or be there next election if Obama loses...what does that tell you about their expectations?
4- Bill Clinton praised Sarah Palin Wednesday, saying he found the Alaska governor an “appealing person” and her and her family “gutsy, spirited and real.”
“I think that she and her husband and their kids come across gutsy, spirited and real,” he said in an interview to be broadcast Wednesday night. “I have significant disagreements with her about any number of social and economic issues but I find her an appealing person and I think that it’s best to say that Senator McCain looks like he knew what he was doing. He picked somebody who gave him a lot of energy, a lot of support.”
5- In that same interview bill said he would be campaigning for Obama...as soon as the Jewish holidays were over. I think if he could get away with it he'd delay his enthusiasm until Arbor day, national Hispanic heritage month, and the feast of St Mickey was over as well, taking him well into 2009.
Hey, maybe McCain should send him on Friday!
It's taken me a long time but I've finally found the charm in Bill Clinton that so many others found before me and which, until now, left me baffled. He's shameless. It's not a trait I like but you have to kind of admire the purity of it.
There are reports now that the McCain campaign has suggested postponing tomorrow's debate until the night of the VP debate, and moving the VP debate to another date...
You could probably go to Vegas right now to bet on the odds we ever see a VP debate should this suggestion become reality...
But this constant listing from one day to the next showing Candidate A ahead, then behind, then ahead again is just confusing and untrustworthy at all.
I'm a Mets fan. I totally understand it.
PAD
I think delaying the presidential debate until Oct. 2, the day of the VP debate, is a good idea. But I'd take it one step further. Since the VPs are not crucual for the ongoing finacial discussions in Washington why not have the VP debate tomorrow?
I imagine Biden is good and ready to go. And reports say Palin is in Philadelphia today, not in Washington, and has nothing scheduled. So she's obviously got some free time on her hands.
So yeah, the VP debate on Friday. Unless one of the campaigns would have a problem with that idea...
To Hell with ideas I've heard about the VP candidates going on Friday or sending Palin in McCain's place against Obama (that meltdown would be EPIC). What Obama should do is anounce that he will be there and ready and if McCain doesn't show up, he'll be perfectly willing to take questions from the moderator and answer them throughout the the time period allotted for the debate. "Dabates" are pretty much candidates responding to questions with soundbites, anyway. It turns into the Obama Hour.
Of course, if Obama shows up under those conditions, McCain will show up. They may have to move it to a studio in Washington, but they'd stand in front of those cameras and jabber.
They're Palin and McCain.
Yes, Palin and McCain.
One is a genius, the other's insane.
Sorry. I just had to write that.
What happened to "America First"?
Obama should be doing the job he was elected to do as a Senator and deal with the Crisis first and worry about advancing himself politcally later.
Foreign policy is his weak point. This gives Obama more time to prepare for the debate if it's delayed so it's only to Obama's benefit to do so.
McCain isn't "afraid" of debating Obama. If anything it's the other way around but Obama is just puffing his chest and posturing for the public. When McCain wanted to do 10 debates and Obama would only agree to three, it's obvious which candidate fears the debates.
What happened to "America First"?
Speaking on behalf of the entire country, America would first like McCain to stop acting like a preemptive, hypercritical, dictatorial douchebag, with a vice president who hides from the media whenever possible. We've had that for the last eight years. We don't need four more.
PAD
This was a cynical stunt and I think he just lost the election because of it. Not that he was winning before hand.
I think it's a no lose situation for McCain. Maybe it helps him in the polls. If not, it gives him an excuse for why he doesn't win.
I think Obama already lost the PR part of the battle for any undecided's. He basically said, "You know those people I represent change from? I am going to trust them to do a good job because I need to go on this job interview. Nevermind that I want you to know how great my leadership abilities are. You have to wait until after the election to see them."
If I were an Illinois resident, I'd be somewhat offended that he thought it was ok for them to have half representation in the Senate, unless they all elected him to run for president.
He can turn it around though by having the Democrats put together a great plan, then him being out in front of it or get his name on it. It would put to rest claims that he hasn't done anything while he has been senator, and it would be a pr bonanza.
Of course I don't trust that lot in Washington to know how to sit on a toilet the right way.
"If I were an Illinois resident, I'd be somewhat offended that he thought it was ok for them to have half representation in the Senate..."
Any time a Senator runs for president, his state suffers through half representation. The only solution is that no Senators should be allowed to run for President. And no governors, either. In fact, the only people who have sufficient time to campaign that doesn't affect their state might be inmates.
To me, this underscores three things:
1) McCain's impatience bordering on the unreasonable. He stated that this has to be done and done immediately. Considering he just got done declaring that the economy is fundamentally sound, he's suddenly turned around and is maintaining that this has to be resolved instantly, right this second, by tomorrow. Here is a problem that has been developing over months if not years, and McCain not only believes it has to be solved by Friday, but that it CAN be solved by Friday, which it can't. And if it's not resolved by tomorrow, then he's going to throw a carefully planned tantrum by refusing to attend the debate. This is not the behavior of a president. This is the behavior of a five year old. (And by the way, the point about Palin stepping in is well taken. If she can't sub in for him at a debate, how can she be expected to sub in for him should he win the presidency and then die.)
2) If the shoe was on the other foot and Obama was refusing to show up on Friday unless the bailout situation was resolved, McCain supporters would all be crowing that Obama is gutless, presumptuous...even (dare I say it) uppity for trying to dictate terms to his opponent.
3) McCain has learned one major thing from Bush: The politics of fear. If we don't give Bush what he wants, the terrorists will fire nuclear bombs from Iraq into the middle of New York City. If we don't do what McCain wants, credit will dry up, life savings will be destroyed, and the Earth will open and swallow us up.
PAD
It's true that this problem has been developing over the last decade but according to some sources we came within 500 trades or so of a complete market meltdown last week. It IS possible that there is a deadline on getting this thing done or risking a cascade of events that will take years to fix. I'm not sure that's the case but it isn't only McCain that has been talking about potential disaster.
Now I rather doubt that one or two senators not being there will have much effect...but wasn't reid just the other day demanding that McCain sign off on this or it wouldn't go through?
I do agree on one thing--if Obama had done this I'm pretty sure that republicans would cast it in a bad light. As sure as i am that Democrats would have said it just showed how he is for a change from politics as usual, as opposed to the other guy's stuffy insistence on business as usual.
What happened to "America First"?
Yeah, Mr. McCain, what DID happen to America First? Why are you blundering into negotiations involving areas where you have no expertise, didn't bother to read the proposal until this week (if at all) and where you have no jurisdiction in your duties as a Senator? Could it be ANOTHER grandstanding play--the same one you pulled in 2007 with immigration reform??
It's true that this problem has been developing over the last decade but according to some sources we came within 500 trades or so of a complete market meltdown last week. It IS possible that there is a deadline on getting this thing done or risking a cascade of events that will take years to fix. I'm not sure that's the case but it isn't only McCain that has been talking about potential disaster.
Sources? A lot of what I'm reading (nakedcapitalism.com, angrybear, etc.) has been urging against haste. Things are serious, but not imminent.
Scott: "What happened to "America First"?
Obama should be doing the job he was elected to do as a Senator and deal with the Crisis first and worry about advancing himself politcally later."
Yeah, Scott, whatever did happen to America first? McCain is taking an issue that is extremely important and possibly unstable and turning it into a political stunt. McCain is insisting that, despite the statements of both Republican and Democratic members of the committee working on this issue to the contrary, he's needed back in Washington. His handlers and supporters are playing this up as though he is the only person who can rush in and deliver a deal.
McCain is playing an important issue like a game to advance himself politically now. McCain hotshotted this issue to get himself out of the sliding poll numbers he's facing and, had Obama taken the bait, they're involvement could have delayed or trashed this morning's McCain-free announcement of a tentative deal.
This was "McCain First" all the way.
McCain is fast giving me something that I didn't want and grew tired of some time ago. He's giving me someone to vote against. The further and faster that McCain-Palin want to drive their campaign towards and then over the cliff; the closer I am to voting against McCain by choosing Obama in the ballot box.
Brian Woods: "If I were an Illinois resident, I'd be somewhat offended that he thought it was ok for them to have half representation in the Senate, unless they all elected him to run for president."
And how many times has McCain made Arizona suffer through half representation while pursuing his ambition to be president?
As sure as i am that Democrats would have said it just showed how he is for a change from politics as usual, as opposed to the other guy's stuffy insistence on business as usual.
Noooo, I'm thinking most Democrats, including myself, would have said it was a bad move. That whatever his stated intent, it was going to come across negatively, not to mention leave a clean field for McCain to show up at the debate and say anything he wanted without being challenged by his opponent. Which is what we may be faced with on Friday.
PAD
McCain is insisting that, despite the statements of both Republican and Democratic members of the committee working on this issue to the contrary, he's needed back in Washington. His handlers and supporters are playing this up as though he is the only person who can rush in and deliver a deal.
He's done this before, with the 2007 immigration bill. So, for once, he's being consistent.
As Bill O'Rights says on YouTube: McCain - What A Douche
(BTW, I've been getting ominous multiple-click-to-get-rid-of security warnings from the Java on the front page lately.)
3) McCain has learned one major thing from Bush: The politics of fear. If we don't give Bush what he wants, the terrorists will fire nuclear bombs from Iraq into the middle of New York City. If we don't do what McCain wants, credit will dry up, life savings will be destroyed, and the Earth will open and swallow us up.
And then terrorists will fire nuclear bombs from Iraq into the heart of New York City.
Really, there are 535 members of Congress - even if there's anything Congress can do to help, are they really so dependent on those two particular members? The other 533 are helpless without their leadership??
It's looking more and more like this is all being done as part of a stalling tactic of the campaign:
...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."
www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html
It's a three-page plan keeping full discretionary privileges to spend a huge figure I haven't heard any senator say he was planning to vote for, republican or otherwise. What a perfect opportunity for McCain to hold out for a kill that's stonewalled indefinitely. It's win/win for George W Bush.
Sources? A lot of what I'm reading (nakedcapitalism.com, angrybear, etc.) has been urging against haste. Things are serious, but not imminent.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/business/almost_armageddon_130110.htm
The market was 500 trades away from Armageddon on Thursday, traders inside two large custodial banks tell The Post.
Had the Treasury and Fed not quickly stepped into the fray that morning with a quick $105 billion injection of liquidity, the Dow could have collapsed to the 8,300-level - a 22 percent decline! - while the clang of the opening bell was still echoing around the cavernous exchange floor.
According to traders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, money market funds were inundated with $500 billion in sell orders prior to the opening. The total money-market capitalization was roughly $4 trillion that morning.
It's the Post so take it for what it's worth. I'd be happy to accept that we DON'T need to spend 700 billion dollars on this bailout but an awful lot of the arguments I've seen for that have often contained an element of "Yes, it will result in a bad recession but it will still be better for us in the long run". Which may be true but I have 2 (about to have 3) kids in college so it's really not great timing for that.
And it isn't like this is fantasy stuff. The market is fully capable of melting down in a vicious cycle--stocks go down which triggers automatic sell orders which makes stocks go down which triggers...
Here's another one; http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html
Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0
What would be the dollar cost of not bailing out Wall Street? Try a number north of $30 trillion. (The awful math is detailed below.) That's why Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were so scared last week. And, yes, I think "scared" isn't too strong a word. You don't think they convened an emergency nighttime meeting of congressional leaders and then walked out with something close to a blank check for a trillion bucks because they thought we were headed for an outright recession, even a fairly nasty one?
Nope, I think they believed, and got Congress to believe, that the economy was on the verge of something far worse than the worst downturn in a generation. And that is why they went with the so-called nuclear option: the biggest financial bailout in history. In the words of JPMorgan Chase economist James Glassman, "Thankfully, we and our friends around the world who are watching the economic lights come on will never know where events would have led, if the clock had not stopped [last] Thursday afternoon.... Last week's events made the 1987 stock market crash look like child's play."
Look, my mom is an economics teacher, not me. I don't pretend to understand this stuff. I like biology--cut a frog, he bleeds, it's pretty easy to understand the whys and hows. Economists seem to me to be one bone through the nose away from being a witchdoctor. So maybe this is all a lot of nothing. But as the man says, those congressmen sure looked like a grim bunch last week. I don't know what the best solution would be but most ofthe critics of the current plan aren't offering any alternatives so what else do we have to go on?
Noooo, I'm thinking most Democrats, including myself, would have said it was a bad move. That whatever his stated intent, it was going to come across negatively, not to mention leave a clean field for McCain to show up at the debate and say anything he wanted without being challenged by his opponent. Which is what we may be faced with on Friday.
You? Sure, I'll accept that. Most Democrats? Not even close. Like most Democrats have criticized Obama for going back on his word regarding public financing the election. On the contrary, they've complimented him for completely reversing himself and raising record amounts of money. Had the roles been reversed would they be complimenting McCain for his savvy pragmatism?
Most Democrats will not think Obama has made a bad move no matter what he does. Unless he loses. Then they will come out of the woodwork like so many Jean Dixons, trumpeting after the fact prognostications.
But of course, like all the fantasies of What Gore Would Have Done or If This Were A ___________ Instead of a ______________ What Would The Media Be Saying Then, it's pointless to argue about it unless one has a portal to other alternate realities where Kennedy lived and Spock has a beard.
This debt of 700 billion dollars going to pay all U.S. citizens to save the speculators on Wall Streep who led all industries to China and left without jobs to several cities in USA. It is not fair, but so is the capitalist imperialism.
It's the Post so take it for what it's worth.
If the NY Post said it was nighttime out, I'd wear sunglasses.
PAD
Boehner backpedaled on congress denying they were on their way to forming a consensus in congress. No more need for McCain to set congress straight.
Personally, I'd take the NY Post more seriously if I were seeing reflections on it in more of the economics web sites and blogs.
Not that there shouldn't be some federal action; the reaction is a little more even on that.
But the $700 billion figure is a made-up fantasy figure. Treasury officials couldn't justify it and even said that it was a made up figure to start discussion. That makes me feel that there's time to talk more rationally about federal action without this rush to doom, have-to-get-it-done-now action.
And there are plenty of other alternatives out there, including one patterned on the Swedish effort when the banks there almost went under in the 1990s.
In the Whatever you do, I'm against it! department it's hard to beat Harry Reid:
Yesterday:
I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator 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.
Today:
With the economic news only getting worse each day, I call on the President, Senator McCain and Congressional Republicans to join us to quickly get this done for American families.
Here's a clip of Sarah Palin missing a question gently tossed to her underhanded: youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
Couric asked her why $700B isn't better spent on services to the middle class, and all she had to say was that it's going to be spent to free-up lending. I don't think Obama's campaign could have picked a worse candidate for McCain.
Apparently a bailout deal has been agreed upon. Only a few minor details to settle.
Cancel the debate, cancel the debate...Gee, where have we heard that before?
Oh, yeah!
McCain, 2000.
Same old Republican dog, same old Republican tricks.
Even though there appears to be some sort of agreed bailout, McCain still hasn't decided whether or not he's going to attend the debate in Mississippi.
The solution, I think, is simple. The Commission should invite Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney to take his place. Put the Libertarian and Green candidates up on stage alongside Obama.
The bailout may be needed to prevent a greater catastrophe. But the real question is "what about the guys that got us in this mess in the first place?" They say capitalism is so efficient because you're driven to succeed that much harder when you know you can't expect the government to save your ass when the going is tough.
But apparentlt that doesn't apply if you're "too big to fail". Effectively, they're holding your country hostage. "Pay the money, or else the country suffers". A terrorist couldn't have done it better.
In a sane world, the government would pay up, but also apply harsh punishment to the top execs that, through incompetence and recklessness, led to this situation in the first place. What Steven Grant said in his column makes sense: confiscate the assets of the top execs in the involved institutions, and use this money to help offset the cost of the bailout.
Maybe Obma should say that he's sending Biden to Washington to keep in the loop while Obama capaigns?
A market driven economy is self correcting. This is a true fact.
However
They are correcting AFTER THE FACT. Nothing done after the fact protects the investments of the little guy. Just ask the investors in Enron, in Bear Stearns, Marvel Comics when they went bankrupt.
This is why regulations were installed during the Great Depression. Regulations that were mostly deleted in the last few years. What has happened was all too predictable. In fact, many economists said so. But the Republican backed ideas won, and our country lost.
We forgot the past and are now doomed to repeat it.
"Palin won't reveal her finances until after debate "
http://news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=386&sid=964215
So, that means she'll never reveal them?
"Palin won't reveal her finances until after debate "
news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=386&sid=964215
So, that means she'll never reveal them?
The solution, I think, is simple. The Commission should invite Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney to take his place. Put the Libertarian and Green candidates up on stage alongside Obama.
Too risky. McKinney could go absolutely insane at any moment and start ranting about Jews. I guess that could provide Obama with a Sister Soulja moment...but it's generally a safer strategy to not argue with idiots, lest bystanders not be able to tell the difference.
Anyhoo...when people wonder if anyone could have seen this coming...
This is the New York Times in 1999!
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.
...In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
While I have zero sympathy for folks like Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines who got us in to this mess, their ridiculous incomes did not create the real problem. Lending money to people who could not pay it back to get houses they couldn't afford seems to have been the problem. Someone said earlier that we should not blame poor people, there aren't enough of them to have run up a 700 billion dollar bill. he was right--but a lot of these people aren't poor. They just got a house they couldn't afford. You could be a millionaire and end up in foreclosure if you get the Taj Mahal.
My wife and I just bought a house. It's really nice and big and old (sadly, not haunted, although the cats seem spooked sometimes but they get spooked by the molecules in the floor), needs some work, but it was affordable. The payments were not significantly more than we were paying in rent. We could have bought a much newer home for about 50% more in price and easily qualified for the loan--but I didn't want to be worried about that bank account shrinking by the end of the month, watching half my check go to just the mortgage, etc.
The point is, we could have easily gotten a loan we would have had some difficulty living with. I'm sure a lot of people grabbed those deals with both hands. Prices kept going up, some folks even took insane loans that started small and then ballooned up a few years later, thinking that they would refinance or sell the house at a profit when that day came. They gambled. They lost. So did the bank.
The bank will be bailed out by the government. Many of the people who are about to get kicked out in the street will get some kind of aid to keep that from happening. I could gripe that those of us who made better decisions get nothing but that isn't really accurate, since I wouldn't trade my position for that of the bank or the bankrupt.
Again, economics ain't my deal so maybe there is way more to this than just loans that never should have been given to people who should not have taken them. But kudos to Peter Wallison for some solid predicting. Too bad nobody listened.
Why would Obama wait for the primaries to finish to start research for a general election with McCain? Where's the sense in that? Who's going to win a presidential election thinking like that? Are you so incapable of seeing beyond your own self-interest that Obama harboring an actual resolve to win is incomprehensible to you?
No, the thing that was incomprehensible was your statement that Obama started prepping for McCain a year ago and McCain didn't have the time to prep until he won the nomination. I agree Obama has a better than fifty-fifty chance of winning the election, but that doesn't make your claim that the guy who won the nomination fastest had less time to prepare less "incomprehensible. "
You almost saved yourself by arguing, Obama went into Iowa with $100M. Did McCain even get through the Iowa caucuses before his campaign's financial collapse? Up until super Tuesday, and maybe even well after, McCain was campaigning in the primaries as being ready to take on "the bitch." Unfortunately: 1) Even if McCain was getting ready to "take on the bitch", Obama was actually taking on "the bitch." Until June. 2)McCain's campaign was in disarray ayear ago. Obama should have had no clue whom to prep unless he prepped all of the main Republicans. If he'd had to guess, Romney looked like the front-runner. Of course, if Obama were inclined and able to prep all the Republicans, it again begs the question of why you think McCain was incapable of prepping the two leading Democrats. (Edwards was and is a nonentity.) 3) Obama had around $30 million, not $100 M. This one's kind of nitpicky, because that is still a bushel of money, whereas for most of the campaign McCain has been digging change out from behind couch cushions. But still, it's good to back up empirical claims.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.
...In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
This is the New York Times in 1999!
Since the VPs are not crucual for the ongoing finacial discussions in Washington why not have the VP debate tomorrow?
Palin is useless. I mean, for the financial discussions. But Biden is sixth in the Senate in terms of seniority, and a leader of the majority party to boot. The only argument that he's less useful would be that he removes one Senator rather than two from the discussions.
No, the thing that was incomprehensible was your statement that... McCain didn't have the time to prep until he won the nomination.
I can say that because even if he had devoted time to planning a general election against Obama before then, he started from scratch with his campaign reorg after he won the party nomination. Otherwise, what need is there for a reorg in the first place?
Palin's comical performance is an obvious example of the need to begin from the beginning with new people. She hasn't picked anything up because there's no there there.
This is the New York Times in 1999!
Dude, you've already attributed the Clinton-era deregulation to Gramm. McCain was a champion of deregulation up until 23 weeks ago. When you shelter McBush, exactly what virtue are you sheltering?
Republicanism + inevitable government bailouts ≠ anything that exists in Nature
What is the remaining mystery?
That was a really funny video of Tina Fey and Katie Couric I just saw. Great parody....
Oh wait, you mean that wasn't....OMG
"Mr. Obama, should we postpone the debates?"
(check one)
__Yes
__No
__Here
"Mr. Obama, do you think we should handle this so-called financial crisis with government buyout?"
__Yes
__No
__Here
Looking at his track record of how he votes, I think we all know his answers.
I've never seen anyone so afraid to say what he thinks. Which is the one reason I'm kinda hesitant to vote for him.
By the way, how soon after McCain showed up were things settled??????
"Obama is no better at expressing himself than Bush"
Well, d'uh.
Have you EVER heard him try to talk off script?????
By the way, how soon after McCain showed up were things settled??????
Settled? Oh, you mean the deal that's falling apart?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown;_ylt=Ap4Z.FyabqpRvYFVgTHiOeCs0NUE
It sounds like they had things in hand with regards to a deal until McCain showed up...
I've never seen anyone so afraid to say what he thinks. Which is the one reason I'm kinda hesitant to vote for him.
The fire chapter of the Art of War says that when your opponent is on fire, don't jump in. Wait until the fire dies down to finish him.
Looking at his track record of how he votes, I think we all know his answers. I've never seen anyone so afraid to say what he thinks.
Oh, I have.
I have no idea what McCain's thinking about the economy for example; he's changed his tone so many times over the past ten days...
dave w. at September 25, 2008 09:29 PM
By the way, how soon after McCain showed up were things settled??????
Actually, they were pretty much settled, by the statements of people from both sides of the isle, early this morning before McCain ever got his fingers into the pot. After he got there and did campaign stunt the wheels seem to have come off the wagon.
Well, I have no idea what's going on, because a lot of the Republicans were complaining that the Rep. negotiator wasn't speaking for THEM. As if they want to pass this bail-out and then run against it in 40 days.
PAD,
To take some of your points in order:
"To me, this underscores three things:
1) McCain's impatience bordering on the unreasonable. He stated that this has to be done and done immediately. Considering he just got done declaring that the economy is fundamentally sound, he's suddenly turned around and is maintaining that this has to be resolved instantly, right this second, by tomorrow. Here is a problem that has been developing over months if not years, and McCain not only believes it has to be solved by Friday, but that it CAN be solved by Friday, which it can't. And if it's not resolved by tomorrow, then he's going to throw a carefully planned tantrum by refusing to attend the debate. This is not the behavior of a president. This is the behavior of a five year old. (And by the way, the point about Palin stepping in is well taken. If she can't sub in for him at a debate, how can she be expected to sub in for him should he win the presidency and then die.)
2) If the shoe was on the other foot and Obama was refusing to show up on Friday unless the bailout situation was resolved, McCain supporters would all be crowing that Obama is gutless, presumptuous...even (dare I say it) uppity for trying to dictate terms to his opponent.
3) McCain has learned one major thing from Bush: The politics of fear. If we don't give Bush what he wants, the terrorists will fire nuclear bombs from Iraq into the middle of New York City. If we don't do what McCain wants, credit will dry up, life savings will be destroyed, and the Earth will open and swallow us up. "
1.)Seeing as how Paulson and Bernanke and Bush have all said that this bailout needs to be OK's with as strong sense of immediacy as possible, and that our local 13-term liberal Congressman has said that the cost of inaction "could doom the Republic", how in any way is it unreasonable for McCain to want to focus on that? Yeah,that's what's LEADER does. Although considering the Democrats are "led" by Nancy Pelosi - whose idea of leading on the Social Security issue, or any other for that matter, was to "Stop him! Our plan is to stop him! (meaning Bush of course) and Harry Reid, whose idea of leadership is to declare a war lost that we are now winning, the triangulating Clintons and the untested Obama, maybe you just don't recognize one when you see one.
So yeah, I would think calming the economy, the markets and the American people instantly, right this second, tomorrow takes precedence over a debate that can easily be rescheduled. I'm sure the mayor of my hometown would welcome Obama and Mccain with open arms and let them debate at Carbondale area High School on short notice if no one else will.
And really, another Palin dig? Getting a bit old. If you knew anything about her you would recognize she is an excellent debater and would welcome the challenge. That's a major reason why she was picked.
2.) To infer that the other side would think of Obama as "uppity" speaks for itself. Sad that you would view it through those glasses.
3.) The situation is serious. More serious than something that can easily be rescheduled until October. And McCain learned the "politics of fear" from Bush because he is treating something that is very serious...seriously? This coming from a supporter of a party that has people afraid Republicans wil do everything from bringing back slavery to keeping minorities down to giving a blanket approval to police brutality to "destroying" Social Security by privatizing some of it. A party whose presidential nominee four years ago was constantly comparing Bush to Herbert Hoover (no, no playing on fears of seniors there) and one that makes a living convincing the middle class and poor that the system is stacked against them. Aparty whose House Speaker doesn't want to drill for oil offshore because she is concerned with "Saving the Planet". A party that regularly uses Matthew Shepard and back alley abortions with wire hangers as images instead of discussing the merits of their positions on those issues intelligently with those who disagree with them.
That party wants to lecture on the "politics of fear"? Amazing.
and Harry Reid, whose idea of leadership is to declare a war lost that we are now winning
Jerome, YET AGAIN I will ask you to define the term "winning" when used in the context of Iraq. You've used the term in attempts to impugn Obama's patriotism on numerous occasions and Reid's currently, and I intend to keep asking you to define the term until you either (a) do so, or (b) quit using it. Your choice.
2.) To infer that the other side would think of Obama as "uppity" speaks for itself.
Yeah, especially when at least two Republican members of Congress have used that exact phrase in referring to Obama. How dare Peter imply that other Republicans might do the same?
Honestly, Jerome, if this is the best that you can do then the Republicans have even more reason to be worried than I'd thought.
TWL
Oh, and Jerome? Care to explain what good John McCain did by flying to Washington, while you're at it? It's certainly debatable whether his presence impeded the process, but it seems self-evident to that his presence didn't help anything.
(And as for "suspending his campaign", tell that to all of his surrogates who were still making campaign statements on the news yesterday, and all the markets that still saw McCain ads. Some suspension.)
McCain was trying to have it both ways -- he wanted to be seen as an above-the-fray economic statesman, and still manage to be a competitor without having to deal with a debate, even one as stage-managed as debates are in the modern era.
Sorry. Not buying.
TWL
Jerome, I really don't know what's sadder: your reflexive regurgitation of GOP talking points in the face of McCain's foolhardiness, or the fact that you don't know the difference between "imply" and "infer."
The simple fact is that in this instance, Obama is right: A President should be able to multitask. And the people who have suggested that if McCain REALLY can't be at the debate, then Palin should be able to sub in for him, are also right. That was just a straightforward statement on my part. How you can infer from that that (note proper usage of words) I was taking a dig at Palin and saying was an inept debater is unfathomable, unless YOU are implying (note proper usage of word) that merely saying she should be able to step into McCain's shoes is inherently insulting. In which case, who's taking the dig at her? Not me.
Honestly, Jerome, what's "getting old" is your "GOP right or wrong" mentality.
PAD
Oh, and Jerome, this from the AOL news feed:
At one point, several minutes into the session, Obama said it was time to hear from McCain. According to a Republican who was there, "all he said was, 'I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for.'"
So the guy you think isn't ready to be leader takes charge of the moment, passes it over to the guy you DO think is ready to be leader...who then does nothing to resolve the situation.
Color me convinced.
PAD
So, what - other than passing the buck to McCain - did Obama do in the meeting? Neither of them appear to be contributing at all.
As far as the House GOP plan goes, it sounds like a decent alternative to be considered first. Rather than a $700 billion loan/investment, it's a $30-50 billion in insurance for banks that can come in any buy the bad paper. The downside is that there's no ROI on insurance - it would be straight spending. Still spending 5% of the money seems like a better initial plan than loaning $700 billion. I'd like Congress to look at that plan in more detail before committing to the Paulson plan.
So, what - other than passing the buck to McCain - did Obama do in the meeting?
He accepted the invitation to it publicly extended to him, as opposed to blowing it off. What kind of question is that?
So, what - other than passing the buck to McCain - did Obama do in the meeting? Neither of them appear to be contributing at all.
Didn't Bush invite them? The fact remains that this entire situation is going to affect our country for years to come, and one of these two is going to be president, so I think it was appropriate for them to be there.
However, Obama does not appear to be getting in the way of the process. Unlike McCain, who's sole purpose seems to be "I'm going to take credit for saving America".
So McCain seems to be backing this alternate plan that has no chance of passing, and has basically thrown a wrench into a process that both Dems and Repubs have been working on for a week straight, and that apparently had Dems, most Repubs, and the White House on board with.
McCain the Maverick? Maybe the one from the tv show and movie of the same name: McCain is coming across as nothing more than a gambler.
.
LARGEST BANK FAILURE IN USA HISTORY
WaMu---Washington Mutual---failed and was sold to another banking institution.
Way to go, Republican John McCain.
I got an idea, Republican John McCain, why don't you delay the possible solution to the problem a week or two more.
Let me see if I get this straight--The Democrats have a majority in the House and senate. The senate republicans are behind the bill, so no filibuster. the president is behind the bill. The treasury secretary is behind the bill. But Nancy Pelosi and barney Frank will refuse to actually pass the bill unless the house republicans agree to go along with it...why? So that if it fails they can't turn around and blame the Democrats? Um, if the odds of that possibility are great enough to worry about maybe we should rethink the bill.
I feel bad for whoever wins the presidency, having to work with this stellar collection of fillet-o-humans.
dave w. asked:
"By the way, how soon after McCain showed up were things settled??????"
Perfect timing on that question.
It ain't settled, thanks to Republican John McCain.
But Nancy Pelosi and barney Frank will refuse to actually pass the bill unless the house republicans agree to go along with it...why?
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, Bill.
What Pelosi and Frank have been complaining about is this second proposal that a small group of Republicans have come up with, the one McCain says should be looked at. The proposal that has basically lead to this impasse.
Yeah, Bill, I thought this was a crisis warranting the suspension of the presidential campaign, and not an opportunity for McCain to grandstand along with all the republicans up for reelection in 5 weeks. What are you getting at?
Craig,
I haven't heard that McCain is fully behind the House GOP proposal, yet, either. However, I think it is a good idea to slow down and look at other options besides a $700 billion loan with barely a week's review and no other proposals evaluated.
As far as why the Democrats need more House Republicans, obviously it's because they don't have their own people lined up. From what I can tell, the House members (of either party) aren't crazy about going home to an election after such a large bailout.
Though I'm sure Frank is looking for some cover - he stood in the way of regulation back in 2003 when the Bush administration warned about Fannie/Freddie. He said he didn't understand why there was a crisis and didn't like the Chicken Little mentality:
These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.
Unfortunately, no one else pushed on it overall, either.
To Jerry Chandler:
I absolutely agree that both of them need to do their jobs while they try to get a new one, just like normal, everyday people. One of them waking up from their ambition to realize they have a job they were actually elected to do already is a huge leap forward for senators running for president.
It could all be taken care of if states passed laws requiring their representatives in congress to resign if they run for another office.
To Jerry Chandler:
I absolutely agree that both of them need to do their jobs while they try to get a new one, just like normal, everyday people. One of them waking up from their ambition to realize they have a job they were actually elected to do already is a huge leap forward for senators running for president.
It could all be taken care of if states passed laws requiring their representatives in congress to resign if they run for another office.
Pelosi won’t jump alone
By Mike Soraghan and Jared Allen
Posted: 09/23/08 07:56 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-wont-jump-alone-2008-09-23.html
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling Democrats that she will not support President Bush’s $700 billion bailout of the financial sector unless there is significant Republican support for the controversial plan.
The politics of the bailout are tricky and dangerous for both political parties, particularly since it comes weeks before the presidential and congressional elections.
As a result, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has effectively sent the message that if she is going to jump off a cliff to rescue Wall Street, she wants House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and George W. Bush holding her hands when she leaps.
Pelosi made this scenario clear at a lengthy closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Tuesday. Many of those present said they took Pelosi’s message to mean that a “majority of the minority” needs to support the bill before she will bring it to the floor.
Jerome, this last month all but proved that the system is stacked against the middle class and the poor. After all, there are two castes of businesses in America: the ones that are allowed to fail, and the ones that are too big to fail.
You got a government protection net for big business, but not government protection net for average citizens. Isn't that a sign that the system is askew?
So, what - other than passing the buck to McCain - did Obama do in the meeting? Neither of them appear to be contributing at all.
Obama's contributions were minimal, absolutely true. However, he didn't insist everything had to be cut short so that he could come and be involved -- he was asked, publicly, to be at the meeting. He was there.
McCain, on the other hand, said that everything else had to be put on hold while he helped with the plan, but doesn't seem to have been much help.
So that if it fails they can't turn around and blame the Democrats? Um, if the odds of that possibility are great enough to worry about maybe we should rethink the bill.
I think that last is their point, at least in part.
TWL
Jerome Maida: "Seeing as how Paulson and Bernanke and Bush have all said that this bailout needs to be OK's with as strong sense of immediacy as possible, and that our local 13-term liberal Congressman has said that the cost of inaction "could doom the Republic", how in any way is it unreasonable for McCain to want to focus on that? Yeah, that's what's LEADER does."
Except that your answer dodges a major point, Jerome. McCain has been playing his fiddle as Rome burned around him for months now. In McCain's version of the world as explained by his stump speeches and campaign stops; the economy was strong, the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the economy had a few small problems but the American people were etc., etc., etc. McCain has been laughing at and attacking Obama and the Democrats for suggesting that the economy was heading for a major meltdown.
Now John McCain is rushing to the nearest microphone, looking into the closest camera, banging on the panic button and declaring to the nation that he can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. The image he projected was one of an out of touch politician going from denial to full blown panic in the blink of an eye.
And that's what a leader does? Yeah, that is what a leader does. One little problem there, Jerome. John McCain is not a leader in any area here. He is not the President of the United States despite his photo ops and staged speeches designed to look that way, he is not the Republican Minority Leader and he is not the head of, or even a member on, the Finance Committee in congress. He's also a Senator who has a long track record saying that he is anything but an expert on financial matters and that he doesn't really understand them.
At best McCain has a vote to offer in this sometime down the road. At worst? McCain has to offer distractions, the injection of election year presidential politics and roadblocks.
Jerome Maida: "Although considering the Democrats are "led" by Nancy Pelosi - whose idea of leading on the Social Security issue, or any other for that matter, was to "Stop him! Our plan is to stop him! (meaning Bush of course) and Harry Reid, whose idea of leadership is to declare a war lost that we are now winning, the triangulating Clintons and the untested Obama, maybe you just don't recognize one when you see one. "
Nice. Doesn't actually defend what you're trying to say. Just nonsense to fill up some bandwidth with.
Jerome Maida: "And really, another Palin dig? Getting a bit old. If you knew anything about her you would recognize she is an excellent debater and would welcome the challenge. That's a major reason why she was picked."
Ok. That's got to be a joke to lighten the mood. The more she's exposed to questions the more she looks like a total lightweight who's lost outside of the Alaskan Executive Mansion. She's had three major press interviews and, outside of the Sean Hannity love feast that was designed to prop her up, she's come off looking like an airhead when answering simple questions. Katie Couric was fairly easy on her and Palin ended up making Dan Quayle look like a towering intellectual and a master interviewee. Hell, Palin's "airspace" comment should guarantee laughter for anyone for weeks to come.
Jerome Maida: "2.) To infer that the other side would think of Obama as "uppity" speaks for itself. Sad that you would view it through those glasses."
Well, it might be sad if "the other side" hadn't already claimed that Obama was acting in ways where he seemed to believe he was already president before, claimed that he was being presumptuous in his actions before and actually already called him "uppity" with that exact word. Nice try though.
Jerome Maida: "3.) The situation is serious. More serious than something that can easily be rescheduled until October. And McCain learned the "politics of fear" from Bush because he is treating something that is very serious...seriously? This coming from a supporter of a party that has people afraid Republicans wil do everything from bringing back slavery to keeping minorities down to giving a blanket approval to police brutality to "destroying" Social Security by privatizing some of it. A party whose presidential nominee four years ago was constantly comparing Bush to Herbert Hoover (no, no playing on fears of seniors there) and one that makes a living convincing the middle class and poor that the system is stacked against them. Aparty whose House Speaker doesn't want to drill for oil offshore because she is concerned with "Saving the Planet". A party that regularly uses Matthew Shepard and back alley abortions with wire hangers as images instead of discussing the merits of their positions on those issues intelligently with those who disagree with them.
That party wants to lecture on the "politics of fear"? Amazing. "
The comedy here, Jerome, is that you would have to, in many cases, look to many in the fringe or the extreme on the left to point to examples of people saying the things about slavery, police brutality, wire hangers and such. You're argument also falls down in the fact that most on the left are rational and don't substitute rhetoric in debates about offshore drilling, Iraq, abortion and other topics.
To find evidence of the "Politics of Fear" and rhetoric in the Republican party one has to look no further than Bush, the Bush Whitehouse and, of late, John McCain. Iraq is a marvelous example of this. Hell, you bring up the war that we're "winning" in your rant. Can you actually tell me, in none rhetoric terms, what defines winning in Iraq and what exactly we're winning? I've asked you before and you've ducked the question. I've asked other Bush and McCain supporters before and gotten laughably hollow rhetoric and circular "logic" as a substitute for any real substance. "Win in Iraq" has become a bumper sticker for many on the right that now substitutes for thinking.
Mark L: "So, what - other than passing the buck to McCain - did Obama do in the meeting? Neither of them appear to be contributing at all."
Except Obama isn't the one trying to make this a giant "I'm a leader and a doer" photo op for his campaign the way McCain is. He's also the one who said that he'll act when he's needed and when those who are actually better schooled in the field of economics have laid out something to examine and debate. Obama has never claimed to be an expert on economics. He has only claimed to have a good understanding of it. In a case like this you lean on the people who are experts and on the staff you've assembled who do understand these things thanks to making it their chosen profession.
McCain has nothing to offer but a vote. Obama really has nothing to offer but a vote. The difference is that Obama is treating the matter seriously and McCain is treating it like a campaign maneuver. By all reports, even Fox News, Obama came to the meetings in congress and at the White House with a congressional staffer while McCain brought along... a campaign advisor.
Oh, Jerome...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/04/georgia_gop_congressman_calls.html
PAD
Though I'm sure Frank is looking for some cover - he stood in the way of regulation back in 2003 when the Bush administration warned about Fannie/Freddie. He said he didn't understand why there was a crisis and didn't like the Chicken Little mentality:
Yeah, Frank isn't looking very smart right now. But then, neither is the Bush Admin: was that NYT piece from 1999 posted here relating to the bill Phil Gramm pushed through regarding deregulation? That article warned of the poop hitting the fan, as well.
A week ago, the economy was 'sound', then two days ago it became "I need to rush to DC because we have to do something THIS MINUTE", and then when meeting with Bush and Obama and others it's suddenly "well, maybe we should think about this". In the end, McCain just can't make up his mind.
Nice... It was bad enough when The Bush gang said, through White House spokesman Tony Fratto back in February, that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."
Now the talks that they have said they didn't really have have been admitted to in writing by Condoleezza Rice.
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate25-2008sep25,0,7213775.story
Rice, who was serving as national security advisor at the time of the discussions, did not identify the source of that assertion. She was referring to a U.S. military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE, which at times has included waterboarding and other controversial methods subsequently employed by the CIA.
Rice's written responses were released Wednesday by the office of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the armed services committee, which has been investigating apparent interrogation abuses by U.S. military personnel.
"We've long believed they took place," Levin said in an interview, referring to the high-level meetings that Rice described. Her responses, however, provide what he described as "new, concrete evidence that they took place in the White House."
Nice of them to slip that out while everyone is watching the economic meltdown, huh.
Craig, I gave the Pelosi link above. Frank' is here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alnOrNLYPTTU&refer=home
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't push through legislation backed by a Republican administration without Republican support, Frank said.
Partisan Bill
``Ms. Pelosi will not bring a partisan bill to the floor,'' Frank said. ``If the House Republicans continue to reject the president's approach then there is no bill.''
I have no idea if this is a good bill or a bad bill. At a cost of 700 billion it had better be a good one. IF it's true that we need immediate action to prevent a market meltdown then it may not matter. I don't know. What amazes me is how quickly some are willing to turn their opinions on a dime. Some of the same people who were against the Bush proposal for a 700 billion dollar wall street bailout, who expressed doubts that there was a need for it, that things are that bad are now the very same people blaming McCain for derailing the bill. The bill that wasn't needed? Or what?
Like I said, I don't know, but at least I admit I don't know. If I were forced to choose, at gunpoint, I'd probably swallow hard and agree to the proposal. But that's based on the premise that the doomsday scenario is accurate and that the 700 billion is being spent wisely--as Alan and Roger pointed out earlier in the thread, it seems very much like there isn't a lot of oversight in how that money gets used.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling Democrats that she will not support President Bush’s $700 billion bailout of the financial sector unless there is significant Republican support for the controversial plan.
So what? She's insisting on unity for a crisis McCain feels urgent enough to take the debates hostage, but not urgent enough he still feels free to foment dissenting. Good for her. Good for her with sugar on top.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling Democrats that she will not support President Bush’s $700 billion bailout of the financial sector unless there is significant Republican support for the controversial plan.
So what? She's insisting on unity for a crisis McCain feels urgent enough to take the debates hostage, but not urgent enough he still feels free to foment dissent. Good for her. Good for her with sugar on top.
Well, well, well...
No deal has been made, congress is staying in untill the deal is made and McCain is still finding the time to go to tonight's debate after all.
Kinda undercuts much of his supporters' rhetoric from the last 24 hours.
Yep. A gamble that did not pay off. Unless he tries to portray himself as someone who tried to fight a bad bill and Obama as the guy who supported it (of course he's have to pay the price of going against Bush to do that...oh wait).
But that could depend on whether or not there is support for the bill. has anyone seen any polls? What's the word on the street?
Barring anything unforeseen or an uncharacteristically bad performance by Obama, I think McCain cost himself some real points this week.
A week ago, the economy was 'sound', then two days ago it became "I need to rush to DC because we have to do something THIS MINUTE", and then when meeting with Bush and Obama and others it's suddenly "well, maybe we should think about this". In the end, McCain just can't make up his mind.
Oh, I agree that McCain is appearing indecisive. However, he seemed to be one of the only ones in the room that wasn't going full steam into this huge bailout. I'm much more concerned about that right now than the presidential debate prep. I've probably spent more time calling/emailing my congressman and senators this week than I ever have - just to get them to slow down and look at some alternatives.
So, for now, McCain's indeciveness is fine with me if it slows this train down.
"One of the only ones?" Word is that a sizable portion of the GOP leadership is bucking it. And McCain, hedging his bets, doesn't want to go up against them. And who is he trying to blame for the meeting going south? Obama.
Nice.
PAD
has anyone seen any polls? What's the word on the street?
Yahoo earlier linked to a poll that seemed to indicate that 'the little people' don't like this bailout (I didn't read the article), but I don't think that's going to stop Congress.
There are those (mostly on the right) that don't want any bailout. Others, like myself, don't want a bailout unless you're going to be fair to everybody, and not just corporations who helped get us into this mess.
As for the bailout itself, I'm not sure it's going to help. It's there to save Wall Street, but nobody seems to be serious enough about helping homeowners on the verge of foreclosure.
So we appear to still be ignoring a floundering housing market.
So, for now, McCain's indeciveness is fine with me if it slows this train down.
Then maybe he should cut with the "I'm going to save America" rhetoric as well.
However, he seemed to be one of the only ones in the room that wasn't going full steam into this huge bailout.
Which bailout?
The one Paulson provided? Or the one that was agreed upon by Congress--which reportedly had considerably more oversight, less money and more alternatives? (This alternative may still be unacceptable, but we can't tell now, can we?)
One problem here is the lack of information. There's been a smooshing of all the alternat