[Kerrigan]

It seems like this is beginning to play to McCain's favor, listening to all the pundits out there. Polls are showing a slight ebb in his favor as well, with Gallup showing a tie, Battleground (whoever this is) showing McCain up 1, and Zogby showing him up 2. There aren't figures recent enough to show how voters have responded to the campaign suspension, but there is reason to believe that McCain is making some headway into the issue of the economy.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It seems like this is beginning to play to McCain's favor, listening to all the pundits out there. Polls are showing a slight ebb in his favor as well, with Gallup showing a tie, Battleground (whoever this is) showing McCain up 1, and Zogby showing him up 2. There aren't figures recent enough to show how voters have responded to the campaign suspension, but there is reason to believe that McCain is making some headway into the issue of the economy.

All I have heard is what a desperate stunt it was! It has made him even more of a target for the late night comedians, who can see through his ploys. They used to like/respect/admire him. Now, they laugh at him! He has sold his soul to the guy downstairs, you know, the guy with the horns and the pointy stick.

[Dork.]

McCain's campaign folks are very good at fighting the Culture Wars. My guess is that if McCain does get a bounce from this, it will come from people who don't give a damn what Letterman or Leno think.

[stumblinmike]

That's a pretty big IF

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It seems like this is beginning to play to McCain's favor, listening to all the pundits out there. Polls are showing a slight ebb in his favor as well, with Gallup showing a tie, Battleground (whoever this is) showing McCain up 1, and Zogby showing him up 2. There aren't figures recent enough to show how voters have responded to the campaign suspension, but there is reason to believe that McCain is making some headway into the issue of the economy.

I think it's foolhardy to attempt to discern a trend EITHER WAY at this point, things being as fluid as they are. The debates (whenever McCain feels up to one) will probably do more to shift people than this week will.

[macintologist]

Debates only shift the polls 1 or 2 points.

[Dakar V]

I will say that this getting resolved before the debates will counteract, if not negate the negative reactions to him suspending the campaign.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Debates only shift the polls 1 or 2 points.

Maybe in more normal times. I think with the turmoil we see right now, the potential is there for the debates to have more of an impact than 1 or 2 points.

[Kerrigan]

Personally I think this move will enhance McCain's standing, slightly. Gallup shows that from Sept 21-24 McCain rose 4 points in polls, bringing him to a tie. Other polls show similar movements. I don't think it is too foolhardy to suspect that once polls take into account the campaign hiatus, McCain's number will be even a little higher.

Of course, after a few days, he will drop back to being behind Obama. That's how it's been the whole time; despite a few peaks for McCain, Obama is always up by an average of 2-4%. If I were betting a large sum of money I would put it on Obama more or less maintaining that small lead right up to election day.

The funny/sad thing about all of this is that most of the media coverage seems to be about who gains in the polls whenever something happens, not about the candidates' actual stances.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I don't think it is too foolhardy to suspect that once polls take into account the campaign hiatus, McCain's number will be even a little higher.

I'm willing to concede that anything is possible in the election, but given the absolute hammering McCain has taken over this, I can't image that it will help him. I think it has as good or better a chance as going down as his Muskie moment.

[Big Mac]

Well, the new Gallup data shows McCain has gained 2 and Obama has lost 1, making it now a dead-heat in that poll.

[ort888]

Every poll I have seen has Johnny McCain gaining at least 5 or 6 points over the faltering and unpopular B Hussein O. McCain doesn't even need to campaign at this point. He just needs to let 'ole Barry run around like a chicken with his head cut off while more and more Americans become aware of the lies he's pedaling. The American public will wise up. They aren't dumb. They know a snake oil salesman when they see one and B Hussein O's days of being a public figure are numbered.

[Gee-Man]

Wow, you're getting a little too good at this. Playing this character could be dangerous to your mental health, you know.

Did you see the movie "Tropic Thunder"? "Never go full right-wing", I say.

[ort888]

I'm not playing a character. The right-wing posters on this very board changed my mind. I was blind but now I see. The truth has been revealed to me and soon it will be revealed to you too.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm not playing a character. The right-wing posters on this very board changed my mind. I was blind but now I see. The truth has been revealed to me and soon it will be revealed to you too.

Abe?

[tie]

Wow. So McCain came to Washington not to broker a deal, but to kill it. Republicans revolted and McCain also refused to support the plan. He needs to get back on the campaign trail if anything is going to get done here.

[OreoCookie]

McCain's involvement killed the compromise, I don't think this is going to fare well with his voters.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

McCain's involvement killed the compromise, I don't think this is going to fare well with his voters.

You'll recall I was pretty harsh on McCain's initial move, but if it turns out that he is in fact killing the bill as it's currently written, this will fare very well with me. It turns out that much of the Republican minority was not even consulted on this bill. McCain may just yet have a very good reason (even though he said he did, I didn't buy it) to be there fighting for a better solution. There's no reason we need to own these bailouts. Personally, I'm still a little skeptical, but I'm a helluvalot less skeptical than I was on Wednesday upon this campaign suspension announcement.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm not playing a character. The right-wing posters on this very board changed my mind. I was blind but now I see. The truth has been revealed to me and soon it will be revealed to you too.

Assuming your location was a "state of mind" and that you've in fact defected to the truth, I dub thee capable of changing your location away from "your anus" to something more enlightened.

[OreoCookie]

If the presidential debate takes place (which clearly counts as campaigning), would you agree that his official statement to `suspend the campaign' for two or three days was superfluous? Would you agree that it may be counterproductive and harmful to McCain's campaign? Couldn't he have done exactly the same thing without this public announcement and nobody would have thought twice about this incident?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll recall I was pretty harsh on McCain's initial move, but if it turns out that he is in fact killing the bill as it's currently written, this will fare very well with me.

Even if that was his intention, it's still a bad move to say he's `suspending his campaign.' He could have flown to Washington and done the exact same thing without taking those words into his mouth.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It turns out that much of the Republican minority was not even consulted on this bill.

I don't think anyone has had much time reviewing the stuff, if I were to spend that kind of money, I'd make sure to think about it longer than just a few days. It seems to me that only part of the Republican party actually supports Bush's suggested bail out plan. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, though, we should do that in the proper thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

McCain may just yet have a very good reason (even though he said he did, I didn't buy it) to be there fighting for a better solution.

As I said above, I'm fine with him being there (although IMO the presence of the candidates is more of a symbolic issue, McCain reputedly arrived when most of the talks were concluded, not sure when Obama arrived). It's more of a publicity stunt (which is fine during elections). But there is no need to make a big humdrum about `suspending your campaign.'

It now completely looks like a marketing stunt, and the debate is very likely to be still on. In effect, McCain has `suspended' campaigning for what, two days then?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no reason we need to own these bailouts. Personally, I'm still a little skeptical, but I'm a helluvalot less skeptical than I was on Wednesday upon this campaign suspension announcement.

That's an argument for a different thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If the presidential debate takes place (which clearly counts as campaigning), would you agree that his official statement to `suspend the campaign' for two or three days was superfluous? Would you agree that it may be counterproductive and harmful to McCain's campaign? Couldn't he have done exactly the same thing without this public announcement and nobody would have thought twice about this incident?

As I understand it, McCain claimed that his intent was to remain in Washington until a deal was solidified. At last check last night, they are nowhere near solidifying a deal. Both Obama and McCain as well as Bush, Pelosi and quite a few others were meeting just yesterday about this issue and it is clear that we're further from a deal than was originally told us. If in fact McCain appears to debate Obama and a deal has not been solidified in Washington, this would put McCain in a precarious position. In short, your use of the word "superfluous" is generous and fair in this case. I would say it was a downright dishonest way of trying to derail Obama's campaign and it should be the first question posed to McCain at the debate.

Even if that was his intention, it's still a bad move to say he's `suspending his campaign.' He could have flown to Washington and done the exact same thing without taking those words into his mouth.

Not if he in fact misses the debate to ensure the bill as written is killed. There's no way to know if this could've been done in two days. Some are saying it could be Saturday at the earliest.

I don't think anyone has had much time reviewing the stuff, if I were to spend that kind of money, I'd make sure to think about it longer than just a few days. It seems to me that only part of the Republican party actually supports Bush's suggested bail out plan. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, though, we should do that in the proper thread.

If you decide for certain we need to take it elsewhere, I'll do it. I must say though that this is central to the discussion. McCain said pretty much in effect that there's no way the bill as written was going to pass. I originally thought he was going to go to Washington and try to help Bush force this thing through to get something done before market opening on Monday. I don't like the bill. I'm not happy with Bush. I'd love for McCain to stand with the Republicans who oppose Bush and this bill to make their voices known. There are solutions that don't include our need to own the bailouts. I originally thought his statements were grandstanding, his "need" to be in Washington bloated, and I thought it was nothing more than a political stunt. I thought the bill was a forgone conclusion as it had not been made very public that there was this much opposition to it. In fact, I personally felt a little alone with my distaste for this bailout notion. I'm personally glad that there are constituents paying for the service of their representatives finally getting some consideration in the deal.

As I said above, I'm fine with him being there (although IMO the presence of the candidates is more of a symbolic issue, McCain reputedly arrived when most of the talks were concluded, not sure when Obama arrived). It's more of a publicity stunt (which is fine during elections). But there is no need to make a big humdrum about `suspending your campaign.'

It is the right thing to do if you truly feel that your services may be needed beyond the scheduled time for debate. On the other hand, you've got Obama saying this could be another depression, but "call me if you need me"??? He may feel his contribution on the Hill is not important, but he's paid to do these sort of things as a Senator. Either one of them could've relinquished their seats to run. Others have done it. These two decided not to. They're called to serve and they should serve. At least if you buy into the fact that this economic situation is as dire as most make it out to be. I mean, if we don't need them to serve now, when would we?

It

now completely looks like a marketing stunt, and the debate is very likely to be still on. In effect, McCain has `suspended' campaigning for what, two days then?

Let's see if in fact a deal is solidified at least. After all, this was the contingency offered up by McCain to begin with.

That's an argument for a different thread.

I disagree. It's central to the discussion. If McCain walks into the debate chamber late having helped broker a deal that means the American people will not own a $700 billion dollar payout to Corporate welfare while Obama (who sides with Bush on the bailout) was having make-up put on; this puts Obama on the wrong side of this economic issue and puts McCain on the right side. Our side.

After all, it's a debate on foreign policy. Maybe Obama could debate Biden tonight.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In short, your use of the word "superfluous" is generous and fair in this case. I would say it was a downright dishonest way of trying to derail Obama's campaign and it should be the first question posed to McCain at the debate.

I did not want to sidetrack the core of the discussion by using too strong a word. But you're right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not if he in fact misses the debate to ensure the bill as written is killed. There's no way to know if this could've been done in two days. Some are saying it could be Saturday at the earliest.

Well, again, I don't see why he needed to make such a public statement. He could have made it part of his campaign.

Let me explain a little: McCain's motivation (according to what he has said when he announced the suspension, scroll to 2:06 of the video, for instance) was to lead a bipartisan effort to resolve the crisis. But now it seems (as you write in the last two paragraphs of your posts) he has travelled to Washington not to help put together a compromise, but to back the opposition by some Republicans. Now this is fine if he wants to polish his profile as a `true' conservative candidate, in essence he is still campaigning.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you decide for certain we need to take it elsewhere, I'll do it.

Well, I see that both issues are very much interconnected, but I didn't want to discuss the bail out plans themselves.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I must say though that this is central to the discussion. McCain said pretty much in effect that there's no way the bill as written was going to pass. I originally thought he was going to go to Washington and try to help Bush force this thing through to get something done before market opening on Monday.

He also said that he travels to DC to mediate a deal, but in fact he went there to back Republicans who were dissatisfied with the current proposal. As I wrote above, this is fine, but he did not go in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Also, his actions seem to have delayed the bill instead of speeding it up. I know that you will think and probably say `for good reason' (and if you read my posts in the other thread, you will see that our opinions on the proposed bail out probably aren't worlds apart), but on the other hand, it's even less likely that there will be a bipartisan solution in the near future (read: before the votes are cast in November). This means, he'll have to `suspend his suspension,' if not by declaration, then by action. E. g. I don't expect him to miss all presidential debates.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't like the bill. I'm not happy with Bush. I'd love for McCain to stand with the Republicans who oppose Bush and this bill to make their voices known.

That's alright. He could have done that as `part of his campaign.' I write this in quotation marks, because it is part of his campaign.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On the other hand, you've got Obama saying this could be another depression, but "call me if you need me"???

Obama was present at (part of the) deliberations just like McCain.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He may feel his contribution on the Hill is not important, but he's paid to do these sort of things as a Senator.

Neither one of them is in the relevant Senate committees, so from that perspective, there is no need for them to be present. However, they are the `leaders' of their respective parties, so they were present, both of them, and they are, in that sense, doing their jobs. I wouldn't have expected that any other way.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's see if in fact a deal is solidified at least. After all, this was the contingency offered up by McCain to begin with.

Do you know what McCain proposes as alternative to the current draft of the bill? (I'm really asking, I haven't seen anything beyond the words implosion.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After all, it's a debate on foreign policy. Maybe Obama could debate Biden tonight.

This is really the pity: foreign policy was one of McCain's strong points compared to Obama.

[tie]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Do you know what McCain proposes as alternative to the current draft of the bill? (I'm really asking, I haven't seen anything beyond the words implosion.)

He didn't support anything. Reportedly, he didn't talk at all until nearly the end, when he brought up but also didn't support another Republican plan. This plan is notable for avoiding having anything to do with the current crisis. It proposed dropping the capital gains tax for two years, which will actually freeze up the debt market even further because they are all underwater (i.e., no capital gains anyway). So he is using the crisis as an excuse for pushing more tax cuts for the rich.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

All I have heard is what a desperate stunt it was!

Gee, do you think that has anything to do with where you get your news? Surely not!

It has made him even more of a target for the late night comedians, who can see through his ploys.

I think you mean, "...who portray his action as a ploy."

They used to like/respect/admire him. Now, they laugh at him! He has sold his soul to the guy downstairs, you know, the guy with the horns and the pointy stick.

That's a little extreme. Speaking of extreme, Letterman and Olberman were two total jackasses the other night. I mean....really.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm willing to concede that anything is possible in the election, but given the absolute hammering McCain has taken over this, I can't image that it will help him. I think it has as good or better a chance as going down as his Muskie moment.

Again, it depends where you get your news. Obama has taken a beating too. His press conference was hysterically bad. And McCain has risen in the polls, so I guess you're wrong.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

McCain's involvement killed the compromise, I don't think this is going to fare well with his voters.

Ahhh.....the next Democratic talking point. First it was "he can't do two things at once." Then, it was "it's all a ploy." Then, it was "McCain adopted Obama's own principles concerning the bailout, so they issued a joint statement, which of course was all Obama's idea." Don't forget "McCain lied to Obama about his intentions."
And now? "McCain killed the bailout deal! We told you he'd just screw it up."

Man, you liberals are something.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If the presidential debate takes place (which clearly counts as campaigning), would you agree that his official statement to `suspend the campaign' for two or three days was superfluous?

I don't know. I might, but I wouldn't say intentionally so.

Would you agree that it may be counterproductive and harmful to McCain's campaign?

I don't think it has been or will be. Polling bears this out.

Couldn't he have done exactly the same thing without this public announcement and nobody would have thought twice about this incident?

I don't think so, no. Depends on what "exactly the same thing" means.

Even if that was his intention, it's still a bad move to say he's `suspending his campaign.' H[e could have flown to Washington and done the exact same thing without taking those words into his mouth.

Sorry, I see now. He could have, yes. Then again, Obama could have refrained from the "call me if you need me" aloof arrogance he demonstrated.

I don't think anyone has had much time reviewing the stuff, if I were to spend that kind of money, I'd make sure to think about it longer than just a few days. It seems to me that only part of the Republican party actually supports Bush's suggested bail out plan. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, though, we should do that in the proper thread.

Well, I think it probably has to be done. I think that the urgency is real. We have Warren Buffet calling it a "Financial Pearl Harbor." Wow.

As I said above, I'm fine with him being there (although IMO the presence of the candidates is more of a symbolic issue, McCain reputedly arrived when most of the talks were concluded, not sure when Obama arrived). It's more of a publicity stunt (which is fine during elections). But there is no need to make a big humdrum about `suspending your campaign.'

I don't know if it was a publicity stunt. McCain has shown a willingness to do what he thinks is right, public opinion be damned. The best example is the surge. I'm sure there was a major political component to the decision, but I don't think that's all it was about.

It now completely looks like a marketing stunt, and the debate is very likely to be still on. In effect, McCain has `suspended' campaigning for what, two days then?

That's an argument for a different thread.

I don't think that matters. The "stunt" seems to have worked. And if there IS a deal, McCain could win big. Imagine McCain getting off the plane, tacitly taking credit for "saving" the economy. Then he trounces Obama, which we all know will happen because that's McCain's element and Obama's major weakness. All in one day. 72 is the new 42, I guess.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I don't think that matters. The "stunt" seems to have worked. And if there IS a deal, McCain could win big. Imagine McCain getting off the plane, tacitly taking credit for "saving" the economy. Then he trounces Obama, which we all know will happen because that's McCain's element and Obama's major weakness. All in one day. 72 is the new 42, I guess.

And this is how you kill a deal instead of advancing one. Well, in addition to refusing to support a compromise, in fact refusing to talk at all, and not advancing any alternative. All good ways to kill a deal, let's see what McCain can pull out of his hat today.

[smacintush]

Yep, all McCain's fault. Couldn't be the Democrats maneuvering to try and make him look bad in an election year. Nope, that's not it at all.

If his involvement does nothing more than empower the Republicans to stand up against yet another government trojan horse then I'm all for it. Some things should not be compromised and this socialization is one of them IMO.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by tie 

And this is how you kill a deal instead of advancing one. Well, in addition to refusing to support a compromise, in fact refusing to talk at all, and not advancing any alternative. All good ways to kill a deal, let's see what McCain can pull out of his hat today.

How do you know it's his goal to kill the deal?

How do you know that he's "refusing to support" a compromise?

Didn't Democrats complain that the GOP is trying to present an alternative plan, and that is what's taking so long?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

How do you know it's his goal to kill the deal?

How do you know that he's "refusing to support" a compromise?

Didn't Democrats complain that the GOP is trying to present an alternative plan, and that is what's taking so long?

Some quotes from the above cited article:

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

Friday morning, on CBS’s “The Early Show,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.

“I didn’t know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war,” Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”

So much for McCain jumping in to save the day.

[Dakar V]

So, should McCain announce he's suspending the suspension or just pull out a revolver and aim for his shoes?
seriously, I realize I'm being brutal, but he's completely undermining his own stunt, IMO (Not that skipping the debate would be better but it'd be both consistent and ballsy)

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

How do you know it's his goal to kill the deal?

How do you know that he's "refusing to support" a compromise?

Didn't Democrats complain that the GOP is trying to present an alternative plan, and that is what's taking so long?

What mrjingle said. He is reportedly refusing to support any of the proposals. The alternative plan that he mentioned, but also declined to support, is a joke.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Again, it depends where you get your news. Obama has taken a beating too. His press conference was hysterically bad. And McCain has risen in the polls, so I guess you're wrong.

I don't know where you think I get my news, but so you know, it's primarily from links off Drudge and washingtonpost.com. I've been looking at huffingtonpost.com lately, but that's not really news, is it. Just for fun, I tried to find the positive story about his move on foxnews.com, but couldn't. The only front page stories that addressed it were about Letterman mocking him and Huckabee saying it was a mistake. I didn't go deep, so maybe the praise is there somewhere. Where do you get your news that has positive stories about this? As for the polls? There's been no swing to McCain. He hasn't taken a beating either, which really surprises me, but to claim is he "up in the polls" as if it's some kind of trend just isn't true.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

What mrjingle said. He is reportedly refusing to support any of the proposals. The alternative plan that he mentioned, but also declined to support, is a joke.

If both plans are s**t, why should he support any?

Paulson was begging Pelosi, not Republican leadership. That would seem to show that Bush and the Republicans finally agreed and it was Pelosi that was standing the way. What "betrayal" is she talking about?

Gee....why would the Democrats NOW not want there to be an agreement? Oh, yeah - that would make McCain look good.

Sorry, but I'm not buying Barney Frank's word. He's one of the guys who got us into this mess in the first place. I'm not sure why anyone listens to him or Chris Dodd. Both are crooks in bed with the other crooks who ran F&F into the ground.

[OreoCookie]

Boy, that was the shortest suspension in history, McCain will be at the debate. He really shot himself in the foot with this one.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

So, should McCain announce he's suspending the suspension or just pull out a revolver and aim for his shoes?
seriously, I realize I'm being brutal, but he's completely undermining his own stunt, IMO (Not that skipping the debate would be better but it'd be both consistent and ballsy)

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Boy, that was the shortest suspension in history, McCain will be at the debate. He really shot himself in the foot with this one.

Who's writing your material? I think we both may have hired him.

[smacintush]

Yeah, McCain is a moron for doing this.

Meanwhile Obama is enlightened and open-minded when he changes his mind.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yeah, McCain is a moron for doing this.

Meanwhile Obama is enlightened and open-minded when he changes his mind.

Oh come on, it's not like this was a minor decision he changed. He suspended his campaign. He basically said nothing was more important than the current crisis, but now he's going to the debate anyway, even though he didn't achieve his stated objective.

Best I can figure at this point, it was a gamble to look heroic when the bill passed and he could show up at the debates triumphant, but that didn't pay off.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Who's writing your material? I think we both may have hired him.

Indeed, we do

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This means, he'll have to `suspend his suspension,' if not by declaration, then by action. E. g. I don't expect him to miss all presidential debates.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Oh come on, it's not like this was a minor decision he changed. He suspended his campaign. He basically said nothing was more important than the current crisis, but now he's going to the debate anyway, even though he didn't achieve his stated objective.

Best I can figure at this point, it was a gamble to look heroic when the bill passed and he could show up at the debates triumphant, but that didn't pay off.

I'm not defending John McCain. He's an idiot.

I am whining about the transparent double-standard.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Indeed, we do

Wow, get out of my head.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm not defending John McCain. He's an idiot.

I am whining about the transparent double-standard.

Come on, be fair. Obama has not pulled something this ridiculous yet. He's had his (some may argue more than his) share of gaffes and he's had to backtrack on some policy positions, but nothing close to this. I'd like to hope that if he did I any many other of his supporters on this board will call him on it, like many McCain supporters in this thread have done.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm not defending John McCain. He's an idiot.

I am whining about the transparent double-standard.

If Obama has made a gaffe this large it's honestly slipping my mind right now.

I'm not exactly sure why you're whining. Just had too much of this crap lately?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm not defending John McCain. He's an idiot.

I am whining about the transparent double-standard.

Double standard?
This is a major campaign eff-up, the likes I haven't seen from Obama's campaign (yet?). This is not about changing your opinion on some issue, it's initiating and orchestrating a situation that can only lead to your own disaster:
(1) He suspends his campaign after the immediate crisis has been stabilized (= the patient is on life support, but not dead yet).
(2) He says there will be no campaigning because nothing is more important than the immediate banking crisis. He pledges to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. He cancels his appearance on the debate, unless an agreement is reached.
(3) Instead of pushing for an immediate agreement that makes him look good, he acts as a partisan wedge, making an agreement impossible.
(4) He now resumes his campaign after `two days of not campaigning' by participating in the debate.

I really wonder whether he has thought this through in the beginning: just some alternatives, each of which is IMO better:
(1) He could simply not have `suspended his campaign' and did everything he has done: fly to Washington and participate, strengthen his profile as a financial conservative and be in a good position to win the debate focussed on his strong points.
(2) He could have suspended his campaign and smartly worked out a compromise behind the scenes beforehand. He then throws his whole weight behind the compromise and appear as the guy who resolved. He then `resumes' campaigning and appear at the debate.
(3) He could have made much less noise about this issue, give a few speeches and a joint statement with Obama. Friday: debate time.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(3) Instead of pushing for an immediate agreement that makes him look good, he acts as a partisan wedge, making an agreement impossible.

This is according to the left. Why would you buy into the version put out by people who have something to gain by lying? According to others, this meeting was set-up to sandbag the Republicans and Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Reid deferred to Obama's leadership in the meeting and it was HE who allowed the meeting to fall apart. I don't know what happened…I wasn't there…but if you are just going to believe that it was all McCain's fault based upon the word of someone like Harry Reid you are a damn fool. He and the others are shameless partisan tools.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If both plans are s**t, why should he support any?

He has never said this. Shouldn't he have some position on the issue? Or is he just in Washington to interrupt negotiations for his photo ops?

Paulson was begging Pelosi, not Republican leadership. That would seem to show that Bush and the Republicans finally agreed and it was Pelosi that was standing the way. What "betrayal" is she talking about?

This is contradicted by every single account out there. Nobody has claimed that Bush and the Republicans agreed, everybody has said that Bush and the Democrats agreed. For the Democrats to vote with the president on an unpopular bailout, Pelosi wants the political cover of bipartisan support in Congress (at least 80 Republicans votes, she reportedly said). Bush couldn't deliver it. McCain went to Washington supposedly to help deliver it, but then he refused to do so. That's the betrayal.

Gee....why would the Democrats NOW not want there to be an agreement? Oh, yeah - that would make McCain look good.

And isn't that predictable. Wouldn't you then say that McCain's dramatic campaign suspension was a terrible thing for the country? The idea of introducing zero-sum presidential election politics into bipartisan negotiations is plain idiotic.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is according to the left. Why would you buy into the version put out by people who have something to gain by lying?

No, this is according to public impression: McCain dropped everything and went on a big mission. His political experience, connections and instincts should have told him that such an easy compromise with these stakes right before an elections were, well, unlikely. This is a strategical fault of McCain, made when he decided to `suspend his campaign.' Because in the end, the (uncontested) fact that no compromise has been reached is what matters.

Of course we can pass blame around to others that no consensus on the banking issue has been reached. But it was McCain's fault for not properly thinking this move through.

[kido331]

The most unpopular Congress wants to vote for an unpopular plan from the most unpopular President and the only reason no compromise was reached is because of McCain's grandstanding?

[smacintush]

Fact is, they have enough votes to get this through without the Republicans at all. This proposal is crap and they don't want to be the only party in congress saddled with it's passing.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(4) He now resumes his campaign after `two days of not campaigning' by participating in the debate.

I'm guessing you put 'not campaigning' in quotes to point out the irony, but I wanted to highlight in bold letters that through all of this, but any measure he never stopped campaigning! It was a dumb stunt that he didn't actually ever follow through with.

[paul w]

nm

...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

He has never said this. Shouldn't he have some position on the issue? Or is he just in Washington to interrupt negotiations for his photo ops?

What was Obama's position? Did the Democrats leaking to the media tell us what his position was?

This is contradicted by every single account out there....

...leaked by the democrats, to their allies in the media. Yeah, I know. I trust them to tell the truth about the stuff they plant in the media to try and make the Republicans look bad.

Nobody has claimed that Bush and the Republicans agreed, everybody has said that Bush and the Democrats agreed. For the Democrats to vote with the president on an unpopular bailout, Pelosi wants the political cover of bipartisan support in Congress (at least 80 Republicans votes, she reportedly said). Bush couldn't deliver it.

And why is that? What is wrong with the proposal. Why would McCain "deliver" a load of crap that the Democrats who caused the problem supports? How is it a "betrayal" to not simply bow down to the Democrats when they didn't want to compromise with the Republicans but simply wanted them to do what Bush and they wanted?

The Democrat spin doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Originally Posted by kido331 

The most unpopular Congress wants to vote for an unpopular plan from the most unpopular President and the only reason no compromise was reached is because of McCain's grandstanding?

Exactly! :lol