Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Will McCain Join Obama for Debate?

Updated 9:24 a.m.
By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
The fate of tonight's presidential debate in Oxford remains up in the air this morning, with no word from the campaign of Sen. John McCain about whether he intends to be there.

At 8:33 a.m. this morning, the pool reporter with the campaign reported that McCain plans to go to his Senate office this morning, but that no other travel plans had been confirmed.

Last night, reporters were told to bring their baggage to a drop-off point in Crystal City, Va., by 8:30 a.m., but the e-mail had the following note: "This is JUST IN CASE, nothing has been scheduled."

Earlier in the evening Thursday, the campaign issued the following statement: "Senator McCain will remain in DC tonight as he continues to take action in brokering a deal that will address the crisis as well as protect the taxpayer. No further travel plans have been made at this point."

McCain himself was hopeful but cagey Thursday night, saying he wanted to debate but not committing to do so.

One indication that McCain may in fact make the debate: Sen. Lindsay Graham, a key McCain ally, seemed to indicate on "The Today Show" that the Republican nominee could leave Washington without a deal in place.

"What's more important than anything, that when we go to Mississippi tonight, both candidates can say that the Congress is working, back in business, that we have an outline or proposal that will protect the taxpayer and save the country from financial Pearl Harbor, as Warren Buffet called it," Graham said. "We are not there yet, but we will get there."

Senior aides to Sen. Barack Obama were increasingly confident that McCain would show up.

Late Thursday, Obama's staff abruptly left its Florida debate camp for Oxford, Miss., to be in place early this morning. The entourage included campaign manager David Plouffe, senior strategist David Axelrod, and McCain stand-in and foreign policy adviser Greg Craig.

The aides were told that McCain's bus, the Straight Talk Express, was waiting at the Memphis airport. And they grinned broadly when told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a McCain ally, would be attending a debate watching party.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 26, 2008; 8:45 AM ET
Categories:  John McCain , The Debates  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Presidential Debate Planners Move Forward
Next: McCain Spends 90 Minutes on the Hill

Comments

dbw

First off I never said Obama was my candidate. Second I never mentioned his experience, thirdly time spent as a senator is not a qualification to run for president.

As for interest in McCain's voting record, what does McCain's voting record, or lack thereof, have to do with Obama's record or lack thereof? This discussion is on McCain, not Obama. Save Obama for an article that deals with Obama.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

As we enter the polling booth ... it is simple ... we forget the SPIN and remember the last 8 years ... I think as an Indepenedent the Democrats showed great respect to the office of the President by approving his initiatives at guiding them into a War in Iraq and in no small irony the Wall Street Bail Out. This Administration sunk Hillary Clinton's chances at being President by the deception and poor judgment getting into the war. And, we see the same thing being attempted by this recent crisis of mis-management ... Suck the Democrat into a hole that the Bush Administration has created. The subprime loans and mortgages and easy borrowing was like paying for votes in the 2004 elections. Are we better off that we were 8 years ago? The answer is NO NO NO ... let the Republicans SPIN SPIN SPIN. The American people are not fools.

Posted by: amitchell13 | September 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron:
"Obama had the democrats organized..."

That might be the most delusional statement made on the board today. Obama isn't leading anyone or anything right now. Why do you think his only response before Bush called him to Washington was "well guys, if I can help....call me!". Your sole source of information must be the Obama campaign web-site.

Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown slipped this morning in an interview and admitted that there was no deal in place when McCain arrived yesterday, in spite of the talking point put out by the DNC and Obama campaign.

The only "stunt" in Washington yesterday was the Democrat leadership announcing an agreement when there was none, and doing it solely for political gain so they could have all their loyal party followers regurgitating spin faulting McCain for blowing up a 'deal' that never was.

The Democrats are shameless. If it's not too much to ask, could Reid and Pelosi for once -just once- do something other than politicize every possible issue for party gain. You know, act in the interest of American citizens or something of that sort.....

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

AlexP1:

Just a quick reply to your long cut-and-paste about Phil Gramm.

-Obama & Jim Johnson
-Obama & Franklin Raines
-Obama & Robert Rubin
-Obama & Barney Frank
-Obama & Chris Dodd
-Obama & Charlie Rangle
-Obama & Tony Rezko
-Obama & Bill Ayers

Any other questionable ties to candidates you want to discuss?

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

toritto:
"It is not cynical to assume that McCain is doing exactly what he did when he picked a woman with the equivalent of a community college education to be his VP: Grandstanding."

Sarah Palin has the same education level as Ronald Reagan, so I'm not sure what you are implying. Joe Biden proves there is no magic number of degrees that can be obtained that will make you smarter.
__________________________
"Neither has the expertise or portfolio to make a significant contribution to the legislation."

No argument that neither is an economics expert, but if Obama were truly the leader he claims to be, couldn't he have added value by being in Washington meeting with his fellow Democrats, reaching out to moderate Republicans, and trying to bring together a consensus on a deal?

McCain didn't go back to Washington because there weren't enough economists in town. He went back because they needed a party leader to work with the revolting conservative Republicans and bring them together with reasonable moderate Democrats. That's what McCain does. It's what Obama can only talk about doing.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

I also neglected to let you know that whenever something does come up for a vote, your candidate won't have the option of voting "present", no matter how much he would like to continue not taking a position.

You sure seem unnaturally obsessed with McCain's Senate attendance the past 6 months considering your candidate was in the Senate for less than a year before he started campaigning for President and has an attendance record that is only marginally better. And yet you are convinced Obama has sufficient 'experience'. Yeah, makes sense.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Phil Gramm, a former Republican senator from Texas, currently serves as vice chairman of investment firm UBS Warburg. His role advising Sen. McCain on economic policy has recently been criticized for two reasons: he was largely responsible for the lax regulations that led to the Enron debacle, and his current employer has been embroiled in the subprime mortgage crisis.[1] In 2004, Gramm encountered criticism from Texas Democrats for supposed illegal lobbying for a plan to bail out the state's teacher pension fund. According to critics, Gramm failed to register as a lobbyist before taking up the issue.[2] Gramm's name has come up in other scandals as well. During the 2006 corruption trial of Republican Illinois Gov. George Ryan, Ryan accused Gramm's congressional staff of giving thousands of dollars in donations to Ryan in exchange for an endorsement for Gramm's aborted 1996 presidential campaign. Asked about the propriety of such an arrangement, Gramm said, "It's a difference between love and prostitution."[3] Gramm was also tied into the collapse of Enron. His wife, Wendy Gramm, had served on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, where she helped write regulations that removed oversight of companies like Enron. She then took a seat on the company's board, while Enron employees gave $95,000 in contributions to Gramm's campaigns.[4] Gramm's role as an economic advisor to the McCain campaign and his public presence on the campaign trail were both reduced in July after Gramm said the country was in a "mental recession" and had become a nation of "whiners."[5]

Gramm is no stranger to excessive fundraising. In 1996 in his failed run for the Republican presidential nomination, Gramm raised a then-record-setting $4.1 million at one event to kick off his campaign, at which he declared, "I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics, and that's ready money." [6] As a bundler, he has raised at least $100,000 for McCain's presidential campaign, according to information released by the campaign.[7]

For a complete look at Phil Gramm's lobbying activities, please visit the non-partisan Center For Responsive Politics' money-in-politics database.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Lisa Lerer, "McCain Guru Linked to Subprime Crisis," The Politico, March 28, 2008.

[2] Clay Robison, "Complaint on Gramm's Lobbying to be Reviewed," The Houston Chronicle, January 24, 2004.

[3] Peter Slevin, "Gramm Denies Paying for Support," The Washington Post, November 18, 2005.

[4] P.J. Huffstutter, "Ex-Illinois Gov. May Take Stand in His Trial," Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2006.

[5] Juliet Eilperin, "Gramm's Role Reduced," The Washington Post, July 14, 2008.

[6] Sam Howe Verhovek, "THE CONTENDERS: Phil Gramm's Offbeat Charm as Persistent Conservative," New York Times, December 27, 1995.

[7] McCain campaign Web site, accessed July 16, 2008.

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If John McCain had good leadership skills he could have headed off this confrontation without there being a blow up. Obama had the democrats organized but McCain did not have the house Republicans organized.

The issue now is that if the house Republicans want less regulation that will be a non starter since lack of regulation was a big contributor to the magnitude of the problem. But that does not seem to be the issue.

I do not think that academic economists are the final authority on this issues. The municipal bond market was in turmoil today for reasons unknown to me. And Washington Mutual was bought out before it when belly up, so what these academics say is interesting but we still do not want a blow up in the stock or bond market and those academics would not realize it before it will happen.

Speed is important and around September 30th seems to be the accepted day.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

dbw,
You're still stuck in the 19th century. Of course a senator must be present on the floor to vote. Do you think it is impossible for both candidates to make it to D.C. from anywhere in the CONUS in under four hours to vote? I could see a problem if it was 1863.

I might remind you that when Senator McCain votes it will be his first time in around six months that Senator McCain decided to grace the capitol with his presence solely with the intention of doing his job, i.e. voting.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

They should probably update this story, WatchDebate.com is saying that McCain is saying that he will be there, and they have all the details of the debate listed http://www.watchdebate.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post, for some reason Firefox seems to get stuck loading these pages and if I hit refresh it posts my msg again.

Posted by: nowanna3 | September 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

thecannula, can you point to anything specific that McCain did?

From the news reports it sounds like the House Republicans had the bulk of the concerns about the plan.

NOwanna- by witholding his support for the plan Yesterday, McCain put everything on hold....exactly what 100's of academic economists suggested...he then secured a place at the negotiating table for Roy Blunt, the congressman from Missouri, in order to represent the house republican and economists concerns. If a better deal comes out than the one Barney, Harry, and Nancy were pushing, you could say he Saved the Day!

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

thecannula, can you point to anything specific that McCain did?

From the news reports it sounds like the House Republicans had the bulk of the concerns about the plan.

So far for McCain it has seemed to be more of an attempt to re-inflate his campaign to me.

Holding the debate up in the air until recently has allowed McCain to try to dominate the news cycle. I can't see any reason it ever needed to be postponed or why McCain could never give a definite answer on it until we are about 9hrs from it.

We don't need this kind of indecision and tactics in the White House.

Posted by: nowanna3 | September 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.


Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)...
100 or so more down to
Zitewitz Eric (Dartmouth University)
**************
Thanks, John McCain for continuing the dialogue in order to avoid rushing into a mistake that would last "for a generation".

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I've had 7 and a half years of drama from my government.

Enough already!

Posted by: zukermand | September 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Photo-Ops" and gaining "political advantage"

McCain, do not whole voters hostage!

McCain and his campaign may be claiming that they are putting country first, but by now it's well known that "Photo-Ops" and gaining political advantage are why he went to Washington DC.

Standing outside the main political circle one can only believe what journalistic reports say.

According to journalists' reports, McCain's presence in Washington DC yesterday spoiled what was already emerging as a firm deal, according the same reports, Republicans are helping to stall the 700 Billion dollars deal.

What then was the point for McCain to travel to Washington?

We need a debate today.

Posted by: aicentre | September 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The debate is on! Thank God for John SIDNEY McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:
"Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong."

Sure, I would be glad to. I mean, after all, you question my knowledge of 'civics', yet you continue to call a televised debate a critical part of the "democratic process", and imply that delaying it for a couple days threatens to undermine America.

I can only wonder if you believe working on legislation in an attempt to avert an economic meltdown is also a critical part of the 'democratic process'? Which one do you think is more critical this week to the 'democratic process'?

And since you are such an expert on 'civics' you must know that to vote on a bill or an amendment, a Senator has to be on the floor of the Senate? If any compromise is reached today, or amendments put up for a vote, Obama won't be able to phone in from Mississippi?

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans."

********************

Hey Camp Obama- This addition of Blunt to the discussion is what we McCain supporters call.....AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-
(a novel term for those who support a candidate WITHOUT any)

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

dbw1: We dont necessarily have radically different economic views. I'm not sure a bailout will do what everyone wants; "free up" the credit markets. Credit standards have been markedly tightened and will not loosen up anytime soon.

On the other hand I really do think McCain is grandstanding. Neither Obama nor McCain are members of the Senate Banking Committee. Neither has the expertise or portfolio to make a significant contribution to the legislation outside of general principles (Cap exec compensation; protect the taxpayers etc.)

It is not cynical to assume that McCain is doing exactly what he did when he picked a woman with the equivalent of a community college education to be his VP: Grandstanding.

He is meeting with House Republicans today (they are the ones holding up a deal) and undoubtedly taking the direction of the wind. He cannot make any significant contribution to the deal (he simply doesn't understand how the markets work) and he is using the "crisis" to avoid the debates - trying to look "presidential".

:-)

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Seems clear to me that the debate in D.C. is more important right now. McCain would rather lose the election than not put his Country First.

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2008 8:58 AM

With respect to you JakeD, you have the wrong attitude. This should not be a debate, it should be two sides with differing opinions trying to find common ground. The problem is since McCain has arrived, it has become a debate. I hope your candidate has a better understanding of the seriousness of this situation than you do. From what I have heard he does.

Your kind of thinking has led to the great divide between Republicans and Democrats and I think the American people will throw out the people with your attitude. At least that is my hope.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, and nothing but the truth is, the GOP ticket is a disgrace to this country. The World is in shock at the poor selection the Repiblicans made for this election. As a taxpayer for 55 years, I am ashamed of the Republican party. Many years ago I was involved with the Young Republicans group, and the republican candidates were solid. John McCain is a nut-case and needs to be put in the nut house.

Posted by: msreginacomcastnet | September 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think McCain is attending the debate and resuming his campaign just so JakeD can post again.

Sorry JakeD, I couldn't pass up that one. :)

Posted by: wes1155 | September 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The people of Southwest Missouri have sent Blunt to Washington to represent them six times. When Blunt was named Missouri’s Republican of the Year in 2001, President Bush described him as "a leader who knows how to raise his sights and lower his voice."

Blunt’s legislation signed into law in recent Congresses includes the Combat Meth Act, the Charitable Giving expansion, and legislation to enhance transparency in federal spending by establishing a searchable database of all federal grants and contracts. A recognized leader on energy-related issues, Blunt is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the head of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT).

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Just in Obama's teleprompters are missing. Obama cancels debate.

Obama was heard saying where the hell are my teleprompters.
What you sent them to washington!
Where the hell is washington.

flap them ears Obama. Fly to washington and add more pork to the bail out.

Posted by: tired_of_congress | September 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Seems clear to me that the debate in D.C. is more important right now. McCain would rather lose the election than not put his Country First.

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2008 8:58 AM

Since McCain has arrived we have gone from a potential deal according to Senator Benett Republican of Utah to confusion. Mr McCain is well intentioned but his fiery personality has stirred up a hornets nest. I think that a deal on this financial crisis is needed and if Mr McCain is serious about country first and not the election he will go to the debates tonight.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

NYT-
Senator John McCain will attend tonight’s first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. Brian Rogers, the campaign spokesman, put out the following statement:

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

McLoser has decided to attend the debate...too bad they gave his ticket away.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | September 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

This 'maverick' has moved into the category of 'radical', now. As a citizen of this country, I can not vote for a candidate that clearly can not seem to handle more than one thing at a time.

As a president and as a leader, one simply can not put one issue (or crisis) on 'hold' to figure out another one. A leader needs to be able to handle multiple items at one time.

I believe this move, yet again, was another political move by the McCain campaign due to the recent drop in the polls.

The citizens of the country are expecting more from a leader and John McCain has shown us that he is just not up to it.

Posted by: ssanford00 | September 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Just In:

McCain on his way to Mississippi.

He will participate in the Debate tonight.

NOW, MAYBE they can get something done on the Hill.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | September 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

As comfortable as Mr. Clinton is in saying, “I like John McCain,” and “I like Sarah Palin,” no one seems to have heard him say the same for Mr. Obama. Instead, when speaking of Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, Mr. Clinton has assumed a professorial stance that sometimes drifts toward emotional aloofness and disregard.

“Is it me, or he didn’t want to say the name ‘Barack Obama’?” the comedian Chris Rock asked with barely contained anger when he appeared Monday night on “Late Show With David Letterman” immediately after Mr. Letterman’s 15-minute interview with Mr. Clinton.

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Evidently McCain blinked.

Posted by: wes1155 | September 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The single best hope for a settlement is to get John McCain out of Washington. Since he has arrived, the partisan bickering has increased and the chances of a settlement according to Intrade, a online predictive market, has gone down.

Obama is looking more wise than ever. People must contact their congressman and tell them they want a settlement and no partisan bickering.

Mr McCain as a presidential candidate has no business getting involved with negotiations which I believe he has not. But his uneven temperament does not appear to have been a calming influence and that is why I think his going to the debate with have the double positive effect of letting the congress get on with its work and letting the American people evaluate the candidates side by side.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

If McCain doesn't show up then it will be a 90 minute discussion about important issues facing our nation. Obama will have a clear presence of where he stands and how he will govern for the average man & women in the street. How he will create jobs, work on energy policies, get the economic issues growing and safeguard the national interest with alliances overseas.

I look forward to a 90 presentation by Obama on his own.

Posted by: jrubin1 | September 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

McCain should stay in Washington and Barack will show up in Mississippi as agreed to. He will have the platform for himself for a 90 minute Town Hall meeting with the voters. It's not as if McCain was going to say anything intelligent or relevant in the debate anyway.
GoBama!

Posted by: pgiaquinto | September 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't McCain debate. It is apparent that his presence in Washington is irrelevant. The impasse seems to have gotten worse since he arrived. It was said that the leadership had reached agreement, and that McCain' presence would only service to politicize the issue; it appears that this has come to pass. Claiming to be a uniter, he is shown to be a divider. He knows the sentiment of the country is against a deal, and he appears to be milking that for more votes. What will he stoop to in order to get votes? He already chose a VP who, in the words of Laura Bush, is, while a "quick study," is not experienced enough on foreign affairs to be president; Hillary didn't say that, Laura did. The best thing for working out a compromise to save the economy is for both McCain and Obama to get out of town. Now McCain says the debate is only important because Obama wouldn’t agree to town hall meetings. Again McCain is pointing fingers and be an obstructionist; this isn't leadership. That is beating a dead horse, and is only grasping at straws to mask what is really up; McCain is terrified that Obama will use his past record and statements to pillory him on the economy; and added bonus is his suggestion that this debate be rescheduled to Oct. 2, getting Palin out of the kitchen and off the hook. His campaign is in trouble, and he is running scared. Sadly it seems McCain is playing crass politics during a dark hour for the country.

Posted by: csintala79 | September 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

For those who are arguing that the debate should go on so that we can find out the details of what these candidates stand for and what their economic policies are, I would like to remind you of this.

All national campaigns are run by hacks akin to advertising execs. Their function is to be dishonest and manipulative, if not flat out lie. These debates are always dog and pony shows.

This world requires a radical change of course. You won't hear anything like that in most presidential debates.

These two are both running not to lose.

Posted by: faithfulservant3 | September 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

John McChicken or John McDick. Take your pick.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | September 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

dbw1 said; "Ok, this one made me laugh out loud. I mean, you do realize who your candidate for President is, don't you? Barack Obama? Mr. Empty Speech in Germany before adoring throngs? Mr. Empty Convention Speech in front of 80,000 loyal followers at Mile High in front of Greek columns?

An accusation of McCain of seeking out 'photo-ops' coming from a supporter of Obama is just too funny."
--------------------------------------------

McLame only WISHES he had as many people at his rallys. The only way anyone is looking at him now is because he added Caribou Barbie to the ticket.
And look how SHE turned out...Oooops!
Obama 08

Posted by: MUPPET | September 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

toritto:

We are obviously on opposite political sides, but your best point is fair and true: what should Republicans do?

If I'm to be true to fiscal conservatism, I should say no to ANY bailout:
- let the Wall St banks who engaged in ludicrous financing on worthless paper fail
- let the CEO's get fired and lose their bonuses
- & let the throng's of homeowners -who stupidly ignored all conservative principles of personal finance and bought homes they couldn't afford with money they didn't have- lose their homes.

As Warren Buffet said a few months ago, 'capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell'. You can't have a free-market capitalism work, and not let people fail when they make stupid decisions.

But, I'm also a homeowner and financial analyst, and I know if some bailout package isn't done:
- investments will dry up, freezing credit markets.
- if people can't get credit, they can't buy houses....which will drive the value of my home down even further (even though I followed the rules, put plenty of money down, locked in a long-term rate, and bought a home for half the value of what the bank tried to push talk me in to 5 years ago).
- if businesses can't get credit, they can't invest in new equipment, new plants, new products.....which means jobs, including mine at a manufacturing company, could be lost.

So you are right that conservative Republicans are torn....but ignoring the problem and insisting that a foreign policy debate must go on as scheduled tonight is no more than political posturing.

But it's what you do when you are Obama, when you have no workable answers, and when no one is looking to you for leadership in the midst of crisis....or leadership in the midst of anything, really.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Why does John McCain need to be in Washington? Isn't George Bush still the President and isn't he still the elected leader of the Republican party?

Did someone forget to tell us that Bush died in office?

Posted by: JohnQuimby | September 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

If you are "unclear" re-read his statement. Seems clear to me that the debate in D.C. is more important right now. McCain would rather lose the election than not put his Country First.

Posted by: JakeD
**************************
I surprised you had to read his statement -You got the talking points all memorized -all that is missing is the American flag waving and the "hymn of the republic playing."

Posted by: LABC | September 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

It's hard to see the same man who so bravely endured years of torture as a POW in this coward we see in front of us now.

What happened to McCain?

Posted by: barferio | September 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

McCain is afraid to debate and is unprepared for the debate.

Posted by: janye1 | September 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Free Scotland 1- Looks like you have WORSE Problems to worry about at home, but Thanks- we'll take it from here-

The Problems facing Scotland

Simple rights of sovereignty Scotland can't enjoy

Scotland is one of the oldest nations in Europe, and yet, at the present time, it is considered no more than a 'region'. Its sovereignty was washed away in 1707 with the Act of Union, as well as that of England, and until the Scottish people decide they want to be a normal, sovereign nation again, elements of the country will continue to slowly erode away. Below is a list of benefits other nations of the world enjoy. Will Scotland enjoy them again one day?

No membership in the European Union: The British Government and it's Foreign and Commonwealth Office believe the United Kingdom is a nation: "The Government is quite clear that it is in our national interest to remain as a leading member of the European Union. Membership provides an opportunity to pursue Britain’s interests in Europe constructively, without threat to our national identity." It is impossible to have nations within nations, and yet the British Government think it to be perfectly normal, as is evident from their quotes (see bolded words). The front page of their website declares it boldly: "The Mission of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office is to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom". The British Government hold the United Kingdom (the name given to the area of the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales) to be a country, so in January of 1973, they entered into membership with the E.U. as a nation called "United Kingdom". This denies the right of the nations of Scotland, England, and Wales to file for membership within the European Union.

No membership in the United Nations: The same situation occurs as is detailed above. The British Government want the world to believe that the "United Kingdom" is a nation. So they have filed for membership to the United Nations as "United Kingdom". This denies the right of Scotland, England, and Wales to file for membership to the U.N. as nations. Being a member of the E.U. and the U.N. comes with certain undeniable privileges - benefits Scotland is missing out on every year it is still part of the "United Kingdom". In addition, Scotland cannot currently be a member of the G7/G8, the OSCE, NATO, and the Council of Europe.

No national passport, ambassadors, or embassies: Because of the British Government's insistence on believing the "United Kingdom" to be a nation, all institutions within the government's power will be forced to hold to it as well, including the Home Office, responsible for Immigration in the "United Kingdom". The Home Office officially recognizes the terms "British citizen", "British national" and "citizen of the United Kingdom". In doing this, they are denying the rights of Scotland, England, and Wales to perform and produce general immigration procedures. The British Nationality Act of 1981 was made into law by the British Government, claiming to "replace all previous nationality laws". In other words, this new law was trying to take the place of individual nationality laws in Scotland, England, and Wales. This law provided for British passports, embassies, and ambassadors and blocked the right for Scotland, England, and Wales to have individual national passports, embassies, and ambassadors.

No control over major decisions: When the British Labour Government headed by Tony Blair came into power, they thought to quelch calls for Scottish withdrawl from the U.K. by providing for a Scottish parliament to be returned to Scotland - one that had limited powers. Tony Blair himself would refer to this Scottish Parliament as nothing more than an "English parish council". The Scottish Parliament makes decisions about the small matters of the country of Scotland. When it comes to major decisions and matters of policy, however, the British Government takes over. The major decisions Scotland cannot currently control for herself include the following:
The Constitution, Foreign affairs, Defence, the Civil Service, Financial and economic matters, National security, Immigration and nationality, Misuse of drugs, Trade & industry (competition, consumer protection, etc.), Electricity; coal, oil & gas, nuclear energy, Many aspects of transport (e.g. railways), Social security, Employment, Abortion, genetics, surrogacy, medicines, Broadcasting, and Equal opportunities.
In addition to this, the British Parliament have further hampered powers of the Scottish Parliament by stating in the 1998 Scotland Act that "The Westminster Parliament continues to be the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom and retains the power to legislate about any matter, including devolved matters, in Scotland."
Without the power to control the above issues in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is crippled. Scotland's major decisions are made in a foreign country - England, and by mostly foreign politicians and legislators.

No control over immigration and national borders: Currently, the British Government and British Parliament is in control over who may enter and exit the country of Scotland. Between the nations of Scotland and England is a simple sign by the side of the road - no checkpoints, immigration stations, patrols, or other such services - simply a sign. The graveness of this matter was illustrated in the summer 2000 entry of American boxer Mike Tyson into the country of Scotland for a fight in Glasgow. Despite the Scottish Parliament's wishes not to allow Mike Tyson in (he is a convicted rapist), Scotland had absolutely no say in the matter. The man who decided the matter was Jack Straw, an Englishman working in England.

No control over national media: As shown above, broadcasting is one of the powers the Scottish Parliament has been refused by the British Government. The domineering media force in Scotland (as well as England and Wales) is the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC have refused Scotland a national nightly newscast, forcing Scottish citizens to instead be subjected to a generic "U.K.-wide" newscast of predominately English affairs. The BBC ignores Scotland's media needs in other ways too. English-based and English-oriented television programs abound on the BBC, making the majority of BBC television watched in Scotland English-centered. Examples include BBC programs giving away as prizes England Football Team shirts and outfits, as well as trips to England and to English sport facilities. The Scottish people (and the Welsh people) are expected by the BBC to be as interested in these things as English citizens. While the BBC dominates the radio and television fields in Scotland, Scottish media needs will continue not to be met, and Scottish broadcast talent and resources will continue to go untapped.

No International Voice: The world can only go by what it sees, and what it currently sees is a British Government and Parliament forcing the idea that the "United Kingdom" is a nation. And so the world will accept this point of view. For proof of this, just go to any website on the internet that has a listing of countries to choose from. You will see "United Kingdom", and you will not see Scotland, England, or Wales.
Scotland's international voice is stiffled. Scotland cannot compete in the Olympics under it's own flag and under the name of Scotland. It is forced to compete under a "British flag" and under the name "Britain". Scotland cannot come to the table with other countries. It must "eat" at the little table. Scotland is in a humiliating position, and the world sees this on a constant basis.

No freedom to fly national flag: The national flag of Scotland, the St. Andrew's Cross (also known as the Saltire) is the oldest flag in Europe. Despite this, it suffers some of the worst offenses. Actual British Government legislation exists that denies Scotland's people and institutions the right to fly the Scottish national flag from schools and public buildings, except on St. Andrew's Day. The flag heralded as official for "Britain" is the Union Flag, also known as the Union Jack. This flag compromises the flags of Scotland and England, relegates the Scottish flag to a mere background for the English flag, and does not even incorporate the national flag of Wales. The British Government does not even recognize Wales as a separate entity, saying on one official site that Wales is "no longer [recognized as] a separate principality."
According to the British Government's Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, "Where a building has two or more flagstaffs, the appropriate National flag may be flown in addition to the Union flag but not in a superior position." The Department further relegates the national flags by stating that "on government buildings that only have one flag pole, the Union flag should take precedence."


Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

McCain's governing style: Ready, Shoot, Aim.

Remember this old geezer a couple of days ago said the fundamentals of the economy were strong and then next day he threatened to fire SEC chairman? Now he is suspending his campaign to fix the economy. He should fix his judgment first and his fundaMENTALs.

Posted by: thor2 | September 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Wow dbw your high school civics teacher must have felt sorry for you and given you a smiley face in place of a real grade. You did take civics right?

Congressmen and women cannot be involved in every piece of legislation personally. Most representatives just vote on legislative bills without being personally involved with the crafting of said bills, leaving that to the members of congress who specialize in the specifics of the legislation being presented. You know about voting, that thing McCain hasn't done since April and Obama hasn't done since July.

Explain in full what McCain brings to the economic debate occurring in D.C., and don't try to regurgitate the non-partisan baloney, reach across party isles crap.

The house republicans are in revolt as they echo their constituents voice and McCain has dug himself in a hole in a last ditch effort to save a sorely botched and mishandled campaign. His solution to show country first leadership by attempting to fly into D.C. to save the day, suspending his campaign this late in the game(I think this is a first, please correct me if I'm wrong), and attempting to cancel the debate undermines the spirit of the democratic process. It shows how low McCain will stoop to gain a political edge in the hopes things will work out in his favor so he can claim brownie points for decisive action.

McCain is wrong if he sides with the House Republicans and he is wrong if he shows up at the debate, but I know that he will not allow Obama to have a national primetime unopposed discussion with the electorate. Either way he will eat his words. As I type this McCain has departed the capitol building and returned to his campaign headquarters to prep for the debate. His gamble is blowing up in his face.

Lastly do not patronize me with a history lesson about presidential debate. The current debates are a product of the times and formatted in such a way to allow them to be presented to the American public over the television. Therefore they must be short and to the point to fit in the time slot provided. That explains why they are not the freewheeling spectacles of the 19th century when the debates lasted hours, not minutes. It's the 21st century I believe. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Sniff, sniff......McCain, is that FEAR I smell...

Posted by: MUPPET | September 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The meltdown in our economy will be contained by a very late-arriving but now very saavy Congress who is asking lots of questions FIRST - but the political meltdown of John McCain is now in progress. The political meltdown of Sara Palin was yesterday.

Posted by: quick2no | September 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Will McCain Join Obama for Debate?


Maybe a better question would be "Will Obama Join McCain for Vote?"

Oh, that's right. The One wouldn't want to stick his neck out and actually make a decision that can be recorded.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | September 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Buffett. The man's last name is spelled with two T's.

Posted by: mattintx | September 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - President Bush scrambled Friday to bring rebellious members of his own party behind a multibillion-dollar government bailout of the financial system as members of Congress traded recriminations over failed negotiations.

On Capitol Hill, talks were scheduled to resume at midday.

Bush delivered a terse statement from outside the Oval Office of the White House, acknowledging that lawmakers have a right to express their doubts and work through disagreements, but declaring they must "rise to the occasion" and approve a plan to avert an economic meltdown.

"There are disagreements over aspects of the rescue plan," he said, "but there is no disagreement that something substantial must be done. We are going to get a package passed."

On Wall Street, the level of institutional nervousness was palpable, with stocks bouncing up and down, especially after Washington Mutual Inc. became the largest U.S. bank to fail. The Dow Jones industrial average initally fell while fears of a deepening economic crisis fed safe-haven buying in Treasury notes.

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

dbw1-
You miss the point of posting complete relevant articles- It doesn't "clutter" the board- it Cleans the board of "sneaky rat bastard" and "scrawny white ass" comments...This is not always intellectual discourse....I choose the articles quite carefully. If some on this board would read the Academic Economists post, we'd have a more enlightened board with a higher level of discourse....I know, Dream On!

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Having seen the latest video on Sara Palin I wonder if McCain or Palin will be permitted to run a raffle.McCain is a dead duck in the water with this stone around his neck. He chose her and he will go down with her, because he proves that he is incapable of even running an election race for the nutter party.

The USA was the most respected country in the World.My native Scotland is probably themost influential country on the makeup of the USA when the founding fathers sat down to work out the future of the nation.

You have allowed a vegtable to run your nation, and meddle with the Constitution that we Scots gave you. Dont you children understand that you were given something so special, that should never have been tampered with.

Your founding fathers were great men, they did things out of a sense of love for those that would come after them. They surely are looking on with embarassment at the mess you made of what should have been eden. Shame on you.

Have a look at the following to see how silly you are for listening to the right wing nutters that have corrupted your inheritance. Get your banks back in control, and YOU THE PEOPLE need to get your politicians back under the same control.

Watch the Video. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080926/video/vwl-palin-in-internet-witchcraft-video-15af341.html

Posted by: FreeScotland1 | September 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

thor2 said:
"McCain's new slogan: 'Photo-op first'."

Ok, this one made me laugh out loud. I mean, you do realize who your candidate for President is, don't you? Barack Obama? Mr. Empty Speech in Germany before adoring throngs? Mr. Empty Convention Speech in front of 80,000 loyal followers at Mile High in front of Greek columns?

An accusation of McCain of seeking out 'photo-ops' coming from a supporter of Obama is just too funny.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I posted the following in The New Republic last Tuesday:

Anyone notice the paucity of economists who think that the bailout will actually work? Firstly, at what price will the Treasury buy back this toxic debt? "Toxic" as it is, there are bids for this debt - its just that the sellers don't like the bids. They expect the Treasury to do better. Ideally for the sellers, the price paid by the Treasury would be somewhere closer to what the paper was originally purchased for...ideally that's what the institutions want...to be essentially recapitalized to where they were before the bubble burst.

Think that move will free up the credit markets? Think again. If you were a senior banker today what would you be doing?

Your goal would be to protect your financial institution. Hoard cash. Build liquidity. Strengthen loan/deposit ratios. Reduce borrowing to an absolute minimum - preferably zero. Fund your assets with retail deposits (insured by FDIC) and your own capital to the extent you possible can. Lend money to no one if you don't have to...tighten your credit standards. Do not participate in the inter-bank markets if you are not a net buyer of fed funds. If you are a net buyer, unload some saleable assets to reduce dependency on overnight money. Profitability is no longer paramount. Your shareholders will forgive you if your profits slide so long as your institution survives.

This buyout may not accomplish what it is expected to accomplish for the markets.

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

thecannula:

I believe we are on the same side here, but please stop cut-and-pasting long articles.

They clutter the board, and most will not read them. If you want to paste a BRIEF relevant quote or paragraph from an article, or a link to an article, by all means do so.

But pasting long articles just annoys people....it doesn't help make any point.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

McCain's new slogan: "Photo-op first".

Posted by: thor2 | September 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:
"dbw1: You apparently don't know the format for the debates. These will not be 90-second answers."

Seriously, my man....I was obviously discussing the history of debates in general. I wasn't being specific about "90 seconds" applying to tonights debate. If you read it again without your "I Worship Obama" hat on, I was comparing the general format of modern televised debates (short, timed responses) to the free-wheeling debates of old.

The obvious point you missed is that modern debates, whether answers are limited to 90 seconds, 2 minutes, etc, are designed for television. And delaying one debate for a couple days does not threaten to undermine our system of democracy, as 'dixie' alleged.

By the way, I can only assume you missed Bill Clinton criticizing folks like yourself who are trying to imply McCain is avoiding debating Obama, after Obama turned down multiple requests from McCain to appear in even more debates?

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

torrito-
Honestly, with none of us really knowing whether the assumptions the plan is based on are correct....how could any of us be confidently for or against it. That's why I applaud McCain, Shelby, and the House Republicans for slowing things down in order to reach a compromise that noone is completely for or against. McCain was quiet in that meeting because he DIDN"T want to inject Presidential politics into the discussion. Whatever he publicly came out for would have been unacceptable to Reid and Franks.


FROM THE ACADEMICS
Away from Wall Street, Economists Question Basis of Paulson's Plan

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s rescue plan rests on the government buying troubled mortgage securities. (By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)

By Neil Irwin and Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 26, 2008; Page A01

The Bush administration's pitch for a sweeping bailout of the financial system has centered on two simple premises: that the economy could suffer a crippling downturn if action is not taken very quickly and that this action should consist of the government buying troubled mortgage securities from banks and other institutions.

This Story
Talks Falter on Bailout Deal
FROM THE ACADEMICS: Away from Wall Street, Economists Question Basis of Paulson's Plan
U.S. Forces WaMu Sale As Bank Founders
Gut Check
Stocks Rally on Early Reports of Agreement on Bailout Plan
Special Report: Turmoil on Wall Street
A Plan in the Works
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
But many of the nation's top economists disagree with one or both of those ideas, even as many top political leaders have swung behind them.

Wall Street economists have mostly endorsed Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s plan, or a variation thereof.

But almost 200 academic economists -- who aren't paid by the institutions that could directly benefit from the plan but who also may not have recent practical experience in the markets -- have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, brandished that letter yesterday afternoon as he explained his opposition to the bailout outside a bipartisan summit at the White House. The petition did not advocate any specific plan, including that offered yesterday by House Republicans.

Economists tend to agree that the nation's economy is at serious risk as the flow of credit threatens to freeze. Just yesterday, the interest rate at which banks lend to each other rose steeply, as it has every day this week, suggesting that lenders are hoarding cash. History shows that when this happens, a broad economic crisis can follow, for instance, the Great Depression and Japan's decade-long recession in the 1990s.


"If nothing is done, the potential for these markets to seize up in a big way is definitely there," said Frederic S. Mishkin, an economist at Columbia University who was a Federal Reserve governor until last month. "When you look at the history of these crises, when things spin out of control, the cost to fix it later goes up exponentially."

But many others with a deep theoretical knowledge of finance and experience in government are skeptical of the structure of Paulson's plan -- and the speed with which it has been crafted.

The critics can be roughly divided into two camps. One group thinks money should be directly infused into banks, which should allow it to trickle down through the financial system to borrowers. A second group thinks the government should buy individual mortgages, thus helping ordinary Americans more directly, with the benefits trickling up to the banks.

The plan promoted by Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is somewhere in between: buying up packages of mortgages and hoping that the benefits spread both up to banks and down to households.

"The plan is a trickle-down approach from banks to Main Street," said Alan S. Blinder, a professor at Princeton University. "But if you reduce the flood of foreclosures and defaults" -- which he would have the government do by buying loans directly and then renegotiating the terms -- "it will make mortgage-backed securities worth more."

That might help ordinary Americans but would be extremely difficult to administer. The government would have to make decisions on the foreclosure and resale of individual houses all over the country. Still, many economists with left-of-center political views favor some variation of this approach to the plan endorsed by Bush.

"There is a kind of suggestion in the Paulson proposal that if only we provide enough money to financial markets, this problem will disappear," said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. "But that does nothing to address the fundamental problem of bleeding foreclosures and the holes in the balance sheets of banks."

Coming from the other direction, more conservative economists worry that by having the government buy mortgage securities, the Paulson plan would manipulate prices in that market without getting at the nub of the problem: that banks do not have enough capital and are having difficulty raising any on private markets.

In a sign of how the debate over the economy has shifted in recent weeks, some conservatives, even as they argue for a relatively limited government role, are calling on the government to invest public money in private banks.

"The root of the issue is recapitalizing banks," said Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School and a former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "That could be done more efficiently through the government injection of preferred equity. Then the market could figure out the prices of the assets."

Many of these critics don't care for the assumption behind the administration's plan that the market is now pricing these mortgage securities incorrectly, a problem that the government intervention aims to fix.

"The premise appears to be that the market is irrationally pessimistic," wrote Greg Mankiw, a Harvard University economist and another former Bush economic adviser, on his blog this week. "That might be so. Nonetheless, one has to be at least a bit skeptical about the idea that government policymakers gambling with other people's money are better at judging the value of complex financial instruments than are private investors gambling with their own."

Some conservatives are now arguing, notably, that the government should be investing in banks.

Many economists fault the Bush administration and Congress for moving so quickly on the bailout package without allowing more time for debate. That sentiment was reflected in the petition organized by John Cochrane of the University of Chicago. (None of the economists quoted here were signatories.)

"I totally disagree that this needs to be done this week. It's more important to get it right," Blinder said.

Moreover, some economists said the proposed $700 billion may not be enough to address all the problems stretching across the financial landscape. "You only show up if you can win, and this is not that package," said Simon Johnson, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. "This cannot be the ultimate, decisive solution if you are not addressing the underlying cause."

The plan is short on details, instead giving the Treasury secretary wide latitude to determine how to execute the purchases of mortgage securities.

"I'd like to see how they see the evolution of an end game. There are still many questions," said Myron Scholes, a retired professor at Stanford University and Nobel Prize winner. He said how long the government holds the assets and how they are later resold would be the keys to determining whether the plan works.


Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

McCain is supporting this proposal but he won't vote for it if it came up for a vote.

Posted by: thor2 | September 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Judging from the lack of answers, Republican supporters aren't sure weather they want to support a $700 billion rescue, as proposed by the lameduck Republican Secretary of the Treasury and the Republican President or not.

You don't expect Dems to pass the rescue without Republican support do you? (Even though they could). Hey, its your Republican proposal.

Sounds like immigration reform.......

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

mjo1:

Could you list one thing Obama has led the way on during his time in the Senate? And 'supporting' or 'co-sponsoring' bills doesn't count.

One issue....one bill....something Obama took the reins, and said 'follow me'.

Can you name just one?

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

mjo1 ~ You apparently aren't aware that mccain has _not_ cast a vote in the Senate for the last 5 months? Otherwise you would be a bit of a hypocrite. I'll take the charitable view that you are just ignorant of our candidate's record.

Posted by: Ami_Blue | September 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Usual claptrap.

Do McCain supporters want to get a deal done along the lines that have publicized extensively over the last two days or do you support the House Republican effort to substitute government insurance for a cash buyback??

Its really a sort of general question guys.....

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm a stuntman! pam pam pam param pam pam pam param pam pam pam param pam. I'am a stunt man!

Posted by: jakeD1 | September 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Hey Thor2- Who the hell cares WHAT Harry Reid Says? Recall when Reid said the war in Iraq was LOST???-

Saturday, April 21, 2007
Senator Harry Reid: Traitor-Bastard
Harry Reid has now come out publicly proclaiming Iraq to be a lost cause. What I find objectionable about this and other similar claims by Democrats is not that they think we're losing in Iraq; there's an argument to be made for that conclusion. What is objectionable is that they have no interest in winning in Iraq.

The Democrats do not warn that we are losing so that they may advocate policies that are better calculated to achieve victory. They proclaim that we are losing—so that they can convince us to accept defeat and to adopt policies that will hasten that defeat. I disagree with some of Jed Babbin's commentary below, but I think he does an excellent job of describing the essence of the Democrats' defeatism.

"Harry Reid, Loser," Jed Babbin, Human Events, April 20 The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost. There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid: he is as blasé as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory. Last November, the Democrats seized control of Congress on the pretense that they wanted to change our policy regarding Iraq but not—as they, to a man (and a woman) insisted—to merely cut and run. We knew they weren’t being truthful then, but too many people were taken in. Now all pretense is dispensed with: we can see the man behind the curtain.
On Thursday, Reid said: "I believe...that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."…


Reid and the rest of the Democrats do not condemn defeat. They do not say they would have done better to win, because the words “win” and “victory” never pass their lips. They never propose an idea that might lead to quicker, more decisive victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa, or Lebanon, or anywhere else. No. The Democratic pathology is the same now as it was forty years ago.…

Harry Reid’s statement compels one more conclusion: that the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation to victory against this existential threat.
TAKE THE POLL: SENATOR REID A TRAITOR?

--------

Hey Thor2-

What Happened the Last Time We Listened to John McCain?-

washingtonpost.com Editorial Pages 9/26/08

Another Iraq Benchmark
Legislators approve a crucial deal on provincial elections.


WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.


For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks." This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun. How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

toritto,

we'll have to read the proposal first to decide if we support it. Untill then we'll get involved in negotiations to try to get a deal done.

Posted by: jakeD1 | September 26, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Toritto said:
"Time to make a decision McSame...."

When's the last time Obama made a decision on anything important? I mean, other than announcing half-baked "plans" that even his own party ignores. You do understand, don't you Toritto, that there is a difference between making yet another speech, and actually legislating?

If Obama's "plan" is so right for the country, why can't even members of his own party rally around it?

You notice how McCain is needed in Washington right now to try to unify his party with Democrats, but Obama apparantly isn't needed....by anybody.

If Obama is the Great Unifier, don't you think Pelosi, Reid, and Dodd would have begged him to stick around to "lead" them?

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Question: Do McCain supporters on this board support the proposed financial rescue plan or don't you?

:-)

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

You apparently don't know the format for the debates. These will not be 90-second answers. There will be more back-and-forth, and the candidates will be able to ask questions of each other.

Neither McCain nor Obama are in the Senate leadership or on the relevant Banking committee. As senators, they should speak on the floor, when the debate gets that far. That won't be today or tonight.

McCain pulled a stunt.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | September 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"I understand your confusion, though, since it's admittedly foreign to Obama supporters to see a Senator actually do his job."

Yeah, like McCain missing 64% of the votes in the senate - the worst record of all of them!

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Posted by: mjo1 | September 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure there are going to be tons of backroom deals at 9 p.m. on a Friday night that McCain just HAS to be involved in. Especially since he's not on any of the committees that are involved in this bill. Maybe Chris Dodd can make McCain an honorary members of the Senate Banking Committee for the night, just so we make sure he can bestow his vast throve of economic knowledge upon us.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | September 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Before Bush's phone call (which McCain dialed for him), as McCain put everything on hold to help fix our country's economic fallout, Obama stood back and made the statement "If I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere, any time". I guess he was too busy cramming in Clearwater for his big midterm. Cue the music-


CHORUS
And no wind (no wind)
And no rain (no rain)
Or winter’s cold
Can stop me, baby (oh baby)
‘Cause if you’re ever in trouble
I’ll be there on the double
Just send for me, baby
Oh baby....

Country first or ME first ???


Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Harry Reid did not request McCain's presence. He just asked him to take a stand on this proposal. But McCain, being a sneaky rat bastard, is playing politics with it and acting like a drama queen.
It's time to get his sorry wrinkled ass to that podium and answer questions. He can contribute nothing to the solution except a lot of hot air.

Posted by: thor2 | September 26, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

You must have as stunted a view of American history as your liberal counterparts. These staged debates in front of televison cameras with 90 second rehearsed-beforehand answers are a fairly modern invention. These are not the old-school free-wheeling Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Asking them to delay tonights debate for a couple days so they can, you know, do their jobs as Senators, is not going to "undermine the democratic process that so many sacrificed/died to protect".

I understand your confusion, though, since it's admittedly foreign to Obama supporters to see a Senator actually do his job.

Posted by: dbw1 | September 26, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Not surprising - One-Track-Mind-McCain is to feeble minded to be a good president. He can't think about more than one thing at a time, so he can't debate and deal with legislation at the same time. What a great quality for a presidential candidate that must deal with many problems at one.

Posted by: nomccain | September 26, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

You know, after watching mccain attempts at grandstanding this week - and his desperation to save his campaign, I really don't care if he shows or not. Obama can deal with Mr. Lehrer one on one or make it a town hall. I've had my fill of the mccain/palin drama - it's obvious they have put the mccain campaign first, country somewhere further down the line. McCain proves himself to be less and less fit for the presidency each day.

Posted by: notfooledbydistractions | September 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

"will obama ever take a stand?
will he do his current job as senator , skip the debate and help with the negotiations?"

Obama has already laid out his conditions for a deal (which McCain seemed to agree with initially). It's McCain who can't decide what to do!

Posted by: mjo1 | September 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

"David Letterman was absolutely furious at Senator John McCain for snubbing him and instead making an appearance on a CBS News interview with Katie Couric..."
AlexP1

????????????????

This is your CRITERIA for picking a President? Late Night Talk Show Appearances?
Do you or the stand up comedian on CBS, famous for stupid pet tricks, think he's the equivalent of a hard news program shown at 6:30 PM which informs the American people?....YOUR judgement is pathetic- You probably believe in Joe Biden's tale of FDR going on TV as President in 1929!!! Hey, Did FDR do Letterman?

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

What Happened the Last Time We Listened to John McCain?-

washingtonpost.com Editorial Pages 9/26/08

Another Iraq Benchmark
Legislators approve a crucial deal on provincial elections.


WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.


For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks." This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun. How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

Posted by: thecannula | September 26, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

We hope they debate - this is important. I have several questions, here is one: What is the roll of Commander in Chief - does this position require military experience? ..........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/22/commander-in-chief-role-of-a-citizen/

Posted by: glclark4750 | September 26, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

will obama ever take a stand?
will he do his current job as senator , skip the debate and help with the negotiations?

those are the real questions

Posted by: newagent99 | September 26, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You keep saying you are suspending your posts but then you post anyway. Is this like McCain suspending his campaign or him "brokering" a "deal"?

Just curious since there seems to be a disconnect between the words and actions.

Posted by: wes1155 | September 26, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The election is more important than the economy. McCain's actions were presumptuous in his belief that americans would think otherwise. The economic problem will still be around for years to come. The electoral process is the backbone of this country, and what sets us apart from the rest of world, the great experiment depends on this process. Any attempt to undermine this process is a slap in the face to every individual who has sacrificed and/ or died in defense of our way of life, military and civilian. The democratic process must be upheld above all else lest we conceed our freedoms for security.

Also, there are 98 fully qualified senators elected by the people. What will two more bring to the table that the other 98 can't? Apparently John McCain is not as influential as he might want us to believe. Get your a$$ to the debate and run for president. I'm more concerned about the next four years, everyone else in congress can handle the next four days.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Just heard our President at 9:45 AM.

45 seconds of drivel.

The GOP needs to get its act together on a financial plan - The President and the Treasury Secretary appear to have little support among House Republicans. Does Bush expect the Dems to pass his proposal without GOP support? Not likely.

McCain hasn't decided whether he will side with Bush or the GOP House conservatives.

Time to make a decision McSame....

Posted by: toritto | September 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation -- to cede effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 26, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"McCain arrives and Reid then states his presence was detrimental."

Well yes, it was, because he didn't contribute to the solution - he appeared more interested in derailing the whole process. McCain's job now is to bring the recalcitrant House Republicans back in line, instead of making sympathetic noises on their behalf while not committing himself to anything.

Posted by: mjo1 | September 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

John McCain would not be in Washington if Harry Reid had not requested his appearance in DC on tuesday to help pass the rescue plan.

McCain arrives and Reid then states his presence was detrimental.

I do wish Harry Reid would get his act straight!

Posted by: mwhoke | September 26, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The nation's economy is more important than any single person, even David Letterman. In solidarity with Sen. McCain, I am suspending my posts today.

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse


From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-bushs-kabuki-theatre-mccain.html

Thursday, September 25, 2008
Credit Where Credit Isn't Due: McCain and Bush's Kabuki Theatre

Now we know why McCain hired the Bush contingent.

It emerged in the White House briefing today that McCain called Bush and asked him to initiate a meeting today at 4 pm at the White House, putatively for him to "deal with" the crisis.

That is, McCain asked Bush to help him create an trifecta: To try to lend some credence to McCain's desperate assertion that a suspension of his campaign is necessary, in effect either avoiding a debate in which he would face critical questions about his stance on the economy or marching in claiming "victory"; attempting to co opt the financial crisis thereby trying to put an end to his plummeting in the polls created by his flailing positions on the economy--perhaps best reflected by his statement days ago that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong"; and also perhaps buying more time for Sarah Palin after her embarrassing photo op at the UN yesterday, by moving her debate forward as well.

Here's how it happened, according to Q and A at the WHB:

McCain emailed Bush asking for the 4 P.M. meeting. Now, one reasonably might ask, why is today such a necessity for McCain, if his interest is solely the national good?

Because it is before the debate. McCain hopes to stage a meeting at the White House, thereby, with Bush's cooperation, lending plausibility to his claim to need to suspend his campaign. Then, if Republicans, in their own electoral interest, can be persuaded to come to agreement, before the debate, he would claim--in an act of utter stage management--to have "resolved" the crisis. Thereby hoping to take the heat off on his past careening stances and sliding polls and staunch the bleeding on the polls--before the debate.

This is Kabuki Theatre masquerading as substance--no different than what we saw at the U.N. yesterday.

It is utterly stage managed, utterly cynical, and utterly unrelated to the substantive deliberation necessary to actually resolve these matters on the merits and for our nation's future, rather than for short-term and desperate political advantage.

These occurrences are equally important for what they indicate about McCain's governing style as they are for their impact upon democratic process: impulsive acts that rely on drama and theatrical posture rather than substantive reasoning and long-term deliberation; a strong willingness to sacrifice substantive reasoning, deliberative process, and even prior structures and agreements to immediate political need; an attempt to reach outcomes through last minute stage management rather than substantive argument.

These should create deep concern for anyone who wishes for a change in governmental process from the past eight years.

We have an economy, rather than a campaign, to rescue. Putting nation before politics means putting all attempts to resolve it before political attempts to co opt it--and to move towards one's commitments, rather than towards a more immediate and short-term salvation.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-bushs-kabuki-theatre-mccain.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 26, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

John McCaint has suddenly gotten quite concerned about the crisis on Wall Street.

Just more lies....

So much so that he has announced he’s suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington so he can work with Congress on solving the problem and he wants Obama to do the same which will mean putting off that pesky debate they were supposed to have on Friday.

The situation was so urgent in fact that McCaint called up David Letterman personally to cancel his appearance on his show so he wouldn’t waste any time tackling the problem.

Except that he apparently had time to stick around long enough to film an interview with Katie Couric, to "expalin" the pathetic interview with peeeuuu Palin whereas she fumbles and get confused on such a simple subject....and literally self destructs on CBS.....

So while McCaint was at the West 57th street CBS News Location.....at same point in time he would have been on Letterman.

Needless to say, Dave wasn’t impressed. In fact Dave had some pretty good points to make during the course of the show.

David Letterman was absolutely furious at Senator John McCain for snubbing him and instead making an appearance on a CBS News interview with Katie Couric.

According to Letterman, McCaint personally called him and apologized for bailing out at the last minute.

He said he was suspending his campaign to rush to Washington and help fight America’s biggest economic crisis since the great depression.

Letterman understood the urgency of this issue and said it was ok.

Boy, Was he mad when he knew that McCaint did not actually go to Washington to solve the ‘Crisis’ and fix the ‘Crater’ in the economy?

Letterman stopped his interview with Keith Olbermann midway to show a live TV feed of McCaint getting makeup for his interview with Katie Couric.

Letterman said something is terribly wrong with McCain’s campaign ..and it smells....(peeeuuu Palin anyone)and that he was just playing a political game by saying that he was suspending his campaign.

And when Dave saw McCaint with Couric having makeup applied to his cancer ridden head he yelled out and said: "Hey John, do you need a ride to the airport??????.

He felt this a political gimmick to stop his sliding poll numbers from sliding further. He repeatedly asked the same question - ‘Where is your running mate, Sarah Palin?’.

You do not suspend a campaign a month before elections, you get your second in command to run the show instead.

A total of 10 minutes was used up by Dave Letterman to shred McCain and his publicity stunt into pieces.

View David's Anger @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

After the Walter Cronkite moment of 1968 now 40 years later for McCaint on David Letterman......I don’t think McCain will be scheduling a follow-up appearance anytime soon.

Thanks Again Dave.... for showing us the truth..yet again......McCaint can't multi-task.....

Its the end of the peeeuuu Palin bubble and McCaints lies.......

"Thanks but no thanks for more of the lies that bridge America to nowhere......"

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 26, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

If you are "unclear" re-read his statement. Seems clear to me that the debate in D.C. is more important right now. McCain would rather lose the election than not put his Country First.

Posted by: JakeD | September 26, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company