64 Comments

1. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » McCain Putting Country Before Power:

[...] Musing Minds Matt Lewis Atlas Shrugs Memeorandum Riehl World View Ankle Biting Pundits Hyscience Roger Simon Instapundit Theodore’s World Hugh Hewitt Share and [...]

Sep 24, 2008 - 1:41 pm 2. Philoctetes:

The MSM will put Obama in, only to tear him down thereafter — so he remembers they made him. So what do we do after he takes office?

Sep 24, 2008 - 1:47 pm 3. tbogg:

My guess is that they don’t believe in Obama anymore, but they are too embarrassed to say so, too entrenched in their own system.

Still clutching your John McCain POW doll, I see…

Sep 24, 2008 - 1:53 pm 4. Cramming For The Test « Quipster:

[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/09/24/the-economy-did-mccain-trump-obama/.  The Economy: Did McCain trump Obama?. [...]

Sep 24, 2008 - 1:58 pm 5. Mike Shuster:

This kind of seems like a pointless symbolic gesture. (Even leaving aside the fact that McCain has missed more Senate votes than Obama over the past term– in fact I think he has been the most absent Senator).

I almost feel like it would be more useful for the country for the two candidates to essentially recuse themselves from the deliberations– since they both obviously have so much at stake personally, and are engaged in such a close election, and actually, there seem to be senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle who are actively finding a solution. Obviously, that wouldn’t look ‘presidential’ on either of their parts, but I think it would lead to a swifter and better piece of legislation. (And really, neither of them have had anything useful to say over the past week on the issue.)

Also, just a side note, Presidents often have to deal with more than one issue/crisis simultaneously, so I think they both ought to be able to handle the debate prep and Senate work simultaneously. I mean, move the debate to DC if that makes things easier, but otherwise this just seems like (another) silly gesture on McCain’s part.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:00 pm 6. Mike_K:

Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will not support a bailout unless McCain does. I didn’t see her relying on your candidate for advice. That was probably the reason for his decision since it seems that Democrats are afraid to make a decision that could be criticized later, including Obama. I think they call that “following.” Nice to see someone lead.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:08 pm 7. Mike Shuster:

All I heard Pelosi say was the dems won’t try to put up a bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support, and I think it’s pretty appropriate for her to try to build a consensus on this kind of issue, instead of trying to force it through a party majority. The dems just compromised on the provisional budget that went through yesterday (lifting the off shore billing plan, dropping unemployment extension, etc.), and good for them.

Of course, we’d have a financial crisis bill passed a lot quicker if Bush and Paulson’s proposal had anticipated what seem like pretty obvious objections (from both parties) about executive compensation, oversight, etc.

But I’m getting off-topic. My point is that I don’t think suspending the campaign or the debate would have any material impact on solving the problem. And neither McCain nor Obama have really distinguished themselves on this issue, instead prefering to grandstand. So, while this will never happen, I’d prefer that the 97 senators who *aren’t* running for public office take the lead on this.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:21 pm 8. Mike Shuster:

I meant ‘lifting the offshore drilling plan’, not ‘off shore billing plan’, Typing fast while eating a hamburger.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:22 pm 9. Mike Shuster:

I mean ban, not plan. (sorry)

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:22 pm 10. Roger L Simon:

“Offshore billing plan” may be more accurate… quite witty actually. We’ve all been on one for some time.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:24 pm 11. ALERT: MCCAIN: ‘Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington’… | Right Voices:

[...] Discussion: Think Progress, Washington Monthly, Weekly Standard, TPM Election Central, Townhall.com, Open Left, The Campaign Spot, Firedoglake, The Anonymous Liberal, Taylor Marsh, The RBC, Agence France Presse, Political Machine, MyDD, TIME.com, Gawker, Informed Comment, Comments from Left Field, Hot Air, Salon, FP Passport and Pajamas Media [...]

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:34 pm 12. babar:

Roger, why not just admit you’re in the tank for McCain? This is a transparently stupid gambit on his part, and it would show some grace on your part to admit it.

Our preferred candidates are not always wise.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:37 pm 13. Roger L Simon:

babar, in the tank… arguably, yes…. and certainly I agree that our preferred candidates are not always wise (cf. Biden, the last few days, if you happen to support him).

But tell me – exactly why is it a bad idea for the two candidates to take time out (two or three days) of a tedious (and endless campaign) to help get this solved? One of the two is going to have to live with the fruits of this decision for their entire term in office.

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:45 pm 14. Mike Shuster:

“exactly why is it a bad idea for the two candidates to take time out (two or three days) of a tedious (and endless campaign) to help get this solved? One of the two is going to have to live with the fruits of this decision for their entire term in office.”

I think you kind of answered your own question. I have serious doubts that either of them, or anyone running for president, could put aside their own concerns about what their approval ratings in January 2009 will be, as well as their concerns about how whatever bill gets passed will impact their ability to deliver on their various campaign promises, etc. If I were a senator, I really would want both of these guys out of the room.

Again, I’d feel differently if either of them had said anything of value about the crisis.

Though, one question I wouldn’t mind them answering ASAP is: ‘Given the financial crisis, whoever you appoint as Secrteary of the Treasury will likely have unprecedented power. Who will you appoint?’

Sep 24, 2008 - 2:55 pm 15. Harry:

Today’s little move was vintage McCain. Impulsive. Not well thought out. Self-righteous. Lots of downside for a little upside. Utterly ignorant of how business and economics work. Grandiose and self-flattering; a presidential candidate as Mighty Mouse (”Here I come to save the day!”).

Roger, I share your doubts about Obama and think he would just be Jimmy Carter redux. But that doesn’t change a painfully obvious truth: John McCain is a fool, plain and simple.

Sep 24, 2008 - 3:40 pm 16. clyde_m:

although not my inclination to believe so, but even if this is purely a political calculus by mccain, i don’t see how it can lose. if a bill passes, he gets to share credit for averting a disaster. if a bill does not pass, he gets to cast the dems are obstructionists and obama as uninvolved.

even if the bill passes and it doesn’t fix anything, he can still say – at least i was there trying to solve the problem – perhaps if senator obama deigned to get involved, we could have done more.

Sep 24, 2008 - 3:51 pm 17. Dee:

Wow Harry, judgemental aren’t we.

McCain, who is not my favorite Senator by far, is well known for assisting compromise between the parties. This financial bailout, and car bailout, and student loan bailout and credit card bailout, is a very big problem and we need all the help we can get to develop a sane plan of action. So Seantor McCain is doing what he has always done in an emergency, responding to solve the crisis.

By the way, I am not for the bailout at all. We either suck it in now or suck in harder later. But what do I know. I don’t call Senators names even when I disagree with them,which is most of the time.

Sep 24, 2008 - 4:03 pm 18. vb:

Doesn’t this bring back memories of Obama’s being too busy campaigning to hold hearings on NATO and Afghanistan?

Sep 24, 2008 - 4:10 pm 19. kitdafos:

As noted by many observers, McCain has an aviator’s M.O: OODA. Observe, Orient, Decide, Attack. This latest decision suggests another unorthodox attempt to seize tactical advantage (as he did with his choice of Palin). The derisive critics of his action today were probably the same one’s chortling the morning Palin was announced as his running mate. It will be interesting to see who is chortling after a few days pass.

Sep 24, 2008 - 4:14 pm 20. srlucado:

Sorry, but I think this “suspending” business is just a flat terrible idea.

I am very disappointed in McCain, and I fear this is going to cost him the election.

The best way for McCain to help the economy is to be elected President, and the best way to do that is to keep campaigning.

The risk isn’t failing to act as Senator; the real risk is that Obama will get elected, and then all hell breaks loose–higher taxes just as we can’t afford them; socialist cronyism run rampant; weak-kneed leadership against terrorist states.

Bad, bad, bad move, John. You’ve taken your eye off the ball at a critical stage.

Scott

Sep 24, 2008 - 4:47 pm 21. Mike Shuster:

kitdafos: given how severely Palin’s approval ratings have been dropping, I’m not sure the chortlers were incorrect, tactically speaking. Looking at the RCP maps, etc., I can’t figure out what states she’s helping to win that McCain wouldn’t have won anyway, except maybe Alaska. Of course that could still change in either direction.

Sep 24, 2008 - 5:02 pm 22. Jack Okie:

You Obama supporters are proving that for Democrats it’s all politics, all the time. The people of Arizona elected two senators. Don’t you think they’re entitled to the best representation those senators can give in the biggest financial crisis we’ve faced since the S&L debacle of ‘87? Which also had Democrat fingerprints (House Speaker Jim Wright) all over it.

You are also proving how cynical or ignorant you are about this crisis. McCain, together with three other Republican senators, sponsored legislation to bring Fannie and Freddie under control. Unfortunately the Washington crowd led by Chris Dodd (with sufficient Republican help) kept the bill from ever getting out of committee.

Full story here: http://tinyurl.com/4adgdp

Sep 24, 2008 - 5:57 pm 23. kitdafos:

Mike: true, some places I read or hear about Palin being a drag, but others suggest she remains an asset (e.g, the big draw in Florida, Barone’s belief she is putting “The Frozen North” in play…). I sure don’t know if at the end of the day she’ll prove to have been a smarter choice than one of the conventional guys most people were expecting, although I still think it was a good move for McCain’s campaign and for the future of the Republican party.

Beyond all that, my original point wasn’t that Palin or today’s decision to suspend were smart or ill-advised; rather, I was suggesting that they both point to the way McCain has chosen to run, and presumably, the way in which he would govern. Some call him reckless, or intemperate — I remain intrigued by the idea that his training as an aviator is a major influence on how he operates as a politician.

I do think that, given his formidable challenge as the aged Republican nominee, he has settled on a strategy of surprise “asymmetrical attacks” to keep Obama on his heels. I know George Will and others think his decision-making has been idiotic and irresponsible, but I don’t see how a more “conventional” kind of campaigning would ever allow him to contend with Obama. But he indeed seems to be in contention, something I did not expect back in August.

Sep 24, 2008 - 6:31 pm 24. Mike_K:

And neither McCain nor Obama have really distinguished themselves on this issue, instead prefering to grandstand. So, while this will never happen, I’d prefer that the 97 senators who *aren’t* running for public office take the lead on this.

McCain s almost the only Senator who has credibility on this issue. He has been trying to rein in Fannie-Freddie for years. Back in 2002 he even cosponsored a bill with Dick Gephardt to cut back on corporate welfare. He has opposed ethanol when it cost him Iowa, he has opposed earmarks and has not taken them. Dodd and Obama have NO credibility withy Fannie-Freddie because they have been on the take for years.

The Dems have tried to spin this by accusing McCain’s campaign guy, Rick Davis, of being a lobbyist for Fannie but he did not lobby for them and quit the firm in 2005. Nice try but it won’t wash. Pretty soon, people will start to put together slum lord Rezko and bad mortgages and Obama will have a problem. Right now he has a history of sucking at the Fannie teat since he was in the Senate.

Sep 24, 2008 - 6:40 pm 25. Ralph Woods:

I think the debate should go on as scheduled. A one man debate could prove interesting. As a lawyer a debater Obama has beem trained to take both sides of an issue. His changing positions from the beginning of his campaign to the present will give him plenty of fodder to work with. It may look silly at first as he walks from one podium to the other but the NPR moderator can fill in with commetary as he does.

Sep 24, 2008 - 6:46 pm 26. ic:

“…exactly why is it a bad idea for the two candidates to take time out … to help get this solved?”

Plausible deniability? When things go bad, when one’s side get mad at one’s vote, one needs wriggle room to criticize, and claims one had a better plan. This is especially true for someone who either voted present, or voted one way to kowtow to party leaders, then immediately requested the vote be recorded as the opposite to appease the voters back home.

Sep 24, 2008 - 6:52 pm 27. kitdafos:

An Obama vs Obama debate! That would be so great — it would make everyone happy! A very Godot idea!

Sep 24, 2008 - 7:06 pm 28. PC14:

This would be what the common folks would have to do. If they were on leave from their jobs and a crisis occurred, they’d be expected to get back and help solve the problem. Since McCain and Obama’s only actual jobs are as US Senators, getting back to work seems pretty reasonable. As for Obama’s multitasking comment about demands on a President, looks like he once again needs to be reminded that he might be playing President, but that he really isn’t.

Sep 24, 2008 - 8:02 pm 29. Barry Dauphin:

Obama vs. Obama debate—a mass-debate!

Sep 24, 2008 - 8:58 pm 30. Barry Dauphin:

I am cool with McCain suspending campaigning and working on this issue. I do think the debate could and should still go on. Nothing has to be “finished” for these guys to debate foreign policy. It’s Obama who needs to study. McCain could probably just walk in and take questions. Suspending the campaign and trying to work out a solution seems about right . Delaying the debate does not.

Sep 24, 2008 - 9:02 pm 31. Godzilla:

McCain did the right thing. Two weeks from now, all that will be remembered is that McCain suspended his campaign to work on a bill to fix the economy. He had to suspend the ads to show true bipartisanship. Delaying the debates a few days, even a couple of weeks is no big deal.

A good indicator that McCain did the right thing: the MSM hated it.

Sep 24, 2008 - 9:05 pm 32. Godzilla:

The MSM guy who looked the foolish was Shephard Smith. What an officious, obnoxious little prig.

Sep 24, 2008 - 9:07 pm 33. GeoffB:

As a libertarian conservative, I’ve long felt that the more I saw Obama and the less I saw McCain, the better I liked McCain. Maybe this is just another way to rally the base!

In all seriousness, the only thing scarier than Senators thinking they can save our financial system is Senators viewing the current situation as needing to take a backseat to their precious campaign. Since it’s Democrats who believe government needs to run the economy and Republicans who (usually) see it the other way, it’s especially strange for Obama not to see the importance of being there, particularly since he’s only got 40 more days before he’s President (or so I hear).

Sep 24, 2008 - 9:30 pm 34. Gary Rosen:

“I have serious doubts that either of them, or anyone running for president, could put aside their own concerns about what their approval ratings in January 2009 will be”

That’s why you’re a Democrat, Shuster, because you can’t imagine that someone might actually do something out of a sense of duty. I’m not claiming that McCain didn’t consider all the political angles when he made this move, but he just *might* have been motivated in part by the feeling that the nation is in crisis and as a leader he ought to be doing something about it. That’s why his years as a POW are not just a campaign talking point as Democrats claim.

Sep 24, 2008 - 9:49 pm 35. Roger L Simon:

Gary Rosen, as you may know I interviewed John McCain. I can’t claim to really know him, but I did spend a bit of time with him and my sense is you are substantially correct. Sure, he’s a politician, plays and has played all the angles (or many of them). But I got this sense that there is part of this guy–more than most politicians I have met anyway–that actually means what he says. So I concur with your view. This was a genuine decision, at least in part. I doubt you can ask for a lot more than that in this world.

Sep 24, 2008 - 10:17 pm 36. drill:

I’ve got to say, this McCain campaign is proving too much drama for me. Sure, go work on the bailout. But don’t grandstand about it. And don’t try to delay a debate that the country’s been waiting for and that is extremely important to this country’s future. What I don’t get is why can’t he work on the bailout AND have the debate?

Sep 24, 2008 - 10:25 pm 37. Marmoset:

“What I don’t get is why can’t he work on the bailout AND have the debate?”

What I don’t get is why a debate can’t be delayed three or four days while the candidates work on perhaps the most important legislation in our lifetimes. After all, it’s just a debate. that can wait. McCain has done the right thing.

Sep 24, 2008 - 10:36 pm 38. Colette:

Goodness gracious, it’s not like McCain is pulling out of the debates. What’s the big deal about postponing one of them for a few days? There are still 40 days left to this interminable campaign. We have plenty of time to watch them answer the same tired questions with the same tired answers. Maybe if they actually have to get together to work on a solution to this economic mess, they’ll have some new lines at least.

Sep 24, 2008 - 10:41 pm 39. Jim Blusterman:

You will be the last one to turn the lights out McCain. Talk about trolls…If he were your uncle or gramps, you’d be rolling your eyes about the things JMcC has said this week. He’s been the loose cannon that his fellow senators have warned us about. Really Roger, you may not feel comfortable with Obama, but how can you, with a straight face say JMcC is really prepared to lead this nation. If you’re the aetheist or agnostic that you claim to be, what is your true tie to Israel? You remind me of a Catholic friend of mine. If a candidate is not pro-life, he has absolutely no use for them. If a candidate does not walk the true believer path, that Israel can do no wrong, then you have no use for them as well. Are liberal Jews in Israel uninformed and weak? So in the end, if you don’t have total devotion and pledge your allegiance to the “government”, you’re not patriotic. Sorry, I’ll go back and re-read my Moses Wine novels so I can try to tell when your healthy dose of skepticism for all authority turned and you started to devolve in to this neocon troll. Damn, you use to be great Roger!

Sep 25, 2008 - 12:43 am 40. whiskey:

If the bailout is important, both candidates should be there well, LEADING. McCain is doing that.

However, lights out on the campaign? Nope, it’s stupid and seems like he’s giving up.

Why go dark? Why not point out McCain’s desire to limit compensation for execs? His willingness to go in and fight to limit taxpayer exposure? Obama’s money and adviser ties to Freddie and Fannie? Jim Johnson is STILL advising him! Dodd and Schumer helped create the mess along with Frank.

It’s stupid, stupid, stupid. Typical “Maverick.” He ought to be running hardball ads 24/7 on this.

Sep 25, 2008 - 1:57 am 41. chrisa798:

Jim Blusterman,

You are a tired, silly person. Roger is thoughtful, honest, and self-deprecating, agree or not. Leaving aside your bigotry against seniors such as McCain, who the hell are you to impugn RLS’s integrity? One of the worst traits of the left is the inability to conceive that people can diverge from your orthodoxy without being evil or stupid. But thank you, because it’s how I know the left is wrong, ultimately, and allows me to congratulate myself for being a contrarian, curmudegonely, libertarian-constitutionalist-anti-collectivism, pro-national security kind of guy (i.e. the one who pisses most everyone off).

And Clusterman, bringing the author’s past work into it as a device to accuse him of succumbing to imbecility is a most puerile display of projection.

The anti-semitism? Classy. Your entire family couldn’t lead a pile of skin that McCain shedded back in ‘70 (remember then, when he was enduring torture rather than sell out his brothers?).

Be gone, and do not come back until you have redeemed yourself.

Sep 25, 2008 - 3:39 am 42. hermie:

Mccain is doing what the people of Arizona elected him to do…represent their interests; and if there is a worakble bailout being negotiated, the people of Arizona will alaso have to pay the bills.

Obama has been running for President almost since he got elected to the Senate. As an Illinois taxpayer I want him to do his job; not simply vote ‘Present’.

Sep 25, 2008 - 5:15 am 43. Linda Frank:

Well said, chrisa798, although if I were Roger Simon I’d be flattered the Obama campaign was bothering to send trolls like Blusterman (?) to his blog. He must make them insecure. The rest of us, however, have to be bored by his triviality.

Sep 25, 2008 - 6:40 am 44. blogengeezer:

Stay in the fight Roger. You have them ‘on the ropes’. They are ‘covering and sagging’, using ‘rope a dope’ to try and regain control. Do not quit, keep on sluggin’, your heavy punches that count are starting to take their toll. The knockout punch will put the weaker contender ‘down on the deck’ (at least until the next election). I and countless others are definitely in your corner. Hang in there Rog.

Sep 25, 2008 - 7:20 am 45. Markus:

Another curveball from the weirdest major candidate for the presidency in as long as I can remember. Whatever you think of him and his policies, McCain is definately a drama queen. If he gets elected, I expect curve balls like this every month. One week it’ll feel like we’re replaying the Cuban missle crisis, the next week he’ll be Reagan at Reykiavik, proposing to scrap all nuclear weapons. All drama all the time. All the while guided by whatever side of the bed he gets up on and whatever feels like “honor” that day. And by ideologue advisors committed to the same bankrupt neocon ideologies.

Seriously I don’t expect many here to agree with the last part, but I think it is undeniable that, one, he is a strange, unpredictable man, and, two, he loves to take risks. Not the traits I want in my President.

But yes, if your critical issues are which candidate is more likely to bomb Iran, kick Russia out of the G-8, and work hard to get South Ossetians back into Georgia, then drama or no drama, McCain is your man. He may also be good as far as pushing Social Security privatization.

Sep 25, 2008 - 7:23 am 46. Markus:

The other thing, what makes McCain think that the people who are in the middle of busting their asses to try to solve this mess — Paulsen, Bernanke, Geithner, Dodd, Frank, Shelby, Bachus — need his help? McCain hasn’t been doing anything in the Senate for months, now he wants to waltz in and be a hero. Like I said, what a drama queen.

Sep 25, 2008 - 8:35 am 47. Carol:

As a undecided swing voter, I think McCain did the right thing.

I realize most people that post comments are either partisan Obama supporters (McCain is dumb!) or partisan McCain supporters (McCain is brilliant!).

I think this actually play well with undecided voters. We don’t feel strongly about either candidate, but we want someone to take charge and change the endless bickering in Washington. McCain signals that with his speech yesterday in my opinion.

Sep 25, 2008 - 9:08 am 48. Roger L Simon:

Well, Markus, since you asked, McCain is the putative leader of the Republican Party (Bush being the lamest of ducks) and the Republicans are creating the biggest obstruction to the package at this point. McCain more or less agrees with the Dems on this issue (some differences). Therefore he is the man who can push through the compromise.

Sep 25, 2008 - 9:15 am 49. Markus:

Then, Roger, McCain ought to simply say we need an agreement, and it needs to be bipartisan. And then get back to preparing for debate. Which I understand is exactly what he is going to do, with Obama, this afternoon.

Sep 25, 2008 - 10:20 am 50. Mike Shuster:

As usual, I think blogger Ross Douthat is right about this whole thing and why both McCain’s ’suspension’ and Obama’s reaction to it are disappointing and silly:

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/an_election_about_nothing.php

Sep 25, 2008 - 10:33 am 51. Godzilla:

Paulson needed McCain in Washington:

McCain answered the 3 A.M. call.

McCain did the right thing.

Sep 25, 2008 - 10:52 am 52. Roger L Simon:

Maybe so, Mike Shuster… but you are assuming the following is not true…

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/25/schieffer-paulson-warned-bailout-would-fail-unless-mccain-got-invo

I certainly don’t know.

Sep 25, 2008 - 10:53 am 53. Mike Shuster:

That is an interesting tidbit, and I don’t want to parse it too closely without more info, but I remember Drudge reporting very early yesterday morning that only four or five Republican congresspeople were supporting the Paulson plan. But, early yesterday morning, the ‘Paulson plan’ was, in fact, the nutty no-oversight no-compensation-limit plan. (A plan which McCain had tenuously suggested over the weekend he *would* support, before backtracking a bit.) Then, later in the day, the media was reporting that a bipartisan consensus was building around the Frank-initiated alternative plan.

The point being, it sounds to me like the ‘political cover’ Paulson was asking McCain to provide the Republican caucus (assuming the call was made early in the day) was for some variation of *his* plan, rather than the (in my view) the better plan that emerged later in the day and which did in fact seem to have widespread bipartisan support.

In any case, it sounds like there’s been a deal reached. Which I assume means the debate is happening (?). I’m sure the McCain campaign will argue that all his drama yesterday added to a sense of urgency. And that’s the kind of thing that isn’t really provable either way, but it seemed to me that there was already a pretty urgent negotiation process going on before his announcement yesterday, and that there would have been a deal anyway. It’s not like there was some huge logjam. The White House proposed a crappy plan, Congress on both sides rejected it, and came up with something more sensible within a couple days.

Sep 25, 2008 - 11:17 am 54. Godzilla:

For those who think McCain’s campaign suspension is primarily a political ploy, you should back up a little and see the forest for the trees. McCain has taken a substantial risk, one that he did not have to take. There is no guarantee that this bailout package will even succeed. Who knows if Paulson has estimated the size of the problem correctly? However, if the general premise that a failure to act would lead to a 1929-style collapse is true, then McCain was morally obligated, as a Senator, to try to convince the republicans to get on board with the package. This will seep into peoples’ consciousnesses eventually.

Sep 25, 2008 - 11:21 am 55. Godzilla:

It’ll be interesting to see how Obama votes on the bill. This really is a Russian Roulette moment.

Sep 25, 2008 - 11:24 am 56. Godzilla:

Prediction: there will be a debate. Then McCain will return to Washington if the bill isn’t passed yet.

Sep 25, 2008 - 11:44 am 57. Huan:

Zogby now has McCain up by 2 as opposed to down by 3 last week
Gallup now has McCain even with Obama after being down by 6 last week.

Are these response to
McCain’s maneuver?
Uncertainty with Obama?

Regardless, it suggests that there is room for McCain to maneuver when it comes to the economy.

Sep 25, 2008 - 12:29 pm 58. Barry Dauphin:

Although I have thought the debate should go on (as I don’t know that McCain and Obama have to be in Washington—but I’m willing to be proven wrong about that), McCain has achieved something interesting. Obama has much less prep time. Obama needs much prep time. McCain could probably walk onto stage at the last minute and be ready to go.

…Fade to self indulgent fantasy….Obama heads to Mississippi early. McCain stays behind but helps broker a deal. Deal happens and it looks a lot like what Andy Kessler in today’s WSJ laid out. McCain walks onto stage at last minute and uses his time in the first question to talk about the deal and how he expects the American taxpayers to make money off of this and reduce the national debt, then onto the disgrace of Sarah Palin being disinvited from the Iran protest…

OK too much to hope for.

Sep 25, 2008 - 4:35 pm 59. Vic:

I think suspending the campaign and debate is a bad idea, primarily because come November 4 we will all hopefuly be voting for one of these candidates and frankly speaking I would like to hear what they have to say head to head about a number of issues.

And as a number of people here have stated, they need to be able to deal with more than crisis at a time. I think not debating simply gives the American people less time to make an informed decision.

Sep 25, 2008 - 6:21 pm 60. Godzilla:

If Dick Morris is right, not only will McCain show up for the debate, but he will be behind a bailout bill that does not fork over 700 billion dollars to Paulson. Supposedly, the republicans are crafting a package in which the government becomes insurers rather than lenders. According to Gringrich, the vast majority of americans will be fully behind this plan.

Sep 25, 2008 - 8:01 pm 61. Godzilla:

And the beauty of the republican plan is that it is NOT the one that Bush wanted.

Sep 25, 2008 - 8:04 pm 62. Godzilla:

In fact, it’s beginning to look like McCain took Obama to school.

Sep 25, 2008 - 8:09 pm 63. Annabel:

Vic, there will be debates. No one suggested there wouldn’t be. The question was whether one of them could be postponed for a few days. As for dealing with more than one crisis at a time, there is only one – the financial meltdown. A scheduled debate is not a crisis. It’s an appointment that can be moved. There is such a thing as prioritizing. What’s more important, making sure our economy doesn’t collapse, or going on television on Friday night to answer the same superficial questions from the moronic press instead of going on television to answer their questions a few days later? The election is 40 days away. Trust me, no one will be deprived of hearing from these two candidates.

Sep 25, 2008 - 8:50 pm 64. Vivian:

Annabel–thank you for some sanity about the debates. It’s refreshing to know someone else believes we can all survive a couple of days without a rice-pudding-eating contest cum political debate between Obama and McCain. Now that this epic event has passed, and I have read the transcripts, I can see that I missed nothing by electing to go to an ESL class with some international students instead of sitting by the boob tube Friday PM.

I’m not sure which would have been more boring, to watch the debates or merely read them online. BO restates each sentence he utters, so he could have used 1/2 the time. For me, there were 2 interesting moments in the debate:

1. McCain’s wonderfully subtle allusion to the presidential seal and
2. Lehrer’s question about which government programs would be cut or reduced to pay for the buy out.

It is a shame that in our short-attention-span world, candidates are given so little time to answer a question. The allotted 2 minutes seems to have been perfectly calculated to provide no new information while allowing sufficient time for grand-standing, yet protecting both candidates from hanging themselves.
I wish more time had been allotted for the questions.

Sep 27, 2008 - 10:19 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: