posted
McCain, "We are the Mavericks. We will bring CHANGE. We will bring transparency and openness to the dark halls of Washington....hold on...we have a crisis. Excuse me but I must run back to Washington and do some important work in the dark halls there. Um, trust us, what we will get done is for the good of us all, but I have to cancel my open public debate so I can do some back-room deals for blowing $700 Billion."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: But imagine that one of the presidential candidates was, say, a key official in FEMA. Should they go on with the debates during Katrina?
But this isn't Katrina. This is an economic crisis. They aren't the same. We are in one situation right now, not the other, and the constraints imposed by one are not equivalent to the constraints imposed by the other. That is obvious. [ack! don't mean to sound snarky. My apologies. I am confused as to the relevance of the analogy here.]
This is a time of economic crisis which will be dealt with by discussion and debate, and also by actions and proclamations made during regular business hours. Unlike a hurricane, there isn't likely to be anything that comes up unscheduled (like an unscheduled Senate vote -- do they even have those? -- or a foreign leader that absolutely must talk to this particular senator right this very minute (?)) which couldn't be delayed for 2 hours. And scheduled things could be booked around, especially given that the debates could be held at night.
Moreover, even if -- [i]even if -- something unscheduled came up that had to be dealt with by a given Senator right that minute -- well, unlikely to say the least, but then the debate could be postponed right then, especially if held in Washington, and the Senator could do whatever he needed then. I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In order to go to Washington, did he really need to suspend the campaign? Could Palin not have continued campaigning in his stead?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoot, here I am firing off commentary like I expect you to answer for the administration. I don't docmagick, I'm just expressing confusion, bewilderment, and frustration.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
And I don't see why moving the debates is such a problem.
Again--I'm not saying it's a matter of one thing being obviously necessary to happen right then, and the other being obviously insane to have happening at that moment. Both are movable, and it's just a matter of what your priorities are that determines which one you'd rather have happening--in other words, it's completely subjective.
To me, even though I think it's a political mistake, I think it's better for the country that he's doing what he's doing.
It's the market that some are comparing to a ticking time bomb. Every day we put off the solution is another day of uncertainty and potential harm in the market. Right now, the hope of finding a federal solution is keeping the market tenuously perched, but no one is really certain what will happen if a solution either doesn't happen or gets delayed.
That might be where you're not understanding my comparisons to Katrina--this is seen by those participating in it as possibly preventing an economic disaster comparable to the great depression.
But even that's just speculation. It's a place we've never been before. So nobody's really sure how much action is necessary and how fast in order to provide an effective and lasting solution at as little cost to the taxpayer as possible.
We're just in this huge state of economic uncertainty right now, and so how fast we need to act is as up for debate as, well, whether or not we should move forward with Friday's debate. Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
USASurvey I think did a poll earlier today (that was fast, I know) to ask what people think of McCain's move. Personally I thought he'd get great press out of it, but it seems to be backfiring. Only a tiny fraction, 10% or so, of people think that it was a good decision for him to suspend his campaign, and less than that think that the debate should be postponed. Most people think it should either go on as scheduled or that the subject should be changed from foreign policy to the economy.
If the subject IS changed, it'll be a strategic coup for McCain. It was in Obama's interest to have the FP debate at first, and especially on a Friday night to depress viewership, and to have the last debate be on the economy, where Obama is considered to be stronger, just before the actual election is held.
But really, neither McCain nor Obama will be taking point on this, which is part of why McCain's argument is so silly. This is being hashed out amongst dozens of Congressmen and Senators. The idea that the two of them will come riding in to town to break the logjam, when the whole thing hasn't even been laid out yet, is goofy to me.
The biggest differences in the plan aren't between McCain and Obama, though frankly I don't know where either of them stand on specifics since McCain keeps going back and forth on how he feels about a bailout. The biggest problems are going to be between Congress and a Presidency who is threatening to veto if there is too much oversight in the final bill. Bush is holding a gun to Congress' head, and I really don't know which side will blink, but I don't think it's Congress this time.
Republicans and Democrats are about to make for unlikely bedfellows in staring Bush down. Democrats see this as a bailout for the super rich while Republicans see it as over the top government interference. Both of them want a bipartisan oversight board, Democrats want limits on executive pay, and Bush is urging them to pass the measure while threatening to veto if they insist on oversight for Paulson. Neither side is going to so handily give away massive amounts of power and money to SecTreas.
For the good of the country? It probably makes sense to change the debates to do the economy this Friday night, but I don't see how McCain skipping out makes any sense at all. They can spare three hours on a Friday night to go debate and be back to work the next morning. Them not being there isn't going to hurt anyone, anything, or slow the process one bit. So I don't buy the whole "he's doing it at his own expense for the good of the country" bit. That suggests that ONLY he could possibly fix the problem, and that him being away will cause the whole thing to collapse. I think it's highly likely that him not being there won't really matter at all. He can literally phone in his objections and show up when necessary to introduce amendments.
I think his actions are a play to make himself seem like some sort of authority on the economy while portraying Obama as more interested in winning an election. It's part of his whole shadow argument that Obama is unpatriotic and selfish. If he can portray himself as getting ahead of the problem and as being hands on, then regardless of what the final bill has in it, he can claim some credit and hope to neutralize Obama's lead on economic matters. I think he's playing politics, but he's throwing a long ball, cause this whole thing could backfire on him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't compare this to Katrina. You just can't. Besides, you can't even compare McCain to the position the head of FEMA was in during the aftermath of Katrina. McCain is not a strong economic leader and I don't know what he thinks he can bring to the table in DC. I'm sure that if Washington has any brains, REAL experts are being consulted. I heard that just yesterday McCain had admitted to not yet having read the bailout proposal. And before this week, he was going on about how "strong" the current economy is. He is hardly worth his vote, especially considering how many he has missed in the past year.
This financial crisis is not going to be solved overnight. And the person elected president will be in charge of the aftermath and hopefully leading the country into a brighter economic future where the government doesn't have to bail out banks while the CEOs enjoy their multi-million dollar retirement packages in one of their many homes.
I don't even care if the debates had been canceled and the campaigns temporarily suspended, as long as both candidates had decided together. Its McCain's actions that I find most despicable. From a political standpoint, I know why he did it. So he'd look like a leader and Obama would look like the bad guy more concerned with talk than action. I am so happy that Obama went up there and explained the timeline, making it very clear that it was his plan that McCain took credit for and ran with it into the end-zone of crazy.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
And I don't see why moving the debates is such a problem.
I think my concern is my memory (maybe not accurate?) of past presidential debates having been put off postponed, or delayed to the point that at least one or two were never held. I think that outcome would be a real and significant disservice to the country and its citizens.
quote:That might be where you're not understanding my comparisons to Katrina--this is seen by those participating in it as possibly preventing an economic disaster comparable to the great depression.
No, my quibble isn't with overall significance or impact, it's with correlating the acuity of the potential need to be at a specific other place at night.
From 8-10pm Friday night in Washington during an economic crisis, no matter how huge != from 8-10pm on Friday night in Washington during a hurricane which could cut a disasterous swath through multiple states at any given time. The demands on the individuals involved at that level aren't even in the same ballpark.
quote:But even that's just speculation. It's a place we've never been before. So nobody's really sure how much action is necessary and how fast in order to provide an effective and lasting solution at as little cost to the taxpayer as possible.
Right. So he stays in Washington and has the debates in Washington. No problem.
I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks because he! might need to be! immediately at the ready! totally unexpectedly! at any moment! He's (I'm sure) going to sleep for hours at a stretch most nights, because they can wake him if they need him -- just like he could be called away from the debates if they need him. Actually likely more quickly, as he'd already be up and dressed.
posted
I may be thinking of 1980, when there were only two presidential debates and no vice presidential debates. I can't quickly find out whether that was the intended scheduling from the beginning.
Regardless, I'll bet a personalized sonnet that we are not going to have all (typically three) presidential debates and a vice-presidential debate this year. At least one of those just won't happen. I'll throw in a pen-and-ink drawing of your choice of subject (PG only, of course), too!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I tend to see McCain's actions today as being politically opportunistic, I don't think it's fair to say that the debate is just a few hours on Friday night. The candidates have been drilling, probably several hours every day, for the past week or two and are going to continue doing so until the debate actually happens.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure they are. I'd be delighted to see how the persons who want to be the future leader of my country -- during a time of crisis -- handle multi-tasking, competing pressures, and facing questions which they may not have gotten drilled about in advance.
That's the job they are applying for, no?
Especially given that at this point, neither of them are taking point. Yet.
As Lyrhawn stated,
quote:But really, neither McCain nor Obama will be taking point on this, which is part of why McCain's argument is so silly. This is being hashed out amongst dozens of Congressmen and Senators. The idea that the two of them will come riding in to town to break the logjam, when the whole thing hasn't even been laid out yet, is goofy to me.
posted
The Katrina analogy is rather horrible, for all the reasons that Claudia has brought up, plus you're just plan giving McCain the wrong position in this situation. McCain isn't in the Republican leadership, he's not in the Banking committee where the hearings are being held, he's not at the White House where the executive side of things are being taken care of. This might not even hit the floor for open debate until the weekend, and only then would he be able to shape the bill. Besides, there are 99 other senators that are all going to have their say as well when it comes to the floor for a vote. McCain, regardless of his campaign status, isn't going to be the KEY player here, that's going to be the leadership, and likely Dodd as the Chairman of the Banking Committee.
On the trail, he can speak with the power of a potential president, on the floor of the senate, he'll be one voice amongst many. I think he needs to be at that debate.
quote:I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks
Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that vampires don't sleep.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Docmajik was wondering why moving the debates is problematic. For one, the University of Mississippi has already been setting up the auditorium for the debate, it would be rather silly for them to have to take down all of the stuff and put it back up on the whim of when McCain is ready to debate. Especially because they probably have other uses for that Auditorium in the coming weeks. They've also already spent something like 5 million dollars setting up so far, should we really force people to eat it?
Another separate reason is the television scheduling. Sure, they can throw in a fun movie or some re-runs if need be, but they schedule around these debates, with weeks of planning ahead. We don't have weeks to plan ahead. We have about 40 days to the election. It's not fair to the television networks.
In a time of crisis like this, it's good for us to see a leader, someone who emanates a feeling of authority and control, a person we can trust. Even though the debate was on Foreign Policy, I think that seeing a man with stable judgement and beliefs we can relate with is more beneficial than knowing that he's fighting the good fight in Washington.
Now for my own note on all of this. It just seems silly to me. Hearing McCain is stopping his campaign to go save the economy is just ridiculous. John McCain isn't going to swoop down into the senate, with a big M emblazoned on his chest and saving the economy. He gives himself too much credit on how effective he'll be. I'm pretty sure that the senate can function and deliberate on the economy without Senator McCain, and to pretend otherwise is pretentious and silly.
(That said, I will play devil's advocate here for a minute, even against my own beliefs. Technically... isn't this what McCain's supposed to be? He hasn't been elected president, he HAS been elected senator. Shouldn't he, y'know, be doing his job in times like this?)
But one more thing that was an interesting point that was brought up. Even during the Civil War, Lincoln campaigned... Our nation was literally broken then. Just some food for thought.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that more constructive work will get done in Congress if the presidential candidates are _not_ there.
Again, there is a difference between deliberate speed and reacting in crisis mode. I am loath to believe this administration (again) when they try to rush their agenda with dire warnings. It is reported that Sec. Paulson had been preparing this plan for some time. Why not let Congress in on the plan then so they had some time to digest it?
quote: Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
quote: I'd be delighted to see how the persons who want to be the future leader of my country -- during a time of crisis -- handle multi-tasking, competing pressures, and facing questions which they may not have gotten drilled about in advance.
I don't disagree. I just winced every time someone said "a couple hours." It's an unnecessary exaggeration.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be a 3am phone call rousing both of them to a surprise debate. I want to see how they fare in that kind of situation.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Well, okay then. I'll try to avoid putting the cringe on you again. But you could have debates with only a few hours set aside for them -- it would be the minimum. Of course, you could choose to do more.
I'd like to see a presidential candidate make that choice, I really would, if each were faced with the same choice. That sure would be useful to see.
I guess I'm hard on presidential candidates. I'd like to see 'em put through the wringer now just so I can get a better idea of how they'll look in it later.
---
Edited to add: Yeah, Mucus -- what sort of person is answering that phone call? Would be good to know, no?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you may have missed my post on the last page, but it was Harry Reid who said they needed McCain to run point for the Republicans on this.
quote:Democratic congressional leaders had been demanding for days that McCain take a more forceful position in favor of a bailout and rally his party behind him. What they did not want was either McCain or Obama in the room -- a prospect that suddenly seemed to materialize yesterday, only to dissipate in a rapid-fire series of events. Instead, negotiators now appear to have gotten more than they could have hoped for: both presidential candidates meeting with President Bush to deliver a forceful statement in favor of a fast, dramatic market intervention.
quote:"We got a good sense last night, even more so this morning," one top aide said. "Got in a position where Democrats were warily circling McCain -- not going to commit to a deal unless McCain does. It was just a time for leadership. So he just stepped up."
There's more in that story--if you're anti-McCain, you'll be particularly interested in the fact that while they want his support, no one really wants him in the room doing any negotiating, as well as that the deal seemed to be all but done, and they were more worried about McCain's potential criticism of the bill than what wisdom he might bring to the party.
But you'll also want to note that it wasn't until Obama came to the table and agreed to the meeting that the tensions actually eased and things started moving forward. We may have a bill passed by Friday, because people eventually came together instead of posturing. The debates may just be able to go on as scheduled.
And the good news is both parties still got to see enough bad about how the other guy handled the situation that they can go on with their partisan bickering, even while they all support the bill. Obama supporters can see McCain as fiendishly stealing credit and ducking genuine confrontation while McCain supporters can see Obama as childishly arguing about who had "dibs" on bipartisanship rather than just being bipartisan.
I hate to bring up something that came up a page and a half ago, but that's the real tragedy to me, since we got talking about about this whole Palin's preacher vs. Obama's preacher thing.
The "terrible" thing isn't that one won't be as well covered as the other.
It's the fact that even if both men were saying the exact same thing, word for word, in every sermon every week, and the words were despicable, people would still find a way to either justify or downplay that their own candidate's preacher was saying them, while demonizing the other guy's preacher for saying them.
Too many people do not use rational thought in deciding these things any more. They go into every situation with the idea already formed in our minds--the other guy is bad: How can I prove it? My guy is better: How can I prove it?
Isn't it a huge surprise how, in this situation, nearly everybody took the side that it was their candidate who handled the situation right, and the other candidate who handled the situation wrong?
And not only that, but people aren't actually reading what other people are saying. They're instead cubbyholing people into the categories they think they fit into, and then arguing with the position they think the other person is taking.
Folks, remember, I didn't use Katrina as an exact analogy. I used it as the other end of a spectrum, in order to show there were conceivably situations where a Presidential Candidate would do well to go do his regular job.
I then went on to acknowledge in my own posts that where this situation fit on that spectrum is up for debate.
My arguement, can be summed up in this paragraph, from my first post on this page:
quote:Again--I'm not saying it's a matter of one thing being obviously necessary to happen right then, and the other being obviously insane to have happening at that moment. Both are movable, and it's just a matter of what your priorities are that determines which one you'd rather have happening--in other words, it's completely subjective.
All I'm arguing is that people can disagree about this and still be moral people.
For example, I think it's safe to say that CT places extremely high value on the debates. She considers them a vital part of the political process. For the record, while I made a generalization earlier, I don't think it applies to CT--I do not think this is an arbitrary thing she arrived at simply because she prefers one candidate over the other. She cares about them enough that she can remember the circumstances of past debates, so I don't think she just arbitrarily decided to care about this one. For her, I think it's safe to say debates rate WAY higher than economic issues.
I think it's safe to say she feels we could put off dealing with this financial crisis until next week, because the potential impact of the debate on who becomes our next president is so great.
For me, I work for a financial institution. Me, my coworkers, and my customers are being crunched by this. My customers shared with me there was a mini-run on the Washington Mutual here in town, to the point where Washington Mutual had to start capping withdrawals, telling people they couldn't take their own money out of their bank. I've been having to explain to the employees I manage that I've been persuading to fund their 401k plans why those accounts are down, down, down. I didn't even go to work today--I just sat here watching the market in the financial sector, waiting for news that congress had passed something. Not for the sake of rich fat-cats, but for the sake of my employees and my customers.
For me, right now, this financial crisis rates pretty high on my list of priorities. I'm fine with a debate getting put off while we deal with it.
I am not saying I'm right and CT's wrong. I'm saying that we have different priorities.
McCain can want to go deal with this crisis and not be a coward. Obama can want the debates to go on and not want to destroy our economy.
This was not a choice between right and wrong. It was just a choice between different priorities. It does not show us who was moral and who was not. It just shows us who values what.
And I don't mean that in a naive, Pollyanish way, where we say, "Oh, McCain values the economy and Obama values the exchange of ideas."
The men are running for President, and obviously that taints their actions. Personally, I see that McCain values being seen as as a leader--he thinks that will help him. And I see that Obama values the opportunity to engage his opponent--he thinks that will help him, too. You've probably got your own list, and it's probably as tilted in the favor of your candidate as mine is of mine.
But believe me when I say that I can absolutely see how this can be seen as cowardly on the part of McCain. I think I've been saying I figured that's how people would take it all along, unless he pulled off some kind of miracle resolution--again, a miracle resolution I've said he was pretty much incapable of pulling off all along.
But like I said, at this point, it looks like there will be a joint meeting, it will allow for the bill to pass without letting it become a political weapon for either party, and it all just might happen in time for the debates to go on.
Here's to happy endings.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrhawn, you may have missed my post on the last page, but it was Harry Reid who said they needed McCain to run point for the Republicans on this.
I did miss that, but I'm not sure I see the relevence. Reid and others want McCain to pressure Republicans and the president to join with Democrats who are okay with the basic idea of the "bailout" but want a lot of changes to make sure it is done right and fairly to taxpayers. Thus far, it looks, at least on the surface, like Congressional Democrats and Republicans are coming together on this one rather well. It's looking like a rare bi-partisan Congress vs. White House rather than Republicans vs. Democrats. As presidential contenders, they figure McCain and Obama have more influence in this situation with Pres. Bush than regular senators.
Chuck Schumer I think summed up a lot of people's criticisms, that a lot of the dealing and negotiating has been done already and will be done soon, but McCain is trying to swoop in to town and claim credit for the work everyone else already has done. That certainly LOOKS like what he's trying to do, but we'll have to wait and see how this thing plays itself out.
....
In other news, has anyone seen anything from the Palin interview with Katie Couric? I've only seen snippets, but they weren't very impressive. I'll have to see the whole thing before I make a final judgment. I don't think this is the whole thing, but here's part of it.
She comes off sounding more like a campaign spokesperson rather than the VP candidate. Couric asked her three or four times to give specifics on McCain's leadership and after attempts to stonewall she was left with "I'll get back to you on that." Weak. She also came off pretty weak on the specific questions that Couric asked her. She had a line for everything, but every time Couric pressed her (which I was a little surprised to see), she either repeated the line or just deflected the question entirely.
She sounds lost. The odd thing is, she's fantastic on the stump when she's giving speeches to a large adoring nearing fanatical crowd, but when she gets out by herself, which the McCain campaign has tried their hardest to limit, and she's asked straight out questions by interviewers, I think she looks like she's regurgitating a script, and when she has to go off script, she's lost. Oddly, I think that's pretty much the exact charge that Obama was hit with a year ago, and even recently, that all he does is give speeches but no specifics. For Obama I think that was and always has been a crap charge. For Palin? She needs to get out there more and make herself more accessible, because these little snippets she gives out here and there make her look more and more out of place on the national scene. I think that when she knows what she is talking about or when no one is challenging her, she's very, very effective. But in a freewheeling debate? I think now more than I did a week ago that Biden will crush her, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot in the process of doing so. Unless she's sandbagging to lower expectations, which is possible, she doesn't look like she has a clue when she has to go off script.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks
Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that vampires don't sleep.
I am remembering the awesome GTA III radio commercial that starts: "I used to fall unconscious for hours at a time. But not any more!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A note on the Preacher v.s. Preacher debate. For a long time I've heard people of faith stating that it doesn't matter what Faith a candidate has, as long as they have strong faith in God. I've heard those supporting stronger separation of Church and State argue that one's Faith can be a dangerous thing, for you will eventually promote it and its followers over others. This debate about who's minister is most dangerous seems to support that last assertion. They seem to be arguing that "Any Faith is good as long as its strong and heart felt--and agrees with mine."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't get why anyone thinks that Senator McCain suspending his campaign is necessary. I understand that people think that swift action on the financial crisis is very important (I don't necessarily agree. I think we'd likely be better served by a longer consideration, probably with a smaller inital bailout.), but I don't see how John McCain, a man who even by his own admission is weak on his understanding of the economy and, up till what was it, 7 days ago, was saying that the fundamentals were strong, suspending everything else he is doing is going to help this along.
What is it that you see him doing during this time that he couldn't do while campaigning? I'm just really not seeing it.
---
edit: I'm pretty sure this is mainly a political stunt and an attempt to duck the debate, but treating it like a sincere effort, I would also find it worrying.
First, unless I'm greatly underestimating the demands made on him by this situation, if Sen McCain can't handle both that and any campaigning for President, I would worry about his fitness for the job of President, where you are going to be called on to handle many critical situations in overlapping time periods.
Second, I am concerned that people may be seeing this bail out as fixing the economy. Even if it were a good idea (for the country as a whole, I mean, not for the big money men who are definitely going to be helped out by this), this is not some magic wand that is going to make everything all better. The serious work is going to take place after this plan is rushed through and is going to take much longer.
posted
Harry Reid in direct statement issued in regards to John McCain and Barack Obama:
quote:This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.
posted
I would almost rather that Sen. McCain's idea to cancel the debates and suspend his campaign were a cynical attempt to look presidential. I think, though, that it stems from his need to do something, take action. The result of that urge is that Sen. McCain has been (as my grandfather would have said) going off half cocked all week.
I would so vote for Sen. Harry Reid except for his funny religion.
(just kidding. I wouild totally vote for Sen. Reid. Except I don't live in Nevada.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be worth the problem of injecting the the election politics into the situation if John McCain were an expert on the economy. But he's not. He doesn't understand it.
I think it's this weakness that is probably the biggest motivation for this move. He was looking at getting killed in a debate where the economy was going to be the main topic and this offers him a chance to avoid that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like that McCain suspended his campaign. If we are supposed to be going through a national emergency, then let's go through a national emergency. If this is just a matter of business as usual, then I don't feel comfortable funding this bailout.
posted
Perhaps this is why McCain wants to suspend campaigning and focus on just one thing:
quote:Changes in brain activity that begin gradually in middle age may explain why older adults have a harder time with concentration in busy environments, and are easily distracted by irrelevant information.
(...no I am not suggesting that the economic situation is irrelevant information...)
On a more serious note, everyone seems focused on debating the debate, which makes me wonder if the desired effect was to put up a smokescreen.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation. To explain what is happening to the citizens, to reassure them that what needs to be done is being done. In fact, to inspire them -- especially given that one of the worst turn of events right now would be for US citizens to go into flight mode, try to withdraw their money from the banks, and exacerbate a full-fledged panic.
There is already a bank being stormed in Hong Kong as people there are trying to withdraw all their money from it. For goodness' sake, that's the last thing we need here.
It isn't business as usual. It is a vetting for who is to take charge over this whole mess and lead the country -- which, like it or not, is going to include taking time to address the citizenry. That is what a president will have to do. Given that neither of these guys are in a position to solve anything [on their own]*** right now, but are in the position of being vetted for stepping in to coordinate just that, well ... I'd like to see how they handle it.
For if either was President, that is exactly what the business of the day would be for an executive in a time of crisis.
---
*** Of course, they are in a position to have input, just as a President would. Less so than the President himself, I'd guess. But the President still has to juggle addressing the public, as GWB did last night.
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Perhaps this is why McCain wants to suspend campaigning and focus on just one thing:
quote:Changes in brain activity that begin gradually in middle age may explain why older adults have a harder time with concentration in busy environments, and are easily distracted by irrelevant information.
Which might or might not well be balanced by increased experience, increased resources from more time spent in public office, increased wisdom, etc., depending on the context.
I was concerned about Reagan falling asleep during meetings he attended as President, but I wasn't necessarily concerned because of his age itself. I was concerned about how age seemed to be playing out in his case, and what seemed to be coming along with age in his case.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, you know, I'm sitting here thinking still. I would love for McCain to step up to the plate and bash this out of the park on Friday. I'd love to see him be the kind of President I and we need to get the country back on its feet -- smart as a whip, decisive, informed as all get out, savvy, inspiring, a leader.
I don't give a damn about campaign lies, mudslinging, slanderous jokes, whatever, at this point. I just want someone to run the country well. I think Obama is the better candidate for that, but shoot, whoever can best step up to the plate, just do it. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
posted
I don't know. I do know that my mother, a geriatric nurse with more than 30 yrs of experience under her belt, had called the Alzheimer's by the second term of office. She and the staff where she worked had picked up on some of the speech and facies indicators by then.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, no matter how good or bad McCain himself is, most of the "running the country" job would be done by all the folks McCain brings with him.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think most of the "speaking to the populace" job would be, too? (Honest question, not a dig or trap. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Speaking of McCain and Reagan:
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Speaking of McCain and Reagan:
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
Did he really say all those jokes, or is it hearsay?
It's a good joke and it ain't to offend.
Joking about Reagan is pretty harmless... His other jokes, however, seem rather tasteless- especially the one about rape. It simply isn't a laughing matter.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most disturbing part of that whole article was what McCain said to his WIFE. THAT little exchange shows the real man, that he would be so crass and cutting to his spouse, and in public no less.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation.
I'm thinking about the Patriot Act and how that was rammed through Congress largely because the congressmen didn't take time or screw up the courage to stop/or at least slow down, the Bush Administration. I'm thinking of all those Senators who inadvertently voted for the war in Iraq for the same reason. Honestly, I find it refreshing that McCain is willing the put on the brakes, fly to Washington, and act like a Senator.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That comment at the end of the article makes me sick. I don't care who you are, or what POW camp you were in; that was a disgusting comment. Not that the other jokes were any better :/
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rush that President Bush is putting on this bail out is probably necessary, but it reminds me about the rush and panic that went into the Patriot Act and the resolution for War that followed 9/11.
It also reminds me of the near panic that they were at when they wanted to "fix Social Security" which would have sent so much of my retirement into the markets that have tanked.
I just don't trust the administration telling us we need to panic.
At least not again.
My money, however, on why Mr. McCain is canceling the debate is not as simple as we have seen. Its not because he needs to tackle the problems. Its because he needs to come up with an excuse to cancel the VP debate next week.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I really don't get why anyone thinks that Senator McCain suspending his campaign is necessary.
This may have already been said (and I missed it in all this somewhere), but my feeling was, from his call to suspend the debate, was that "we (both he and Obama) are Senators first, and candidates secondarily. We need to get back to being Senators for this high priority - working on this issue; then resume the campaign". (those are not his words - that was just the way I understood it, as to why he was calling for the debates to be postponed).
They currently ARE elected officials, you know. They are supposed to be doing elected Senatorial duties right now.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation.
I'm thinking about the Patriot Act and how that was rammed through Congress largely because the congressmen didn't take time or screw up the courage to stop/or at least slow down, the Bush Administration. I'm thinking of all those Senators who inadvertently voted for the war in Iraq for the same reason. Honestly, I find it refreshing that McCain is willing the put on the brakes, fly to Washington, and act like a Senator.
If Sen. McCain was the only senator capable of putting on the breaks, or willing to put on the breaks, or even the best at putting on the breaks that might be true and it still would not preclude his participation in the presidential campaign.
That is not the case, though. There are lots of senators more useful in the situation. Sen. McCain is more likely to hinder progress than to help matters.
ETA: Farmgirl, of course. If their votes are needed to get a resolution passed (or defeated if necessary), both candidates should be in DC to vote.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: No reason McCain can't go to Washington AND take a break to participate in the debate.
...
No good reason, anyway.
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If Sen. McCain was the only senator capable of putting on the breaks, or willing to put on the breaks, or even the best at putting on the breaks that might be true and it still would not preclude his participation in the presidential campaign.
That is not the case, though. There are lots of senators more useful in the situation. Sen. McCain is more likely to hinder progress than to help matters.
quote:They currently ARE elected officials, you know. They are supposed to be doing elected Senatorial duties right now.
I think you may have missed the reason I elaborated on in asking this question.
What duties do you think he has to perform that he couldn't do without suspending his campaign?
I've got no problem with a candidate having responsibilities in their current position that supercedes their campaigning and can't be done while the campaign is active. I don't see any indication that this is the case here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that Sen. Obama's presence would be more likely to hinder progress than to help as well. Maybe not to the same extent... Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: My money, however, on why Mr. McCain is canceling the debate is not as simple as we have seen. Its not because he needs to tackle the problems. Its because he needs to come up with an excuse to cancel the VP debate next week.
Here's an idea I saw elsewhere today: switch this Friday's debate with next week's VP debate. Then we get to really see if the VP candidates are truly ready to step in and take over at a moment's notice.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I also had a good chuckle at the use of the word 'handler.' Apparently, politicians, like circus and zoo animals, require handlers.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am confused as to the relevance of the analogy here.]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
