[DonaldM_23]

During the week Sen John McCain state that he wants to cancel fridays debate to tackle our country economic crisis. Barak Obama response was; The next president needs to "deal with more than one thing at once." Do you think that due to McCain lack of experience and a poor econmic plan is the reason he's looking to delay friday's debate. Is this a political stunt to show the nation that McCain priority and strength is the ecomony. As the next president we need to hear each canadates outlook during the debate to know how the econmic crisis will be handle. Let me hear you america lol

[NeedKarma]

[Wondergirl]

How many presidential debates will there be then? Will there still be a veep debate? I have my beer and snacks all ready.

[tomder55]

We have had most of 2 years for the candidates to present their positions .I doubt that anything new will happen at formal debates besides a gotcha moment and perhaps a gaffe.

If Obama had agreed to a series of 10 town hall forum style "Lincoln -Douglas "debates then perhaps they would've be instructive and informative.

Both these clowns are paid by the taxpayers to be Senators and now is a time where we need our Senators on Capitol Hill solving a potential melt down of the economy . With that at stake the debates seem trivial in comparison.

[Wondergirl]

Both these clowns are paid by the taxpayers to be Senators and now is a time where we need our Senators on Capitol Hill solving a potential melt down of the economy . With that at stake the debates seem trivial in comparison.

Piffle! How many Senators are there to discuss this?? Three? Ten? Fourty-two?? Besides, McCain was in his limo and busy elsewhere when the bailout was pretty much hammered out. Ever the Republicans are saying they didn't need his input.

And the proposed bailout is totally wrong, by the way.

[Merris]

Politically a debate on Friday would be suicide for McCain. Right now the economic crisis our country has faced in modern times due mainly to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that allowed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, or depression-era laws protecting taxpayers from predatory lending. This legislation drafted by Republicans and John McCain's own presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser, Phil Gramm, from summer 2007 to July 18, 2008. The entry on wikipedia has recently been changed (interesting) to take out the fact that although the legislation was signed by Clinton it was in fact veto proof. It had the majority vote in both the senate and the house.

McCain would have also been put on the spot about the Keating 5. He was one of the accused senators in a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

[tomder55]

The Keating 5 is a loser argument that the Dems will not seriously touch. 80% of the Keating 5 were Dems and McCain was completely exonerated by the Dem investigator Robert Bennett (who you will recall also served as Clintoon's laywer during the impeachment ).

It will be tough for the Dems to make a case against the repeal of the Glass-Steagal since it was passed with so many of their votes including Speaker Madame Mimi Pelosi.

Since you are willing to go so far back into history though why not go back to the days of HUD Andrew Cuomo and the rest of the Clinton Adm. That changed the lending rules in the 1st place ? Or the corruption and outright fraud by Fannie Mae execs and Congressional oversight committee chairs who's pockets were being lined by Wall Street ? Why is it that the Dems who love show trials have not held one of those witch hunts during this crisis ? When Enron went down we knew the names of everyone and their heads were paraded around on a pike.

Wondergirl.

McCain suspended his campaign when Tres.Sec Paulson appealed to him to come to Washington . Obama said call me if you need me and it took a call from the President to coax him to do his job. Now he will be in Washington so he can cast his "present" vote.

Why have a debate when there is a donny-brook in the halls of Congress with the world turned upside down ?
The Pelosi led Congress is siding with the President and the Wall Streeters in a deal that you call totally wrong. I agree by the way .
The minority in the House is standing stalwart with "Main Street "refusing to spend $700 Billion of the people's money on the plutocrats. Obama ,Reid et -al got on TV last night to accuse the Republicans of not cooperating in the theft . How Precious!! The last two weeks, Obama has enjoyed his double game of blaming the Administration for the crisis and then claiming he was going to protect Main Street from Wall Street. Within one hour at the White House,Obama and the whole Democratic Party was demanding that the GOP help push money at the bankers. If I didn't know better I would think this is a diabolical Rovian plot to trap Obama . But ;with him being elbow deep in Fannie Mae cash ,it doesn't surprise me that he is siding with preserving the status quo.

[ETWolverine]

You guys have missed several important points.

1) The debate on Friday is about FOREIGN POLICY. Finance won't enter into it. So whoever said that McCain is afraid to face Obama over financial issues doesn't know what he is talking about.

2) By suspending his campaign, flying to DC and asking for the debates to be delayed, he's looking like a man of action. Compare that to Obama's response of "If you need me, call me." Whether McCain NEEDS to be there or not is irrelevant... by putting himself there, he looks like a man of action, and Obama doesn't.

3) By putting himself in DC at the meetings, he puts himself at the center of the most pressing issue on people's minds as part of the solution. McCain has linked himself with those who are working to solve the economic problems. By pulling McCain away from DC for the debates (which could just as easily be held at a later date) Obama is seen as inhibiting McCain's attempts to be part of the solution.

4) By linking himself with the solution, McCain is able to blunt Obama's argument that McCain is "part of the problem".

This move puts McCain in a good light and if Obama fights it, it puts Obama in a bad light. Sure it probably is a stunt. But it's a stunt with no down-side and quite a bit of up-side.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello El:

You're right. Bad light for those who WISH it to be a bad light. Count yourself among that group.

As a matter of fact, his weird machinations of late show HIM in a bad light. He dissed Letterman in favor of Couric, and then got caught LYING about it on LIVE TV. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

In terms of the economy, McCain HAS no solution, therefore he IS part of the problem. Specially when the big boys HAD a deal (which you apparently support), and his "stunt" derailed it.

People are scared. They don't want stunts. They want answers. McCain has none. He's an empty suit and Palin is an empty skirt. I already knew it, but it's becoming abundantly clear to anybody who is watching.

excon

PS> Lest you think I believe Obama has a solution, let me disabuse you of that notion.

[tomder55]

Ex
Do realize how much heat CBS is under for Letterman's stunt combined with the revelation that Couric intentionally dissed GOVERNOR Palin ?

Word is getting out that at the White House meeting the Dems deferred to Obama to take the lead and that Obama completely lost control of the meeting .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Ahhh, I see. It's CBS's fault. What?? McCain doesn't decide what interview to do?? I figured you'd LIKE a president who's in charge. Guess not.

Next. You say Couric dissed Palin, when what she did was expose her. Uhhhh, that's her job, no?? Unless you think the job of the press is to lob softballs, like Hannity did.

Besides, IF it WAS a diss, it was a diss on McCain for picking such a dufus.

Finally, I don't think Obama starred here either.

excon

[Wondergirl]

Since you are willing to go so far back into history

McCain keeps taking us back to Vietnam and his POW years.

Wondergirl.

McCain suspended his campaign when Tres.Sec Paulson appealed to him to come to Washington.

McCain threw over the Letterman show with the excuse that he was on his way to bail out the bailout gang, then appeared on Couric's show that same evening, hung around NYC the rest of the night, didn't show up in Washington until the next morning, proceeded to be totally ineffective and even caused upset by bringing his "suspended" campaign into the bailout meeting.

What a guy!

[Wondergirl]

2) By suspending his campaign

The thing is, he didn't. TV ads were still being run, money was still being collected, and his eventual presence at the bailout meeting the NEXT DAY was too little, too late.

[Wondergirl]

the revelation that Couric intentionally dissed GOVERNOR Palin ?

You must not have watched that interview. Couric was totally nonplussed at the bizarre answers Palin was giving. Couric didn't diss her; she dissed herself.

[speechlesstx]

Powerline has posted a terrific take on this, much of which tom has already pointed out:

McCain leads, Obama follows

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, It is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.

This whole episode should be very revealing to the voters. The Dems are feckless and gutless, they want to control the House, Senate and White House but in a time of crisis don't want to take sole responsibility for a solution - they want Republican cover for something they claim has to be done now.

McCain, whether it was a stunt or not, did the right thing by returning to Washington and inviting Obama to come along. Obama wants to "appear" presidential but doesn't want to get his hands dirty this close to the election - I'm sure he's spent way too much time scripting his debate and can't afford to be distracted.

After yesterday's meetings, the Dems are basically saying it must be McCain's because he's here, while McCain should be asking "where's a good community organizer when you need one?"

Meanwhile, the blogosphere is worrying about witch hunters and the end of America as we know it if Palin is VP, and leftist groups are running a sick ad that tell us the reason we shouldn't vote for McCain is because he's had cancer, while the Obama campaign is threatening the media for running ads he doesn't like.

I think if that's the best people can do to derail McCain, it's his fault because he's here, the witch trials will begin soon, the end of America is at hand thanks to a VP and horror of horrors, McCain has had skin cancer, then some people really need to get a grip on reality. I'm sure I could find you a good therapist.

[tomder55]

Wondergirl
I wasn't talking about that. Couric made an executive decision and ordered her staff to purge the use of the honorific title "Governor " in any CBS report or in her interview . She gave the courtesy to Biden but not to Palin .Just look at the trascript provided by CBS News and you'll see I'm right. This link provides both .
Couric & Co: CBS News Blogs and Editorial Forum - CBSNews.com

What Letterman did was use unreleased footage of McCain having makeup applied in prep for the Couric interview to make a cheap joke. McCain did not do his show because he was on his way to Washington and did not think it appropriate to yuck it up on late night comedy shows.

[Wondergirl]

McCain did not do his show because he was on his way to Washington and did not think it appropriate to yuck it up on late night comedy shows.

McCain wasn't anywhere close to leaving for Washington. He DUMPED Letterman. He left NYC for Washington the NEXT MORNING.

late night comedy shows

Letterman is TAPED at 5:30 p.m. Mon-Thurs.

[tomder55]

Fine by me. He gets kudos for that. Letterman is only filling in until ConanO'Brian is ready.

[spitvenom]

Tom, Conan is taking over The Tonight Show at the end of 09 for Leno.

[tomder55]

Oops to me they are interchangeable . Only watch Jon Stewart and Colbert anyway.