McCain seeks to delay debate to focus on economy

jimed14

so ... it appears, McCain's solution that was proposed to the debate commission ...

Make next week's VP debate the 1st presidential debate ... and move the VP debate back a few weeks.

Indeed ... I suspect this is one huge ploy to move back that VP debate.

g under p

jimed14 wrote:

so ... it appears, McCain's solution that was proposed to the debate commission ...

Make next week's VP debate the 1st presidential debate ... and move the VP debate back a few weeks.

Indeed ... I suspect this is one huge ploy to move back that VP debate.

Seriously though what's the worry about the VP debate and what's delaying it going to solve???

Peace

inmytree

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!" - David Letterman, 9-24-08

beachdweller

I think it's unnecessary. First, he's clueless on the economy by his own admission, his comments and explanation in regards to the fundamentals of the economy and it being the workers is a joke. the workforce, other than the number of unemployeed, will never be the reason for our financial collapse.

The congressional leadership is confident the bill will get through before Monday's wall st opening. McCain doesn't need to miss the debate, especially now that it's going to involve the economy, not only foreign policy.

Either he doesn't get it, or he's running scared IMO.

The world doesn't stop due to a disaster.

slightofjeff

I haven't read through all eight pages of this (yet) but I did want to add my two cents.

Maybe this is all just a political gimmick. Maybe.

I think whether or not McCain wins this "campaign moment" remains to be seen. Some people might see McCain demonstrating "true leadership" and the desire to "put the country first," and he could score points that way. But if he goes back to the Senate, and the Bush plan (which most conservatives despise) gets passed -- it will henceforth be known as the Bush-McCain plan.

And that will kill him with his base.

So whether this was a good political move remains to be seen.

HOWEVER ... it is absolutely the right move, policy wise. If this really is the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" and if the situation really is as apocolyptic as everyone seems to think ... absolutely both Senators need to be in the Senate, helping to figure this out.

They certainly don't need to be in Oxford, Mississippi, debating .... foreign policy?

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

It depends on how it plays. If McCain's sidestepping the debate because he's unprepared, and that's how it looks, it reflects poorly.

I don't think it will play this way, because the debate is/was supposed to be about foreign policy. Of all the debates, this is the one McCain would love to have. He could debate foreign policy in his sleep.

If people see at as him putting 'country first', then it reflects well. I think there's no doubt that it's politically driven, and pretty sleazy, but still we'll have to see how it plays out.

While I'll agree that everything seems "politically driven" in an election ... I'm willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt here. Regardless of his ultimate motivation, it is the right move.

I'd like to think I'd feel the same if Obama proposed the delay.

inmytree

you know, maybe mccain is right....I think I'll suspend going to work to monitor the proceedings in Warshington....I can watch on CSPAN....

slightofjeff

beachdweller wrote:

I think it's unnecessary. First, he's clueless on the economy by his own admission, his comments and explanation in regards to the fundamentals of the economy and it being the workers is a joke. the workforce, other than the number of unemployeed, will never be the reason for our financial collapse.

The congressional leadership is confident the bill will get through before Monday's wall st opening. McCain doesn't need to miss the debate, especially now that it's going to involve the economy, not only foreign policy.

Either he doesn't get it, or he's running scared IMO.

The world doesn't stop due to a disaster.

I honestly don't understand your point here. It's a fucking debate. It's more or less meaningless, and it can be held at any time.

The Senate is, you know, actual business. What these guys were elected to do. What they are paid to do.

What you're advocating is akin to going on with the circus while the big top is burning down.

jimed14

slightofjeff wrote:

I haven't read through all eight pages of this (yet) but I did want to add my two cents.

Maybe this is all just a political gimmick. Maybe.

I think whether or not McCain wins this "campaign moment" remains to be seen. Some people might see McCain demonstrating "true leadership" and the desire to "put the country first," and he could score points that way. But if he goes back to the Senate, and the Bush plan (which most conservatives despise) gets passed -- it will henceforth be known as the Bush-McCain plan.

And that will kill him with his base.

So whether this was a good political move remains to be seen.

HOWEVER ... it is absolutely the right move, policy wise. If this really is the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" and if the situation really is as apocolyptic as everyone seems to think ... absolutely both Senators need to be in the Senate, helping to figure this out.

They certainly don't need to be in Oxford, Mississippi, debating .... foreign policy?

We are fighting two wars in the middle east ..

Iranian president Ahmadinejad was just here in NYC addressing the U.N.

Not more than a month ago, Russia invaded Georgia

Rumors claim that North Korea is starting up the plutonium enrichment program again ...

I would like to think my future president can stay informed about the goings on in Washington and be called away if needed, but, be able to debate these issues simultaneously.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

I honestly don't understand your point here. It's a fucking debate. It's more or less meaningless, and it can be held at any time.

The Senate is, you know, actual business. What these guys were elected to do. What they are paid to do.

What you're advocating is akin to going on with the circus while the big top is burning down.

Ole Miss Officials: Debate Cancellation Would Be $5.5 Million Loss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/ole-miss-officials-debate_n_129057.html

slightofjeff

jimed14 wrote:

We are fighting two wars in the middle east ..

Iranian president Ahmadinejad was just here in NYC addressing the U.N.

Not more than a month ago, Russia invaded Georgia

Rumors claim that North Korea is starting up the plutonium enrichment program again ...

I would like to think my future president can stay informed about the goings on in Washington and be called away if needed, but, be able to debate these issues simultaneously.

But neither McCain nor Obama are the president ... yet (I know some of you Obamaniacs tend to forget sometimes ) ...

They are members of the U.S. Senate, and their presence is required for a vote.

Seriously, any Congressperson who is too busy to show up for what might be the most important vote of our lifetimes has no business being in congress in the first place.

Look, if either of these guys WERE president right now, and war broke out in, I dunno, Uzbekistan ... Sure, I would want them to be able to multi-task.

But, not to go all Allen Iverson on you, but we're talking about a debate here. A debate. It's basically a television show. It's a dog-and-pony show. And it can wait until Monday, you know, so that the Senators can go about the business of fixing the biggest crisis of our generation.

I honestly don't see how anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.

SoonForgotten2

inmytree wrote:

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!" - David Letterman, 9-24-08

Did Letterman actually say that? That's pretty sweet, if so.

This whole thing pisses me off. This reeks of playing politics and the fact is proven by the timelines. McCain is going to look like an absolute fool, because sorry, as the "leader of the free world" one had better be able to strike a balance between critical issues without having to call a time-out. That's just incredibly fucking WEAK. They can both have their say in Washington without postponing the debate. This shouldn't even be an issue because the government shouldn't be bailing out anyone in the almighty capitalistic US of A and certainly not a government that dragged everyone into such a mess in the first place.

To Thecure: quit whining about Obama going to Berlin. Since you apparently can't see beyond your front porch, let me crack an egg of knowledge for you: There are many, many voting Americans who live abroad. I know I'm not just speaking for myself when I say that I am encouraged by a candidate reaching out and speaking to the international community after the US spent the past 8 years pissing all over it. At the very least, it gives us ex-Pats a chance to see a candidate closer to home, or in some cases in person. If you really think that's such a bad thing, please crawl back into your cave and hope that the outside world never comes a knockin'.

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

Ole Miss Officials: Debate Cancellation Would Be $5.5 Million Loss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/ole-miss-officials-debate_n_129057.html

Well, consider it a drop in the bucket ...

jimed14

slightofjeff wrote:

But neither McCain nor Obama are the president ... yet (I know some of you Obamaniacs tend to forget sometimes ) ...

They are members of the U.S. Senate, and their presence is required for a vote.

Seriously, any Congressperson who is too busy to show up for what might be the most important vote of our lifetimes has no business being in congress in the first place.

Look, if either of these guys WERE president right now, and war broke out in, I dunno, Uzbekistan ... Sure, I would want them to be able to multi-task.

But, not to go all Allen Iverson on you, but we're talking about a debate here. A debate. It's basically a television show. It's a dog-and-pony show. And it can wait until Monday, you know, so that the Senators can go about the business of fixing the biggest crisis of our generation.

I honestly don't see how anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.

but this is my point ... (again, go back and read the previous pages) ... neither of them is the president, they are members of the Senate. There are 98 other members there, they can stay informed, have their views heard .... they are in constant contact with both their staffs and others in the Senate.

*Neither* of them are on any of the committees that are in hearings for this.

As I stated previously, I think their presence there will only hinder progress.

If a vote is called, indeed, they should be there ... but outside of that, there is notthing they can do in Washington that they can't be kept informed about.

slightofjeff

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

McCain is going to look like an absolute fool, because sorry, as the "leader of the free world" one had better be able to strike a balance between critical issues without having to call a time-out. That's just incredibly fucking WEAK. .

I'm sorry, but a debate is not "a critical issue."

It's a fucking television appearance. And it can be postponed.

And last I checked, you can't vote on a bill in Washington unless you are, you know, in Washington.

I just don't see the argument here. At all. Some television show should take precedence over the biggest crisis of our generation?

FDR in 1929 (with props to Joe Biden): "Yeah, I realize the Great Depression is looming, but I'm booked on 'Hollywood Squares.' Can it wait until I'm done with that?"

Jesus Christ. I think, by large, most of the people on this thread are pissed by McCain's position is simply because it's McCain's position.

If Obama had been the one to come up with it, you'd all be praising it as the greatest idea since two-for-one lap dances.

Blind partisanship is a bitch.

jimed14

slightofjeff wrote:

I'm sorry, but a debate is not "a critical issue."

It's a fucking television appearance. And it can be postponed.

And last I checked, you can't vote on a bill in Washington unless you are, you know, in Washington.

I just don't see the argument here. At all. Some television show should take precedence over the biggest crisis of our generation?

FDR in 1929 (with props to Joe Biden): "Yeah, I realize the Great Depression is looming, but I'm booked on 'Hollywood Squares.' Can it wait until I'm done with that?"

Jesus Christ. I think, by large, most of the people on this thread are pissed by McCain's position is simply because it's McCain's position.

If Obama had been the one to come up with it, you'd all be praising it as the greatest idea since two-for-one lap dances.

Blind partisanship is a bitch.

read the thread, some of us stated if obama agreed, we'd be disappointed.

slightofjeff

jimed14 wrote:

but this is my point ... (again, go back and read the previous pages) ... neither of them is the president, they are members of the Senate. There are 98 other members there, they can stay informed, have their views heard .... they are in constant contact with both their staffs and others in the Senate.

*Neither* of them are on any of the committees that are in hearings for this.

As I stated previously, I think their presence there will only hinder progress.

If a vote is called, indeed, they should be there ... but outside of that, there is notthing they can do in Washington that they can't be kept informed about.

To me, there's nothing that can be accomplished on the campaign trail. They need to be in the Senate until this is resolved.

Other, lower-level congresspeople who are facing re-election right now have returned to Washington? Why can't McCain and Obama?

I certainly don't see how it hurts anything, or how it hinders progress?

You'd rather them be out on the road, blaming each other for the crisis? ... talk about "hindering progress."

slightofjeff

jimed14 wrote:

read the thread, some of us stated if obama agreed, we'd be disappointed.

You might be totally genuine. But I have a feeling most people saying that to say that ... He's not going to agree, so it's an easy thing to say.

EDIT: I have gone back and read the thread and, frankly, I don't see one good reason why a stupid debate should take precedence over a crisis of this magnitude.

If someone wants to crystallize it for me, I'm all ears. But I don't see a persuasive argument so far.

I'll make it easy: "The debates are more important than solving the bailout crisis because __________"

jimed14

but ... why does McCain want to go now?

Why not a week ago? What was so important about his meeting with Bono today that he kept that meeting, but, NOW wants to go to Washington? Now he wants to delay the debate? Now he wants to move the VP debate a few weeks?

Why did he wait a week, THEN decide he was needed in Washington?

g under p

inmytree wrote:

Ole Miss Officials: Debate Cancellation Would Be $5.5 Million Loss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/ole-miss-officials-debate_n_129057.html

They're pretty excited about the debate being held down in Mississippi. I can't see McCain allowing Obama to have 90 minutes of air time all to himself. This can not be a good thing for McCain.

Peace