McCain suspends campaign, wants to postpone the debate

[bascule]

Well, look at Johnny come lately. McCain says he's suspending his campaign and wants to postpone the presidential debates scheduled for this friday:

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-suspending-campaign-wants-to-postpone-debate-2008-09-24.html

 

What... the... hell? I'm not downplaying the seriousness of the financial crisis, but this is absurd. From what I can tell, McCain wants to push the $700 billion bailout through, and is going back to Washington to do so.

 

Ugh.

[iNow]

I'll bet you he still somehow will manage to find the time for David Letterman tonight though.

[Realitycheck]

I have no doubt that Paulson and Bernanke are qualified enough to know that what they are talking about, as well as conservative America's aversion to Wall Street socialism, not to mention every single blue collar worker's aversion to it, as well. I think that what may end up happening, what may be best, is that we just bite the bullet as it happens, really give everybody a taste of what we have gotten ourselves into. Let paper losses be paper losses. Fundamentals rule and value is just an idea. Changes in value are not taxed until realized, ie. closed. The same goes for every market around the world, it's all just an assortment of related ideas. If nobody sold or bought anything, the price would not change, but fear of loss has its effect on everybody. What happens if Fannie Mae loses half a billion dollars over the course of a couple of years as opposed to over the course of a couple of years? ???????

 

There is no guarantee that inaction will drag down the rest of the world.

[Pangloss]

Part of the issue here is the fact that McCain is somewhat in the driver's seat here. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are tying the deal to McCain's approval. Republicans, already in the minority, don't want to support a deal that their own candidate is bashing for popular votes, and Democrats see little gain in fast-tracking something while it's still being contended. Current deal ideas being floated sound promising, though, with the imposition of oversight, taxpayer guarantees and help for homeowners.

 

I don't think they should cancel the debate, but I think there is logic in not having any questions about the proposed deal tomorrow night. They need to work out the details before they stake out territory. They could talk about other aspects of the crisis.

[swansont]

I find the democrats' apparent willingness to bend over and essentially write another blank check of almost unlimited power to this administration appalling.

 

Paulson does a complete about-face on oversight, and people think he's trustworthy?

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/good-ideas-and-lies/

 

Haven't we seen enough knee-jerk legislation in the past several years to be a little more wary of these quick solutions? How well has this worked out?

 

It's scary (to me) when Newt Gingrich becomes the voice of reason.

It’s time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.

 

Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.

 

Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.

 

Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.

 

Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly' date=' precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.[/quote']

[ecoli]

He's not reallysuspending his campaign. By making this kind of announcement before Obama gets a chance to, he can play a moral high card.

 

He's just as politician as he always has been.

 

How else would he be able to get Americans to swallow this $700 billion pill.

[Realitycheck]

To be honest, I really don't see why intervention is even necessary.

 

Loan #1 goes bad. Somebody gets foreclosed on. The property gets tied up throughout the process. The used housing market explodes. New home sales plummet even further. Construction workers are out of a job. Now I see, but is this avoidable?

Edited September 24, 2008 by agentchange

[ecoli]

I find the democrats' apparent willingness to bend over and essentially write another blank check of almost unlimited power to this administration appalling.

 

Paulson does a complete about-face on oversight, and people think he's trustworthy?

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/good-ideas-and-lies/

 

Haven't we seen enough knee-jerk legislation in the past several years to be a little more wary of these quick solutions? How well has this worked out?

 

It's scary (to me) when Newt Gingrich becomes the voice of reason.

 

bullshit: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

[Realitycheck]

That article is well placed.

[Phi for All]

By making this kind of announcement before Obama gets a chance to, he can play a moral high card.

Moral high card?! According to this AP article, Obama called McCain and offered to work together for a bipartisan solution. McCain called back a few hours later and agreed to the joint announcement, and suggested suspending the debate. Minutes after getting off the phone about this joint statement, McCain held a press conference by himself and announced it alone.

 

I think McCain's moral high card is a deuce of diamonds.

 

I did like Obama's answer though: "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said at a news conference in Clearwater, Fla. "It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

 

I get the feeling McCain is a little afraid of debating the economy. I also can't wait till Biden gets Palin on stage to ask her about Fannie and Freddy and why she thinks they've "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers" when they're private entities.

[Pangloss]

I find the democrats' apparent willingness to bend over and essentially write another blank check of almost unlimited power to this administration appalling.

 

Paulson does a complete about-face on oversight, and people think he's trustworthy?

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/good-ideas-and-lies/

 

Haven't we seen enough knee-jerk legislation in the past several years to be a little more wary of these quick solutions? How well has this worked out?

 

I'm just amazed that you would actually read what Paul Krugman has to say and take it seriously. He's not an economist, he's a spin doctor.

 

Moral high card?! According to this AP article, Obama called McCain and offered to work together for a bipartisan solution. McCain called back a few hours later and agreed to the joint announcement, and suggested suspending the debate. Minutes after getting off the phone about this joint statement, McCain held a press conference by himself and announced it alone.

 

Well if that's true then I give McCain a little credit, then, for calling Obama and suggesting the debate call-off before going to the press with it. But at that point when Obama said he wanted to have the debate then McCain should have agreed to go on with it, instead of running to the press.

 

I'll bet you he still somehow will manage to find the time for David Letterman tonight though.

 

Apparently canceled.

[iNow]

I still dismiss this a complete political grandstanding and it annoys the living crap out of me.

 

Lots of Senators going to be there at 9PM on Friday night trying to tie this down, are they?

 

 

Too many games from John McCain, not enough clarity and leadership. How appallingly obvious it is that he's trying to score points, not solve issues.

[Pangloss]

Lots of Senators going to be there at 9PM on Friday night trying to tie this down, are they?

 

If this hasn't passed yet, they'd better be. It's the last day of the session.

[ParanoiA]

My best guess is that it's about getting Obama's fingerprints on the financial bailout issue - something to put him on record, in some polarized position. That and Palin, of course, could use all the time anyone can buy her to get ready for a foreign policy debate in hopes she can fool us into believing she really grips the subject.

[iNow]

I'll bet you he still somehow will manage to find the time for David Letterman tonight though.

 

Apparently canceled.

 

Letterman opens well despite the cancellation, and I think was motivated a bit by it. Watch below.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

 

 

 

But something's going on here... something doesn't smell right. This is not the way a tested hero behaves. You know, somebody's putting something in his Metamucil.

[Pangloss]

I think the FARK headline earlier tonight captured it best:

 

"Old man runs from African American asking for change."

[iNow]

Obamas comments yesterday after McCain announed his plans to suspend campaigning:

 

[swansont]

I'm just amazed that you would actually read what Paul Krugman has to say and take it seriously. He's not an economist, he's a spin doctor.

 

So? Should anyone take a non-responsive ad hominem seriously? Does the fact that Krugman wrote it mean that Paulson didn't testify before congress, didn't say what was quoted, and that section 8 of the proposed bailout didn't completely abandon oversight?

 

I don't know who Krugman is and I don't care — I followed a link. I don't care if Bozo the Clown posted it after channelling Ramtha, though. It was factual information, and that's what is relevant. Attacking the source rather than the information is a very basic logical fallacy, the worst of political discussion, and you should know better.

 

bullshit: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

 

I don't understand what you're calling bullshit on.

Edited September 25, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged; fix typo

[Pangloss]

Does the fact that Krugman wrote it mean that Paulson didn't testify before congress, didn't say what was quoted, and that section 8 of the proposed bailout didn't completely abandon oversight?

 

I don't know who Krugman is and I don't care — I followed a link. I don't care if Bozo the Clown posted it after channelling Ramtha, thought. It was factual information, and that's what is relevant.

 

It wasn't the facts I was challenging, it was your conclusion that Paulson isn't trustworthy because he changed his position on oversight. That's your interpretation, fine, but I assumed you were offering Krugman because he's a partisan hack posing as an objective economist. If that wasn't your intent, you were just sourcing him for the actual events, fine.