he beat Barack....how??

Uuuhh...hullo?

The economy was fundamentally sound......

Heh!

He beat Barack to the punch by going to Washington before Obama could say what he wanted to do.

Clearly I'm not changing your mind on this, but you're looking at it from an extremely biased perspective. I understand you don't like McCain. Thing is, neither do I, I just don't like Obama even more.

And what I mean is that from a political standpoint, McCain just seized Obama's issue. Now when Obama whines about the economy, McCain has the answer of "Well why didn't you join me in Washington to try to do something about it?"

By the same token, pretty much the only people you hear trumpeting what a good move it is are those already on McCain's side, who see it as another demonstration of leadership instead of a meaningless move by the guy who just two weeks ago told is the economy is fundamentally sound. (Or, I guess, who see it as beating Obama to the punch, like you do.)

I think we'll have to wait a while to see whether it was a good move or not -- or perhaps more to the point, whether people perceive it as a good move or not. And I think it will depend more on whether the deal finally worked out does more harm than good. (And did McCain actually help negotiate it, or was he showing up for photo-ops?)

I don't see the "why didn't you join me in Washington" attack sticking too much. From what I've seen, McCain isn't going to be able to say he did anything once he got to Washington other than meet with Obama and the president and vote when the time comes.

^
I agree with you, but the Democrats are helping him out by demanding to know how he is going to vote over and over again. It makes it seem like they're looking to take their cues from McCain, which he can portray as being a leader (and if they end up voting together reaching across party lines to build a consensus).

WOW!!!

Very astute observation on this....I think pretty much Obama called McCain's bluff on ducking the debate and seeing as Congress has it in hand, let them deal with it unless he ABSOLUTELY feels a need to be there.

Even the Repubs in session agree that progress has been made and that altho nothing is in stone as of yet....it's being handled. No deadlocks no filibusters...everyone is playing nice...so WHY CANCEL?

So again..let's answer this experience question....

Would you rather have a pres who drops everything else to go deal with one problem or a pres who will prioritize and do what's best to handle multiple problems?

Exactamundo SIR!!! A great way of 'showing' the public "Hey...I was there" (but I didn't do much except pose for pics while it looked like I was working but...hey HERE I'M IS!!!) I am the Maverick....here to rustle up Congress and save Wall Street's sorry butts from themselves!!!

How did that TV show end BTW? Does anyone remember???

Remember: voters are stupid (OK, OK - not "stupid", but rather lazy, biased by their own experiences, and without any real desire to generally learn more than they have to). They only know what you tell them. Most do not take the time to read anything beyond the first couple of paragraphs, and the sound bite rules the day. People make decisions by forming a cohesive and coherent narrative in their own mind to either confirm or deny their original hypothesis - the first story that fits becomes the decision.

Now, repeat this to yourself over and over and over again.

Once you do this, you'll completely understand why McCain pulled this move - sure, it's spin, and it's borderline hack, but the average, undecided voter will only know what he sees and will likely not think about it on this level.

BTW - there's no way Obama takes the stage alone, that would be suicide by McCain since Obama's weakness is in unscripted situations. McCain will merely use this as a "safe harbor" anchoring his own unscripted responses - he can constantly come back to this point in his speaking. It's really ABC stuff.

interesting statement I just read....


Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist, said the debate is the most important thing the candidates could do right now.

"It's preposterous that we can't have a presidential debate in the middle of this economic crisis. We had a presidential campaign in 1864, when Sherman was marching on Atlanta. We had a presidential election in 1944, when D-Day was going on in Normandy," he said. "We can have a debate on Friday. In fact, it's probably the most important thing McCain and them could be doing, would be to debate the issues."

I-Reporters told CNN that no matter what, they want to see the debate go on.

Len Parks, an independent from Stockbridge, Georgia, said he liked both candidates, but now he will probably vote for Obama.

"It made no sense to me for him to suspend his campaign. I think he's kind of grandstanding here," Parks said.

Democrat Dereck Blackburn called canceling the debate a "political stunt."

"It's very disrespectful to the elections process and disrespectful to everyone who is involved," said Blackburn, who is from Manayunk, Pennsylvania.

And Republican Katy Brown, from Kent, Ohio, said in this situation, McCain needs to take Obama's advice.

"I want to see John McCain show up, I know he's trying to do his best, and I know it's his duty to be there for this vote on the economy and the $700 billion bailout. But he also needs to be there (at the debate) because Americans need to hear from him," she said. "So hopefully this doesn't hurt him, hopefully he takes Obama's advice and multitasks and shows up."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...isk/index.html

I'm sorry I don't think that going on TV to answer questions that everyone already knows your answers to ranks up there with working out a solution to one of the biggest economic issues in recent memory. And he hasn't cancelled, he's saying he will be there if they can get something passed and wants to reschedule it if they're still working.

And there aren't multiple problems. You are looking at one problem and one glorified speech. The same thing everyone lambasted Bush for on 9/11, he didn't stop his speech and get his ass to Washington fast enough to deal with a problem.

Now McCain went to Washington to address a problem and Democrats are complaining that he won't commit to giving a speech.


And the idea that McCain is ducking a debate seems ludicrous seeing as how in the closest thing we've had to a debate thus far Obama got his ass handed to him. Debating wasn't Obama's strong point in the primaries, McCain is at his best in his "town hall forums", so according to you he's "ducking" one of the biggest advantages he could have left in this race?

I'm not taking McCain at his word, I understand that this is a political ploy. Now please stop responding to me with paraphrased quotes from Obama, because he isn't really worth taking at his word either. I think I called your bluff on that one.

The bipartisan consensus on the general direction of the legislation was reported just hours before President Bush was to host presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain and congressional leaders at the White House for discussions on how to clear obstacles to the unpopular rescue plan.

So, they've already come up with a plan that they're sure will pass the House, Senate and the President. So McCain and Obama needed to go there... why?

Unless those voters are watching David Letterman or The Daily Show.

I would bet The Daily Show doesn't have a lot of undecided viewers. Their viewership lines up nicely with a demographic of overwhelmingly Obama voters, that is social liberals under the age of 30.

Letterman I have no idea how many or who watches.

So do I but Obama wants to take it away from me.....I like Obama but he is after my money. But that is another thread, sorry.

I agree completely!!

THANK YOU!!!!

To be fair it still isn't a bipartisan consensus, the House GOP Caucus still opposes it, so the Democrats have apparently just started to decide that they'll pass it themselves (seeing as how they had a majority to start with).

The idea is/was that they need to get more members on board so it looks like a bipartisan deal and not a party line vote and is more reassuring to citizens. And according to GOP congressional leaders that won't happen unless they end up with something McCain will support. So from that perspective, having him in the negotiations will help get GOP support and make the bill look better, even if it would have passed to start with.

Looks better...BUT will it work??

You JUST said...the bill would have passed from the jump...THUS....McCain 'needed' to be there for what again? To make the bill look better??????

RRIIIIiiiiiiiight.

You can put lipstick on a pig...but it doesn't mean it will look better!!

Hell you can put lipstick on a pitbull, it's still going to bite you if you piss it off!
(couldn't resist!! HAH!)

and if it makes you feel more comfy....BOTH just left the White House....turn on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...rap/index.html