McCain suspends campaign to go back to DC to work on bailout

[pbear19]

Per Politico (JMart's blog) McCain and Obama will be doing interviews with the three major networks tonight.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if McCain does cancel the debate, given that he beleives he has time to do interviews.

I read a comment by a Dem somewhere (maybe in this thread?) about how other presidential debates in the past have been held during greater crises (one during WWII, one I think that involved Lincoln maybe). Now I cannot find it. Was it somewhere on GC, or has anyone else seen it? I thought it was interesting to see that candidates have not cancelled debates in the past in the midst of big(er?) crises.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Per Politico (JMart's blog) McCain and Obama will be doing interviews with the three major networks tonight.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if McCain does cancel the debate, given that he beleives he has time to do interviews.

I read a comment by a Dem somewhere (maybe in this thread?) about how other presidential debates in the past have been held during greater crises (one during WWII, one I think that involved Lincoln maybe). Now I cannot find it. Was it somewhere on GC, or has anyone else seen it? I thought it was interesting to see that candidates have not cancelled debates in the past in the midst of big(er?) crises.

my post 52...just scroll up...hell I want that fact checked...LOL


And didn't BUSH do debates while soldiers were spilling their guts 4 years ago when some of teh fighting was at it's worst??

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

my post 52...just scroll up...hell I want that fact checked...LOL


And didn't BUSH do debates while soldiers were spilling their guts 4 years ago when some of teh fighting was at it's worst??

Thank you!! I knew it was right in front of my face, but still couldn't find it. Boss-lady hasn't been in all day and I have nothing to do, so I've been on about 50 different political sites.

I wonder if a debate has ever been cancelled?

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

I agree with a lot of this post...but not all. Voters' historic biases do tend to drive their future actions, but there are circumstances, particularly economic circumstances, where they act in a contrary fashion.

Take 1992. Bill Clinton was an alleged womanizer, pot-smoker, draft dodger, clearly the "first story" narrative most people got of him wasn't the most flattering ....but the country was in a economic rut (like now??) and voters set aside the collective "morality" issue and voted for the guy they felt had the better economic recovery plan. People do vote on a variety of issues, but when economic security is seen as threatened, a lot of other issues get pushed aside. ...So I don't think the first story that fits, always sticks.

(I'm not ascribing the motives attached to Clinton in '92 to either Obama or McCain, but am saying that while "change" or risk is a high hurdle, but one that people will readily jump if they feel their economic circumstances are sufficiently threatened.)

I read the Associated Press' tick-tock on McCain's actions/whereabouts today in DC (which I'm sure will get wide play on the more liberal media outlets.) It's not clear to me that his possible upside was worth the risk of postponing the debate when 100 million people (many uninformed on the political postering angles being played) were planning to tune in to see these guys square up.

I agree that McCain has to show up to debate. He's not going to give his opponent the undivided attention of 110 millon people.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

I'm kind of starting to think you're an idiot. Read things in context and stop just trying to go "Gotcha! hahaha dumb republican" in every response.

My exact quote was "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."

Yes, if they wanted to pass it on a party line vote they could have last Thursday. It's had the Democratic votes to pass all along. So why hasn't it? Because BOTH PARTIES WANT IT TO LOOK BIPARTISAN.

And both have said that they want to know how McCain is going to vote or what they need to get his vote. Why? Because the Democrats don't want to back it and have McCain not and be stuck in a corner with the President while Republicans don't want to put out a policy position to have pinned to their nominee if he doesn't agree with it. Looking at the fact that both sides have been watching to see what he's going to do, it kind of makes more sense for him to be there, doesn't it?

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Looking at the fact that both sides have been watching to see what he's going to do, it kind of makes more sense for him to be there, doesn't it?

I personally don't disagree with the idea of why congress cares about McCain's vote. But, I still disagree with this last bit. In today's technological age he doesn't have to physically be there to communicate his position. If he wanted to, he could debate the issue, mull it over with his advisors like he is anyway, and lay out where he stands on the issue from afar. Being physically present is not a requisite part of giving his opinion.

It could easily be said that putting himself physically there and not voicing his opinion (when he and everyone else knows why it matters) is only heightening the drama and is a ploy to get him more press (and press that has nothing to do with Palin sounding ridiculous with Couric last night or the Davis story that was picking up steam).

[CrackerBarrel]

Oh I agree, going is partly a ploy to get press. And it's a smart one, it will work I think.

But it's partly McCain's personality too. I've read on a couple of blogs (I'll save you the trouble of not clicking on them, it was The National Review and The Weekly Standard) that everyone close to McCain says its the way he has always worked, he feels like he gets a better handle on a situation by being physically involved with it. He feels like he understands it better by being there or something.

And I think it will play well with voters because it comes across as "Instead of phoning in my opinion and hoping someone listens, I'm going to go in there and get my hands dirty for it." And that's the "presidential" imagery that the McCain camp has been trying to play up.

So it may not be helpful at all, but at least now everyone that wanted to will know where McCain stands, he feels like he's done something about it, and maybe hopefully it will pick up some votes too.

[nittanyalum]

Ok, first, before I comment on part of this post, I want to ask why you didn't take off on KSigRC when he called voters "stupid" -- didn't you get on me about "the left" treating voters like they were stupid last week or so? Jeez, he flat out CALLED them stupid.

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

And I think it will play well with voters because it comes across as "Instead of phoning in my opinion and hoping someone listens, I'm going to go in there and get my hands dirty for it." And that's the "presidential" imagery that the McCain camp has been trying to play up.

See, and maybe it's because I'm a little older, but when McCain says he's diving in to get his hands dirty with financial industry regulation (or lack thereof) and resulting bailouts, all I think of is.... Keating 5. So, not so presidential for me. He was slapped on the wrist for "bad judgment" back then and I haven't seen one thing in the last almost 20 years that shows his judgment's improved on this issue since then.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, first, before I comment on part of this post, I want to ask why you didn't take off on KSigRC when he called voters "stupid" -- didn't you get on me about "the left" treating voters like they were stupid last week or so? Jeez, he flat out CALLED them stupid.

Because I don't entirely disagree with it, I just think it's dumb politics to tell voters you think so, either directly or by implying it.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

he beat Barack....how??

Uuuhh...hullo?

The economy was fundamentally sound......

Heh!

but now all of a sudden the economy is about to crater!!!

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Because I don't entirely disagree with it, I just think it's dumb politics to tell voters you think so, either directly or by implying it.

LOL. Oh, ok, as long as you apply the judgment fairly.

[pbear19]

So now I'm reading that congressional leaders are meeting again at 8:00 (which I guess means they are in meetings now) but that McCain went home at 5:00. (As did Obama, for the record.)

Now, bear in mind I don't think either of them need to be there. But why is McCain not making a point to be there, after all his drama about how vital his presence is? And why is he still not committed to the debate, when he is demonstrating tonight that he believes the process can continue without his direct input?

It's ridiculously hypocritical to me. Again, I personally don't think he needs to be in Washington (I think since he got there it's gotten worse), but if he is going to make a huge fuss about how he has to be present, how can he then not be there?

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by pbear19

So now I'm reading that congressional leaders are meeting again at 8:00 (which I guess means they are in meetings now) but that McCain went home at 5:00. (As did Obama, for the record.)

Now, bear in mind I don't think either of them need to be there. But why is McCain not making a point to be there, after all his drama about how vital his presence is? And why is he still not committed to the debate, when he is demonstrating tonight that he believes the process can continue without his direct input?

It's ridiculously hypocritical to me. Again, I personally don't think he needs to be in Washington (I think since he got there it's gotten worse), but if he is going to make a huge fuss about how he has to be present, how can he then not be there?

I was wondering where you read that they went home at 5. That's interesting to me. Normally Drudge keeps me pretty up to date, but all I'm seeing is that they left the meeting when it ended (same as everybody else I presume) and that now Bernanke and Paulson are headed back to the Hill tonight with no mention of who they're meeting with. The Hill on the other hand says "All parties were expected to work into the night."

So I was just wondering where said that since apparently there is some contradictory information about what is going on.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by pbear19

So now I'm reading that congressional leaders are meeting again at 8:00 (which I guess means they are in meetings now) but that McCain went home at 5:00. (As did Obama, for the record.)

Now, bear in mind I don't think either of them need to be there. But why is McCain not making a point to be there, after all his drama about how vital his presence is? And why is he still not committed to the debate, when he is demonstrating tonight that he believes the process can continue without his direct input?

It's ridiculously hypocritical to me. Again, I personally don't think he needs to be in Washington (I think since he got there it's gotten worse), but if he is going to make a huge fuss about how he has to be present, how can he then not be there?

pbear...my friend....

It's called FLIP FLOPPING....


And Cracka...you think I am an idiot? I have been called worse by better and face it.....I disagree with your assessment...

Until you can give me a sound rock solid reason why McCain needs to be here in DC and not ducking out Obama in something that McCain has wanted sooooo long...the only thing I can tell you is get over it and K.I.M.

Something to think about (totally out of left field mind you)

Could probably make a good ad

If McCain loses a home, how many more does he have to spare.....if Obama loses a home....is he homeless?

[pbear19]

Sorry about that! It was on Politico. Jonathan Martin quoted a pool report that said that McCain left ABC at 5:46 and arrived home at 5:57. I just guessed he must have left at 5:00ish in order to be finished with his interviews 45 minutes later.

Then The Crypt at Politico said

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says all the main players -- Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, GOP and Democratic leaders from both house -- are meeting again at 8 p.m. to "put the train back on track."

Ben Smith noted that neither Obama nor McCain were going to be at the 8:00 meeting.