McCain Suspends Campaign

[HuskyCaucasian]

It took me an hour to wrap my head around this, but this is a 100% political move, and here is way.

 

If this is TRULY all about the Bailout, an honorable man would have done this:

He would have called Obama sometime between 2:25 and 2:45 and said "At 3PM, I am going to hold a press conference where I will suspend my campaigning, pull all my ads, call for a postponement of the debate, and head to Washington. I'd like you to join me. If you like, we'll issue a joint statement laying out that we are both putting our campaigns on hold and the debate will be postponed a few days. Neither of us will take credit for this. It's in the best interest of America that we do this. If you choose to not go along, then so be it."

 

Here's what John McCain did:

He told Obama he was thinking about suspending his campaign and asking for the debate to be pushed back. Hangs up the phone, a few hours later... Obama hears McCain's plan for the first time on TV in his hotel room.

[Texsox]

After reading the onslaught of pro Obama analysis I was hoping to write something in McCain's defense, but, I must say I am disappointed in McCain. Presidents and Candidates have have run for office under difficult situations throughout our history. I'm not fooled that he, or Obama, are so indispensable they just have to be in Washington, especially when the votes will be solidly down party lines. This doesn't seem like the McCain I thought was great in 2000 before getting screw over. It's starting to feel like Bob Dole. Thank you good and faithful servant, you can have the nomination. I was 51-49 McCain, but I'm losing confidence. I'm wondering if McCain is taking any leadership in his campaign, this just doesn't seem like McCain, or my image was not reality.

[DBAHO]

They've had how long to fix the economy, and now all of a sudden McCain wants to drop everything and try to help, even though;

 

A - He thinks the fundamentals of the economy is still strong

B - As per Dick's quote, he doesn't know much at all about it.

 

Reeks of desperation because all of the momentum is with Obama, and obviously with what is happening on Wall Street, he wants the debate to be delayed so he can be more prepared IMHO.

 

I don't think he saw what is happening this week and last occurring so soon after the Republican Convention IMHO.

[Reddy]

After reading the onslaught of pro Obama analysis I was hoping to write something in McCain's defense, but, I must say I am disappointed in McCain. Presidents and Candidates have have run for office under difficult situations throughout our history. I'm not fooled that he, or Obama, are so indispensable they just have to be in Washington, especially when the votes will be solidly down party lines. This doesn't seem like the McCain I thought was great in 2000 before getting screw over. It's starting to feel like Bob Dole. Thank you good and faithful servant, you can have the nomination. I was 51-49 McCain, but I'm losing confidence. I'm wondering if McCain is taking any leadership in his campaign, this just doesn't seem like McCain, or my image was not reality.

 

between the Palin shocker and this move, McCain's trying to do two things - play party politics but ALSO prove the maverick thing that appealed so much to independents. that's what this is about. he's bucking the norm, going above and beyond, blah blah blah. it's all just a ploy. he's playing a bizarre brand of politics and he got away with the Palin pick (initially) but I dont think people are going to buy this one. banked on the american public's stupidity one too many times.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For the record, McCain hasnt cast a single vote since April. Where was he during FISA and the GI Bill? No where. Shouting at a distance.

[lostfan]

the point is that obama WOULDN'T have done this because it was a terrible decision. lol

You know... speaking of that (and the post you replied to), I'm getting kind of tired of people saying Obama supporters will back him unconditionally no matter what he does or says. If he does something to piss them off, they will criticize him for it. Just use the FISA capitulation as an example, most Democrats reacted with clear disgust. Not disappointment, not disapproval. Disgust. Which brings us to...

 

For the record, McCain hasnt cast a single vote since April. Where was he during FISA and the GI Bill? No where. Shouting at a distance.

I probably would've preferred if Obama just missed the FISA vote too.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I probably would've preferred if Obama just missed the FISA vote too.

But at least he had the nuts to stand up and vote. McCain dodged FISA and when the GI bill came around, he issued a very oddly worded statement where he said he agreed with some parts, but hated others. He never said "Id' have voted for that" or "I'd have voted against it". He played politics and took both sides.

[lostfan]

What I wouldn't give to see what the reaction would have been if Obama had done this. I believe it'd be along the lines of "the Messiah shows he's great yet again!"

 

Seriously, I give props to McCain for this. Yes, he'll use it to his political advantage, but so what? Isn't that what each candidate has done 99.9% of the time the last 3-4 years? GMAFB. Everything they do is for political gain.

If Obama had done something this gimmicky or desperate he would probably be getting flamed for, or at least have his wisdom strongly questioned by Democrats, it and deservedly so.

[Balta1701]

After reading the onslaught of pro Obama analysis I was hoping to write something in McCain's defense, but, I must say I am disappointed in McCain. Presidents and Candidates have have run for office under difficult situations throughout our history. I'm not fooled that he, or Obama, are so indispensable they just have to be in Washington, especially when the votes will be solidly down party lines. This doesn't seem like the McCain I thought was great in 2000 before getting screw over. It's starting to feel like Bob Dole. Thank you good and faithful servant, you can have the nomination. I was 51-49 McCain, but I'm losing confidence. I'm wondering if McCain is taking any leadership in his campaign, this just doesn't seem like McCain, or my image was not reality.

In all seriousness...can someone explain to me a non-political reason why any of McCain's suggestions, suspending his campaign or cutting the debate, are good ideas and will actually help with the financial industry problems? How does bringing a Presidential campaign and its associated staff back to Washington along with 1 Senator who's not in charge of the negotiations or any key committees really help?

[DukeNukeEm]

In all seriousness...can someone explain to me a non-political reason why any of McCain's suggestions, suspending his campaign or cutting the debate, are good ideas and will actually help with the financial industry problems? How does bringing a Presidential campaign and its associated staff back to Washington along with 1 Senator who's not in charge of the negotiations or any key committees really help?

If anything it just riles people up into a panic.

[Texsox]

In all seriousness...can someone explain to me a non-political reason why any of McCain's suggestions, suspending his campaign or cutting the debate, are good ideas and will actually help with the financial industry problems? How does bringing a Presidential campaign and its associated staff back to Washington along with 1 Senator who's not in charge of the negotiations or any key committees really help?

That's easy.

 

The premise has to be that this is potentially a decision for the Senate to make. If there is going to be a vote on this issue, there will be many facets that need to be understood. For the Senator, any Senator, to be fully up to speed will take much time between now and the vote. The only way to have that amount of time is to suspend campaigning and start studying. Since his staff and advisers, and all the resources, are in Washington, he should be there. Further, while in reality it shouldn't't take 100 Senators to do this, Illinois and Arizona only send two Senators to Washington. Since we are the United States, each state should have equal representation in this matter. That only happens when they are all there.

[Balta1701]

That's easy.

 

The premise has to be that this is potentially a decision for the Senate to make. If there is going to be a vote on this issue, there will be many facets that need to be understood. For the Senator, any Senator, to be fully up to speed will take much time between now and the vote. The only way to have that amount of time is to suspend campaigning and start studying. Since his staff and advisers, and all the resources, are in Washington, he should be there. Further, while in reality it shouldn't't take 100 Senators to do this, Illinois and Arizona only send two Senators to Washington. Since we are the United States, each state should have equal representation in this matter. That only happens when they are all there.

So, in reply, let me take up Senator Obama's perspective...as President, it's sort of expected that you'll be able to deal with more than one thing at once. 2 planes crash in to the WTC, and the next week you're trying to worry about the deep decline in the stock market.

 

I can understand heading back to Washington if there's going to be an imminent vote, but that doesn't involve canceling appearances or the debate. In terms of studying the bill...if the bill is that complex that it needs a significant amount of study, then it shouldn't be written up and passed within a week.

 

I'm sorry Tex, I just don't buy that explanation. No one seems to have a problem when the Patriot Act is pulled off the shelf, presented to people in the morning, and is passed with a 99-1 vote later in the day. If it's that important of a bill that it takes hours of study, and that it can only be done in Washington rather than through all of the various communications devices we have right now, when at the same time you have a fairly large taxpayer funded staff who's job it is to make these sorts of bills the things you can understand, studying the bill for days is the best you can give me?

[Texsox]

So, in reply, let me take up Senator Obama's perspective...as President, it's sort of expected that you'll be able to deal with more than one thing at once. 2 planes crash in to the WTC, and the next week you're trying to worry about the deep decline in the stock market.

 

I can understand heading back to Washington if there's going to be an imminent vote, but that doesn't involve canceling appearances or the debate. In terms of studying the bill...if the bill is that complex that it needs a significant amount of study, then it shouldn't be written up and passed within a week.

 

I'm sorry Tex, I just don't buy that explanation. No one seems to have a problem when the Patriot Act is pulled off the shelf, presented to people in the morning, and is passed with a 99-1 vote later in the day. If it's that important of a bill that it takes hours of study, and that it can only be done in Washington rather than through all of the various communications devices we have right now, when at the same time you have a fairly large taxpayer funded staff who's job it is to make these sorts of bills the things you can understand, studying the bill for days is the best you can give me?

You asked for a non political reason why a Senator should be in Washington. If there are no valid reasons why a Senator should be in Washington, then why for over 200 years have we had "sessions" at every level of government?

 

Let's turn it around, why shouldn't he be in Washington?

 

Finally, like any decision, the are reasons for and reasons against. You balance all those reasons and make a decision. That doesn't mean a reason that does not support your action is wrong, it just means there are more compelling reasons for a different course of action.

[Balta1701]

You asked for a non political reason why a Senator should be in Washington. If there are no valid reasons why a Senator should be in Washington, then why for over 200 years have we had "sessions" at every level of government?

 

Let's turn it around, why shouldn't he be in Washington?

Because:

 

1. He's trying out for a higher job and has scheduled events, most notably the debate.

 

2. He's not a key guy in any of the negotiations there

 

3. His presence dictates a timetable Specifically...let's hypothesize that this is an incredibly complex decision, which it should be for that kind of money. John McCain comes barreling in to town to try to save things. Now 98 other Senators are working to pass a bill on John McCain's timetable which says he can't spend the next 2 or 3 months in Washington holding hearings, he needs to be on the campaign trail. So suddenly now we have to have a bill written ASAP for $700 billion dollars.

 

4. His presence instantly makes the possibility of a bipartisan agreement on the bailout impossible, because now the Dems are going to respond by saying "Look, we don't want to put something out there that the other guy is going to claim credit for just because he's in the same city".

 

I think #3 is the most important in my book. You want time to study the bill or hold hearings? John McCain just took that time away from you.

[Texsox]

Finally, like any decision, the are reasons for and reasons against. You balance all those reasons and make a decision. That doesn't mean a reason that does not support your action is wrong, it just means there are more compelling reasons for a different course of action.

 

Sorry I thought up a non political reason. Find someone else to play with

[bmags]

I am just laughing. Ha. HE PUTS COUNTRY FIRST!!!

[Texsox]

Because:

 

Political Reason 1. He's trying out for a higher job and has scheduled events, most notably the debate.

 

Fair, but he has a vote like everyone else 2. He's not a key guy in any of the negotiations there

 

Political Reason 3. His presence dictates a timetable Specifically...let's hypothesize that this is an incredibly complex decision, which it should be for that kind of money. John McCain comes barreling in to town to try to save things. Now 98 other Senators are working to pass a bill on John McCain's timetable which says he can't spend the next 2 or 3 months in Washington holding hearings, he needs to be on the campaign trail. So suddenly now we have to have a bill written ASAP for $700 billion dollars.

 

Political Reason 4. His presence instantly makes the possibility of a bipartisan agreement on the bailout impossible, because now the Dems are going to respond by saying "Look, we don't want to put something out there that the other guy is going to claim credit for just because he's in the same city".

 

I think #3 is the most important in my book. You want time to study the bill or hold hearings? John McCain just took that time away from you.

 

Seems like you asked for a non political reason then shot it down with a bunch of political reasons.

 

So give me a non political reason that the Senior Member from Arizona should not be in Washington for this, but some Jr. member from Idaho should?

[EvilMonkey]

They are being paid to be Senators, they should go be Senators. This would be an important bill that they SHOULD vote on.

[Balta1701]

Seems like you asked for a non political reason then shot it down with a bunch of political reasons.

 

So give me a non political reason that the Senior Member from Arizona should not be in Washington for this, but some Jr. member from Idaho should?

How are any of those other than #4 political reasons? By political reasons I meant something that would benefit him or change the results of the campaign. The rest directly impact the negotiations for this bill and do so in a way that I think makes the bill worse.

 

The simple fact is, John McCain is running a presidential campaign while being a Senator. It is a balancing act, but the Senate will do its job better without him than with him until the point that a vote is taken. If he was on the banking committee or was one of the Senate leadership, I'd probably change my opinion there. But he isn't. By taking this action, he makes the negotiations about him rather than about putting together the best package. That's my biggest issue I'd say.

[Balta1701]

They are being paid to be Senators, they should go be Senators. This would be an important bill that they SHOULD vote on.

No one is saying he shouldn't vote on it, or at least I'm not. But there's a difference between voting on it and jumping back to D.C. before the bill is even prepared.

[Balta1701]

You want me to prove my point about how damaging McCain's presence is? According to CNN, the McCain campaign is saying that the Senator will not attend tomorrow night's debate if no bailout deal is reached.

 

How's that for putting negotiations under a gun?

[Balta1701]

Posted without comment...

CNN's Dana Bash reports that McCain officials are "trying to negotiate with the Obama campaign and the presidential debate commission" to change next Thursday's planned vice presidential debate into a McCain-Obama affair. The VP debate would be postponed to another date.

 

"That is what they are proposing," Bash reported. "[McCain officials] understand very well that both the Obama campaign and the debate commission have no intention of delaying Friday's debate, but...if there is no bailout deal by Friday, McCain has no plan to go to debate."

Video @ link.

[southsider2k5]

Reid calls McCain:

A Democratic source says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just called John McCain, and told him on the phone that it "wouldn't be helpful" for him to return to Washington.

 

This is the same Reid who just a week ago said he didn't know what to do, right? Yeah ummm...

[southsider2k5]

Here's the problem with that idea.

The bailout is horrible policy. Most polls show people don't like it. The stock market is hurting but isn't completely in the tank. Most people aren't stupid, they realize this. They saw other bubbles burst like in 2001 and know that we didn't spend a trillion dollars bailing things out then. Polling data pretty well confirms that.

 

There's no reason this needs to be done during the pressure of a presidential election. The Fed still has $200 billion or so in reserves left, if they genuinely need more the Congress can authorize a much smaller buyout package to tide things over a little while longer and buy some time.

 

This is one instance where I say flat out f*** the polls. Sometimes there are more important things. I don't think people grasp fully what a collapse of the financial sector would mean for their lives. They do need to fix this. I don't know if the bailout is the right answer, but I have yet to see anyone come up with something better.

[bmags]

I agree with SS, I just want to see some oversight on how the money is spent. I also don't want to see no bid contracts on advising.