Yeah, Arles, having the Presidential candidates there worked great! If what were hearing is true the GOP is having a frickin' coup against Boehner and stifling the bill's passage. Frickin brilliant idea to have the most partisan of campaigns candidates arrive to help....how? Who knows because they havnt helped out, at all and news channels (I know, liberal media bias) are reporting that the GOP is in revolt.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080926/financial_meltdown.html



IMO, whoever is screwing this up are idiots! This is going to hurt all the way down to the gutter on main street....gotta love those trickle down economics. They need a few more scary days on Wall Street again as a reminder of what we face.

Are there any polls showing what the people want as far as the bail out? I could have sworn I heard that the general public is 80%+ against this.

That's an inaccurate summary of the actual poll. The poll that I saw that you are likely referring to had the following reponse numbers.

18% were for the bailout.
40% were against the bailout
42% felt like they needed more information

Granted, it doesn't show good support for the measure by any means, but there's a vast number of people that just don't know because they feel like the information hasn't been fully presented yet.

I'd like to see the presentation Paulson gave congressional leaders made public. If it's really a crisis, let the American public see the numbers.

Agreed. I'd like to see the lawmakers be just as open about what the hang-up is on the bill. There's a whole lot of finger-pointing, but no specifics being given on what the exact disagreements are. We've got a Congress with a 9% approval rating that has both sides pointing fingers at the other side. Worse yet, they have Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank doing the finger-pointing on behalf of the Democrats, two men who were the main members of Congress who resisted reform 5 years ago on this very issue. It all rings very hollow.

It's not Dems vs Republican as far as I can tell. It appears that House Dems, Senate Dems, Senate Repubs, and the White House are very close to an agreement, but a majority of House Repubs are blocking the deal. I'm not sold on a 700 billion bailout, but the plan Cantor and House Repubs have come out with is a fucking joke. It doesn't help that they're making statements like this:


Meanwhile McCain won't say what he supports, but reports are that he's at least sympathetic to House Republicans. Isn't it ironic that McCain may be placing his campaign into the hands of Republicans that trust him least.

You're quite naive if you don't think this will be turned into a McCain and the Republicans vs. the Democrats situation. Barney Frank already did that yesterday in his press appearance. It doesn't matter whether the Senate Republicans are on board or not.

Regardless, a deal will be done today. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama in Mississippi 15 minutes before debate time preparing for a town hall format, only to have McCain ride in on a white horse 2 minutes before the debate goes live on TV and say, "Great idea! Let's have a town hall format!" :)

It most definitely has the feeling of a GOP Civil War. The question becomes, which side will McCain throw his support behind, because I can see defections based on the way the de facto leader of the Party (no one thinks that about Bush anymore, so it's McCain's role) leans.

He is in a bind, because this is exactly the type of issue that he usually goes against the more hard-line of the party. He's going really tick a large group off either way he handles it.

Seems like a weird battle with Barney Frank and George Bush on one side and House Republicans on the other, and everyone is waiting to see where McCain ends up.

Racist.





























;)

First of all, I don't know what to think or root for on the bailout. I'm a pretty well-informed citizen, I keep on top of national and political affairs, and hell, I even teach economics. And I still don't know whether I like the idea of the bailout, nor do I really comprehend what happens if we do too little here. So, I'm honestly not vested in one particular outcome on this issue, I don't really even know where I stand on it.


However, I think the safest political step for McCain here is to be against the fix. Since he really has given up the mantle of straight talk and so forth, his campaign is best served by just criticizing the deal, whatever it is, and claiming that it wasn't well done, and voting against it. It's really just the same thing we see on the campaign trail -- voters are unbelievably stupid and ill-informed, and they can very easily fall for massive mis-characterizations of any firm position. So, don't have any firm positions. Say you are against everything anyone opposes, and that you're in favor of empty platitudes. Distribute your "plan" and say that all the details are there, but fill it with empty bullshit. That is how you win an election that gets decided by idiots, and that's what this is, face it.

If McCain and the GOP (to whatever extent) really think that orchestrating some sort of "be brokered the deal" on this mess is a winner, I think they are sorely mistaken. It might look like leadership to some. But it will put his face, rather than Bush/Paulson's, on this thing, and I don't think that's a winner -- popular opinion among the great unwashed is that a massive bailout of wall street is idiotic. The GOP's great strength is being part of that sort of chant, not trying to get into the details that might convince an attentive and informed audience that the chanting is incorrect-- the latter is the windmill-tilting domain of hapless Democrats.

I don't know what Senator McCain has in mind here as an endgame, but if I'm whispering in his ear, I advise him to throw the whole thing overboard. Say it's a bad deal, that it doesn't do enough for America, wrap yourself in the flag, and remind us you were a POW. And, if in your heart you want it to pass because you think it's the right thing to do, suck it up, you have an election to win first. Set that stuff aside for now.

But is this a problem? He's been ticking off people his whole career. To be honest, I don't think that hurts him as all. The party core will still vote for him because he's better than Obama in their eyes. I'm a moderate Republican and if I see a bunch of core Republicans pissed off at him, that only furthers his image of a 'maverick' and someone who challenges people in his party from a campaign perspective.

Chris Rock on Larry King last night:

"It’s a pretty bad choice. I thouht Al Davis made the choice that’s how bad it was. She’s done 3 interviews and she is running for Vice President of the United States? Jason Lee has done more interviews promoting My Name Is Earl. i did more interviews today than she has to run for Vice President. Every time they let her talk for more than 4 minutes, you actually start feeling sorry for her.

It’s kind of like Kim Kardashian on Dancing With The Stars, all that ass and can’t shake it."

Yea! Another celebrity that believes they're smarter than the rest of the nation.

See, it's funny cause it's true. :)

You're right, the rest of the nation thinks that pick is solid gold.

The only thing I'd quibble with QS on is that there is a risk. If no plan is passed and the market drops by 1000 or 1500 points in October and the news is dominated by economic stories, McCain doesn't want to be the guy that stopped the rescue plan.

I believe the actual breakdown is 45/45 give or take a couple of points with 10 percent undecided. :)

If the economy continues to weaken and tops the news stories, McCain's screwed anyway.

Rest of the nation = 45%?

Oh right, I forgot to allow for the Couric/Palin interview bump. I bet that's up to 70-80% by now.

Umm Mizzou, he's not saying or implying that at all. He's simply saying that she's done next-to-no interviews.

FWIW I think his point would have been stronger without the cracks on her "every time she opens her mouth" and the "kim kardashian's ass" comments. Just point out the irony of the fact that Jason Lee has done more interviews for his TV show than she has done, and let that speak for itself and be it's own humor. But then again he's Chris Rock, you almost knew he'd have to get a crack in there somehow.

I'd be floored if some of these celebs didn't think they were smarter than the majority of Democrats as well. They're pretty high on themselves.

+1

:thumbsup:

Wow, a columnist for NRO is calling on Palin to step down from the VP spot.

Palin Problem by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online

i'm sure in < 5 minutes we'll hear from the spin-meisters that she's the resident wackadoo "far-left" columnist for NRO.

There's about 10 articles out there saying Obama should drop Biden (especially after this very tough week he's had). The margin for error is so small in this election, everyone is panicking (on both sides of the media/punditry). Both VP candidates will stay and neither will have much of an impact from this moment on. Palin got the right-wingers on board and Biden alleviated some of the initial foreign policy fears people had on Obama. They've each served their purpose and outside of the one debate (which I doubt will have much impact), this election is now on Obama and McCain only.

BTW, one theory was just stated on the radio. It appears that McCain is going to be against the democrat house/senate/Bush plan and work with House republicans on a bill that involves a treasury loan (not bailout) to these companies for the bad mortgages. McCain (it appears) will also be at the debate tonight no matter what.

So, the theory stated that the democrats/Obama will be faced with two options:

1. Accept the House republican/McCain compromise and have it be a loan instead of a bailout. McCain can then take credit tonight for brokering the settlement and saving the country from a $700 billion bill to the taxpayers.

2. Reject the House plan and face a debate where McCain says something like "You have a choice between the two of us. My Opponent wants to write a $700 million check to corporate business coming from your pocket. My plan involves a loan to these businesses where the American tax payer is not on the hook."

Either way, if it goes like this, McCain may have set himself up in a very advantageous position on this.

"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

SI

And now, the moment you've all been waiting for...what's that? John McCain is going to debate? John McCain is going to debate! How's the leg feel son...er, pops?

If McCain says this, then it shows he fundamentally doesn't understand this issue. (No comment on whether Obama does.) And that's not to say that the 48% of the people who were supporting McCain before the debate won't continue to support him.

This one deserves LOL credit. Kudos to you, sir.

I sincerely hope that he does not believe or agree with this.

On another note I truly truly hope the Obama camp comes out and smashes that 527 Melanoma ad. I had hoped W would do the same for the Swiftboat ads (he didnt) but I hold the same hope here for the Obama camp in regards to that despicable ad.

RCP has added Missouri to the toss-ups today as the latest poll has McCain +1. With 11 states within 3.5% margins, this should at least be a fun election night to follow on TV.

Have we done the latest polls?

CBS/NY Times: Obama 48, McCain 43 (LV)
Gallup Tracking: McCain 46, Obama 46 (RV)
GW/Battleground Tracking: McCain 48, Obama 46 (LV)
Hotline/FD Tracking: Obama 49, McCain 42 (RV)
Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 45 (LV)

I was too optimistic in my previous post.

My argument isn't that he should stop it... quite the reverse. The safest seat in politics is up in the peanut gallery, where you can jeer at the people who actually did stuff, and yell and scream about how they did everything wrong, and how your non-specific platitude of an idea is better (which it always is at that level of detail).

Republican Senator on CNBC says having the Presidential candidates come to Washington 'helped them refocus and move the ball forward.'

They just voted down (the Senate did) a new 'stimulus' package.

Interesting. McCain's press release and information from the American Spectator both suggest that Obama's partisan attack where he stated that the current bill should pass and that no changes should be made resulted in a collapse of the entire meeting. He pissed off the House Republicans to the point where they refused to support the bill. The House Republicans refuse to pass the bill because funding is included in the bailout that would send money to a voting group that is trying to drum up support for Obama via voter registration. Obama reportedly had no interest in discussing a compromise.

Another thing to mention. Why don't the Democrats just pass this bill if they know that Bush won't veto it? They have the majority. If it's a great bill, they should be more than happy to put their name on it so they can take full credit when it works.

I couldn't be more happy to see the end of yet another stimulus package. These bills don't do anything to fix the root problem.

we agree that the focus needs to be on the 'root' of the problem and agree that another stimulus package is not the answer.

but you probably think Im lying or something ;)

At least the McCainiacs have a built in excuse for a poor performance tonight, or they can tout how spectacular a performance it was given the conditions if he fares well.

And you know they'll do it too.

I think I'm smarter than most of the nation - should I lie and pretend otherwise? And you sure as hell think you're smarter than most (where's today's Sony press release? :D ).

I'm glad the debate is still on for tonight, I've been looking forward to it. On the news I think I saw a blurb on the rolling ticker that there might be some economic stuff in addition to foreign policy due to recent events, anyone else see something like that?

Well if McCain says it's Obama's fault, that settles it for me.

I don't think he can credibly pull that off now. If he had stayed out of it that would have worked, but now he's set himself up as the most important guy in the room, so if it fails he's bound to take a lot of the blame.

That's convinient, but doesn't mirror the truth. McCain has always been expected to out-perform Obama in the debates. Any perceived Obama win in any of the three debates will hurt McCain.

FWIW.....I don't think McCain needs a whole lot of preparation time for the debate. By this point, his policy opinions are not a surprise to anyone. Obama is the more inexperienced politician and will need more prep for the debate. That should be a surprise to no one.

what?! McCain, did you see his speech at the convention. Im not knocking him because I disagree with you 100% that most of the country expects him to not do well in the debates....which is why he is begging for a townhall style. Where do you come up with some of your statements when they go against conventional wisdom, the campaigns actions and statements, and the video evidence, etc.?


Wow. A good speaker (as has been shown inversely during Palin's recent interviews) can improv there way through most speeches and interviews. a poor speaker will struggle through notecards, teleprompters, and connecting to the audience and will find themselves reverting to 'failsafes'. I mean, sometimes, facts are facts. This doesnt even apply solely to politics but almost to any type of speaking there is.

McCain has always been an extremely good speaker/debator when he isn't working off a script/teleprompter. It's certainly no secret that rehearsed speeches are his weakest point. As you mention, that was very evident at the convention.

I don't know, inexperienced politicians seem to do better in these debates (Kennedy/Nixon, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Gore)

That's mostly based on the perception that the public in general has from the rehearsed/scripted speeches that Obama and McCain have given. That's the only thing that a lot of people have seen of the candidates as they don't follow the day-to-day changes. Anyone who has watched Obama in his appearances know that he does extremely well in scripted speeches, while he tends to stutter quite a bit and require 'thought time' for lack of a better phrase when he's not working with a script. McCain is the exact opposite. McCain's presentation is terrible in scripted speeches, but he's very convincing as a candidate when discussing issues without a script.

Obama didn't fare that well against Clinton head-to-head. McCain is considered a slightly stronger debater than her.

It's all subjective in the end. But if the perception is that Obama should win the debates at this point, it's likely going to end well for McCain.

LOL.....do we now have to express that a post is our opinion in a political discussion thread?

I feel like I'm writing a bailout bill for Congress. :D

If I am McCain, I am still a tad worried about the "TV effect". Having a handsome, young Obama on the same stage with an older, not so handsome McCain. Younger/hipper candidate (when there is one), usually seem to pull these off well (Clinton/Kennedy) over the older/stuffy candidates (Nixon/Bush Sr). Democrats are going to vote for Obama, Republicans are going to vote McCain, but who are the independates going to vote for? What will decide their vote? We can only hope it is on the issues, but I am not that confident in the American voters.

Are you suspending your posting on this forum to work on the bailout bill? ;)

Yeah, I have to disagree with Mizzou. Right now, most people expect Obama to wipe the floor with McCain, mostly because they believe that stump speaking can be equivalent to debating style. They don't realize that McCain is actually very good in debates (it's one of the main reasons his campaign in the primaries went from just about done to nominee).

This statement and the previous one I said "What?!" to are in complete and udder contrast. and I do mean milky.

I actually think McCain can be a good debater, but he can also get flustered easily. He had some ugly moments with Romney where it was really bitter and personal. That said, he's certainly a much better debater than he is on the stump. I don't expect him to have any problems tonight in terms of losing control of his emotions, either.

His main issue in the debates may be that he is roughly 5'6" and 70 some years old.

You're right. I didn't phrase the first post well at all. There's a big difference between public perception and the perception of those who follow the race closely. I should have been more specific. The debate tonight should be a lot of fun to watch.

New Rasmussen Daily poll discussed the move towards Obama in the polls over the past week or so.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Obama is taking the South baby!!!!

I would change it to politicians with low expectations seem to do better in these debates.

I would say that in this climate, the elder, statesman McCain may show more stability than the young and fresh Obama. So I don't know that this is true tonight.

Even more information from the American Spectator regarding yesterday's meeting. According to an Obama campaign source, someone gave Obama the bill option suggested by the House Republicans and told him that it was the compromise bill when it was not. So Obama launched into a big speech about how he opposed the bill and then Paulson agreed with him. The rest of the group that agreed on the compromise was wondering why the hell Obama opposed the compromise bill when he was in fact voicing his disapproval for the House Republican bill that he was told was the compromise. The House Republicans felt like the meeting was a big setup to make them look bad thanks to the Obama snafu and the whole meeting fell into chaos. The ironic part is had Obama been in Washington to work on the bill and known what was going on rather than relying on material given to him, we'd likely already have a compromise bill signed. Instead, everyone is finger-pointing to the Nth degree.

Ah, politics.

I'm also curious as to why McCain was against the compromise bill, since it met all of the criteria he had laid out earlier in the week for a plan to be acceptable.

Palin in one of her three interviews explaining her foreign policy experience (with a bonus commercial for a bad TV show):


Watch CBS Videos Online

Agree.


Except for those times when you realize he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about ... which would be any of the several McCain appearances on Hannity's radio show I've had the misfortune of suffering through. He sounds convincing (not to mention convinced) but only if you aren't familiar with the subject matter yourself. Hearing him speak on matters relating to the FCC and media ownership is downright painful for anyone who knows the subject and I've had similar reactions to him on other topics as well.

This has the makings of Kennedy/Nixon, with the added potential for disaster of McCain making one or more definitive statements that are later shown to be flat out wrong.

Happily, it'll be easy for me to miss the entire thing, as I'll be at a high school football game tonight.

I'd change it to, better debaters tend to do better in these debates.

With a sample size that small it's not predictive for Obama.

Have you paid even the slightest attention to McCain's erratic fly boy stunts over the past few weeks. Stability hasn't been his strong suit.

No, he didn't mistake it for the compromise bill. The story is pretty thinnly sourced, but even if 100% true it isn't as you described it. This is what the AmSpec blog says.

And back to Troopergate for a nice diversion:
Alaska lawmakers: McCain campaign interfering in Palin probe - CNN.com

This is the most exciting presidential election since 1992 (which was exciting because of Perot and Bush's self-destruction). :D

Palin on the Wall Street bailout and job creation:

Is she just spitting out a stream of random talking points? That is terrible. My God.

She's like a talking train wreck

SI

And yet she could be the president of our country if things go poorly.

Haha, good luck with that!

*hides in his igloo*

i really think that's what it is. she just is not a competent interviewee.

i really hope these videos get decent circulation - people need to see who they are voting for. More than that, McCain's selection of her really calls into question his judgement. Because while it may have been best to win the election (as some have pointed out), it would be horrible if she ended up needing to do anything at all important, or represent the U.S. at all.

And if McCain is so focused on winning that he'd pick someone unqualified because it gives him a better chance to win, in effect saying "to hell with the consequences," that's not very patriotic of him.

dude - swear to god - i'll move up there.

You might change your mind come January.

* throws log on the fire *

It's really strange.. now, admittedly, I'm biased to dismiss her (I was leaning towards voting Obama already, for the tack back to the right wing that McCain had done, I was a lot happier with him as a Moderate.. for him to tack on a right-winger's right-winger just made it very hard for him to get my vote).. but for the excitement she obviously generates in her base, the more she talks, the more this is looking like Dan Quayle redux.. how does she spell potato? :D

I think it comes down to this: like a lot of normal people, she doesn't know the answer to that question. But unlike a normal person, she is in a position where she can't admit it. After I listened to it I thought to myself "how would I answer that question if I had to say something aside from 'I don't know, good question Katie!'?" I sort of started off speaking in my mind, changed my mind part way through, paused... and then realised that I was doing exactly what she did, except that I didn't start randomly throwing out phrases people had been drilling into me.

To summarize, I guess on the one hand I feel bad for her, because if it was me, I'd be looking just as stupid. But on the other hand, I've never really considered myself fit to lead a country either. She's just in over her head.

And in spite of that, a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers is infinitely preferrable to Obama.

That's simply a lie Jon.

From a purely political stand point, the appeal to the drinking and acid dropping voters could actually prove a wise move. It could also work as entertainment - I, for one, would love to see Sarah Palin answer that question on acid. I think she actually did pretty well for being drunk in the Couric interview.

McCain already has the alzheimers vote locked down, though, and let's face it - those guys are not the most reliable voters.

As silly as it reads, I don't think a person's opinion can be a "lie". Are you able to see inside Jon's brain and see that he wouldn't really prefer "a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers", but he would prefer "a somewhat sober version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers"? :D

A person's opinion can be in poor taste, uninformed or even ridiculous, but I don't know how an opinion can be a "lie".

And what exactly did the candidate who picked Quayle fare in his election? I'm not sure you'd be smiling if McCain becomes Bush 41 to Obama's Dukakis.

every politician does this - control the interview. if you don't know the answer, phase in an answer to something you do know/have rehearsed. if you think someone is gonna start talking from the top of their head in a live interview you're silly. all a politician does is think about how they're gonna segway their answer into a talking point/message they want to give out. unfortunately for Palin that must not be her strongpoint. what *is* her strongpoint is obviously blowjobs, and she must've given McCain one muthafucka of a blowjob to seal the VP nomination.

you see, i used this post as a way to segway into something i really want to talk about - Palin giving head. the whole first part of my post was just a setup to the point i wanted to make. i could so totally make an excellent politician.

`eh, youre right. For Jon it may be spot on and if were using the Sports Entertainment analogies id actually agree with him.

Exactly. And I can always find respect for someone who is willing to put bullshit rationalizations aside and simply say, "I think that the Loyal Opposition is a monster, and for that reason alone I will not vote for him."

Like me: However much of a classical conservative I may be when it comes to economic matters -- and not even entering the debate about how little neocons resemble classical conservatives on any matter -- I am even more of a social liberal, and, barring mitigating circumstances, I will almost never be willing to vote for a party with a significant core of policy based on iron age thought and a desire to return to theocratic rule.

Tell me you won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and I will call you out for the ignorant fool you are. Tell me it's simply because you believe that what he actually supports is simply wrong, and Palin on her worst day would be infinitely better for that reason alone, and I won't argue with you. I may be convinced, internally, that you are sadly mistaken, but there is no useful way to argue with core principles.

I think I'll quote this one for a brief addendum to my sidebar, because I thought you made a pretty good post. (Hey, I had to pick one for some reason, might as well be that reason ;) )

And along with the core principles involved, I perceive at least one other difference between Palin & Obama. While I believe both would be incredibly even unbelievably out of their depth as C-in-C / POTUS, I think deep down she knows she is while I believe he hasn't the slightest inkling.

You keep using that word. I don't think means what you think it means. :)

Heh. Wonder if Jon would be upset about the sloppiness of the latest McCain ad, released today.. (here's a free hint, boyos... release statements/ad saying you won the debate.... AFTER THE DEBATE, duh!)

(removed the image cuz it broke the thread)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...l?nav=rss_blog

They've already released two versions of the ad, the 2nd one has a statement from McCain's campaign manager "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

Nothing like declaring victory before it even starts, huh?

Well, to be fair, there's poor children in 3rd world countries all over the world wearing "2008 Super Bowl Champion Patriots" shirts.

I hate you. (stupid Giants)..

yes, but that's because there's physical lead time in making Physical items. online, it's just "Do not show this ad before 10:00 PM EDT Friday".

My understanding is, they've stopped doing that. Now they just destroy the shirts.

Everyone calls Barry professorial, but I'd totally take a class with him. I think it'd be interesting.

I always been curious, why are they having a debate on a Friday night?

Oooh, McCain made his Bear/paternity joke... that never gets old.

As to a debate on Friday... I don't know about you, but I enjoy having sex with Jim Lerher in the background.