Anyone think McCain wants to delay the Debate because...

[Thunder Dan]

because he knows that Americans will watch more intently and with more knowledge of the economy than before and that Obama will slaughter him with his knowledge of the crisis. I mean McCain himself admitted he doesn't know much about economics, but with that being the biggest topic right now, that could be his downfall if he gets schooled tonight.

I have to believe that is it because the economy has been terrible since December and nobody had to cancel everything then; now all of a sudden things make front pages news because of the bailout and everything needs canceled. I really think McCain wants things to die down so the only issue people watch for in the debate isn't the economy, it's more things he can speak about.

Anyone else know what I'm saying?

[Anti.Hero]

Obama would slaughterer him on the economy by talking about fairness, capital gains tax increases, the strengthening of unions, and much more new and exciting exhibits of change?

Interesting.

[ducks]

bill clinton said mccain wanted more debates obama refused
I doubt mccain is afrain of obama

[101A]

because he knows that Americans will watch more intently and with more knowledge of the economy than before and that Obama will slaughter him with his knowledge of the crisis. I mean McCain himself admitted he doesn't know much about economics, but with that being the biggest topic right now, that could be his downfall if he gets schooled tonight.

I have to believe that is it because the economy has been terrible since December and nobody had to cancel everything then; now all of a sudden things make front pages news because of the bailout and everything needs canceled. I really think McCain wants things to die down so the only issue people watch for in the debate isn't the economy, it's more things he can speak about.

Anyone else know what I'm saying?

It's a foreign policy debate. I don't think anyone fears Obama's mighty intellect.

[Thunder Dan]

It's a foreign policy debate. I don't think anyone fears Obama's mighty intellect.

yeah I don't know- it was just something I was thinking about driving to work this morning. I was wondering why there is so much urgency now, but last year when this was warned of nobody had any problems with it

[Anti.Hero]

yeah I don't know- it was just something I was thinking about driving to work this morning. I was wondering why there is so much urgency now, but last year when this was warned of nobody had any problems with it

They were all receiving checks from it :lol

[Ocotillo]

The ultimate goal is to kill the VP debate. McCain realizes Palin is an embarassment and he can't afford to risk her in that format.

It isn't so much what Biden will do, you give her enough rope and she'll hang herself.

[Yonivore]

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/) that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he co-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more questions than it answers. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.

[Anti.Hero]

It's too bad she didn't have 19 months to learn on the job :(

[101A]

The ultimate goal is to kill the VP debate. McCain realizes Palin is an embarassment and he can't afford to risk her in that format.

It isn't so much what Biden will do, you give her enough rope and she'll hang herself.


The VP debate will happen. It HAS to happen. If that were the goal, they might as well forfeit now.

I am NOT seeing report after report of Palin's CBS interview being horrible, or ridiculous, or her being out of her element, other than on left-wing blogs and in discussion forums like this. Y'all have convinced yourselves of something that I believe isn't so.

Don't flame me now. There isn't enough proof one way or the other, but in a couple of weeks, there will be.

[Shastafarian]

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/) that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he co-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.

McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.

Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.

The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more questions than it answers. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.

Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.
Do you have an objective bone in your body? You're so hopeless.

[clambake]

the surge will work.....until we stop paying them not to kill us.

[Shastafarian]

the surge will work.....until we stop paying them not to kill us.

Do you think Yonivore knows what the Sunni Awakening is or just chooses to ignore it because he is a message board Hannity?

[clambake]

yoni has a paralyzing fear of black people.

just ask him.

[Shastafarian]

yoni has a paralyzing fear of black people.

just ask him.

I've seen him post enough that I don't need to ask.

[boutons_]

Pres candidates' debates are pure show business, have nothing to do with skills useful to being US President, although debating is a useful skill in UK where the PM faces Parliament in Question Time.

Although some people may judge tonight's debate on content, what is said, many more will judge the debate on how it is said, on style and personality rather than content.

The one who speaks shit but with confidence and good delivery (eg, pitbull bitch) will probably win over the one who makes sense, because Americans are mostly dumbed-down, narcotized TV viewers, not politically informed or astute, is why so few American adults vote. They don't care.

It's supposed to be foreign policy debate where McSenile thinks he's strong (although he was WRONG about Iraq, and wrong about Saddam as anthrax source), but it would be silly if the mortgage crisis didn't get addressed, and there's where McLiar admits he's weak, on economy.

============

McCain Backs Out of Debate In California

Bush campaign claims senator is abandoning state


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/28/MN62687.DTL&hw=mccain+opinsky&sn=001&sc=1000

[Oh, Gee!!]

Thunder Dan, fix your sig. It makes your posts really wide and screws up the threads.