OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Naples39]

Palin is actually going to be watching the debates at a local bar up the street from where I live. Thought about going to see the spectacle, but it's a private event.

I was talking to a guy at work and heard that the going rate is $1000 for apicture with her. I thought you'd be all over that.

[matthewk]

Either way, I am glad Obama stuck to his guns

So now it's Obama clinging to his guns, eh?

Ok, back on point....

I agree that the issue of the economy is worse for McCain , but I don't think it should be that way.

The problems we have going on right now were caused by politicians on both sides. Some arguments can be made that it's even more on the shoulders of the Democrats. There is even proof that McCain was one of the few who were trying to avoid this scenario years ago. Sadly, the only thing most people will see is that the economy is bad right now, Bush is the president right now, and McCain and Bush are both republicans.

[pk500]

Harry Reid being a devious, partisan, divisive slimeball who does what's best for Harry Reid and the Democrats and not America?

I'm gasping so hard that I'm making Traci Lords during a classic 80s porn orgasm sound downright silent.

When I see pictures of Harry Reid and Pelosi together, it reminds me of the shots I saw this week of Putin and Chavez after their little pow-wow.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

I'm sorry, but Obama is right on this one: The President of the United States probably needs to be the most deft multi-tasker in the world.

If you can't debate for two hours in Mississippi and hop back on a plane to Washington to work on the bailout, then I question whether you have the dexterity to handle the myriad responsibilities of the Presidency. I'm all in favor of switching the topic of tonight's debate from foreign policy to the economy, as it's obviously paramount in the minds of everyone right now. And Americans deserve to know details NOW of the respective economic plans of Obama and McCain, minus the spin that engulfs campaign stops and political ads.

Referring to Hillary Clinton's infamous primary season ads, when the red phone rings at 3 a.m. for John McCain, will he tell some jihadist state to postpone its attack until a budget deal is worked out?

McCain's call for a delay was nothing but an attempt to build political capital. It's pretty f*cking rich for a Presidential candidate from either party, who is on the road constantly for 18 months, away from D.C. and his constituents' home area, to suddenly remember his Beltway roots.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

[quote="RobVarak]

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Looks like Clinton may have been correct.[/quote]

Cover from what...their constituents are up in arms over this bailout. Here's the problem I doubt the general public even have a general grasp of what's going on.

I know I don't. So what you have is people not understand the bailout (Bush's and Paulsen's fault). Bush's reputation is shot so even if this is the right thing to do, because it's an election season, no Rep wants to be seen endorsing another Bush plan.

So the general public thinks this is a 700 billion blank check to Wall Street which it is not. The house rep don't want to vote for it because a) it's an election season, b) dems crafted another plan, c) afraid of pissing off their constituents. If you picked A B and C you would be right.

Here's the thing, no one is arguing that something has to be done. The problem is in the details. You think those constituents know the details of the bailout? So basically what we have is House Reps facing a very tough re-election year, fearing that the base, which doesn't understand the problem, not voting for them.

House Reps fear losing their base, therefore their seat, worse than breaking apart the bailout plan.

[Jared]

Palin is actually going to be watching the debates at a local bar up the street from where I live. Thought about going to see the spectacle, but it's a private event.

I was talking to a guy at work and heard that the going rate is $1000 for apicture with her. I thought you'd be all over that.

Dude! Maybe I will go...

[MACTEPsporta]

Looks like Clinton may have been correct.

Well, of course that's why he is there. Neither Obama nor McCain would have been involved in the discussion, let alone allowed into the White House meet, if they were not running for president. They are there to get people behind them. Nothing else. It's not like they bring any ideas to the table.

McCain made what looked like a good move at the time, suspending his campaign, fund raising, etc, to work for the good of the country, but it now backfired. If he didn't go out of his way to promote bipartisanship on this issue, and uniting for one goal, this recent split within the GOP would have been blamed squarely on Bush. After all it's Bush's core constituency that didn't support his plan. The people that he appeals to much more than McCain does. But now, it's McCain who couldn't unite his own party. If the democrats don't spin the hell out of this, I will be hugely surprised. I am sure he will go to the debate now, just to get the hell out of Washington. Expect the phrase "I have had disagreements with my party before, that's why I am a true maverick" to be used hourly.

Let's not forget that while Obama will go into the debate with an advantage it is the debate on foreign policy, and if all else was even McCain should have been able to wipe the floor with him in that regard. Now, it's not so clear, but it's sure as hell going to be interesting.

[matthewk]

House Reps fear losing their base, therefore their seat, worse than breaking apart the bailout plan.

From what I understand, this bill could be passed right now. They have the votes for it. For them to delay it by saying it's the house reps are holding things up is a lie.

[JRod]

House Reps fear losing their base, therefore their seat, worse than breaking apart the bailout plan.

From what I understand, this bill could be passed right now. They have the votes for it. For them to delay it by saying it's the house reps are holding things up is a lie.

The reason the House Dems are holding it up is not to have the split that happened during the budget crisis in the Newt years.

She stated from the on-set she wants to have House Rep support. They had it prior to yesterday. So right not it's the house reps holding it up.

That's no lie.

[wco81]

No need to watch the debate, McCain is the winner!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... ebate.html

[Teal]

If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

Absolute lie. Saw an interview with one of the heads of the debate commission this morning via video on Newsweek. They asked him about whether there would be an empty lecturn or not, if McCain didn't show up. The guy said no, there would be no debate, as debate rules forbid a debate unless all parties are there. So Obama would not have been able to say a word at the debate tonight, because there would have been no debate.

So all that posturing about 'the debate WILL go forward' from the Obama camp is just a bunch of hot air. It's all moot now, to a degree, but there's no way it would have happened if McCain had decided not to attend.

[Teal]

No need to watch the debate, McCain is the winner!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... ebate.html

Looks like a bunch of photoshopped malarkey to me.

[Teal]

House Reps fear losing their base, therefore their seat, worse than breaking apart the bailout plan.

From what I understand, this bill could be passed right now. They have the votes for it. For them to delay it by saying it's the house reps are holding things up is a lie.

The reason the House Dems are holding it up is not to have the split that happened during the budget crisis in the Newt years.

She stated from the on-set she wants to have House Rep support. They had it prior to yesterday. So right not it's the house reps holding it up.

That's no lie.

THERE WAS NO DEAL YESTERDAY. That's no lie.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/no- ... 09-25.html

The lie was that there was, and that lie was put out there to potentially stifle the impact that McCain might have had. It was a politically motivated announcement with no basis in fact.

[Teal]

“There is no bipartisan deal at this time,” Boehner said in a statement. “There may be a deal among some Democrats, but House Republicans are not a part of it.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she won’t bring up the bill in the House unless a substantial number of Republicans, possibly a majority, agree to vote for it.

She's just trying to cover the democrats' asses by insisting that the house repubs go along with this, so that when it all blows the hell up in their faces, the finger pointing could be going in more than one direction.

[Naples39]

No need to watch the debate, McCain is the winner!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... ebate.html

Wait. Did McCain win outright or did Obama just fail to cover 6.5 point spread?

[JRod]

The press conference yesterday was between the Senate Reps and Dems, not the house.

Pelosi said from the start, she wanted House Rep support. That's not a lie. Reid said the same thing. The press conference yesterday announced a tentative agreement.

Now people want partisianship. The right wingers are nothing but goal post movers.

From what I read, Bernanki and Paulsen said the house GOP plan was unworkable. It sure seems like the GOP is more worried about not losing their base.

[Teal]

The press conference yesterday was between the Senate Reps and Dems, not the house.

Pelosi said from the start, she wanted House Rep support. That's not a lie. Reid said the same thing. The press conference yesterday announced a tentative agreement.

Now people want partisianship. The right wingers are nothing but goal post movers.

From what I read, Bernanki and Paulsen said the house GOP plan was unworkable. It sure seems like the GOP is more worried about not losing their base.

There's no point in being 'bipartisan' when all that means is doing what one side wants, exclusively...but don't tell Reid and Pelosi that.

Explain 'goal post movers'. Where do you get that? And the whole reason Pelosi wanted House Rep support is that she didn't want dems to be left holding a bad Bush deal alone.

[RobVarak]

From what I read, Bernanki and Paulsen said the house GOP plan was unworkable. It sure seems like the GOP is more worried about not losing their base.

You keep saying that like it's a bad thing. If a party's constituency is opposing something at the levels they were opposing this bill yesterday, it's the duty of their representatives to take that into account.

I'm on record as being in favor of the general outline of Paulson's plan, and I've been very vocal that I don't want the GOP to stop it or water it down. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't give voice to the concerns of their constituents, who are opposing the proposition across party lines.

As for the "deal" that the Republicans supposedly blew up. Reports yesterday, before the spinning began, were that there was a deal in principle.

A deal in principle.

That's not a done deal by any reasonable definition. A deal in principle is when I walk into the dealership and say, "I want to buy that car," and the salesman says, "Great, let's talk." We agree that I want to buy the car, but every other significant detail remains to be settled.

It's the start of negotiations, not the end of them.

As for the "multi-tasking" argument, I think it misses the point. It's not that McCain couldn't work on the bailout and campaign. It's that, as he said in his statement, the unique magnitude of the crisis was such that the only reasonable response to it was to get involved and not campaign. It was important to make it clear to the American people that this was not an issue of modest import or a typical piece of litigation.

If the Secretary of the Treasury asks for you to come in and help get that deal done, you do so...regardless of the impact on your campaign. You don't tell him, "I can be on the phone if you need me," and go back to visiting factories and talking about other issues and chatting it up with Dave Letterman.

LOL @ Naples.

----Edit

Just saw this on Mark Cuban's blog, in a similar vein:

One candidate thinks he can add value to solving the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The other candidate thinks he can’t add value and that its a better idea to campaign.

Here is the question I would ask the Senator: “How is it Senator Obama, that with Wall Street burning, you thought it was a better use of your time to campaign ?. You make it clear that one of your greatest skillsets is promoting consensus. Has there ever been a time when promoting consensus was more important to the financial health of the American people than today?”

Even if all either Senator did did was go to the meetings and shut up and listen, that would put both in a position to offer help if needed.

Remember this. 90pct of being successful is showing up. The other 10pct is being prepared to know what to do while you are there.

[pk500]

So all that posturing about 'the debate WILL go forward' from the Obama camp is just a bunch of hot air. It's all moot now, to a degree, but there's no way it would have happened if McCain had decided not to attend.

That air is just as warm as McCain's empty promise that he wouldn't participate in the debate until the bailout deal was DONE. He never said anything about "good progress."

So both of these clowns could fill the Goodyear blimp with their hot air.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

So both of these clowns could fill the Goodyear blimp with their hot air.

Take care,
PK

And they're running for elected office?



Louis is shocked, shocked!

[JRod]

You keep saying that like it's a bad thing. If a party's constituency is opposing something at the levels they were opposing this bill yesterday, it's the duty of their representatives to take that into account.

I'm on record as being in favor of the general outline of Paulson's plan, and I've been very vocal that I don't want the GOP to stop it or water it down. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't give voice to the concerns of their constituents, who are opposing the proposition across party lines.

As for the "deal" that the Republicans supposedly blew up. Reports yesterday, before the spinning began, were that there was a deal in principle.

A deal in principle.

That's not a done deal by any reasonable definition. A deal in principle is when I walk into the dealership and say, "I want to buy that car," and the salesman says, "Great, let's talk." We agree that I want to buy the car, but every other significant detail remains to be settled.

It's the start of negotiations, not the end of them.

My point here is just because the constituency supports or disapproves something doesn't make it right.

In the ideallic world, a voting contituency doesn't vote a guy out just because he supports/opposes a certain bill. The founders knew this wasn't the case so they created the senate to let time heal political floor fights.

I'm NOT saying the constituents don't have a voice. But I don't sense that's that real reason for house GOP members to oppose this plan. So Senate GOP members aren't getting the same calls. What's the difference? All house members have elections -- not all GOP Senators do. I think that's the reason.

It is my impression that those opposing this plan (outside of Congress) are doing so because they don't understand it. They think it's a 700b black check. That's clearly not the case. The dems are at fault for not spelling out what they want to do. Hell, steal the playbook from Newt, go out on the steps of the Capitol and put 1 huge posterboard of what their plan does. Paulson's plan while the first iteration wasn't tenable to congress, wasn't even spelled out. Then Bernanke and he, go in front of congress and can't even sell it. Casket salesmen are more chipper than these two.

[JackB1]

If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

Absolute lie. Saw an interview with one of the heads of the debate commission this morning via video on Newsweek. They asked him about whether there would be an empty lecturn or not, if McCain didn't show up. The guy said no, there would be no debate, as debate rules forbid a debate unless all parties are there. So Obama would not have been able to say a word at the debate tonight, because there would have been no debate.

So all that posturing about 'the debate WILL go forward' from the Obama camp is just a bunch of hot air. It's all moot now, to a degree, but there's no way it would have happened if McCain had decided not to attend.

Obviously I was guessing. I have no idea what would have happened had Obama showed up and not McCain. I do know that the University spent millions to host this thing, so I am sure they are happy it's going forward.
Thanks for the info.

[MACTEPsporta]

A deal in principle is when I walk into the dealership and say, "I want to buy that car," and the salesman says, "Great, let's talk." We agree that I want to buy the car, but every other significant detail remains to be settled.

This is just too great to pass up. Did you have me in mind when you came up with that? FYI: person walking into a dealership saying he wants to buy a car is like a kiss of death. Those people never buy. Anyway, what you've stated is an agreement to negotiate from both parties, not an example of the deal, in principle or otherwise. Deal in principle, would be if the dealership told you that your payments would range from 450 to 500 a month, pending your credit approval, and you've accepted. So, yes, if your credit is what you say it is, and your payment is within the correct range, and you choose not to go through with the deal, you are reneging on your prior agreement. In my understanding that's pretty much what happened yesterday.

[RobVarak]

A deal in principle is when I walk into the dealership and say, "I want to buy that car," and the salesman says, "Great, let's talk." We agree that I want to buy the car, but every other significant detail remains to be settled.

This is just too great to pass up. Did you have me in mind when you came up with that?

Quite naturally.

It appears that the parties all agreed that a bailout was necessary, and that the price was in the neighborhood of $700bn. That was all. The GOP still felt that it was free to bring up its insurance scheme, installments etc., and the Dem's were still working up language on everything from executive compensation to th shale ban (which they ended up dumping into a seperate bill). If any of those things on either side became a problem, I could hardly see them saying that the previously settled agreement was blown up or that someone reneged. Those are fundamental terms.

[Jared]

If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

Absolute lie.

No. There wouldn't have been a debate. However, Obama was negotiating to either have a one-on-one interview with Lehrer, or a town hall meeting at Ole Miss instead. As for whether that would have happened...

Link

If Mr. McCain had not, the commission members were at a loss to say what might have transpired in Oxford . Obama aides said on Friday morning that the Illinois Democrat would probably have been at Ole Miss whether Mr. McCain was there or not. But whether he would have participated in a one-on-one exchange with the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, was unclear, the commission members said.

They said that the commission had not been inclined to hold an event in place of the debate that was seen as favoring Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain, but they added that it would have been Mr. McCain’s fault — not the commission’s — if some sort of televised forum had been held on Friday night that featured Mr. Obama alone.