30
   

mccain begs off

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:07 am
@nimh,
And it's being applied liberally.............
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:43 am
@JPB,
McCain sitting there being made up while Letterman asks him if he needs a ride -- love it.

This is lower-key but it made me laugh, from James Fallows:

Quote:
The candidate who wants to quash any suspicion that he is not quick enough, not vigorous enough, or not multi-tasking enough to handle a job that poses a new challenge every minute, is essentially asking for everyone to take things a little slower so he can concentrate?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 01:15 pm
This was interesting, about how he's done this same basic thing before:

Steve Benen wrote:
ALL OF THIS SOUNDS KIND OF FAMILIAR.... If the scuttlebutt is right, policy makers are about this close to striking some kind of bailout deal, making John McCain's latest round of inexplicable tactics entirely unnecessary. But McCain apparently wants to come riding onto Capitol Hill -- probably on a white horse, if he can find one -- where he can take credit for a package he had nothing to do with.

And if all of this sounds kind of familiar, it's because we saw a very similar situation about a year ago.

Quote:
During a meeting [in May 2007] on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources -- both Democrats and Republicans -- who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.

At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.

Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors.... "[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," shouted McCain at Cornyn.


So, lawmakers and administration officials negotiated behind closed doors for quite a while, trying to hammer out a deal. McCain, on the campaign trail, was detached and uninvolved. In the 11th hour, McCain swoops in, hoping to take credit for work he didn't do, and when challenged, Senator Hothead erupted, demanding deference.

Soon after, a deal was announced, McCain smiled for the cameras as if he'd been integral to the process, and then left to go back to the campaign trail, not sticking around long enough to help the compromise package become law.

He may be lacking in temperament, character, and honesty, but at least McCain has a consistent m.o.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014875.php
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:00 pm
@sozobe,
Interesting find. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:35 pm
I'm starting to see it this way. McCain does his press conference, essentially goading Obama to follow his lead. That would establish his dominance. But Obama is calling his bluff and now he's the one being goaded. If he shows up to debate he repudiates himself. If he doesn't, Obama gets to spend the evening on television. McCain's only real hope is that this thing gets passed before tomorrow night. Then he can say he came/saw/conquered and now he's ready for the debate. It's a big gamble.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:18 pm
McCain has ducked out of debating before. "McCain Backs Out of Debate In California"
Bush campaign claims senator is abandoning state
Carla Marinucci, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers

Monday, February 28, 0

With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles.

McCain campaign officials tried desperately yesterday to put the best face on their withdrawal, even as a new Field Poll showed Bush far ahead among likely Republican voters in the winner-take-all race for the state's 162 GOP delegates.

Top campaign officials attributed McCain's decision to Bush's earlier reluctance to appear at the debate.

``We had agreed to do this debate a long time ago, and Gov. Bush said he wasn't going to do it,'' McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky said yesterday. ``We aren't going to hold our schedule together forever.''

But Opinsky said McCain will debate Bush on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' Sunday, a national TV show that will reach millions of Americans.

Still, just last week, the McCain campaign was openly derisive of Bush's reluctance to commit to a California debate -- and promised its own candidate would be there.

``John McCain believes it's important for the people of California to see and hear the candidates talk about the issues,'' McCain communications director Dan Schnur told The Chronicle last week. ``Thirty- three million Californians are worth that attention . . . and we'll be there, either way.''

As recently as Thursday, when he was in California, McCain was talking about his plans to debate Bush; even last night, McCain's own Web site listed his California debate- watching parties. The CNN-Los Angeles Times debate was the only scheduled head-to-head meeting of the two candidates in California before the primary, a week from tomorrow.

McCain's campaign said the candidate confirmed to CNN on Thursday that he would not appear. But until yesterday afternoon, when rumors swirled about the pullout, McCain -- who has touted his ``straight talk'' politics -- gave no public indication that he intended to duck the nationally televised showdown.

The bait and switch on the debate left the Arizona senator -- whose favorite campaign line is ``I'll always tell you the truth'' -- wide open to blistering criticism from his rivals.

``Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. ``Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they're pulling out of California, where McCain's antagonistic message clearly isn't working.''

The decision to avoid debating Bush clearly upset some of McCain's top advisers. MORE
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/28/MN62687.DTL&hw=mccain+opinsky&sn=001&sc=1000
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:57 pm
@blueflame1,
And another, thanks. I can't help but wonder if Joe Public even notices these things. Confused
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 04:32 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
``Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. ``
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 04:42 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Why does it have to be either/ or?

Why can't Obama and McCain do all they can to help solve this crisis... and then hold a debate at 9:00 PM EST on a Friday night? (And then go back to solving the crisis when they're done debating?)


A voice of sanity.

Looks like who the next president is gonna be has become more imprtant than it was a few days ago.....so what benefit there is supposed to be in limiting whatever chances the electorate might ever havein the fog of spin to make an informed choice looks nuttier than ever.

0 Replies
 
Unreconstructed
 
  4  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:21 pm
I know this may be an unusual thought in today's supercharged partisanship, but look at it from the perspective of the fact that they both currently HAVE JOBS. They are both senators. Are those opposed to the idea of postponing the debate a few DAYS taking into account that during a true crisis, maybe they should be doing the jobs they have been CURRENTLY elected to? Would you then say that perhaps Illinois and Arizona should only have 1 senator in Congess dealing with the crisis? They have been on the road and campaigning for 18+ months, and how much of their state's business have they been doing in that time? Now, when we have a crisis that could cost many people jobs, homes, savings, etc., they SHOULD be more concerned with doing their jobs instead of continuing to interview for a new position!
I wonder if those same people will be the ones that will be helping to pay for the $700 billion dollars (if not more) that may get shoved down ALL our throats unless we have a real debate on the issue. The figure I have heard is $2300. That's the average amount each family will be on the hook for in this deal.
If I were in either of their states, I'd be DEMANDING they get their butts back into the capital and DEAL with this situation. Kissing babies and spinning half-truths can wait a few damn days.
I say DO YOUR DAMN JOB. NOBODY ELECTED YOU TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:33 pm
@Unreconstructed,
Unreconstructed wrote:

I know this may be an unusual thought in today's supercharged partisanship, but look at it from the perspective of the fact that they both currently HAVE JOBS. They are both senators. Are those opposed to the idea of postponing the debate a few DAYS taking into account that during a true crisis, maybe they should be doing the jobs they have been CURRENTLY elected to? Would you then say that perhaps Illinois and Arizona should only have 1 senator in Congess dealing with the crisis? They have been on the road and campaigning for 18+ months, and how much of their state's business have they been doing in that time? Now, when we have a crisis that could cost many people jobs, homes, savings, etc., they SHOULD be more concerned with doing their jobs instead of continuing to interview for a new position!
I wonder if those same people will be the ones that will be helping to pay for the $700 billion dollars (if not more) that may get shoved down ALL our throats unless we have a real debate on the issue. The figure I have heard is $2300. That's the average amount each family will be on the hook for in this deal.
If I were in either of their states, I'd be DEMANDING they get their butts back into the capital and DEAL with this situation. Kissing babies and spinning half-truths can wait a few damn days.
I say DO YOUR DAMN JOB. NOBODY ELECTED YOU TO RUN FOR OFFICE.



Hi Unreconstructed,

Welcome to A2K.

As you may know, neither Obama nor McCain sit on the committee in the Senate which would be discussing this. I don't think they would be actively involved in the negotiations that would be hashing this deal out, and there's little reason why they couldn't lead their parties from wherever they are campaigning at.

It does not seem that the presence of the presidential candidates has lead to a meaningful step forward in the resolution of our financial crisis.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 08:33 pm
@Unreconstructed,
Unrecon, No, the number is $2,300 for each man, woman, and child in the US today. If we convert that to "taxpayers," the number goes up to about $10,000 (rough estimate). We still don't know what the "final" cost of this bailout will be, because of several reasons. The first is that buying assets purchased by all forms of mortgages is close to impossible to estimate its value. The second point is, we don't know whether this "bailout" will really help our country's economy for the short-term and long-term. Don't forget that most consumers are already deep in debt in addition to the federal government. The long term cost can end up in the trillions (when figured at current interest rates for the long-term (like 30 years). Compare that to your own mortgage, and you'll get the general idea. Nobody, not even Paulson or Bernanke, knows what the "end game" will be. Sound familiar? That's how we got into the Iraq war.

This problem is very complex, and Bush wants urgency to be the driver of this legislation. He just wants to spend $700 billion dollars; pocket money when it's not your own money.
0 Replies
 
Lambchop
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:15 pm
@Unreconstructed,
Except that plenty of bad things have happened before and we didn't put elections or debates on hold. Lincoln and McClellan didn't stop campaigning in 1864. Hoover and Roosevelt didn't stop campaigning in 1932. Roosevelt and Willkie didn't stop campaigning in 1944.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:52 am
Quote:
A community waits, hopes

OXFORD, Miss. -- The atmosphere on the Ole Miss campus is one of enthusiasm -- and a bit of anxiety -- for a debate a state has hoped and planned for for a year and a half, since the school applied to have it.

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour today called for the debate to go on. The state newspaper was filled with editorials and op-eds urging McCain to show up.

The Republican nominee may have thrown a wrench into the plans, but in the debate hall here, workers are drilling the final screws into the debate set; lights are being checked; podiums are being measured; the last of the set's panels are being put up and wires being weaved. Outside, security checkpoints are in place, network TV camera stands are built and set. (And never mind those hotel reservations and flight plans.)

"The debate will go on," University of Mississippi Vice Chancellor Gloria Kellum told NBC's local affiliate, adding, "We've spent two years working on this."
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:31 am
First thing.....
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Multitasking-Doing-Gets-Nothing/dp/0470372257/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222431668&sr=8-1

Great book, everyone should read it.

Second thing.....

These 2 are going to have to vote on this legislation, that spends a WHOPPING amount of our country's money (well, it actually borrows it). I do not see the big deal about postponing the debate a few days. Even if they aren't on the committee that handles this stuff, they will still have to vote yea or nay, and I hope they do so after spending hundreds of hours reviewing the impacts of this legislation; it's that big, talking to their own economic advisors, speaking to the leaders of the businesses that are affected, talking to the people who elected them, etc, so that when that vote has to happen they can vote for what they think is the best choice for America.

He didn't say cancel the debate, he said postpone it.
He didn't say postpone the election.

Someone wrote that 46% of the country thought that postponing the debate would HARM america......PLEASE! What are these two going to say on Friday that can't wait until next Friday, or the Friday after that.
revel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:48 am
@maporsche,
Well, from what I can see McCain's great sacrificing has not accomplished anything of significant and kind of coincidentally about the time the two candidates showed up house republicans staged a revolt against the bill. Having the two candidates there at the very least distracted the process rather than helping it.

Quote:
WASHINGTON " No one said it would be easy.

Despite unprecedented calls for quick action, the White House's $700 billion plan to rescue the financial industry appeared to fall apart late Thursday, less than 12 hours after a market-soothing deal seemed likely. A convergence of financial concerns, presidential politics and partisan rancor created an unexpected Washington drama with the nation's economic future hanging in the balance.

House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank, D-Mass., accused House Republicans of refusing to negotiate in good faith and told President Bush "to go to work" to find GOP votes needed to pass the plan. At one point Thursday, a somber Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson kneeled before Democrats at the White House while urging them not to publicly criticize Republicans " and risk sending the financial markets plunging. Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee John McCain issued a statement acknowledging that a bipartisan White House meeting he appeared to have sought to help showcase his leadership skills on the economy had devolved into a "contentious shouting match."

Financial markets had shot up midday Thursday when leading lawmakers from both parties announced they had reached an agreement in principle after nearly a week of talks on the Bush administration's plan aimed at restoring chaotic financial markets and easing an escalating credit crunch.

But the good feelings seemed to evaporate about the time a new player entered the fray: McCain, who a day earlier had dramatically announced he was suspending his presidential campaign to return to Washington to help end the financial crisis. Conservative House Republicans distanced themselves from the bipartisan agreement and promoted an alternative they said would put taxpayers' money at less risk.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-26-bailout-washington-friday_N.htm?csp=34
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:49 am
Is anyone actually going to vote upon the basis of who is the best debater ?

Voters will vote for their ideological preference, no matter WHAT.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:55 am
@revel,
I don't care if it accomplishes anything other than allowing him to devote all his time/energy in understanding the impacts of this bill so that it can affect his singular vote on the legislation.

We're talking about 700 BILLION dollars here, and possibly more in the future. Every Senator should be spending hundreds of hours in deliberation on this bill alone. This is the most important thing going on right now.

If this were October 31st, I would chastise him over this (at that point the election would be the most important thing), but being that we have 40 days until the election. There is nothing wrong with what he's doing.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:59 am
Quote:
If McCain fails to show up, officials are mulling turning the first presidential debate into a town hall meeting where the Democratic presidential candidate takes questions from the audience and from the debate moderator PBS's Jim Lehrer.

McCain campaign officials tell ABC News that they have made no decisions yet on whether the Republican presidential candidate will be there.

Asked about the possibility of Obama holding a town hall meeting, McCain campaign aides said flippantly, "Sounds kind of interesting."

McCain had originally challenged Obama to a series of town hall meetings but negotiations between the candidates fell apart.

When he suspended his campaign on Wednesday to return to Washington to work on the bailout plan, McCain called for the debate to be pushed back to Oct. 2, the scheduled date of the vice -presidential debate.

But with the administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street in limbo and it isn't clear now what McCain's next move will be.

Obama has said he will be in Mississippi tonight, arguing the country needs to hear from the two men who will inherit the nation's troubled economy in 39 days.

McCain has argued the nation needs Congress to arrive at a compromise.

Democrats are criticizing McCain for inserting himself into the delicate bailout negotiations on Capitol Hill, arguing they were on track to have a plan before he arrived in Washington.

One thing is certain: there will certainly not be a vote on the bailout deal today.

Negotiators will meet today around 11 a.m. to discuss the framework of an agreement among Senate Democrats, House Democrats, the Bush administration, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and several Senate Republicans, except Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has been vocal in his criticism of the administration's bailout plan.

However House Republicans have proposed a separate plan.

The big question is whether McCain, President Bush, or Paulson. can find a way to bring House Republicans back into the agreement.

With no votes today in Congress on the bailout, the planned presidential debate is in limbo as well.

All eyes are now on McCain today as he decides whether he will debate Obama in Mississippi tonight.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/stephanopoulo-7.html

I am not sure that would be too good of an idea; think it will probably just make Obama look silly out there by himself. If McCain sticks to his postering and keeps injecting himself into the deal slowing it down, I think Obama has no choice to but to agree to the Oct.2 debate. But then right away a schedule needs to be found for the VP rather than leaving in a kind of vague some time down the road.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 07:01 am
@maporsche,
Yea, but so far it is not just accomplishing nothing, McCain is actually hurting the process. The deal was pretty much agreed to after a week of haggling, but then McCain rides in and house republicans (not even his own fellow senate members mind you) decide to bring in another proposal which offers no protection for tax payers and no protection from this happening again.
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » mccain begs off
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 06:51:29