Postponing The Debate

[Bravus]

Well, that one *is* pretty easily empirically testable - wait and see.

[lazarus]

>>I think the fact McCain hasn't voted in the senate since April pretty much dilutes you arguments.<<

Umm, you're giving the impression that you're unawares of Senate recesses. But, of course, you are aware, aren't you?

Being snide about it doesn't help your argument but clearly you are not aware of that!

Ok, let's put it another way. He hasn't voted since April, he has missed more votes than any other senator this year including Johnson who suffered a stroke.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/

Since January he has missed 412 votes, Obama 295.

[Dr. Shane]

Well what is coming out this morning is that Congressional Republicans came up with their own plan and are rejecting the plan put forth by the Federal Reserve and Bush Administration which the Democrats were prepared to accept with some minor changes. The Republican plan is an insurance type of plan that will solve the crisis over the long run but not provide the immediate relief which is needed to avoid a prolonged recession.

It was reported that Democrats made Obama their spokesman which seems odd since he has been on the campaign trail and not involved with the daily details of the crisis and certainly not as knowledgeable of the situation as Christ Dodd or Barney Frank. McCain is being criticized for not taking sides. If he is going to negotiate a deal, like he has so many times before, one would think he wouldn't want to take sides right away.

[Woody]

Yeah. But who would want Barney as your leader ????

[Bravus]

Debate is back on, apparently - despite the lack so far of any sort of solution to the crisis. In announcing it McCain managed to slip in the lie that Obama is somehow responsible for the breakdown of bailout talks, when it was the conservative Republicans in congress who were most to blame, arguably followed by McCain himself.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Obama is being unfairly blamed but I understand how they get there. He was hit like a deer caught in a car's headlights. Obama and the Democrats went into the meeting thinking a deal was reached and it was going to be a rubber stamp meeting. They would work out a few details, add some pork and accountability. So the Democrats put Obama in as their leader, that way when everything was done, they could point to his leadership as guiding the process (a bit of Presidential politics on the Democrats side).

Then Obama and the Democrats are broadsided by conservative Congressional Republicans. Everyone thought the Republicans were on board with the Bush Administration and no one saw this alternative plan coming. Obama didn't know what to do hence, some are blaming him. After all, he was in charge of the Democrats. The fault really falls on these Congressional Republicans, in my opinion.

Some of the more vocal Democrats are trying to blame McCain. However McCain was not placed in the meeting as the Republicans' mouthpiece. According to some reports, McCain hardly spoke at the meeting and when he did some didn't understand him. So how can he be blamed? Because he didn't take sides. He didn't jump on Bush's or the Congressional Republicans' side. So I guess the only way we can blame McCain is if we believe McCain has so much influence that if he would have taken a side that would have settled the issue. If we believe that, it doesn't speak too highly of Obama.

We have four parties involved here. 1. Federal Reserve & Treasury Secretary 2. President Bush 3. Congressional Democrats 4. Congressional Republicans. The first three paries basically agree on what needs to be done. AND... they don't need the Congressional Republicans to do it. McCain has not chosen a side as far I know.

[MarkM]

"We have four parties involved here. 1. Federal Reserve & Treasury Secretary 2. President Bush 3. Congressional Democrats 4. Congressional Republicans. The first three paries basically agree on what needs to be done. AND... they don't need the Congressional Republicans to do it. McCain has not chosen a side as far I know."

I am not sure about the rest of the debate here, but this much makes sense and is well stated. It is refreshing to not see Pres. B at the top of the list of parties to blame. (We just had a massive power outage up in Ohio from Ike and sure enough they found people to blame the pres.).

If Bush and the Dems agree, they don't need any Republicans to do their thing. Since Bush has done what he can, I can't see anyone to blame but the majority party. And all that is assuming that this is something good for the country.

[carolaa]

Is the following a fair nutshell assessment? Republicans basically don't want the bailout at all, just keep it deregulated. Democrats are ok with the bailout as long as the people who made the mess don't get off leaving the pain to the taxpayers.

[Woody]

Welcome Mark.

All good Republicans are welcome here. (Even those who associate with the Wagoners) But we will keep a close eye on you !!! Have fun ... look forward to seeing more of your posts.

[CyberGuy]

I think the republicans are in favor of some sort of bailout but they do not want the government to get to deep into meddling with our economics from within. That would be like a person without business savvy trying to mess with the economics or a congressman trying to fix his own car without knowing the first thing about mechanics.

I do think this bailout needs to be thought out more carefully and not rushed like some tend to want it to be. The need to being a lot of economists into the thought process and that will take time. If this can be done before the elections is another questionable answer. If is better to have a good plan later than a ill concieved plan early,

[Woody]

Fox is reporting a deal should be done by midnight.

[CyberGuy]

Yeah and they reported that a plan was in the works and would be finalized yesterday. It did not happen for whatever the reason. Both parties are blaming the other for that failure. We shall have to see what happens.

[Woody]

I think that the reason for these rumors is so that the Stock Market doesn't crash before they get something done.

[carolaa]

That's a good point. They need to keep the speculating on a positive note.

[Dr. Shane]

well maybe with McCain and Obama both out of town no one in Washington will be worried about either of them getting the credit so something will be accomplished.

[Woody]

Good Point. You know ... if there is an agreement ... both will come out claiming that it was because of THEIR leadership. Give me a break .... Obama just made a mess of things at the meeting. And McCain just let them fight it out ... not saying a word.

[Bravus]

Uhuh, fair enough. So is the spin going to be that McCain's strong, silent presence was what made the deal happen?

Or is the narrative of McCain riding to the rescue and saving the day officially dead now?

[jasd]

>>Being snide about it doesn't help your argument but clearly you are not aware of that!<<

Ahh, tit for tat. I can get behind that. [/smilin’]

Sorry, I’d not intended to come across so mildly. Also, I didn’t intend to “help my argument”. Intending to win an argument of this sort – given the preconceptions held by its participants – is to simply engage in spinning one’s wheels; however, it is synaptically efficacious :-o I put ‘it’ out there and what happens afterwards, is either attributable to Gd’s mercy upon us or to the failure of our outcome-based educational system.

I, as you, call it as I see it. No excuses, no apologies.

>>...he has missed more votes than any other senator this year including Johnson who suffered a stroke.

Since January he has missed 412 votes, Obama 295.<<

Okay. I can appreciate and accept the above as straightforwardly proffered. Thanks. Although it does not factor all that much in my determination of which is the better and more qualified of the candidates –

the info is welcome.

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/09/26/bailout/

[Bravus]

And: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2008/09/26/blunt/

[jasd]

>>McCain managed to slip in the lie<<

Possibilities there, Bravus.

“McCain lied, Obama slides...”

I can picture that as an eye-catching poster – posted, Burma Shave-like along the black asphalt ribbons and highways crisscrossing this great land of ours...

[jasd]

Salon? Oooola, unbiased reporting, yes? Up the Yin-yang gravitas, yes? Do you think if someone turned on the lights – salon would just scurry off?

Mebbe, al Guardyan will be shortly weighing in...

[Bravus]

Oh, I know, Salon is biased as heck. But the quote from Blunt is the quote from Blunt: I guess if I cared enough I could source it elsewhere. But just ignore the Salon puffery and read the quote: Blunt says your boy McCain torpedoed the deal.

[Dr. Shane]

How? What exactly did McCain do that torpedoed the deal? And what deal? From what I understand the Congressional Republicans never signed onto "the deal." If McCain hardly spoke at the meeting, how did he torpedo anything?

[Bravus]

Oh, maybe Blunt was just trying to grab some prestige by claiming McCain was on his side, I guess... but it seems that of the few things McCain did say he supported the House Republicans who torpedoed the deal.