Late Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he would suspend his campaign for the presidency and return to Washington to work with Congress on a bipartisan solution to the country’s financial woes.
He also asked that Friday’s scheduled debate between him and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama be postponed.
And so the spinning began.
We listened to media pundits in Obama’s camp say that McCain obviously wasn’t prepared to discuss the economy in Friday’s debate and was looking for an easy out. Those supporting McCain said the move showed him as a leader prepared to drop everything to handle a crisis.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid denounced the move, saying it would not be helpful to Congress to have either or both of the candidates return to Washington and inject presidential politics into the solution debate. Obama, like McCain a U.S. senator, apparently agreed with his party’s leader because the presidential candidate made no move to return to the Senate and urged that the debate continue as scheduled.
Said Obama, “It’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess.”
We disagree that a televised debate will serve this purpose.
Instead of listening to candidates’ positions on issues, viewers often make gut reactions based on personal biases of how each candidate did. Who was the most eloquent speaker whose words struck a chord? Who came across as ill at ease, which means he can’t handle himself under pressure?
We are surprised that Obama won’t join McCain on the high road. After all, Obama has been attacked throughout the campaign for the fact that he’s a first-term senator who has spent more time campaigning than working on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Here would be a perfect opportunity to show us what skills he has for working with a bipartisan Congress to try to solve a national crisis.
Instead, Obama wants to show us that he’s a talented orator who can speak well on any question for which his aides have prepared talking points. We don’t dispute that.
But with 40 days left until the general election, there is time to reschedule a debate. Working to solve the current financial crisis cannot wait.
We would like to see the two men who want to lead our country prove to us that they can lead, not just talk about it.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The high road? Are you kidding me? Are you aware that McCain has missed the most votesof any member in the Senate? And that a man recovering from a heart attack has attended more than him? Granted Obama has missed his fair share as well but come on. There were presidential debates going on in the 1940's when we were at war, the election process in country should not stop for a bill, as distanced as McCain and Obama both are from Congress neither should be there as I see them both as more of a disruption than anything. Presidents HAVE to multitask; they cannot simply drop everything for one matter. There is no high road to be taken here, looks like weakness to me, if he cannot handle this and the election how will he handle all that the presidency encompasses at once?
Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So the trimming of the Republic National Convention was a bad thing? Had they not altered that, people would have complained. Now McCain feels he can serve his country better by helping speed along a solution to the current crisis and he's wrong for that? Some people just love to slam others, no matter how right the other's may be.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Common sense man, comparing a situation where people can and will die to a legislative bill is a poor choice. As I stated earlier, we were at WAR in 1944 and the debates went on. In reality he nor Obama have done a darn thing this year in the Senate, just because he is the republican nominee that makes him able to do more than the other senators that have been there and are up to speed on the inner workings of this. I am not "slamming" anyone, merely pointing out that leaders have a lot on their plates, if this matter was truely a deal breaker than the presidential committee would have postphoned the debate, that is THEIR job, not McCain's.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Might I alsos remind you that the GOP convention pulled a great many republicans out of Washington that would be needed for the Hurricane situation, having a great many of the republican party displaced is a lot different that what is going on now, here we are talking about 2 men, poor comparision. I for one want to see the debate, I am not a blind Obama supporter, I want to hear John McCain and see how he handles these debates, if he stays home this could be the final straw in who I vote for.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think McCain's response showed panic (and perhaps a fear of the debate) while Obama's showed reason. The next President will have to be able to juggle more than one ball at a time, and think of all the havoc in Oxford if they postpone or cancel the debate! The financial impact there will be sizable, not to mention the inconvenience to the citizens and students.
Furthermore, it was reported on CNN and NPR that McCain blindsided Obama not 5 minutes after they had agreed over the phone to do a joint statement. McCain lied, and put O. on the spot--that's dirty pool.
We need to see these guys together, and hear them speak on their feet. Each one of these guys is just that, one guy, and they do not have to be in the middle of the entire "bailout" process in order to vote on it. I want the debate. And I don't want to pay for Wall Street fat cats to be able to spend the winter in Aruba. jmo!
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just as an aside, I thought the debate Friday night was supposed to concentrate on foreign policy, not the economy, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I was surprised to see that McCain has missed more votes than anyone in the sentate.
3rd most missed votes - Barack Obama
4th most missed votes - Hillary Clinton
5th most missed votes - Joe Biden
Other than 2nd place Tim Johnson, who had a brain hemorrhage, the top 5 are or were active campaigners in the presidential election. Not excusing anyone, just an FYI.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to see action, not hear bs. I will be the judge of what I see and will vote accordingly. I know too much about reality to believe that mere words reveal anything about anyone other than what they want to disseminate. Nothing speaks louder than deeds.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Obama really want to prove that he can "think on his feet" better than McCain, might I suggest he accept McCain's offer to do "town hall meeting" style debates, where he cannot read from his carefully scripted notes or teleprompter.
Anyone have a guess as to why Obama refuses to do the town hall meeting showdowns with McCain?
I have a pretty good idea.....
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kind of a moot point, Obama is trying to reach as many people as he can, each has taken a strategy here, just because one does not submit to the others style does not make them fearful, it's tactics and agendas, something that is taken out of at these debates since they are run by an independent committee, hence as neutral as it gets.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, the no-show game.
First Hillary drops out of appearing at the anti-Iran rally, just because she finds out Palin will also be there. Then, under pressure (from who is what makes it curious) to make it not appear partisan, they disinvite Palin.
Good grief, isn't that at least one rally where the politicians could put aside partisanship and unite?
Nah....... :(
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I was "trying to reach as many people as I could" - I would turn down absolutely no opportunity to do so.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only so much time in the day, have to pick and choose where and when in order to maximize exposure, town halls are not the place to do this, really a common sense matter when you think about it.
I think Biden, McCain and Obama know the game, but to be blunt Sarah Palin is a moron, had McCain picked a better running mate I would like his chances a whole lot better.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To me, a president must be able to think on his feet, and when I think about it, a common sense matter is to be able to field any and all questions without having a carefully prepared script ahead of time to follow. So to me common sense dictates just the opposite. I would much rather see both candidates bravely field any and all questions. Comes alot closer to "multitasking" than having days to prepare responses to questions generally known beforehand.
Funny how there's only so much time in the day suddenly. Maybe there just weren't enough hours in the day to deal with the financial crisis and still have a foreign policy debate.
You did say something I can agree with partially on your last comment. Biden, McCain, and Obama "know the game". I thought that's why so many people were voting for Obama - they wanted "change" - not the same old tired crowd that "knows the game"?
Speaking of morons, anyone catch Biden's comments about how FDR came on TV when the stock market crashed in 1929 to speak to the public? Of course, FDR wasn't president then, Hoover was, and TV hadn't been invented yet. If Obama had picked a better running mate, I would have liked his chances a whole lot better....... LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, the townhall meetings would have been televised nationally as well, so I'm a little confused on how they would have had lesser exposure....
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
known the game= knowing the political game, stop taking my words and twisting them to your liking. Obama and McCain ran their campaigns as they saw fit, enough said. Saying that one should have done what the other did is moot.
Latest news I read is that a deal had been set forth so in my eyes this debate should go on, if McCain backs out of this one it will be political suicide, mark my words.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The last time we had "Town Hall" meetings they seemed scripted, and even rigged. What if these guys sat face-to-face across the table with Jim Lehrer moderating? No studio audience to get out of control, no mugging for the camera... No contest about who's taller...
Or better yet, mud wrestling? Sarah and Obama? just kidding...
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In case you all have not noticed, talk is just that, talk and a debate in any forum is just talk that is mediated and prepaired for in advance, both sides know the questions and have time to prepare the best answers they can, so in my opinion a debate is no more informative than a speech at a ralley, town hall meeting.
Politicians, past, present and future are good at talking, double talking and making promises, but not in making good on their promises or walking their talk. Perfect example, George W. Bush, in his campaign in 1999 and again in 2003 talked and promised that the Nation and its people would be better off and that the tax cuts for the wealthy would also make everyone better off, well I have one question I would like to ask the people of the U.S.. Do you believe that the Nation and the people of the Nation, you, me , everyone are better off ?
All politicians talk the talk, make promises, etc., while trying to win National power, but I have seen very, very few walk the talk and make good on campaign promises and as long as special interest groups and lobbyists are allowed to influance National Policy, Foreign Policy, Law making, etc., politicians will continue to be corrupt and talk, talk and make false promises and the poor and middle class taxpayers are the ones who will be paying for the corruption and mismanagement of the politicians, case in point the current multi-billion dollar bail out of corrupt, missmanaged banks and bussinesses that congress is about to approve and we the taxpayers are going to be the ones left holding the empty bag.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well written editorial, Gwen. Thanks.
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good grief, Senator Reid told McCain he wasn't needed and to stay away anyway, live, right on CNN. He'd just muddy the waters or waste precious time because cameras would be trained on him and not on the problem at hand. This was nothing but more political strategy at a time when serious business is at hand. I'd say the financial meltdown came just in time for a McCain bailout of his own.
Both Obama and McCain are in Washington today anyway so what's the big deal? Did you see the picture with Bush at the table with each candidate seated exactly two people away from the president.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to second the praise to Gwen Larson on a well written op-ed piece. Non of the usual pro-hoc bull.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I almost forgot to thank Gwen for a well-written piece.
That clinches it for me - if Senator Reid is against it, then I'm all for it. Pretty much anything Reid or Pelosi are for I feel much more comfortable being the exact opposite.
This is the same Harry Reid that announced in April that "The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country".
He said that live on CNN, too.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mythoughts, I think it depends on the format beforehand. I've seen townhall meetings that did seem somewhat scripted, and I've seen some that were quite the opposite. I've seen some pretty offhand questions thrown at Palin in her townhall meeting(s). I wish they could just sit down and have an unscripted discussion. Can't have "The View" moderating, though - they'd tell Obama how sexy he is, and how much he looks like Brad Pitt, while they ripped McCain.... but McCain would have to admit, Obama IS taller.... LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd be willing to bet my last paycheck if Obama had been the one to suggest putting off the debate until after the financial deal had been settled, Reid would have been on CNN praising him up one side and down the other for dropping campaigning and putting the country ahead of politics. I bet he would have laid it on so thick you'd have gotten a sugar rush just from watching it :)
Latest news is the agreement has fallen apart again.
Posted by Pollyanna (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am gathering at this point, nobody can do right any way. We can't have a debate OR a town hall forum because it's "all scripted" anyway. We can't take the media's word for any candidate since eveyrone is biased and slants any story in the direction of their candidate. We can't listen to the candidates themselves since it's all rhetoric and promises. We can't look at their voting history since apparently neither were present half the time... I guess I'm left choosing my candidate the old fashioned way..."eenie, meenie, miney mo."
Really? We have to have debates, scripted or not. I would like to base my opinion by hearing concrete plans and strategies from the horses mouth. After all, each candidate has to ok those flowery words in the speeches and words they deliver. Under all that political side stepping, and carefully chosen words, we will hopefully see just what exactly each candidate has to offer.
Let the debates begin and let them begin tomorrow. The proof will be in the pudding as to who can step up and be a leader.
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is hard to know what is really going on, but on the surface I think McCain probably did the right thing. It was reported by CBS news Sunday the government(meaning the taxpayers) has already pledged over 800 billion bailing out the likes of AIG, etc, add to this another 700 billion(and tonight news programs and "experts" say that will probably not be enough, more like at least 1 trillion) and you get between 1.5 and 1.7 trillion of extra spending by the US government. What I found on the internet was our 2008 budget was about 3.2 trillion, so we are talking about spending nearly half our national budget bailing out Wall Street. Everyone seems to agree this situation is a crisis, and inaction could lead to a bigger crisis. McCain, Biden and Obama already have jobs, they are US senators. In my opinion anyway, true leadership is putting aside the election for the time being and doing the job they have been elected to do, that of a Senator, in a crisis situation. This deal is huge, the amount of money is staggering, and a wrong move by the government now could be devastating. McCain is right to be in Washington.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama and McCain are both active sitting members of the senate. This economic collapse of "Pearl Harbor" proportions is their #1 priority. Debates can wait. Right now, we need leaders who can lead and answer the call to action for their country. McCain did what I would have done... and what any presidential candidate (and Senator) worth his weight in sand would have done.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way: outstanding editorial, Ms. Larson. Thank you. Be careful, though. Writing with common sense and lack of liberal bias could get you fired at The Gazette
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'd be willing to bet my last paycheck if Obama had been the one to suggest putting off the debate until after the financial deal had been settled," "If" is a Spin, spin, spin word.
According to last night's news, it was reported that when McCain was asked for his opinion in that meeting in Bush's office, he said he wanted to DEFER to his party's leadership. Huh? Then why the big rush to suspend his campaign in order to get to Washington? He said earlier in the day that he wanted to be in Washington in order to take part in the serious business at hand.
As far as a town meeting being the better venue for candidates to "discuss" their views, if it's anything like the town meetings around here, then be prepared for some people to take over the mike and spew rhetoric on and on and on until the crowd yells, "What's your question?" "Sit down!" At least a regular debate with a moderator is much more organized.
Let the debate begin tonight. The organizers have been planning this for over a year, and a great deal of money has already been spent for all that is involved. If McCain doesn't show up, let his campaign pay for the financial loss to Ole Miss. If he doesn't show up, it won't only be political suicide, it will be his own "failure in judgement" as he likes to say when pointing to Obama.
With regard to Joe Biden's remarks about Roosevelt's appearance on TV-- LOL, yeah, I got a big "HUH?" out of that too. C'mon Joe, get a grip! But I also heard Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric -- "I dunno....um...you know." Hello?
And yes, thanks Gwen for writing this article. It opened up the field for our own local debaters to face off.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It still astounds me how people think this is a good idea. Facts are that McCain, Obama, Hillary etc are all so out of touch with the inner workings of things even the people in the senate are saying they would rather them stay away. After thinking about this I think the very best thing these candidates could do is get out and tell the world what they intend to do, and where we are going from here. This is what people NEED to hear.
To put this in perspective if an employee took a leave of absence and then showed up in the midst of a very important matter, how much would you actually let said employee be involved. These candidates have been focused on their campaigns, not the senate, I understand its their job but they are fighting for the most powerful position in the world and so letting the senators do their job and keeping the burden of the presidential campaign out of this is the best option, if anything they are putting undue pressure on lawmakers to rush a deal that should not be rushed.
Poor editorial Mrs. Larson, a bad idea is a bad idea, and you clearly did not do your homework here. And for the record was a supporter of either candidate for president due to either of them being a vast improvement over the current idiot. McCain just keeps making poor choices that lend my thinking that Obama is a better pick. This just solidifies it.
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The debate is for what, 90 minutes? McCain can't take part of a day to prepare (that is what staff is for) and go through with something set up well ahead of time? A lot of money and planning went into setting this up and he wants to flush it so he can try to look more "involved" than Obama? I think it should go through. A president will have to be able to mulitask and when a crisis comes up be ready for a press conference at short notice. Same deal here. The candidates have had plenty of time to prepare for this and it's not that huge of a time committment. They can go to DC and debate on the bailout then fly to the debate and then return. When they are told to stay out of it, they would be a disruption, they should take that into account and do what is best for the people, not their "image."
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I heard two guys on the news this morning (Friday) say that this whole thing is being blown waaaaay out of proportion. That this is capitalism at work. That the only people who are going to feel the pain are the guys who made the mistakes. That there IS money out there for the types of businesses that deserve to survive (are successful). Witness W Buffet plunking down the cash to save Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan snapping up WAMU).
Why does this whole thing feel like "Saddam Hussein has WMDs! He's going to kill us all! Quick, give me unlimited powers to wage a war on 'terror' wherever I think I need to!" ?
Do we, the average guys, need to put ourselves on the line for these incredibly wealthy hooty-poots in NYC? Can we just calm down and do some watchful waiting and see what entrepreneurs out there want to buy a bargain? I'm confused - what am I missing here?
BTW, I understand John McCain didn't have anything to say at that "meeting" yesterday--so why did he make such a fuss? And the House Republicans are the ones throwing a wrench into the works. Does he not have any standing in his own party?
If John McCain doesn't go to the debate tonight I shall call him a "wuss".
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain wants to suspend the debate for what? He is not on any council that is going change any decisions that would be made to change this mess. He was part of the S&L scandal Back in the day due to he voted not to regulate and to end the investigation . All of them are crooks. 700 Billion dollar loan , are you out of your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This why we borrow money from China each month and why the value of the American dollar is around $.54 cents to the Euro $1. When is this mess going to end ? Bush and his croonies have put this country in Bankrupt status, just like he did with the state of Texas and his oil Business. OOPS ! I forgot it's Clinton's fault
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just to pass this on, I called the offices of Moran, Roberts, and Brownback in DC. The only office I got any satisfaction from at all was Morans. Both Senators staffers were quick to point out this wasn't really going to cost 700 billion. My number one question(after I ranted about how ticked off I was to be saddled with debt caused by greed and stupidity, and how as a lifelong Republican I was thinking of voting Democrat just because I didn't see how they could do any worse) was, "how are we going to pay for this, McCain has promised not to raise taxes, so how are we going to pay for this???". Well guess what they don't know. If you don't believe me call them and ask the same question. I borrow alot of money to farm, I have never once gotten a loan when I couldn't tell the banker how I was going to pay it back,yet most of our government expects us, the US taxpayer, to just go along with a bailout(group of bailouts really) in excess of 1.5 trillion when you add them up, about half of our national budget, with no idea of how they will be paid back. Is this leadership?
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen alfalfa,
I get ridiculed every time I talk about how Bush is such a horrible president. Look at the legacy he leaves us with... This is why I want to see the debate though, Americans need to hear something from these candidates on at least some theories as to how we are going to deal with this. It worries me very much to think that I and my children will be paying for this dearly, and I want someone to step up, sounds like that person is going to be Obama.
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's 9:20 a.m. Friday and I'm still waiting to hear how much leadership McCain provided in the Washington meeting last night. Morning news says he just sat there and was "quiet."
Even some senate Republicans are echoing their Demo colleagues in saying that his action was just a stunt.
Gwen says, "We are surprised that Obama won’t join McCain on the high road." I'm sure you saw Obama there in Washington last night? Democrats including Pelosi DEFERRED to Obama who was leading the way in discussions.
I know, Gwen, it was tough on you to be writing in a black and white when things in Washington are changing by the minute. I'll give you that.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Legislative Branch has oversight (the Dems for the last 2 years) and are failing miserably. Anyone who is astounded or mystified by the need for ALL of the legislators to do the jobs they are being paid to do should do some homework at the high school level. If Franks and Dodd hadn't been asleep at the switch this would have been handled as a routine matter during normal business. The Legislature is too busy with politics because the leadership of the House and the Senate are failing to lead!
Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What oversight were the Dems supposed to give in a deregulated industry when every piece of legislation they've tried to "lead" on over the past two years has been vetoed? You can't create a situation doomed to failure, hand if off to the new guys and then blame them for the colapse. A lack of common sense oversight and a system that rewards corporate exects for short term gains at the long term expense of the company is to blame here. From what I'm reading, this isn't playing politics as much as ensuring that our tax dollars aren't waisted or going to fund golden parachutes for a bunch of irresponsible CEO's that caused this mess. If it takes a couple of more days to ensure the expenditure of $700 billion isn't wasted and has oversight, I'm all for spending the extra time. Call that playing politics, but I call it being smart.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
USNretired,
Do you have any clue about how much legislation has been on the floor concerning the very root of what caused the current financial crisis only to have it vetoed by the White House? Do you realize that the current administration is directly responsible for a great deal of this? The white house would have had us push a bill through very quickly and it would have been a massive catastrophe, The legilature is doing its job by ensuring that the tax payers get protected. You sir are the one in dire need of homework, or are you another one of those "mission accomplished" die hard republicans that helped us fall further as a nation than we ever have.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know how it's popular to blame everything on Bush (the latest fad) but not all of these mortgages that are failing were written in the last few years. Do some research on Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1995. That started the ball rolling, by a Democratic president with a Republican congress, and the ball continued to roll with a Republican president and a Republican congress, and was continually ignored by a Republican president with a Democrat congress. It started a temporary boom, which of course was popular, and action to limit that as it should have been would of course have been an unpopular move at the time. And now, as the Reverend Wright says, "the chickens are coming home to roost". There's plenty of blame to spread around and plenty of fingers to be pointed. I'm not saying it is all Clinton's fault, and doing the usual blame-Bush-first shows extreme lack of knowledge about the underlying causes of our current crisis. This has been building for awhile and ignored by both sides of the aisle.
Yet another bank failed overnight, this one the largest yet. The way out of this mess will forever be a "who knows". If we let it fall, who knows what will happen. Will we sink into a depression? Will massive foreign investment all leave the US? Would that be a good thing? If we bailout, what will that do to the economy? Will it wreck it in the long run? Will that leave any money left for anything else our economy requires?
I want to thank Gwen again for her editorial. Whether or not you agree with the side she ultimately took, she at least looked at points from both sides in an objective manner, and didn't pull all her talking points from the DailyKos. The way she presented it, I would have tended to agree with her regardless of her which point of view she sided with. I really don't think it matters that much. The debates will be done, whether this weekend or next. I didn't expect McCain to ride in on a white horse and save the day. But I do expect him to do his job. If there is a chance that he will inherit this mess, I think he needs to be as close to it as possible, and whether or not he is leading or listening.
Remember how 9/11 changed Bush's presidency? Lots of things that were campaigned on went out the window on that day. Same with this. Socialized health care may have just seen it's death knell for the next 8 years. This crisis possibly may be what defines the next presidents term. I pretty much know how each candidate stands on the issues, and I know there WILL be debates. Right now, I just want to see a resolution to this, one way or the other.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I fully realize the situation in Washington and what has gone on their for the last 30 years. Do some research people.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess a point I'm trying to make is things that seem like great ideas at the time aren't always best for the long run. I agree with momus that I think they need to spend the extra time and make sure this gets done right. Even then, who knows? We won't really know if the right decision was made for awile. Unfortunately, in this situation, there needs to be a short-term fix regardless. Obviously this cannot be put off for any length of time. We're pretty much in a lose-lose situation :(
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the idea of taking the time to fix this in a such manner that is stays fixed. I am looking at this problem in the perspective of past like issues and fixes. We have a unique monetary system unlike any other with no central bank in control and a laissez faire market. The Federal Government must accomplish their assigned duties, NO EXCUSES ACCEPTABLE. I would say their mission, but that is apparently an unfathomable term for some :). In military parlance a mission is a finite and fully defined goal or objective with a measurable conclusion.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bush started a war in Iraq for nothing, spending trillions that could have been better used now. He destabilized the region driving up oil prices in the process, enacted legislation in which we lost more freedoms than during any other administration and has claimed executive privilege just about every time someone puts a hard question to him. In short he has screwed things up so badly it is now my opinion that McCain wants to lose. Who would want this mess, its going to take at least 10 years to crawl out of this, and that is if things run to plan which they never do.
And by the way, those that wanted a town hall for Obama
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/d...
wish granted
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Starting to look like the Oxford debate may yet go on. Must be some progress in DC. Poor lefty loonies stand by to stand by. (Another bit of military parlance. ;))
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They just announced on KVOE that McCain will be at the debate tonight. He was quoted as saying it was because he thought they were making good progress towards a "bipartisan solution" to the bill. Hmm. Could it be he realized he would shoot himself in the foot if he skipped out? You have to wonder.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I honestly really never seriously doubted that he would not show up at the debate, regardless of how things went in DC.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like multitasking to me. Just a question... We all understand that loaning money to people that cannot or will not pay it back is a poor business practice, right? We also understand that Congressional oversight committees push this practice on lenders, right? This goes back in part to the so-called Great Society. In other words, socialistic practices are what is disrupting the market, not capitalistic ones.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
goodoleboy, what does your link have to do with a townhall-style meeting? That's just about the debate tonight....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And, USNretired, when did this practice get started in earnest? The Community Reinvestment Act was first enacted in 1977 but what changes & initiatives to it in the 90's have contributed to today's meltdown?
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL Is that a quiz, and how many parts are there? It would take a lot of space to answer completely, but in short it is the present incarnation of the implementation that disturbs me the most, not the verbage but the interpretation.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Backpedal much? Their is no solution until there is yet now after suspending his campaign to focus on said solution he decides to debate. My grandfather used to tell me "sit on the fence you get splinters" a leader John McCain is not in my eyes, real leaders are decisive and stand by their decisions, the hypocritical nature of this this sickens me, as does this editorial as we can all see now it was a sham. The only way for him to save face in my opinion is to stand by his decision and sit this out, not do whatever is convenient for him.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Open_eyes,
CNN has changed the story on that link, before it said that if McCain did not show up that the format would be that of a town hall style format with Obama, my kingdom for an edit button....
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't backpedal at all. Too bad it is all over your head.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL USNretired - my point exactly.
There are too many interlocking parts to this puzzle to point at any one particular person or administration and lay the blame at their feet. Regardless of how it all started, the current administration should have seen it coming and taken steps to head it off. Actually, Bush has mentioned it and given some warnings in the past, but he has done so meekly and quietly, and it has been largely unnoticed by the press. I think everyone can agree that action needed to be taken before the last second. But if he had taken steps before the crisis hit, how would the people have reacted to the "perceived" looming crisis? Favorable or unfavorable? How would the economy have reacted? Kindof like those who rant and rave about their perceived "loss of freedoms" during this administration. (I haven't noticed a single loss of any of MY freedoms, but maybe I just don't get out much - LOL). If there had been another attack on American soil of the magnitude of 9/11 or worse a few years ago, I would bet (there I go gambling again! ) many of those same people would be screaming that Bush wasn't doing enough to protect the country.
Lots of truth to the old saying: You can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time.... but.......
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
goodeoleboy - thanks for clarifying the CNN link. Hard to stay abreast of this story as fast as it is constantly changing... :)
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The market has people whose job it is to oversee them, same with the House and Senate. With authority goes responsibility and you cannot escape that. I hold those with the authority responsible. I know that it is a nightmare of tangled legislation stretching back over decades, but they took the job along with its pay and perquisites. Maybe it just randomly came to a head on their watch, but it is here now and so are they. I watch which ones try to "share" the blame and which ones accept their responsibility and move out at high port.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A 2003 NYT article shows President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago:” An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The proposal was blocked by many Democrats atop the list of Fannie/Freddie money recipients.
here are some snippets from http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.....
Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.
"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.".....
As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.
"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."......
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
continued snippets...
To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.....
These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.
Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.
Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was......
With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.
Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.
As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.
Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).
The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.
Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, Where do you get so much energy? Good living, I trust?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't post all this to blame Democrats solely, although the article pretty much implies it. We had a Republican congress while all this was going on. I'm just trying to point out 2 things: 1) The sheer idiocy of blaming Bush for everything, and 2) Even though there were warnings, by Bush among others, he still had the power to make it a priority and push it to the forefront of the American peoples consciousness, and he failed to do so. I'm an equal opportunity blamer - there, see, I believe in diversity too - LOL
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You get my vote.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, I'm on an all-day training conference call, and it is boring me to tears right now - LOL
Plus I'm the Google King. I actually use it alot both in my job and personal life.
Good Living? Uhm....... yeah, right!!!! I'll go with that! LOL
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay Gwen. Article tomorrow on the debate? How about one from you and one from an opposing viewpoint so we can savor both?
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
backpedal comment was not intended for you USNretired, stop being defensive, it was pointed at McCain. I can assure you none of this is over my head, I have an intricate knowledge of the issues and these forums do not have the medium for me to convey everything that needs to come to light, especially since it would be off topic, this is about the candidates, and even though I waver a bit I need to attempt to stay on point.
I blame Bush for Iraq, and Iraq is the source for a great many of our problems, ie oil, poor world image, trillions wasted and above all, killing American soldiers for no good reason. He prostituted our patriotism after 9-11 to do this and for this I feel he will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. Specifics on the economy would take more space than I have to type, but democrats have only held congress for 2 years now, not long enough to judge them in a political sense.
To be honest if McCain wins this I will be utterly amazed considering the amount of mistakes and poor use of judgment he has displayed.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or, we could have just one, objective, fair, nonpartisan article, that accurately points out good points made by both sides, bad points and mistakes made by both sides, and just presents it all without any spin, then let us dissect it and add our own viewpoints....
Ok, since I know what the next question to me will be, I'll go ahead and pre-emptively answer it now.
No, I do not, nor have I ever, done drugs.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lol open eyes, funny how so often the logical ones are insane =P
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 26, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, gang. It's time to move this discussion:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...