[hrothgar]

McCain has just announced that he is suspending his campaign and has asked that Friday's debate be cancelled.

Hard to know what to say about this one, other than to point out the obvious: If McCain had spent a bit more time thinking about the economy over the past couple of years he wouldn't have been caught quite so flat footed. It hardly looks presidential to pivot from "The fundamentals of the Economy are strong" to "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" within a week.

The cynic in me says that this is a desperate attempt to retrench a campaign that recently went into free fall.

Oh well, at least we know one thing: McCain doesn't seem to multitask very well...

[hrothgar]

This just in from Harry Reid

Quote

This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.

I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator Obama’s suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.

If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.

[luke warm]

i agree that it seems silly for mccain and/or obamba to think they have anything at all to do with "fixing" this mess, except so far as their votes on certain measures are concerned...

[cherdano]

He Jimmy, I like your signature!

[awm]

I agree with McCain on this one. Our country is facing a serious crisis here. The solution to this crisis will have serious repercussions for the course of the next president's term and beyond. It's really imperative that a sensible solution be found, and that we don't see one party or the other blocking the whole thing in order to score partisan points (or see a badly thought-out solution passed quickly and thoughtlessly in order to make partisan points). McCain is putting his country first and getting involved in solving this problem.

While it's true that McCain and Obama are "just senators" and their vote doesn't directly count more than anyone else's, they are both very popular leaders in their parties (much more popular than, say, George W. Bush or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi). Their opinions will be listened to by many in their parties, and by the nation as a whole. If the two of them are both satisfied that a good solution has been found (and speak out to that effect), it will go a long way toward calming the nerves of the American people and also toward getting the majorities in both parties to agree.

Before people make wrong assumptions, I should mention that I've been an Obama supporter throughout this campaign and agree with Obama on most major issues in this election. I thought McCain looked foolish in his initial response to this crisis. And I can see that by making a "grand gesture" like this one, McCain is hoping to reverse the current momentum in Obama's favor. Nonetheless, putting the election aside for a few days in order to help congress pass a solution to these economic woes is a responsible, presidential thing to do and I would like to see my candidate do the same.

[DrTodd13]

If you are going to buy into the nonsense that it is the job of our "leaders" to "run the economy" then it is comical for McCain to say he is retiring to Washington to contribute. He has been quoted numerous times as saying he doesn't understand economics. If there were such a thing as an ideal fix to this problem, it would almost certainly be unpopular politically. What McCain adds to the process is politicization, taking something that might help and turning it into something that will certainly help less and may contribute to the problem but will be certain to benefit those with political clout, which ain't you and me.

[pclayton]

Part of me just wants to watch the whole train wreck happen. All this whining about mom and dad not being able to get a loan for the TI's for their restaurant? That's not what this all about it, and that's not where wall street makes its dough anyway.

Something will step in to fill the gap. Where's there's a need for capital, it will be met.

If the price of capital means a substantial contraction in the price of assets to make the deal work, so be it.

[glen]

A couple of interesting youtube things today:

This video, Let's Play "Wallstreet Bailout" The Rules are ... is very popular:
Let's Play "WALLSTREET BAILOUT" The Rules Are... Rep Kaptur

Second, "YouTube will be undergoing scheduled maintenance, starting around 6:00 pm PDT. " - does YouTube go offline during Bush's TV appearances - and will he explain where the WMDs (weapons of money destruction) are kept?

[pclayton]

glen, on Sep 24 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

A couple of interesting youtube things today:

This video, Let's Play "Wallstreet Bailout" The Rules are ... is very popular:
Let's Play "WALLSTREET BAILOUT" The Rules Are... Rep Kaptur

Second, "YouTube will be undergoing scheduled maintenance, starting around 6:00 pm PDT. " - does YouTube go offline during Bush's TV appearances - and will he explain where the WMDs (weapons of money destruction) are kept?

Kaptur got off to a great start but once she started babbling about 'no foreclosures", I tuned her out.

I think its a double standard to brush off wall street but bail out the poor homeowner who has lost dinero on his casa.

Greed is not confined to a NY highrise. It operates in a 1,500 stucco box too.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Sep 24 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

If you are going to buy into the nonsense that it is the job of our "leaders" to "run the economy" then it is comical for McCain to say he is retiring to Washington to contribute. He has been quoted numerous times as saying he doesn't understand economics. If there were such a thing as an ideal fix to this problem, it would almost certainly be unpopular politically. What McCain adds to the process is politicization, taking something that might help and turning it into something that will certainly help less and may contribute to the problem but will be certain to benefit those with political clout, which ain't you and me.

I rarely agree with your posts, but I sure do this time. This problem would be a lot easier to solve without him (or Obama) around congress right now, and he knows it. This is nothing but a political stunt and I find it rather dispicible. This situation demonstrates one of my favorite things about Obama relative to McCain. Is there nothing he won't politicize?

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Sep 24 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Sep 24 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

If you are going to buy into the nonsense that it is the job of our "leaders" to "run the economy" then it is comical for McCain to say he is retiring to Washington to contribute.  He has been quoted numerous times as saying he doesn't understand economics.  If there were such a thing as an ideal fix to this problem, it would almost certainly be unpopular politically.  What McCain adds to the process is politicization, taking something that might help and turning it into something that will certainly help less and may contribute to the problem but will be certain to benefit those with political clout, which ain't you and me.

I rarely agree with your posts, but I sure do this time. This problem would be a lot easier to solve without him (or Obama) around congress right now, and he knows it. This is nothing but a political stunt and I find it rather dispicible. This situation demonstrates one of my favorite things about Obama relative to McCain. Is there nothing he won't politicize?

I partially agree and partialy disagree. I believe that McCain's motivation is political, but I don't find it particularly distasteful. He's trailing; he's going to swing. I also don't think that Obama is particularly different; he just has the luxury of the lead. His comment

"It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

is every bit as political as McCain's move. It's designed to do nothing more than make him look more fit, and McCain less fit, to be president; and it's disingenuous to the extent that it draws a false analogy -- if McCain's has to drop thing A to focus on thing B, he won't be able to simultaneously handle two important things as President. But McCain's stated purpose, pretextual though I believe it to be, is a poor analog here -- McCain is saying that "thing A" (trying to fix the financial crisis by serving in his capacity as Senator) is more important than "thing B" (trying to get elected).

That's not a knock on Obama; I personally think it was a good serve-and-volley. Nice shots by both of them in the middle of a still-contested election at a key time. McCain's trailing...he tries a little flea-flicker...Obama doesn't want to be seen as a follower of McCain's idea, but he doesn't want to come off as being less concerned...what to do? Someone in his camp comes up with a way to present it that serves all of his purposes at once. Well played, sir, but let's be realistic and honest...played, nonetheless.

So I don't think it was a negative thing on either side, and I don't think they're that different in this respect. You don't get as close as they both are to the presidency without playing politics, and playing it often and well. But was McCain "putting aside politics"?! Oh, hell no.

[matmat]

if mccain is so worried about the economy (rightfully so), maybe shifting the focus of the debate to fixing the economy/long term financial plans would make more sense than canceling it.

[kenberg]

glen, on Sep 24 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

A couple of interesting youtube things today:

This video, Let's Play "Wallstreet Bailout" The Rules are ... is very popular:
Let's Play "WALLSTREET BAILOUT" The Rules Are... Rep Kaptur

Second, "YouTube will be undergoing scheduled maintenance, starting around 6:00 pm PDT. " - does YouTube go offline during Bush's TV appearances - and will he explain where the WMDs (weapons of money destruction) are kept?

I realize that she is a representative rather than a senator but Mark Twain's line comes to mind:
Dear Reader, imagine that you are a senator and imagine that you are an idiot. But then I repeat myself.

[cherdano]

awm, on Sep 24 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

I agree with McCain on this one. Our country is facing a serious crisis here. The solution to this crisis will have serious repercussions for the course of the next president's term and beyond. It's really imperative that a sensible solution be found, and that we don't see one party or the other blocking the whole thing in order to score partisan points (or see a badly thought-out solution passed quickly and thoughtlessly in order to make partisan points). McCain is putting his country first and getting involved in solving this problem.

Adam, I think this is non-sense. I agree that a bailout to which only one of the two presidential candidates agrees would probably be a no-go. However, the opinions of McCain and Obama were pretty well-known and not all that different (except McCain tried to leave the door open to vote no even if his conditions were met); hence Obama's suggestion of a joint statement made a lot of sense. However, bringing both of them directly into the negotiations would just politicize them more rather than less.
So this was clearly a try to score political points (and maybe even to avoid a VP debate altogether...); anything that happens could only be good for McCain, given the recent polls. Whether you find that legitimate or not is up to you to judge. But country first? Give me a break. Both candidates are trying to win the election - fortunately for both of them it wouldn't be helpful to be seen as blocking a solution, so they probably won't.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Sep 24 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

If you are going to buy into the nonsense that it is the job of our "leaders" to "run the economy" then it is comical for McCain to say he is retiring to Washington to contribute. He has been quoted numerous times as saying he doesn't understand economics. If there were such a thing as an ideal fix to this problem, it would almost certainly be unpopular politically. What McCain adds to the process is politicization, taking something that might help and turning it into something that will certainly help less and may contribute to the problem but will be certain to benefit those with political clout, which ain't you and me.

They are able to run the economy....into the ground!

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on Sep 24 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 24 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

I agree with McCain on this one. Our country is facing a serious crisis here. The solution to this crisis will have serious repercussions for the course of the next president's term and beyond. It's really imperative that a sensible solution be found, and that we don't see one party or the other blocking the whole thing in order to score partisan points (or see a badly thought-out solution passed quickly and thoughtlessly in order to make partisan points). McCain is putting his country first and getting involved in solving this problem.

Adam, I think this is non-sense. I agree that a bailout to which only one of the two presidential candidates agrees would probably be a no-go. However, the opinions of McCain and Obama were pretty well-known and not all that different (except McCain tried to leave the door open to vote no even if his conditions were met); hence Obama's suggestion of a joint statement made a lot of sense. However, bringing both of them directly into the negotiations would just politicize them more rather than less.
So this was clearly a try to score political points (and maybe even to avoid a VP debate altogether...); anything that happens could only be good for McCain, given the recent polls. Whether you find that legitimate or not is up to you to judge. But country first? Give me a break. Both candidates are trying to win the election - fortunately for both of them it wouldn't be helpful to be seen as blocking a solution, so they probably won't.

Wherever Obama is stacked up to McCain, he will win in all but one category and that is skin color.

Your election will come down to deciding to vote based on prejudicial fear. McCain is using the fear motive to get people into that mindset. The more fearful the electorate gets, the more they will vote for him.

The economy will go where it is going.

700 billion buys a lot of rich people a lot of safety.

It buys some 150 million people some more debt.

[helene_t]

I will probably regret that I am writing this, but my immediate sentiment is that I agree with most of what has been said here, especially Phil's comment.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 25 2008, 04:49 AM, said:

Wherever Obama is stacked up to McCain, he will win in all but one category and that is skin color.

huh?

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 25 2008, 02:28 AM, said:

I agree with McCain on this one. Our country is facing a serious crisis here. The solution to this crisis will have serious repercussions for the course of the next president's term and beyond. It's really imperative that a sensible solution be found, and that we don't see one party or the other blocking the whole thing in order to score partisan points (or see a badly thought-out solution passed quickly and thoughtlessly in order to make partisan points). McCain is putting his country first and getting involved in solving this problem.

While it's true that McCain and Obama are "just senators" and their vote doesn't directly count more than anyone else's, they are both very popular leaders in their parties (much more popular than, say, George W. Bush or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi). Their opinions will be listened to by many in their parties, and by the nation as a whole. If the two of them are both satisfied that a good solution has been found (and speak out to that effect), it will go a long way toward calming the nerves of the American people and also toward getting the majorities in both parties to agree.

Before people make wrong assumptions, I should mention that I've been an Obama supporter throughout this campaign and agree with Obama on most major issues in this election. I thought McCain looked foolish in his initial response to this crisis. And I can see that by making a "grand gesture" like this one, McCain is hoping to reverse the current momentum in Obama's favor. Nonetheless, putting the election aside for a few days in order to help congress pass a solution to these economic woes is a responsible, presidential thing to do and I would like to see my candidate do the same.

Adam, I think that you're dead wrong on this one:

I don't see any benefit from having McCain (or for that matter Obama) insert themselves into this process. Neither of the Senators serves on the Banking committee which is where all the actual work is being done.

McCain has little or no expertise on these issues and he is hardly a leader of the Senate Republicans. (Please recall, hes the one claiming to be a maverick, running against his own party)

I see little or no benefit seeing him blunder around like a bull in a china shop, spouting that he's suddenly seen the light about the joy of government regulation and the evil of greed...

As for the Friday night debates: I see absolutely no reason why these need to be cancelled. I think there is a valid question whether or not the theme for the debates should be changed from Foreign Relations to the Economy. (Personally, I lean towards sticking with the original theme - The last thing that the markets need is McCain flailing away; desperately trying to score political points in the midst of a financial crisis)

However, if McCain wants to cut and run, or take a time out or whatever he's calling it, no ones going to be able to stop him.

[kenberg]

As the rescue plan is debated, McCain and Obama are largely irrelevant. They (and we) will of course be stuck with the results but I cannot imagine that they have either the expertise or even the standing to make any significant contributions. This is a sad fact but it's the way that it is.

What the debate will do, if it is held, is to highlight the extent to which events have become dominant. Debates are great for one-liners "I knew Jack Kennedy..." , "I'm paying for this microphone..." and so on. Al Gore demonstrated his ability to sigh loudly. Maybe the candidates say something original, most likely they do not say anything that cannot be found in their press releases. They listen to the question and then say something that may not even be related, let alone responsive.

If the seriousness of the moment convinces the candidates that it is their best interest to discuss matters with depth and intelligence then the debates will be useful. Hope springs eternal.

Mc Cain is not looking good here. The economy is sound. I'll fire the head of the SEC. I'll suspend my campaign. I'll ...? Stay tuned for the latest plan.