The obvious answer is that if he doesn't suspend his campaign, it looks like he's doing it for his campaign. It also doesn't make sense to be putting out ads (on both sides) bashing one another when you're trying to accomplish something in a bipartisan manner.
Ads aren't required to bash the other side. This may be shocking, but they can also be used to get out your message to a wider audience.
Non sequitur. Three of the candidates are senators. It isn't about calling a time out, it's about studying the proposals, making their own proposals, deals cut in smoke filled rooms, and casting their votes. You can't seriously want to argue that this bill is somehow along the lines of the trivial bullshit they work on typically. And I've got a bridge to nowhere on sale, just for you, and cheap!
Sounds like this might be a moot argument, as I guess D's and R's have reached an agreement in principle for the bailout.
But that's exactly what Sen. Obama has said he would have to do as President. He's already said he's going to have to cut back on some of the programs he wants. This economic bailout bill is going to have serious implications for his goody bag of government gifts. It's appalling to me that he's not out in front of it, presenting what he wants and using his bully pulpit to get his point of view across, as the result of this bill will dramatically affect the presidency of either candidate.
Major props to Olbermann for saying this was a ploy for McCain to get the VP Debate cancelled right after McCain made the announcement. This is looking like a major blunder by McCain. Obama has been able to frame it as McCain can't multitask. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/am-trackers-suggest-poor-reaction-to.html Also, when 86% of the nation wants the debate to go on, well the debate should go on. People have been organizing parties around this first debate. This would be like if they postponed the Super Bowl on the Saturday before the game. It is a ridiculous thing to do.
Hey, even David Letterman has re-runs when he's on vacation. When's the last time he's let Paul Schaffer run the show without him there?
He also has guest hosts. actually, I don't know; I don't watch TV. I think Leno has guest hosts, though.
Would it be fair for Palin to go on campaigning, while both Obama and Biden were in the senate doing their jobs? If there's any real advantage to McCain in all of this, it's his ability to conserve on his campaign spending for a few days.
I'll say right now that I'm leaning to voting for McCain probably 60%-40%. If the debates are delayed for a week or so, I have no problem with it. However, if this delay request is a tactic to cancel the Vice Presidential debate, I will vote for Barack Obama. Sarah Palin as President scares the life out of me, but part of my fear is that I haven't been able to view her in an extemporaneous forum. I need the debate between her and Biden to get comfortable with her. If the GOP decides they need to try to run away from it, I cast a vote for a candidate I don't particularly like as a protest.
How about taking out loans? If less government money were available, you wouldn't see tuition increase 7%-8% annually while inflation has been less than a third of that.
Now come on people, Washington needs Palin there to help work on this economic crisis. I know she isn't a senator, but her husband had no government title and found his way in Alaska government affairs. Sara Palin can do the same thing. And think what she can add, when talking about all the bad loans and what to do with them, she can politely raise her hand, and tell teh congress "I know what to do with the bad loans . . . . . . . let's ebay them" and then she can tilt her head and smile for the photo shoot. Go Palin Go!
What? Keith Olbermann said something negative about John McCain? Next you'll tell me Sean Hannity may say something bad about Barack Obama. I don't buy that argument. I see John McCain as a leader who is putting the economy ahead of his own candidacy. For better or worse, Henry Paulson and the Republican leadership has decided that they need McCain's presence in Washington to get this deal passed. It doesn't seem like the Democrats need Sen. Obama there, nor does he appear to have any desire to drive the debate. Why not just post something from dailykos? It's about as reliable. The debate will go on. It may go on a few days later. What's the difference? As for people scheduling parties, changing a date for a get together is a little less important than purchasing the equivalent of $2,300 of MBS for every man, woman and child in the US.
And as sad as that would be, it would be more than Sen. Biden or Sen. Obama have done heretofore regarding this crisis. It blows my mind how blase people are about this bill. This is the most impactful piece of legislation in any of our lifetimes. If it doesn't happen, to quote Patrick Swayze in "Next of Kin": "You ain't seen bad yet...but it's comin'."
I'm not blaze about the bill . . . they just don't need McCain and Obama to get it done. As evidenced by the fact they have reached a bipartisian agreement.
I profoundly disagree. First, Sens. Biden, McCain and Obama are all members of our national legislature. This is the most important vote any of them have ever been faced with casting. They have a moral responsibility to be part of the debate and the vote. Second, either Sen. McCain or Sens. Obama and Biden will be stuck with the implications of this bill. From a management perspective, it makes sense that either party would want it on their terms to allow them to have as successful a presidency as possible. Abdicating it to other members of your party is simply irresponsible. Third, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are the leaders of their respective parties. You don't lead by skirting responsibility on a bill of this magnatude.
Besides, Palin's going to kick Biden's senile old ass in the debate anyway, so the whole premise of this thread is silly.
