comment #1

Michael says ...

Actually, Wells, it was a genius move. McCain has been, rightfully, getting hammered because of the markets for a couple of weeks. This positions him as leading on the issue, and Obama in the position of campaigning at the expense of dealing with the meltdown. Give Obama truth serum, and he'd admit he is sorely pissed his camp didn't think of it first.

comment #2

Joel says ...

Wow. Skipping out on Letterman may really, really cost McCain.

comment #3

arturobandini2 says ...

Hey Michael, Obama DID think of it first. His campaign contacted McCain's campaign this morning and suggested they make a joint announcement to plea for bipartisan action. Shortly afterward, McCain went on TV and acted like it was HIS sole concern, made independently. Now the Cone of Silence story makes complete sense: McCunt is a coward and a cheater. People who stick up for him are cut from the same cloth.

comment #4

62Lincoln says ...

Sorry Wells, but I don't agree with you (and am donning flame proof outwear). A leader leads. In this case, going to Washington to lead the debate and forge a conclusion is much more convincing than Obama's position, which restated is 'Give me a call if you need me.' Does he really need to be told that his leadership is needed? If this situation is not critical enough for his leadership, what situation would be critical enough to elicit his involvement? As Michael wrote, this is a smart move by McCain, and will be perceived well by the middle of the political spectrum. The extremists on either side will do what they always do: love it or hate it.

comment #5

62Lincoln says ...

...and call names (see arturo for example).

comment #6

travis b says ...

There's a difference between a good leader and a poor one.

A good leader can not only handle multiple tasks or issues at once, but they also have the foresight to know when problems are on the horizon, allowing them to steer the ship away from said problems. Just last week, McCain was telling people the economy was strong. Now, he's stopping the democratic process (and yes,postponing the debate reeks of desperation and an effort to stop the wheels. The faltering economy nor the debates are out of the blue), to be the "hero." McCain is a Congressman of over 20 years, having been in the Senate during the 1987 financial crisis (which, if memory serves, he was peripherally involved in the Keating Five), so if anything he should have seen this coming months ago and pushed Congress to do something. Instead, he rested on his laurels, until his poll numbers were down. Not a sign of good leadership, or at least the kind that I want as the head of this country.

Enough mediocrity. Get these people out of here.

comment #7

arturobandini2 says ...

Gimme a friggin break, 62! This move by McCain is a nakedly transparent photo op, nothing more. Only people with IQs even lower than Sarah Palin's will fall for it. Did you even bother to watch the Letterman tape? If POW Man were really suspending his campaign, why is he getting a makeover to be on Katie Couric's show tonight?

comment #8

lonniechung says ...

McCain is worried about the debate, pure and simple. The fact that this administration wants to rush into the bailout so blindly, stressing that "we are running out of time", makes it all feel like one final scam from a group of liars. McCain has already proved that he has very little feel for the details of the economy, so I doubt he has much to offer by way of a solution. Obama should put together a counter-plan using all of the economists who think that the Bush administration is nuts and unveil a basic outline on Friday night - since he'll have plenty of national airtime to kill.

comment #9

buster says ...

people like arturo who speak in absolutes are cunts.

That said...

This reeks of desperation on McCains part. It's so transparent it's absolutely disgusting. This is the type of shit we should focus on when attacking McCain, not Palin's predilection for mowing down moose. There's nothing a single Senator can do in the 6 hours it'll take to fly to Miss, debate, and fly back to DC that would necessitate these debates be postponed. 95% of the preparation should already be complete.

Equally sickening... Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee was just on Rachel Maddow and said with a straight face that the Bush Administration dropped the ball. The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Blaming OTHER people. Offering not a hint of culpability. And Maddow gives him a pass. Unreal.

comment #10

buster says ...

bah, that was over the line, apologies arturo...just try not to be such a cliche.

comment #11

Ogami Itto says ...

The thing is, Obama isn't the greatest debater either. If you watched the Democratic primary debates Clinton handed Obama his ass more often than not, and I say that as an Obama supporter.

If McCain shows up to the debate and doesn't fall asleep and drool all over himself pundits will claim that he "won": McCain has that soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations thing going for him.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

"McCain has already proved that he has very little feel for the details of the economy, so I doubt he has much to offer by way of a solution."

Actually, he did - in 2005, as one of the three co-sponsors of a Fannie and Freddie reform bill.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter...

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

By the way, if Obama had pulled what McCain did today (yes, a purely political move), Wells would be praising his purity of soul and noble actions to high heaven.

comment #13

Josh Massey says ...

The italics were meant to extend until after "...over the years." The last graph is mine.

comment #14

Gordie Lachance says ...

Why are you guys acting like this one single event (the postponement of McCain's campaign) is somehow transparent bullshit?

The entire political process in this country (the media, the polls, the conventions, the pandering, the vote tampering) is transparent bullshit. That's how everyone likes it. Why get upset now?

comment #15

arturobandini2 says ...

Buster, I can take it as well as I can dish it out. But why the hell are you still here? Our host asked you to leave over a week ago, as I recall.

In this election, we're way past the point of playing softball -- and we all know exactly which side "set the tone." What McCain did today goes beyond "desperation." It's repugnant beyond belief. He took an olive branch extended by Obama and tried to jam it up Obama's ass. Even though I intended to type "McCant" (call it a Freudian typo), the moniker applies in this case.

comment #16

Ogami Itto says ...

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis has apparently been on the take from Freddie Mac, too:

http://www.campaignmoney.org/pressroom/2008/09/24/davis-freddie-mac

There's plenty of blame to go around.

comment #17

Jake says ...

Judging by McCain's behavior over the past month or so, suspending his campaign may be the best thing for the country.

comment #18

Richardson says ...

"Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable."

Yes, the poor Republican majority couldn't get ANYthing done because of them damn liberals in Washington. Throw 'em out!

Do you ever actually look into your talking points before repeating them? It's difficult to argue with a parrot; eventually, you feel stupid for thinking the parrot understands whats its saying.

comment #19

Michael says ...

arturo, I'll assume the remark was directed towards me. I'll let you go back through the posts to find out who I'm voting for...if you don't like cutthroat political theatre, that's on you. If you actually intended to type "McCant", I suggest you get checked for palsey. I don't think that's what you intended.

comment #20

Josh Massey says ...

Richardson: "Talking points?" Really? That lazy fallback is the best you can do?

Trust me, I get it: whenever a liberal agrees with a politician or commentator, it's from the lips of God, and when a conservative does the same, it's the mindless, droning drumbeat of repetition. Of course. Because, by God, we couldn't form our own opinions based on the reporting of others. (Especially when they're actually based on the irrefutable facts presented within that link.)

Now come back with something witty, about how Bush is stupid or Palin is a redneck. Or "McSame." Amazing how a million liberals all came up with that one on their own.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

"in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric"

Makes sense, considering she's chosen to reinvent herself as a Bush-bot.

Michael: "Actually, Wells, it was a genius move."

That's what I keep hearing when McCain bungles something, and it ends up pushing him further in the polls behind Obama.

"This positions him as leading on the issue, and Obama in the position of campaigning at the expense of dealing with the meltdown."

If he's leading on the issue, he wouldn't let Bush speak for him...

Lincoln: "In this case, going to Washington to lead the debate and forge a conclusion is much more convincing"

It's convincing from a guy who said the market was "sound" up until a few days ago?

Itto: "If you watched the Democratic primary debates Clinton handed Obama his ass more often than not, and I say that as an Obama supporter."

He's got Biden on his side now, though. So he should at least be able to anticipate low blows better.

Josh: You sure that's McCain you're talking about? http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/24/ill-get-back-to-you-when-pressed-palin-cant-give-specifics-on-mccains-pro-regulation-record/#comments
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/northwestlaw/archives/149530.asp?from=blog_last3

comment #22

iamwhoiam says ...

Obviously it's an excuse to escape the debate and a PR stunt, but sadly at least half of the people in America are stupid enough to buy it.

comment #23

arturobandini2 says ...

Sorry, Michael, but I call your bluff, too. I accuse you of trolling for the wingnuts. Your sort has been popping up on left-leaning sites all summer long, claiming to be Obama supporters on one hand while actually doing your best to undermine his campaign in a subversive fashion. You've discovered that BillO and Rush's blunt style doesn't brainwash like it used to, so you and your kind infiltrated these sites masquerading as "rational" Obama supporters. But little by little, you keep shivving him with little digs instead, and always "have to admit" you admire McCain for something underhanded he's done. So I say Bullshit.

What McCain did today wasn't merely a dirty political stunt. He intentionally politicized the worst crisis this country has encountered since 9/11 while pretending it was an act of patriotism. Just as the Bush Gang exploited 9/11 to make a power grab for oil, and Republicans exploited the same tragedy to drive a wedge between the country, McCain proved today that he has no shame. If you were a real Obama supporter, you would not be praising such a naked act of treason, and you certainly wouldn't suggest that Obama wishes he'd done of it first.

comment #24

Yuval says ...

"they're actually based on the irrefutable facts presented within that link"

Let's take a look at some of those irrefutable facts-

"Actually, he did - in 2005, as one of the three co-sponsors of a Fannie and Freddie reform bill."
False, he only supported it on May 2006, nine months after it was already dead on committee. The Republicans who supported the bill didn't think it had a chance in the senate (one with a Republican majority).

"But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years"
False, Obama and Clinton were never on the Senate Banking Committee, and if we're discussing taking money from Fannie and Freddie then McCain's campaign manager didn't receive contributions, he was officially working for them (I wonder how he and Hassett are getting along). While McCain's record only shows cosponsoring this one bill 9 months too late, Obama has sponsored and cosponsored at least 6 different bills concerning banks and mortgage reform in the last 4 years.

"If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed. "

False, let's look at an interpretation of the bill by Hassett's colleague Peter Wallison (which he quotes on the piece you linked to) dated September 2005 - "S 190 addresses this problem [interest rate risk] by requiring that the GSEs reduce their portfolios to near zero--permitting them only to accumulate mortgages for purposes of securitization... they are taking only credit risk--not the far more substantial interest-rate risk"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23187/pub_detail.asp
Since the subprime mortgage crisis was a result of a fraudulent securitization process the bill doesn't seem to have been an effective measure. The credit risk (loaners unable to pay the mortgage) is what caused this crisis, not interest rate risk.

"By the way, if Obama had pulled what McCain did today (yes, a purely political move), Wells would be praising his purity of soul and noble actions to high heaven."
Might be true or false, we wouldn't know until Obama tries to postpone a debate because he's behind in the polls. We can play this game all day - How would Wells react if Obama chose Palin as VP? How would Wells react if Obama said the economy was strong? How would Wells react if Obama was a white man in his seventies? I understand you feel that Wells' reaction to current events is very important, but how do you react, today, when it is, in fact, McCain pulling this purely political move since he is too scared of a debate?

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

"What McCain did today wasn't merely a dirty political stunt. He intentionally politicized the worst crisis this country has encountered since 9/11 while pretending it was an act of patriotism."

Wait a second, Arturo - I thought it was originally Obama's idea, as you said above! So are you accusing him of the same?

comment #26

George Prager says ...

Michael says...

Actually, Wells, it was a genius move. By not wearing any makeup, Nixon looks more genuine, more natural, more presidential.

Posted by Michael Author Profile Page at September 24, 1960 10:44 PM

comment #27

Howlingman says ...

What would be more brilliant would be for McCain to send Palin to debate Obama in his stead. It'll show how Presidential he is by managing a crisis, and it'll demonstrate how prepared she is to assume the Presidency should the need arise.

comment #28

snackyx says ...

"Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward."

Can the Clintons be any more transparent in their quest to run Hillary in 2012?

comment #29

arturobandini2 says ...

Josh, do your lips move when you read? Crack open a newspaper, why doncha?

Obama initiated a goodwill effort to make a bipartisan JOINT STATEMENT about the economic crisis yesterday morning. McCain took a dump on Obama's gesture and released an INDEPENDENT STATEMENT, insinuating that he alone was taking the high road. Obama continues to behave like a leader; and once again, McCain acts like a punk. Only this time, he did so at the peril of our future.

comment #30

Richardson says ...

""Talking points?" Really? That lazy fallback is the best you can do?"

Yes, if all you give me is already debunked talking points to respond to, then all I can do is call you out for spewing previously debunked talking points. It is not my job in the conversation to prop you up like a punch drunk boxer and pretend that you are making valid points that warrant a specific response.

As I said, if you actually looked into the talking points, instead of just parroting them without independent thought, you wouldn't be spewing them, because you would already be aware that they weren't true. (Maybe I'm assuming too much; maybe you don't care if you're spewing total bullshit. But I assume you're just willfully uninformed.)

"Especially when they're actually based on the irrefutable facts presented within that link."

Pretty bird! Who's a pretty bird? Cracker? Want a cracker? SQUAWK!

"Or "McSame." Amazing how a million liberals all came up with that one on their own."

Well, first of all, I hate liberals who blindly repeat debunked talking points too (I can't think of one off-hand, but I'm sure DZ will provide us with plenty). Second, I have never said "McSame" (I will admit that "Insane / Palin" made me chuckle the first few times I saw it). And, third off, calling opposition candidates by insulting nicknames is not a talking point, and is something both sides engage in every four years which has always seems childish to me. The old "Be-Sharps" thing.

comment #31

buster says ...

Sorry, Michael, but I call your bluff, too. I accuse you of trolling for the wingnuts. Your sort has been popping up on left-leaning sites all summer long, claiming to be Obama supporters on one hand while actually doing your best to undermine his campaign in a subversive fashion. You've discovered that BillO and Rush's blunt style doesn't brainwash like it used to, so you and your kind infiltrated these sites masquerading as "rational" Obama supporters.

You're right Arturo ... we should be very suspicious of rational and objective Obama supporters ....

You are the dangerous one, swallowing whole everything sycophantal followers dish out. You guys spend so much time attacking the right for buying into the republican dogma--and it's warranted in many cases--but then as soon as an Obama supporter questions or challenges the liberal dogma or something the politician Obama says (lest we forget he IS a politician and we, as responsible citizens, should scrutinize his decisions) you pounce like someone just yelled bomb on an airplane. Yeah, way to promote the free exchange of ideas, nazi.

comment #32

Richardson says ...

buster - nobody believes that you're a real Obama supporter either, since you have literally never had a single positive thing to say about Obama since you started posting here. There is not a single decision he has made or statement he has made that you have expressed even mild support of or agreement with. So everything arturo said applies to you as well. That's the free exchange of ideas in a nutshell; you express your ideas about Obama supporters, and Obama supporters express their ideas about you. You don't like our ideas about you, and you insult us for them and say that we shouldn't have the right to say them -- but we're Nazis for calling you out on it? Again, sounds very right-wing, to describe all your critics in the harshest possible terms, to the point of ridiculousness.

comment #33

arturobandini2 says ...

Thanks, Richardson. It's less lonely down in this rabbit hole with you around.

Buster, once again I ask...

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL HERE??? Our host asked you to beat it in no uncertain terms. We see right through you. No one wants you here except for your fellow trolls.

comment #34

Michael says ...

If you were a real Obama supporter, you would not be praising such a naked act of treason, and you certainly wouldn't suggest that Obama wishes he'd done of it first.

Not sure I mentioned I was an Obama supporter...just that I was voting for him. There's a nuanced difference that is or is not lost on you. I'm not an Obama sycophant, though, so maybe that's where the misunderstanding is.

I'm not voting for McCain because I don't think the Republicans (and Bush admin.) should be rewarded for their performance over the past eight years...they aren't for liberty, they're just on the side that is in power.

But you just keep thinking that every lukewarm Obama vote is a McCain/Palin spytroll...in the words of the Great Sultan, 'you are STILL my brother.'

comment #35

Richardson says ...

"Not sure I mentioned I was an Obama supporter...just that I was voting for him."

Well, I'm sure that's the best way to send him the message that you don't support him.

comment #36

Josh Massey says ...

Alright, Richardson - you say that story is debunked. Show me where it is debunked.

And not by some anonymous message board poster, either.

comment #37

buster says ...

Richard, I never said you guys don't have the right to say anything, I merely suggest you elevate the discussion above the normal nattering McCain bashing.

And are you kidding? You're criticizing me for not saying anything positive about Obama? The entire reason I got banned was because I suggested Jeff spend more time saying positive things about Obama.

But since McCain bashing is the preferred (rather, ONLY ACCEPTABLE) form of Obama support here, and I just bashed McCain in my original comment, isn't that evidence of Obama support? If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Come on dude, transitive property, it's 7th grade shit...you don't see that and yet you think you're qualified to discuss bank regulation. Time for a little reflection. Maybe a night course at the local community college would help?

comment #38

Michael says ...

Well, I'm sure that's the best way to send him the message that you don't support him.

Be deliberately ignorant of the difference if you want, Richardson...someone as well written as you understands the nuance of it. Unless you're just posing.

comment #39

buster says ...

Michael, I understand exactly what you mean, but to the nutters here, it's not enough to vote for Obama while trying remain open-minded and objective. That's simply not tolerable for these tolerant, enlightened, free-spirited souls. No, you must get on your knees, face towards Chicago, and bow in awe of Obama.

I think he's smarter and savvier than McCain and I think this makes up for his relative lack of experience...and I'll be voting for him accordingly. I do not think, however, that he is the messiah nor a perfect candidate, and if these supporters only realized they are acting like the crazed bible bangers they loath so much, this would be a much less acrimonious campaign season.

comment #40

buster says ...

sorry, didn't mean to deliberately make a muslim allusion, but the image of bowing and praying is appropriate when talking about the sycophantism and mania exhibited by many supporters...supporters here.

comment #41

Richardson says ...

"Be deliberately ignorant of the difference if you want, Richardson...someone as well written as you understands the nuance of it. Unless you're just posing."

You I think I'm pretending to be well-written? What an interesting thing to say.

I do understand the potential semantic difference, yes. I just think it's funny to feel the need to correct "supporter" to "voter", since voting is the #1 way to show support, and the only kind of support which ultimately matters as far as the candidate is concerned.

comment #42

Richardson says ...

"And not by some anonymous message board poster, either."

This sounds like a trick question. If you're saying that information from an anonymous message board poster isn't enough, then why would you listen to me? Do your own research; the facts are readily available on-line, and if I just point it out to you, you're just continuing to do exactly what I'm criticizing you for; reading information and not processing it yourself or doing your own research to figure out, independently of any single source, what really happened.

comment #43

Richardson says ...

"I never said you guys don't have the right to say anything"

Well, you compared the expression of an opinion to being a Nazi. I'm not sure what that was intended to accomplish, but it certainly seemed to suggest that we shouldn't be saying what we were saying.

"And are you kidding? You're criticizing me for not saying anything positive about Obama? The entire reason I got banned was because I suggested Jeff spend more time saying positive things about Obama."

I don't see the part of that that is anything positive about Obama.

"But since McCain bashing is the preferred (rather, ONLY ACCEPTABLE) form of Obama support here"

That is a false given, and since you're using that given as proof that it itself is true, you're begging the question too. Keep it up! You're going for the bad logic hat trick.

"and I just bashed McCain in my original comment, isn't that evidence of Obama support? If A=B, and B=C, then A=C."

Interesting. So you claim that bashing McCain is *not* being positive about Obama, but then you attempt to use bashing McCain to prove that you have been positive about Obama.

I'm going to check with the judges, but I'm pretty sure you just made that hat trick. Congratulations!

"yet you think you're qualified to discuss bank regulation."

I think I'm qualified to talk about it with a bunch of quasi-informed people on-line, yes. I wouldn't suggest that I belong in the room making the decisions.

comment #44

Richard's Son says ...

Unfortunately, I guess this conversation has been cut short, because Jeff has banned me for making fun of his love/hate relationship with pornography and other nudity. Ah well. Sorry folks. I'm sure I'll be bored at work and create a new TypeKey account at work before too long, once DZ makes a point so stupid that I can't leave it unchallenged.

comment #45

Yuval says ...

Josh, I do believe you want to stay blind to the truth, but here is all the evidence layed out in front of you.

The library of Congress website, look at the date when McCain became cosponsor
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

Now look at "Last action" on the govtrack.us site and you'll see it was 9 months (more like 10 months) before McCain decided to cosponsored it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Since you based your "facts" on a commentay piece by a McCain advisor (Kevin Hassett) and he so quotes Greenspan and Wilson as his sources, I hope this is sufficient proof for you-
1. The Wilson article I linked to earlier, stating that the object of the bill was the limit interest rate risk (and not credit risk from secuitized loans)
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23187/pub_detail.asp
2, Greenspan stating the crisis span from a faulty rating process, that made securitize loans not so secure/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21097872/
Any conclusions?

Since even McCain and Palin aren't denying that Davis received a monthly paycheck from Freddie Mac, I hope this is sufficient evidence for you.

The Obama and Clinton wikipedia bios, where I can't seem to find the Senate Banking Committee (if you can direct me to a source that says otherwise though)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton

I could list the different bills concerning bank and mortgage fraud Obama sponspored and cosponsored in just 4 years, but enough is enough (for now at least), do your own fucking research. Will you get back to me later with any bills McCain supported in his 26 years in the senate? (and not one he supported 9 months after it was already dead).