BREAKING NEWS: McCain SUSPENDS HIS CAMPAIGN (merged)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

McCain: Scrap Friday Debate for Bailout; Obama Camp: 'The Debate is On'
Email
Share

September 24, 2008 3:04 PM

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Rick Klein report: Sen. John McCain on Wednesday said he would “suspend” his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill, a dramatic move designed to seize a powerful issue.

However a senior Obama campaign official said Obama "intends to debate."

"The debate is on," a senior Obama campaign official told ABC News.

McCain said he called on the Commission on Presidential Debates to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday in Mississippi, to ensure quick congressional action. The campaign is also suspending its advertising, pending an agreement with Obama.

“I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me,” McCain planned to say in New York City, according to advance excerpts released by his campaign. “I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

Obama supporter and chief debate negotiator Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., told MSNBC that "we can handle both," when asked about his reaction to McCain's call to postpone the first debate because of the administration's bailout plan.

He believes they are making good progress on Capitol Hill on the bailout and his initial reaction is that the work on the Hill should not preclude the debate from taking place.

An Obama campaign official told ABC News the Democratic presidential candidate called McCain this morning to suggest a joint statement of principles.

McCain called back this afternoon and suggested returning to Washington.

Obama is willing to return to Washington "if it would be helpful." But reiterated Obama intends to debate on Friday.

McCain and his top advisers said the Republican presidential candidate has not committed to voting for the massive financial bailout plan proposed by the Bush administration, with aides saying he will reserve final judgment until there is a final product.

A senior McCain campaign official said that the “Bush package is dead. This is a serious situation. Package must be resolved by the time markets open on Monday."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that McCain had assured Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that he would support the $700 billion legislation.

Asked about that Wednesday, McCain responded: “I did not say that.”

Senior advisor Mark Salter then interjected saying, “He hasn’t said that to Paulson or to Reid or to anybody else. He hasn’t said that to me.”

McCain campaign political director Mike DuHaime told reporters at a lunch meeting in Washington that the senator will not commit until he sees the final package that comes to the Senate floor.

“He’s going to do what he thinks is right,” DuHaime said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “He’ll make a vote as a leader in this country, and people will look to him.”

DuHaime added, “Quite frankly, I think you could ask Sen. Obama if he’s going to do what he thinks is right. I mean, he has never -- I believe -- never once made a decision that is an unpopular decision or went against the orthodoxy of his party, and was one that was one that was a tough decision to make. . . . Sen. McCain has done that throughout his entire career, his entire life -- not just in politics, but his life.”

DuHaime said that while McCain understands the urgency, many voters continue to have important questions about what the bailout means to them.

“When you start talking about $10,000 per household or per family to go toward bailing out Wall Street, they have legitimate questions about it,” DuHaime said. “People understand that that is a big thing and it affects them, and they do legitimately have questions about, is this really going to go to bail out companies or leaders of companies who now are relying on taxpayer dollars to bail them out, and are going to get these huge compensation packages after they come to the taxpayers for it.”

“There is some frustration, certainly, in that, and it’s understandable to say the least. And it has not been a quick rush to say yes or no. People understand the gravity of this, want to see it done right, while still understanding the timing factor.”

ABC News' Bret Hovell and Sunlen Miller contributed to this report.

Link
 
Yeah what I mean to say is while Obama was introducing legislation for a troop withdrawal, which was unquestionably the popular thing to do, McCain was pushing for something completely unpopular, the surge of 2007. But McCain has been calling for more troops to Iraq, Rumsfeld's firing, etc. before that.



I don't understand, what does having Palin on the ticket have to do with that?

She's easily not the most qualified candidate by his own standards.
 
You're choosing to call one the "high road" and one the "low road" because you have a bit of a bias on this.

Absolutely not. I would have made the same comment had Obama or Biden been the one who had called for it.

What both politicians do are going to be political decisions that each will spin as the "high road." The American people will ultimately decide who they think actually did the right thing.

It's unlikely that the American people will see staying on the campaign trail talking about how you'll change things is better than going back to DC, doing your job and actually trying to get something done.
 
She's easily not the most qualified candidate by his own standards.

Picking the "most qualified" candidate hasn't ever been the measure of picking a VP. If one were going to pick the "most qualified" VP candidate on the Republican side, we'd be talking about a McCain/Cheney ticket. The bar simply has to be whether or not the person has the capacity to become president. I think there are probably 20-30 people in the Republican Party that meet that criteria, and Sarah Palin isn't one of them.
 
I know he was running on hope and change with no experience of every making any change.

Congrats, they are both BS politicians then, but read Real's post.

Now, he's basically saying he would rather lose an election than have the country sink further into an economic crisis. There's a reason why his campaign slogan is "Country First," he backs it up with no regard to his political future. Obama's going to look like a jackass if he doesn't suspend his campaign and takes pot shots at McCain like he did from the Senate floor during the debate on Webb's GI Bill earlier this year.


Dude it is about context.
 
Picking the "most qualified" candidate hasn't ever been the measure of picking a VP. If one were going to pick the "most qualified" VP candidate on the Republican side, we'd be talking about a McCain/Cheney ticket. The bar simply has to be whether or not the person has the capacity to become president. I think there are probably 20-30 people in the Republican Party that meet that criteria, and Sarah Palin isn't one of them.

McCain said in April he would pick VP solely by the standard of who would be the best president. He never suggested otherwise.
 
The response from the Obama campaign is easy. Just play up the fact that America needs a leader it can trust and it's up to him and McCain to provide them ample opportunity to make their decision. Presidential debates are an important part of the American political process, and to deny the American people the opportunity to see what each candidate brings to the table is irresponsible and inconsiderate of the next four years of leadership in this country.

-Pop

Did McCain said he wanted to pass on the debate? I'll answer that for you: He didn't. He said he wanted to delay it. Of all the the debates, McCain wants the one on foreign policy and national security. By asking for a delay, he's only hurting his chances. However, it does jibe with "Country First".
 
Congrats, they are both BS politicians then, but read Real's post.




Dude it is about context.
I read it and not sure what your point is. I'm not a big McCain supporter but I do think he is putting country first or at least it looks like it.
 
I read it and not sure what your point is. I'm not a big McCain supporter but I do think he is putting country first or at least it looks like it.

Palin is a very unproven governor of an extremely small state who has no foreign policy experience among other things. I don't know what your point is, mine is that his slogan is pretentious.
 
Her vetting process was 15 minutes.

I don't think it was any difference then his vetting for any other VP candidate. I think Palin has two positives to his camping. One it got his republican base on board and could pull in some women voters. I think without Palin McCain would have no chance. It got me back on board.
 
I don't think it was any difference then his vetting for any other VP candidate. I think Palin has two positives to his camping. One it got his republican base on board and could pull in some women voters. I think without Palin McCain would have no chance. It got me back on board.

Um yeah it was a smart political move, that wasn't my point.
 
Interesting, can anyone think of a time when this has happened before (Denny)? The funny part about this to me is that he "urges Obama to do the same". LOL. I never realized that candidates were obligated to take advice from the opposition, McCain is a clown in that regard.

The closest thing to this I can think of was McGovern having to replace Eagleton as VP after it came out that Eagleton had mental illness issues.

I find it laughable that McCain is somehow scared of the debates.

If anything, this reinforces his statement about "rather lose an election than lose a war" - he'd rather lose this election than see the economy in the shitter.

Obama could easily keep on campaigning without much repercussion. His argument would be "the economy isn't going to be fixed by one bill or this week, it's vital to have me as president for the next 8 years to fix it and everything else."
 
Re: McCain wants to postpone Friday's debate

He just took an issue that he was getting killed on and flipped it. Which one of the two looks presidential now? It may have been borne of desperation (I think it was actually opportunity, but toe-may-to, tah-mah-toe), but that doesn't mean it wasn't an effective tactic. A desperate tactic implies that it's high-risk/high-reward. To me it's low-risk/high-reward.

Which of the two looks presidential? You put that as though you feel it is objectively obvious. It, of course, entirely depends on one's bias and how one perceives the move. If you see it as a desperate stunt, Obama looks more presidential by default (McCain looks less so..."desperate stunt" and "presidential" don't fit together, to me). If you see it as McCain nobly putting nation above politics, McCain looks more presidential.

Which, ultimately, is why I don't think this really flips the script much. It's really a move that is likely to further entrench people. I don't think it changes perception of McCain; I think it makes people who already liked McCain cheer him and those who didn't like him deride the move.

What if it's not a stunt? What if McCain actually believes it?

It hardly matters as far as the campaign goes. Those who prefer him will assume or act like he believes it. Those who don't prefer him will assume or act like it is a stunt. It's like all political rhetoric...what if they really mean it? Great...but it's all going through a political filter with each person.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Sarah Palin was selected more for her ability to mobilize the right wing than to woo Hillary voters. It was a move to secure the base while McCain goes after the middle, where he's more comfortable.

Yes, I know you believe it. I don't, at all. There is no lack for highly religious, extremely conservative Republicans. You don't have to tap a small town mayor / unknown governor to get that. What is much less common is an extremely conservative female Republican politician. I don't disagree at all that McCain wanted someone to rally the radical right. But his choice of Palin over a much better known, more experienced radical conservative was due to her sex, in my opinion. That was also hailed as a "when you're losing, change the rules." And everyone on the right congratulated themselves on success when there was a bump following the RNC. Well, the bump is gone and Palin is looking like a bit of a liability.

We'll see how this "change the rules" gambit works. McCain is playing like he's got no hope except for a Hail Mary. I think that's far from true, given the right-ward slant of the nation, so I think these moves actually hurt him.
 
Palin is a very unproven governor of an extremely small state who has no foreign policy experience among other things. I don't know what your point is, mine is that his slogan is pretentious.

This is stupid what is Obama's foreign policy experience except for making speeches all across Europe. Plus I would rather have Palin's limited experience then Bidden's views on foreign policy.
 
Obama isn't the most qualified candidate for president by anyone standards. What is your point!

So all McCain has to do to "put his country first" is be marginally better than Obama?

McCain clearly stated before he made his selection that he would choose the most capable person possible to replace him as his VP candidate. This isn't debatable. And it's the kind of statement that does indeed speak to putting his country first.

McCain clearly didn't choose the most qualified candidate. Nobody is debating this either.

Therefore, he didn't put his country first in choosing Palin.

Now you may say Obama isn't qualified either. Maybe you are right, maybe not. That doesn't change the fact that McCain didn't put his country first in his selection.
 
This is stupid what is Obama's foreign policy experience except for making speeches all across Europe. Plus I would rather have Palin's limited experience then Bidden's views on foreign policy.

So they're both dirty then? Glad we agree.
 
So all McCain has to do to "put his country first" is be marginally better than Obama?

McCain clearly stated before he made his selection that he would choose the most capable person possible to replace him as his VP candidate. This isn't debatable. And it's the kind of statement that does indeed speak to putting his country first.

McCain clearly didn't choose the most qualified candidate. Nobody is debating this either.

Therefore, he didn't put his country first in choosing Palin.

Now you may say Obama isn't qualified either. Maybe you are right, maybe not. That doesn't change the fact that McCain didn't put his country first in his selection.

I can sort of agree with you and huevonkiller and you guys have made a good point. I would rather have someone like Palin then Bidden even with the difference in experience. I can see you guys saying the same thing with McCain and Obama.
 
McCain said in April he would pick VP solely by the standard of who would be the best president. He never suggested otherwise.

Who may be the "best" president isn't the same as the "most qualified". Bill Clinton wasn't the most qualified Democratic candidate, but IMO there couldn't have been a better choice by the Party in 1992. The same with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
 
Who may be the "best" president isn't the same as the "most qualified". Bill Clinton wasn't the most qualified Democratic candidate, but IMO there couldn't have been a better choice by the Party in 1992. The same with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

It is pretty easy to decipher what he meant based on his platform. Now if he wants to say Palin is better than Biden/etc., that is one thing, but he still didn't put country first.
 
Palin is a very unproven governor of an extremely small state who has no foreign policy experience among other things. I don't know what your point is, mine is that his slogan is pretentious.

The way I see it, there's two different rules here. One for Democrats like Obama, another for Republicans like McCain.

Democrats can have their charismatic, revolutionary, appealing candidate who is relatively inexperienced, but Republicans can't.

Sarah Palin doesn't have the same experience as Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. That wasn't the point.

BTW, wasn't it Barack Obama who, before entering the race, cautioned about running in 2008, saying he was in fact too inexperienced to be President?
 
Her vetting process was 15 minutes.

Do you really believe that? I would make a wager she was vetted by McCain's staff for more than 15 minutes. Newsflash: candidates don't do their own vetting. It's done by professionals. Obama had an advisory board of three people, including the former CEO of Fannie Mae and Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top