GatewayRedbirds.com

cpebbles wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/ ... index.html

Not quite sure what to make of this yet, but the cynic in me has to note the following two passages:

The Arizona senator called on his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, to do the same.

In response, the Obama campaign said Obama called McCain at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to ask if the Republican nominee would join him in a joint statement of "shared principles and conditions" for the proposal. It said McCain called back at 2:30 p.m. -- shortly before his New York announcement -- to agree, and "The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."

I guess McCain had to get one last little bit of campaigning in.

I venture to say the financial crisis and potential buyout is a bit more important the one of numerous debates.....postponing or cancelling in order to deal with the problem at hand is not a bad thing.

What does it mean to postpone a campaign?

Simbagal23 wrote:

cpebbles wrote:I guess McCain had to get one last little bit of campaigning in.

I venture to say the financial crisis and potential buyout is a bit more important the one of numerous debates.....postponing or cancelling in order to deal with the problem at hand is not a bad thing.

I'm not sure about that. First of all, this isn't 9/11. I mean it's important and all, but is it important enough to put the presidential campaign on hold? And if it is, why did McCain make this unilateral decision (see cpebbles quote above). After all, it was Obama who first contacted McCain privately to discuss coming to an agreement on a joint statement about working together on the problem. McCain's response was to go public 2 minutes after hanging up with Obama to announce "his" idea to deal with this problem.

So much for setting politics aside.

Simbagal23 wrote:I venture to say the financial crisis and potential buyout is a bit more important the one of numerous debates.....postponing or cancelling in order to deal with the problem at hand is not a bad thing.

It's obviously more important, at least right now it's more important... but what precisely can these two individuals do that couldn't already get done without their participation?

This is purely a political move because:

1. it'll kill the VP debate, keeping Palin as a mystery figure

2. if Obama declines to postpone the campaign, he's gonna look like an arse

Mind you... I think it's a very shrewd move. But I see it as nothing more than a political move.

The bigger news: National Enquirer is reporting that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/nationa ... rity/65481

I'll never forget Sean Hannity's (and conservatives in general) indignation after the Edwards thing broke out. "WHY WASN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTING THIS???!!!"

The press needs to go ahead and see if there's anything to it. It's only fair.

Isn't every grocery store tabloid reporting affairs by all of the candidates?

Why would the MSM look into anything that the Enquirer publishes???

Aren't the leaders of Congress getting together on this thing? I'd say that's more important than just handing out a billion bucks without examining everything. If these meetings happen to conflict with the scheduled debate, so be it.

Radbird wrote:Isn't every grocery store tabloid reporting affairs by all of the candidates?

Why would the MSM look into anything that the Enquirer publishes???

Like I said, there was this huge outcry when the Edwards story came out. The National Enquirer was the first one to say anything about it, then it comes out almost a year later that it was true. Republicans were actually upset that the MSM didn't pursue a story reported by a tabloid.

I'm not really suggesting that the media should follow up on this story -- just mocking the Ku Klux Klannity.

JL21 wrote:

Simbagal23 wrote:I venture to say the financial crisis and potential buyout is a bit more important the one of numerous debates.....postponing or cancelling in order to deal with the problem at hand is not a bad thing.

It's obviously more important, at least right now it's more important... but what precisely can these two individuals do that couldn't already get done without their participation?

This is purely a political move because:

1. it'll kill the VP debate, keeping Palin as a mystery figure

2. if Obama declines to postpone the campaign, he's gonna look like an arse

Mind you... I think it's a very shrewd move. But I see it as nothing more than a political move.

I agree. The whole thing sounds dumb to me.

I've wondered before if we shouldn't just have a law requiring people to vacate their seat as soon as they run for another office. These aren't supposed to be guaranteed careers for anybody.

Well, whatever.....people will think what they want, but I just don't see postponing as a big deal. And this financial crisis is a huge......they are senators, afterall, so I would hope they would want to have some imput into the potential bailout plan as it will affect whomever is elected. And I think turning it into "who wanted it to do this first" is childish. As long as both agreed to it...so be it. One party will spin it their way, the other will do the same. Whoop-di-do.