McCain Suspending Campaign, Asks for Debate Delay

McCain seems to be running a little scared, don't you think? It's curious that since the debate this week is supposed to be focusing on foreign affairs, that McCain would be able to manage debating this issue without any problem, considering he's a POW and the "surge was successful". 90 minutes to talk about the war? Piece of cake for McCain . . . perhaps not. The issue of how much money we're spending each month on this unneccessary war, will certainly be called into play at this debate, and McCain can't comment on that issue and still come out looking like a good guy. That's why he's stalling. Typical!

Can anyone say 'cut and run'? McCain's campaign has been sinking since last week. Also, is it just me or does there seem to be a complete lack of organization on this campaign as well? McCain and his staff step on each others ideas constantly on the campaign trail. The 'Palin Press Bubble' has finally caused the press to turn on him and all the lies have finally caught up into the campaign narrative.

Now, its very clear that McCain is trying desperately not to be on a stage together with Obama, particularly about economics, because a bad debate here might all but seal the election for Obama.

The only thing McCain is afraid of is how to explain that if the bailout doesn't go through he loses MILLIONS... while the working poor lose nothing more than where we are right now.

Foreclosures on the poor (he has 7 homes) and no credit for small businesses (the working poor CEO's of this country)... while the HUGE corporate CEO's who earn $20 million dollar incomes PER YEAR are free to fail as a result of their greed, while the rich are asking Congress to STEAL the money that YOUR hard earned tax dollars earned (remember your paycheck each week? ...gross -vs- NET income after taxes? ...while you struggle to feed a family and pay utility bills?) so that YOU can bail out the RICH so that THEY don't have to suffer from an economic hardship... the SAME economic hardship that you and I have been struggling with every week when we try to make the best of the worse economy in history... except for the RICH!!!! THAT is EXACTLY why Exxon/Mobile has earned RECORD PROFIT while the rest of us have lost our homes!

This isn't about hardship economics and a need for a national taxpayer bailout!

THIS is about republican "save-my-ass" from losing $2 million dollars of my $100 million dollar nest egg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE......... I BEG YOU.......... PLEASE WAKE UP!!!!

Republicans believe in the "Trickle Down Economic" theory!

That is NOT reality!

Anyone who builds a business does so step-by-step! It isn't until you become strong (economically) that you can begin to build multiple wealth. The risk of going broke is ALWAYS at your door. Yet, once you become Ultra-rich... you will remove yourself from the "wolves at your front door."

Well... that is not the majority, although the majority of us have tried.

Some are successful, and many of s are NOT!

John McCain has $100 MILLION dollars in assets!

That is equal to $3,000. per week for 100 years!

HOW MANY average and humble Americans can live up to that?

John McCain is LITERALLY ASKING for the poor tax-paying MAJORITY to spend $700 BILLION to bail his hind-end out... because it is the RICH (The RICHEST OF THE RICH) who stand to lose the most. NOT US!!!!!!!! Not the POOR!!!!! NOT the DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY of the MAJORITY of the DEMOCRATIC working middle class who NEVER forgot where they came from... no matter HOW much One has made in monetary value... because to do otherwise........ is GREED. Greed is the Republican philosophy... and this bailout is nothing less than an attempt to manipulate the average working poor taxpayer in an attempt to bail out the RICH republican economic failure of the "trickle-down" economics of greed... to save their ASS!!!

IMAGINE!!!!!! You own 7 homes!!! IMAGINE the property taxes! IMAGINE... you own a business (Beer... as John McCains Wife owns... the investments and economics that come to bear on them... EQUAL to the economics of the average person trying to hold onto just ONE family and ONE home.... let alone 7 homes!) This whole bailout is about saving the RICH and has NOTHING to do with you or I... the average taxpayer!

DON'T DO IT!

And.......... Unless you have $2 million dollars and are literally GREEDY!!!

STOP voting for republicans!

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT!

What has happened is EXACTLY what I told DOZENS of family and friends would happen after they voted Republican since Clinton.

If you voted republican you have no one to blame but yourself.

NOW.......... you decide.

What I am telling you is the truth. You certainly do not have to believe it. That is up to you.

It is your future as much as it is mine, yours, and your children's future, as well as your grand-childrens future. Greed offers no one anything, except their own.

You decide.

CORRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$100 MILLION dollars is equal to $3,000. dollars per day.... 365 days per year.... for 100 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you comprehend that?

I can't!

It's absolutely INSANE!

BUT........ I CAN comprehend the greed behind wanting to steal from the majority of taxpayers in an effort to hold onto that amount of wealth in an effrot to shield from losses.

The working poor... TAX PAYERS ... do NOT have that option ....EVER!!

In fact.... the banks will foreclose on you to prove that you do NOT have that option.

And by the way... BANKS are GREEDY, TOO! (A Revalation?) No. A Republican Greedy Reality, because BANKS are Republican Supporters! (until they need you and I to save them!)

STOP VOTING REPUBLICAN FOLKS!

YOU ARE NOT RICH! THE MAJORITY of americans are NOT rich! If you are not greedy... and you are not rich ($100 million or more) STOP VOTING REPUBLICAN!

STOP!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John McCain is worth $100 MILLION dollars. That is a publicly known fact.

The bailout that the taxpayer is asked to finance is $700 Billion dollars.

Ok.

That's a lot of money... right?

It's going to really hurt this country and the working poor... but it will save the Ultra-rich from losing their nest egg, too. ....right?

OK. Let's take $700 billion dollars of HARD EARNED taxpayer dollars and compare that with John McCains NET worth:

Congress calculated that $700 Billion dollars is equal to $10,000. dollars for every working tax payer in the entire country. I have no reason to doubt them! Math is math!

So, each family will (theoretically) pay off or hand down a $10,000. dollar debt to their children or grand children so we can bail out the Ultra rich.

Why do I say "Ultra Rich?"

John McCain: $100 Million dollars....... right?

Take $700 BILLION and divide that by $100 million and that equals 7,000.

That means that the $700 Billion dollar bailout that taxpayers are paying for is equal to $10,000. per family which is *****350 MILLION FAMILIES****** !!!!!!!!!

Whereas, when it comes to economic strength and real dollars... John McCains wealth is equal to the SAME AMOUNT, but divided by 7,000 families and not 350 million.

SOMEONE needs to look into this!

YOU (and I) are about to be ripped off.

SOMEONE....... PLEASE...... do the math, because if I am wrong... I would like to know.

Rushing the bill smells too much like another Patriot Act... and we surely don't need a repeat of that.

Well...Well..another political sidestep by McCain. He cant hide from the debates...just like Palin cant hide from "Troopergate".

Agree, Christian. Didn't I hear that Paulson has had this proposal drawn up for some time?

There is no show of strength in quitting.

McCain is quitting... 'suspending' his campaign (does that mean the lie-filled ads will stop?)... now calling for a rain-delay on the debate.

McCain is -- intentionally or not -- displaying weakness.

Hmmm, good point--if McCain shows ads, then he IS campaigning.

And McCain doesn't seem to realize that suspending his campaign won't change the talk of Davis and his Fannie/Freddie earnings....

Just heard on Randi Rhodes that ads are being pulled, too............. Curiouser and curiouser.

Update:

the debate committee is still moving forward with Friday's debate, whether or not John McDribbles is there.

All he's doing is political GRANDSTANDING! Totally useless and it just proves he's not ready for the debates, let alone the Presidency.

You know - Democrats don't like people bringing up all of the shady Obama connections and cry foul every time one comes up, but now we are going to talk about Davis and his Freddie earnings???

Talk about getting off track.

None of Obama's so-called "shady connections" are his campaign manager, unlike Davis is for McCain. Ooops for you, ladybug.

But Obama has PLENTY more than 'shady connections' than McCain...imagine that. INCLUDING close personal friends. Oops the Jones Girl...why are you guys so hateful! Smart comments really don't help the situation. Davis is just more smoke...something for the Dem's to grab hold of to try to justify their position. Just because Davis was getting paid by Freddie does not mean it was some great Republican supported conspiracy. Davis is not going to be running the country. It's not like McCain was getting paid!

Ladybug331,

No, it's not like McCain was getting paid, it is though, like his campaign manager is getting paid and that kind of money buys lots of influence. Do you think if McCain wins Davis is going back to lobbying, hell no, he'll have a job in the McCain administration and he'll have McCain's ear. That's when he would have started earning that money.

But Obama has PLENTY more than 'shady connections' than McCain...imagine that. INCLUDING close personal friends.

Great. How many of those alleged shady personal friends are his advisers or on his staff?

Oops the Jones Girl...why are you guys so hateful!

Well, I'm not sure how is disagreeing with your comment is "hateful", but you do realize that while JonesGirl didn't actually insult you, you actually did insult her by attacking her character by calling her "hateful"?

Ladybug, you might want to look into what advisors do--that Davis is being paid by Fannie and Freddie, most think to have McCain's ear, is shady. And Davis is McCain's top advisor.

I'm not being hateful, just truthful, which seems to bother you.

And I'm being truthful too. People act like Obama being in a USA hating church for all those years meant absolutely nothing. That an un-repentent terrorist threw a party for him at his home? Do you have stronger relationships with your business co-workers than you do with your church (if you are religious - not meant as a stab just trying not to make assumptions) or your friends?

Yes, Davis is McCain's top advisor but that doesn't not mean that McCain knew exactly how much money he was making and where it was coming from except the salary HE was paying him. Everybody acts like the people around Obama are stellar examples of morality and conscience and it is just not true...that is a fact. Obama only started breaking off ties with those people when it appeared they were hurting his chances.

There is a double standard here - look at the people surrounding your own candidate just as hard as you look at the opposition. Don't change your vote but at least go into it with your eyes open.

If somebody faced you and said to you "oops for you"...that doesn't come across as a bit of an attitude? You are right in the fact that maybe I should not have put that particular comment on a response to Jones Girl - especially when I meant it not to target her alone. I can admit when I am wrong and I apologize - and I do. But a smart comment is hurtful to whomever receives it. I didn't see 'hateful' as an insult. I have acted hateful myself before - it doesn't define your whole character. Just paints you as coming across that way to someone else. People don't just express their view rationally - they have to fight and make it personal. In my mind I didn't call her a name - I expressed my feeling towards an attitude that I believed was being expressed.

I didn't take the statement you just made as hateful at all - and yet you again take a stab at me by suggesting that what I don't like is the truth. But you don't call that a hateful comment? A barb? How does making statements like that promote your position?

People act like Obama being in a USA hating church for all those years meant absolutely nothing.

But that's the thing, can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it does mean absolutely nothing.

First, I don't want to get into to too much and derail the thread, perhaps we can discuss it another time, but I didn't have a problem with the majority of what Rev Wright said.

But second, and more importantly, I'm used to crazy-ass preachers being behind political candidates. I see no difference in some of Wright's more extreme statements and the statements of right-wing pastors such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the like. And, unlike Rev Wright, these pastors have had far more influence over the sitting president then Wright could ever dream of having. Obama was able to denounce Wright and distance himself from him, it actually helped his political aspirations to do so. But McCain was essentially forced to embrace them, even after attacking them as "agents of intolerance" in 2000, because that's how much power these right-wing preachers actually have over politics. So to me, concern about Wright, who has no influence and could easily be cast aside with no ramifications, pales in comparison with the power that these right-wing anti-American preachers have over government.

That an un-repentent terrorist threw a party for him at his home?

Yes, one time, a meet-and-greet for Obama, that was actually put together by another person, was held at Ayer's home in Chicago. However, this hardly makes them "friends", we couldn't even call him a co-worker. But if we start playing the 6-degrees-of-radicals game, everyone in politics is unfit for office. If Ayers has nothing to do with Obama's presidential campaign, and if Obama has denounced him and is not connected to him in any concrete way, I fail to see how this is somehow more of a concern then persons McCain's camp that are part of his campaign, and in some cases, are his actual advisers.

Do you have stronger relationships with your business co-workers than you do with your church (if you are religious - not meant as a stab just trying not to make assumptions) or your friends?

Even if we did assume that Obama has strong friendly ties with Ayers, which he does not, I think it's irrelevant. I have friends that I wouldn't let near my job, it is possible to separate the two. And, as Obama showed by distancing himself from Wright, Obama is able to separate the two as well. But, you slam him for that too, so it appears he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Yes, Davis is McCain's top advisor but that doesn't not mean that McCain knew exactly how much money he was making and where it was coming from except the salary HE was paying him.

That's on McCain, though. If I can't trust McCain to check out the background of people that they are putting on their campaign to make sure they didn't have a conflict of interest, how can I trust McCain to be a good leader at all? If someone gets close to McCain and swindles the government on McCain's watch, "McCain didn't know!" isn't really going to cut it. As the leader of the free world, I expect that he be careful about being led astray by those that are motivated by malicious agendas. And, considering that a large part of McCain's campaign is based on weeding out the corruption brought by lobbyists and special interests, it's just unacceptable that McCain would be incapable of at least trying to wipe it out of his campaign.

For the record, though, McCain's campaign also gave Davis' firm money. So McCain also has ties to the company that Davis runs, that Freddie Mac was paying, aside from Davis himself. Davis is also not the only lobbyist that is hovering around McCain like a vulture. And, unlike Obama, McCain has had problems with this sort of conflict of interest before, as we saw with the Keating Five scandal.

Everybody acts like the people around Obama are stellar examples of morality and conscience and it is just not true...that is a fact.

It's not an either-or situation. I can easily point out things that Obama has done that I was not cool with, and still support him over McCain. Most people can.

Personally, I think it's the people that make this argument - they insist that all Obama supporters are starry-eyed fans that see no wrong in him - that are actually doing this. It's like if Obama isn't perfect, we must automatically support McCain instead or we are deluded fools.

Neither Obama nor McCain is perfect for anyone. Obviously, we can support candidates that are not perfect, we do so every election year, so I'm unsure of why Obama is being held to these perfection standards when no one else is, to the point where it's actually insisted that since Obama has some flaws and can't be perfect, we can't support him and should support McCain instead. Why would this be? Because... McCain has no flaws? Or because unlike Obama, McCain is allowed to have some flaws?

If somebody faced you and said to you "oops for you"...that doesn't come across as a bit of an attitude?

No more then "Talk about getting off track" and making sweeping generalizations about Democrats in order to slam them does. People tend to respond to comments with the same tone they perceived in them. If you start off a discussion sounding like a smart-alek by making sarcastic comments and essentially accusing anyone that identifies as a Democrat as a hypocrite, you will probably receive the same type of comments in return.

Well, we will have to disagree and leave it at that. I don't see "Talk about getting off track" in the same category as "Oops for you Ladybug"...one is a much more personal comment.

And I suppose NO one on these boards has made "sweeping generalizations" about Republicans. Hummmm...now that's interesting. Because I have seen PLENTY of that.

I have yet to meet even ONE supporter of Obama - until you now - who will even SUGGEST that he has done wrong. They defend him at every turn. No matter what happens there is some reason why it just isn't so. Admittedly I have defended McCain as well - but I never intended to suggest that I believe he can do no wrong. Even I will admit that I don't agree with everything my chosen party does. But a reasonable approach has not been found on most of these 'discussion' boards.

I think everyone should vote their conscience. I don't want to swing anyone's vote and that's not why I came on here in the first place.

Neither Obama nor McCain is perfect for anyone. Obviously, we can support candidates that are not perfect, we do so every election year, so I'm unsure of why Obama is being held to these perfection standards when no one else is, to the point where it's actually insisted that since Obama has some flaws and can't be perfect, we can't support him and should support McCain instead. Why would this be? Because... McCain has no flaws? Or because unlike Obama, McCain is allowed to have some flaws?

This is actually a great statement. And how exactly did I suggest that McCain had NO flaws or that I was holding Obama to some unreasonable standard. I actually hold them to the same standard. If Obama had suggested that they go to Washington, and McCain refused...he likely would have lost my vote. But I wonder if Obama had been the one to suggest it, if instead of it being considered grandstanding it would have been considered a great idea. That is my concern...because believe it or not I have witnessed time and time again that no one who is going to vote for him (until you made the statement just now) will even SUGGEST that he might have made a mistake or done something they didn't agree with. I have been called a fascist for thinking the way I do, one person said that if the Dem's didn't win there would be rioting in the streets, people have made statement in all caps wondering how Republicans could possibly believe the way they do...believe me I have heard plenty of double standards on the Dem's side.

The truth is I don't agree with plenty of things on the Republican side. I almost see this as a 'lesser of two evils' decision. It's terrible. I wish we had a candidate I could really whole-heartedly believe in...but we don't. I have to vote for the one that is closest to what I believe government should be. That's all we can do.

I do appreciate your logical approach to this discussion and I am sorry if "talk about getting off track" was considered a real jab. It was not intended as such. I guess we all have different standards for offense. Believe it or not I would not have considered that personal had someone said it to me.

Ironically tonight I am really ticked off at the Bush administration for the stupid bailout...talk about creating a socialist state. The government buying stock is NOT on my top ten things I want for my government. Guess I'm just going to pull out of the Republican party and consider myself an independent. I'm disappointed in them to the extreme. That ought to give everybody a real laugh! It's okay - I have to laugh myself. What a mess.

Ladybug:

I see that you are frustrated... like many American's... and you are correct in feeling that way.

PLEASE make sure to vote... no matter WHO you vote for... because THAT is the loudest voice you can possibly ever have within our country.

Unleash you frustration on the most thoughtful and informed vote you can cast...

But first...... make sure that you are informed and not deluded by the "sensationalism" of politics.

Make your vote count based on what is true and honest.

THAT is what this country was founded on. TRUTH and HONESTY.

Then your voice will count.

The world is not coming to an end... as much as the news and politics want us to believe it is.

Hang in there.... the election is coming. :)

Thanks Anthony -

Don't worry - I will vote. But I changed my comment on my column here last night to read "limiting my discussion of politics to preserve my sanity". I think I'm on input overload. I'm going to watch the debates and try to stay informed...and then go from there.

You are right - I am frustrated! But I know we will survive - we live in a good country and it will all get worked out.

Good for Barack. He can go play with stuffed toys while the leaders do their jobs.

the LEADERS will be at the debate so that the AMERICAN people can hear what they have to say on this nonsense....

McCain is a scared dirty ragged puppy dog who can't hack it with the big dogs... and Sarah... hahaha... thats laughable! WHat, did her speed dating foreign policy dates not go so well....

she is not a senator.... what the hell is she going to do on Capitol Hill>>>> get your ass out there and debate Biden....

we want to play stump the candidate!!!

Who handed who's head on a platter today?

It danged sure wasn't Johnny. How pathetic and desperate this sad old man now is. Crash and burn, crash and burn.

He can use the phone, email, video conference to have his input. Oh wait, he doesn't do that either. Plus doesn't he have a plane that can spirit him back to DC in case something goes down. What a fake candidate. He is playing the distraction game again and politicizing this crisis for his own benefit. A gmimick!

Yes, Bo wants to talk, as usual. Obama has to tag along now. McCain invited him. What happens if BO says no? Thats putting partisan politics ahead of the good of the country. If he says yes, hes tagging along.

See, you blathering socialists should be saying, yeah BO's got to go to keep the others in line. That way your messiah can save face. Go ahead, now, say that...

right

You can say what you want about 'you blathering socialists' but would you include George Will in that lot, too?

Christian:

"your comments are uninformed and unintelligent. You keep up or shut up".

See now I would have thought that comment from you violates the COH. And this is your column too isn't it? You should know better.

But I must add it certainly didn't take you long to devolve into the standard democrat attitude: "You're stupid so shut up. Waah Waah." You're not going to start calling your mommy are you?

Are you going to start calling out all the stupid useless hateful vitriolic comments on this thread, or just those by republicans? Because about two thirds of the comments already on this board are useless.

But on the funnier note: Yes, Obama stated where he stands. Now thats today, right? Just what is the shelf life of an Obama position? Lets see what happens...

And why should I take lectures from you? Why should I take you telling me I'm unintelligent and uninformed? Thats your polite way of saying I'm stupid. What gives you the right to tell me I'm stupid and to shut up?

You dont know me. You are out of line.

this is funny.

Waiting patiently for Obama to speak. Nothing new there. Wait patiently while obama gauges the public potential reaction. Wait to see what the polls say. Wait to see what his handlers tell him to say...

It would be nice if he could come up with something on his own for once.

Now Christian, you know that thats just not true. But I am impressed with your efforts to suppress opinions on this thread. At least mine, since they dont agree with yours.

Here are the facts and sources for this comment:
Fact: I have noticed as I look through all these comments mine are the only one that require fact and sources.
Sources: A quick look at 4.3,5,5.5,5.8,6,7,9 shows only opinions. No facts, no sources (most not much thought either).

Will you be scolding them too Christian?

so do you disagree that your point would carry more weight if it had facts behind it "rightly"?

Why not be the better person and not just throw around innuendo and supposition and actually argue with facts. Who cares what people in 4.3, 5.5, 5.8, 6, 7, and 9 are doing? Are they directly related to your argument? Probably not. Precedent (of others talking out their ass with no verifiable facts) does not make it a good strategy.

You can take his "scolding" as a personal attack OR you could take it as an opportunity to improve your position. This site is far too full of "martyrs" who are constantly victimized by the other side - ignore then and stand your ground with facts - shut them up by putting up.

Yes, Obama needs to be out on the hustings speaking with citizens and showing he is concerned about THEM first and foremost, and that he will take their concerns back to DC at the appropriate time to help with the crisis.

He is speaking as I write, stressing that he is in constant contact with everyone concerned in DC. Clearly in this day and age, he can do both the campaign and give his input to the rescue plan for the economy.

Absolutely. It's either Obama, or Wall-E + The Ostrich.

McCain is presidential? !!? Are you kidding me.. He can't handle more than one issue at a time.. this man is not fit to lead. A leader doesn't look for excuses to make his day easier , he/she deals with it head on..

For something that's brilliant, it's not exactly playing well in http://james-eng.newsvine.com/_question/2008/09/24/1906168-agree-or-disagree-fridays-presidential-debate-should-be-postponed-so-the-candidates-can-focus-on-the-economy#c3081173">Peoria.

Thanks, I couldn't get the formatting to work.
You'll note that almost 80% disagree with calling off the debate.
Apparently, McCain is the best thing Obama has going for him.
Brilliant!!

Actually - a Republican president alone did not get us into the economic mess - it's been coming on for years and if you go to my site here you can read about it. Also, there has actually been a Democratic congress for two years - and for years off and on before that.

I am a 38 year old single mom who does not support Obama. I'm wondering exactly what 'Republican policies' you are speaking off which alone contributed to putting us 'in the hole' so to speak.

A top notch eduction counts for something, but so does common sense, and some of Obama's policies are not sound economically. He is not an economic expert either - even if he has a top notch education.

Republican's feel the same way about Dem's and wonder what's going through their minds. We are not all oil company CEO's, we just don't feel that we are entitled to being taken care of by the government. Government 'taking care of you' just implies that they will exert more control over your life. Do you really think that taxing people making over 250,000 per year because they have earned it and forcing income redistribution is morally correct? Taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who haven't just because you think it's right? If you want to bring religion into it on that level - that's called stealing. And who decided on the 250,000 dollar cut off - in some places this is real wealth, in other areas on the country it could actually be the middle class.

I am college educated myself and I PAID FOR IT by working. I have done the research. I'm not afraid that all Democrats are the enemy, I just don't see how the plan is actually going to work and I don't think it's fair to people who happen to have worked hard enough, or gotten lucky enough to have the American dream.

And don't forget that a DEMOCRAT was in office when 911 was being planned by terrorists in our OWN COUNTRY.

Now - I ask only for an explanation. How do you judge that everything oil execs do is against what Jesus stood for? I think that we would have to judge that on an individual basis or maybe not at all since it says not to in the Bible. That's if we are going from a strictly Christian viewpoint. The Bible also explains there will always be war. There are plenty of war's in the Old Testament. God didn't say to never have a war.

I don't think it's fair to act like all Republicans are some sort of hateful individuals who never want to help someone just because they don't believe in the Democrat's vision of government making all things equal for all people. Or that they are all some sort of religious zealots who follow a party just because they use the word God. Or that they like war. That's a very limiting definition of an individual person. We all have views and good reasons for them.

See I would say where is your moral conscience...that if I happen to be successful you would take from me and give it to someone who didn't work for it. I'm perfectly capable of working it out and helping people in my community or wherever I see fit. That you would put the government in charge of my health care and take away my right to choose my doctor or if I don't care for doctor's in my network to change my insurance. (BTW I DO think that something needs to be done in regards to insurance and health care - I just do not believe in socialized medical care and there is a very good reason why). People complain about Republican's and wire tapping and all that mess - well nothing comes for free so if you think that the government is going to give you even ONE thing and you are not going to pay for it in any way, shape or form you are very wrong.

And don't forget that a DEMOCRAT was in office when 911 was being planned by terrorists in our OWN COUNTRY.

And Bush's first term was almost 25% over when 9/11 happened. Maybe if he had taken the terrorism warnings of the outgoing Clinton admin seriously, or had read memos instead of being on vacation, it could have been stopped.

Also, let us compare: Clinton's response to the 1993 WTC attack:find and try those involved. Bush's response to 9/11: invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

My understanding was that the invasion of Iraq had to do with the belief they had nuclear weapons. Isn't that a separate issue? I think I might need to do some research on that. I can honestly say I will research that further.

And uh, Clinton couldn't have possibly done anything to stop them? Plus I can see that Clinton's approach to dealing with terrorists really worked to discourage them from attacking again. Have we been attacked since 9/11...no.

"the belief that they had nuclear weapons" - you mean the ones that weren't there. The one's they made up the intelligence about, that they knew Iraq didn't have. The one's they were making from the uranium yellow cake they didn't buy in Nigeria. Get real. Bush pinned Iraq to 911, Cheney chanted it on national television. WMD's were just an excuse to go in and get the oil. You must be one of the last persons left in America to still buy that crap.

Uh...again. More rudeness. Wow. Why am I even surprised.

Thank you for that intelligent response Independent Ed. I did not say I bought it so don't put words in my mouth. I was talking only about the reasons given, not that I still 'believed that crap'.

I don't know - what did Reagan do to prevent the 1993 attack? So, what have we proved so far...no parties presidential candidate was better or worse in preventing terrorist attacks??? That seems to be the conclusion we have inadvertently stumbled upon. I concede that I believe Clinton could have done more, and so could have Bush. But I still stand by the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11...but if there is one after Obama is elected I'm sure it will be Bush's fault, by virtue of the fact that he is in fact a Republican and therefore is single-handedly responsible for every bad thing that happens.

Onward and upward!

My understanding was that the invasion of Iraq had to do with the belief they had nuclear weapons.

Understanding implies belief in the reason given. You did not indicate a disbelief or couch the statement as a question. Sorry if I misunderstood.

As to "rudeness" -my intent was not to be rude but to point out (admittedly harshly) an obviously incorrect position, one that has been debunked for years.

I will give you one reason why there has not been another terrorist attack in the USA - Iraq. They've been too busy there to be bothered coming here.

And if there is an attack on America during Obama's watch, he will be blamed, just as Bush has been for what happened on his watch.

Thank you Independent Ed...sorry I was unclear in my statement which led to a mis-understanding...which sometimes happens on these boards. Thank you for the clarification.

I hope you are right regarding who will be blamed...

I hope you are right regarding who will be blamed...

Sheesh, I hope we don't have to blame anyone. Blame the bastards who perpetrated the crime - we can never be 100% safe. However, we can respond appropriately to those who attack us.

Why hasn't Bin Laden been caught yet? I find it inconceivable that with our military might we can't find one old guy in a cave. I don't blame Bush for 9/11 or Clinton for that matter - I do however blame Bush and his cohorts for our failure to bring that SOB to justice.

We keep wasting our time chasing red herrings all the while Bin Laden continues to walk freely. WTF is wrong with that picture?

Mabye it is all this stupid finger pointing we do as a country; always looking to find the blame, instead of just dealing the problem. We should be united in our desire to remove Bin Laden but instead we have to waste billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers in Iraq when they could be doing so much more in Afghanistan.

BOr)derline

You sound even more stupid than John Mccain

McCain is one vote in Congress.
He's irrelevant to this whole thing, except as one vote; although you shouldn't let him know that. I have the feeling that on the third day after his death, he'll be a very disappointed man.
This is intended (like Klondike Barbie, poor thing, so manifestly out of her depth!) to appeal to his base, who will see it as more "country first" bull @!$%#.
To everyone else, Obama supporters and independents, it will come off as self aggrandizement or a cynical ploy to avoid standing in front of a camera with that skinny black guy.
Did someone say he can't multi task? He can't even task. He needs more ram, a faster processor, bigger hard drive...

No personal insults please.

I am not calling you names.

Sorry McCain is busy for a moment saving this country

He's pulling Paulson's puppet strings?

Palin just finished Biden

My, that could be interpreted in so many ways.

He's irrelevant to this whole thing, except as one vote

If he was just a lemming waiting to vote for or against someone else's plans. If on the other hand he was a leader -- coming up with progressive ideas and trying to pull the congress together to act, as he has done (and been criticized for) many times before... well then he wouldn't be quite so irrelevant.

Problem as I see it is this:
McCain has crossed the isle to help push things through before. NOW on the other hand, he won't be able to. The Dems will not be allowed to work with McCain on anything, even if he comes up with a genius plan. The Dem party will not let anything appear that McCain was able to produce results at this juncture of the campaign.
I'm not being anti-Dem here. If Obama were to come up with a strong plan, Republican would be under strict orders from the RNC not to cooperate with him.
The difference is that McCain has a track record of leading incentives and reaching across the isle to get results. That's why I don't think this is purely political (not purely... of course presidential campaigning was a big part of the decision).
Obama does not have the same pre-presidential campaign track record of leading initiatives and getting bi-partisan support. That's why Obama cannot do the same thing as McCain right now. THAT would be completely obvious as a campaign maneuver as opposed to a sincere desire to help the country.

I know the Obama-ites will see this post as complete partisan spin... but for the full disclosure thing, I have voted Democrat in every election since I was old enough to vote. I am just calling this one as I see it.

I don't believe I said he had a track record on economics. That is one of the reasons I also said that the presidential campaigning politics was a huge part of the decision (just not the only reason).
He does have the pre-presidential campaign track record that Obama lacks in working on both sides of the isle to get results that benefit the country... not just one party.

if you compare their first 4 years in the Senate

Why are you only comparing the first four years? Why not compare track records over the last 26 years? Note that I keep referring to "pre-presidential campaign" records. That's because people will adjust how they vote/talk/act when they are in campaign mode. There's no denying that fact, so please don't even try. MANY people were talking about Obama as an '08 Dem prospect after he gave the '04 keynote speech. Since he wasn't even in the U.S. Senate yet, he really doesn't have any pre-presidential national level political record at all. Everything he has done in the U.S. Senate has been while being considered a front-runner prospect for the '08 election.

There is general agreement on many issues.

Yet total agreement and progress is often stalled over details. That's when you really need the people who have brought the opposing sides together before. Do you think Bush can bring both sides together? Of course not. He's one of (if not the most) the most divisive president's we've ever had. McCain HAS brought both sides together before, even if on non-economic issues. He has that rapport with people on both sides. Obama does not have that rapport. Like I said, I'm not blind. This is obviously campaigning. McCain does have ground to stand on though and can use his experience in building cross-isle support here. Obama can't.

Wow, really annoying

That's why it's so fun to say :D

Would you rather be called Oprah-ites?

Sorry, I'm about to leave and don't have time to respond to your whole post... but I'll hit a point or two.

Again, sounds good, but not true.

If he had 26 years in Congress, he'd outshine McCain no problem

Big IF. He doesn't have 26 years... That is a BIG point. However, I'll throw out McCain's previous decades worth of work for you (which also throws out the pre-campaign stuff for you also). Really is unfair for McCain to do this, but I'll proceed for now just to appease you.

Since 2005, McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills (I didn't check... but did Obama even vote up/down on 82 bills?) , on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. That's an awful lot of reaching across the isle don't you think?

He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

The fact that he has worked with the Dems this much almost cost him the Republican nomination. I just don't see how you can still sit there and say none of it happened.

How much cross-isle leadership has Obama shown in the same time span? Once again, to keep you happy we're still ignoring over two decades of McCain's work here. How do Obama's cross-isle leadership credential match up since '05? He energized his base. Democrats can follow him. When the partisan crap is going on, who has shown the BI-PARTISAN leadership to get past the bickering? Show me the numbers.

Gotta go.