McCain Refuses To Attend Debate

Originally posted by nyk537
And for those of who is saying McCain is afraid to debate Obama, come on now.

Who was it that was begging Obama to attend town halls with him to debate for the last few months? McCain. Who kept refusing to debate? Obama.

Why bother debate in town hall after town hall when you just can do it once and for all on national television? Obama knows he can outwit grandpa in front of millions. McCain might be able polish up (though I doubt it) after several town halls of the same debate over and over again.

But so can Obama.

Originally posted by davion


And who put the bill in Clinton's lap in 2000?

The 106th Congress, a Republican Congress

What are you talking about what bill was there a bill that called for the US economy to crash? And again only proves my point Congress is in control of the economy not the president . And im very interested to see what bill your talking about and how it applies to congressional oversight. Or was that a reaction because you realized democrats are in charge of congress? Funny how everything gets turned into a partisan issue huh.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by davion


And who put the bill in Clinton's lap in 2000?

The 106th Congress, a Republican Congress

What are you talking about what bill was there a bill that called for the US economy to crash? And again only proves my point Congress is in control of the economy not the president . And im very interested to see what bill your talking about and how it applies to congressional oversight. Or was that a reaction because you realized democrats are in charge of congress? Funny how everything gets turned into a partisan issue huh.

I already mentioned it in my first post maybe you should actually read the thread: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

Phil Gramm (McCain's economic adviser) was a co-sponsor and helped push it through with Enron's help. It allowed for the Enron loop hole with certain energy markets and also allowed for the banks to do what they have been doing.

Democrats weren't in charge of Congress during the 106th Congress. They also weren't in charge when the reform bill of 2005 came around trying to put oversight back in.

Originally posted by damwel
Well they have reached a deal now so let's see if McCain is all happy and ready to debate.I still don't see why Palin has to stop campaigning because McCain wants to go to Washington. She's not a Senator.

Exactly, new outlets are saying that as McCain's plane touched down a bipartisan deal was reached and the only thing left to do is vote for it and get it on the President's desk. So much for riding in to save the day, now since he only has to vote there shouldn't be anything holding him back from tomorrows debate.

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37

I'm disappointed at you, BH. You are assuming McCain is using this crisis to his own advantage when you have no proof. Ever stop to think that his intentions are sincere?

If Obama had been the one to suggest it, I daresay you would have been singing a much different tune. We all know it.

Uh, Obama did suggest it. Obama called McCain to ask if he'd like to issue a joint statement about the crisis and work in a bipartisan manner, then McCain got back to him and said he'd like to postpone the debate on Friday and then came out before Obama trying to take credit for the bipartisanship and the joint statement which he agreed to but didn't follow through on and went behind Obama's back.

Or, did you only listen to McCain's speech and not Obama's where he explained how it all went down?

Okay, so you're saying that Obama did come up with the idea first. Let's assume that's correct. Underhandedness of who issued the statement aside (unless you have a link to an article which can prove it), let's get back to BH's statement and my question -

How is it that one can claim McCain is using the tactic to his own advantage and Obama wasn't? Where's the justification for that argument?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by theblunttruth
... this is pure spin. This isn't the first instance either.

My husband and I were discussing this this morning. When McCain is feeling unsure about his support, he "shakes things up" by surprising the public. He does something that gets the attention of the people on him and talking about him. These "tricks" will only take him so far, though. If he does win the election because of these "stunts", they won't help him after the election. It's almost like his campaign is taking cues from popular Reality Shows to gain and keep the public interest.

Sadly, I'm concerned it just may work.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

DON'T worry sister... The biggest wrench was tossed in with PALIN... PROVIDED there is not a "terrorist atack".


I think we will have a weekly MCCAIN theatrics, but I do not think it will serve the guy.

Originally posted by sos37
How is it that one can claim McCain is using the tactic to his own advantage and Obama wasn't? Where's the justification for that argument?

Because Obama wasn't the one that came out before the joint statement. I mean, I thought this was bipartisan so why was McCain coming out first? Why wasn't he waiting for the joint statement they agreed to? Oh wait that's right because it's a tactic.

McCain has been failing in polls on the economy, and this was his way of trying to get a better foothold on that.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by davion]

My theory is, since Republicans at the moment are in disagreement with this bill that is trying to be passed, McCain is going to come in and they are all automatically going to agree as soon as he opens the door and they'll vote for the bill, which will make it look like McCain saved the day even though he has nothing to do with anything regarding this.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by davion]

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reports: If Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, some Republican and Democratic congressional leaders tell ABC News the plan won't pass.

source

seems like both parties are willing to follow a leader. Good thing McCain went back to Washington to help out.

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

source

Gotta love Bill Clinton for telling the truth. Contradicts what many have said here.

I swear if McCain would have not gone back and this economy would have collapsed prior to them working out a deal, people would be screaming that McCain should have been up there helping out instead of debating because of all of his years of experience. Guess damn if he does and damn if he doesn't.

Originally posted by sos37

Okay, so you're saying that Obama did come up with the idea first. Let's assume that's correct. Underhandedness of who issued the statement aside (unless you have a link to an article which can prove it), let's get back to BH's statement and my question -

this timeline of McCain's Campaign by an NPR reporter assigned to him might help ...
Charting McCain's Suspended Campaign
www.npr.org...

Originally posted by jam321
I swear if McCain would have not gone back and this economy would have collapsed prior to them working out a deal, people would be screaming that McCain should have been up there helping out instead of debating because of all of his years of experience. Guess damn if he does and damn if he doesn't.

Yes all of his years of experience for regulation.

reply to post by GordonJQ


Before you go slinging mud about just who is on McCains campaign staff look at who is on Obama's

Robert Rubin,

Mr. Rubin is a past CEO of Goldman Sachs, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, and former board member and eventual chairman of Citigroup. He was instrumental in advocating and passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that overthrew the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted to prevent another Great Depression. Mr. Clinton obligingly signed the law that tore down the protective barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. Both sides of the aisle have contributed to, been deeply involved in the creation of, and have financially benefited from this financial disaster.

They both have horses in this race!

Drop the Blind party loyalty and research just who is on who's campaign and what interest they have!

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Mercenary2007]

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by GordonJQ

 

Before you go slinging mud about just who is on McCains campaign staff look at who is on Obama's

Robert Rubin,

Mr. Rubin is a past CEO of Goldman Sachs, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, and former board member and eventual chairman of Citigroup. He was instrumental in advocating and passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that overthrew the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted to prevent another Great Depression. Mr. Clinton obligingly signed the law that tore down the protective barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. Both sides of the aisle have contributed to, been deeply involved in the creation of, and have financially benefited from this financial disaster.

They both have horses in this race!

Drop the Blind party loyalty and research just who is on who's campaign and what interest they have!

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Mercenary2007]

Turns out McCain's economics adviser brought about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

That would explain the 'Gramm', Leach refers to James Leach and Bailey is Thomas Bliley, all three Republicans.

Republicans were the ones that voted it in

So, what were you saying?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by davion]

I agree that Democrats aren't off the hook, they were obviously benefiting from this too, but I've gone back through the voting records of these bills that have been passed that took away the oversight for banks and other markets and they are all designed and sponsored by Republicans and were voted in during times that the Republicans had a majority and voted for it.

Soooo...

[edit on 25-9-2008 by davion]

reply to post by davion


Go to the record and you will see that the majority of congress approved it and Clinton signed.

Here is a part of what Clinton had to say about it.

Although the Act grants financial services firms greater latitude to innovate, it also contains important safety and soundness protections. While the Act allows common ownership of banking, securities, and insurance firms, it still requires those activities to be conducted separately within an organization, subject to functional regulation and funding limitations.

source

Notice the words regulation, conducted separately, contains important safety and soundness protections.

Don't think ol Bill would say that if he didn't believe it.

McCain should attend the debate. Why does a man who has no expertise on the economy, all of a sudden start thinking he can actually do something besides vote. Its only going to take one hour or so. One hour....



Im not in favor of either candidate, as I believe Ron Paul or someone with an understanding of his policies/ideas needs to be in office. Not a pair of twits.

Originally posted by jam321
Go to the record and you will see that the majority of congress approved it and Clinton signed.

Yes, and who was in the majority during that time? Republicans.

Here is a part of what Clinton had to say about it.

Although the Act grants financial services firms greater latitude to innovate, it also contains important safety and soundness protections. While the Act allows common ownership of banking, securities, and insurance firms, it still requires those activities to be conducted separately within an organization, subject to functional regulation and funding limitations.

source

Notice the words regulation, conducted separately, contains important safety and soundness protections.

Don't think ol Bill would say that if he didn't believe it.

Yes, and this was still one of the bills that led to the mess we're in, and many economists agree on that. As I said the Democrats, and specifically Clinton put this bill through, and I am pointing out that all the bills that allowed for this to happen were made, supported, and voted for by Republicans. According to votes, especially on this 1999 bill the Democrats were against it.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by davion]

As a Conservative that barely votes republican and who has never voted for Bush, I'm saddened and disappointed by John McCain.

He is trying to win based on gotcha moves like this instead of debating the issues.

There was no reason for McCain or Obama to be sitting at that table with the President.

One of them will be elected in less than 2 months and they need to tell us what they will do if they get elected.

I'm tired of McCain and his antics. These problems are to big and we don't need to be distracted by mooseburgers and silly antics like this.

It's also worth noting that McCain voted for that bill. And they got the majority vote

Could Clinton have vetoed the bill if he wanted to considering Republicans were in the majority?

reply to post by davion


Listen, we are debating minute issues that they want us to believe is to blame. Deregulation and regulation is not the issue. Accountability and oversight is. Everybody and their mama knows that risky loans were being given out left and right to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. The government continued to insist that institutions continue to do so, especially minorities. Just look at the HUD programs for the past few administrations and one will realize that the government is implicated on this. They are playing the blame game, as well as us., to throw us off the real culprits. They helped create the mess. They can't blame the low income families or minorities for this because that will lose votes. They need a scapegoat and deregulation and regulation is it. this organization PCAOB was also negligent in not following up on the accounting of these industries that are in trouble. Otherwise they would have caught the problem before it got to this point.

If it wasn't for the 1999 law these two companies Goldman, Morgan would have never been able to switch over to become banks. They would have collapse and added to the crisis we are facing.

I still think big brother is playing us as fools and we are buying every inch of it.

I am starting to debate if we really are in a crisis the more I investigate.

especially on this 1999 bill the Democrats were against it.

Senate vote on 1999 Gramm bill 90 for it 8 against it.....8 democrats said no

House of representatives vote....362 for it 57 against it ...51 of those Democrats....

source


In the Senate of the 106th Congress there were 45 democrats in the house there was 211 according to wikipedia.

Guess Democrats like Biden, Reid, and Pelosi weren't against it after all. Has McCain down as not voting.


What bill number are you looking at? Mine is based on the final vote, not amendments or referrals to committees.