WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by abber on 2008-09-24 18:50:13 +0000

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON????

McCain suspending campaign due to crisis Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor September 24, 2008 03:07 PM Saying that the Wall Street bailout plan is in jeopardy and the US economy at stake, John McCain said today that he is suspending his presidential campaign on Thursday and called for postponing the first presidential debate on Friday night. "It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’s proposal," he said in New York. "I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. "Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me. "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 spokesman Bill Burton just issued a statement: "At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details." "We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis."

Posted by Miriam on 2008-09-24 19:11:09 +0000

From the Onion?

Posted by abber on 2008-09-24 19:14:11 +0000

no the globe

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-24 19:52:22 +0000

Technically, McCain and Obama are paid with taxpayers money to, you know, be Senators, (gasp!) and not stump for a hoped-for job starting sometime next year. Do your jobs you're paid for now, Senators! I wouldn't be paid if I blew off projects I'd signed contracts saying I would do so I could concentrate only on getting new clients. Why should they? Besides, there's less than 14 states where the election matters anyway.

Posted by mr. mister on 2008-09-24 20:37:26 +0000

Now Obama is saying McCain took the credit for calling it off. I called a time out no I did. Time out

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-24 20:39:09 +0000

Brilliant politics by McCain: If Obama postpones the debate, Dems rip him a new one for kowtowing; if Obama doesn't agree, he hates freedom.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-24 20:44:31 +0000

MC stop bringing up the flaws in the American Electoral College! Why do you hate America?

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-24 20:53:21 +0000

Posted by abber on 2008-09-24 22:06:12 +0000

he is definitely trying to put obama in a bind...i'm just hoping it backfires... btw cnn is now saying that mccain won't attend the debate if the bailout package isnt done by friday. either way, i'm making cocktails friday so come over and drink while we still have THAT freedom!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 12:42:12 +0000

Just throwing it out there: saying "the American Electoral College is flawed" is jargon for "I don't like the fact that half the country doesn't share my political beliefs."

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-25 13:13:24 +0000

I knew you hated freedom.

Posted by tommy on 2008-09-25 13:41:02 +0000

I think you're right that that's what motivates people to oppose the electoral college system, but it doesn't mean they're not right. As far as I can see, the electoral college causes: - Votes from people in less populous state count more than votes from people in more populous states - Most of the campaigning to happen in states with a close-to-even Democrat/Republican split. I'm not sure of any positives that come out of the system, as compared to say a national popular vote system. I could probably throw it back at you and say "I oppose getting rid of the electoral college" is jargon for "I like the fact that people who share my political beliefs get a disproportionately large share of the vote".

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-25 13:47:35 +0000

Oh SNAP!

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 14:25:30 +0000

Indeed!

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 14:28:47 +0000

So what are you saying? If you just wanted to go with a "whoever collects the most actual votes wins" system, they would only need to canvass those states with the highest populations. Since less than half the U.S. votes in an election, you would only need to focus on nine states to get those numbers: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia. Only three of these are considered "battleground states." Yet there are 14 states up for grabs in today's election. That seems a bit more intriguing to me

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-25 14:29:20 +0000

If Obama didnt already have the election, I think McCain's 'campaign suspension' posturing yesterday in tandem with the recent Wall St bailout hearings have handed it to him on a silver platter. Things always change I 'spose, but I cant imagine voting for McCain anymore - that leaves me with a libertarian or Obamanomics. Cant say Im thrilled with either, but both are less loopy than Mccain.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 14:35:30 +0000

I think it will backfire. Cancelling a debate due to a disastrous event of national proportions is one thing, but an economic crisis is an ongoing thing, and it's not like McCain can go for a photo-op at his local financial institution to show how he's being really hands-on in helping the US get out of this. It comes down to the fact that a hurricane/earthquake/terrorist attack is such a different animal than a lengthy economic emergency, and given the fact that the debate offers a great opportunity for voters to hear the candidates' views on economics...if McCain backs out, he will look like a loser.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 14:51:00 +0000

"I don't like the fact that half the country _BY_ACREAGE_ doesn't share my political beliefs." ---- States with low populations have way too much political power. It's great if you want to live in Wyoming or Alaska... supposedly out of the reach of the Federal government. But that doesn't mean we have to bend over backward giving large states with low populations the number of EC votes they have. If Idaho had one person living in it, they'd still have one electoral college vote, and that's nuts. Urban centers are under-represented in our current system. Which results in the executive branch not being elected by "one person, one vote".

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 14:58:12 +0000

A++

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 15:00:09 +0000

This election is over, it was over when McCain choose Palin. Everything since then has been maneuvering to make up for such a poor choice. McCain's strength as a GOP candidate has been his ability to woo independent voters. Everything he's done since August has served to alienate them.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 15:02:47 +0000

Obama is the conservative choice. He's the establishment candidate at this point.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 15:04:56 +0000

Although I'm not necessarily voting for McCain, or wanting him to win, but it's this attitude of "inevitability" that has sideswiped Democrats before.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 15:18:37 +0000

For me, at least, that attitude died in the last two elections. Now my attitude is - this should obviously be a slam-dunk for Obama, but I live in my Metropolitan Boston Ivory Tower, so what the f*ck do I know. It's a huge country, and not everyone surfs news sites as much as I do. But it does seem like that McCain and Palin's lies are getting more mainstream attention. Abandoning the half-truth is probably the dumbest thing they ever did.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-25 15:20:04 +0000

A+++++++++++++

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 15:21:00 +0000

I dunno man, Kerry certainly had the attitude that he was going to easily win with an unpopular president at that time. And Hillary certainly thought it was going to be no-contest that she was going to have both the nomination and the White House.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 15:24:47 +0000

The pundits called it after his 2004 convention speech. I think they called him "the GOP's worst nightmare". Several of the GOP commentators were agog over the fact that several parts of his speech contained "Republican ideals". At that point, I was like - this is awesome, maybe there's finally a candidate who really can think outside the box. I like to think that's true, but I'm witholding judgment until I see some action.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-09-25 15:33:46 +0000

Yep, so true. Aside from the fact that they considered themselves pre-ordained, it certainly didn't help them to be surrounded by yes-people. Hillary v. Obama, though, is a very different case from Gore v. Bush or Kerry v. Bush - there's the Clinton history, the woman v. black man angle, the fact that it's a primary, and that its Dem v. Dem. I was talking more GOP v. Dems, and not of specific politicians, but of folks nationally who generally lean toward the Democratic party, like myself.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-25 15:35:50 +0000

I always say that I live in a bubble of liberalism, and I totally do. But even *I* understand that the rest of the country is VERY different. Many people in the US don't want the world to be a complicated place. So they elect someone (like G Dubs) who tells them that it's not complicated. There are terrorists ay-rabs with nucular weapons and there are good freedom-loving Amerikans. Abortion should be illegal in all instances, doesn't matter if it's a 10 year old daddy rape victim. They believe him. He breaks it down for them. The people in the underpopulated states REALLY LIKE Palin. Many of them WANT a soccer mom with no experience and a small brain but a gutsy perseverance in office. They respond to her. Heck, I respond to her, although when I notice myself reponding I feel physically sick-- I think she's probably a nice person, but with evil evil ideas. So, to conclude, I am even scared-er for this election than I have been in the last couple. I think that we're getting dumber, and pretty soon we won't be able to compete with the rest of the world.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 15:44:17 +0000

Agreed, MC. But I'm not a Democrat, and it's not 2004 or 2000.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 15:47:00 +0000

Don't look now, but we stopped competing a long time ago.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-25 15:56:50 +0000

Shit.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-25 16:05:51 +0000

Urban centers are under-represented in our current system. Which results in the executive branch not being elected by "one person, one vote". But states with big urban centers have more electoral votes, no?

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 16:26:34 +0000

Yes, they do, but not enough to offset the advantage in electoral college votes given to sparsely populated states.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-25 16:29:48 +0000

What do you propose?

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 16:40:52 +0000

National popular vote.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 16:41:27 +0000

If you only canvassed the nine most populated states and won each of those elections outright, you would have earned 226 electoral college votes. That means you'd be a measly 44 electoral college votes away from winning the election. Tell me again: how are the most populated states under-represented?

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-25 16:42:44 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-25 16:46:03 +0000

I didn't think I would start defending Palin, but 'small brain'? I don't necessarily agree with her politics, but I dont think brain power per se is an issue here. At any rate, don't worry. despite news attention to the contrary, VP choices rarely, if ever, will effect the result of an election.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-25 17:16:37 +0000

Please re-read: http://rideside.net/node/894 tgl: "Just to satisfy myself (someone get P. Chippy onto this, he was skeptical the other night): state population electoral votes EV / person Wyoming 501,242 3 5.99e-06 New Hampshire 1,287,687 4 3.11e-06 Massachusetts 6,433,422 12 1.87e-06 That's overall population, 2003 estimate. Electoral vote distribution is based on the 2000 census? (Just thinking about how in 2008, the population may have shifted enough that the 4 allotted to NH might not be indicative of population seeing as with a 4% population growth per year, NH might warrant another vote.) Not sure how individual state turnout could be factored into this equation... The Wyoming resident's opinion for president is worth three times mine? And twice rladews? NH has more than twice as many people as WY, but only 25% increase in electoral votes? WY gets 2 Senators... that's the way their concerns as a State should be heard. Let every person count equally."

Posted by tommy on 2008-09-25 17:17:20 +0000

tgl misspoke. If only one person lived in Idaho, (s)he wouldn't get 1 electoral vote. It would be 3. Here is an example of underrepresentation. Hopefully by taking an example of a small liberal state and a large conservative state, you'll see that the problem is not just liberal vs. conservative. Each one of Vermont's electoral votes represents about 200,000 people. (3 of them for about 600,000 people) Each one of Texas's electoral votes represents about 700,000 people. (34 of them for about 24 million people) Thus, a individual Vermonter's vote counts more than 3 times more than a Texan's.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-25 17:20:14 +0000

(Sorry -- I'm grading batch #2 of papers, and am ery much in the habit of asking questions. Carry on.)

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-25 17:21:04 +0000

Posted by tommy on 2008-09-25 17:27:25 +0000

In a 'whoever collects the most actual votes' system, a vote from a person in a big state counts just as much as a person in a small state. Concentrating on the 9 most populous states isn't enough... unless you won EVERY SINGLE vote in each of those states. Of course that's not likely. Even if one candidate won all of those states, they'd likely get under 60% of the votes in those states. And, 60% of half of the voters is still only 30% of the vote.

Posted by tommy on 2008-09-25 17:31:24 +0000

MC, I totally agree with you on this one. Democrats seem to once again have the air of "of course we'll win", which now is accompanied by "...unless of course the election is rigged or people are racists"

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-25 17:40:32 +0000

I'm not sure implementing a voting system based on how 'intriguing' it may be is a good idea. Regardless... In actuality the "whoever collects the most actual votes wins", would lead to a broader scope of canvassing, instead of just Youngstown OH, Jacksonville FL, and Pittsburg PA, we might see some action in Missoula, Springfield, Dallas, or even NY...

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-25 18:35:56 +0000

With three vowels this story is no surprise, but it made me chuckle and think of this thread as well.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 19:32:54 +0000

Correct. There are red votes in blue Massachusetts.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 19:34:51 +0000

"I don't like the fact that half the country doesn't share my political beliefs." --- Don't get me wrong, this is still true. It's just not in anyway related to the Electoral College debate.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 19:36:17 +0000

Bush was twice as popular in 2004 as he is now.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-09-25 20:07:11 +0000

MF DU, I love you. You know I do. But brother please.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-25 20:07:16 +0000

small brain

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-09-25 22:34:58 +0000

If brilliance is the standard, who of the last 42 possibly qualify?

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-26 02:08:42 +0000

Nelson Rockefeller Harry S. Truman

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 12:18:18 +0000

I don't need brilliance. Basic comprehension would be nice.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 12:20:22 +0000

Blaming an Obama loss on racists is the wrong way to go. Especially pre-blaming. There's just not enough of them. Let's also be careful when we talk about "Democrats" and the "Obama campaign". Two different animals.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-26 13:01:31 +0000

Clinton

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 13:02:33 +0000

Not a VEEP.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-26 13:10:21 +0000

Sorry, Gore was only 'gifted' Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-26 14:07:59 +0000

M Chani stated my concern with the 'small brain' issue better than I did. Palin says stupid stuff. I wasn't contesting that.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 14:23:00 +0000

On Stupidness ------------- Biden telling the paraplegic to stand-up is stupid. Palin saying "I can see Russia!" isn't just a stupid gaffe. Especially since she and the McCain campaign continue to use it. It's jaw-dropping. Couric gave Palin an opportunity to expand on her foreign policy credentials, and Palin failed to do so. She continues with the proximity line as her main credential. I'd feel much better if she'd read a book, or listened to a speech, or watched a movie and then came away with an opinion or conviction or world-view that she felt strongly about. Is a little self-introspection too much to ask of someone seeking public office? There is no record that this candidate had any thoughts about Iraq until fall of 2006. And then, when she finally says something, it's I don't know. I'm sure she was busy at the time, killing earmarks and what not, but really: you're a governor with political aspirations and you've not been able to find some time over _the_past_three_years_ to think about Iraq? At least Cheney is as serious as a heart attack. Please point me to something from Palin's record or recent interviews that could persuade me that Palin is a serious policy maker.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 14:25:46 +0000

I don't need a Nobel prize winner... but, come on!

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-09-26 14:37:19 +0000

Jeez, I had forgotten how pitiful/amazing that clip was. thanks for the re-post.

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 15:21:50 +0000

I haven't seen the Couric interview of Palin, don't have sound at work, but Fallows is a fairly middle of the road guy. I can agree that brilliance is not the standard... how about coherence?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-26 15:34:25 +0000

Posted by tgl on 2008-09-26 15:47:39 +0000

...and the work proxy server is now blocking YouTube.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-29 13:54:13 +0000

Howard Stern put the Couric interview side by side with the beauty pageant clip this a.m. as well. I must admit I had not seen the Couric interview when I had complained about the 'Small Brain' comment. Thursday's debate will be fun to watch, I'm sure.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-29 14:19:00 +0000

Stern takes a lot of his cues from me... just not romatically.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-29 14:24:23 +0000

Chortle Inducing

WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

tracker / 2008 / 9

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON????