Comments:McCain delays campaign, Obama says continue the debates

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is the financial crisis more important than the election? Has the crisis impacted you personally?[edit]

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Just an act[edit]

Here's my take: We've been in a crisis all week, and before this. This is nothing new. So why does he decide to cancel the debate and suspend his campaign all of a sudden? Why just after Obama agreed to the debates? My take: it's just his act to look good while getting out of a debate he knows he can't win. He's trying to act like he's putting aside politics and is working only for the people. But only 7% of Americans approve of the $700 mil bailout that he's trying to push. Is he really fighting for the people or putting politics aside? --Poisonous (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. This is all about politics. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's 700 billion, not million. Chump change to a politician - they don't care that it comes out the taxpayers pocket. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
He's doing it because of what Obama will do. If Obama suspends his campaign his support base will weaken and it will sideline the already out of media face of Biden. If Obama doesn't he loses any and all credibility on the Economy and any claim on doing what is right for the people. The latter is especially damaging when coupled with the fact that his campaign has more of the "dysfunctional" and "greedy" minds that ran Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae.--141.157.60.103 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably, I think your analysis is absolutely correct. There is no substance whatsoever to McCains act, but to the American who don't care enough about politics to have picked sides yet, it will look like McCain is "going to work" and Obama is being a celebrity. The only way Obama's campaign can counter this sequence of events, I think, is by pointing out how weak McCain has traditionally been on the economy. When one hasn't bothered about the economy while Wall Street were slowly sinking into the gutter, it seems rather convenient that one's interest in the economy suddenly peak just as a series of potentially hurtful debates are about begin, doesn't it? --85.82.179.226 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

--GCinMe (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)== Money, money, money (must be funny) ==

$700 billion works out as a little over $2000 per head for the entire U.S. population. Yes, children and other non-contributors included. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Financial Crisis is important to Wall Street and those with financial investments. The Election is important to ALL Americans.

It's not an "either/or" situation. Both issues are important and I beleive it is appropriate for the candidates to demonstrate their capacity to deal with both issues simultaneously. I beleive that whichever candidate wins this election will be required to deal with multiple issues simultaneously including economic, military, and other challenges both at home and abroad.

---Don Talley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.204.21 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the author of the above comment, we ALL need to be concerned by this financial crisis. If there is no money for banks to loan, people can not buy cars, or houses or get loans for school, thus affecting those who sell cars for a living, the manufactures, teachers, students, not to mention banks closing their doors, ect ect. This has huge repercussions, and to continue have the blasé' attitude about this crisis is only a continuation of Americans being disconnected to what is going on in our government. We are in this position NOT ONLY because of the politicians in government, but in part because we as voting Americans remain disinterested in what our government is doing. We should all have been contacting our Senators and representatives regarding the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae regarding their criteria for mortgage applications and their issuing loans to unqualified home buyers, as blatant examples of irresponsible behavior of our elected officials. I think McCain is right in addressing this as a priority, and now would be a good time for Obama to walk the talk of being the "uniter", join in trying to find a solution, that would show true unity on his part. His comment that a president needs to be able to multi task does not address the need for a candidate to also act presidential, and prioritize in a time

I believe that both should go on. McCain should not suspend his campaign. Let the bailout plan go on, and at the same time let the election go on. Sean gorter (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

This debate is only on foreign policy. Noting about the US economy will be ask, and i think foreign affairs is in McCain's hands. But jib that McCain dos not want to be in the debate.And the President called both Obama and McCain too the white house and a few other lawmakers. --66.229.17.181 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's...[edit]

...just ridiculous. Why does he have to be physically in Congress to work on the bill? Is it because he don't know how to use e-mail? --85.82.179.226 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He Physically can't use a keyboard from his stay in Vietnam that why Obama stop using that attack add about how McCain can't use computers. And sending a email too congress on the second worse event on US economy history!?!? are you crazy?--66.229.17.181 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
What injuries prevent him from moving his fingers? His fingers seem to be in different positions in some pictures, so he's probably able to use them. How hard is it to just type? I agree that he shouldn't be doing it over email though. I'm just tired of him/other people using the POW excuse about everything.
You use your upper arms when you type more than you realize. Thanks to elbow injuries and a shoulder injury his upper arm movement is limited so swift downward direction is hard to control. Even though he could always dictate what he wants sent, that has in the past proved untrustworthy.--141.157.60.103 11:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense. He has a huge staff, anyone can type or talk for him. It's 2008 computers have accessibility features and as a Senator, he has had time to master them all. Lastly, if he can't get physical or automated help than how can he execute on presidential responsibilities. It's a slap in the face to veterans every time the POW card is abused. This specific line of argument is worse as it offends disabled peoples as well. Ozten (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scarry[edit]


It's scary . What if the bill it doesn't even work , what if It's going to make things worse. 700 B is terribly huge. --69.157.187.91 03:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's scary. It's scary that a president who knows how the inside of this mess looks thinks that this crisis is so pressing that he feel he can't wait until his Republican friend's presidential campaign is over to request a $700 bn bailout. You have to be into some pretty deep shit if you would rather taint a fellow Republicans campaign like this than wait 40 days until the campaign is over. The bailout probably will not make things worse in the short run, but if you are at a point where you need to bailout, you havent really havent been paying attention to the nation you were elected to oversee. --85.82.179.226 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK...now put Palin out there[edit]

You don't suspend your campaign, you hand the reins over to your VP for a while. Joe Biden can campaign on his own, but why is it that Sarah Palin still has training wheels and won't have the press get NEAR her nearly a month after she was chosen? Shouldn't she gain experience and campaign on her own? OOPS, am I sexist in saying all of this? There's a reason as to why your poll numbers are dropping, Senator McCain. It's because people have found out that you are trying to feed us bull____ and try to distract us to make it look like you're a hero. You tried to delay the RNC because of a hurricane, but I DIDN'T SEE YOU OUT THERE HELPING TO CLEAN UP. Even after Ike, Galveston was drowning, but you were out there saying the economy was all Barack Obama's fault. You respond to criticism about your houses with "oh, well I was a prisoner of war." We know you're a great man, Senator, and you're a war hero, but you are in no way the same man from eight years ago. Here's to the end of your political career! CHEERS

$700 Billion Bailout is a "Section 8" Trojan horse, written by those who should be "Section 8"-ed![edit]

Bush (in his speech to the nation) said "It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars." But Section 8 of the "Bailout Bill" reads:



Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.



Isn't that like Bush, say one thing, makes sure his true intent is in writing... Paulson & Bush could have a "Golden Parachute" secret cash stash, and the law couldn't touch them. What is Paulson, God? No oversight? Congress is putting on a show (Patriot Act deja vu), hoping that no one notices "Section 8".

Politicians that vote for this Bailout without deleting "Section 8" aren't working for you and me. Corporate Welfare, plain and simple.

Dumb decision[edit]

This is a dumb decision on McCain's part. The fact is that he does not hold a position in Senate that really matters for a committee on the bailout proposal and is turning this into a political stunt. If this was a natural disaster I might understand then, however it is not and going back to Washington will not boost the moral of the people, nor does it indicate any change from old ways of Washington. And why does the whole campaign need to be suspended? Palin has nothing to do with this issue, and if need be McCain should have tried to find way to swap the Presidential debate with the VP one, but even that is unacceptable.

The fact is McCain is afraid and Palin has no foreign policy background. That is why this is really happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.132.142 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The debate is on foreign policy which Obama lacks and McCain recommended Palin and Baden debate go ahead of schedule.--66.229.17.181 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1964-1968-1972[edit]

The article could have done well to explore which modern elections in the past lacked general election presidential debates. Perhaps the topic could even become an article of its own.

President Johnson avoided any risk to losing his poll lead to Goldwater by avoiding debates, and Nixon, resenting his depiction after the famous 1960 televised debate, refused to engage in any for '68 and '72, giving the US three consecutive election cycles without any general election debates at all. Gerald Ford broke the mold with Carter, and we've had a streak going ever sense, but a presidential debate is by no means an ancient rite.

As for the contemporary strategic sense, I've no idea if the public will perceive McCain as ducking a debate, but if I were him, I'd find a seated coffee-table style venue, perhaps one last 'Larry King Live' debate. Obama squirms just a little bit seated in front of a camera. He looks more boyish than presidential in that setting. In turn, his disabilities render McCain unsuited for the traditional ambiance.

-The Typewriter King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.92.7 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an opportunity for the candidates to show the American people what THEIR priorities are, actions speak louder than words. I think the debate should be postponed till Congress comes to a decision, (I am not at all sure it should be a bail out) and then I think the debate should be change to discuss the crisis at hand. I for one would like to hear from each candidate how they believe we got into this mess, how they would deal with it, why, and how to avoid it AGAIN. This is NOT the first time we have gotten the banking industry out of a mess. As tax payers I for one would really like to stop paying for these bail outs --GCinMe (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the presidential elections are more important than the current economic crisis, but I do not think that suspending the campaigns is necessary either. It seems to me that someone at the McCain campaign thought it to be a good "marketing" idea for the republican candidate to state that he decided to suspend his campaign in order to focus more on the current financial crisis. I think that Mr. McCain's (and Obama as well) presence in Washington for the bailout debate will be a more a distraction than something useful. I think that both candidates should handle this matter as they did with Hurricane Gustav, by stating that they would not be present at the disaster site in order to not obstruct the rescue efforts. And yes, both Washington and Wall Street are a disaster site right now. If both candidates want to show the Country that they have the insight, leadership and knoledge necessary to overcome the current financial situation, a debate is the most suitable way to do this at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.96.227.221 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

These debates are our democratic process! What will individuals choose to do away with next? I thought this is a democracy! What will individuals and not we the people choose to do away with next? What gives him or their party the right to decide what we the people have the right to hear? How can we be expected to make informed decisions if we are being denied the right to be informed about our candidate's? What on Earth is really going on here? We the People need to stand up and start making demands and decisions instead of letting whoever else take control! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.143.206 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is more important than our voice! Without our voice, we have no freedom! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.143.206 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia and NATO?[edit]

Am I missing something or couldn't some of the foreign affairs issues be solved by inviting, or attempting to invite russia into NATO? They're almost as close to the atlantic as turkey. Deffinately closer to Brussels than turkey, and one of the main reasons I feel they lashed out into georgia is because they are backed into a corner by NATO.--Nyimen (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The election is more important than the crisis. The candidate should join the debates. Because the new President of USA can solve the problem/crisis. This is not only for USA, it is also for the world.

Syed Ershadul Hoque Milon Founder Director Kavitassrom kavitassrom@bangladesh.com www.kavitassrom.50megs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitassrom (talkcontribs) 12:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)