Obama likely to keep debate as McCain seeks delay

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain;_ylt=A0wNcxEondpIVYgAIg6s0NUE

Obama likely to keep debate as McCain seeks delay By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

NEW YORK - Republican presidential nominee John McCain challenged rival Barack Obama on Wednesday to suspend their heated campaign, postpone Friday's debate and work together to deal with the nation's financial troubles. Obama did not immediately respond to his rival's bold political move, but Obama campaign officials say the senator is inclined to move ahead with the debate.

ADVERTISEMENT

McCain said the Bush administration's Wall Street bailout plan seemed headed for defeat and a bipartisan solution was urgently needed. The move was an effort by the Republican to claim leadership on an issue that has been troublesome for him at a time when his rival is moving ahead in the polls.

McCain said he would put politics aside and return to Washington Thursday to focus on the nation's financial problems after addressing former President Clinton's Global Initiative session in New York. McCain said he had spoken to President Bush and asked him to convene a leadership meeting in Washington that would include him and Obama.

"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal," McCain said. "I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time."

McCain said he has spoken to Obama about his plans and asked the Democratic presidential nominee to join him.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying the debate should go on because "we need leadership, not a campaign photo op."

The University of Mississippi said it was going forward with preparation for the debate in Oxford. "We are ready to host the debate, and we expect the debate to occur as planned," the school said, adding that it had received no notification of any change in the timing or venue.

The Obama campaign said in a statement that Obama had called McCain around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. McCain called back six hours later and agreed to the idea of the statement, the Obama campaign said. McCain's statement was issued to the media a few minutes later.

"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

McCain's statement was an effort to show leadership on an issue that has spread economic fears across the country and overshadowed the presidential campaign just six weeks from Election Day. The economy has not been McCain's strongest suit, and his move was an attempt to turn it into an opportunity to show he's the candidate of bipartisanship and action. Recent polls showed Obama with an advantage with voters in handling the economy.

The move put Obama in a bind. Rejecting the idea would allow McCain alone to appear above politics, but agreeing to suspend campaigning and the debate could make Obama look like he's following McCain's lead.

McCain said if Congress does not pass legislation to address the crisis, credit will dry up, people will no longer be able to buy homes, life savings will be at stake and businesses will not have enough money

"If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted," McCain said. "We cannot allow this to happen."

McCain also canceled his planned appearance Wednesday on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman" program.

A senior McCain adviser, Mark Salter, said the campaign would suspend all advertising and campaign events until a workable deal is reached on the bailout proposal — but only if the Obama campaign agrees to do the same.

___

Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

**dogma**

It's a very wise political move by McCain. Though the conditional that Obama agree to the whole idea reveals it for what it is: self-interest.

**lord_sutekh**

So... he pushes for joint events, bashes Obama for sticking to the established 3 (although dangling the chance of town halls in front of McCain was kinda mean, like hanging a steak 5 feet above a Basset Hound), then turns about and wants to cancel one of the few joint events (in a style he gets clobbered at)? On the idea that somehow his lack of financial savvy will assist in fixing a massive problem that financial experts can't agree on?

It must still be summer, because the flip-flops are still out in force.

**Frazzled**

Well he is a sitting Senator. All the Senators should be forced into a meeting and deal with this. Vote yes/no/or yes with amendments.

**dogma**

Just listened to Obama's response. He handled it well. Basically framed it as their (both candidate's) duty to help inform the public given that one of them will be President in 2 months.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

Or president elect, they don't take over until next year....

**Nurglitch**

Couric: "Can you give us an example of how John McCain will reform Wall Street?"

Palin: "I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you."

**Ahtman**

jfrazell wrote:Well he is a sitting Senator. All the Senators should be forced into a meeting and deal with this. Vote yes/no/or yes with amendments.

I think it's nice that after months of abstaining from voting that he decides now is the time to shine the spotlight on himsel...err, the issue. I don't care much for this thinly veiled attempt to appear bipartisan. As president you may have to deal with more than one thing at a time and yet he can't deal with debating why he should be President and talking to others in the same week. I like some things about McCain, but I don't like this move and think it may hurt him more then help him.

**dogma**

One of my friends also just pointed out the fact that the bailout plan is currently only being reviewed in committee. Committees which neither McCain, nor Obama, are on. Still, most people are ignorant, and this is a pretty decent publicity stunt in light of his current slide into a losing election.

**Frazzled**

Der upendaten

BREAKING NEWS: Obama Accepts Bush Invitation To Meet In Washington

POSTED: 8:26 pm EDT September 24, 2008
UPDATED: 10:14 pm EDT September 24, 2008

WASHINGTON -- With extraordinary stakes on the line, President Bush has invited both presidential candidates and the leaders of the House and Senate to the White House on Thursday in hopes of securing a bill to rescue the economy.

Bush took the unusual step Wednesday night of calling Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directly to invite him to the meeting, White House press secretary Dana Perino said. An Obama spokesman said the senator would attend. The White House has also invited Republican Sen. John McCain.

Perino said the goal of the session is to make progress -- fast -- on a bipartisan solution to the biggest economic crisis in decades.

Shortly after the announcement was made that Obama would attend the meeting, the presidential candidates issued a joint statement Wednesday night in which they said the American people are facing a moment of economic crisis.

Read The Full Obama-McCain Joint Statement

Moments before Bush's scheduled address to the nation, the Republican and Democratic candidates said now is the time for both political parties to come together in the spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people.

They said the $700 billion plan the administration has proposed to bail out the financial industry is flawed, but that the effort to protect the U.S. economy must not fail.

Perino said the call between Bush and Obama lasted several minutes and was "a good conversation."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democratic presidential contender "will continue to work in a bipartisan spirit and do whatever is necessary to come up with a final solution."

Details of the meeting were still being determined.

**sebster**

Geeze, Letterman was pissed, wasn't he?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Out of interest, has their been anything like this happen before in the run up to a Presidential Election?

By like this I mean a crisis of similar magnitude, regardless of its nature (Natural Disaster, War, Economy etc).

No motive behind wanting to know, just asking.

**sebster**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Out of interest, has their been anything like this happen before in the run up to a Presidential Election?

By like this I mean a crisis of similar magnitude, regardless of its nature (Natural Disaster, War, Economy etc).

No motive behind wanting to know, just asking.

The election of 1812 carried on despite the start of the war with the British. The civil war didn't halt the campaign of 1864, nor did the second world war affect the 1944 election.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

This is utterly wishful thinking, but I would really like to see both sides make the same promises with regard to the Economy. Why? It might restore some faith that they aren't using the very possible collapse of capitalism (it could happen...don't deny it) as cheap points scoring. This is really very, very serious.

After all, China is fast catching up, and so is India. If the US suffers a major stumble or falls over completely, the world will be a very different place by the time it's dusted itself down.

**Frazzled**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Out of interest, has their been anything like this happen before in the run up to a Presidential Election?

By like this I mean a crisis of similar magnitude, regardless of its nature (Natural Disaster, War, Economy etc).

No motive behind wanting to know, just asking.

I believe the Commie Pinkoes invaded Hungary right before Eisenhower was elected, but I could be wrong.

**sebster**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This is utterly wishful thinking, but I would really like to see both sides make the same promises with regard to the Economy. Why? It might restore some faith that they aren't using the very possible collapse of capitalism (it could happen...don't deny it) as cheap points scoring. This is really very, very serious.

After all, China is fast catching up, and so is India. If the US suffers a major stumble or falls over completely, the world will be a very different place by the time it's dusted itself down.

In what sense? In terms of GDP the US, $13 trillion, is currently more than four times greater than China, and more than 12 times greater than India. That's a scale that isn't challenged by a housing crisis. Especially when you look at what's fuelling the growth in China and India, absorption into the world economy. If anything they're more vulnerable to the failings of the financial sector than the US is, especially when you look at the troubles faced in Europe (where Deutschebank and Barclays may not only be too big to fail, but also too big to save),

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

IT's manufacturing output. So much stuff is already made in the Indian Subcontinent and China, that they are holding quite a few aces.

They have cheaper labour, lax employment laws etc, all of which are highly appealing to companies. So far, the West has taken advantage by 'merely' outsourcing. But sooner or later, that countries indigenous companies are going to come roaring out of the traps, not just making cheaper, but selling cheaper too. When that happens, the US will lose a lot of it's GDP, seeing as a fair chunk is Exports.

And I believe the backbone of the US Economy is Oil. Right now, Oil is predominantly priced in Dollars. Only way to get them? Trade with the US. However, a number of Oil Rich countries are wavering towards the Euro, seeing dealing with a conglomerate of countries, and not just one, better for business due to competition within said conglomerate. When (if, to be honest) this becomes the norm, the US will be on the back foot, and no mistake.

**Frazzled**

I think he's saying China's and, to only a slightly lesser extent India's, economies are greater at 2-3x the US GDP growth rate. China has already surpassed Uber Deutschland in total exports and may be the 1st or 2nd largest exporter in the world at this point.

I'm happy that India is growing rapidly. They are the world's largest democracy so we should cheer them on. Yea India!

**reds8n**

nailing a sneezing maverick

Of course a lot of the exports from China/India go to the USA/etc, so if they don't have the spare moolah to purchase said goods then it's a knock on effect.

But yeah : Go India.

..... Indian food isn't big in the states is that right ? Curry is BIG business over here.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

And yet by the same token, with the Middle Classes in India and China growing, some of the slack from a skint US will be picked up by each other.

**Frazzled**

In time that is definitely the case. I'm all for worldwide middle class growth. That leads to more US exports as well. A strong middle class makes a strong nation.

**reds8n**

Well..... someone has to pay the tax bills right ?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Interesting point though....

China is exporting it's excess Labour Force to African countries, helping them build new amenities and that for cheap. Almost like a National Charity.

Really makes me wonder just how much change is coming in the next 50 years.

**dietrich**

Other events during Presidential Campaigns:

WW2: In 1940, FDR campaigns on the 'I've kept us out of this war' ticket (for an unheard of third term). In 1944, he runs on the 'don't change horses in the middle of the stream' ticket for an unheard of fourth term (and for which he serves like four months before dying).

The Korean War was on-going during Ike's first presidential bid, and I believe one of his selling points was his military experience and finding an end to the war.

Vietnam was on-going. LBJ elected not to run for re-election in 1968, mostly because he knew that'd he lose due to the war's unpopularity. And yet, Nixon oversaw the war for four years, didn't get the US out, and won re-election.

Ford. "How the hell could you pardon Nixon?" as Red Foreman from the 70's Show would say.

Iran hostage crisis. Reagan wins in a landslide. Iran releases hostages, and there was a lot of thinking that it was in large part because they were afraid that Reagan would go to war. Rumors circulated that before the election, George Bush (the elder) went to France and meet with Iranian diplomats and convinced them to NOT release the hostages until after the election. Due to the seriousness of the charges, even though there was no evidence, Congress orders an investigation (which finds that the rumors, much like Congress, are a bunch of nonsense).

Iraq. In 2004, the Dems could have run just about anyone and won the Presidency. So they found a candidate that no one really liked. Biden could probably have won then. Goes to show how the primary system is flawed - they nominate a polarizing candidate because only the party diehards vote in the primaries, then he can't win a general election. I think there was also something about gay marriage corrupting the social and moral fiber of America, so it makes sense to vote for a ticket whose VP is an open lesbian (Cheney's daugher).

**Lemartes**

The debates should go on Friday along with the meeting at the white house on Thursday. This shows who can handle the pressure and multitask.

**dogma**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And yet by the same token, with the Middle Classes in India and China growing, some of the slack from a skint US will be picked up by each other.

Of course most of that growth rate is due to their ability to take advantage of low domestic manufacturing costs in conjunction with deep pockets in Europe and America. If those pockets aren't so deep then the growth would slow dramatically as jobs would be lost, or wages would fall. Its really not all that disimilar to what early Americans did to develop the economy after declaring independence. Not that there was a Middle Class in America, no one would come up with the concept of appeasement through wages for some time, the overarching structure of minimizing costs to maximize profit through trade remained intact.

You are right though, the Chinese move to develop Africa is going to pay huge dividends in the future. If only because it will supply them with cheap labor in much the same way as they do for the US.

Edit: Letterman was not a happy man.

**youbedead**

reds8n wrote:

..... Indian food isn't big in the states is that right ? Curry is BIG business over here.

yeah not that popular the only reason i probably like it is because of my dad(he's still sad that he can't find good lime pickle in the states)

but really i feel that McCain who has missed more votes then anyone else should just stick with the debate

**sebster**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:IT's manufacturing output. So much stuff is already made in the Indian Subcontinent and China, that they are holding quite a few aces.

They have cheaper labour, lax employment laws etc, all of which are highly appealing to companies. So far, the West has taken advantage by 'merely' outsourcing. But sooner or later, that countries indigenous companies are going to come roaring out of the traps, not just making cheaper, but selling cheaper too. When that happens, the US will lose a lot of it's GDP, seeing as a fair chunk is Exports.

Yeah, but fixating on low value added manufacturing only gets you so far, because it relies on having lower incomes. Constant growth will continue to grow incomes (in fact sustainable growth needs increasing domestic incomes) and that means moving to high value manufacturing and high value service industries. You can see this as the Chinese have steadily followed the path trodden by Japan, starting with ultra-low value industries like textiles, then moving into mass production of low to moderate quality bulk goods.

And I believe the backbone of the US Economy is Oil. Right now, Oil is predominantly priced in Dollars. Only way to get them? Trade with the US. However, a number of Oil Rich countries are wavering towards the Euro, seeing dealing with a conglomerate of countries, and not just one, better for business due to competition within said conglomerate. When (if, to be honest) this becomes the norm, the US will be on the back foot, and no mistake.

This isn’t how it works. It means the price of oil is given in USD, but you don’t actually have to pay with USD, you can pay with Indian Rupee if you want, but the price will be determined by the exchange rate. The price of oil could be given in ounces of gold… the reason the USD is used is because historically it’s been a lot more stable than anything else, including gold.

**sebster**

jfrazell wrote:I think he's saying China's and, to only a slightly lesser extent India's, economies are greater at 2-3x the US GDP growth rate. China has already surpassed Uber Deutschland in total exports and may be the 1st or 2nd largest exporter in the world at this point.

I'm happy that India is growing rapidly. They are the world's largest democracy so we should cheer them on. Yea India!

Which is a natural result of playing catch up. Look at the growth rates Germany achieved when it unified under the Kaiser. Over time, though, growth rates level off as the easiest effects of importing modern machinery and methods start drying up.

**sebster**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And yet by the same token, with the Middle Classes in India and China growing, some of the slack from a skint US will be picked up by each other.

The idea of the middle class is relative. There is a growing number of relatively affluent salary earners in India, and that makes them middle class. But it’s that word ‘relatively’ that’s key, as a guy in the middle class in India doesn’t have a fraction of the income of his middle class equivalent in the US.

As an indication, the middle class in India is somewhere around five to ten times the population of Australia, and yet their GDP, which includes another 800 to 900 million people besides, is only around 10% bigger than Australia’s.

That’s what we’re talking about when we talk about these economies. India for all it’s scale has only a slightly bigger economic footprint than Australia, a nation of 20 million. Long term there are solid argument that China and India might become the dominant economies of the world, but we’re talking about 100 years from now.