| steven787 said: Sqrl, I think you are missing the point. It's not that he should or shouldn't be there. McCain and Obama both were there. Neither is on a single economic committee, they are only supposed to be there because one of the two will be the next president. The problem is that McCain politicized it by saying he was suspending his candidacy because of it. Why? The candidacy is run by other people, they can still do their work, throwing parties and rallies, going on TV, etc. and the candidates can still do their jobs. The president, republican pundits, and republican congressional representatives are all saying it was unnecessary. The moderate republicans are blaming him for derailing it. McCain made the wrong call. If anything, if they want to look presidential they should be talking to the people right now; maybe in a setting that might seem to challenge his abilities. I think the debates are MORE important now, than a week ago. http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3112536&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ |
First, it is about whether they should be there. Leadership is setting an example and taking the lead (hence the name). Phoning it in doesn't cut it. Sorry it simply doesn't.
Second, the reason they should be there has nothing to do with the office they are running for but the office they currently occupy. While it is typically seen as not being a particularly big deal when someone misses out on routine duties because of the campaign trail that doesn't mean the biggest crisis in 50-80 years (depending on your view) should be treated anywhere near the same way. This is their job and if they have confidence in their ability to lead they should feel comfortable being part of that process (and Obama agrees with me on that).
Third, the suspension of the campaign was intended to create an air of urgency. The whole point he was making is that this is important enough to drop everything and get it done, again even Bill Clinton agrees McCain's suspension is born of good intentions and not partisanship..seriously the man spoke at the DNC...I think that should tell us something about how silly the argument is. The politicization of this is coming from everyone but McCain & Obama from what I've seen..but mostly the media. McCain has been busy all day in meetings and on the phone with very few exceptions and even Obama in the interview you linked says that if McCain thinks he can help he should be there.
I have to thoroughly disagree with you on whether it was the right call. The distinct impression I've had for about 2 days now is that they were going to ram this bill down our throats and screw us. I got a little substantiation to that, but I have yet to check into. Lindsey Grahm told Greta tonight that ACORN was being funneled cash through this bill and indicated that there were other problems as well.
Now I have to say you ignored the point about Reid and Paulson both requesting McCain's input/presence. Don't you find it the least bit sleazy that Reid asks for him by name then denounces him when he shows up? I simply am amazed by the ability of these politicians to ignore their own previous statements and say whatever works at that moment. The whining about McCain is, at least for now, nothing more than partisan blathering. Paying attention to it only serves to distract from the real issue, the issue that we should be focused on rather than worrying about whether McCain and Obama are going to have a debate that likely won't matter much if this deal doesn't get done.
As for the bill McCain supposedly ruined...again read what I said and address it. It's a defunked argument. There was no bill, they had 5 senators who agreed on terms and the house was never on board. As I said the bill must originate in the house as a matter of constituinal law so the senators were overstepping their bounds and stretching the truth more than just a little bit when they claimed to have any sort of deal.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
