That would be even more disastrous than letting the politicians vote. Earmark "free cotton candy for all" into the worst bill possible and half of this ignorant, narrow-minded nation would vote for it.

Their approaches to the economy are obviously partisan and should be, given their party beliefs on economic policy.   However, like I said before, the Obama camp reports that they saw similarities emerging in their stances on the bailout and McCain's, and thus sought to bring a bi-partisan statement to Congress to expedite the issue if needed. 

I saved a comment from Digg a while ago that had a great point about "balanced reporting"

Balance is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts [and, elections!]. Facts must not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light, and the views of each side should be fairly represented. This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed. If all the media were to adopt such a perverse interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side, contrary to our experience in life and, indeed, our common sense

This is something I feel reflects particularly on McCain's campaign.  Sure, everyone is full of shit in politics, but McCain's campaign is MORE full of shit.  This is one of those instances where people are less in "Obama's pocket" than an instance where McCain is just chugging straight from the toilet.

However, you are welcome to tell us that both sides are *equally* full of shit and I will continue to refute :D

oh man, i just read that McCain actually gave up information about his squadron and ship to the vietnamese in exchange for medical treatment!
I thought he said 'NO'?!?!?!?

Source?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/688/

it is also written in his autobiography!!!

Of course you think Obama is less full of shit. You like him enough to put a huge banner in your signature and the rest of your sig is full of anti-McCain links. Not pro-Obama links, but anti-McCain links. That says a lot.

Personally, I think McCain did this both because he thinks it's right and because he thinks it will work as a political ploy. Obama, on the other hand, didn't impress me at all by saying that he'll just stay out of it and now pushing the debate as great importance when he fought to limit the number of debates earlier. He's using it as an excuse to make McCain look bad when it's possible he's angry that he didn't think of this move first.

In the end? They're both full of shit. They've been been using Fannie and Freddie to their advantage for the past two weeks, much to my disgust. But if you think Saint Obama has somehow kept his hands clean of this mess, go for it. I'm not going to argue because I just don't give enough of a shit.

Seriously, if you're going to hold that situation against McCain in any way, shape, or form, I just lost all respect for you.

McCain trumpets that POW horn far too often but dammit, he deserves a hell of a lot of respect for that period in his life. If you went through one day of that shit, you'd probably tell the Vietnamese you found the cup of Christ, the Rosetta Stone, and could part water at will if that's what you thought they wanted to hear. Then you'd probably cry for mommy. Most of us would.

hell yeah he deserves respect.
But I was led 4 FUCKING years ago about this, and I loved him for it then.
That was such a big deal for me and I wanted him for president. Having given up information under torture is not a problem for me, but letting everyone (who hasn't read the book) think that you're some kinda patriotic hero is an insult sir!!!
sure that is not his problem, but I mean, how many people still think he is an unmovable force!?!?!

You noticed that Fred Thompson said that, not McCain, right?

fred thompson said what?