GatewayRedbirds.com

jim wrote:

UK wrote:

jim wrote:With poll numbers nosediving for McCain he needed to do something to stop the bleeding. I know this isn't scientific, but AOL has 55/45 his decision was "thumbs down", and 55/38 on saying the debates should continue. I don't believe for one second that even 38% of people in this country don't realize this is just a campaign stunt. They will support their candidate and say the right thing, but no way to they believe that.

I haven't heard what is going on but I hope Obama doesn't back out of the debate. If McCain does, fine. But Obama absolutely should not bow to this imo.

Obama has already said that he will attend the debate and the debate commission is going thru with the debate.

It's not even the democrats that are holding this up, it's the anti-big gov't congressmen that are unlikely to support this action. Personally, I would veto this bill as well.

So what happens if he's the only one there? Does he get like 2 hours of free air time to just talk?

"It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once,"

clevername wrote:they have to have equal time on the networks, right?

does McCain forfeit his time by not showing up and Obama still gets it? It could be a 2 hour national speech for the Obama campaign.

UK wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

UK wrote:

BW23 wrote:Please. If I had said half of what was said here today in reference to Obama, I'd get called out left and right by a number of people.

Seriously. It's not worth my time.

And the elitist and cowardly comment was, well, one of the more stupid things in this thread.

Then speak your mind instead of hiding behind wannabe omnipotent rhetoric. Stand up for your views, it seems like you have no backbone b/c you're the minority in this thread with your views and therefore unwilling to speak your mind.

Look at this message board, what team do I support?

I think that the MLB playoffs should be cancelled because of the current financial crisis. UK, how about you and I make a joint stance on this?! Do it for the country, my friend!

You're throwing a hail mary to try and avoid the topic at hand.

(How much more talented the Cubs are compared to the rest of the NL)

ghostrunner wrote:Obama:

"It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once,"

Oh, snap.

Michael wrote:Check out Palin's interview with Katie Couric:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/ ... 6173.shtml


She's horrible. I can't believe she might be president one day.

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

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