Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > September > 29 > Entry

McCain’s debate demeanor may have crystallized voter fears

By Jay Bookman | Monday, September 29, 2008, 06:49 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

With the presidential race sliding away from him, John McCain needed something big to happen in Friday night’s foreign-policy debate.

He didn’t get it.

McCain did fine, as did Barack Obama. In fact, I personally thought McCain might have gotten the better of the argument. The early polls disagreed, however, suggesting that voters were more impressed with Obama’s performance on a topic that should have been McCain territory.

So what happened? Historically, debates have an effect only if something happens to crystallize some pre-existing doubt about a candidate. When Mike Dukakis was asked how he would react if his wife was raped, his dispassionate response confirmed the sense that the Democrat didn’t have the fire that Americans sought in a president. Likewise, George Bush’s repeated glances at his watch in a 1992 debate confirmed voter suspicion that he wasn’t engaged.

This time, the combative, dismissive approach that McCain adopted toward Obama may have confirmed fears of many voters that as commander in chief, McCain might choose confrontation in a crisis not because that’s what the situation required, but because that is his nature.

That concern was also the subtext of a question posed to McCain in an interview on “60 Minutes” earlier this month. McCain was asked whether as president he would make it policy to “engage in preemptive war against a country that might pose a threat to the United States —- a country that hasn’t attacked us.”

“If it’s a provable direct threat,” the senator responded. “Suppose that the Iranians had nuclear weapons. And you had a whole lot of other information about Iranian intentions and you could make the case to the American people and to the world, I think it’s obvious that we would have to prevent what we are absolutely certain is a direct threat to the lives of the American people.”

Most Americans, including Obama, would agree with McCain. If we are “absolutely certain” that we face “a direct threat to the lives of the American people,” no U.S. president would hesitate to respond militarily.

The problem is, McCain has already demonstrated that his actual threshhold for war is quite a bit lower than he described to CBS.

In 2002 and early 2003, the American people faced the very dilemma posed to McCain on “60 Minutes.” President Bush and his allies were arguing that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was real and direct, and that if we did not act “the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city.”

In those circumstances, McCain made it clear that he considered Iraq a threat that must be addressed pre-emptively, calling Saddam “a clear and present danger” that could not be ignored.

“In an age of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorists bent on acquiring those weapons, the costs of inaction could well be catastrophic,” McCain warned in a speech on the Senate floor.

However, even at the time Iraq did not pose “a provable direct threat” to the United States, the threshhold for action now cited by McCain. And despite some claims to the contrary, we were far from “absolutely certain” that Saddam posed a direct threat to American lives.

Nonetheless, McCain was avid for military action, to the point that he libeled fellow Americans who disagreed with his stance. He was so eager for war that he claimed Saddam “is using opponents of the war in America to advance his own ends, sowing division within our own ranks.”

McCain’s response to the “60 Minutes” question was also revealing for another reason. He took a question about a theoretical threat and immediately gave it an address, Iran. Both McCain and Obama have said that the military option must remain on the table when dealing with Iran, but McCain’s history suggests he may be too eager to use that option.

With his demeanor Friday night, McCain may have taken a nebulous, nagging doubt about his candidacy and crystallized it into something hard and real.

Permalink | Comments (190) | Post your comment |

Comments

By AJC/DNC Management

September 29, 2008 7:16 AM | Link to this

McCain’s demeanor?

Sen. Barack Obama and his debate prep team were surprised that Sen. John McCain remained calm and collected during the debate. Obama’s continual references to “John,” while McCain referred to Obama as “Senator,” was intended to needle McCain’s patience in hopes for a flash of McCain infamous temper. But McCain was, according to campaign advisers, ready for the needle and didn’t take the bait. -American Spectator

Not to mention barry cutting off McCain four or five times.

By ByteMe

September 29, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

Jay, I think this is overblown. If you accept his earlier words as being what he thought then, perhaps he has learned since that the Bush Doctrine doesn’t really work well when your intelligence agencies are run by flawed humans.

Calling him by his first name was a “needle”? Also overblown. The American Spectator is pleased that McCain didn’t blow a gasket on TV. Whoopee.

I think a lot of the post-debate analysis has been silly. The only thing that really counted was that neither side made a glaring mistake. I think BOTH sides accomplished what they were trying to do. However, a “tie” favors the front-runner.

We’ll see whose debate goals were flawed in the next day or so. My guess is that McCain’s attacks on Obama are going to be considered “more of the same” politics of destruction. We’ll see.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 29, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

The resemblance between John McCain and Grandpa Simpson was more pronounced than usual Friday night. And it didn’t work out well for John at all!

I think we better get a closer and longer look at his medical records, he does not look at all well.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

As long as the debate results stay relatively even, within 3 or 4 percentage points, their importance in this election is doubtful. A lot of polarized America has already decided who is their candidate. The two deciding factors will be the Bradley effect and the vote of white women. White women have elected every president in this country for the last 40 yrs and so far, it’s a toss up. Clinton has white women to thank for two terms in the White House. The white woman vote is especially important in Michigan. They will decide that state, despite a white, female Demo gov and a predominance of black votes in Detroit. The Annointed One needs Michigan….. without it, he is toast.
I worry about Palin on 2 Oct. She could be the glue who holds this whole thing together for McCain or the wheels could fall off of the Straight Talk Express. Stay tuned…… this is certainly the most captivating election in my lifetime.

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this

While out driving last evening I invariably came across the squirrel in the road. You know the squirrel I am talking about, the one that starts to go left, pauses, starts to go right, pauses, then does the same thing again and again until he is about to be road kill.

I thought this reminds me of something…….Hmm……Oh, the McCain campaign! You never know what you are going to get. He tries to morph into a new and improved JM once or twice a week. He is never quite sure which way to go.

His demeanor was right on McCain, angry, impatient old man. You know how those geezers get when dinner is late at 5pm?

McCain/Palin…soon to be road kill

By GOP"S got to go

September 29, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

And what is with that weird looking comb over? Do The Donald and McCain visit the same “Of course it makes you look younger” barber?

By Dennis

September 29, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

If wishes were horses then beggars would fly.

To Jay and other Socialist/Democrats: Expressing your wishes and hopes as fact does not make them true.

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Ditto Dennis.

By kitty

September 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

How many world leaders will McCain use that self satisfied smirk on? Jay is right. Confrontation, not facts, not reality is what McCain thrives on. The original Rebel without a Clue..that is John McCain. He is dangerous to America and we have had enough cowboy diplomacy.

By NHTom

September 29, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla is reasonable to question his health status, particularly given the performance of his back-up, Gov. Palin. Barring release of medical records, is the best information we have: His physicians’ statements at the time of the release of his medical records (quoting a clinical staging of IIa) appears to discount details of the pathology report that was also reported in May, 2008. Based on information published by the New York Times (and subsequently uncontested), Senator McCain had tissue removed from his left temple that included both a 2.2 mm deep lesion AND an adjacent “satellite” lesion. Using internationally accepted, evidence-based pathological criteria (the “Gold-standard”), a 2.2 mm primary lesion plus any satellite lesion yields T3aN2cM0/Mx, using TNM (tumor, node, metastases) criteria. This yields at least pathological Stage IIIb melanoma. If this is NOT TRUE, Senator McCain’s team can easily refute it with release of the pathologists’ report. According to a peer-reviewed medical article on the subject, “The estimated five year survival for Stage IIIb patients is 53%.”(pg.143) A fifteen-year Kaplan-Meier survival curve in the same reference, demonstrates that there is no actual late plateau phase for Stage IIIb melanoma. Only about 40% of patient’s with Stage IIIb disease survive to 10 years. (Figure 4) (Reference: Balch CM, etal. An Evidence-based Staging System for Cutaneous Melanoma. CA Cancer. J Clin 2004;54:131%u2013149)

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Dennis @ 8.01, was there a point to that post?

What “wishes and hopes” were expressed as facts, above, that are not true?

I dunno, it sounds like Jay’s trying his best to be even-handed here and give McCain some pretty charitable points. Personally, I think McCain did all right for himself in the debate on balance, but he took a long time to get there (Obama clearly looked better at the start but faded a bit, and didn’t do such a great job with his summary).

And given that it’s uncommitted swing voters, who are presumably not all that engaged in the election campaign to begin with, it’s hard to see that approach as a winner for McCain, since it’s unlikely they watched the whole thing, beginning to end. The critical swing states—OH, PA, MI, most of IN—are all in the eastern time zone. McCain’s points were made after 10pm.

By Ted Striker

September 29, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

I’m just waiting for Obama to ask McCain “Did you or did you not order the Code Red for Santiago?”

By Jini

September 29, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

I have no trust or respect for any man or woman who refuses to make eye contact with the other party, especially in something as important as a presidential debate. Senator McCain gave the impression that he was alone in the debate, and simply would not even look toward Senator Obama. Would Senator McCain ignore the American people also?

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

NHTom, Or should I say NIH Tom?

I have been blogging about this for awhile now and no one seems to “get it” as McCain likes to say so much.

Melanoma is serious business and results in death over 50% of the time. The first symptom may be a seizure that then leads to a brain met diagnosis, and you’re a gonner in a matter of weeks or months. Much like Ted Kennedy, although his dx is GBM. Melanoma is a very bad actor, goolge the facts yourself.

I think even the most stalwart Repubs have to realize what a complete disaster Palin is. Hopefully with the VP debate coming up more of her “dull tool in the shed” persona will be revealed

By zorg

September 29, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

McCain’s handlers are drinking their own kool-aid. They insisted that McCain was likely to blow his stack to set a low bar for victory. Palin’s rambling incoherence is a similar straw man.

Now they believe he won the debate just because he didn’t throw a temper tantrum. And Palin can pre-win her debate by memorizing short yet complete sentences and sticking to them.

McCain’s loss in the post-debate polls was really a referendum on his condescension. Surprise.

By Taxpayer

September 29, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jay.

John’s demeanor was certainly a contributor to my negative assessment of his performance. Many of his “lines” came across more as over-rehearsed rhetoric as though he had stayed up way too long reading and re-reading them in preparation for a grade-school recital. Further, I was extremely disappointed with his inability to address Obama “one-on-one”. He gave me the impression that he was looking down on Obama when he should have been looking him in the eyes. I did notice that John came across as being quite comfortable when talking about his war experiences. Good for him. I’m sure those were some telling years in his life.

By CJ

September 29, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

Bookman said, “*[McCain] was so eager for war that he claimed Saddam ‘is using opponents of the war in America to advance his own ends, sowing division within our own ranks.’”

More evidence: McCain went on Letterman during the runup to the war in Iraq and linked the anthrax deaths to Saddam Hussein. Of course, he made it up entirely, and not even the Bush Administration went that far to sell the war.

Yes, McCain is a warmonger. Anybody who believes otherwise, should watch this video.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

The Stanford/Yahoo poll is the single most important poll that has been taken in this election and I am surprised that neither of our pundits has initiated debate on it.
The poll states that nearly 40% of white Americans harbor negative feelings about blacks and that includes white Democrats and Independents. Just 7/10 white Democrats support Obama compared to 85% of white Conservative America who supports McCain. More than 25% of Democrats stated that they doubted that Obama could bring about the change that they wanted in a new president. Results stated that Obama’s numbers would be at least 6% higher if were not black. Nearly 17% of Clinton’s backers said that they would vote for McCain.
Among perceptions of black America by white Democrats……. Lazy… 13% Dependable…. 28%… 72% were not Friendly…. 40% Determined…28%… 72% were not Law Abiding…. 25%……75% were not Violent…..14%… 86% were not Smart at everyday things….30% Intelligent at school…..23% Not very good numbers among the people who are supposed to be behind a black candidate from their own party. The white Repub numbers were predictably somewhat higher in every negative catagory. White Repubs only viewed black America as 10% law abiding and 25% stated that they felt that blacks were violent by nature.
These perceptions will follow the Annointed One to the voting booth. Voter registration among our youth and the black vote will struggle to make up the difference regarding doubts among both Democratic and Republican white voters. The debates might make up some ground for either candidate but the groundwork is there and a lot of this has already been decided.

By AmVet

September 29, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

How did we get stuck with this buffoon? Oh yeah! The faux conservative, Bush apologists love him!

Maybe the Large One can pray for us to get enough gas…

Perdue Delayed Asking For Gas Shortage Help

ATLANTA — While other southeastern states were asking for help with gas shortages, Gov. Sonny Perdue waited a week before requesting a waiver freeing up extra gas for Georgia.

Officials in Kentucky asked on Monday, Sept. 15, for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to lift restrictions requiring special gas. It was granted the following day.

Virginia and Tennessee also asked for similar waivers after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike struck the Gulf Coast, knocking out oil refineries.

Critics said more gas would be flowing into Georgia if Perdue had acted faster.

By marta fernandez

September 29, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

This is a man who looks and is frail. He could pass away in the next four years and the country will be stuck with Mrs. Palin, who is not ready in any way shape or form. Furthermore, McCain is a military man. Confrontation is his way life. He is ignorant of what the world thinks of the USA after the invasion of Iraq and since. I am an American who has lived in Canada, France, the UK, Argentina, New York and Washington DC. I am aware of how the world thinks today. McCain thinks that “friendly” countries will back him in the event of further sanctions to Iran (think debate) and he is sadly mistaken. His mindset is l950’s. He is DANGEROUS, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND RECKLESS, and not very bright.

I liked him a few years back but became aware of his lack of flexibility during this campaign and voted for Hillary. I was not a fan of Obama but will vote for him. It is the only sensible thing to do and I hope he wins. We need a CHANGE. WE HAVE STRUGGLED UNDER BUSH AND THIS WILL CONTINUE UNDER MCCAIN.

By Thomcarl

September 29, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Sen. McCain came forward as exactly what he is, an arrogant, condescending, elitist who has screwed up most every thing he has attempted. An Naval academy grad (4th from the bottom of his graduating class), only able to make Captan (Col.) after 24 years in the navy with command of a training outfit as the peak of his naval career. A record as a war monger and friend of energy companies and big business in his 26 years in congress in addition to being a Bush crony. As a 68 year old disabled vet (50%) of the Vietnam era I find Sen. McCain to be an insult to My beliefs and values.

By BAKE

September 29, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Kitty is so right! The McCain smirk and cowboy propensity will get this country into seriously deeper trouble. We need someone who can think, not react, to stabelize and improve our world position and engender hope and faith in democracy for our fellow citizens.

By T

September 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Thought they both did pretty good. I didn’t really notice at the time Obama refering to McCain as John. I’m not sure if personal identifications are used in that type of setting.

Oh, you must see the new Tina Fey as Palin interview.

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Ray,

This poll sound just like you and most of the other McCain backers here.

I am white, female, middle aged, debt free, upper income and I do not have any of the above bigoted views of blacks. Some of the BEST people I have known are black, and some of the dumbest Budwisers I have met are white.

I want a new direction in this country I love and Obama will deliver that. McCain has shown himself to be a panderer for the Evangelicals. America has had way too much of them over the last 8 years.

By Eric1

September 29, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

It is absolutely beyond me why anyone who is paying attention to world events, who is aware of the news and who does not get all their “news” from Fox, could support the old gentleman. He clearly is a part of our country’s disgraceful recent past. Obama represents a hopeful future. I only hope there are enough thoughtful voters to make it a reality.

By Dennis

September 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

I have been reading Jay’s opinions for what seems like 20+ years. Apparent even-handedness shows up in his work about 3% of the time. Usually these even-handed/fair-minded opinions are followed by a close-minded/heavy-handed opinion.

Watch for it.

By Paul

September 29, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Jay,

LOL! By that train of events, McCain should have picked Biden as his running mate since Biden and many other Democrats, for years, had been saying essentially the same things about Iraq. We’ve had enough people list past statements.

By the don’t go to war record, Obama’s picks of possible running mates would have been few.

But I’ll say what I’ve said before. When it comes to likely military intervention, the Obama-Biden ticket has been more hawkish than McCain-Palin. Within months of election Obama-Biden would be sending our military into Africa, even though there is no UN support. Peacekeeping, famine reliefe, dress it up any way you will, it’s still using the American military to impose American values on a society. And bin Laden has already made the call: US invades Africa, it’ll become a new rallying point for AQ.

Do we ignore Obama’s calls for military strikes into Pakistan? Just which candidate is following the Bush Doctrine for attacking any country we want, at the time of our choosing? At the debate, McCain sounded like the one calling for restraint:

” Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”

McCain has shown flexibility of thought by saying we may work with some of those tribal leaders in Pakistan to form alliances and weaken AQ. This is the same fundamental strategy used during the surge - form alliances with those who had opposed us to achieve common goals. Given the criticism of many Democrats and many here, I’d expect they’d reject that Afg strategy - which leaves them with military force as the only option.

Tack on Obama’s strong, provocative remarks in several forums about Iran is a threat (I’ll have to check if he used the same grave threat phrasing Bush used to justify war with Iraq) and that there is nothing he would not do to prevent Iraq from getting a nuke, and Obama-Biden seems like the ticket that’s getting a little itchy on the trigger.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

GOPs Got to Go,

I am not saying that I like the results. Of all the polls taken during this election cycle, however, this one is the most credible. There are probably a lot of white, middle aged, debt-free, upper income ladies like you in the mix. I also have neighbors who are my friends and black that I invite to my home for dinner and go to their kid’s weddings. You miss the point. You happen to be only one voter. Lots of others, it seems, do not have your point of view. I am not happy with our state of race relations in this country any more than you are but denial will not give you a very rational picture of what is going on and how it affects voter’s decisions.

By ByteMe

September 29, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

GOPs got to go: The poll is indeed the poll. I read the same thing and it helped explain why Obama wasn’t further ahead, considering that most Americans prefer his policies to McCain’s. It’s not Ray’s fault that the poll is the poll.

However, Obama is currently up by 6 and bsaed on debate results, there’s going to be a post-debate bounce to stretch the lead to 8. And the polls aren’t catching people without land lines, so it’s likely to underrepresent younger voters who are Obama’s core group.

The McCainiacs (sm) know they’re losing and have no good message, but they keep up the rhetoric in hopes that something… anything… will work before Nov 5 when they will return to the “outside looking in” where they belong. Those who distrust government should never be put in charge of it.

By ByteMe

September 29, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

BTW, I did a poor job making sure it was clear, but I did not refer to Ray as a McCainiac. Just to clarify.

By BDAtlanta

September 29, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Obama will sweep in Nov and then we have to get to work fixing the past eight disastrous years of Republican rule.

By jacksmith

September 29, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

Bush, McCain can run. But they cant hide anymore.

What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.

When have you ever known any government plan, or project to only cost what the government said it would. Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting.

So if 80 billion can end up costing you over a trillion dollars. How much could 700 billion end up costing you. Any math wizards out there. I come up with 9 trillion…:-(

My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.

Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism’s of the Bush, McCain administration.

Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.

JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS…

By dirty harry

September 29, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

By Dennis

September 29, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

“If wishes were horses then beggars would fly.”

DENNIS….How do HORSES fly?

Here, let me help…It goes like this!

If wishes were horses then beggars would RIDE…

By ByteMe

September 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

BDA: no, he won’t. He won’t win over most of the south or the plains states, but he will be very competitive everywhere else and likely get more than 300 electoral votes…

Being a cheerleader is nice, but not required.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

The Annointed One needs VA, MI, OH, IA and Penn or a combination of the above. Losing just two, he is toast. He needs 270 and doesn’t have even the states that Kerry won in 2004 when Kerry got 256 total. MI has 17 and would put him over the top but white ladies in that state might say no.
Once again, the most interesting election in memory. Just wish Old John had picked Newt instead of the Moosehunter. A Thompson/Gingrich ticket would have been dy…no…mite. Oh well, we can dream.

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Ray,

Just looking at the polls in those states, right now Obama has VA, MI, IA and PA. And his numbers have been going up consistently with McCain’s ###s going down.

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Does anyone know if there is a “Bailout Bill for Dummies” somewhere on-line? I’m WAY to sleepy this morning to read 110 pages.

I know I left the door open and really don’t care.

By AmVet

September 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

Ray, interesting breakdown.

All these polls and all this debate “debate” merly confirm what mnost of us know.

If you like Obama, you see him as the winner and leading in the polls.

If you MCain, see above.

But I do strongly disagree with your choice for McCain’s Veep selection.

Imminently unqualified though Palin is, she only succeeds in turning off some percentage of the moderates, centrists and independent - the portion of the electorate both candidates desperately need.

With the hyper-partisan, amazingly uncivil Newt the Neo-con on the ticket, McCain would lose virtually all of them I suppose, and be behind by 20 points…

Off to pay for the occupation (and the bailout).

Pray for gasoline. And rain.

By AmVet

September 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Bosch, here are the highlights.

Sorry if some consider this spam:

Key provisions of the bill

Doling the money out: The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury’s use. Authority to use the money would expire on Dec. 31, 2009, unless Congress certifies a one-year extension.

Protecting taxpayers: The ultimate cost to the taxpayer is not expected to be near the amount the Treasury invests in the program. That’s because the government would buy assets that have underlying value.

If the Treasury pays fair market value - which investors have had a hard time determining - taxpayers stand a chance to break even or even make a profit if those assets throw off income or appreciate in value by the time the government sells them. If it overpays for the assets, the government could be left with a net loss but would get something back on the open market for the assets when it eventually sells them.

If it ends up with a net loss, however, the bill says the president must propose legislation to recoup money from the financial industry if the rescue plan results in net losses to taxpayers five years after the plan is enacted.

In addition, Treasury would be allowed to take ownership stakes in participating companies. Stemming foreclosures: The bill calls for the government, as an owner of a large number of mortgage securities, to exert influence on loan servicers to modify more troubled loans. In cases where the government buys troubled mortgage loans directly from banks, it can adjust them more easily.

Limiting executive pay: Curbs would be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to Treasury. Among them, companies that participate will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.

They also will not be allowed to write new contracts that allow for “golden parachutes” for their top 5 executives if they are fired or the company goes belly up. But the executives’ current contracts, which may include golden parachutes, would still stand.

Overseeing the program: The bill would establish two oversight boards. The Financial Stability Oversight Board would be charged with ensuring the policies implemented protect taxpayers and are in the economic interests of the United States. It will include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary.

A congressional oversight panel would be charged with reviewing the state of financial markets, the regulatory system and the Treasury’s use of its authority under the rescue plan. Sitting on the panel would be 5 outside experts appointed by House and Senate leaders.

Insuring against losses: Treasury must establish an insurance program - with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies’ troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 14, 2008.

The amount the Treasury would spend to cover losses minus company-paid premiums would come out of the $700 billion the Treasury is allowed to use for the rescue plan.

Far-reaching program: Paulson first announced the administration would seek an economic bailout plan on Sept. 18, after meeting with key lawmakers in the House and Senate - a meeting that left lawmakers looking ashen when they spoke to the press afterwards.

If enacted, the rescue plan would be the most dramatic and extensive government intervention in the economy since the Great Depression. President Bush on Sept. 24 gave a prime-time address to the nation in which he urged lawmakers to pass his plan and warned that the “entire economy is in danger.” The aim of the rescue is to unfreeze the credit markets - short-term lending among banks and corporations. The core of the problem is bad real estate loans that have led to record foreclosures when the housing bubble burst and home prices declined.

In the past two weeks, the banking world and Wall Street have been reordered by a wave of collapses and corporate mergers. The most recent development was the seizure by federal regulators on Thursday night of Washington Mutual, once the nation’s largest thrift and a major mortgage lender. The chill of the credit freeze has been felt far beyond Wall Street, as well. Businesses large and small have seen the cost of borrowing spike higher. At the same time, the scale of the administration’s plan - and the quick pace of the debate over it - has given pause to many Americans and lawmakers worried about its potential cost to taxpayers. “We begin with a very important task, a task to stabilize the markets, to protect all Americans - and do it in a way that protects the taxpayer to the maximum extent possible,” Paulson said early Sunday morning.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Bosch,

Depends on the poll you are looking at. I’m not much of one for polls but do concede that Old John will have to jump through a few hoops in the next few weeks. Palin’s debate might just seal the box closed unless she can give Joe a run for his money. Have my doubts. It’s funny how our method of picking a qualified candidate is flawed to the point where we don’t get the best one for the job in most elections cycles. Then we defend him/her to the death when we probably would have like to have someone else on the ticket. I think that the liberals would have backed Donald Duck as long as he was not Bush. Think about it.

By Josh

September 29, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

I felt it was a tie. But add the fact that McCain is 72 I would have to give Mccain the edge. His age does not scare me quite as much now.

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Ray and Byte Me,

Have not most of the avid (and white) bloggers here that love McCain and think Obama is “elitist” put their hands on their bibles and swore to Jesus that it is NOT about race?

I guess your poll has just debunked that little theory. I know Republican speak for “black” when I hear it. Just listening to the convention jargon was even lore enlightening.

Because I am white, I have been spoken to by whites as if I am on their side, they assume this because of my color, and they say VERY candid things they would not otherwise say.

It sickens me to watch. Pigment does not the man or woman make.

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Luckotroool, did you carry on like this when Saint Ronnie Reagan delivered his campaign speeches with a teleprompter? How about Poppy Bush? Bobdole? Chimpy Bush?

WTF is your deal with teleprompters, anyway? They’ve been around since LB frickin’ J!

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Ray,

Real Clear Politics.com. I feel they do a pretty good job averaging the polls. I usually don’t think too much for polls either, but sometimes they are warranted to look at.

I was going to vote for the rabid monkey myself, Donald Duck has that weird lisp, but that’s just me :-)

AmVet,

Thanks!!!!!

By AJC/DNC Management

September 29, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Look at what the libs tried to lard up the “bail out” with and what the Republicans saved We The People from:

Thanks to the House GOP’s intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.-Wall Street Journal

By Peter

September 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Folks go to the group of U-Tube video’s McLost did…..

BOMB, BOMB, Iran is his funny song………and you think he is JUST saying that ?

McLost gets angry quick, is and elitist, and a CHICKEN…..watch the POW video’s about the “Song Bird of Hanoi”………. he did more hard than Jane Fonda in the Vietnam WAR, more Videos for the communists, and should be considered more of a Turncoat than……. Benedict Arnold !

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Ray,

I believe your GOP has the most cartoon like candidates, not the Democrats. You have Wiley E Coyote in the form of John McCain, “If I don’t recognize gravity, I won’t fall”, “acme economic fix kit” And a lipsticked Bugs Bunny in drag with Palin.

By Danny the red

September 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Jay, I have to say I think I agree with ByteMe on this one. You’re basically right about the debate crystalizing fears about McCain’s temperament, but I wouldn’t think it’s necessarily as policy-oriented as you suggest. Rather I think it’s more on a gut level and the proper historical reference is Kennedy Nixon than anything else.

I could be wrong, but what I think will be most damaging was the wrinkly old troll lecturing the younger man, or “McNasty” as Begala put it.

By Danny the red

September 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Dionne says it best:

“However one judges the first debate, it did nothing to block Obama’s progress.”

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Danny the red,

ByteMe and I discussed this last week, but did you see Paul Begala call Bush a “highly functioning moron?”

I heard a guy on CNN this morning, and I believe this to be true for the most part, voters, particularly swing voters, vote with their perception of how each party is performing.

Hate to say it, but McCain’s guy was right about how elections are based on personalities instead of issues.

By Tom

September 29, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

McCain’s behavior was/is exactly what I’d expect. That of an undereducated common thug. His entire background reflects that fact, from childhood, thru the military, to now. One need only read about it. He fades in the presence of a well-educated, dignified gentleman.

And this self-proclaimed “hero” finds it quite impossible to ever engage in discourse without referring to that phony heroism. “I’ve had experience dealing with those people.” (What “people” would that be, John??) And “When I got out of prison….” It’s disgusting and pathetic and should be self-humiliating.

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Ray, I know that I dial up the snark as much as anyone posting here, but believe me when I say your post @ 9.50 was genuinely thought-inspiring.

When you wrote “I think that the liberals would have backed Donald Duck as long as he was not Bush. Think about it” — that’s just what I did.

I think I can understand why you would think that, but I want to offer you a little insight into what went through a lot of Democratic primary voters’ minds.

Time and again, when speaking to fellow progressives, I’d get “I just want someone who can win”. That’s not the same as “anybody but Bush,” although I can see why your side might perceive it that way. The early primary field gave us a comparatively large number of folks “who can win”. I thought Biden and Todd were both suitably “presidential” acting and they had the experience to go the distance. I thought Richardson looked great on paper, but he never lived up to his rep in person; maybe it was just his demeanor or maybe it’s just that he was overweight and the camera wasn’t kind to him. There were times when I wanted Wes Clark to try his luck a second time, older and wiser as a campaigner (he wasn’t good at it in 2004.) Not because these guys were “not Bush,” but because they were all good, solid Presidential campaign material.

Obviously the bright lights, the Big Three, were Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Seven months ago, we knew it was probably down to those three, and I don’t think Obama was picked because he “was not Bush.” I think there were a lot of gut-checks made and in the end we got someone who had a very different style from Clinton, but one that (based on what I’ve seen so far) makes for a very welcome, refreshing contrast from what’s turned out to be a rather hot-tempered, impulsive-sounding Republican opponent.

I know it seems at times as if the only thing that motivates us is some kind of primal hatred of Bush, and yeah, there is some very real personal dislike for the man and his entire Administration. But mostly the motivator is just winning the damn thing, and getting a chance to change the persistent American mindset that Democrats have to triangulate like Bill Clinton to win, that they have to constantly present some Republican Lite persona in order to avoid offending voters. Obama’s our best shot to accomplish that.

By Danny the red

September 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

No I missed that one. But “highly functioning moron” strikes me as perfectly on target, esp. after reading excertpts from Woodward’s latest book.

“McCain’s guy was right about how elections are based on personalities instead of issues”. Exactly, and not in the way originally intended. If it goes the way it’s looking, it would go down as one of the great ironies in American political history.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

GOPs Got to Go,

Saying that all Repubs are bigots and that all Demos are not is not very smart. Three of ten Demos said that they would not vote for a black candidate. White independents were not much kinder to Mr. Wonderful. Did it ever occur to you that there are other things in this mix that would make the informed, well read voter not be too turned on by the Annointed One? On Nov 5th we will see how much of a difference race has made but there are other issues facing the voters besides the candidate’s color although in his concession speech, Mr. Wonderful will probably blame it on race. Interesting to note that the Macon police dept plans on putting all of their force on the street on Nov 4th and 5th just in case. And only 23% of Demos and 10% of Repubs felt that blacks were law abiding. Wonder why?

By ncgreybr

September 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Don’t ya just luv it when fools start talking about Obama usiing a teleprompter when giving a speech! Watch McCain sometime. He can’t go four words without looking down (usually to his right) to read his “impromtu” words on the music stand slightly below him.

We already have one MAVERICK in Washington. He’s been in office for 7 years and look at the mess this country is in! We don’t need a second one PLUS Caribou Barbie. That woman is SO dumb that her handlers keep her away from the press. What does that saw to you?

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

hillbilly ragger,

You can speak for me anytime. The rabid monkey thing was a joke I trust you know.

Anywho - another deciding factor for Obama v. Clinton was the fact that our executive office has been run by a Bush or Clinton since 1988 - 20 years, and I wanted a new family - not the same two dynasties. I think Clinton was a good president, but some of his policies are the ones who’ve gotten us into this mess, or rather his lack of ability to stand up to Congress at the time, and I just didn’t want yet another of what I considered to be the same.

And I certainly could never vote for McCain based on how he stands on the issues of foreign policy and his proven record of his support of deregulation, among almost everything else he’s said about the issues at hand.

Will Obama be better? Who knows. Time will tell, but I’m willing to give him his time and we’ll weigh it out again in four.

Danny the red,

I saw Woodward in a couple of interviews. If his portrayal of Bush is even 1% true, oh gods, no wonder our country is in this mess.

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

He he — Caribou Barbie.

By ce

September 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

I agree w/ Tom. Bush and McCain came from priviledge backgrounds. They would have never made it into an Ivy League University by their GPAs. Both were at the bottom of their class and was described as drinking party students. Obama (half-black and entitled to affirmative action programs) did not use affiramtive action to give him a heads up to get into college. Instead his grades got him. His leadership ability and able to work w/ people pushed him forward, not dad’s collegue who owed him favors like McCain and Bush. Finally, Obama knows what it is like to live modestly. McCain and Bush has no idea the day to day struggle of the middle and lower-middle class, and improverish American. Obama understand and is concern about the future of his girls, given that they are not rich like the McCains and Bush. The McCain and Bush family will fare very well dispite America’s economic crisis. They come from old money. On the other hand, the Obama and the Bidens will feel the pinch like the average American. I AM A VETERAN AND WILL NOT SUPPORT MCCAIN. BY THE WAY, DIDN’T MCCAIN DENOUNCED AMERICAN AS A POW. THOUGHT HE SAID HE WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR THE COUNTRY. ONCE A CAPTIVE SOLDIER DENOUNCE HIS COUNTRY, THE TORTURE?INTERROGATION STOPS.

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Ray, you’re really reaching — or should I say “clinging”? — with that bit of rather misleading Yahoo polling info which, for the record, DID get a ton of attention.

It’s not too difficult to demonize a group in a subtle fashion by depersonalizing them. Seen those silly “congressional approval” polls? What do they mean, really? nothing more than a generic notion of “congress” hasn’t been popular for awhile. But people have different reasons, and their dislike turns somewhere else when it gets to their own Representative.

Obama is not Generic Black Guy. He’s someone the nation’s managed to hear a whole lot about, they know him pretty well and will get to know him a bit better over the next few weeks. His good polling numbers aren’t some statistical freak; they’re the result of his talent and hard work.

Also, for the record, the highly touted Bradley Effect is kind of a joke, really.

By DebbieDoRight

September 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

I think that the liberals would have backed Donald Duck as long as he was not Bush. Think about it.

I think the Republicans would back Sarah Palin, even though she doesn’t know anything; just as long as she says the thirteen magic words, “No Abortion. No Gun Control. No Sex Ed. No Illegal Aliens. More religion.” As long as any politican sticks to that script, Republicans will fall for it everytime. Think about it.

By BS Aplenty

September 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

Obama looked like the proverbial underdeveloped deer-in-headlights. You know, the small-rack animal not comfortable dealing with mature alpha males. Stammers, stutters and constantly looks at the Big Buck (McCain) for approval. Continually tries to makes “friends” with alpha male by using first name.

Telling, very telling.

McCain/Palin ‘08 - both already have big racks.

By GMAN

September 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

HEY Ray (10:37 AM), are you saying that more white Democrats believe blacks are law abiding than white Republicans do? Are you saying that more Democrats believe blacks are law abiding than Republicans do? Either way it speaks volumes about the makeup of the Republican party. And by the way, have you ever thought about the fact that the Macon Police may be planning on putting all their forces on the street on Nov 4th and 5th in the event that Senator Obama wins! THINK ABOUT IT!

Bush/McCain - Gambling with your children’s futures!

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

I consider MYSELF the tuned in well informed voter.

I can read the loud and clear “republican speak” for black. “muslim”, “elitist”, “liberal”, “socialist” “anointed one”, “Mr Wonderful”……

We just have different definitions of informed, and different definitions of socialist and elitist.

One man worked his way up, against the odds, to make something of himself solely by his merit.

One used his father’s influence to get in to the Naval Academy, did very poorly, and continued to display a questionable character, ie “John Wayne McCain” behaviour.

One married a self made woman, only one, and remained married.

One left his first wife and family for a drug dependent heiress with more houses than he can remember.

And yet one claims a moral superiority to the other? LOL

Clearly Republican morals are directly liked to their, or their wife’s, bank account.

By ce

September 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

In response to Obama looking like “the deer in headlights.” He probably was astonished that a presidential candidate refused to look at him. Obama appeared as a MAN who could put personal disagreement asside to deal with America’s problem. We need a leader who does not “carry his feelings on his sleeves,” and who can put aside personal differences for the betterment of the country. McCain could not look at a MAN a few inches from him, solely because he opposes him. Is this what we can expect from him if elected president? Will he be hateful, unmoveable, unresponsive because other countries leaders don’t agree with him? Old stubborn man belong in a rocking chair somewhere cussing the younger generation and remembering when.

By Ray

September 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Ranger and Debbie,

A certain segment of the right fits your profile. However, there a bucket full of us who a more centrist, own a gun, don’t go to church, believe in life rather than killing our young, are not too full of trust for a segment of our population who is not living up to their responsibility as citizens in this great country. Not all of us are knuckle draggers, and, like many on the left, want to see this country headed in the right direction.
I am sure also, that there a lot of those on the left that also own a gun, go to church on a regular basis, are not too sure about killing off our young and, at least three in ten of which are not too sure about that segment of our population too.
I would like to think that I am not clinging to anything. Voted for Clinton his second term, also JFK in 1962.
My point is that a lot of times, the labels don’t fit and trying to stuff someone into a box with a label on it is a pretty naive exercise.

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

BS Aplenty, you can post your “deer in the headlights” nonsense three more times if you like—I still think you may be the only viewer who saw Obama that way.

Obama’s done 22 nationally televised debates, and taken questions / handled follow-ups from far more accomplished pols than McCain.

It’s McCain who wouldn’t look Obama in the eye. Yeah, that’s some alpha dog you’ve got there…

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

BS, You were obviously drunk on cheap beer when watching.

You have also shown your colors with the “Rack” reference.

By ESR

September 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Hell, let the Dems have this one. I am sure all the fools down in Clayton County thought after they elected the group they elected it would be on big holiday for them and look what happened. They can’t get thier idiotic thug offspring into a third rated college, not even with race as a factor. Now, that’s bad. Same here, let’s give them this election and with a Democratic controlled Congress they can only blame themselves and we’ll have Republicans in charge from after 2012 for decades to come. They’re expecting Freaknik everyday, let’s show them.

By Kevin

September 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

I think that you need to consider the Bradley effect when you are looking at the polls. Until Mr. Obama is up 8% to 10% above Mr. McCain especially in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia can you get an indication that the electorate is swinging toward Mr. Obama.

My other comment is about the debates. Many polls indicated that Mr. Obama “won” the part about the economy. I don’t understand that. When asked twice by the moderator what programs each candidate wanted to implement that would have to be sacrificed depending upon the size of of the bailout, Mr. Obama basically indicated he would give nothing up. Mr. Mcain say he would freeze federal epxenditures. I would say at least Mr. McCain had a sense of what needed to be done

By AJC/DNC Management

September 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

When I returned to the office on Saturday, I spoke with callers from New York to Florida who had heard about Obama’s truth squad and were outraged about it.

One caller said he was angry, because people were going to be “prosecuted” and “indicted” for stating their political views.

Another caller said Obama was planning to send police to the homes of elderly women because of their political statements.

A third caller said he wanted information about Obama’s “storm troopers.” - KMOV.com

Seig Heil!

Yes he can!

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Ah Ray,

Looks like one of your demographics, ESR, has joined the discussion. I believe he just might fit your “poll”.

By BS Aplenty

September 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

A TEN-SECOND PLAY

Sunday morning worship service at the Trinity United Church of Christ. A young Obama sits in rapt attention. The song service (and the lessons) have just begun.

REV. JEREMIAH: (standing up) Yes, brothers and sisters, sing with me the songs of redemption, the songs sung by our ancestors as they broke their chains of bondage and headed for freedom, yes sing with me now…

(SUNG to Jesus Loves Me)

Foolin’ Whitey’s good to know, Come on in and join our show,
Shoutin’ loud and dancin’ real, *Maybe Soul Train makes a deal.

Yes, foolin’ Whitey, Green’s God-Almighty,
Stacks high & tidy,
My conscience full o’ blow.

Welfare’s payment for your sins, Givin’ Green’s a recompense, Brother’s got to blame someone, You got Greem, so you’s the one.

OBAMA: (singing) …Yes, foolin’ Whitey, Green’s God-Almighty, Stacks high & tidy…

Twenty years later on the presidential campaign trail and the song remains the same.

OBAMA: (answering reporters’ questions) …and I sang so off-key in church that anyone familiar with a capella singing would not believe that I believed a word I was singing unless they were singing more off-key than I was. This issue is a diversion from the true problem in America which is color…(…yes, foolin’ Whitey, Green’s God-Almighty, Stacks high & tidy…).

THE END

By Ray

September 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

GMan,

Sort of doubt it when not long ago the NAACP petitioned the mayor of our fair city to slap a 9:00 curfew on the projects because of the killings and violence in that neighborhood. If your Wonderboy loses, in our community of not so law abiding citizens, a few extra boys in blue will not hurt a thing. You might even look over your shoulder a bit too. I am only saying what the poll said, nothing more. You can put any spin on it that you want.

By Danny the red

September 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

“Yes he can!”

And your point?

By ce

September 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

AJC?DNC Management Curse Word, Curse Word. I believe that the majority of bloggers are too intelligent to fall for that one. Ignorant, untrue, and attempting to be divisive. Curse Word, Curse Word. Now on to brainy people.

By tcoach

September 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Guess I watched a different debate. Very unprofessional or diplomatic to interupt with the “that’s not true”, Obama