PDA

View Full Version : John McCain sucks at multi-tasking



JohnnyMack
9/24/2008, 03:56 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-to-help-with-bailout/

McCain is suspending his campaign, wants to postpone the debate and intends to head back to Washington to help with the financial crisis. I'm sure they can't wait to have him there helping. :rolleyes:

Of course if and when Obama, says, "naw, let's go ahead and do this debate", McCain and his staff will try and paint BHO as unamerican, unpatriotic or whatever. I don't see why exactly it is they can't work in Washington, go to Mississippi for the debate and then get back? I mean the first debate is on foreign policy, McCain knows more about that than any human maybe ever. Why does he need to prep for it?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/24/2008, 04:01 PM
Sheesh, Johnny!

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 04:07 PM
Pure positioning and political posturing, plain and simple. I would have said the exact same thing if Obama did it.

Now is not the time to inject presidential politics to the bailout.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/24/2008, 04:17 PM
Pure positioning and political posturing, plain and simple. I would have said the exact same thing if Obama did it.

Nobody doubts that for a second!

Viking Kitten
9/24/2008, 04:24 PM
Obama has refused to postpone the debate, and the election folks say it will go as scheduled. McCain has not said whether he will show up or not, raising the possibility that Obama will be up on stage, debating all alone.

Does that make him a masterdebater?

THESE ARE THE JOKES PPL!!!1

Beef
9/24/2008, 04:36 PM
Is Obama planning on throwing the president out of the White House the day after the election? Has a president-elect ever attempted a coup before? That would be some sweet TV. I thought the new president wasn't sworn in until January.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain


"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said at a news conference in Clearwater, Fla. "It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 04:37 PM
Nobody doubts that for a second!
Rush, no offense, but there is such thing as a valued opinion, and an unvalued one. I'm pretty liberal, I don't deny or hide it, but I do know a thing or two about process, policy, and administration . As such, there are a number of conservatives on this board who can come up with an original thought and teach me a thing or two about a thing or two, all while managing to be civil. You're not one of them.

So, back to the original topic, the debates happen and everybody forgets this ploy in a week.

NormanPride
9/24/2008, 04:39 PM
I feel like I'm watching High School Student Council elections. Ugh.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/24/2008, 04:40 PM
Who says it's a ploy?

Last time I checked, John McCain is still a senator. Barack Obama, too. And there's some pretty intense work and debate shakin' down right now in the Senate in regards to the bailout.

Regardless of who threw down the gauntlet, is it not BOTH of their jobs to get off their nuts and get in the mix for their respective electorates? Instead of shilling for the presidency?

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 04:41 PM
Is Obama planning on throwing the president out of the White House the day after the election? Has a president-elect ever attempted a coup before? That would be some sweet TV. I thought the new president wasn't sworn in until January.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
This is actually pretty truthful. The president-elect forms an administration and works pretty much day to day with the current administration.

The last time this didn't happen was 1860, it didn't pan out well.

GrapevineSooner
9/24/2008, 04:42 PM
Johnny MackTuba

Beef
9/24/2008, 04:43 PM
This is actually pretty truthful. The president-elect forms an administration and works pretty much day to day with the current administration.

The last time this didn't happen was 1860, it didn't pan out well.

Dammit. A president-elect coup would be a lot more entertaining.

Sooner04
9/24/2008, 04:43 PM
McCain is one of the best there is at working both sides of the aisle. I don't care for his politics, but that guy's been making a living at getting deals like this through.

People are in such a rush to love one and hate the other that they can't see the craploads of gray in these matters.

If Obama wants to pimp himself on the trail while the economy goes into the crapper then it could be his own career he's throwing away.

StoopTroup
9/24/2008, 04:44 PM
Is Obama planning on throwing the president out of the White House the day after the election? Has a president-elect ever attempted a coup before? That would be some sweet TV. I thought the new president wasn't sworn in until January.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

What difference will it make anyway...your just replacing a jackass with a donkey right?

Another joke people! :D :pop:

GrapevineSooner
9/24/2008, 04:45 PM
Pure positioning and political posturing, plain and simple. I would have said the exact same thing if Obama did it.

Now is not the time to inject presidential politics to the bailout.

Well, this isn't just any bill that Congress is creating. And if Obama suggested the same thing, I'd give strong consideration to agreeing with him.

Which is to say, I'm not completely sold on McCain's move here.

JohnnyMack
9/24/2008, 04:52 PM
Dammit. A president-elect coup would be a lot more entertaining.

Yeah. Gunfire on Pennsylvania Ave as the new regime rolled in. That would be so much cooler than watching a stupid inauguration.

NormanPride
9/24/2008, 04:56 PM
Hell yeah! Get some passion in our politics. Shoot some stuff! They're throwing shoes in India, and I KNOW we can top that weak sauce.

Beef
9/24/2008, 04:59 PM
Yeah. Gunfire on Pennsylvania Ave as the new regime rolled in. That would be so much cooler than watching a stupid inauguration.

How about some motherbuggin tanks rollin' up. Followed by some moving vans, of course.

Penguin
9/24/2008, 05:00 PM
What difference will it make anyway...your just replacing a jackass with a donkey right?

Another joke people! :D :pop:



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



I don't get it. :confused:

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 05:08 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-to-help-with-bailout/

McCain is suspending his campaign, wants to postpone the debate and intends to head back to Washington to help with the financial crisis. I'm sure they can't wait to have him there helping. :rolleyes:

Of course if and when Obama, says, "naw, let's go ahead and do this debate", McCain and his staff will try and paint BHO as unamerican, unpatriotic or whatever. I don't see why exactly it is they can't work in Washington, go to Mississippi for the debate and then get back? I mean the first debate is on foreign policy, McCain knows more about that than any human maybe ever. Why does he need to prep for it?

:rolleyes: Look, McCain knows that the whole shebang is in his lap. If he votes for this, repubs will follow suit. If he goes against it, so do the repubs and the bailout goes down in flames. Mr Obama can sit in the corner and cry all he wants. He and the dems are Mr. irrelevant right about now, and they know it. We all know which way they will go (socialize, socialize, socialize).

Personally, i hope it fails. If it passes the Stk mkt get propped up and the dollar will plummet. If it fails the stk mkt plummets and the dollar gets some pressure taken off of it. Both will still fall. This just determines which one plummets further. But there is no good reason to straddle the American public with the debt.

If this thing doesnt put some serious accountability back into whats going on in the financial markets, its yet another handout to those folks on the coasts that can't seem to realize that the american people aren't here to subsidize the stupidity and poor judgment.

If it fails, think of all the financial types jumping to their death like '29. ;) Lord knows we need more folks that actually do something to contribute to the economy and less that create paper shell companies that collapse and take all the hard working folks money with them. I'm kidding about the jumping thing (i think), but I hope that if it does pass we start stripping every exec that walked away from one of these companies of whatever funds they walked away with and put them in prison. They can also put the idiot congressmen that passed all these lax lending and accounting rules to go right along with them.

If the bailouts die, it will be painful. But at least those of us that are fiscally responsible with our money won't be forced to pay for it (other than the loss of investment capital) and we won't be forced deeper into socialism.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 05:10 PM
Yeah. Gunfire on Pennsylvania Ave as the new regime rolled in. That would be so much cooler than watching a stupid inauguration.
Why not? We could have Obama or McCain in sunglasses and a military uniform adorned with hundreds of fake awards, and a killer mustache.

Chuck Bao
9/24/2008, 05:12 PM
McCain is one of the best there is at working both sides of the aisle. I don't care for his politics, but that guy's been making a living at getting deals like this through.

People are in such a rush to love one and hate the other that they can't see the craploads of gray in these matters.

If Obama wants to pimp himself on the trail while the economy goes into the crapper then it could be his own career he's throwing away.

You can say that. Or, you can also take the opinion that McCain isn't really ready to take a leadership role on this issue, for whatever reason.

It would make a great public debate topic because whoever wins in November will have to bear the responsibility of carrying out the agreed bail-out scheme.

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 05:17 PM
You can say that. Or, you can also take the opinion that McCain isn't really ready to take a leadership role on this issue, for whatever reason.

It would make a great public debate topic because whoever wins in November will have to bear the responsibility of carrying out the agreed bail-out scheme.

The repubs will follow McCain's lead right or wrong. They are waiting for him to decide and follow suit. It cant pass w/o repub help and McCain is the lynch pin.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 05:22 PM
:rolleyes: Look, McCain knows that the whole shebang is in his lap. If he votes for this, repubs will follow suit. If he goes against it, so do the repubs and the bailout goes down in flames. Mr Obama can sit in the corner and cry all he wants. He and the dems are Mr. irrelevant right about now, and they know it. We all know which way they will go (socialize, socialize, socialize).
McCain is a ranking member on the Armed Services Com. in the minority of the Senate, it's not in his lap at all.

And I got a bridge in Arizona if you don't think the Dems own this issue. They are the majority in both houses, that makes them pretty freaking relevant right now, despite what you want to believe.

Also, the Republicans can never again claim that the Dems alone are socialist. The past month speaks for itself on that front.

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 05:28 PM
McCain is a ranking member on the Armed Services Com. in the minority of the Senate, it's not in his lap at all.

And I got a bridge in Arizona if you don't think the Dems own this issue. They are the majority in both houses, that makes them pretty freaking relevant right now, despite what you want to believe.

They don't have the votes (or the nads), otherwise Harry Reid wouldn't be asking for republican help.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9871912&ch=4226716&src=news

OUthunder
9/24/2008, 05:31 PM
If Obama would have suggested this, the same people ragging on McCain would have been lining up saying how great he was and that it was putting the country first.

Mmmn, CHANGE.

OUthunder
9/24/2008, 05:32 PM
Who says it's a ploy?

Last time I checked, John McCain is still a senator. Barack Obama, too. And there's some pretty intense work and debate shakin' down right now in the Senate in regards to the bailout.

Regardless of who threw down the gauntlet, is it not BOTH of their jobs to get off their nuts and get in the mix for their respective electorates? Instead of shilling for the presidency?

Obama never shows up to work anyway, so why CHANGE now?

KC//CRIMSON
9/24/2008, 05:36 PM
Pure positioning and political posturing, plain and simple. I would have said the exact same thing if Obama did it.

Now is not the time to inject presidential politics to the bailout.


McDesperate strikes again! Yep, it's nothing more than a hail mary pass that will blow up in his face if he doesn't show up for the debates.

What a chicken*hit move.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 05:39 PM
They don't have the votes (or the nads), otherwise Harry Reid wouldn't be asking for republican help.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9871912&ch=4226716&src=news
Of course Reid is asking for Republican help, why wouldn't he? A man they despise is asking for $700b, did you really expect them to give Bush a blank check? Something needs to be done, but it will be bipartisan, which in this case means on mostly Democratic terms.

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 06:00 PM
Of course Reid is asking for Republican help, why wouldn't he? A man they despise is asking for $700b, did you really expect them to give Bush a blank check? Something needs to be done, but it will be bipartisan, which in this case means on mostly Democratic terms.

If they manage the votes without McCain's support on this bill and pass it, he will have a central campaign issue difference and shove it down their throats with Joe McAverageGuy voting in droves against the party that supports it (and their fairyland change agent).

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/24/2008, 06:04 PM
Rush, no offense, but there is such thing as a valued opinion, and an unvalued one. I'm pretty liberal, I don't deny or hide it, but I do know a thing or two about process, policy, and administration . As such, there are a number of conservatives on this board who can come up with an original thought and teach me a thing or two about a thing or two, all while managing to be civil. You're not one of them.

So, back to the original topic, the debates happen and everybody forgets this ploy in a week.I'm not civil(drawing attention to your likely fib) due to your being hopeless...into the abyss.

Okla-homey
9/24/2008, 06:10 PM
Pure positioning and political posturing, plain and simple. I would have said the exact same thing if Obama did it.

Now is not the time to inject presidential politics to the bailout.

you'll be singing a different tune if your credit cards stop working.

For those of you who don't think JSM is displaying extraordinary relevant leadership at this time, consider; JSM is uniquely equipped to get this done. The Dems razor thin majority in the Senate is not veto-proof. Thus, without JSM in the mix, there's no hope of getting any remedial measures signed into law.

He realizes that, and so do I. BHO is of course irrelevant at this time. He's just a frosh senator and if he tries to throw his popular weight around, the WH will just dig in.

Thats the way I see it, and that's not partisanship, its just stating cold hard political fact. Frankly, I think this will turn out to be a political masterstroke second only to the choice of SHP as VP nom.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 06:11 PM
If they manage the votes without McCain's support on this bill and pass it, he will have a central campaign issue difference and shove it down their throats with Joe McAverageGuy voting in droves against the party that supports it (and their fairyland change agent).
Try to divorce politics and process for a second and tell me what you mean, I'm not really following you here.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 06:13 PM
you'll be singing a different tune of your credit cards stop working.

For those of you who don't think JSM is displaying extraordinary relevant leadership at this time, consider; JSM is uniquely equipped to get this done. The Dems razor thin majority in the Senate is not veto-proof. Thus, without JSM in the mix, there's no hope of getting any remedial measures signed into law.

He realizes that, and so do I. BHO is of course irrelevant at this time. He's just a frosh senator and if he tries to throw his popular weight around, the WH will just dig in.

Thats the way I see it, and that's not partisanship, its just stating cold hard political fact.
You really believe a McCain is going to come riding on his white horse to save the country as an unaffiliated member of a minority with no formal ties to drafting? McCain is important as a vote, nothing else. This is grandstanding of the first order.

KC//CRIMSON
9/24/2008, 06:14 PM
I think JSM is getting really nervous after seeing his numbers drop in the polls day after day. He can't pull a big titted moose killer out of his hat now.

Hail Mary! Praise Jeebus!

SoonerProphet
9/24/2008, 06:17 PM
you'll be singing a different tune if your credit cards stop working.


Oh good lord.:rolleyes:

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 06:25 PM
Try to divorce politics and process for a second and tell me what you mean, I'm not really following you here.

Geez, get rid of the condescending tone and reread homey's post.

What I mean is that if McCain gets on board, its bipartisan as the majority of pubs will follow. They will not go against the republican nominee at this point. But if he doesn't, and the dems pass this on a strictly partisan vote, McCain will rail against this from now until the election. This issue will have a strong pull with the middle class (pub or dem). You know, all the blue collar folks that work in factories in places like Ohio. They don't like the idea of being strapped with the debt from fat cats and financial companies that made poor decisions. Especially if they are not the ones that are in over their heads in mortgage debt. If he forces this as an issue, I believe he will win on it.

I don't really like McCain's politics, but if he grows a pair and goes against this I will respect him for it.

The Maestro
9/24/2008, 06:45 PM
I can live without the debate. Don't we already know what they are going to say, promise, promote beforehand?

Go be a Senator for a day or two...since you were elected to that post and all.

soonerscuba
9/24/2008, 06:58 PM
Geez, get rid of the condescending tone and reread homey's post.

What I mean is that if McCain gets on board, its bipartisan as the majority of pubs will follow. They will not go against the republican nominee at this point. But if he doesn't, and the dems pass this on a strictly partisan vote, McCain will rail against this from now until the election. This issue will have a strong pull with the middle class (pub or dem). You know, all the blue collar folks that work in factories in places like Ohio. They don't like the idea of being strapped with the debt from fat cats and financial companies that made poor decisions. Especially if they are not the ones that are in over their heads in mortgage debt. If he forces this as an issue, I believe he will win on it.

I don't really like McCain's politics, but if he grows a pair and goes against this I will respect him for it.
Ah, I see. I disagree with you in so much as I think it will happen regardless of what McCain does. Let's not forget, it's Paulson and Bush asking for this as is, the Dems wany oversight.

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 07:03 PM
Ah, I see. I disagree with you in so much as I think it will happen regardless of what McCain does. Let's not forget, it's Paulson and Bush asking for this as is, the Dems wany oversight.

Ah, I disagree with you in that the dems don't want oversight, they want more congressional control, which is what started this in the first place. You know, all those rules that allow unqualified people to borrow money despite their ability to pay it back.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/24/2008, 07:15 PM
What I don't get is why folks, REGARDLESS of political slant, are bitchin' about SENATOR John McCain heading to the SENATE where SENATORS work to do his elected duty, that of a SENATOR.

Stepping away from the campaign trail to do his JOB.

God ****ing forbid THAT.

Rogue
9/24/2008, 07:30 PM
Isn't the debate on Friday night? Is the Senate going to work all weekend for a change. He's skeered.

OUstudent4life
9/24/2008, 07:40 PM
Now, I totally agree that the Senate should do something. I also think that the debate should go on...but this is just funny:

Metamucil? (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cbm.htm)

You skip Letterman for Katie Couric? Really?

Really?

:D;):D;):D;):D;):D;)

tommieharris91
9/24/2008, 07:59 PM
Dear Lord there is so much dumb and fail in this thread.

Guys, this legislation is absolutely necessary for the Senate to convene, with all of it's members, to get this through as fast as possible. This type of financial meltdown is about as epic as the one 1929. Those of you who are against all bailouts right now would probably be against any sort of intervention in 1929. So, no intervention highly increases chances that you get laid off. People on both sides of the aisle created this mess, people on both sides of the aisle should do as much as they can to fix it. Both John McCain and Barack Obama favor this legislation. Both should help to work on it.

Was there legislation in place to stop this? Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) If you read the link, you will find that it isn't in place anymore. (And yes, it was a bipartisan choice.)

tommieharris91
9/24/2008, 08:02 PM
Oh good lord.:rolleyes:

This could get that bad.

tommieharris91
9/24/2008, 08:04 PM
I think JSM is getting really nervous after seeing his numbers drop in the polls day after day. He can't pull a big titted moose killer out of his hat now.

Hail Mary! Praise Jeebus!

Considering who is president now, McCain pretty much has to take risky gambles like this.

tommieharris91
9/24/2008, 08:09 PM
Ah, I see. I disagree with you in so much as I think it will happen regardless of what McCain does. Let's not forget, it's Paulson and Bush asking for this as is, the Dems wany oversight.

And both McCain and Obama are unwilling to give him that blank check. I think there should be tons of oversight on this.

Sadly, I've heard that there's so much pork involved in this that the real total will add up to $1.8 trillion.

AlbqSooner
9/24/2008, 08:17 PM
And I got a bridge in Arizona if you don't think the Dems own this issue. They are the majority in both houses, that makes them pretty freaking relevant right now, despite what you want to believe.

Actually, the London Bridge is in Arizona. :D

Penguin
9/24/2008, 08:30 PM
Now, I totally agree that the Senate should do something. I also think that the debate should go on...but this is just funny:

Metamucil? (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cbm.htm)

You skip Letterman for Katie Couric? Really?

Really?

:D;):D;):D;):D;):D;)


Oh, my God! that is so freaking rude! It's so damn rude, it's funny! :D


Did you see the youtube video? Oh, man! Tonight's Letterman should be pretty entertaining! :D

Sooner Eclipse
9/24/2008, 08:34 PM
Well, since i've technically already lost my job because of this mess, my chances are already at 100%. Rip the bandaid off and let the wound breath. Let those that created the mess suffer. If we bail them out, we'll be back in this mess again soon. People need to realize the consequences of their actions. That's what made the depression era generation great. They rebuilt this country on the backs of hard working honest people that knew the value of everything in their lives and made sound conservative decisions that weighed the cost vs. the benefit. There is no longer any cost to the risk taking that these people are doing with what will soon be our poorly spent tax dollars.

Re-enact Glass-Steagall. Get back to sound decision making that doesn't take into account the social engineering that is so prevelant in todays society.

47straight
9/24/2008, 09:19 PM
It might be grandstanding to call off his advertisements, but it's not grandstanding to go and fix the problem.

Even scuba admits that it has to be a bipartisan effort. Name a bigger republican linchpin in the bipartisan potential of the Senate (or anyone, actually) than McCain. It doesn't matter if he's not on the committee or not, this is the sort of thing that is getting everyone's input on upfront. The hard truth is that noone does bipartisan work and bucks his own party like McCain. And the government's efforts and plans, *whatever* they will be, needs to be at least initiated so the damn market will just settle down. If all we have to fear is fear itself, then let's beat it by hammering out a plan.


What's the alternative? A debate where everyone knows what everyone's going to say? Really? That's more important? It can't get pushed out a week or two?



Then again, I've already decided I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life because I look at action, and not words. So I'm not really the target audience anyway.

KC//CRIMSON
9/24/2008, 09:20 PM
Now, I totally agree that the Senate should do something. I also think that the debate should go on...but this is just funny:

Metamucil? (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cbm.htm)

You skip Letterman for Katie Couric? Really?

Really?

:D;):D;):D;):D;):D;)


CLASSIC.

Penguin
9/24/2008, 09:26 PM
OMFG! You could not have scripted it any better! This Letterman-McCain deal is like a Seinfeld episode! :D


I don't know if it will affect McCain's numbers or anything like that, but this is freaking hilarious! :D :D :D :D :D

Ike
9/24/2008, 10:26 PM
Sorry, but I gotta agree with Letterman on this one. Suspending the campaign?!?!? C'mon. You've just put up a choice piece of *** as the VP nominee, now you want to not give her any face time for a few days. Send her out there to stir things up.

I've no problem with McCain going back to washington to try to understand the economy (Obama too!), but don't suspend your effort to win the white house. Get those second stringers out there to slapfight each other.

SoonerKnight
9/24/2008, 11:48 PM
Dear Lord there is so much dumb and fail in this thread.

Guys, this legislation is absolutely necessary for the Senate to convene, with all of it's members, to get this through as fast as possible. This type of financial meltdown is about as epic as the one 1929. Those of you who are against all bailouts right now would probably be against any sort of intervention in 1929. So, no intervention highly increases chances that you get laid off. People on both sides of the aisle created this mess, people on both sides of the aisle should do as much as they can to fix it. Both John McCain and Barack Obama favor this legislation. Both should help to work on it.

Was there legislation in place to stop this? Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) If you read the link, you will find that it isn't in place anymore. (And yes, it was a bipartisan choice.)

Wrong! In my line of work there is always crime! In fact bad economy+higher crime rate= job security. :cool: So yes I am against the bail out!

Penguin
9/25/2008, 12:02 AM
So, does this mean that McCain is risking Obama getting a free 90 minute commercial on Friday night?

I mean, I can predict the spin: McCain is such a great American that he would stop the campaign for president so that he can save the economy. This boy has his priorities right!

Yeah, I'm sure die-hard McCain supporters will believe it. But, will an undecided voter in a swing state? This is quite a gamble for McCain.

tommieharris91
9/25/2008, 12:02 AM
Wrong! In my line of work there is always crime! In fact bad economy+higher crime rate= job security. :cool: So yes I am against the bail out!

Last I checked high crime rates weren't a good thing...

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 12:09 AM
McCain is a ranking member on the Armed Services Com. in the minority of the Senate, it's not in his lap at all.

And I got a bridge in Arizona if you don't think the Dems own this issue. They are the majority in both houses, that makes them pretty freaking relevant right now, despite what you want to believe.

Also, the Republicans can never again claim that the Dems alone are socialist. The past month speaks for itself on that front.

Am I to believe that if the "wrong" decision is eventually made and the country sinks into recession that the Dems will take responsibility? Being the majority in both houses hasn't stopped them from blaming Bush for the weak economy we're experiencing now, what makes you think they will suddenly start taking the blame in a few months?

As for delaying the debate, what's the big deal? Sure, it sounds cute for Obama to say things like "the President will need to multi-task". But how about this - "the President will need to prioritize". Given the choice between delaying a stupid debate for a week or so to put your full attention on our train-wreck of an economy, or going ahead with a relatively meaningless debate that can easily be postponed, which leader do you think is make a more rational decision?

I actually like Obama for his usual thoughtfulness on various issues, but he's really out in left field on this one. I can't think of a single rational reason to push forward with this debate. Maybe he thinks a delay is unnecessary, but his opponent clearly does not. Common decency would dictate that you delay, and showing your "bi-partisan colors" in these difficult times probably wouldn't hurt either. As it stands, it appears to me that Obama is simply using the economic crisis to further his presidential campaign. Bad on you, Obama. Bad on you.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 12:16 AM
So, does this mean that McCain is risking Obama getting a free 90 minute commercial on Friday night?

I mean, I can predict the spin: McCain is such a great American that he would stop the campaign for president so that he can save the economy. This boy has his priorities right!

Yeah, I'm sure die-hard McCain supporters will believe it. But, will an undecided voter in a swing state? This is quite a gamble for McCain.

Spin?

Compare the relative importance of our nation's economy with a presidential debate and show me how the debate wins.

Multi-tasking is fine when there are multiple things that NEED to be done at the same time. However, this debate doesn't NEED to happen this Friday night. The country will not fail to elect a president if the debate is post-poned. The only grand-standing going on here is being done by Obama.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 12:29 AM
This is an act of classical grandstanding. Why? Because McCain's announcement has put Obama in a bind: Either go along with it be cast as following McCain's lead, or don't go along with it and be cast as more concerned with his political ambitions than the USA's welfare.

Either McCain knew that this would be the result of a surprise announcement, or the guy is too damn stupid to be President. I don't think it's the latter.

If McCain was more interested in the country than scoring political points, his campaign would have quietly negotiated an agreement on this and both candidates would have announced that they were going back to the Capital together. In fact, Obama wouldn't have had much of a choice -- to do otherwise would be to put himself in the bind mentioned above.

So, McCain grandstands to put Obama in the bind, Obama grandstands to avoid looking like he's following McCain's lead.

Politics as usual.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 12:38 AM
I'm not sure of the details, but I read an article that says that McCain and Obama did meet quietly to discuss delaying the debate. They were evidently supposed to make a joint statement, but McCain pre-empted Obama and made is own statement.

I suppose it's possible that they did not reach an agreement in their meeting and so McCain made his own announcement. Hopefully that's what happened. I suppose it's also possible that McCain simply pre-empted Obama to put Obama "in a bind" (as you say). If that is the case, then I'm severely disappointed in McCain.

Penguin
9/25/2008, 12:39 AM
Spin?

Compare the relative importance of our nation's economy with a presidential debate and show me how the debate wins.


Oh, no! You will get absolutely no argument from me about that!


I'm just thinking pushing back a debate only works if both candidates agree to it. If Obama gets a free 90 minute commercial on Friday night, I just can't grasp the idea that this is a good thing for McCain, unless Obama pukes or something.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/25/2008, 12:54 AM
I suppose it's also possible that McCain simply pre-empted Obama to put Obama "in a bind" (as you say). If that is the case, then I'm severely disappointed in McCain.

He pre-empted Obama in putting the Presidential race on hold to go do his job!?

You guys are killing me. Politics or no, they BOTH need to get off their *** and get back down to Capitol Hill. You know, to do that whole SENATOR thing. The job their respective electorates voted them in office for. Sure, there's politics involved. It's a constant game of oneupsmanship.

Arizona didn't elect the man to a senate seat to run for President. They elected a senator. Just like Illinois did. Partisanship aside, if Obama doesn't drop this BS and go do what he's paid to frickin' do, that oughta be nothing less than a black mark on his OWN ***.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 01:04 AM
He pre-empted Obama in putting the Presidential race on hold to go do his job!?

No, read carefully. McCain *may* have pre-empted Obama by giving a public announcement when they *may* have previously agreed to give a joint announcement. Agreeing to do one thing in private then doing something else publicly is dishonest.


You guys are killing me.

All of my posts saying the same thing that you are saying is killing you? :confused:

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:06 AM
He pre-empted Obama in putting the Presidential race on hold to go do his job!?

No, he pre-empted Obama on a joint statement.

In this case, if you're more interested in the good of the country and getting both candidates back to the Senate to do some good, you arrange for a joint statement so neither side loses face.

If you're more interested in scoring political points, you pre-empt the other candidate and force a loss of face.

If Obama's campaign was given an opportunity to make a joint statement and declined, then they're incompetent at the least.

If McCain's campaign simply made the statement without attempting to arrange for joint action or had arranged for one and chose to do it alone instead, McCain isn't doing his job as senator -- he's just playing politics, and deliberately compromising Obama's ability to do his job as Senator of Illinois.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/25/2008, 01:30 AM
No, he pre-empted Obama on a joint statement.

In this case, if you're more interested in the good of the country and getting both candidates back to the Senate to do some good, you arrange for a joint statement so neither side loses face.

Bullcorn. Who gives a rip about losing face? Obama does, apparently. Point remains, McCain is heading back to the Senate to do what the people of Arizona elected him to do. Which is neither run for president or kowtow to Obama's "face".


If you're more interested in scoring political points, you pre-empt the other candidate and force a loss of face.

Or you're interested in taking care of business and see an opportunity to express to the folks that even the race for president doesn't supercede one's duty to country. Now Obama's in the pigeonhole. Played or not played. Again, the point remains, there's a senator from Illinois that needs to drop a pair, get off the stump, and get to work doing his job. Kinda like that McCain guy.


If Obama's campaign was given an opportunity to make a joint statement and declined, then they're incompetent at the least.

If McCain's campaign simply made the statement without attempting to arrange for joint action or had arranged for one and chose to do it alone instead, McCain isn't doing his job as senator -- he's just playing politics, and deliberately compromising Obama's ability to do his job as Senator of Illinois.

So by doing his job as a senator, he's NOT doing his job as a senator? And by getting the jump on pulling back the horses and heading back to Washington, he's somehow compromised Obama's ability to perform in the office he STILL occupies, duly elected by the people of Illinois?

I'm not a smart man, but don't you expect politicians to play politics? And don't you expect your elected officials to do their jobs, ESPECIALLY when they're needed most? This is partisan drool, based on the fact that your boy got one-upped by the old man.

Let it GO. And start pounding the table demanding Senator Obama stop for a second and go do his job. Like that John McCain guy is doing.

SoonerKnight
9/25/2008, 01:36 AM
I'm not sure of the details, but I read an article that says that McCain and Obama did meet quietly to discuss delaying the debate. They were evidently supposed to make a joint statement, but McCain pre-empted Obama and made is own statement.

I suppose it's possible that they did not reach an agreement in their meeting and so McCain made his own announcement. Hopefully that's what happened. I suppose it's also possible that McCain simply pre-empted Obama to put Obama "in a bind" (as you say). If that is the case, then I'm severely disappointed in McCain.

Actually, Obama called McCain and said hey we might need a joint statement putting partizenship aside and urging congress to pass thiss legislation quickly. McCain says okay but I also what to suspend our campaigns and not go to the debate. Obama says well let's have our two sides meet about the statement and then discuss what else we are going to do. McCain says okay. Then McCain gets on the tv and says I am suspending my campaign and I urge Obama to do the same. Obama says well I really want to keep presidential politics out of this but if the leadership need me I go back to D.C. but really unless it is absolutely necessary we really don't have much to do there.

Point is McCain played Obama for a fool by lying. Points for McCain? I think not!

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:43 AM
So by doing his job as a senator, he's NOT doing his job as a senator?

When you deliberately make it harder for a colleague to do their job, or give them incentive not to, yeah, you're not doing your job.

Surely you've encountered this in your workplace at some point. Some hot shot chooses "does his job" in a way that compromises someone else's ability to do theirs. They could have done their job in a way that didn't make other folk's job more difficult, but instead they did it in a way that maximizes their face time.

That's not doing your job. That's self-serving showboating.

If McCain didn't give Obama an opportunity to make a joint statement, that's exactly what happened here.


I'm not a smart man, but don't you expect politicians to play politics?

Yeah, I do. And I'm calling shenanigans on both of these guys.


And don't you expect your elected officials to do their jobs, ESPECIALLY when they're needed most? This is partisan drool (...)

Let it GO.

Good advice. It's always easier to give than to take though, isn't it?

McCain could have done this in a way that didn't put Obama in a bind and maximized both parties' ability to do their job. Given that both McCain and Obama are senators of the United States of America, it was McCain's duty as a Senator to do so.

If he chose not to do so, he chose politics above his duty. Plain and simple.

SoonerKnight
9/25/2008, 01:55 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/suspend.timeline/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


McCain blind sides Obama!!!! Read the story.

Democratic presidential nominee Obama said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, came up with the idea of issuing a joint statement agreeing on some "broad principles" that he and McCain shared on resolving differences in the rescue plan.

"I think the only possible miscommunication that might have been how quickly there was an announcement and someone was on television. I think my assumption was that the joint statement would go out initially," Obama said.

"This is not the time for statements. ... I think the American people expect more of us. And I would hope that we would respond that way," he said. (McCain)

But McCain, appearing live on "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric," challenged Obama's claims that he supported a joint statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Also Wednesday night, McCain and Obama said in a joint statement that the bailout plan was "flawed" but that "the effort to protect the American economy must not fail."

"Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people," read the statement, which was released about 15 minutes before Bush made a televised address on the economy.


McCain= LIAR!! Bad one at that!!! :rolleyes:

47straight
9/25/2008, 02:09 AM
...

47straight
9/25/2008, 02:12 AM
No, he pre-empted Obama on a joint statement.

In this case, if you're more interested in the good of the country and getting both candidates back to the Senate to do some good, you arrange for a joint statement so neither side loses face.

If you're more interested in scoring political points, you pre-empt the other candidate and force a loss of face.

If Obama's campaign was given an opportunity to make a joint statement and declined, then they're incompetent at the least.

If McCain's campaign simply made the statement without attempting to arrange for joint action or had arranged for one and chose to do it alone instead, McCain isn't doing his job as senator -- he's just playing politics, and deliberately compromising Obama's ability to do his job as Senator of Illinois.


McCain's old, he ain't got time to sit around and wait for these kids to crap or get off the pot! :texan:

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:14 AM
Obama's also said that the two had agreed in principle to do a joint statement and were still in discussions over the details when McCain went on TV and made the announcement by himself.

There was no need (other than showmanship) at that time for McCain to make such an announcement publicly. He could have gone back to Washington, started working, and made the statement with Obama at a later time once the details were hammered out.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:28 AM
Also, I don't think either candidate is needed.

My expectation is that all sides will come to an agreement and the bill will be passed shortly after markets close on Friday. I've bet several thousands of dollars on it :D

lexsooner
9/25/2008, 07:59 AM
Also, I don't think either candidate is needed.

My expectation is that all sides will come to an agreement and the bill will be passed shortly after markets close on Friday. I've bet several thousands of dollars on it :D

Concur. Most of the work has already been done, so there is no need for either candidate to get into the mix. It's contrived political posturing by McCain, and Obama has had to posture in response. Every time McCain's poll numbers and image appear to be suffering, he flings a Hail Mary like this. Where was his grave concern about the situation last week or earlier this week? What the heck will suspending his ads and the debates do to help pass a bill? Pure politics, that's all it is.

jage
9/25/2008, 08:36 AM
Does anyone really think they will be working on it that late at night on Friday anyways? If I was a senator, I'd want everything finished up and decided by 5:00 so I could go home and enjoy the weekend :D


I guess that's why I'm not a senator though.

Sooner04
9/25/2008, 08:38 AM
Earlier in the week, Congress is asked to come back to work on this problem. A senator, one who's been in the Senate for a LONG time, takes them up on the offer, and is ridiculed in the press because he happens to be running for president.

I cannot imagine how disgusted our Founding Fathers would be if they came back to see what the fruits of their labor produced. It's sickening.

We have people for both sides who'd pick an eggplant for President over the other candidate just because it's got a donkey or an elephant alongside it.

royalfan5
9/25/2008, 08:50 AM
He pre-empted Obama in putting the Presidential race on hold to go do his job!?

You guys are killing me. Politics or no, they BOTH need to get off their *** and get back down to Capitol Hill. You know, to do that whole SENATOR thing. The job their respective electorates voted them in office for. Sure, there's politics involved. It's a constant game of oneupsmanship.

Arizona didn't elect the man to a senate seat to run for President. They elected a senator. Just like Illinois did. Partisanship aside, if Obama doesn't drop this BS and go do what he's paid to frickin' do, that oughta be nothing less than a black mark on his OWN ***.

I would just like to point out that McCain has missed far more senate votes during the 110th Congress, than Obama or Tim Johnson (who had a cerebral hemmorage)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 08:57 AM
Shocking. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/mccain-camp-to-propose-postponing-vp-debate-2/)

Earickson
9/25/2008, 09:12 AM
I get sick of watching and listening to political discussions because I'm not a Rep. or a Dem, and from where I stand I feel like I'm watching two drunks engage in a completely fruitless argument.

I think both of these Senators have let down their constituents, if you look at these vote attendance figures.
(http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)
There is no objectivity in this discussion, and this is exactly the reason why we have these kinds of politicians serving (poorly) in our government.

JohnnyMack
9/25/2008, 09:25 AM
Earlier in the week, Congress is asked to come back to work on this problem. A senator, one who's been in the Senate for a LONG time, takes them up on the offer, and is ridiculed in the press because he happens to be running for president.

I cannot imagine how disgusted our Founding Fathers would be if they came back to see what the fruits of their labor produced. It's sickening.

We have people for both sides who'd pick an eggplant for President over the other candidate just because it's got a donkey or an elephant alongside it.

It doesn't have anything to do with D or R. If Obama had done the same thing I would have said it was a political move.

Neither John McCain or Barack Obama serves on any financial or banking committees. While I can understand them going back once this thing gets closer to a vote in the Senate, I for the life of me can't figure out why his entire campaign needs to be suspended and why he can't participate in a debate with Obama on Friday night. Why not work, fly down and do the debate and then fly back? I think it smacks of political posturing and that he's trying to use this crisis as a political tool. If he was truly interested in bipartisanship, why didn't he wait and make an announcement alongside Obama instead of throwing down a gauntlet the way he did? This seems like another impetuous move on his part to me.

And now the news that the McCain wants to delay the VP debate is the most astonishing thing I wasn't astonished by.

tommieharris91
9/25/2008, 09:33 AM
I can't understand why they can't do this debate in Washington.

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 09:56 AM
I can't understand why they can't do this debate in Washington.
Because it wouldn't be politically expedient?

Bourbon St Sooner
9/25/2008, 10:02 AM
Also, the Republicans can never again claim that the Dems alone are socialist. The last eight years speaks for itself on that front.

fixed.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 10:48 AM
Why not work, fly down and do the debate and then fly back?

I'm under the impression that a little more preparation goes into a Presidential debate than just "fly down and do the debate".

JohnnyMack
9/25/2008, 11:22 AM
I'm under the impression that a little more preparation goes into a Presidential debate than just "fly down and do the debate".

Not for someone like McCain. The guy's an expert.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 01:58 PM
So folks, we've got everyone reporting an agreement in principle.

Despite the risk of calling it early: Why did McCain need to cancel the debate again?

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:01 PM
I mean other than grandstanding, obviously.

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:14 PM
This is actually pretty truthful. The president-elect forms an administration and works pretty much day to day with the current administration.

The last time this didn't happen was 1860, it didn't pan out well.Not. If Obama were elected, he wouldn't be near the whithouse until Bush is gone.

BTW- this is all stupid, as Obama has run from debating McCain for months. Doing this one on Monday instead of Friday is fine.

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 02:19 PM
Not. If Obama were elected, he wouldn't be near the whithouse until Bush is gone.
My guess is you have super secret insider info that contradicts literally over a century of precedent. Obama will be very much involved in transition should he be elected. Are you saying Bush is so petty as to not work with an incoming administration or that Obama wouldn't work with the current administration because he wants to take briefings blind, either one makes zero sense.

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:21 PM
I mean other than grandstanding, obviously.

You used to make interesting points in political discussions. What happened?

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:23 PM
My guess is you have super secret insider info

You've been reading these boards for a while, you should know by now that we all have super secret insider info. On every subject.

Vaevictis
9/25/2008, 02:25 PM
You used to make interesting points in political discussions. What happened?

Fatigue.

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 02:26 PM
You've been reading these boards for a while, you should know by now that we all have super secret insider info. On every subject.
I freely admit that all of my info is plagiarized and contrived from the MSM. ;)

Stoop Dawg
9/25/2008, 02:30 PM
Fatigue.

I hear ya. I took a nice long break and after less than 24 hours I'm thinking another nice long break is sounding good.

(Keep the applause to a minimum)

Big Red Ron
9/25/2008, 02:31 PM
My guess is you have super secret insider info that contradicts literally over a century of precedent. Obama will be very much involved in transition should he be elected. Are you saying Bush is so petty as to not work with an incoming administration or that Obama wouldn't work with the current administration because he wants to take briefings blind, either one makes zero sense.
Nah, just a siple glance at how it works. Clinton didn't even visit the whitehouse until inaguration in Jan. The President elect puts his team together but doen't have anything to do with policy until Jan.

JohnnyMack
9/25/2008, 02:34 PM
.
September 25, 2008 10:32
What Actually Happened Yesterday
Posted by Joe Klein

John McCain faced another crisis yesterday--a political one, not the financial emergency he used as an excuse for his rash actions--and once again he overreacted. This is becoming a pattern (as is his "greatest crisis since..." formulation: yesterday, since World War II; previously--on Georgia--since the end of the cold war), and it is not very reassuring behavior in a potential President.

The political crisis was real. And it wasn't merely that he was slipping a bit in the polls. It was that he was being pressured on three sides. The responsible economic leadership of the Republican Party--people like his own economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin and, I assume, the corporate sorts he consults with--were urging him to support a modified version of the bailout package. At the same time, people like Bill Kristol--who can be a surprisingly amoral tactician when it comes to subjects other than foreign policy where he has firm, if mistaken, beliefs--were urging McCain to take a populist nutball Lou Dobbsian stand against the deal. A large number of House Republicans were leaning toward that position, which is why McCain suffered under the--mistaken, I believe--impression that the bailout was in some trouble. A third source of pressure came from those House Republicans who wanted to vote for the package, but didn't want to be hung out to dry by their standard-bearer: they needed to know if McCain was for or against.

It should be noted that Barack Obama was under no such pressure, since Democrats--reluctantly, angrily, to be sure--actually believe, as President Bush does, that there will be real pain on Main Street if some sort of bailout isn't achieved.

Happily, in the end, McCain did the responsible thing...but he did it foolishly, in a panicky fashion. He did support the emerging compromise. He took the Democrats' modifications--on oversight, homeowner and taxpayer protection, and restrictions on payouts to the executives who made these disastrous decisions--and made them his own. His support will help widen the majority of legislators who will support the bill.

What McCain didn't understand was that the legislative crisis was already receding when he made his melodramatic--and somewhat wild-eyed--suspension of campaign activities statement. (He didn't understand this because he has had no input into the process and, indeed, is neither respected for his financial expertise nor desired in the process because of his combative, peremptory negotiating style.)In any case, the crisis was receding because the Bush Administration was caving to the Democrats' modifications, as the President made clear in his speech last night. A Democratic Senator close to the negotiations told me after the speech, "We pretty much have a deal. The negotiations aren't over, but this is just too damn important to get snagged on a codicil."

Since it would have been fairly embarrassing to McCain for the crisis to end without his meaningless intervention, Bush laid on the White House summit and likely kumbaya session for this afternoon where the deal will probably be announced. And now, McCain faces a further embarrassment: what to do about his decision to pull out of the debate? It seems to me that if agreement is reached today, he has to debate tomorrow--and now, because of his "crisis" announcement, the debate will take place on turf less favorable to him: on economic as well as foreign policy. Even if an agreement isn't reached today, he will be hard pressed to explain why he isn't debating tomorrow. In any case, Obama's cool steadfastness has put him in the driver's seat on this one.

And that raises an interesting question: Why was McCain so quick to pull out of the debate? After all, with the momentum slightly in Obama's direction, he needed a game-changer--and foreign policy is, allegedly, his area of expertise. His peremptory actions yesterday was not the behavior of a confident man. It was the behavior of a man uncertain, despite all the macho bluster, about his chances in the most important theater of battle in any presidential campaign, one where gimmicks, diversions and untruths can be directly countered by his opponent. McCain may clean Obama's clock in the coming debates--but it seems entirely possible that the old fighter jock may be frightened that he's about to ditch another plane.

47straight
9/25/2008, 03:22 PM
but it seems entirely possible that the old fighter jock may be frightened that he's about to ditch another plane.


Yeah, I'm going to believe the rest of what he said now.

SoonerProphet
9/25/2008, 03:36 PM
Here is George Will again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

LesNessman
9/25/2008, 04:07 PM
This is actually pretty truthful. The president-elect forms an administration and works pretty much day to day with the current administration.

The last time this didn't happen was 1860, it didn't pan out well.

Actually the last time it happened was 2000, when Gore held up the election for, what was it, over a month?

Then the Bush administration had to deal with all the missing furniture, etc. from the WH and the messed up phones and computers.

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 05:04 PM
Actually the last time it happened was 2000, when Gore held up the election for, what was it, over a month?

Then the Bush administration had to deal with all the missing furniture, etc. from the WH and the messed up phones and computers.
Failure pile in a sadness bowl. There is no way you are actually gullible enough to believe this. The GAO has released 3 different reports about this, all saying the transition was consistent with what they would expect during any election.

Also, The General Services Admin witheld federal transition resources for both of the candidates until December, giving Bush over a month. And more to point, I think you might be unaware as to the massiveness of the executive policy machine. There is a reason that Bush's staff was littered with Clinton holdovers for the first couple of years, like any organization, experience matters. Unless you are suggesting that Bush hired a significant hunk of Clinton staffers on the first day without contact to their former administration. I am assuming you are, as you contest my fact that there hasn't been formal presidential transition phase since 1860.

Rogue
9/25/2008, 05:55 PM
McCain backed himself into this corner.

He's about to get hosed.

My prediction: although a deal is apparently close, there won't be a vote on Friday. The Dems won't allow it so that BHO (at least) can show up in MS for the debate. If JM stays in DC and a vote is called, there'll be a massive fillibuster in the Senate.

Meanwhile, JSM is in a corner either recalling his campaign-break, sitting on his thumb, or...or.... I don't know what.

Yeah the crisis is real. Yeah, it's been brewing for about 10 years now and we fiddled while Rome was burning. So, it's not like it has to happen by some sort of deadline.

Sometimes when you gamble you lose.

Curly Bill
9/25/2008, 06:27 PM
I freely admit that all of my info is plagiarized and contrived from the MSM. ;)

Biden? That you?

soonerscuba
9/25/2008, 06:42 PM
Biden? That you?I said freely admit.

Curly Bill
9/25/2008, 07:11 PM
I said freely admit.

Oh yeah....:D

LesNessman
9/26/2008, 07:26 AM
Failure pile in a sadness bowl. There is no way you are actually gullible enough to believe this. The GAO has released 3 different reports about this, all saying the transition was consistent with what they would expect during any election.

Also, The General Services Admin witheld federal transition resources for both of the candidates until December, giving Bush over a month. And more to point, I think you might be unaware as to the massiveness of the executive policy machine. There is a reason that Bush's staff was littered with Clinton holdovers for the first couple of years, like any organization, experience matters. Unless you are suggesting that Bush hired a significant hunk of Clinton staffers on the first day without contact to their former administration. I am assuming you are, as you contest my fact that there hasn't been formal presidential transition phase since 1860.

OK you're right. I should have clarified that I wasn't contesting the formal transition phase, but trying to point out that there was definitely a disruption to the normal transition in 2000 due to the election results delay. Sure they had over a month, but that was still less than half the normal time for transition. Very critical time lost.

Plus they had to deal with some not so flattering stuff from Clinton et.al. (report by the LA times and ABC no doubt):

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1