What? No VP debate thread?

[TheGame]

I agree strangler, and I agree that it may be a special circumstance. But I also think its very bad timing. I wouldn't have been mad at him for voting no for political reasons in this case. In the middle of an election where you're preaching one thing, you can't sit there and vote another way. If he'd have voted no and it passed, he'd have a good angle to pin Obama/Washington with.

But I think that's the bigest problem with the bail out in general, most guys wanted to vote no for political reasons, but wanted it to pass at the same time.
Mostly because they know this bail out won't fix the current problem, it'll just catch an economy that's falling, and not nessicarily lift it. I can understand why one would have mixed feelings on it.



Anyway, on the subject of the debate itself, I think Palin did have a good strategy of changing the subject and making her own off topic points. Its better then her trying to answer things directly and fumbling like in interviews. And her off topic ramling actually made sence, they cleaned her up nice for the debate.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I agree strangler, and I agree that it may be a special circumstance. But I also think its very bad timing. I wouldn't have been mad at him for voting no for political reasons in this case. In the middle of an election where you're preaching one thing, you can't sit there and vote another way. If he'd have voted no and it passed, he'd have a good angle to pin Obama/Washington with.

But I think that's the bigest problem with the bail out in general, most guys wanted to vote no for political reasons, but wanted it to pass at the same time.
Mostly because they know this bail out won't fix the current problem, it'll just catch an economy that's falling, and not nessicarily lift it. I can understand why one would have mixed feelings on it.

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

I think its hippocritical though. I think he could have pushed for his own ideals more, maybe a very different version of the bailout could have passsed with more time. If he thought it was right, he shouldn't have acted like it wasn't after the fact. If he thought it was wrong, he shouldn't have voted yes for it. No matter how you write it up, there's a contradiction there.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

Because he caved to his party? We have individuals in office for a reason, to vote for what they believe is the best course.

What you're arguing makes absolutely no sense.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

Because he caved to his party? We have individuals in office for a reason, to vote for what they believe is the best course.

What you're arguing makes absolutely no sense.

When did I talk about caving into a party, and how do you see any evidence of that? He voted for what he thought was right in this instance, and against his party. Look at the numbers. More Republicans voted AGAINST both versions of the bill than Democrats, and McCain voted FOR the bill.

How is going against a party's majority vote translate to caving in to it? In fact, you could credit McCain for leading his party in the direction of voting for the second version of the bill.

I'm not the one making no sense...