Conservativeslayer

"Soldiers are trained to obey orders, not to question if they are legal or illegal. Most wouldn't think twice upon shooting American citizens dead if ordered to do so."

Have you been a soldier before? If so and this is what you have been taught, then you had some pretty crappy leaders. Soldiers are taught that they have duty to disobey ANY illegal order issued by any superior if it goes against the UCMJ. And, using your own example, the soldiers who were found torturing people have been tried in a military court of law.

Let's be fair. I would MUCH rather BOTH Senators get back to Washington to address this critical issue.

And again to be fair, McCain has been after a debate for months and now there is a crisis. Seems to me they could always debate AFTER this vote is over.

It appears Bill Clinton seems to think this was a good idea according to his statement today to Chris Cuomo on ABC's Good Morning America

Well gpbjwb,

Even if Fred Thompson's campaign advisor thinks this is a brilliant strategy, so does Bill Clinton. So it may actually BE a good strategy. After all, Bill Clinton has been President before and had to know something to get into office.

"Bill Clinton won for a number of reasons and part of that was that he did have a certain charisma, and Bush Sr. did not, throw in a little Perot, and he won. Bill Clinton wasn't all that helpful to his wife, even when he meant well."

Absolutely true...but he also was an extremely popular President and you can't get that way without knowing how the general populace will react. This move may allow McCain to look like a good leader, as has been suggested.

Bill isn't a dummy so he may have a point here.

Done That,

"What if this is all being done to test the American public's opinion of "temporarily" calling off the presidential election due to the current financial crisis? If the public shrugs about not holding any debates or the public hails McCain as a statesman, what's to stop Cheney/Bush from suspending the presidential election until the financial crisis is averted?"

Well since precedence has not been set for this being possible, I seriously doubt anyone could prevent a presidential election. Actually, since we have had elections even during WWI and WWII, precedence has been set to continue with the election, come what may.

Interesting question though.

bernbart,

"I hear Obama is good at playing poker. Call his bluff Obama keep to your commitment to show up at the debate. If McCain does not show up Obama wins."

Uh, no Obama wouldn't. Even Bill Clinton thinks McCain made a good move. It also didn't look good for Obama that he didn't go until summoned. Not a good thing to have happen, at least when it comes to publicity.

Both are needed to sway votes that might not otherwise vote for this bill, from what I understand. So they really aren't there to just vote for it as they are to garner support for it.

FTA: "The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections."

So, if this bill really IS so great, why don't the Democrats just go ahead and pass it? They have the votes to do it and President Bush says he will sign it.

So what's the holdup with the Democrats???

Since McCain will be there for the debate tonight, I guess we'll finally get to see it.

About time.

Johnnyd,

"There's still time to reverse...the "suspension" error and try to recover. But it's too late to fix the Palin decision."

I haven't heard ANYONE suggest McCain should reverse the Palin decision...yet I have heard people suggest Obama should reverse the Biden decision.

Who has suggested McCain should drop Palin in the Republican arena? Just curious.

So NOBODY likes this bill...so then WHY are they voting for it???

Seems to me if both Democrats and Republicans hate the bill, they need to vote against it and try to come up with another, better one.

Sort of frightening when BOTH parties think the thing stinks but feel like they HAVE to vote for it!!!

Philadelphia Steve,

"So much for John McCain riding into town to "save the day!""

I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who suspended the vote to try to get more Democrats onboard.

Anyway, I personally think this was the best thing I could hope for. I think if we have to suffer, we all should suffer together rather than the taxpayers suffer to bail out those banks who didn't use proper lending practises.

"It's generally worth reading the article before commenting, even if all you're doing is link-spamming. This was a bi-partisan "no"."

True, but it WAS the Republicans who lead the charge at saying No while Speaker Pelosi pushed for it.

"Did the Reps who voted NO do so out of a solid understanding of economic policy (HA!) or did they just do so because Main Street was up in arms (as if Main Street has a solid understanding of how credit works on a global scale...) in an election year?"

You may as well ask how many Democrats voted yes for the same reasons.

Frankly, I say who cares WHY they voted no as long as they did.