Maybe McCain is hot to bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran because he read somewhere that war is "good" for the economy. But he may have missed the part that that is only the case when we actually have a manufacturing base and don't outsource everything.

I think McCain will take the White House...

There isn't any good news in the economy, and McCain cannot identify a single Republican economic policy that has produced any tangible benefit for most voters. The best he can do is try desperately to talk about anything else, except possibly the war in Iraq.

The point of elections it to throw out bad policies. You vote against things that didn't work. Election year politics is all about assigning blame for current failings, and voting to correct them. That is one of the best parts about Democracies, collective will affects policy. So ... McSame refuses to talk about how we got to our current predicament, plans on doing exactly what Bush did to get here, and will blame the Democrats for "election year politics" when it is entirely called for and helpful. Truly Bushian.

...and doggonnit, ideology and low interest rates will get us out!

Unfortunately I don't think any candidate has a plan for the economy that will materially lessen the blow that is in the mail, however, at least Hillary and Obama recognize that McCain's ideology falls short of self-examination. That is the irony of the Bush presidency. The right wingers got everything they could ever want, and then some. And what happened? Nothing short of unmitigated disaster. Their response? The conservatism wasn't pure enough. We need more dogmatic adherence to free markets, free trading, tax cuts and less of anything that involves the government. As the man says, a decision that we don't understand is evidence of a failure of ideas. And no more spectacular failure have I ever witnessed than the peculiar brand of political thought known as American conservatism.

PS I'm hurt my note on Bear Stearns didn't get editor approval. I thought it was pretty good...

Whoops- that's 'problem we don't understand', not 'decision'. A problem we don't understand is evidence of a failure of ideas. Whoa are we if so failed a brand of thought as conservatism gets another shot at tearing this country asunder...

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama says that if he were president, he'd take politically courageous stands while forging the consensus needed to enact universal health care, immigration revisions, global warming legislation and a withdrawal from Iraq.

His three-year record in the Senate, however, offers little evidence that he can do what he's promising. His party was in the minority for his first two years, and in the third he began campaigning for president and missed lots of time on Capitol Hill. He was absent from or only partly involved in some key bipartisan efforts to head off stalemates on judicial nominations, immigration and Iraq war policy.

But other senators — especially rivals Clinton and Republican John McCain — have been irked by what at times they considered Obama's holier-than-thou posturing.

Some others said they hadn't seen much evidence of Obama's desire or ability to cut deals, bring together disparate forces or engage on legislation that didn't fit into the political narrative he wants to shape for himself.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/31424.html

We need more dogmatic adherence to free markets, free trading, tax cuts and less of anything that involves the government.

However, it will still be the government's responsibility to bail the rich folks out with taxpayer money when their schemes go sour.

I don't feel that you have gone far enough into the opposing side Andrew. I can't say that you are wrong in any way, but I can say that it is hard to side with a writer who rushes his conclusion and editing process. I got hung up on numerous spots and run-ons. I am also confused with all of your quotations... Did McCain actually say all of that or did you summarize what he said? Big difference Mr. Leonard.

I consider my political belief swaying from side to side, and your artical isn't helping my Democratic side.

As for the title... Can you honestly say that it's a plan of his to "ignore the economy"? I would more likely say that it's his action, or current stand point, but hardly a plan.

Aside from your irritating diversion to the underserved Clinton Obama grudge match, the article and quotation doesn't really say anything about policy proposals, does it? So yours is a diversion and a complete non sequitur. Congratulations: your Clinton support is in perfect conformity with the rest in its dramatic departure from the realm of logic. Saying that, admittedly you're in a tought spot. Needing to be negative and realizing that, you were to actually discuss policy proposals, you'd have to recognize that Hillary just ripped off Obama's idea to convene an emergency working group on housing (not to mention John Edwards' health care plan amongst many other instances of high flattery). Not exactly the best credentials for the 'candidate with the plan'.

Still though, the article's premises, (that Obama's US Senate experience is his only political experience), and facts are woeful. In his short time as Senator, Obama has championed a fair bit of legislation, including most notably ethics reform and Obama-Lugar. On top of that there are the very significant achievements in the Illinois state legislature including on civil liberties (taped interrogations) and the death penalty. But hit pieces abound, some at his expense others at hers. Let's just get off the subject and focus on the reality that yet another Republican administration would be a tragedy for the American people, shall we?

Un/underemployment? Tax cut

Recession? Tax cut

Inflation? Tax cut

Trade deficit? Tax cut

Oil prices surging? Tax cut

Instability in capital markets? Tax cut

Credit crunch? Tax cut

You can pretty much assume that any GOP policy consists of Federal tax cuts that are eventually offset by state and local tax increases or budget gaps.

Un/underemployment? Tax cut, more spending

Recession? Tax cut, more spending

Inflation? Tax cut, more spending

Trade deficit? Tax cut, more spending

Oil prices surging? Tax cut, more spending

Instability in capital markets? Tax cut, more spending

Credit crunch? Tax cut, more spending

Perhaps closer to the truth