Unanswered Question Watch: What On Earth Was Obama Talking About On Executive Compensation and the Bailout Bill?
EmailYesterday I asked just what policy proposal Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., could possibly have been talking about when he said, "the American people should not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess."
What does that mean? Zero compensation for these executives? A firewall between the government aid and salaries/bonuses for executives?
It’s an issue because Democrats on Capitol Hill say such a proposal doesn’t make any sense.
So, it’s a day later and still no answer from Camp Obama as to what he meant.
- jpt
UPDATE: The Obama campaign responds with the following:
"The answer is the same type of oversight and authority to limit CEO compensation that was put into the Fannie/Freddie legislation this summer, and which Democratic lawmakers are currently working on in the context of the bailout package.
"* The legislation passed in July gave the Fannie/Freddie regulator the authority to review CEO compensation packages. Specifically, Sec. 1114 allowed the director to ‘prohibit or limit’ any payments to CEOs that were ‘contingent on the termination’ of their affiliation (HR 3221).
"* On Sept. 9, Obama wrote a letter to Paulson and Lockhart (Fannie/Freddie regulator), urging them to use this provision to eliminate the golden parachute payments to the outgoing CEOs of Fannie and Freddie (full text of the letter is below). (On the same day, McCain/Palin wrote an op-ed in the WSJ praising the administration’s Fannie/Freddie plan, while not even mentioning the CEO comp issue).
"* Now, Democratic lawmakers are working on provisions that would limit executive compensation in important ways. When Obama says we should not be spending any taxpayer money to reward CEOs, he is referring to ensuring that these types of provisions are in the final bill to avoid unjust enrichment.
"* If you look at Sec. 17 of Sen. Dodd’s draft legislation, it includes a) authority to the secretary to limit excessive compensation packages; b) a clawback provision for performance-based compensation in circumstances of earnings restatements; and c) limits on golden parachutes.
"* If you look at Sec. 9 of Rep. Frank’s draft legislation, it includes similar provisions, including a prohibition on severance payments."
The Obama campaign concludes: "Obama is closely working with congressional leaders to determine the exact parameters of these provisions. But he has clearly and consistently articulated the principle that such restrictions must be included to ensure that the taxpayer resources being put on the line do not go to unjustly enrich CEOs and management of these institutions."
None of that, by the way, is ensuring that "not one dime" goes to greedy CEOs. "Unjust enrichment" is a totally different thing.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Obama doesn’t know. He shoot off his mouth like this all the time. He is unable “to unite around a common-sense, practical, non-ideological effort to solve some very big problems that we face.”
Posted by: geevill | September 25, 2008, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
“…when Paulson took over Goldman Sachs in 1999, they had $20 billion in debts. When he—in these high-risk gambles. When he left, they had $100 billion, which means he took their risk level from $20 billion to $100 billion. So it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that Henry Paulson, far from speaking for Main Street, is actually bailing out his colleagues for some of the very debts that he himself accumulated. This is an extraordinary conflict of interest…”
democracynow
Posted by: McHooverville | September 25, 2008, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
He’s waiting for Hillary to get back to him to tell him what to say.
Posted by: Keith | September 25, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Hey Jake… seriously? We, the tax payers, shouldn’t be held responsible for the IRRESPONSIBLE spending and lending practices of those on Wall Street. What’s so confusing?
Posted by: Doug | September 25, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
You are interpreting “reward” as financial compensation – he could also be meaning saving their companies from failure. That is also a reward. If the companies don’t go under more likely the CEO will get to keep their bank accounts.
Posted by: Wayne T | September 25, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Isn’t it pretty obvious that he’s talking about severance packages for CEOs that left their companies (and our economy) in shambles?
Don’t reward the greedy…
Posted by: Chris | September 25, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Obama makes generic statements that like healing the planet, stopping the rise of oceans. This belongs to the same category.
Jake, can you please ask Harry Reid why he said what he said about John McCain before saying yesterday he doesn’t need McCain to come to D.C. Is he playing politics in this hour of economic turmoil?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Roger Miller | September 25, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
McHooverville,
Goldman Sachs is Obama’s number one contributor. So who has the “conflict of interest”?
Posted by: Keith | September 25, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Wait, and he will tell you! Don’t go trying to make soemething out of nothing! He has insight you don’thave.
Posted by: fempharoh08 | September 25, 2008, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
Personally, I’m with Obama on this and I suspect most of the Republicans here are as well if we had a non-partisan moment.
But then, we aren’t the power brokers and we should know better than to expect them to be treated like the rest of us.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
“the American people should not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess”
C’mon Jake! Obviously he’s talking about the millions, no BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses and stock options CEO’s of troubled firms like Fanny Mae and Lehman will walk away with if this plan is approved. Under the proposal from the Bush Administration, there is no stipulation restricting golden parachutes.
Posted by: Francis | September 25, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
mack sez:
Can’t he just eat his damm waffles in peace?
————————————
Please pass the saltines.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Be patient. Obama is checking with political adviser #2433 to find out why he said that in the first place. Obama thinks he knows the answer, but he wants to make sure it’s the opposite of what he said the day before.
Hang on — here comes the answer. It didn’t come from adviser #2433; Michelle told him to say that. He’s trying to get her on her cell now to find out what it all means.
Posted by: Richenwald | September 25, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Did you really expect an answer, he’s got to wait and see what everyone else figures out first. Geez Jake give him a couple days, at least till the bill is passed.
Posted by: samhiguchi | September 25, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
Jake I thought it was pretty Clear that he opposed any bonuses and golden parachutes. period.
Kind of hard to put a figure on it, just that shouldn’t be any. Everyone gets paid even when they do a bad job, just don’t get bonuses.
Posted by: Thinking | September 25, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
Some here would rather pay a years worth of taxes to a fat cat with a jet than consider that it might be a common ground issue.
This is why we are sheeple (I love that word).
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
The problem is the government should go over the books for these companies especially the Fannies and go back in history and if any shakey items are going on then the CEO’s at that time should have to pay back any bonuses they received with interest! That would mean Obamas economic aids would have to pay back the 100′s of millions they got from Fannie may.
Now the new CEO’s that bring the companies back to stand on their own should get bonuses! paid after the tax payers get their money back!
By the way Paulson is a far left liberal that is friends with Sen Schumer (D) of NY who got him this job.
And who was in the middle of the bank collapse Schumer Interesting HUH!
Who is in the middle of alot of this Barney Frank!
Posted by: spock | September 25, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
This is about more than golden parachutes. Read section 8 of the proposal. Paulson wants 100% control over the Treasury–our money– without checks and balances. This is a stick up, nothing more.
Posted by: McHooverville | September 25, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Lessee, 700 billion divided by 300 million is about $2333. That means for my wife and myself about $4666. Hmmm…
Posted by: Bill Graves | September 25, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
He’s right! The CEO of the companies that we have BAILED OUT deserve NOTHING! They already have tens of millions in the bank! I would take it a step further and say they should ALL be forced to resign! They didn’t have a problem laying off their workers! Why should they be allowed to keep their jobs?!
Posted by: Dawn | September 25, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Thanks Bill Bored,
But Obama said it so it must be wrong.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Jake:
Speaking of unanswered questions, thought you might like this from the pool report today:
POLITICO: Do you support the reelection bids of embattled Alaska Republicans, Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens?
A: Ted Stevens trial started a couple days ago. We’ll see where that goes.
POLITICO: Are you gong to vote for them?
[no answer.]
Posted by: anon | September 25, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
I guess all rich people should give all their money to the poor so that they may become rich… The govn’t should not bail out any company. I blame the people too for getting mortgages that they knew they couldn’t afford in the first place. Oh, my bad, Bush made them take out these outrageous loans….
Don’t put your faith in Money, it will always fail you.
Posted by: Joe V | September 25, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
I take that last comment back in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
Uh, “reward” and “compensation” don’t mean the same thing, do they?
Posted by: Teri B. | September 25, 2008, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
Re: “By the way Paulson is a far left liberal”
What a LIE. Paulson used to work in the Nixon Administration for Erlichmann.
This is all republican VOO DOO economic polciies.
All you Republicans ever do is lie and steal, going all the way back to Hoover and Nixon. When are people going to wake up. When we’re broke and we have no rights left?!
Posted by: McHooverville | September 25, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
Joe V,
Strangely I’m finding myself in agreement with you. I’d better go lay down for a while.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
Are you still clueless about what Barack Obama was talking about? Folks at the Hill aren’t clueless. Are you unaware that the Democrats AND Republicans on the Hill ARE trying to make sure CEO’s don’t walk away with millions of dollars in a severance package if their companies are bailed out by the government, especially since poor management drove them into this mess in the first place? I’m not clueless about this. It’s very clear. Maybe you didn’t check your blackberry for the proper facts before you wrote this blog.
Posted by: dumbpeoplescareme | September 25, 2008, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
The bailout is to keep liquidity in the market, not to “reward” the folks who failed. Compensation and reward are also not the same thing. My clients don’t “reward” me, they pay my bill. If they give me an unexpected bonus beyond the negotiated amount then that could be called a reward.
Posted by: carsick | September 25, 2008, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
Jake,
No doubt, it’s a relevant question. I think if we look back at all of the other statements Barack has been making over the course of the past two weeks, we’d have to infer that he meant no golden parachutes.
Posted by: Jade | September 25, 2008, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
Re: “The bailout is to keep liquidity in the market, not to “reward” the folks who failed.”
Bull. It’s a give away for crooks.
Posted by: McHooverville | September 25, 2008, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
I have that question myself? Why would the taxpayer be compensating these executives for their failures?
They have been hauling in tens of thousands of dollars annually in personal Salaries and bonuses while there blind greed was destroying the entire American economy.
What is one good reason why we should we be giving them one single dime of the taxpayers money now???????
Posted by: Truth Matters | September 25, 2008, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
Jake
I think they aren’t calling you back because …to most people it means exactly what he said
that no one should eb rewarding CEO’s that fail.
does that mean they don’t get a salary at all…no not necessarily
But it means that they do not get “rewarded”…
pretty basic but each CEO will be different just as each company, level of competance and infraction is different.
Sorry but…Just not sure why there is a question here.
Posted by: dl | September 25, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
Jake, you may be the only person in the country who doesn’t know what that means.
Posted by: Robert Fast | September 25, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
Wow 18 point spread on Intrade now.
Don’t just do something,..stand there.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
Jake, you need bloggers to explain that to you, it’s pretty clear what he said, and I agree…
Posted by: matt | September 25, 2008, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
Robert,
Jake is accurately pointing out that Obamas comment and intent are diametrically opposed to the invisible hand that is manipulating this charade.
The unspoken rule is that the rich take care of each other and if you want to play you won’t forget that fact.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
and
TJ Clintonite
is that why all the points that Obama came out with almost immediately are exactly the changes that are being made to the proposal that Bush put on the table
and McCain started talking about finally YESTERDAY
ugh.
Posted by: dl | September 25, 2008, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Posted by: ASoIaF | September 25, 2008, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
Also, reasearch Keating 5. Big bailouts is nothing new to McCain. He pressured congress to stop investigations against his friend’s Savings and Loans company over 20 years ago. His friend got $2 Billion dollars for his failing company.
Can you please explain John’s McCain’s role in the Keating 5 Savings and Loans scandal? How much did that 2 billion dollar bailout cost taxpayers and how much of that type of deregulation caused the current crisis?
Posted by: dumbpeoplescareme | September 25, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
It doesn’t strike me as rocket science. Its what most Americans are saying and thousands of people are calling their congress people about. We do not want the people at places like Lehnam Brothers to make a profit off the mess they have taken this country into with their greed. Go outside for a cup of coffee. The guy who sells newspapers on the corner will explain it to you – you don’t have to wait for word from Campaign Obama.
Posted by: mara | September 25, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
I guess linking to other sites is forbidden, because they’ve removed my earlier post as well as someone else’s who provided a link.
So again, here are some ideas put forth by Democrats that may be in line with what Obama is talking about:
A. The people who caused the problem or profited most should pay for it
1. Highly compensated executives total compensation should be capped or taxed heavily as a condition for being bailed out.
2. Tobin tax on all transactions in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate including currency transactions.
3. Government takes an equity stake, proportionate to the size of the bailout
4. Tax hedge fund managers’ income
5. Accountability – fire executives of failed companies as done in the UK, and abrogate their severance packages.
6. Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers.
Posted by: Bill Bored | September 25, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
A Barry gaffe? I thought that was Biden’s role in the Obama campaign!
But no doubt Obama will clarify, then clarify the clarification, as necessary, over the coming days and weeks…
Posted by: Jon Do | September 25, 2008, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
Will someone please explain what is happening to Jon Do, he needs to be brought along with the rest of us.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
Does anyone know if Obama wins, can we replace Reid with Hillary??
Please say yes.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Did everyone forget that McCain, himself, admitted that he didn’t know much about the economy? What good is he going to do done there on Capitol Hill? He should have picked Romney to be his VP. At least McCain wouldn’t have to shield Romney from the press because he DOES know something about the economy.
Posted by: dumbpeoplescareme | September 25, 2008, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
He is right, if anything THEY SHOULD DIG DEEP INTO THEIR POCKETS AND PAY US BACK!!!
Posted by: beck | September 25, 2008, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
He is saying, ” No one should walk away from this a millionaire when we are apying the bill, and loosing our home.”
Is that hard to understand? I think he is right….
Posted by: militarymom | September 25, 2008, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
I think Jake knew this, but with all the crap being thrown at McCain (and rightly so), Jake needed to keep things objective and bias.
Posted by: James | September 25, 2008, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
McCain will fade into obscurity in a few days.
McCain’s best days are behind him.
Posted by: Lookupl | September 25, 2008, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
geevil…what is McCains answer? DEREGULATION….DDaaaaaa Been there done that…or ” The economy is FUNDAMENTALLY STABLE.”
Posted by: newkid | September 25, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Obama’s words and positions changes with the wind.
Thankfully, John McCain has the courage and grit to help hammer out an American solution to this economic crisis.
McCain chose to put country first!
Obama got caught whining.
McCain’s leadership on this matter will prevail, and I think he’ll be able to rally members from both sides to get a deal done for the American people.
Action speaks louder than words. Obama should have learned that lesson a long time ago. I guess his handlers failed to tell Obama that you don’t just talk about a crisis, you deal with it by taking it on and finding a solution.
John McCain gets it. Obama is still studying his notes.
McCain-Palin ’08
Hillary 2012
PUMA
Posted by: USVet | September 25, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Breaking News:
Agreement reached per CNBC.
Thanks Mr. McCain, you only had to threaten that you would come down and kick some a** for the thing to get done.
Now, back to the debates…..
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Just put them in jail, seize their assets like Mr. Keating before the bailout. These people are robbers. What is the sentence for a convenient store robbers ?, multiply it accordingly.
Posted by: pete | September 25, 2008, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Obviously the telepromptr was not working and there is no answer. But. There is sure to be a bailout for the US auto industry so that 0bama can get some extra Michigan votes …. the only way he can possibly win now is to game the system — his usual stock-in-trade and get the Chicago dead to vote.
Posted by: beebop | September 25, 2008, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
Who here thinks the executives are going to work for free?
Posted by: MayBee | September 25, 2008, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
MayBee,
You mean, like, compensation under 400/1?
What do you consider to be ‘free’?
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
New Gallup Poll just released:
PRINCETON, NJ — John McCain has gained ground and is now tied with Barack Obama among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Sept. 22-24, with each candidate getting 46% support.
Posted by: USVet | September 25, 2008, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
“There is sure to be a bailout for the US auto industry so that 0bama can get some extra Michigan vote”
You mean the retooling for more hybrids that McCain has come around to support?
Posted by: Ryan C | September 25, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
What he really meant was……
Posted by: Mack | September 25, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
McCain gaining ground in Red States!
yay!
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | September 25, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Good news Jake! Governor Palin took questions today from reporters while near Ground Zero in Manhattan.
Were you there? Did you get to ask your questions?
Posted by: Zank | September 25, 2008, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
There should not be one dime spent on this bail out. Other options should be explored.
Posted by: DMR | September 25, 2008, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
“New Gallup Poll just released:
PRINCETON, NJ — John McCain has gained ground and is now tied with Barack Obama among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Sept. 22-24, with each candidate getting 46% support.”
Hah! I love it.
Posted by: Mack | September 25, 2008, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
Like Rezko get 14 million after the home loan deal with Obama?
Posted by: Joe | September 25, 2008, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
How much Bank scandel actually follows McCain? Well, He was investigated and largely exonerated in a political influence scandal of the 1980s as a member of the ‘Keating Five’. His connection to Rick Davis, who imbezzeled money from Fannie Mae, as early as last Month. And was one of his sons, who was a bank auditor, mysteriously left his job , two months before going bankrupt.
I have a question, about any other organizations, he may be a part of.
Americans may be curious to know which one. I suggest transparency be implemented. At least that is McCains platform. It still is, Right?
And guess what, about Todd Palin?
:)
Of course, Sarah could not join. But she could speak at a group meeting. She’s a Female. Only Men join this group. Women join the OTHER ONE. :)
Who wants the answers?
Who is waiting for the book, to come out?
How many people all ready know?
Posted by: historyforgotten | September 25, 2008, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
So I have a question based on what Jake wrote: “It’s an issue because Democrats on Capitol Hill say such a proposal doesn’t make any sense.” Which Democrats, Jake? Name them. Bet Camp Jake won’t get back to me before he deletes this post.
Posted by: ricky | September 25, 2008, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
Mack: You are right. Yesterday, Rush L. found out as he always does that the 52% was a bogus and not true. It was inflated to make voters believe that Obama would win the election. I thought it was a gimmick in the beginning. That’s the news media and Obama’s camp. Obama was losing ground so they had to do something quick and crooked.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | September 25, 2008, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Spock is right. Paulson is a sell out. I cannot believe RINO’s like McCain are surrendering the Reagan Revolution to Nancy SFValues Pelosi and BFFrank.
Posted by: Bill D. Fence | September 25, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
It has been almost twenty minutes with no answer from Camp Tapper. He hasn’t even copied the other ABC post on Biden, so he can’t really be busy. Obama mentioned “dime” in his statement about executive compnesation. Was that a backdoor attempt through a coinage reference to play the race card via currency? There is a white President on the dime. Or is Obama knocking Roosevelt’s injuries? FDR’s people don’t want him to talk about that.
Posted by: ricky | September 25, 2008, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
Seems pretty clear to me. He’s talking about things like the $2.5 billion “bankruptcy bonus” that the folks at Lehman have set aside for themselves. Who on earth has ever heard of executives rewarding themselves for bankrupting their company. Carly Fiorina came close when she got a $42 million golden parachute after forcing down HP’s stock prices and laying off 20,000 employees.
The Lehman boys make her look like a piker.
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | September 25, 2008, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
Obama was fine with Jim Johnson getting 25 million golden parachute.
Jim Johnson is still on the Obama campaign.
Jim Johnson would head Obama’s transition.
Posted by: Jeff | September 25, 2008, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
Since the CEO’s are the cause of Lehman’s downfall plus make out of control salaries for themselves the government should have them pay back one million dollars each out of their own money and I am sure they have several millions of dollars in the bank. What plan does the government have for bailing them out and is the the government going to raise the taxpayer’s to cover the cost of the bail out. Biden and Ron Paul both said we should not bail them out. If we bail them out what happens next and if we don’t bail them out will we have a repeat of 1929? According to the news house republican’s have not signed to a bail out. And what happened to Obama. He looked like he was reading a script posted to the wall. McCain was speaking in front of an audience.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | September 25, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
I don’t understand why there has to be debates when the candidates say what they mean in their campaigning. I believe its a waste of time. Obama took three days training for this debate and he doesn’t care about the country just about himself. Why did he need training. McCain doesn’t need training. If elected will Obama need training again? Or will Biden be running the country while Obama stands in back of him. It was rumored that Biden might step down. I really don’t think he wants the job of VP.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | September 25, 2008, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
Force the executives to go to humiliating credit counseling sessions. If its good enough for ordinary people, its good enough for them.
Then, hold their arms behind their backs while the rest of us smack the *7&^% out of them.
Posted by: Mike | September 25, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
When obama opens his mouth with out his team taking 2 days to make up a scripted message, he always has to put his foot in his mouth for not making sense, then spends the next 5 days explaining away and making excuses for what he said.
Obama is worthless and Cares only about himself, his image and getting votes.
Obama has proven that over many times.
Posted by: seah | September 25, 2008, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
LP says: What do you consider to be ‘free’?
===
I consider “not one dime” to be free.
Posted by: MayBee | September 25, 2008, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
No, what the Congressional Delegation was afraid of was that McCain would do to the hold-outs exactly the same thing that he has been threatening to do regarding “pork” earmark requests:
“I will make them famous….you will know their names and I will make them famous….”
No one wants to be the ones blamed for an agreement not being reached.
With House members up every two years, every Presidential year is also a HOUSE ELECTION year…………………
Posted by: SandyB | September 25, 2008, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
“I don’t understand why there has to be debates when the candidates say what they mean in their campaigning.”
Ladies and gentleman I give you John McCain’s base, the willfully ignorant voter.
We seriously need to improve education in this country before the easily led herd of right wingers drives us off a cliff.
Posted by: Ryan C | September 25, 2008, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
Ryan C:
I agree with you. These right wingers are ignorant and easily fooled. Now our country is being looted by GOP crooks.
Thanks right wingers! No go back to your home school.
Posted by: McHooverville | September 25, 2008, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Because he really has no clue? His advisors need more time to think of something? He wants to figure out another way to blame McCain?–or Hillary? He’s going to give back the money he got from them? He just wants to see what everone else says first?
Posted by: RL in Illinois | September 25, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
As Dorothy Parker woud say…
What fresh hell today?
Posted by: i am so I can!!!! | September 25, 2008, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
Roger Miller
Barack Obama will heal the planet. He is the One and the movement is spreading. He will be POTUS and McCain and the republican neanderthals will be sent back to their caves.
Look at the polls.
Posted by: obama ascension | September 25, 2008, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
Maybe the CEOs should stand in corner for a two hour special on TV and receive no compensation for driving Wall Street and main street into the ditch. Maybe Bush should too for waiting 38 days before an election instead of taking care of this years ago. McCain just hugged Bush a second time on this disgraceful grandstanding for what? So he can score a few brownie points.
Posted by: Mark | September 25, 2008, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
Maybe this is just the natural correction that was always coming…Maybe the Repubs are just claiming a severe problem to reward their friends one last time. If this is so dire, why did GWB invite the candidateds and true to plot, the thing fell apart? Maybe this is just a very severe case of politics and smearing… after all, if the action is monstrous enough, who would EVER believe it is done by peoiple in trusted positions? This makes no sense , given the narrative leading up to this situation, unless it is a set-up somehow. Maybe the Democrats had better not support this initiative. It is beginning to really reek of phoney.
Posted by: Curtis | September 26, 2008, 1:50 am 1:50 am
C’mon Jake–you’re smarter than that! Obama specifically said “reward”–not “give” as you have erroneously stated in your closing paragraph. Try pondering for a while on the difference between these two verbs and get back with me on it.
Posted by: Nixon's the One | September 26, 2008, 7:46 am 7:46 am
Oops…I should have more closely read your words: you stated “goes to” — which is even more different than Obama’s “reward.”
Posted by: Nixon's the One | September 26, 2008, 7:53 am 7:53 am
Jake – Could you do an “UNANSWERED QUESTION” clock for the blog so you can time how long it took each campaign to get back to your unanswered questions? It took Obama’s camp 24hrs ish to get back to you and you’re still awaiting an answer on the Ted Stevens question. It’d be nice to see a running tally – to which you can add time for future unanswered questions from both campaigns.
Posted by: kyle | September 26, 2008, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm