Do you think suspending a debate is a smart political move?

Your explanation is way too biased, but I agree with it. It makes McCain look like he's just playing political games.

Clearly, it was a mistake since everyone trashed McCain for it. Though, my personal reaction was that it wasn't that unreasonable. Given that either Obama or McCain will end up being the president who has to live with whatever bailout is done, it seems like they should both be a significant part of the negotiations. The debate can easily be rescheduled.

John McCain in the Presidential debate came out a winner in Foreign Affairs and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama he scares me not knowing a thing about war in the Middle East and the quick withdraw of American Troops in
the Middle East could set us up for another terrorist attack on American soil .

Not gonna answer. Got good advice to ignore you y'alls and your politics. Closing my eyes, plugging my ears, humming loudly, swaying from side to side - hey! ! ! Sounds like the Election Dance!

It depends on whether your tribal affiliation is with the candidate or not.

Depends. If you're a bad public speaker and/or don't know what you're talking about and/or are ahead in the polls, its a very smart (albeit cynical and dishonest) move. If you're behind and/or you think you can out debate the other person, then its a dumb move.

In McCain's case, it was a retarded decision, not to mention cynical, but apparanlty he reached his senses in the very last minute.

I think it would only be a good move if actually having the debate would go so badly that he'd look worse than he would look by trying to get out of it. I thought he did fine in the debate (not that I agreed with him on anything), so that's not the case. I think it was strange that he tried to get out of it, especially because his excuse was that he wanted to spend his time scuttling the financial rescue plan that the country desperately needs. Odd choice.

Only if you're ugly. :)

seemed like a gimmick

What a mess the GOP is. Hopefully, this is their world tumbling down upon them.

> I think it would only be a
> good move if actually having
> the debate would go so badly
> that he'd look worse than
> he would look by trying to
> get out of it. I thought he
> did fine in the debate (not
> that I agreed with him on
> anything), so that's not the
> case. I think it was strange
> that he tried to get out of
> it, especially because his
> excuse was that he wanted
> to spend his time scuttling
> the financial rescue plan
> that the country desperately
> needs. Odd choice.

I thought he seemed nervous.

It really depends on WHY the candidate wants to suspend the debate. I don't think it was wise for McCain to attempt to suspend this debate, as the reasoning was not sound, and it just made people think he was trying to get out of having the VP debate.

I didn't think of it that way, that's a good rebuttal.

It definitely seemed like he was a little worried about how he would do, especially after his gaining a reputation for not being a particularly good speech-giver. On the other hand, my SO and I were just talking last night about how different the debates are this election. There's no one trying to get out of them (McCain was really just trying to delay, I think), no bargaining over how many there will be, who will be at them, what the questions will be, etc. Both candidates seem to have a "bring it on" attitude about them. They both think of themselves as politicians in the mold of the great orators of the past (as my SO noted, McCain thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt and Obama thinks he's Lincoln) and embracing the debate is part of that image.

I thought and thought about that when you said that in qual, but I failed to see the bias in it. I always look forward to comments inqual to make a better survey, but I just did not see where the bias was.

Your use of the word "posture" and the reference to the Wall Street Journal editorial expressing an opinion are what struck me as expressing a bias. Now I happen to agree that McCain was just posturing, but that's clearly an opinion on the matter and therefore stating so biases the question.

I had no idea. I based the question from an article I read. I picked as few key words and phrases merely to explain a situation to maybe a few from out of town. I guess I should not have said postured becasue I have no idea what it means. The WSJ being stunned is to me not an opinion on anything other than being out of the ordinary.way. 'Stunned' to me means surprise. Obviously it was a tactic, too. That is not opinion, that's fact.

of course not.

didn't seem to work out too well in his case.