Comments on: The End for McCain?

By: aaron

aaron — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:52:30 +0000

This election remains extremely close – a difference of 3.2 percentage points according to RCP at 1:51pm EDT (including a tie according to Gallup).

Yes, McCain has been impulsive and, frankly that is our only hope for a 10 point margin of victory. But, the fact is that the election is still extremely close, there are 40 days left and all the debates still to go. And, neither one is a particularly great debater (rewatch the 1996 presidential debates – now there’s a mismatch!)

I think it’s too early to be calling this ‘The End for McCain’.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:22:47 +0000

By the way, I think the President acknowledged in his statement that a bipartisan commission would oversee the expenditure of the proposed $700 billion. So is it fair for us to continue calling it a “blank check”? (I’m not up to speed on the nature of scope of this commission the president referred to.)

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:20:53 +0000

Alowrun: (welcome) I’m confused about your question because I’m thinking there’s a distinction between the government regulating finance and the government buying up bad debt. If these financial institutions sell these bad mortgage-backed securities to the federal government, and the government pays for them with this $700 billion, would that be something to which the 10th Amendment refers?

By: John

John — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:18:09 +0000

I wonder if it isn't a ploy to cancel the VP debate by looking responsible. Some people are buying the selfless McCain argument.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:16:40 +0000

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but I think Congress’s financial powers have significantly been expanded since the Constitution was written. You could argue that the tenth amendment covers financial markets, though that’s ultimately a question for the Supreme Court. The issue for me is the character of that bailout. A blank check for the SecTreas does seems like a serious erosion of the spirit of checks and balances, though.

By: alowrun

alowrun — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:02:56 +0000

Forgive me for regressing, but given the President’s address to the nation tonight regarding the imminent financial crisis, I thought I’d pose a constitutional hypothetical.

The Tenth Amendment, or the constitutional embodiment of federalism, precludes the Congress from overstepping their authority over the States. However, there are a some exceptions.

Specifically, in matters of spending, Congress may enact federal statutes over the states if it is done 1) unambiguously, 2) for the general welfare 3) under the national interest.

Furthermore, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3), the Congress is afforded the right to regulate 1) persons, or things that that are within the stream of commerce 2) the avenues within the states through which objects of commerce travel 3) items that are substantially related to commerce.

Collectively, do you think Congress has the constitutional authority to bail out the economy with a $700 billion “blank check”

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:02:20 +0000

God I hope so for all our sakes!

I think it’s reasonable to assume that McCain is drowning right now, and Palin’s unwillingness to talk to the media makes her seem like a fraud (which she is).

It is absolutely correct, I think, that McCain is exploiting this economic crisis to avoid debating Obama at a time when McCain is likely to get creamed on these economic issues. Obama drives this point home by demanding McCain keep his word and debate. There are some polls showing Obama ahead in Florida, not to mention Virginia — which could mean an electoral landslide for Obama compared to past elections.

But could he win by a 10-point margin in the popular vote? That’s more than I’ve ever hoped for. There are just too many people who still trust the right-wing wackos on television, I think.

This economic crisis was the 3 a.m. phone call Hillary warned of — and Obama is handling it beautifully, in my opinion, while McCain veers from one ill-considered idea (a commission? Really?) to the next (fire Chris Cox?! Now?!) to the next (“suspend” his presidential campaign?!).