Sunday political shows, let the spin begin!

The Sunday political shows were lit with spin and chat today following Friday’s presidential debate. Surrogates and campaign spokespeople were out in full force for each campaign to spin the debate in their respective candidate’s direction. Sen. Barack Obama made an appearance on Face the Nation and Sen. John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos on This Week.

One of the main topics, of course, was the $700 billion economic bail out plan still being hammered out by congress as I type this.

First, the surrogate discussions so you can see how each campaign is presenting things. Here is the broadcast of Meet the Press with strategists from both campaigns:

Next, here’s Sen. Obama on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, sorry for the video quality:

Report on Obama’s interview from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama says he is inclined to support a proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street being negotiated by lawmakers.

Obama says a tentative agreement reached early Sunday includes several principles he proposed, including increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.

Obama says he is unhappy about the agreement, but says it is necessary.

Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout plan because he believes Main Street is now at stake. Obama spoke in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Finally, here’s Sen. McCain on This Week:

Report on McCain’s interview from ABC News:

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that he plans to “hopefully” support the $700 billion emergency bailout package negotiated by Congress and the administration.

“I’d like to see the details,” McCain told George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive “This Week” interview. “And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”

When asked if his principles had been met, McCain responded “Yes, protect the taxpayer, make sure that there isn’t excessive compensation for CEOs, a oversight body, not leaving all the decisions in the hands of one individual.”

McCain, who declared on Wednesday that he would “suspend” his campaign to deal with the bailout, explained his role in the process, saying, “I came back because I wasn’t going to phone it in. And America’s in a — in a crisis of almost unprecedented proportions. I should be doing whatever little I can to help this process.”

So, depending on the details and language, both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama want to support the bailout plan if their respective principles are met.

Ultimately the candidates and the pundits can put forth their positions but the American people watched the debate and saw it all for themselves. Sometimes it takes days to figure out what aspects of exchanges between Obama and McCain actually took hold with voters and what they went away thinking.

Working on some more video to come later from Fox News Sunday with some McCain and Obama surrogates.

  • The bailout plan is a bad idea on so many levels. That neither candidate is asking tough questions about it is a big disappointment.

    Dave
    http://www.islandersoftware.com/weblog/2008/09/27/just-say-no-to-the-bailout-plan/

  • Christopher Schwinger

    The annoying thing is that the news media constantly talks about McCain and Obama being able to win certain constituencies of Americans, distracting from issues of treason.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Dave, check this out. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080926.html
    THIS candidate is saying the right stuff. http://www.baldwin08.com

  • Andrew

    Christopher Schwinger,

    THIS candidate [Chuck Baldwin] is saying the right stuff.

    No. No, he is not.

    “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

    This is from his own party’s Preamble to their platform. They claim to want to limit the federal government to strict constitutional guidelines, while simultaneously stating that those guidelines are Biblically based. I find it amazing that a strict constitutionalists party cannot make it past the first sentence of their own platform without a reference to Jesus when the founding fathers where able to make it through the entire Constitution without the name Jesus ever coming up. Constitutionalists are all the same. They all want a very strict interpretation of our constitution that miraculously aligns perfectly with their socio-economic and religious beliefs.

    But I guess I don’t get to complain, it is (according to Mr. Baldwin and his party) by the grace of Christians that I’m not stoned to death in the US for having a different belief.

  • JD

    I have a question for the Usual conservatives on Youdecide2008.com. You all know who you are.

    This is concerning the Bailout and the financial fiasco we are in. Everyone here has for the most part agree that the Fannie\Feddie, AIG, Meryl Lynch, Washington Mutual fall out are not good signs.

    I too have a hard time with this buy out but all these failing banks do point out an economy which is shaken.

    Not too long ago Phil Gramm was caught calling this nation, ” A Nation of Whiners”…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AKrVptIdwQ

    All you Republicans(I don’t lump you all as conservatives)agreed with what he was saying. So knowing what you know now, was\is America whining or were we all trying to tell Washington something but it was falling on deaf ears?

    Curious to hear your responses even though you all may not give them.

  • JD

    For those of you who don’t know who Phil Gramm is:

    He was McCain’s presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser until he stepped down in July 2008 because of the heat he drew from the Obama Campaign.

    However, he often accompanies McCain during the campaign, and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    JD, I’m a conservative, but no Republican anymore. Phil Gramm and McCain should have both been totally ditched for that comment and many others.

    Andrew, do you deny that the United States was founded by Christians, or are you making a different point?

  • In regards to the McCain interview: It is interesting how McCain has dropped the “Reagan Republican” line and is now adopting the “Teddy Roosevelt Republican” line.

    I agree with McCain on the stimulus packages. Obama has it in with a few other requests, and I just don’t see it being helpful. The last stimulus did not work so well and the money would be better spent elsewhere. I also agree with McCain’s position of having town hall debates throughout the country.

    That said, it was shocking to hear that McCain did not show up for the vote regarding pork barrel spending — when he had already suspended his campaign? That is awful!! And in addition, he said he would have voted to agree to the legislation with pork barrel spending while decrying the system — well, what is he going to do differently if he is president? Sign the bill but decry the system? That was an ugly side of his “no pork” platform.

    After being asked what role McCain had in the bailout after suspending his campaign, McCain could offer not details and simply said, “Well, I’ll let you and others be the judge of that.” Not a good response.

  • I think fate could play right into Obama’s hands if he dropped (not suspend) what he’s doing and headed straight back to Washington to help in any way he can with the bailout negotiations.

    McCain tried to pull this stunt and obviously it wasn’t successful. If Obama was there just by pure coincidence I think the next bill would pass.

  • paul

    I love the stimulus package I wanted my money

  • Andrew

    **Sorry, Somehow got names mixed up…This is actually Andrew.

    Christopher,

    Obviously Christians were directly involved, but so were deists and secular humanists. The belief that this country is founded on the gospel of Jesus is flawed. The origins of the Constitution can clearly be traced to humanist, democratic, and capitalist writings and philosophies of the time. The founding fathers went out of their way to do something relatively unique by not ascribing divine principals to our Constitution. I personally feel it is an insult to their vision to ignore this fact.

    Yes, strict constitutionalists have some good ideas. Most of which come down to the fact that the federalists were not the framers of our constitution and the massive control of the current federal government is not conducive to the spirit of our founders. But this group (like most people claiming to be strict constitutionalists) believe that the Constitution is an inerrant (or shall I say Divine) mandate that has one and only one possible interpretation. This just is not true. There are nuances that are debatable, and interpretations must be made. For example, the Constitutional Party claims that pornography must be outlawed because of the first amendment. I highly doubt this to be an accurate interpretation but I would love to see how they justify this belief.

    Don’t get me wrong, I also agree with your sentiment that McCain and Obama are not the only options. The Democratic and Republican parties are not doing what is in the best interest of their constituents; and some of their actions, while not necessarily treasonous, have been contrary to our founding principles. I think smaller parties should have a larger voice, but I also disagree with all of them on a number of issues.

    Sorry, if I came of as rude the first time, but the idea of injecting religious principles into our government is, in my opinion, an insult to our founders. It makes me angry and nervous when people in power discuss it as if it were a given. Hope that cleared up the point I was trying to make.

  • Andrew, you’re right to point out that the U.S was not founded on what is now non-denominational Christianity (or the gospel thereof), but I think it is a stretch to argue that Christians were not at the heart of the U.S’s construction. “Secular humanists” and deists are from the same cut of cloth as Protestants. These are different traditions, but share many similar traits and backgrounds– the best way to distinguish this is to compare these traditions to say Jainism, Shintoism, or other non-Western European dominated traditions.

    Now, Quakers were prevalent, as were other denominations that deserve noting, but the dominant ideological current in the U.S constitution is Christianity – not in the narrow focus I think Christopher’s cited work is referring to – but in the more catholic sense.

  • Andrew

    Michael,

    I never stated that Christians were not “at the heart” of the constitution (and if I implied it, that was not my intention). Simply that the founding fathers went out of their way to distance the document from any religious affiliation, including Christianity. From a historical perspective the belief that the core ideals of the constitution are Christian can easily be rebutted by asserting that these ideals only became Christian when pagan Rome was incorporated by the religion. That is to say that Western ideals trace back to Christianity, but also through it to the civilizations that preceded as far back as Egypt and Sumeria.

    Christianity has had a major influence, but it is certainly not the only influence. Without the predominantly Muslim Middle East we would not have the sciences or classic philosophies that form much of the back bone of our knowledge. Without the secularists we would not have the ideas of separation between religion and governance. Without pagans we would not have many of our mores and most of our traditions. It is the amalgamation of all cultures that have come before us that make us what we are; not just those that are currently in mode. To limit the available input of our government to one group (as the Constitution Party would have it), no matter how predominant, is to undercut the very diversity of opinion that our found fathers sought to foster and to disenfranchise all those that come to our country seeking a land free from religious persecution.

  • Michael

    Andrew, this specific desire to distance government from religion springs from Christian roots– all the way back to the City of God.

    By no means do I mean to lump any and all accomplishments found in this government on solely Christian morals/ideas. Muslims were at the base of many of these, as were Hindus and Buddhists, but this was not my point.

    If you want to trace the lineage of Christianity, you would find Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Gnosticism are better currents. All civilizations have links in the past to others, but this avoids the issue of current and distinct association. The core branch of beliefs of this current administration, Constitution, and laws revolve around Protestant ideals. Again, if you want to deem this “secularity” as foreign to Christianity, find me a nation-state prior to the creation of United States that was secular and not Christian.

  • Andrew

    Michael,

    A secular state by definition is separate from a religion. Thus a nation cannot both be secular and Christian. The people of the nation can be Christian, but is not, as you posit, necessary. “Secular” as a term is relatively modern (mid 19th century if I’m not mistaken), but India before the Brittish Occupation was secular for centuries. The state functions were completely separate from the religious (Hindu) functions. And when Europe was in the midst of the cultural death of the Middle Ages, The Middle East had a number of secular states (including Palestine).

    The whole point of secularism is to establish laws and government devoid of religious context. Thus to state that we are a secular society (which we are) and that our laws and Constitution are based on any branch or any religion is contradictory. The beliefs of any individual or group within the government is irrelevant to the functions there of. Although religious beliefs will often influence governmental officials’ decisions the whole ideal of secularism is to base laws on rational moralistic principals that are universal to all people, and are found in almost every religion in one form or fashion.

  • Betty Hughs

    Kansas Governor Sebelius condones: kidnapping and torture?
    Kansas Governor Sebelius condones: kidnapping of babies. A couple not married had a baby. They split up. The father and his mother had Very liberal visiting and able to have the baby in their home two or three day a week and over night. They decided that was Not enough. The baby’s father’s mother went to see the mother of the baby and asked to take the baby for a couple and would have her back at one. She never brought her back. The Governor Sebelius,of Kansas said this was OK because the Father told his mother to keep her. The father of this baby and his mother broke into the mother’s home and trashed it and took pictures and went to Osage County court house and filed a pdf against the mother. There was a horrible situation the mother wasn’t allowed to see the baby and then only with court person.
    Dear Someone Who Will Care or Help;
    We need someone who will look at these cases. Really Look at the evidence not just what the officials what people to see. Read the statements read in court by the DA and use common sense and analyze reasonability of it.
    RE: Governor Kathleen Sebelius
    I contacted the Governor’s office for an audience in the correct protocol. The way she addressed these very serious issues was to totally ignore my requests not even bothering to reject my pleas to give me an audience to discuss the Torture going on in the county jails and the Kidnapping of babies.These issues have been brought to the Governor’s attention numerous times.
    She condones torture and kidnapping. (with un-wed parents, the father’s mother took child from it’s mother, governor said it was ok because the father said she could)
    There is torture in the county jails and state prisons in Kansas and the governor is well aware of it and said her self “It is of no concern of mine, or this office” Even if other department were over it she should at the very least look into it
    The boy went code to the hospital over a diabetic seizure because the facility REFUSED to give him INSULIN!!!!
    This woman doesn’t care about the people of Kansas, unless they have money and position. She needs to be held responsible for her lack of action and compassion. It is my belief that the Governor’s lack of response or to take steps to stop the torture in the county jails also the inexcusable lack of taking steps to protect small babies, is a violation of her Oath of Office therefore an impeachable offense. I feel and believe you should call for her impeachment.
    Betty J. Hughs,