PLAN: Fix leak in bedpan. Ask voters, Did the Bedpan work for you? Win. Spec new bucket.

A couple of things:

Leadership rule #1: Keep your head while those around you are losing theirs. "Suspending" your campaign, canceling a debate and asserting the boogeyman is coming to take our children misses the mark a bit.

Leadership rule #1A: As friend of this blog, Jon Strande, emailed this morning, past results are indicators of future persuasiveness:

...as I watched the speech last night, I just kept picturing him say: "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" and thinking, is he right this time?

Indeed. "We know that there are dangerous junk CDOs - Collateralized Debt Obligations east, west, south, and north somewhat of NYC" is probably what Cheney said Tuesday that had Congressional Republicans laughing and steaming.

(For flashback fans, March 20, 2003 Pentagon DefenseLink: We know where [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.)

Leadership rule #2: When trying to buck up market and public sentiment, and when speaking to Forbes's readers no less, try not have Treasury Secretary's spokesperson give Sarah Palin-quality answers:

Why Secretary Paulson asked for seven hundred billion dollars:

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

Leadership rule #3: If you're Republican, try not to embarrass the Wall Street Journal

Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?

Mr. McCain's decision follows an equally odd suggestion from Mr. Obama yesterday morning that the two candidates issue a joint statement of principles and conditions for the financial rescue package. As a purely political matter, we understand why Mr. Obama would just as soon say "present" on a tricky Senate vote. He probably figures the current economic mess plays into his argument for "change," so why not minimize any differences with Mr. McCain on the Paulson plan as he heads to Election Day?

We also understand Mr. McCain's desire to further dress his campaign in "Country First" gilding, as if patriotism and consensus are one and the same, or that getting something done is more important than getting it right.

Whatever the motive, this is not what the country expects from its Presidential candidates.

I recommend he rappels down from a Blackhawk into the Capitol parking lot, in suitable garb. Sarah in Lara Croft thigh-holsters might be a bit much or, in all likelihood, exactly the latent image lusted after by her most committed Republican fan-boys, and -girls.

Readership Rule #31: Hey, Wall Street Journal. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you're going to complain about vacuous political moves from The Maverick™, don't use the lame "present" vote malarkey to make your point. It makes you look dumb.

Judy Haley at BlogHer explains:

Let's just take a moment to learn what voting present really means. The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

Did the leaders of the Republican Party understand this? Of course they did. They are lawmakers, this is what they do and part of their every day job. What the Republican leadership was counting on, was that you would not understand the meaning of the "present" vote.

Yeah. What she said.

Finally. A cocktail party election season tip when meeting new work contacts. If someone asks you what Candidate or Party you support, try an answer I stumbled into yesterday when caught flatfooted. "I'm partisan. I vote for the future. " The true path, fellow grasshoppers, will be revealed by the flow of the universe.