On the night were Sarah Palin warned about pulling out prematurely, John McCain and his campaign are pulling out of Michigan. To play his “game”, I guess he is “raising the white flag of surrender” in Michigan.
The House didn’t pass the bailout bill, and now they are working to pass the reworked Senate version. Was this the worst of Washington or the Best of Washington.
Biden said that the bill was neither the best nor worst of Washington. But over the last 8 years Bush has given us the worst economic policies we’ve ever seen. He then smartly moved to point out the differences between the campaigns.
Palin said that our economy is hurting and started discussing how it can hurt regular working people. However, she then said that the Federal government has not provided the needed oversight and needed reform.
Really? Palin is calling for more oversight? I thought McCain was for deregulation.
Palin lost this question at the end. The fear of the families was a good start but bringing contradicting McCain and bringing up his campaign suspension was unwise.
How as vice president would you work to shrink the gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington.
Biden brought up his history of bringing people together on issues like the violence against women act, putting more police officers on the street, and working to help fight the Bosnian genocide. He has friends on both sides of the aisle and can work with them.
Biden then went back to criticize McCain on his statement that the fundamentals of our economy are strong.
Palin responded by saying that the fundamentals of the economy are the American worker and they are very strong. She was trying to be patriotic with that statement. However, as my wife rightly pointed out, the unemployment rate is high (especially here in Louisiana). I would also add that when we give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, that it hurts the American worker and helps to weaken the fundamentals of the economy when they have to compete with workers in other countries that don’t share our labor laws.
I will also point out that Palin is trying to bring up reform as her central focus in this debate. So far she has said it 3 times. I shall keep a running tally. (She also started to stumble here).
Palin said that we McCain will bring something “new” to D.C.. That is laughable. (Reform count: 4). I think this answer was a tie though.
Who was at fault for the sub-prime lending market? Greedy lenders or the risky home buyers? What should you be doing about it.
Palin blamed the lenders for forcing people to accept predatory loans for homes that cost more than they can afford. (I am sure that Conservatives will LOVE that answer). (One thing I have to point out… when she said “you’re darn right” I could have sworn she was going to say “you’re darn tootin”).
Palin also called on “Joe Six Pack” and “Hockey moms” to not get into debt. She then called for strict oversight from the federal government over those organizations who manage our debt. Again, she called for more oversight. Isn’t John McCain against regulation?
Biden brought up that 2 years ago that Barack Obama pointed out the sub prime problems. Shortly after, according to Biden, McCain was surprised that there was a sub prime mortgage problem (personally I would need to see that fact checked). Biden brought up that McCain was always for deregulation. Biden brought up that McCain has been consistently for deregulation. He then moved back to saying how Obama will help the middle class and pointed out a story about a person buying gas. Biden asked this person how much a full tank of gas costs. The response? The man didn’t have enough money to ever buy a tank of gas.
Palin brought up a bill that suggested Obama wanted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 a year. Biden immediately stated how it was untrue that Obama voted to raise those taxes and on the bill she was talking about, McCain voted the same way. He also brought up that McCain voted almost 500 times to raise taxes. He then dug the knife in Palin about her avoiding McCain’s constant desire to eliminate regulation. And when given the opportunity to respond to deregulation, Palin insisted on bringing the tax issue back up. When she finally got to the point “regulation” brought up campaign finance reform and the tobacco industry before running out of time. Really? John McCain pushed for campaign finance reform so that is a counter to Biden’s charge that McCain is against regulation of Wall St? Give me a break Sarah! (And if anyone complains that the moderator cut Palin off in the middle of her response, remember that Palin insisted on talking about taxes and not regulation).
Biden was great on this part and definitely won the round. And Biden gave a great smile in response to Palin in a manner that was not condescending (but im sure the Republican pundits will claim otherwise).
Obama and Biden want to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. How is that not class warfare? McCain and Palin want to eliminate the tax break businesses get to provide health insurance which some people (like me) have said will increase the number of uninsured. Why isn’t that taking things out of the poor?
Biden says that Obama’s plan is called fairness. That the middle class is struggling and need a break in taxes. Nobody under Obama’s plan who make less than $250,000 a year will see any (Federal) tax rise. (I put Federal in parenthesis because under Louisiana tax code, an decrease in Federal taxes increases your state taxes owed). He said that 95% of the people making less than $150,000 will get a tax break. He said the middle class is the engine of the economy. By stating that when the middle class does well, the wealthy do well, he emphasized Obama’s “bottom up” theory. Finally, Biden said that the wealthy will pay no more than they paid under conservative icon Ronald Reagan. A brilliant move.
Palin immediately called the Obama/Biden plan “redistribution of wealth” and said that the middle class and private sector needs tax breaks. Well, under the Obama/Biden plan the middle class does get tax breaks! I don’t think Palin listened.
Palin then defended McCain’s idiotic tax plan as “budget neutral” to government. You can read here why McCain’s healthcare plan is a failure. Palin also falsely called the Obama/Biden healthcare plan mandated healthcare and a “universal government run program”. The same link above also explains why Palin is absolutely wrong in her description of the Obama healthcare plan. And Biden’s response? Brilliant! He brought up the same point I bring up on my comparison of the Obama and McCain healthcare plans (that families will have to find some way to replace their $12,000 plan with $5000) and even brought up something new I forgot to include (that any healthcare benefits that are not dropped by employers will be taxed!).
Not only did Biden get the point there, he gets 3.
What promises has your campaign made that it will not be able to keep because of the economic crisis.
Biden said that they will have to slow down their commitment to double foreign assistance. They will also have to get rid of the Republican tax cuts. But we cannot slow up on education and building jobs for alternative fuels. And they wont slow up on their healthcare plans. They will eliminate current wasteful spending including the 100 billion dollar tax dodge that allows companies to put a P.O. Box offshore to avoid paying taxes… something he calls unpatriotic (and he challenged Palin on that directly).
Palin brought up the typical Republican attack on Obama for being critical of him for voting for the legislation that allowed oil companies to get a tax break (that Biden had just criticized) EVEN THOUGH Obama fought that part of the legislation. I guess Palin either forgot about that part or just hopes you do. But Joe Biden didn’t forget… and I stood up and applauded when he gave his response. Biden wins this round as well.
Climate change: What is true? What is false?
Palin said that Alaskans feel the effects of climate change. She said that there are cyclical changes that go along with human acts. She doesn’t want to talk about what caused the problems and she wants to talk about the solutions. Not a bad answer actually, if you believe that there are natural and man made causes.
Biden says that it is clearly man made. He pointed out that John McCain has opposed alternative energy in the past. Obama believes that by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear that we could create jobs and export our new technologies.
Do you support granting same sex benefits to couples?
Biden says yes. No distinction between a same sex and a heterosexual couple (except that gay people can’t get married).
Palin says no if those steps would cause us to change the definition of marriage. Obama and Biden also oppose gay marriage (something I fault them for).
Both candidates lose points on this question, at least in my book.
What should the exit strategy be in Iraq?
Palin told the same “we can’t afford to lose” lie. She should automatically lose for that alone.
Palin criticized Obama not voting for the troops. Biden criticized McCain for voting the exact same way.
Palin again brought up the false line about losing in Iraq. She said that our plan is a “white flag of surrender”. And while Biden correctly pointed out that McCain was fundamentally wrong on all the aspects of the Iraq war, the Democratic candidates still refuse to challenge the Republicans on the “white flag of surrender” B.S.
So because they refuse to say what needs to be said, this round is also a tie.
(I skipped some of the questions because there was really no comment to say beyond the typical response you would expect)
Palin kept bringing up that Obama/Biden cannot bring change if they keep looking back. Well, how can you change what was wrong if you don’t look back and examine it? Yes, it probably will make a good sound bite but in reality it is horribly flawed logic.
Palin kept referring to her position as Mayor as proof of her executive experience. How come she had to hire a city manager when she was mayor?
Oh, and the reform count is at 5.
Single issue that forced a change in a long term view.
Biden said that it was his view on how to approve Judicial nominees. He used to not believe in judging someone on their judicial philosophy but now he believes that it is a vital role of the nomination process.
Palin said with the exception of not vetoing certain legislation, that she has never had to change her mind.
My conclusions
Sarah Palin did a better job than I thought she would do, and not compared to the low standard that everyone set for her but she did manage to stand up there and not look bad.
However, when it came to the issues, Joe Biden clearly beat her hands down. Sarah Palin just repeated the same old rhetoric she has been stating this entire time. Again, Biden didn’t knock her out and completely hit a home run. Why? Because he failed to defend the charge that Obama/Biden would raise the right flag. Had Biden said:
Obama does not want to raise a white flag and surrender. Obama wants to help raise Iraq up to take care of themselves and has stated the plan we need to take to get them there. And when we raise Iraq to that point, Barack Obama and America will claim victory in Iraq.
For some reason they have not done that yet. Perhaps they are waiting for the final debate to give such a knockout blow. However, Biden did have some very strong jabs against Palin (especially when he called McCain’s plan a bridge to nowhere). He corrected Palin on the typical tactics that she made by attacking Obama for voting for legislation that included a tax break for oil companies when Obama clearly voted against that particular part of the legislation. Unfortunately, that was way to early in the debate and perhaps those points made will get lost in the entire realm of the debate.
But at the end of the day, if you look at the actual facts of the debate, Biden clearly won.
According to some sources, Sarah Palin is planning on coming out swinging tonight. Is this the right plan? Personally I don’t know. However, if she comes out looking “snide” like she did when she insulted Obama for being a community organizer and comes swinging with childish attacks instead of reasonable criticisms of Biden’s record, then all Biden will have to do is sit back and smile because that is the kind of Politics that the majority of America is tired of.
And, of course, there is the distinct possibility that we wind up with another Katie Couric moment where she seems to be so overwhelmed with information that she cannot form a straight sentence.
Unfortunately, the bar has been sent so low for Sarah Palin tonight, that as long as she pronounces her own name correctly, the Republican pundits will view it as a “win” for her.
I will be “live blogging” the debate tonight (although it may be a little delayed depending on when I finish dinner).
I have heard a lot of complaints about why third parties do not get the respect like the current two major parties that exist today. People complain that these parties are not included in debates, that the media does not give them equal time, and that by doing all this, the people are not given a real “choice” since they are only showed the two “main” candidates.
In today’s age this is flawed. Why? Well if any voter wants to know about any candidate running for any office, they are free to look at that candidate’s website and see what platform they support. Most candidates, even the “small” ones, will have some sort of donation link set up so you can directly contribute to his/her campaign. And if a candidate wants to complain about not being included in a debate, then he can always record the questions to that debate, answer them in his own video, and post it on youtube for all who care to see. (And a candidate who doesn’t at least try and use the power of the internet is absolutely not worth my time or consideration).
The reason we should not feel sorry for these other parties and alternate candidates goes much deeper though. If someone doesn’t have the common sense to understand the political system that we operate in and refuses to play the game by the rules that we set up, then that person can really not expect to be taken seriously.
Let’s look at the most serious third party candidate in recent history: Ross Perot. He had a lot of money and was able to actually get on the debates and snag the media’s attention. He got less than 20% of the popular vote and managed to win exactly 0 states. What good did those votes do him? Some people say he played the part of a spoiler and allowed Clinton to win. Which is basically one of the rolls that third party candidates really play in presidential politics. If they cannot even win one electoral vote, then all they do is draw votes away from candidates.
But lets imagine that Perot was able to win more votes and actually took some states. If he took those states away from George H. W. Bush then there would be no change. However, if he managed to take states away from Clinton and nobody won the required number of electoral votes, then the winner of the election would be chosen by a state by state vote in the House of Representatives and the Republican candidate would have won. So again, by running a campaign that wasn’t able to take advantage of the rules of the system, the third party candidate is stuck playing the part of the spoiler).
Which brings me to my point. The third parties and their candidates are not going at this the right way. They ignore the realities of the political world and go after the White House in a quixotic quest (and I may be wrong but I do not recall seeing a windmill on the top of the White House). A smart third party would work from the ground up. They would try and get seats on local city councils (gaining favor locally). They would work on getting Congressional candidates who can actually win a congressional election. By building up their network from the ground up, they would work on manufacturing a get out the vote organization that is vital to any successful campaign. They would work on gaining favor in specific states, especially the small ones, and move to become the favored party in those states. They will only win by changing the colors of the state, not by changing a minority of voters nationwide.
Believe me, I am well aware of the media and their refusal to cover elections properly. However, this is the biggest office in the land and I think the media has the “right” to only cover those candidates and parties who prove that they are serious about winning the election. And as I said over on Oyster’s blog, if third party candidates refuse to campaign smart and insist on placing themselves in the roll of “spoiler”, why should we bother taking any of them seriously.
Cross posted on Liberty and Justice for All
The Republicans already have their ad focusing on the times in the debate where Obama agreed with McCain. Did they forget that this is the very same debate where John McCain attacked Obama for being too liberal to find a common ground with people on the other side of the aisle? You cannot have it both ways Republicans. You cannot logically attack Obama for being too liberal to find a common ground AND THEN attack Obama for finding a common ground with your candidate in the debate and expect to be taken seriously. This is just one of the typical Republican tactics used in the debate last night. (Of course, the Republican selective memory seems to have forgotten that for a majority of the debate, Obama clearly explained how wrong John McCain has been, especially on issues like Iraq).
Another tactic that I discussed last night was the attack McCain used on Obama’s support of the legislation that gave oil companies a tax break. In that legislation, Barack Obama fought the portions of the legislation that would provide those breaks. However, that portion of the legislation was included. So while Obama did not agree with some of the legislation, he agreed with the rest of it enough to vote for the bill as a whole. McCain dishonestly attacks Obama for supporting the legislation that contained that provision, even though Obama fought against that provision. This is Karl Rove politics people. Do we really want more of this?
As Obama said previously… ENOUGH! It is time for us to stand up against McCain and these sleezy, slimy, and dishonest tactics.
The first question had to do with the current state of the economy as it stands and the plan to fix the current crisis.
Obama said that we have to move swiftly and wisely. That we need to protect taxpayers as we move forward. We need 4 things: 1. Oversight. 2. Taxpayers should get money back with gains. 3. None of the money will go to pad bank accounts or fund golden parachutes. 4. Help homeowners, who are part of the cause of this problem. However, the ultimate cause of the problem was 8 years of failed Bush policies that John McCain supported (including less regulation).
John McCain sees Republicans and Democrats working together and things one of the answers is reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Huh?
Are there fundamental differences between McCain’s and Obama’s approach to solving the problem when they become president.
McCain says that we need to get spending under control, I guess assuming that Obama is going to have “out of control spending”. He will veto pork spending and make people famous. How that is an answer to the current financial crisis is beyond me. He will also cut taxes too businesses because he believes it will create jobs. Of course, he ignores the possibility that a tax cut to businesses will be as likely (or more) to fund CEO bonuses and golden parachutes.
Obama agrees that there has been earmark abuse. He suspended earmark requests until it gets cleared up. Earmarks are 18 billion dollars. Senator McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations and individuals in our country. It would give a CEO a 700,000 dollar tax cut. Obama will build the country from bottom up and not from the top down. The bottom 95% will get a tax cut. This will help economic growth. And while he will have some new programs, he will pay for that spending by cutting other items in the budget.
Obama also says that while you have a higher tax rate, there are also more loopholes. McCain doesn’t want to close those loopholes while cutting taxes to businesses. Obama also attacked John McCain’s healthcare plan (in the same manner that I did).
Obama also brought up the typical tactic of
McCain incorrectly stated, in response to Obama’s comment on healthcare, that we would be handing our healthcare system over to the federal government which is an absolute lie! McCain wants families to make decisions about their healthcare. Under Obama’s plan, they can. I discuss that in my healthcare post here.
Much has been said about the lessons of
McCain said that you cannot have a failed strategy that will cause you to nearly lose a conflict. The war was mishandled. He also said that our troops will come home, and not in defeat. He keeps taking about defeat. Of course, I explain why McCain is wrong about “defeat” here.
Obama brought up that we should have not gone into
McCain said he wouldn’t publicly state that he would send troops into
What is the threat from
McCain states that if
Obama believes that the republican guard of
The issue of preconditions before negotiations came up. McCain feels that such actions would “legitimize” these leaders that he disagrees with and their illegal behavior. Obama reserves the right as President to meet with anyone at anytime if he feels that it will keep
To me, keeping all options on the table is the best way to go. It doesn’t mean we have to go right to open discussions, but it means we can IF that is the best option out there. Why handcuff our foreign policy? It makes no sense.
How do you see the relationship with
Obama says that given the last weeks and months, our approach needs to be evaluated when it comes to
McCain looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. But there was not much disagreement between the two candidates.
What are the chances of another 9/11 type attack on
McCain believes that we are safer now than we were on 9/11 but that we are a long way from “safe”. But we have a long way to go. He supported the 9/11 commission in opposition to the President.
Obama says that we are safer in some ways. We have worked to secure targets and have increased airport security but we have a long way to go. We need to work on chemical plants, our ports, and our transit. The biggest threat is a terrorist with a suitcase nuke. However, we keep focusing on strictly missile defense. We need to increase funding on the former.
To solve the issue of terrorism, we need to deal with Al Queda, who is operating in 60 countries. He says the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference in our ability to get cooperation and eliminate terrorism. By rebuilding our respect, we will get help from other countries in solving the global problem of terrorism.
McCain keeps saying that if we “fail in
The only thing that I wish Obama would have done differently tonight would have been to challenge McCain’s claims of “failure” and “defeat” in
How on earth can John McCain claim that Obama has made the wrong decision when on the issue of
Now, who won this debate? I am not going to say that Barack Obama smacked it out the park. However, I think Obama made some very important attacks on McCain and did an excellent job. I have to say that Barack Obama won round 1.
In what seemed like that scene from Wayne’s World where they played hockey in the street and kept having to get out of the way of the cars, the status of the debate tonight is “GAME ON“.
See, McCain wanted everyone to believe that he was not being political by “suspending” his campaign. The reality is that the move was completely political. It was simply posturing and grandstanding and nobody really bought it for a second. So now McCain has to scurry to Mississippi and participate in the debate.
And wait, wasn’t it McCain who was critical of Obama for not doing “town hall” meetings? Good thing McCain is going tonight, or he might have risked looking like a hypocrite…. on yet another issue.
ElectionTaxes.com is a website that compares McCain’s tax plan to Obama’s and allows each voter to see an estimate of what their net taxes will be under each plan.
My net taxes are lower under Obama’s plan. So much for the claims of McCain and the Republican Party that Obama is going to tax us to economic ruin.
And I am not for a second going to say that we should just allow our markets to collapse. However, when government steps in it should not just be with a wheelbarrow filled with cash (nearly a trillion dollars). Government should take over the payroll and human resources departments of these companies. They should reduce unneeded salaries, cut the strings on golden parachutes, prosecute those who get millions of dollars while driving their companies into the ground, and hire new decisions makers, chosen by a bipartisan panel of some sort, to fix where the company has gone wrong. And if the share of the average taxpayer of the bailout is going to be 7 thousand dollars, then perhaps those companies should help the taxpayers out by eliminating 7 thousand dollars on the debt of those taxpayers. Maybe not right away, but that should be where the repayment of the funds go, not back to the government so they can spend it on their pet projects, but back to the checking accounts of the men and women who bailed them out in the first place. Because that is what really happened, you and me are bailing them out and WE, not government, should see a return on OUR investment.
(Another thing I find ironic is that Republicans cry socialism all the time. However, the definition of socialism is basically government taking over the means of production. So didn’t Bush do that with AIG? People are calling it “corporate socialism” but in reality it is socialism at its purist form.)
Now, John McCain is wanting to play the part of “Superman” as he tries to “save the day” by “suspending his campaign” to return to Washington and try and tackle this mess. But the campaign isn’t really suspended now is it? Commercials are still running, Palin and his staff are still out there pushing the John McCain agenda, and all that has happened is that McCain is campaigning in
First: Some background reading (and listening).
Barack Obama came under fire from the so called “liberal media” for making supposedly misleading statements about John McCain’s stance on embryonic stem cell research. The “Fact Check Desk” over at ABCNEWS.com tells us where that Obama’s ad is misleading for saying:
John McCain doesn’t understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn’t be held hostage by the political views of a few
They also claim that the Obama ad is misleading because it makes the assertion that McCain currently opposes embryonic stem cell research. Other sites also criticize Obama for saying that McCain’s stance is more strict than President Bush’s stance. So let’s look at McCain’s history and why Barack Obama and his campaign might say such a thing. Because when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has flipped and flopped more times than the fish at the end of Epic.
Before 2001, John McCain opposed embryonic Stem Cell research. As it is stated in the article, in February of 2000 McCain and 20 other Republican Senators wrote into the National Institutes of Health to request that they ban students from using embryos in their research.
However, in 2001 John McCain flipped and went on Meet the Press and asserted a change in his point of view and had since voted several times (as recently as 2007) in support of the research. This is why the “fact check desk” asserts that the Obama ad is misleading. But is it?
Because McCain has since flopped and on his campaign website it clearly states:
As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
So let’s look at this more closely. In February of 2000 (do I need to remind everyone what McCain was doing in February of 2000) McCain comes out in opposition to the research. Now, during another presidential election, he is again coming out in opposition to the research. In between he did cast votes in support of the research. So who is the real John McCain? It is impossible to tell, because he is spending much of his time flipping and flopping in order to get support.
All we can do is look at what McCain says about his stance today at this very moment. That stance would prohibit federal funds from being spent on any research on embryos. President Bush restricted funding from stem cell lines coming from new embryos, but allowed funding for stem cell research on existing lines. From the wording on McCain’s own campaign literature, he would not allow funding on any stem cell lines (existing or not). So it is absolutely clear that McCain’s stance on his website is in full opposition to the research and that opposition is, in fact, stricter than President Bush (as Obama correctly stated).
It seems like those at the “fact check” desk need to do a bit more fact checking.
Cross posted at the main Liberty and Justice for All blog.
