Obama vs. McCain Debate III

[GoSox05]

Thats important. Barack basically explained his ideals of socialism when that happened, it surprises me that nobody sees the significance of Obamas answer.

 

Socialism? Really.

 

 

Lenin is coming back!!!!

[DukeNukeEm]

McCain got absolutely crushed tonight, I thought the first two debates were absolute ties but this might've been the final nail in McCain/Palin's coffin. Joe the Plumber did not go over well.

[Steff]

Thats important. Barack basically explained his ideals of socialism when that happened, it surprises me that nobody sees the significance of Obamas answer.

 

 

Because to the folks on Main Street that can't pay their bills it's not important. They fall into the tax break bracket.

[DukeNukeEm]

Its not about the issues at this point anymore guys, those people made up their minds a while ago. It's about who you can trust to lead this country and Obama for the first time went face-to-face with McCain and looked like he could do it better.

[EvilMonkey]

No litmus test for Supreme Court justices...but if they agree with Roe v Wade, they obviously suck and I won't pick them.

No litmus test? Then what was Obama's reasons for voting against Roberts and Alito?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Didnt watch the debate (just got home from the Celtic thunder concert), but I love this moment.

 

 

McCain's like "Zero? Oh s***. really? crap. now what do i say?"

Edited October 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Soxbadger]

Thats important. Barack basically explained his ideals of socialism when that happened, it surprises me that nobody sees the significance of Obamas answer.

 

Well actually I think people do understand his ideals and they understand its not Socialism.

 

Obama supports Progressive Tax (ie the tax goes up as the amount of money made goes up.)

 

McCain supports Progressive Tax.

 

In fact you will almost never hear of a politician saying that they support a "flat" or "fair" tax.

 

Why?

 

Because if you wanted to change to a fair tax and make the same amount of money as the progressive tax, you would decrease taxation on the top 10% or so and increase taxes on the other 90%.

 

Thus the fair tax is the classic tyranny of the majority example, the majority will almost always prefer the tax system that bests serves them (progressive tax) at the expense of the minority who prefers the fair tax.

 

Trickle down or supply side economics sell when the economy is doing well. When middle class people are making a lot of money and they are able to buy lots of things, they buy into the idea that lower taxes on the rich will equal more pay and thus better for them. Right now the economy is hurting bad and most average middle class American's are hurting too. They dont feel sorry for Joe the Plumber and his 250k income when they are getting laid off from their 40k jobs.

 

Social economic policies are almost always going to be the end result of a Demcoratic/Republic nation as there will always be a majority of haves versus a minority of have nots.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Everyone here knows McCain won this.

The independent voters who were polled seem to think the opposite.

[Steff]

Didnt watch the debate (just got home from the Celtic thunder concert), but I love this moment.

 

 

McCain's like "Zero? Oh s***. really? crap. now what do i say?"

 

 

If he had paid attention last week Obama said then that small businesses would be exempt to the fine and he would have avoided looking like a dumbass on that topic.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Can someone go back and watch the CNN coverage and get me a McCain blink count? WOW! I watched for2 minutes and I lost track.

[DrunkBomber]

Can someone go back and watch the CNN coverage and get me a McCain blink count? WOW! I watched for2 minutes and I lost track.

I guess thats whats important.

[StrangeSox]

McCain was winning in the first section of the debate (his comment about running against Bush was really good), but he really derailed himself when the topics came to negative campaigning and Ayers/ ACORN. His defense of the nasty comments that both his running mate and his wife have made was to rebuke Obama for questioning the patriotism of veterans at his rallies. He has yet to acknowledge Palin's remarks. People already thought McCain's campaign was more negative, so that wasn't a battle he was going to win. He couldn't just admit that sometimes the rhetoric gets ratcheted up on both sides.

 

Nate Silver's explanation is basically what I was thinking last night:

www.fivethirtyeight.com

 

McCain was winning the debate early on, responding with surprising vigor and detail on the economy. But then came this:

 

SCHIEFFER: All right. We're going to move to another question and the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign yet it has turned very nasty.

 

Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Senator McCain.

 

Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists."

 

Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

 

And, Senator McCain, you're first.

MCCAIN: Well, this has been a tough campaign. It's been a very tough campaign. And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Senator Obama had asked -- responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now.

 

When Senator Obama was first asked, he said, "Any place, any time," the way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do, before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas. So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.

 

And the fact is, it's gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.

 

What if McCain had stopped right there? He gets in a marginally compelling talking point about the town hall meetings, but then steps back and shares the blame.

 

Instead, McCain continued as follows:

 

One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful.

 

And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.

 

So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history. And I can prove it. And, Senator Obama, when he said -- and he signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did -- that was back when he was a long-shot candidate -- you didn't keep your word.

 

And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Senator Clinton and said, "I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision," you didn't tell the American people the truth because you didn't.

 

And that's -- that's -- that's an unfortunate part. Now we have the highest spending by Senator Obama's campaign than any time since Watergate.

 

McCain's implication that Obama was principally responsible for the negative tone of the campaign was simply not going to be credible to most voters. Certainly, the Obama campaign has been negative at times -- more often than either the Al Gore or John Kerry -- and on several occasions explictly misleading. But voters came into the debate thinking by 2:1 margins that McCain was running a negative campaign and Obama a positive one. To try and fight against that tide was a significant mistake.

 

And as though to prove the point, just a few moments later, McCain attacked Obama on Ayers and ACORN, using particularly hyperbolic rhetoric in the latter case:

 

MCCAIN: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.

 

We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course.

 

And then, just a few moments after that, came this:

 

MCCAIN: And it's not the fact -- it's not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.

 

And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about.

 

Could that sequence possibly have been any more awkward? Mere seconds after reminding America that Willie Ayers was a terrorist, McCain flatly asserted that his campaign was all about the economy. You might expect to see two paragraphs like this interspersed through different parts of the transcript. You certainly do not expect to see them back to back. It's as though you could see avatars of Steve Schmidt and John Weaver perched atop John McCain's respective shoulders, wrestling for control of his message.

 

Obama, it should be noted, was not particularly effective during this exchange (especially considering that he should have prepped for this kind of sequence days ahead of time), eliciting a lukewarm response from the dial groups. But it turned out that he didn't have to be, as McCain was left with just enough rope to hang himself. And from that point forward, the dials looked like the S&P 500 every time that Obama finished one of his responses and McCain began his. The voters had been pleasantly surprised with the McCain they saw in the first 20 minutes of the debate. But after that disingenuous sequence on negative campaigning, they basically gave up on him.

Edited October 16, 2008 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

No litmus test? Then what was Obama's reasons for voting against Roberts and Alito?

 

McCain said there was no litmus test but then implied that he would choose judges whom he agreed with; Obama sorta dodged the question but implied the same.

[lostfan]

But, it doesn't matter what we think.

I was going to post this.

[lostfan]

Thats important. Barack basically explained his ideals of socialism when that happened, it surprises me that nobody sees the significance of Obamas answer.

Realistically, the only people that are going to care are the people that already care. So his "spread the wealth around" comment is alarming to conservatives for a couple of different reasons, but really they already think Democrats are socialists to begin with, so what's it matter? People either believe progressive taxation is fair, or they don't.

Edited October 16, 2008 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Realistically, the only people that are going to care are the people that already care. So his "spread the wealth around" comment is alarming to conservatives for a couple of different reasons, but really they already think Democrats are socialists to begin with, so what's it matter? People either believe progressive taxation is fair, or they don't.

The difference between anytime before now and now is RSO is openly campaigning, flat out saying, I am giving money to poor people from the rich - flat out - there's no mistaking it. Democrats of old generally would do it by talking about their programs and what all services they would provide. Now, "corporations, and rich individuals must pay down to lower incomes" IS socialism. As I said in another thread - people wonder why Europe doesn't have the growth the US does? That's why. And once we go there, we can never go back. A European style of government is not what I want here, for damn sure. Apparently, 56% of America doesn't see a problem with it, because they all think they're getting something from it, when in reality, they're going to get their ass thrown out on the street in some cases.

 

This is sort of anecdotal, but my wife is due in December... and she has talked with some people from Canada - their comments are "I'm sure glad I don't have to pay for this baby, but I'd rather have it the US way because at least you get to take your money home instead of giving it to the government" - meaning, wages will get depressed the SECOND this plan goes in. But, that's ok, America wants it.

 

By the way, this talk of "tax credits for small businesses" is a load of horse s*** too. I'm in a situation where I know some small business owners, and EVERY ONE OF THEM (my sample size is about 10 people, just so I'm clear) say that the potential is high that they have to cut staff pretty quickly if RSO gets his way. These people aren't stupid, and jobs are the first to go... enjoy that "free health care", folks.

 

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Everyone here knows McCain won this. If not go hang with AHB. NSS, at least you admitted the obvious.

 

 

McCain did win, IMO obviously too. But he could have won by more if he appeared as if he respected Obama and didnt give the looks he did. I was glad with a lot of his answers, but as I saw him while Obama was talking I kept shaking my head. He came across poorly, IMO.

 

I also find it funny (well, more like discouraging) that so many people are either ignoring or failing to see how Socialist Obama is in many ways.

[lostfan]

IMO the reason the "socialist" point is not going to stick with the American public on Nov. 4th is because Republicans have gradually worn the word "socialist" out (that specific word in particular), and it just lost its effectiveness. Because conservatives have been pretty Chicken Little-ish about pretty much anything that isn't total textbook free market policy or anything involving the government over the years (again, IMO), it sounds hollow to too many people for it to really resonate.

Edited October 16, 2008 by lostfan

[BigSqwert]

...but as I saw him while Obama was talking I kept shaking my head. He came across poorly, IMO.

 

So if McCain wins is that how he's going to conduct himself in front of world leaders he doesn't agree with? Smirking, rolling his eyes, etc. Not very presidential.

[lostfan]

So if McCain wins is that how he's going to conduct himself in front of world leaders he doesn't agree with? Smirking, rolling his eyes, etc. Not very presidential.

I really think McCain has better sense than that. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much, it's not like it's going to have a significant effect on foreign relations.

[clyons]

The difference between anytime before now and now is RSO is openly campaigning, flat out saying, I am giving money to poor people from the rich - flat out - there's no mistaking it.

 

I certainly haven't heard this said "flat out," but then I haven't been paying as much attention lately. Maybe you meant it as hyberpole, but to me a "flat out" statement means a direct, unambiguous quote. Do you have one? I'm not saying he hasn't said this, I'm just curious to hear/read it myself. Does this relate to what McCain said last night about Obama wanting to spread the wealth?

 

Also, I get that "RSO" is Obama, but what is that supposed to stand for?

[lostfan]

Rock Star Obama

[clyons]

Rock Star Obama

Thanks. Sadly, I am old and not hip to all the cool lingo.

[BigSqwert]

BTW, using an acronym like "RSO" is only effective when more than 1 person uses it.

[BigSqwert]

Also, I didn't realize Michael Chiklis was known as Joe the plumber.