McCain's trend

[Satty]

I wasn't even aware points were awarded during a presidential debate. How can anyone claim to "win" a debate where the judges dont get to judge until November 4th?

[Croc]

As bad as McCain's campaign has been, at least McCain's campaign isnt pressuring media/people with regulatory action if they air/talk about certain stuff (well hell i guess they may be, but i havent heard anything about it if they have).

Threatening media outlets to have their license suspended or revoked if they air an ad is unconstitutional!

If Obama has a problem with what an ad says he should file a lawsuit, not threaten regulatory action by his regulatory buddies.

This has been threatened at least 3 times to my knowledge.

• First with the author of some book that some guy wrote about Obama (they threatened a radio station with penalties if they allowed the author to appear).

• They threatened whatever that group was that was hosting a protest of the Iranian dude, The Obama team threatened to revoke their non-profit status (or charity status or something) if they allowed Palin to be there.

• And last but not least, they are threatening regulatory actions against any media outlet that airs the recent NRA ads against obama. While the NRA may very well be stretching the truth a bit, its not any more stretched than other ads that either campaign has put out (in fact they are probably less stretched).

Typical Chicago Political Machine politics. These are actions more in line with a dictator than a proponent of liberal democratic theory.

Now i am not saying that McCain is any better on the rights, his support of the Patriot Act is enough to show that (although unfortunately Obama supports it too). But is it not unconstitutional/illegal to threaten people in order to achieve your goals?

First of all, where's your source (or sources)? Cite it/them.

Secondly, your claim that McCain is above this stuff is patently false. What do you call it when McCain had the Charles Gibson interview of Sarah Palin with a list of approved topics? Huh?

Edited September 26, 2008 by Croc

[Drew Dowdell]

As bad as McCain's campaign has been, at least McCain's campaign isnt pressuring media/people with regulatory action if they air/talk about certain stuff (well hell i guess they may be, but i havent heard anything about it if they have).

Threatening media outlets to have their license suspended or revoked if they air an ad is unconstitutional!

If Obama has a problem with what an ad says he should file a lawsuit, not threaten regulatory action by his regulatory buddies.

This has been threatened at least 3 times to my knowledge.

• First with the author of some book that some guy wrote about Obama (they threatened a radio station with penalties if they allowed the author to appear).

• They threatened whatever that group was that was hosting a protest of the Iranian dude, The Obama team threatened to revoke their non-profit status (or charity status or something) if they allowed Palin to be there.

• And last but not least, they are threatening regulatory actions against any media outlet that airs the recent NRA ads against obama. While the NRA may very well be stretching the truth a bit, its not any more stretched than other ads that either campaign has put out (in fact they are probably less stretched).

Typical Chicago Political Machine politics. These are actions more in line with a dictator than a proponent of liberal democratic theory.

Now i am not saying that McCain is any better on the rights, his support of the Patriot Act is enough to show that (although unfortunately Obama supports it too). But is it not unconstitutional/illegal to threaten people in order to achieve your goals?

When posting stuff like this is it most important to post links to your sources.

[Satty]

Barack Obama defeated Godzilla.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Okay i added links for the first 2 the first link is a bit iffy as to its truth, but the 2nd one is from a local news station. As to the NRA one, there is a 17 page PDF file with basically a "cease and desist" going around, unfortunately my stupid computer doesn't want to open it so i dont know whats up with that. And i dont know how credible it is. I will post something if i can find more as it develops.

And Croc, having a list of approved/nonapproved topics, while wrong, is a little better than illegally threatening companies with regulatory/tax actions if they do not comply with a political campaign.

and heres another one. http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1 This one is not really blatant, but the way it was reported sounds a little odd.

and a piece criticizing factcheck.org on the NRA ads. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html

Edited September 26, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[SoCalCTS]

If I saw McCain on the street, I would probably stop and ask him if he was lost or needed help crossing the street. He looks so incapable of doing anything.

[gm4life]

Hell yes, it pisses me off. The man is the reincarnation of George W bush.

Chris

It should if your voting for Obama. It is the maverick and indepentant streak in him.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

It should if your voting for Obama. It is the maverick and indepentant streak in him.

lol what?

Are you saying Bush is a maverick and independent?

[Satty]

Its not 2000 anymore, nobody buys McCain as a maverick in 2008. Its like Toyota's quality reputation. They were rock solid in the 90's, but have tailed off a bit. People still think of them as unbreakable, yet they've proven lately to be breakable.

[Drew Dowdell]

It should if your voting for Obama. It is the maverick and indepentant streak in him.

He's not a maverick, he's a look-at-me drama queen.

[siegen]

Consider that our relations with our allies in Europe and around the world will likely improve the moment we elect Obama, and we may have an easier time negotiating trade deals and requesting their help in foreign matters because of it. I have a feeling electing McCain will be sort of equivalent to not only giving the rest of the world the finger, but making them all think we're a bunch of dummies that don't learn from the past and are willing to continue on our current path.

That being said, I am really excited for tonight, and am very glad McCain chose to go through with the debate. I really didn't want to sit there and watch Obama answer questions, we've already seen plenty of that.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Consider that our relations with our allies in Europe and around the world will likely improve the moment we elect Obama, and we may have an easier time negotiating trade deals and requesting their help in foreign matters because of it. I have a feeling electing McCain will be sort of equivalent to not only giving the rest of the world the finger, but making them all think we're a bunch of dummies that don't learn from the past and are willing to continue on our current path.

That being said, I am really excited for tonight, and am very glad McCain chose to go through with the debate. I really didn't want to sit there and watch Obama answer questions, we've already seen plenty of that.

We are already strong allies already with our key allies (and apparently we have moved past Georgia and along with Russia will be move on with Iran nuclear talks). And since Obama is a protectionist, why would he need trade treaties?

[Intrepidation]

I've got popcorn for tonight!

[siegen]

We are already strong allies already with our key allies (and apparently we have moved past Georgia and along with Russia will be move on with Iran nuclear talks). And since Obama is a protectionist, why would he need trade treaties?

I'm not trying to argue any specific point such as trade policies.

And it certainly wouldn't be a big reason to vote one over the other, just one thing to consider, and it may not even be true, but I am thinking it is.

[Croc]

And Croc, having a list of approved/nonapproved topics, while wrong, is a little better than illegally threatening companies with regulatory/tax actions if they do not comply with a political campaign.

What I want to know is what position Obama would be in to make these threats. What regulatory/tax actions would he make? He isn't a czar.

The whole allegation just rings false, and continues with the "uppity black man" theme the mainstream media was pushing last spring. I don't like ridiculous allegations, and repeating them as facts without sources really hurts your credibility.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

What I want to know is what position Obama would be in to make these threats. What regulatory/tax actions would he make? He isn't a czar.

The whole allegation just rings false, and continues with the "uppity black man" theme the mainstream media was pushing last spring. I don't like ridiculous allegations, and repeating them as facts without sources really hurts your credibility.

I put sources in, go back and re-read it. Its not Obama himself that seems to be doing it, but just random democrats.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

All I am going to say is that we need to change something. 8 years of this crap is long enough. I would very much like to keep my job and a bad economy isnt going to help that goal. Enough of the rich getting everything. About time the working person got rewarded for our efferts to keep this country going.

[Croc]

Its not Obama himself that seems to be doing it, but just random democrats.

Wow, good to know that Obama is guilty by party association.

Can I now post a rant accusing McCain of pedophilia with underage boys just because fellow Republican Senator Mark Foley did that? After all, they're both Republicans, so it's the same thing, right?

[Satty]

You would think with all that beer money his wife has, he could get that swollen left gland looked at on his face. I find it distracting when he's on TV, that and his wandering eye.

This debate is tough to watch because of that.

[Croc]

This debate is tough to watch because of that.

Lehrer was way too complacent and deferential. I was bothered by how he didn't really even assert himself enough to keep time.

[siegen]

That was a great debate. Polls seem to indicate Obama did a better job, but who really cares?

A few things I noticed; McCain didn't look at or address Obama once, and talked directly at Lehrer the entire time. Obama seemed more comfortable talking, and naturally looked between McCain, Lehrer and the TV camera throughout the debate. Obama addressed McCain directly a number of times, did McCain address and look at Obama at all?

Obama mentioned McCain "was right" 5 times, which has already been paraded around by the Republicans and is surely to find its way into tomorrow's TV ads. Conversely, Obama said firmly several times "that is wrong" to something McCain said about him. McCain tended to say "I think he's confused" about things Obama said about him, but wasn't as firm and seemed a little bit less involved in the debate. Maybe it's because he's more concerned about getting back to DC and "fixing" everything.

Obama interjected more often while McCain was talking than vice versa. This might be partly because McCain tends to ramble on, while Obama was more concise in his points. This is actually the opposite of what I thought was going to happen. Obama did seem better prepared for the debate.

McCain's arms are still distracting.

Your guy's thoughts?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

It was a good debate. As far as foreign policy goes, that's purely subject to partisan lines for the most part, however i strongly agree with McCain that we need to go after the terrorists in Pakistan as an ally of Pakistan, not just invade our ally as Bush has done and Obama supports. And McCain's little joke about meeting with the president of Iran was kinda funny. As far as the economy goes, McCain did a lot better than what i was expecting him to do, he didnt make the remarks that i would have liked to see, but Obama came off weaker than i figured he would.

Overall i would call it a wash.

:EDIT: apparently ole Kissinger is a bit ticked the way Obama was throwing his name around and misrepresenting his opinion. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...check-kiss.html

Edited September 27, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[siegen]

It was a good debate. As far as foreign policy goes, that's purely subject to partisan lines for the most part, however i strongly agree with McCain that we need to go after the terrorists in Pakistan as an ally of Pakistan, not just invade our ally as Bush has done and Obama supports. And McCain's little joke about meeting with the president of Iran was kinda funny. As far as the economy goes, McCain did a lot better than what i was expecting him to do, he didnt make the remarks that i would have liked to see, but Obama came off weaker than i figured he would.

Overall i would call it a wash.

:EDIT: apparently ole Kissinger is a bit ticked the way Obama was throwing his name around and misrepresenting his opinion. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...check-kiss.html

Obama rebuked McCain when he accused him of wanting to just invade Pakistan, although I don't recall it exactly. I thought Obama came off much better composed and with a more defined plan of action than McCain, especially on the economic issues. I excepted him to do a lot more "uh uh uh", but surprisingly there was relatively little of it.

[Croc]

What Obama said was--and this is a near-quote--"If Al Qaida is in our sites, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to cooperate, then we should go for it."

Honestly, I can't disagree with that.

[Satty]

Lehrer was way too complacent and deferential. I was bothered by how he didn't really even assert himself enough to keep time.

Agreed, he just kind of them them go on. McCain got really bad with the rambling a couple of times.

[mustang84]

I'm watching the debate on YouTube right now, and the main thing I'm noticing is that, as siegen said, Obama is very concise in his points and tends to give a very good overview of his ideas. McCain goes off on tangents and doesn't really address the overall idea. I'm watching right now where the question was how would they use the $700 billion and all McCain rambled on about some story where he saved $6.8 billion with defense contractors...whereas Obama talked about improving education, fixing healthcare, and investing in new forms of energy. Obama seems to understand that we are being left behind on the world stage; this issue doesn't seem as urgent within the McCain campaign.

Edited September 27, 2008 by mustang84

[Satty]

Watch the part where Obama mentions that McCain wouldn't meet with the leader of Spain, you can hear McCain saying "horse $h!" which was probably Micky's finest moment of the night.

[Intrepidation]

A few things I noticed; McCain didn't look at or address Obama once, and talked directly at Lehrer the entire time. Obama seemed more comfortable talking, and naturally looked between McCain, Lehrer and the TV camera throughout the debate. Obama addressed McCain directly a number of times, did McCain address and look at Obama at all?

I noticed this too. McCain seemed rather condescending towards Obama. Nt only did he not ever make direct eye contact when debating, but I saw him snicker at some things Obama said in the foreign policy part of the debate, and at least a dozen times claim that Obama "doesn't understand" something or other. To me McCain didn't treat Obama as his equal in the debate, which was irritating and a major mark against him in my book.

Other things I noticed and has been mentioned: McCain tended to ramble on (like an old man), and especially at the beginning seemed to reword Obama's answers but in a more vague manner. He sounded like a typical politician. Obama was very clear, especially on the economic part of the debate, what he would do, using "1, 2, 3" structures in his answers.

I thought Obama handled himself more professionally, and kept his cool each time McCain tried to get under his skin (referring especially to the "you don't understand" bits.

I will say McCain made a much stronger case for himself in regards to foreign policy than his did economics, to me Obama was clearly superior in the economics part of the debate.

[loki]

What Obama said was--and this is a near-quote--"If Al Qaida is in our sites, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to cooperate, then we should go for it."

Honestly, I can't disagree with that.

even if it leads to war with a nuclear power? weren't we thinking of going to war in iran to prevent them becoming a nuclear power(ed) nation?

[mustang84]

Agreed Dodgefan. While McCain is a war hero and has had fairly extensive experience with foreign policy, his lack of acknowledgment toward Obama as an equal was pretty unprofessional. It's one thing to talk about knowledge and experience, and it's another to call your opponent naive multiple times and manipulate the words in statements he made in an attempt to discredit him. Obama took the higher road in this debate, and as a whole, I'd say he won.

[Enzora]

Content-wise, I think both did well, although both had a chance to take bigger hits on each other that they didn't finish. I also thought McCain stuck too much to talking points instead of explaining himself more, even when he made a good point. But I do hope that America won't fall into the trap that "either is an improvement" because that really means nothing given our current president.

Presentation-wise, well duh, it was a redux of Nixon vs Kennedy, 1960.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Enzora

[loki]

If You Vote to Win in the Presidential Election, You Will Lose.

http://www.freeople.com/blog/if-you-vote-w...-will-lose/1763

[SoCalCTS]

While McCain is a war hero and has had fairly extensive experience with foreign policy, his lack of acknowledgment toward Obama as an equal was pretty unprofessional.

Using your father's influence to get you into flight school, then crashing 6 navy jets and being held prisoner for years doesn't make you a war hero no matter how hard the Republican's try to spin it. Obama far exceeds McCain in qualifications. McCain is one of those guys that thinks "just showing up" is the same as doing something. He "showed up in Vietnam", had a phot-op in the middle east... oh... how experienced!!!

[Croc]

even if it leads to war with a nuclear power? weren't we thinking of going to war in iran to prevent them becoming a nuclear power(ed) nation?

Al Quaida isn't a nuclear power (yet), and Pakistan is currently an ally. We can play the what if game until the sun goes supernova, but it doesn't change the fact that Al Quaida is somewhere in Pakistan gaining strength.

[Croc]

If You Vote to Win in the Presidential Election, You Will Lose.

http://www.freeople.com/blog/if-you-vote-w...-will-lose/1763

...and if you vote for the third party candidate in an election with at least one popular candidate of the major parties, you will ALWAYS lose.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I'm watching the debate on YouTube right now, and the main thing I'm noticing is that, as siegen said, Obama is very concise in his points and tends to give a very good overview of his ideas. McCain goes off on tangents and doesn't really address the overall idea. I'm watching right now where the question was how would they use the $700 billion and all McCain rambled on about some story where he saved $6.8 billion with defense contractors...whereas Obama talked about improving education, fixing healthcare, and investing in new forms of energy. Obama seems to understand that we are being left behind on the world stage; this issue doesn't seem as urgent within the McCain campaign.

Perhaps, but you are missing the point, McCain didnt make his point very well but he was trying to get at the fact that the deficit needs to be reduced. When McCain confronted Obama with ways to reduce government spending, all Obama said is we need to increase funding to x, x and x. Which of course is not reducing funding.

Like i said McCain didn't make the point very well, but he did say that spending could be shifted around, so that we could increase spending on programs that need more, but his defense spending thing about one topic can apply to a LOT of defense spending, where budgets often run amok.

What i got out of all that is McCain actually wants to bring government spending in-line, even if it means cutting defense spending (or enforcing strict budgets when it comes to them, not allowing the companies a blank check to keep researching), And shifting government spending around so that programs that need more spending get it, and programs that are over funded are cut back. While it was poorly stated, i think McCain was trying to show that he would be fiscally conservative, whereas all Obama could come up with was he would increase tax revenues a little... and he would spend more on stuff without any cutbacks while creating even more programs.

On that particular point i think Obama blew it... despite the fact that McCain didn't do a good job with it. And if you didn't catch it, they basically said they agree on the alternative fuels... except... McCain seems to be a proponent of Nuclear Reprocessing, which, as the french do, allow 90% of fuel rods to be recycled... which means a LOT LESS nuclear waste.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Presentation-wise, well duh, it was a redux of Nixon vs Kennedy, 1960.

So McCain wins over radio and Obama over TV or is it the other way around?

[Intrepidation]

Perhaps, but you are missing the point, McCain didnt make his point very well but he was trying to get at the fact that the deficit needs to be reduced. When McCain confronted Obama with ways to reduce government spending, all Obama said is we need to increase funding to x, x and x. Which of course is not reducing funding.

Like i said McCain didn't make the point very well, but he did say that spending could be shifted around, so that we could increase spending on programs that need more, but his defense spending thing about one topic can apply to a LOT of defense spending, where budgets often run amok.

What i got out of all that is McCain actually wants to bring government spending in-line, even if it means cutting defense spending (or enforcing strict budgets when it comes to them, not allowing the companies a blank check to keep researching), And shifting government spending around so that programs that need more spending get it, and programs that are over funded are cut back. While it was poorly stated, i think McCain was trying to show that he would be fiscally conservative, whereas all Obama could come up with was he would increase tax revenues a little... and he would spend more on stuff without any cutbacks while creating even more programs.

On that particular point i think Obama blew it... despite the fact that McCain didn't do a good job with it. And if you didn't catch it, they basically said they agree on the alternative fuels... except... McCain seems to be a proponent of Nuclear Reprocessing, which, as the french do, allow 90% of fuel rods to be recycled... which means a LOT LESS nuclear waste.

At one point McCain said he proposed a freeze on nearly all spending, but as Obama pointed out, you're using a hatchet where you need a surgical knife, or something to that effect. Obama also stated that we do have to control government spending, especially on petty things, but some things need funding/more funding, like our pathetic education system, outdated energy infrastructure, and investments in alternative energy. He also said he was not opposed to Nuclear Reprocessing.

So no, I don't think Obama blew it.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

At one point McCain said he proposed a freeze on nearly all spending, but as Obama pointed out, you're using a hatchet where you need a surgical knife, or something to that effect. Obama also stated that we do have to control government spending, especially on petty things, but some things need funding/more funding, like our pathetic education system, outdated energy infrastructure, and investments in alternative energy. He also said he was not opposed to Nuclear Reprocessing.

So no, I don't think Obama blew it.

Yes but when McCain asked him a program to cut spending on, Obama offered nothing, and McCain said if it is needed we can have a spending freeze, and then he said that part about shifting spending around after Obama said what he said about the hatchet.

But to increase funding on education seems silly, because under bush education spending has DRASTICALLY increased (or decreased if your school sucks... which of course makes no sense), and what good has that brought? I haven't seen any improvement in our graduates (even among the ones with increased spending). It's another case of throwing cash at a fire to keep it going rather than getting a log which can do the same job but better and cheaper.

And when we get to that debate, i think McCains position on education will shine.

As to alternative energy, i honestly dont see much of a difference in their policies other than McCain is a stronger proponent of nuclear power.

[Croc]

even if it means cutting defense spending

No, McCain's "spending freeze" exempted defense and programs like Social Security and Medicaid.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Croc

[loki]

Al Quaida isn't a nuclear power (yet), and Pakistan is currently an ally. We can play the what if game until the sun goes supernova, but it doesn't change the fact that Al Quaida is somewhere in Pakistan gaining strength.

i was talking about pakistan.

...and if you vote for the third party candidate in an election with at least one popular candidate of the major parties, you will ALWAYS lose.

it's that kind of logic that precipitates that end. isn't competition a good thing.... 2 choices are hardly choices at all, esp. this time around. the LOWV used to do all the debates, but since..84?.."they" (not the LOWV) has a stranglehold on what we see/hear at the debates...this is just over regulation killing our country ...again.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

No, McCain's "spending freee" exempted defense and programs like Social Security and Medicaid.

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the debate because before he said the spending freeze he mentioned how defense spending needed to be reigned in.

The spending freeze exempted defense spending because in the case of a dramatic event, there may be a need to increase it (even if its nominally being decreased)

[Croc]

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the debate because before he said the spending freeze he mentioned how defense spending needed to be reigned in.

No I watched it, and obviously you noticed the same thing I did, as you immediately follow up with:

The spending freeze exempted defense spending because in the case of a dramatic event, there may be a need to increase it (even if its nominally being decreased)

Sorry, but defense spending has increased so much, and to the detriment of other, more worthy programs over the past 8 years. It above all else needs to be reigned in, in the form of a gradual, responsible withdrawel of troups from Iraq. Finish up our business in Afghanistan. But Iraq never needed our presence, and we need an exit strategy NOW.

So for McCain to call for a spending freeze on everything BUT defense, social security, and medicaid...what exactly is going to get cut? Just thinking about all the government programs that fall outside of those categories makes me ill. Using a hatchet instead of a scalpal is VERY analogous.

As for Obama (and really, McCain) not saying what he would be willing to cut in light of the current financial crisis...honestly that was a stupid question. It is way too soon to know what the effects of this will be. This isn't January, budgets haven't been decided, and we are just too far away to know if there is a need to respond to any other crises.

I also think it's underhanded to ask a question to the candidates essentially to see what single-issue voter constituency they're willing to alienate by saying that issue isn't that important to them. Sure, budgets will be tighter, some goals may not be realized, but why do things have to be cut entirely? Why not just adjusted spending across the board? No, I really disliked that question.

[Drew Dowdell]

To settle the "defense spending" debate. McCain said that we need to stop no-bid Cost+ defense contract because we're getting ripped off. That is something I can agree with him on.

[Satty]

I think both candidates would end the no-bid crap that G-Dubs has been allowing.

[Croc]

I think both candidates would end the no-bid crap that G-Dubs has been allowing.

They better. Completely irresponsible.

[SoCalCTS]

They need to cut defense spending by 50%, close unnecessary bases and merge the V.A. into Social Security and Medicaid. Thats what needs to be done and I hope Obama has the balls to do it. McCain wants to keep military spending at the current unsustainable levels which have bankrupted our nation.

[loki]

They need to cut defense spending by 50%, close unnecessary bases and merge the V.A. into Social Security and Medicaid. Thats what needs to be done and I hope Obama has the balls to do it. McCain wants to keep military spending at the current unsustainable levels which have bankrupted our nation.

you mean subsidizing all the countries in the world with our bases on their soil?

or the spending of SS money in our regular budget and therefor need ..what is it, several trillion in the future, for SS payments?

[gm4life]

No one won. It was a toss up. McCain kept Obama deffending himself. But Obama made his middle-class income redistribution push and that connects. Soicalism at its worst. If the economy don't shape up McCain will have a hard time winning.

[Intrepidation]

No one won. It was a toss up. McCain kept Obama deffending himself. But Obama made his middle-class income redistribution push and that connects. Soicalism at its worst. If the economy don't shape up McCain will have a hard time winning.

How are tax cuts for the middle class and taxes increases for the rich (who have been enjoying tax breaks for 8 years) socialism?