The Debate: is it over yet?
Has there ever been a debate as dull as Tuesday night’s? [Yes, you and Robert Kuttner vs. Larchmont High in 1963.-ed. You saw that?] Sure, I’m for McCain and he may even have won – if that’s what you call it – but he sure didn’t put in a performance that would put a dent in the polls. Nor did he act like a man who really wanted the job. We heard a lot of that “experience” stuff, but without the Jimi Hendrix guitar riffs. Ye olde.
Not that Obama was any better. We’ve seen all his tedious chops by now ad infinitum and, if things continue as they are, we are likely to see them again and again for four years. I’m already nodding off. (Actually I’ve been slipping over to the Laker exhibition game on veetle.com. D. Fish is knocking them down, but watch out for Deron Williams.) The problem is – between the war on terror and the financial meltdown – these times are as serious as they get… and our political system has produced little or nothing. These guys have been running for two years (or is it more?), spent zillions of dollars and, let’s face it, neither of them or their advisers (at least publicly) has come up with a single thing in the way of original or even intriguing policy. It’s all been a bunch of nothing – unless you’re a paid political consultant like Axelrod, who is undoubtedly raking in millions for his company with each dimwitted commercial.
And don’t even get me started on Tom Brokaw and that pseudo-Town Hall with questions out of a mediocre junior high school civics class. Our system is broken in a myriad of ways. Who is going to fix it?
Part of the problem is that they’ve been running forever. Now all they are is sound bites. I don’t watch the debates because they are worthless from the standpoint of being informative. Unless there is a gaffe, there’s no there there.
I think all political leaders in the country are freaking out about the economy and are simply trying to hold on. Bush has not been very visible, but to be honest, if he were more visible, the pols would be complaining loudly about that. At this point the whole country seems quite tired. tired of the war, tired of the economy, tired of the campaigns, etc. The candidates are us.
@Barry
Amen!
” Nor did he act like a man who really wanted the job.”
The above sentence needs to be slightly revised to read:
Nor did he act like a man who really wanted the job enough to overcome his politically correct inclinations.
Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney would have demolished Barack Obama a few months ago. Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a legitimate campaign issue and John McCain had an opportunity similar to a home run hitter being thrown a slow pitch over the center of the plate. He could have easily hit a grand slam. Instead, McCain’s knees turned to jelly because he might have been unfairly charged with racism.
Roger L. Simon should never forget that I was among the very first individuals to warn about race guilt. I was worried sick that too many people were overly eager to prove that they were not racists—and therefore treat Obama with kid gloves. Sadly, I was not listened to by the appropriate people in power.
I should also add one more point: The success of John McCain’s campaign probably depends on the efforts of Sarah Palin. She is the only person truly standing in the way of Barack Obama. Palin seems not even slightly infected with political correctness. The fact that her husband and children are part Eskimo may have something to do with it. She will continue reminding Americans that Obama is far left of center. This just might be enough on Election Day.
I agree with David Thomson re Sarah Palin.
And her term, ‘palling around’ with terrorist Ayers is absolutely correct. Apparently, there are some titters from the Beltway crowd over that term, and her ‘you betcha’… but she always describes reality. And, she never ever titters!
I am reading some essays by Eric Hoffer. Now there was an intelligent observer of real life.
McCain’s just can’t quite accept that that the things he thinks should be helping him like his record of bipartisanship, being the MSM’s favorite Republican, aren’t going to help him at all now.
His refusal to fight back on the mortgage mess is emblematic of his refusal to aggressively defend (or in some cases embrace) conservative principles.
In a normal election, ties to guys like Ayers and Wright would make a big difference, but each day of economic distress makes them increasingly marginal figures to people concerned with practical matters. They won’t wake up until they find out their kids are taught to hate America in school.
About a third of the way through the debate I thought “I’m not going to be able to sit through this”. As I switched through channels I came across a Spanish channel covering the debate. I then came up with the idea of listening to McCain in English and Obama in Spanish. The debate at that point became more interesting. I don’t understand Spanish but then Obama speaks to me in a foreign tongue anyway.
Sorry, the townhall format doesn’t allow for the tactics preferred here. You have to answer the question, and Brokaw basically chose all those. At what point do you slip in the Ayers connection? As for Palin, of course she will go after Obama harder. The VP candidates are supposed to be the attack dogs. This seems a more plausible explanation than that she’s “part Eskimo.”
You would think McCain would point out that while Dems refuse to permit offshore by American firms, China is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Or that al Qaeda left Afstan for Pakistan 15 months before the U.S. went into Iraq.
Or that al Qaeda has suffered a terrible defeat in Iraq and their reputation has been severely damaged. And no, they are not stronger than ever.
And if we had not gone into Iraq then today both Iraq and Iran would be training terrorists and puruing nuclear weapons.
And Obama is going to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Sure, he’s going to talk them out of it.
And if we have bin laden in our sights and Pakistan refuses to act we should go into Pakistan and get him. As if we could have him in our sights without having already gone into Pakistan.
I could go on. These stupid Democratic talking points can be easily refuted but McCain isn’t up to the task.
McCain is a terrible debater.
The debate was a disaster. You can blame that anal probe Brokaw (he was terrible), or the rules of the debate (inane) but this is probably the end for McCain.
Republicans accept every debate moderator, venue, format, and set up that is offered to them by their enemies, the press. If that’s the best they can do then will lose.
I’m very depressed. America is about to elect a president more radical, socialistic, anti-Israel, and inept than even Jimmy Carter was. But Carter was better at hiding his true nature until he was elected. Maybe in the end Americans don’t care if their commander in chief once yucked it up with an unrepentant terrorist. God help us all.
Keep in mind that the audience here and on most political blogs have been following this election closely for many months, and most of us them already made up their minds, so the debate wasn’t for them. This was for that 30% that haven’t decided yet and are just tuning in. I’m sure it was dull for them too, but not as dull as it was for the rest of us.
Also, there will be a distinct effort to define Obama now to that 30% so that he won’t have time to counter. Will it work? Possibly, but events are overtaking the election. Has the party in presidential power ever won when the election was held during an economic downturn?
“The VP candidates are supposed to be the attack dogs.”
Nope, I am sticking with the fact that Sarah Plain’s children are part Indian. She is, however, for whatever reason, not infected with the ideological virus of political correctness. Palin could care less that Barack Obama is a “man of color.” Unfortunately, John McCain and other so-called moderate Republicans can’t get past his skin pigmentation. This results in their holding back their punches. Once again, we should never forget that Obama’s campaign should have been demolished some two months ago. The Rev. Wright scandal should have been the end of it. The added revelations concerning Bill Ayers and the other Chicago area miscreants would have been inevitable. John Mccain should have been perceived as the prudent choice until 2012.
“Has the party in presidential power ever won when the election was held during an economic downturn?”
The above sentence leaves much to be desired. It should instead read:
Has the party in presidential power ever won when the election was held during an economic downturn—when the minority party is mostly responsible for the economic mess? This current crisis is primarily the fault of Barney Frank and other left-wing Democrats. I long ago realized that life is not always fair—but isn’t this ridiculous?
I’m not sure why you’re complaining about neither candidate coming up with an ‘original’ or ‘intriguing’ piece of policy. First of all, as a citizen, I don’t want pizazz or intrigue in the policies my elected officials pursue. I want smartness. I mean, the most ‘intriguing’ policy proposal of the season was probably Huckabee’s flat tax. It was also probably the most ridiculous.
But also, if you’d take a moment to look past all the campaign theatrics (theatrics which you claim to disdain, despite not seeming to want to write about much else on this blog), there are some fresh policy ideas out there. McCain’s energy proposals are certainly not boilerplate party-line. Nor are Obama’s tax plan or universal health care plan (both of which I’d say he has no chance of actually enacting as written given the current economic crisis).
Mr. Thomson,
I agree with your statement re the crisis, but life is both unfair and ridiculous. In bad economic times it’s the president and his party that gets most of the blame.
Anyway, I haven’t given up. I count six elections where the president’s approval ratings were below 40%, and five times he or his party’s nominee lost. Truman was the only winner. That leaves a chance. So one in six … roll the dice.
“In bad economic times it’s the president and his party that gets most of the blame.”
Baloney! That is simply wrong. Franklin D. Roosevelt was responsible for worsening economic conditions in the United States—but the MSM protected his administration. He ended up benefiting from his mistakes! This is what we all must do until Election Day: Barney Frank has to become the poster child of the Democratic Party’s corruption. The middle of the road voters should have Frank’s name on the tip of their tongue when they are casting their ballots.
One of the nice things about being able to make a decision is that I don’t have to bother sitting through those so-called debates. I’m not wild about McCain but will vote for him when early voting begins in Colorado on October 20th. Since there is absolutely nothing on or off of this world that could convince me to vote for Obama or to not vote for McCain, watching the debates is a waste of time.
I thought Roger’s comment about wanting original or intriquing policy was made out of frustration with the debate, and more a result of blogging the moment. Ron Paul certainly had both original and intriquing policies, and created quite a fanatical following as a result.
The unemployment rate in 1932 was 23.6%, with a negative GNP of 13.4%. The unemployment rate in the 1936 was 16.9%, with a positive GNP of 14.1%.
I don’t disagree that FDR’s policies made the depression worse and longer, but there were basic numbers from the election years that led people to believe they were better off than they were four years before. It was perceived as an upturn, and promoted by the media as such.
I rushed home to see the debate last night. I hoped to see McCain come out fighting. But, within 5 minutes I hit “mute” and walked away. I snuck a peak from time to time, hoping I was wrong, but I wasn’t. I’m resigned to an Obama presidency now.
And, I really am unhappy with McCain voting for the bailout and all the pork it contained. I liked Palin, but the VP pick was never what was critical. We really needed a street fighter Presidential candidate to take on the ONE. Hillary figured it out, but the kick in the head came to late. McCain palled around with the media who have simple run over him and left him as road kill.
The world has changed already, the useful idiots will have their day. We are going the way of Europe.
I’m just wondering if Rush thinks he made a mistake. He did seem to think Obama would be eassier to beat.
The open ended question format made it too easy for both candidates to repeat their campaign stump speeches. They should have been asked simple “yes or no” questions. Maybe a game-show format where both candidates answer simultaneously using podium buttons, then revealing their answers visually. Allow them time to explain their answer only if they responded differently from each other.</
Agreed. Watching last night’s debate was largely a waste of time.
It was especially annoying to hear both of them go on and on discussing overly complex plans to change the best health care system in the world. If it ain’t broke, there must be something the federal government can do about it.
By the way, the name of last night’s MVP is Deron Williams, not “Darren.” Your star player has a goofy name too, but we don’t call him “Cobey.” Show some respect.
Perhaps the crowning moment was when Brokaw, rendered mute by the champions coming together mid-stage and blocking his view of the teleprompter, asked if they could get out of the way.
I kind of feel like I’d like them to get out of the way. Can I vote Gingrich – Palin?
I heard a commenter on the adio suggest a great idea: Give the candidates the chance to ask each other 10 questions, then turn the rest of the questions over to the audience. No imposition of the moderator on the questions unless they exceed the bounds of civil discourse.
Gary S., I humbly apologize. DERON is a great player.
The quote destroys the leftist myth that President Bush is a warmonger.
Ditto, ditto and ditto.
Ya sit there and think, yep John’s gonna go after him this time…….here it comes and then you here that comment that if I watch the last debate will generate an episode of heaving.
“I’m the one who has successfully reached across the aisle”
John forget about it. None of the bricks who are still undecided don’t care one iota if you’ve reached across the aisle. It makes you look like a nice guy. When the other guys aren’t playing nice, well hell you should play nice. Go for the throat and hang on to the jugular.
STOP PLAYING NICE AND GO FOR THE COJONES
We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests. — Barack Obama 7-Oct-2008
Neo,
Thinking people who do not blame America for radical Islam know Bush is not a warmonger.
The question is do you actually believe Obama and take him at face value?
Obama has contradicted himself at every turn. As a result, he is a complete unknown and the most dangerous candidate for President in the history of the United States.
Peter G. noted:
The unemployment rate in 1932 was 23.6%, with a negative GNP of 13.4%. The unemployment rate in the 1936 was 16.9%, with a positive GNP of 14.1%.
I understand your point about 1936 appearing to be an upturn. By 1937, however, additional “New Deal” taxation and regulation began to hit the economy. Over the period of 1937 – 1938, production plunged 33% and unemployment rose to 20%. By 1940, production was at the same level it had been 8 years earlier after Hoover’s term ended: over 50% below the level of 1929. In fact,industrial production did not recover to the levels of 1929 until after Roosevelt died, WWII came to an end and most of the “New Deal” was repealed by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Michael Smith,
Noted. I think the differences in the numbers between 1932 and 1936 help explain FDR’s big victory in 1936. He didn’t win by as much in 1940, but he did win comfortably. Foreign policy had become a bigger issue then, and I’m sure FDR played it well (meaning played it as both an internationalist and an isolationist). For this election foreign policy has been knocked off the front pages by the economic news. This too helps Obama.
Most of the Dems think Obama was only 8 when Ayera “started” his anti American dirty work and McCain has not punched up the true facts of relationship in these political years. The fact alone in Ayers school involvement, the basic fact that the University of Chicago has had a reputation since the latter 30′s into the 40′s of communistic leanings by the teaching staff, or we could say “socialistic”. Ayers is a big danger to our educational system and needs to be stopped, however Obama will tell us, like he did with Rev. Wright, ” I never saw this side of him”. It appears
our nation will again have to learn the hard way, “the same way it was built to be the greatest nation”, by experiencing the promises of Obama &
what his “friends” have in store for our freedom as it has been. We are a resilant mix of people from all over the world, and no matter how long we have lived here, third generation or first, it was due to being a free people and guess we will have to continue the fight to protect these rights only
after we see them being taken away. Our country has gone way past skin color and those who refuse to accept this need to find a new Island to
discover, we do not want a socialistic government on our shores,nor a communistic one.
I thought McCain clearly won the first debate. He was OK last night, but unlike two weeks ago Obama was really at the top of his game. The election is about Obama, not McCain: vast majority of people want change, Obama is change, the only question is whether he is a safe, credible pick for Commander-in-Chief and President. He sure looked like one last night.
McCain is a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been a much better President than George Bush in 2000. Today, he looks Dolesque. Bush has really driven this country into the ground. As Andrew Bacevich, my favorite conservative writer, writes here, “He told us to go shopping, now the bill is due.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301977.html
Safe and Credible?
I wouldn’t want to be around when Obama’s ‘Young Pioneers’ start ‘reeducating’ the populace.
He’s been part of a corrupt political machine, a man with no accomplishments except getting himself elected, and never coming through on any promises he makes.
He has no moral compass when it comes to the people he surrounds himself with. An Obama Administration will not only ruin this country economically, it will weaken our military and despite his claims of wanting to get the world’s ‘respect’, he will be a weak President when it comes to facing our enemies.
Its time to FIGHT! Strike back against these media weapons of mass distortion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K50TS0UZE7w
THIS IS THE VIDEO THEY DONT WANT YOU TO SEE!
I caught only the quip about “hair plugs” during the dull insurance part, and even then McDuck had to allow as how he may need them. I no longer think he will be tougher with Putin than The One. What a disaster of an election.
Rich Lowry in The Corner says what I’ve been trying to say, but he says it better:
Capitulation [Rich Lowry]
“It should be the word of the day. Here’s the New York Times on capitulation in the financial context, a “term of art to describe what happens when even the bullish holdouts, the unflagging optimists, throw up their hands and join the stampede out of the market.” A lot of conservatives are throwing up theirs hands today, driven into depression by last night’s debate. But let’s keep our wits about us, as Mark Steyn recommends. One more thought on Ayers. It’s an entirely legitimate issue, but not a magic bullet. McCain could have brought Ayers up last night, but Obama would have given his stock reply and it wouldn’t have been the “game-changer” everyone’s looking for. And if McCain had repeatedly returned to Ayers, it would have seemed weird and off-key. I think McCain made a pretty good substantive case against Obama, and he lived to fight another day. Palin will presumably continue to make the hot-button case against Obama (and it will get attention because the media’s so obsessed with her), while McCain hits Obama on the issues and experience. Absent some major outside event or a big Obama mistake, they’re going to have to try to grind down his lead in the next couple of weeks. I tend to believe that voters are going to take a serious second look at Obama sometime between now and election day and grapple with whether they’re really comfortable making him president. So this thing’s not over. Are the odds long? Sure, but they always were.”
“McCain could have brought Ayers up last night”
He could have also mentioned Barney Frank. The Massachusetts congressman should have been cited around three or four times. Bill Ayers is not the only miscreant that threatens the Obama campaign!
It’s true it’s not over, but it isn’t encouraging.
I would rather my desire that McCain win be replaced with some confidence he has a fighting chance other than telling me how some people, apparently the sleepy ones that are too busy to have paid much if any attention up to this point, will give The One a second look…
… and be miraculously shaken to their boots to the point of voting for McCain.
It’s not my wits that are at issue, it is the sleepy one’s wits. And a slow grinding down may not be enough to put people into shock.
Has anyone seen the David Brooks’ commnets about Palin being a cancer on the Republican Party? Silly stuff to be sure, but he’s a “conservative” at NY Times. The NY elite cringes at the sight of Palin. David Remnick was absolutely NY provincial in that prissy way only he can muster (on Charlie Rose show).
Circumstances might shift the dynamic of the election, and McCain has come back before, but the signs are not good here.
” Nor did he act like a man who really wanted the job. ”
That’s IT! At this point, who would?
It’s an entirely legitimate issue, but not a magic bullet. McCain could have brought Ayers up last night, but Obama would have given his stock reply and it wouldn’t have been the “game-changer” everyone’s looking for.
Good God, the association with Ayers by itself is trivial as far as the general public goes – they don’t know who he is, and communism isn’t the boogaboo it was thirty years ago.
But McCain should forthrightly assert that Obama was brought onto the CAC board by one Bill Ayers, who had figured out how to game the Annenberg Foundation for enormous funds. Annenberg wanted the money to improve Chicago education. Obama doled it out instead to organizations of radicals who ‘organized’ communities into ACORN-like groups for political gain, at the children’s expense – piously bleating about ‘the children’ as a smokescreen. Obama should be taken to account for the self-admitted failure by the CAC to improve the learning of those kids, and should be made to answer why $150,000,000 was diverted from learning to political activists instead. In the business world, that’s fraud, and Obama still needs to answer for it.
So it begins. See Dean Reynolds’ CBSNews column on travel with Obama. MSM/press made Obama, but will tear him down when he’s President because he didn’t treat them as well as McCain. He closes by writing, “in politics, everything that goes around comes around.”
“We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests. — Barack Obama 7-Oct-2008″
The only question is: Is he lying now? Or has he been lying for the last 18 months?
The only question is: Is he lying now? Or has he been lying for the last 18 months?
The only thing is that assumes he actually has a plan rather than being an empty suit. What has he done in public life? Basically nothing except run for office. What are his successes? Winning public office. That’s it. He will provide the flowery cover Dems need to push an agenda, an agenda that is not being discussed publicly. In an ironic way, the financial crisis might be the only thing to slow them down. If the Dems get 60 votes in the Senate, it will not be pretty (for our pocketbooks). The election of 2010 will be a corker.