Official Obama- McCain debate thread

Obama kept calling John McCain, "Jim"
he also called him "Tim" at least once

John, Jim and Tim McCain? Obama will never win against all three

Obama just doesn't get it with the tax cuts. It's all well and good to want to give tax cuts to everyone, but honestly what good does it do to give the lower and middle classes tax cuts, putting a little bit more money in their pockets, if you turn around and hike taxes on the rich aka the lower and middle class employers? What good does it do to have that little bit of money back if it costs you your job???

This is where McCain should have really laid into Obama. The reason you give tax cuts to the rich is to foster new jobs and expansion. If you increase taxes on the rich, they will make cutbacks in other places to make up the loss, aka jobs.

reply to post by iamian


He was talking to the moderator, whose name is Jim.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by iamian

 

He was talking to the moderator, whose name is Jim.

that explains why he called him "Jim" he was getting confused with the two

reply to post by sos37

Obama just doesn't get it with the tax cuts.

I'd have to say I agree with this, up to a point. But neither of them 'get it'. Obama for the reasons you mentioned above, and McCain because he seems to forget that greed extends all the way up the socio-economic level.

The problem isn't that there are no jobs, it is that there are no well-paying jobs. With the cost of fuel to go back and forth to work rising, and pay levels stagnant, it is getting nigh impossible for the average working Joe to make enough money to buy food and gas and pay their utilities, much less cover those high bills most people made a few years back when everything was fine. There is no more money left for the working class to buy the things they used to buy, and that means there are less places making those things. That means more people out of work, and the continuation of a viscious spiral.

But placing the burden on big business doesn't work either. If you increase the cost of doing business, you make businesses less profitable. We want to create more jobs, not make it harder to afford to do so. As I have heard said many times, when you are looking for a job, you go to the people who are rich, not to the homeless guy on the street.

If we are to stop this economic meltdown, we have to cut spending. Period. The US Government is spending well beyond its means. Earmarks (once known as 'pork') have to be stopped, now. Over-regulation of industries have to be stopped, now. And this has to be continued, until the economy staggers back to life.

This cannot happen in today's world. We have become lazy and fat as a people. We depend on the government to run every aspect of our lives. We demand minimum wage hikes whenever we feel a need for more money, rather than organizing against opportunistic employers or increasing our own productivity. We demand government sponsored guarantees on our home loans, so we don't have to haggle as much over terms with the bank. We demand unemployment insurance and workman's compensation be paid for by our employers, effectively raising the real wages we receive without adding a dime to that paycheck. We demand that we be kept safe by OSHA, which places a huge financial burden on our employers with a maze of regulations. We demand price controls to limit how much our 'evil' employers make.

All of these things take money. We are out of money. Sometime soon, we will wake up to a world where all of these things no longer exist, because there is no more money. And what is even scarier is that when we do wake up to that day, we won't have any money either. Worse, we won't have the strength or the knowledge to enforce them ourselves, as we should have been doing all along.

Neither candidate has the answer, because they can't. It is not in their power to fix this. It is our responsibility, our duty, our prerogative to fix this problem. And we are no longer capable of doing so.

Next issue?

TheRedneck

Did anyone else notice McCain identify Obama as the heir to Bush?

I'd be fascinated to know if I'm the only one who caught this, I've looked in many places and no-one has mentioned it. In McCain's penultimate answer he said:

And I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion - aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge i shows to me that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.

Obama caught it as his face burst into an incredulous grin that said "he's just likened ME to Bush!" I thought it was the wonderful moment in the debate.




[edit on 27/9/08 by Supercertari]

Originally posted by Supercertari
Did anyone else notice McCain identify Obama as the heir to Bush?

I'd be fascinated to know if I'm the only one who caught this, I've looked in many places and no-one has mentioned it. In McCain's penultimate answer he said:

And I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion - aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge i shows to me that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.

Obama caught it as his face burst into an incredulous grin that said "he's just likened ME to Bush!" I thought it was the wonderful moment in the debate.




[edit on 27/9/08 by Supercertari]

I think what McCain was implying, and rightly so, was the stubborn resistance to doing the surge by Bush, which is correct. *snip* Oboma is as stubborn as Bush and in this would be a bad president.

Mod Note: Ending the Politcal Trolling on ATS

[edit on 9/27/2008 by maria_stardust]

As far as the debate went, *snip* Obama looked like a robot. He tried hard not to stutter, go "..uh.." and look stupid. This tells me he listens daily to Rush and Hannity. But in any event, his jerky movements made me feel uncomfortable. McCain often had that assuring smile all night. That, with the answers to the questions, I would say that John McCain walked away with a win last night.

Mod Note: Ending the Politcal Trolling on ATS

[edit on 9/27/2008 by maria_stardust]

reply to post by Fromabove

I think what McCain was implying, and rightly so, was the stubborn resistance to doing the surge by Bush, which is correct. Barak Hussein Oboma is as stubborn as Bush and in this would be a bad president.

I love when someone says McCain but then gives Barack's full name. Ok mr rush limbaugh...

How is it that Obama was stubborn about the surge not working when minutes earlier McCain gave an argument saying that Obama, on a tv show, said "the surge worked beyond my wildest expectations"....?


Stubbornness is seeing something not work, but continue it. Resistance is seeing something not work, then when hearing more of the same, be cautious and not want to go through with it, when LIVES of American soldiers are at stake.

If my kid was going to go off to war, Id sure hope the leaders were DAMN stubborn before making the decisions to send my son or daughter into harms way. Not just on some 'gut' instinct.
Explain that one. I'll wait for a response.

Originally posted by Bean328
I was thinking the same thing. I saw a few times where people said mccains experience showed last night. Experience on wat. Everytime he tried to disprove or discredit obama he went on a 5 minute rant and I'm not even sure he knew wat he was talking about. To tell you the truth not much if anything he said made sense to me.

He also hasn't exactly had the best track record on his past decisions so he's had experience making bad decisions.

Well since the subject was foreign policy for the most part, McCain mentioned these things:

Marines in Beruit - opposed. He was right. Went against his own party.
First Gulf War- supported. He was right.
Bosnia- Supported. He was right. Went against his own party.
Somolia- Opposed. He was right.
Kosovo- Supported. He was right.
Afghansitan- Supported. He was right.
Iraq war- Supported. History will judge, too early.
Surge in Iraq- Supported. He was right. Everyone pretty much had written Iraq and Surge off by that point.
Georgia- His initial instincts were correct.

Say what you will about the man, but he does seem to know when and where to use the Military force of the U.S.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Bean328
I was thinking the same thing. I saw a few times where people said mccains experience showed last night. Experience on wat. Everytime he tried to disprove or discredit obama he went on a 5 minute rant and I'm not even sure he knew wat he was talking about. To tell you the truth not much if anything he said made sense to me.

He also hasn't exactly had the best track record on his past decisions so he's had experience making bad decisions.

Well since the subject was foreign policy for the most part, McCain mentioned these things:

Marines in Beruit - opposed. He was right. Went against his own party.
First Gulf War- supported. He was right.
Bosnia- Supported. He was right. Went against his own party.
Somolia- Opposed. He was right.
Kosovo- Supported. He was right.
Afghansitan- Supported. He was right.
Iraq war- Supported. History will judge, too early.
Surge in Iraq- Supported. He was right. Everyone pretty much had written Iraq and Surge off by that point.
Georgia- His initial instincts were correct.

Say what you will about the man, but he does seem to know when and where to use the Military force of the U.S.

Marines in Beirut- Obvious
First Gulf War- Obvious
Bosnia_ Im a dem, so obvious
Kosovo- Again, Im a dem, so , obvious
Afghanistan- This was right after 9/11 who wasnt in favor of it.
Iraq war-Time will tell? no, WRONG
Surge- Right, because we started to use money wisely and got the tribes in Iraq to start helping us.
Georgia-Obama thought the same way.

Here is a rundown o the facts checked by factcheck.org to see who was right and wrong in all the little bickering...

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Thats the tiff... Who was right??

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions: Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box? Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting: Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

Looks like that depending on how you look at it, Id say both were correct. Obama repeated that he never said Kissinger said 'at the presidential level'



so next....

McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years. McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18 billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years? In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent. Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels," according to its analysis.

Looks like McCain looses some points, even I was giving him in the earmark debate. Flat out WRONG.

This one made me laugh...

$3 million to study the DNA of bears? And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before. McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control. McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Sorry, John, maybe you forgot, but you voted for the bill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moving on it seems Obama was wrong on the Iraqi current war bill...

Obama was out of date in saying the Iraqi government has "79 billion dollars," when he argued that the U.S. should stop spending money on the war in Iraq.

Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.obama As we've said before, there was a time when the country could have had as much as $79 billion, but that time has passed. What the Iraqis actually “have” is $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume.

Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, which was omitted from the GAO’s surplus tally since it was still under consideration. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus. So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.

Another Obama mistake, and this could be how you look at the words....

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people."

An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

I wouldnt bring this up if it werent for McCain being i nthe military. He used this little nugget of a story to garner sympathy agianst OBama. Sorr John, Ike never wrote a letter saying he would resign, from any position....

McCain mangled his military history:

McCain: President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters. One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever. And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

The story is widely circulated in military circles but not entirely true. Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail.

But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning. Here's the full text: Eisenhower (June 5, 1944): Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone. No mention of quitting the Army, or his command.

I'll post more after we debate these...

source...factcheck.org

Marines in Beirut- Obvious. The vote was very close at the time.

First Gulf War- Obvious. You would think it was obvious but the Senate voted 52 to 47 in favor of force. Take a look at who opposed.

For those too lazy to research:

Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution: Sens. John Breaux (D-LA), Richard Bryan (D-NV), Al Gore (D-TN), Bob Graham (D-FL), Howell Heflin (D-AL), Bennett Johnston (D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Harry Reid (D-NV), Chuck Robb (D-VA), Richard Shelby (D-AL).

Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Bosnia_ Im a dem, so obvious. Why is it obvious only to a Dem?

Kosovo- Again, Im a dem, so , obvious Why is it obvious only to a Dem?

Afghanistan- This was right after 9/11 who wasnt in favor of it.

Iraq war-Time will tell? no, WRONG. Again way too early to judge.

Surge- Right, because we started to use money wisely and got the tribes in Iraq to start helping us. The why were the Dems sure it was wrong and doomed to failure?


Georgia-Obama thought the same way. Not according to his initial statements, he didn't outright condemn the Russians, by blaming both he gave the Russians political cover for their actions. Do you really want that in a President?

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

www.suntimes.com...


[edit on 27-9-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by pavil]

A couple of things. McCain repeatedly stated, 'When I was in ____'. I have to ask, what possible benefit is there ina Senator going to these places? They just get shuttled to some secure 'green zone' where they are briefed by the people we put on the ground there, there's a photo-op and they come home. Wouldn't be more efficient (not to mention less expensive) to fire-up a video-conference link? I mean, you'd be getting briefed by the very same people. It's not like he goes there and gets to tour the country. This is the 21st century. We have the technology.

Also, as has been previously stated. Our military people are honored for their service. Not the outcome that is beyond their control. I don't get this 'win or go home in dishonor' thing McCain is all about. I mean, how do we win? How do we KNOW if we win? There's no referee. Let's say we decide, if they have an election we win. Then we go home and let's say the gov't gets assassinated. Have we still won? In a conventional war it's a nation v. nation thing. The loser 'sues for peace' and a peace accord is drawn-up and signed. That can never happen in Iraq. We're not fighting a nation. So as far as I see it the Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter) wars are 'unwinnable'. If McCain's definition of 'winning' is eliminating all combatants that will never happen and I can then understand his 100-year statement. It's not doable.

Originally posted by Office 4256
McCain seemed like he was having a senior moment every five minutes.

During the debate, McCain said something about "taking my veto pen", and he lifted up a pen at his podium. Right in the middle of what McCain was saying, he stopped, and commented on the pen in a slightly confused manner, something about "This is an old pen..."

I didn't understand the context of that at all. It appeared to be a striking lapse in the conversation thread, as if McCain had some sort of minor micro-stroke.

I am not kidding here. Losing your place in the middle of a conversation, when you are speaking, and changing gears like that -- it is one of the symptoms of a micro-stroke. It may be nothing -- he recovered quickly -- but I understand also quite common when you have a micro-stroke.

Here is some external info on micro-strokes, officially called "transitory ischemic attacks":

en.wikipedia.org...

I really don't want to disparage McCain -- he is one of my favorite Republicans, and I have always respected him. But this gives me some concern, and I think it is a legitimate point that nobody has commented on so far.

Edit: One more note: I don't think people realize how many USA Presidents have had strokes while in office, or soon after. It is really kind of amazing:

www.cnsspectrums.com...

I really don't like the idea of having to suffer through something like that in this day of cable television and talk radio. And of course, I don't want anyone to suffer a stroke for any reason.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by Buck Division

I caught that too, but I chalked it up to an attempt to be funny (one that failed miserably IMHO). Of course, McCain did a major stumble over the name of the Iraqi President as well. It's a tough name though (which is why I don't try and spell it here), and I can make some allowance for that as well, even if I did think his method of recovery was ill-advised and called attention to his blunder.

I am less interested in the semantics of how well they pronounce words and how bad they do at making jokes than I am at how they see the issues and how well they think things through.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Spoodily

Palin because she's a redneck,

In an effort to deny ignorance......you clearly have NEVER been to Alaska. I have, and in fact lived there for many years. I knew/met tons of people. None of them were what people call "rednecks".

You have no idea what you are talking about. Just because someone hunts and likes the outdoors, does not make them a "redneck".

Good Lord

Originally posted by Buck Division
But this gives me some concern, and I think it is a legitimate point that nobody has commented on so far.

I didn't comment on it here, but my husband and I both commented on it during the debate. There were several times that I questioned his line of thought. But on the other hand, I was extremely impressed with his grasp of details, especially with numbers. He talked of 650 thousand here and 1.7 billion there, 420 million of these and 4 hundred thousand of those. So, his grasp of numbers seemed a bit incongruous with his moments of general disorientation (if that's what they were).