Thread: Debate #3! Its about time McCain took the fight to Obama!

I would most certainly have loved to see McCain hit it out of the ballpark, but I already said what my perception is and gave a quick argument. I can expand it, of course, but it's kind of silly in this format.
May be we can discuss it in the chat sometime esp. if Josh shows up .
(Hi, Josh, I'll be catching up with your post count any time now, better start posting again )

I can kind of see how those already decided for McCain think he may have done better than the past two debates (for me they are not as fresh in memory anymore, so I can't comment), but I don't think preaching to the choir helps him, not at this point. I think that the independent voters don't really care who attacks whom, but would rather favor more time spent in each of them talking on the specifics of their plans and less about their opponent's (and when they do the later preferably w/o a mischaracterization).

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

Oh, and Schieffer did a good job. The questions covered a broader range of issues than previous debates, and he challenged both candidates several times with good follow-up questions. I wish there were more journalists like him these days.

Josh

Yes, I agree, I think the format also allowed for this much better.
But his job was somewhat easier since they didn't have to cover any foreign policy, which was supposed to be dominating the first debate, and we saw how that got scaled down then.

I want to add Joe the Plumber to my list of phrases I never want to hear again.

Obama was consistent, McCain did much better, but he cannot hide his disdain for Obama - the facial expression were disturbing. I also find it hard to believe that McCain would take a penny from the Pentagon's budget.

Obama again did not take the bait on Ayers, ACORN, or abortion (where did that come from?).

McCain's claims to balance the budget a load of BS - contrary to the battle cry of the GOP "Tax and Spend Democrats",in the 60+ years since the end of WWII, the US debt, starting with Truman’s term in 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% annually, while Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% annually...thus, Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Where did the surplus CLinton left disappear to?

McCain fumbled the response regarding the hateful comments which he and Palin allowed at their rallies...too little, too late. His sengue from the Ayers topic to his plan and tax cuts at the end of that section was bizzare.

How he could sit and spout that load of drivel about Palin and not laugh is amazing. This woman is so in bed with big oil, their execs, families, lobbyists and lawyers, I am surpsied that the Dems have not called her on it. I cannot see this woman sitting on the dias in the Senate with not clue as to what to do.

McCain kept beating the dead horse about sitting down without pre-conditions...has no one on his staff told him that that has been shown as a blatant mis-quote?

Obama offerd more tangible metrics on what he intended to do and what the results could be. McCain kept on about offshore drilling....and Joe the Plumber.

If McCain had spent his campaign concentrating on the economy and showing how he is going to fix it, I might feel differently; as it is, he has abandoned his long-standing principles and courted support from people he condemned only a few years ago for the sake of votes.

I just love how Obama won the debate being intelligent, clear and concise. Way to go Dems. you got this one sown up!

X

Originally Posted by xman

I just love how Obama won the debate being intelligent, clear and concise. Way to go Dems. you got this one sown up!

X

I could swear I heard the exact same thing 8 years ago and 4 years ago

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I could swear I heard the exact same thing 8 years ago and 4 years ago

Yeah!! Me too, but not from a Canadian!! Now that's different.

Hasn't anyone put together Obama's two phrases, "95% of Americans will receive tax cuts" and "We're gonna roll back the Bush tax cuts"?
Rolling back a tax cut IS a tax increase!
He CANNOT have it both ways! So which is the lie?

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

Hasn't anyone put together Obama's two phrases, "95% of Americans will receive tax cuts" and "We're gonna roll back the Bush tax cuts"?
Rolling back a tax cut IS a tax increase!
He CANNOT have it both ways! So which is the lie?

There doesn't have to be a lie. No need to be so readily angered.
I don't have the stats so I could be wrong, but is it possible that 95% of the Americans are not the ones who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?

If the Bush tax cuts favored the very rich (which comprise only a couple of% of the total population), then it is relatively easy to reverse the process and distribute the massive tax cuts of the very rich among the other 95% without changing the total tax income for the government.

For the people who have to scrape to make it to the end of the week / month on their paycheck (which seem to be a great many right now) this could make a very big difference.

And even if it would not be zero sum game and the government would get less tax income, it is perfectly possible to repeal the Bush tax cuts AND give 95% of the Americans a new tax cut.
Both are not mutually exclusive, and it is actually a normal thing for taxation rules to change over the course of years.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't have the stats so I could be wrong, but is it possible that 95% of the Americans are not the ones who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?

If the Bush tax cuts favored the very rich (which comprise only a couple of% of the total population), then it is relatively easy to reverse the process and distribute the massive tax cuts of the very rich among the other 95%.

Are you feeding at the DNC trough also Bruno?

Originally Posted by JMS

Are you feeding at the DNC trough also Bruno?

No idea what the DNC is, but I was just trying to defuse some anger with logic and reason.