Forbidden Donut

I approve message

McCain is a bumbling moron and also he makes stuff up, sometimes.

The interesting thing about the debate to me was how they interrupted each other.

Also, I (biased I know) thought Obama actually answered some questions on the economy, while McCain just controlled the context of the debate, which is not the debaters job, but scores points with the people I guess. On FP it was really Obama's job to show that his knowledge matches McCain's and he's a little more level headed, and I think he succeeded at that as well.

For the record, a month ago people were screaming about how much Obama sucks without a teleprompter and I think he did a fantastic job when put on the spot.

McCain showed he wasn't stupid, but dodged a lot of pretty direct questions.

My summary:
dodge, dodge, dodge, blame opponent, dodge, tell joke, dodge, dodge, spin, dodge, spin, blame opponent, dodge

It's Super Effective!

Also heard that the moderator of the debate wasn't all that great and didn't have much control of the debate? Is that true?

The moderator let them both steer the debate however they wanted and didn't really keep them on task or on time. I think they both took advantage of it, but I got the impression that McCain planned on doing that from the get go.

I got up early to watch it...6:45 in the morning...so imma say it was worth it.

I agree with court that the debate was a lot of nothing, but I don't think that any of us should have expected anything else given past debates. That being said, compared to debates of the past, this one was much more combative. They went back and forth without much time restrictions and I think it produced some decent back and forth action.

I am not on either side of the parties here but I would have to say that McCain won this one. I know no one really "wins" these things but I thought he did the best. McCain is simply a better public speaker in a debate situation. He got the last word in on many topics. He could lead a conversation and take back the voice while when Obama tried to interject he had to give into McCain's voice.

And while it is debatable if what everything McCain said was true, sometimes, a lot of the times, that doesnt' even matter. He said it plainly, simply, and with little doubt, making it sound true. He talks with confidence. Me, you, and some other people will go look on the internet and try to find out the truth, but your average american is going to here McCain speak well about a certain topic..and listen.

One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way about Obama's debate part was that he didn't answer a straight answer, and he would go off on tangents. I hate tangents. At least twice Obama started off on a topic, and then went on about how it affected going green and the environment. great..I know it affects the environment, and we need to work on it, but you don't need to dedicate a minute to that when it is not even the topic. Also..the biggest thing that annoyed me was early on in the debate where McCain said that Obama had over 900,000 dollars worth of Earmarks at one point. Fine..maybe it is true, maybe it is not, but Obama said NOTHING about it. McCain didn't mention it just once. This was conversation that was bounced back and forth and it was mentioned I believe THREE times. Each time Obama made literally NO attempt to say anything about it. If you did it, you say "Yes I had 900,000 in earmarks..i am sorry."and give a reason why or something. If you don't...you say "No I did not, and here is why I didn't"...you don't just leave it to nothing..that really annoyed me.


I can blabber on for a long time. Realize this sounds like I love McCain..I was hoping Obama would do better.

Go nonexistent independents!

What your saying KP --And I mean this without trying to paint you as a partisan douche (which I will do now and again).-- is that when McCain doesn't respond to the question he's asked he's "leading the conversation" or "taking back the voice" and when Obama strays off topic (usually after addressing the question he's asked or rebutting something McCain made up) he's going off on a tangent.

Be consistent at least. They were both catering to the kennedy krowd. The fools who don't listen to what they're saying but how they say it and how they look saying it. But Obama, to me, seemed to try and balance this with actual answers. I didn't see that from McCain more than a few times in topics he was extremely comfortable with. I'm reading the transcript atm but it's long. I'll have a much more objective opinion after I do.

While I'm doing that, let's play a game. Answer Obama or McCain. Try and attribute the quote to the correct candidate.

question: what programs would get cut from your plan, if any, as a result of this bailout if it goes through?

But there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done. We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy (OOTC:AEGC) , solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.

Please tell me how anything I said was me being, as you said in such an intelligent manner an "partisan douche". Please tell me..

What I said was that McCain is a better speaker, and that often when people speak, it doesn't matter what they say, its about the delivery. McCain's delivery, I felt, was better. It is an opinion, and the people I viewed the debate with (all obama supporters...democrats abroad) felt the same way. 90% of them in fact that Obama did not do a good job with the debate, or at least not as good as they thought he should have done.

The quote I believe was from Obama. I haven't seen or read the debate since it was originally aired but I STILL think that they went on about the environment too much. Ok, yes, you DON"T want to sacrifice spending on the environment, it doesn't mean that you have to go that in depth to it. He also, technically did not answer the question.

And also, please tell me what you think about the no answer about the earmarks that McCain claimed Obama took.

-Tom

um I didn't?

I'd REALLY like to believe though that a debate is you know... a debate. And not a performance piece. I think um uhh ing is probably not a good thing, but it shows that he's at least thinking about it. I don't think that McCain did any better at actually answering questions. He, as you said, controlled the debate. That means he didn't in the words of Palin, "Answer the questions that you or the moderator want to hear."

What question didn't Obama technically answer? Your description is vague.

I think his answer was:

He hasn't made earmark reform a central part of his campaign and McCain was trying to apply it to him like it was. He's always said that earmark reform won't be enough to save our economy.

Was he supposed to lie? Give you a line by line detail of every earmark he requested? I don't know why you're so fixated on that. Unless 18 billion dollars in earmarks piss you off more than nearly 40 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans.

The question asked was:
"And using your word "fundamental," are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama's approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?"

McCain's answer:
Earmark Reform + Attack on Obama regarding Earmarks

Obama's answer:
Quick response to the attack + compares his 900 million in earmarks to McCain's 300 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy + why he thinks his tax plan is better.

Nope. Obama totally dodged the question there.

Sorry to post so much:

MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.

We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the -- the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it's a gateway. It's a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.

And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending.

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.

As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I've got a pen. This one's kind of old. I've got a pen, and I'm going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.

Now, Senator Obama, you wanted to know one of the differences. He has asked for $932 million of earmark pork-barrel spending, nearly a million dollars for every day that he's been in the United States Senate.

I suggest that people go up on the Web site of Citizens Against Government Waste, and they'll look at those projects.

That kind of thing is not the way to rein in runaway spending in Washington, D.C. That's one of the fundamental differences that Senator Obama and I have.

LEHRER: Senator Obama, two minutes.

OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.

But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.

Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important. And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.

So my attitude is, we've got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.

And that means that the ordinary American out there who's collecting a paycheck every day, they've got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them.

And over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the -- the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to -- wants to follow.

LEHRER: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Well, again, I don't mean to go back and forth, but he...

(CROSSTALK)

LEHRER: No, that's fine.

MCCAIN: Senator Obama suspended those requests for pork-barrel projects after he was running for president of the United States. He didn't happen to see that light during the first three years as a member of the United States Senate, $932 million in requests.

Maybe to Senator Obama it's not a lot of money. 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? Do you know that it's gone completely out of control to the point where it corrupts people? It corrupts people.

That's why we have, as I said, people under federal indictment and charges. It's a system that's got to be cleaned up.

I have fought against it my career. I have fought against it. I was called the sheriff, by the -- one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee. I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate.

Now, Senator Obama didn't mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs.

Now, that's a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. I want to cut spending. I want to keep taxes low. The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is to raise people's taxes.

OBAMA: I -- I don't know where John is getting his figures. Let's just be clear.

What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we're giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage.

I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of it.

But let's go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we're going to get the middle class back on track.

OBAMA: And when you look at your tax policies that are directed primarily at those who are doing well, and you are neglecting people who are really struggling right now, I think that is a continuation of the last eight years, and we can't afford another four.

LEHRER: Respond directly to him about that, to Senator Obama about that, about the -- he's made it twice now, about your tax -- your policies about tax cuts.

MCCAIN: Well -- well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax.

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in -- in the United States of America and create jobs.

But, again, I want to return. It's a lot more than $18 billion in pork-barrel spending. I can tell you, it's rife. It's throughout.

The United States Senate will take up a continuing resolution tomorrow or the next day, sometime next week, with 2,000 -- 2,000 -- look at them, my friends. Look at them. You'll be appalled.

And Senator Obama is a recent convert, after requesting $932 million worth of pork-barrel spending projects.

So the point is, I want people to have tax cuts. I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. I want to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America.

I know that the worst thing we could possibly do is to raise taxes on anybody, and a lot of people might be interested in Senator Obama's definition of "rich."

LEHRER: Senator Obama, you have a question for Senator McCain on that?

OBAMA: Well, let me just make a couple of points.

LEHRER: All right.

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.

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.

It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem.

Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.

So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you've got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.

It is not a good deal for the American people. But it's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be.

MCCAIN: Well, you know, let me just...

LEHRER: We've got to go to another lead question.

MCCAIN: I know we have to, but this is a classic example of walking the walk and talking the talk.

We had an energy bill before the United States Senate. It was festooned with Christmas tree ornaments. It had all kinds of breaks for the oil companies, I mean, billions of dollars worth. I voted against it; Senator Obama voted for it.

OBAMA: John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion.

MCCAIN: You've got to look at our record. You've got to look at our records. That's the important thing.

Who fought against wasteful and earmark spending? Who has been the person who has tried to keep spending under control?

Who's the person who has believed that the best thing for America is -- is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair? And I've fought to simplify it, and I have proposals to simplify it.

Let's give every American a choice: two tax brackets, generous dividends, and, two -- and let Americans choose whether they want the -- the existing tax code or they want a new tax code.

And so, again, look at the record, particularly the energy bill. But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.

OBAMA: That's not true, John. That's not true.

MCCAIN: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.

OBAMA: Look, it's just not true. And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John -- this is undeniable -- oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.

Now, look, we all would love to lower taxes on everybody. But here's the problem: If we are giving them to oil companies, then that means that there are those who are not going to be getting them. And...

MCCAIN: With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies.

OBAMA: No, but, John, the fact of the matter is, is that I was opposed to those tax breaks, tried to strip them out. We've got an emergency bill on the Senate floor right now that contains some good stuff, some stuff you want, including drilling off-shore, but you're opposed to it because it would strip away those tax breaks that have gone to oil companies.

SO it sounds like McCain had one thing to cling to as his raft sank. What's your point? I've read it all twice and watched it live. I know what was said, I'm asking why you're fixated on that and not say... the 4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies that McCain didn't address?

I'd vote 3rd party but I know next to nothing about those candidates and what they'd do. I am very familiar with Obama and McCain's policies and their historical abilities to get shit done. I like Obama. I think he's got a vision for what this country could be, and a good idea of what's keeping it to be what it can. Too bad his policies are complicated to explain, but we have complicated problems facing us.

Your post didn't add anything new? I don't even know how to reply to it besides saying that you said, "I would have to say that McCain won this one" and when pressed for a rationale said, Obama didn't answer a question the moderator never asked. And didn't reply to one of the dozens of accusations and misrepresentations that McCain brought up. Is that what your answer is?