Presidential Debate Round 3: McCain wins by points and wins the battle; Obama plays it safe and perhaps wins the war (issues discussed: the economy, Bill Ayers, Joe the plumber, abortion)
[Before attending to the pundits, my view written during the debate and immediately after the debate between 9:30pm to 10:40pm EST]:
The current national polls, including many of the battleground states, show U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the Democrat nominee is leading by a fairly comfortable margin. Obama’s level of comfortable broad enough to lead him to choose the strategy, “do no harm.” His safe strategy differs from U.S. Sen. John McCain, who is seeking to land hard rights with a direct frontal assault. His campaign has telegraphed this new aggression; Obama expects it. Will McCain go for it? His decision not to may keep him behind while going for it may make him competitive again.
CBS anchor, Bob Schieffer moderated, and opened with the remark that he wants new information from the candidates. Schieffer’s question about the economic crisis started the debate.
McCain offered struggling home owners the ability to renegotiate their untenable monthly premiums with banks and mortgage companies. Obama agreed with the new negotiation ability but differed with McCain’s approach, saying that he didn’t want the banks to further profit from vulnerable people.
McCain took his next opportunity to question Obama’s plan to tax owners of $250,000, which include small business owners like Joe, the plummer. Obama begged to differ saying that McCain would give tax breaks to multibillion corporations and that he, Obama, would provide a tax cut for “95% of working families.”
McCain said that Obama’s conversation with Joe the plummer demonstrates that such owners would be tax. Obama acknowledged that Joe can afford new taxes now while he needed the tax cut when he started his plumbing business.
Next issue was the federal deficit. According to a nonpartisan organization, both Obama and McCain’s plan would raise the deficit beyond a trillion dollars. “A net spending cut” is offered by Obama but not cuts, only improving the way the money is spent. According to Obama, one way of saving is investing in young people so that such investments would bring savings in the long run.
McCain offered cutting marketing strategies by the federal government and cutting out the “pork” in military programs and ethanol. He would use the hatchet first, then the scalpel in trimming federal fat. Obama would only use a scalpel and went on to attack McCain by saying that American cannot stand another four years of Bush/Cheney.
McCain said to Sen. Obama “I am not President Bush.” If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run against him four years ago.” He continued, “America tonight is hurting and is angry. I have fought for reform, fought for the people and fought against my own party.” Obama’s foundational attack line for months have been to accuse McCain of continuing the Bush economic plan if he became president.
Schieffer asked if a higher political tone, not mean rhetoric, would again take center stage. McCain said that Obama supporter U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga) accused McCain of racism and asked Obama during the debate to repudiate such extreme attacks. Obama acknowledged that Lewis’ remark was inappropriate. Obama came back and challenged the McCain campaign by allowing remarks made a few members of the crowd saying of Obama “terrorist” or “kill him.”
McCain then went after Obama regarding Obama association with Bill Ayers and Acorn. Obama said, “Bill Ayers is a university professor though he was associated with domestic terrorists. I was only eight years old when the bombings occurred.” McCain wanted the full extent of his relationship with Ayers, quoting Hillary Clinton. McCain then filled in some of the blanks, including Obama’s long association with Ayers and financially supporting Acorn’s subsidiary with a $230,000 donation. Obama minimized the relationships by saying that he will be associated with Joe Biden, Dick Lugar and other experienced bipartisan individuals.
McCain said, he will associate himself with reformer and anti-corruption leader, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Schieffer asked Obama, “Do you think she [Palin] is qualified to be president?” Obama accepted that Palin has excited the conservative electorate and would not say that she was not qualified. His safe answer reflected his overall strategy to play it safe.
Obama counter punched McCain sufficient. McCain’s jabs including the fact that “Obama would look at” doing offshore drilling. “We should drill here, drill there and drill now.” McCain said that Obama should not just look but do, including going south of the border for the first time to understand the foreign policy issues. McCain accused Obama of raising taxes and doing little with our allies in the Americas. Obama, as usual, went along with the changing of the topics.
When McCain accused Obama of federalizing and take over the national health care system. Obama said, he would exempt small business from fine for not paying for a health care benefit for their employees. McCain again talked to Joe and said, “Joe, you’re rich,” according to Obama’s parameters, “you’ll have to spread your wealth and use it to pay for the federally mandated health care benefit for your employees.” Obama said, I just want to lower the health costs of employees.
Schieffer asked about the controversial issue of abortion. McCain said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, and that the abortion issue belong to the states. “I don’t have litmus tests for judges.” Ideological considerations should not be used but qualifications. Obama agreed no strict litmus test should be applied. He said Roe v. Wade was a good decision, but had a caveat: “I will look for judges who has extraordinary qualifications but also a sense of real world folks are going through.”
McCain said, “Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that we must change the culture.”McCain noted that Sen. Obama, while in the Illinois state senate, voted three times against using life saving treatment of infants who survive abortions. Again, while in the Illinois senate, he voted against banning a late term abortion procedure dubbed “partial-birth abortions.”
Obama said that the law requiring a life saving treatment for infants who survived the abortion was not necessary. If it was already on the books as Obama confidently asserted, then why didn’t he support the bill rather than oppose it? According to the National Right to Life, what harm would it have done to vote for, after a botched abortion, the saving of innocent born infant life-- twice?
Despite the opposition of the Illinois state medical doctor’s association, it stands to reason that the law was needed to save the abortion survivor’s life. Again, according to NRL and the Illinios Right to Life, in voting against banning partial-birth abortion for the sake of the “health” of the mother, Obama displays blatant disregard of near-term infants who would have to experience the forced collapsed of their own craniums, the suctioning of their brains, then the crushing of their cranium and dismembered of their bodies—all done “safe, legal and rare” by license clinicians —all this to absolutely protect the so-called “health” of the woman who has chosen a medically unnecessary late-term (third trimester) abortion (see www.nrl.org and Physicians for Life for medical evidence).
In the end, McCain won by points via feisty jabs, no knockout, not even close. Obama employed the “rope-a-dope,” bobbing and weaving, and effectively counter punching. Obama kept his body, the body of his campaign safe.
Without any sizable changes in the campaign or any unforeseen events, Obama will win the election, November 4.
Epilogue: At 10:52pm, accordingly to the Drudgereport.com poll with 64,000 voters: 75% said McCain won, 24% said Obama won.
2 comments:
it's kindof sad that McCain and Palin have lowered people's standards so far that, when they finally manage to put whole sentences together during their debates suddenly they either "tie" or "won the battle" Between the two of them, they've got the pity vote locked away for sure. As for their actual competancy....
I would like for somebody to explain why we should pay so much attention to these presidential debates. Do they tell us anything about the positions of the candidates? Do they give us any indication of who will be the best president? Do they do anything but put on a show for the media to analyze and manipulate? My answer to all of these are a resounding "no." The thing we remember from these debates is who had the best "gotcha" line. How does that help us choose the best president?
Post a Comment