Presidential Debate II - Reality Bites
Fox News is entertainment at it's best - the intro graphics for Debate 2 in Nashville were a bunch of clips of the candidates in a war of words, with bold captioning and B&W fades - they looked like a campaign ad in themselves. I was almost waiting for the theme music to WWF (or is it WWE, now?) RAW to start-up and have Tom Brokaw replaced by Vince McMahon - ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE?!?!?! Alas, the excitement was short-lived, and there was no blood spatter at all...
The evening started off with promise. On the very first question, McCain came out swinging hard and proposed that the Federal government buy up all of the bad mortgages out there, renegotiate them at the new market price, and use the bailout money to make up the difference to the banks. Home run - when the camera briefly got a look at Obama's face, he looked a bit ashen - as I imagine Rush Limbaugh might have been. It was a bold, startling plan, and it was right out of the Democratic playbook. Fred Barnes pundited it best as the death of "Republican Free-Marketism". It made me wish that I bought a bigger house that I couldn't afford. Obama's shock came at not having the idea first - and Senator McCain was oh, the happy warrior, and very pleased with himself. It seems that John McCain is never happier than when battling his own party. I'm not sure how this will play out for him - Sarah Palin can only do so much to keep the base in line, but we can now safely rename the "crazy ivan" maneuver as the "crazy john". Not to lay judgment on the proposal itself at this time, but as a tactical move it knocked Obama off balance - especially after his carefully crafted non-answer immediately preceding. Finally a bit of red meat out there - and it was tossed to the Democrats who will enjoy it, and just not love John back.
Then, as quickly as the excitement came, it was over. Dueling campaign commercials started speaking at the cameras, the audience and Tom Brokaw, who was routinely ignored by the candidates. Poor Tom couldn't call time, direct a question or even maintain order as Obama demanded follow up answers, and McCain demanded follow-ups to the follow-up. The signal lights indicating to the speaker how much time was left flashed in desperation as both candidates just kept talking. With the "aw, shucks!" good-natured non-handling of the debate by Brokaw, you could see how it might be tradition in his family to be the piano player in a house of ill-repute. Talk about nobody noticing until you don't do your job... At least Lehrer and Ifill were shown a little respect - must be a PBS thing.
McCain did punch a little harder this time, and Obama was visibly off-balance towards the end, but never so much as to lose it completely. He just did what he does and put 12 coats of nuance on even the most direct questions. McCain will always be more concise, but that's just who he is. For the second out of three, one can't really imagine any conversions to the other side. You would think that if a little more meat was fed out, maybe some of the undecideds would pick a horse. Sadly, I'm going to have to once again give credit to Ralph Nader in pointing out that these debates, so far, have been a pointless exercise. How sad it is, that we can reasonably expect to have more in-depth political discourse after a few drinks at the local bar, than we are getting from the candidates at an "official" forum to explore such ideas.
On to Hofstra University next Wednesday - maybe the intolerance in NY for BS is exactly what this campaign needs. Maybe Donald Trump can moderate. We can always hope.
RLB
The evening started off with promise. On the very first question, McCain came out swinging hard and proposed that the Federal government buy up all of the bad mortgages out there, renegotiate them at the new market price, and use the bailout money to make up the difference to the banks. Home run - when the camera briefly got a look at Obama's face, he looked a bit ashen - as I imagine Rush Limbaugh might have been. It was a bold, startling plan, and it was right out of the Democratic playbook. Fred Barnes pundited it best as the death of "Republican Free-Marketism". It made me wish that I bought a bigger house that I couldn't afford. Obama's shock came at not having the idea first - and Senator McCain was oh, the happy warrior, and very pleased with himself. It seems that John McCain is never happier than when battling his own party. I'm not sure how this will play out for him - Sarah Palin can only do so much to keep the base in line, but we can now safely rename the "crazy ivan" maneuver as the "crazy john". Not to lay judgment on the proposal itself at this time, but as a tactical move it knocked Obama off balance - especially after his carefully crafted non-answer immediately preceding. Finally a bit of red meat out there - and it was tossed to the Democrats who will enjoy it, and just not love John back.
Then, as quickly as the excitement came, it was over. Dueling campaign commercials started speaking at the cameras, the audience and Tom Brokaw, who was routinely ignored by the candidates. Poor Tom couldn't call time, direct a question or even maintain order as Obama demanded follow up answers, and McCain demanded follow-ups to the follow-up. The signal lights indicating to the speaker how much time was left flashed in desperation as both candidates just kept talking. With the "aw, shucks!" good-natured non-handling of the debate by Brokaw, you could see how it might be tradition in his family to be the piano player in a house of ill-repute. Talk about nobody noticing until you don't do your job... At least Lehrer and Ifill were shown a little respect - must be a PBS thing.
McCain did punch a little harder this time, and Obama was visibly off-balance towards the end, but never so much as to lose it completely. He just did what he does and put 12 coats of nuance on even the most direct questions. McCain will always be more concise, but that's just who he is. For the second out of three, one can't really imagine any conversions to the other side. You would think that if a little more meat was fed out, maybe some of the undecideds would pick a horse. Sadly, I'm going to have to once again give credit to Ralph Nader in pointing out that these debates, so far, have been a pointless exercise. How sad it is, that we can reasonably expect to have more in-depth political discourse after a few drinks at the local bar, than we are getting from the candidates at an "official" forum to explore such ideas.
On to Hofstra University next Wednesday - maybe the intolerance in NY for BS is exactly what this campaign needs. Maybe Donald Trump can moderate. We can always hope.
RLB
Posted by The Thomas Paine Project at 10/8/2008 4:03 PM 
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: presidential debates
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: presidential debates
Looked like it might be exciting for a few minutes but then the yawns overtook the brawn. Neither candidate is putting themselves out there, which makes sense because neither one has to. You didn't have this kind of must not see TV when Perot was in. He held the Reps and Dems feet to the fire and made them engage. There might be something to allowing the 3rd parties in to air the laundry that the 2 big parties don't want out in the public. At least that would be interesting.
Reply to this
Look at that - McCain has gone full Democrat. Hannity / Limbaugh / O'Reilly must have died and are spinning in their graves over the mortgage buyout plan. I think that actually places McCain to the left of Obama. While I appreciate Senator McCain's efforts to appeal for my vote, I'm still voting for the actual Democrat.
Reply to this
McCain's idea would have been a great gambit, but the "crazy ivans" just aren't what we look for in a President. Erratic just isn't one of the qualities of a statesman. On the face of it, it looked bold, but as you take it in context, it seems desperate. I'm reminded of the Aesop fable about the war between the beasts and the birds - and the bat who didn't know which side to fight on. In the end he was scorned by both sides. This just isn't looking good.
Reply to this
I'm just shaking my head in amazement - we had the hints with immigration and the initial tax cuts, but you always wanted to hold out hope, because like it or not, McCain is our nominee. But with this mortgage buyout, what the...? He's gone completely over to the dark side. Whatever happened to the Free Market? Seriously - is he running for president or for Obama's treasury secretary?
Reply to this
PALIN FOR PRESIDENT - at least she knows how to work a checkbook.
Reply to this
There are people out there who already are aware that they might not have made the best decision with this mortgage mess. I'm sure that there are a bunch of people who were not house flippers, or taking money that they knew they couldn't pay back. How many people took that equity and tried to get out of debt, or send their kids to a better school, or college? How many were trying to meet medical bills, or just get a little breathing room. Now these people are facing being homeless, and not because they did anything wrong. They were just rolled over in this whole mess. Lots of working people are hurting in this economy. I give credit to Senator McCain for a compassionate idea - it's about time one came from the Republican side. Not everyone hurt in this crisis is a bad person, a slacker, or stupid.
Reply to this
A lot of people are hurting in this - no one wants to see anyone forced out of their home, but that's not the only thing wrong right now. My retirement has taken a huge hit,and that's a big concern for me as retirement isn't that far away. I don't imagine the government is going to cut me a check for the difference. I feel bad for people who are innocent losing there homes, but that doesn't mean that I'm in any better shape than they are with regard to taking resources out of my family to help them. It would be great if we could collect all of the money that the bankers made at our expense and use that to fund this cleanup.
Reply to this
There's sympathy enough to go around, but people keep missing that a lot of this was CAUSED by government meddling around in the market. If the Community Reinvestment Act wasn't encouraging people who could not afford houses to purchase them, and coercing banks into making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them, there would be far less people being foreclosed on right now. Of the ones who are, all they had to do to avoid this mess was to either not refinance, or if they had to refinance, not take one of the gimmick loans that was going to blow up on them. Now we have everyone who played by the rules and acted smart paying the price for everyone who got into home buying and refinance that shouldn't have. There is no dishonor in living in an apartment. If the American Dream is home ownership, it is a dream because it needs to be earned. It's not some government entitlement. Now my family gets to suffer because Uncle Sam just couldn't stop meddling.
Reply to this
I have 4 houses foreclosed on just on my block - so to everyone enjoying the theoretical arguments, this is for real. Here's another hard edge to this whole fiasco - I avoided the temptation to refinance, and kept my 30 year fixed - you'd think all would be well. Not so. The four vacant houses on my block are driving down my property value and costing me equity in my home even though I didn't participate in this fool's orgy. So now, if I want to do some property improvement, or even hire a contractor to paint the place, I have less money to work with. Plus, I get to donate for someone else's bailout. Where's my relief check?
Reply to this
Well, this debate was a yawner. The format wasn't a true town hall, the candidates were asked primarily the same questions as the first debate, with the exception of the zen question. It would be nice to hear about more than just the economy and the wars -- even if those topics weigh more heavily on voters minds. We've been hearing the same talking points for weeks now. It is time to hear some of the nominees' other talking points...er, ideas.
Reply to this
Ideas - has anybody really had any of those this time around. Let's see, on the one side is "Hope" and the other is "Experience" Or is it that one side has "Change" and the other has "Change - but with us"? Ideas? Both out of Iraq, both into Afghanistan, both for the bailout, both for tax refunds, both against climate change, both for energy independence (whatever that means). The only way to tell the difference is one old guy insider is running with a woman, and the other old guy insider is running with a black guy. Pick your novelty - there's not a bit of substance in either campaign.
Reply to this
I think that we can safely proclaim the death of the two-party system in this country. When it comes down to hard decisions, all we can count on the Congress to do is protect the money men and their seat. Ross Perot was right (crazy old man that he was) - no difference at all between them except the tone of their lies.
Reply to this