The *yawn* Second Presidential Debate
Short impression of the 2nd Presidential Debate: Just like the 1st Presidential Debate, but with more walking around.
Not much new ground covered in this debate, even though there was ample opportunity for it. The questions just teed up the candidates for the same stump speech excerpts we heard last time. As such, Obama comes out of the debate in the driver’s seat since the pressure for a game changer was on McCain.
A few notes:
Obama continued to lie about what brought about this financial crisis. The wheels did not magically start to come off the day George W. Bush sat down in the Oval Office chair, and the party-line votes regarding Fannie and Freddie put the Democrats on the side against regulation of those institutions. Even Bill Clinton has debunked this line. That John McCain didn’t even bother to set the record straight on this is a huge missed opportunity, moreso because it was a carbon copy of Obama’s line in the first debate.
If I hear the phrase "fundamental difference" one more time, I’ll scream.
One bit of new ground that was actually covered was McCain’s 300 billion dollar bailout of people who bought more home than they could afford. I was extremely disappointed in this. As I said recently, huge federal debt is not the way to fix a problem that is debt-related. This is a further example of how our politicians have been conditioned to go after votes by offering giveaways because we respond to giveaways. McCain’s obviously looking to curry favor with those who think the government should protect people from the consequences of their decisions. This makes as much fiscal sense as allowing me to refinance my car every year at its new, lower value. No, I incurred a debt that I am morally obligated to pay. This is another example of the faux "fairness" and class warfare our country has come to accept to a large extent.
What about illegal immigration? What about abortion? What about judicial appointments? What about a host of other issues that haven’t been touched on in 2 debates? Mr. Brokaw, you fell down on the job.
If health care is a "right", Mr. Obama, is food now a right as well? Which is more important; food that you need every day or health care you need once in a while?
John, John, John…don’t crack jokes. They really didn’t work.
Obama is suddenly for nuclear power? I’m sure there were some environmentalist supporters of his who spewed coffee out their noses at that.
Anyway, so much for another debate. Not very notable, and mostly a rehash.
Filed under: Doug • Economics & Taxes • Energy • Government
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I agree 100% that McCain needs to be stopped before he attempts to joke again. Wow.
As to this:
Obama continued to lie about what brought about this financial crisis.
Is it not okay to have a difference of opinion about what brought about the crisis. I’ve seen many well-reasoned people who point to things other than the CRA to explain this latest crisis.
You may not agree with Obama’s reasoning, but could you not let it go at: “Obama is wrong in how he explains this latest crisis” rather than accusing him of lying?
Nope, sorry, Obama has, twice, blamed the current economic conditions on…
* “8 years of failed economic policies”: First, that’s like trying to blame the shuttle explosion solely on the O-ring itself and only on the two minutes of flight, rather than the events and decisions that led to making the faulty part.
Second, it implies strict Bush/Republican culpability, which, as I’ve noted, is utter nonsense to anyone paying attention. Either he’s not paying attention, which would call his suitability for President into serious question, or he is paying attention, in which case he’s lying. He simply has to know about regulations that Republicans wanted to implement that Democrats didn’t, denying in full voice that there was any problem at all. This is not a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of history.
* Blaming it on a philosophy “that says regulation is always bad”: Patently false. Republicans don’t believe that in the general sense, and in this specific instance wanted to regulate Fannie/Freddie while Democrats didn’t. He’s got the roles entirely reversed. That not a matter of opinion.
Sorry, but I don’t see that as anything else but an outright lie. On something this serious, can’t we all just be bipartisan, or are presidential politics more important than truth-telling about the most important economic issue of at least the last 50 years? Where’s that “change” in politics as usual that Obama keeps insisting he epitomizes?
Can we afford 4 more years of the same? 🙂
Doug,
I would have thought Dan would be applauding McCain’s offer to buy people’s mortgages (doesn’t that mean that the state is their landlord). That really seems reminiscent of Joseph’s plan enacted in which the Egyptian economy was centralized. He’s all about “Biblical economics”, right? (even if he then has to ignore that the consequence was … slavery). 🙂
Yeah, except that, as with the twisting of Obama’s position, it is not my position that the state ought to own stuff. I am not a socialist (not that there’s anything wrong with that…)
Dan,
Do you mean the twisting of McCain’s position?