US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Um... you said they'd still be debating if McCain had called ahead. That sounds like the reason the debate was resolved was because McCain was there...

 

No, I meant that they would still be debating when he called, i.e. he may very well have actually called and they said, "Yeah, we're in the middle of a major knot, and there are at least a dozen more, I don't see any real progress being made any time soon."

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I love it. I admit, I also got this at work, but I didn't spend the time to check the calculations. I'm glad I didn't forward it around.

 

Yeah, I had noticed that myself, but I didn't want to say anything. He sounded so sure of himself, like he had really thought that through.

 

I'm not a McCain fan, but the guy was in a bamboo cage for 5 years and then came home "Hey honey, remember me?" That's bound to put a strain on a relationship. Supposedly, it was an amicable divorce and they remain on good terms.

 

I'm surprised that no one has brought up anything regarding the debates on Friday night. There were a few surprising items concerning the debate.

• Obama, who everyone thought would be strong on economy questions just did OK
• Obama, who everyone thought would be shaky on foreign policy questions, really held his own
• McCain, who everyone thought would have trouble with the economy questions came off as very informed in that arena
• McCain, who eveyone thought would do great with foreign policy questions, was solid, but not clearly superior to Obama

So the supposed strengths of each candidate didn't really show through. Now for some opinions of my own:

• McCain seemed very dismissive of Obama throughout the debate, never addressing him directly, or even looking in his direction
• The PBS moderator was TERRIBLE, and did nothing to help what was a very lackluster debate
• It's amazing that polls show people think Obama won the debate by 12-17 points (depending on what poll you look at) when I felt that neither candidate particularly distinguished himself.

 

It was a question of low expectations. This was the foreign policy/national security debate, where McCain was supposed to have utterly dominated Obama. But Obama held his own, and proved he's far from the know-nothing orator that McCain has been painting him as. Obama clearly knows what he's talking about and came very prepared. I'm not talking about the substance, as people will of course disagree about Obama's policy positions. But this was McCain's best chance to paint Obama as woefully out of his depth. By nearly every indicator, he came across not as authoritative, but condescending and cranky. His refusal to even look at Obama once turned out to be a very big deal.

I too felt the debate was pretty much a wash. Neither candidate really had a big zinger or gaffe. But given the expectations in this case, a tie was a win for Obama.

By that same token, the expectations for Sarah Palin are abysmally low in her upcoming debate with Joe Biden. As long as she doesn't soil herself onstage or run away screaming, she'll likely be seen as the "winner" of the debate. It's really sad that that's where we're at, but that's the expectations game for you.

 

IMO, Obama won the debate, and I thought he did much better on foreign policy than he was supposed to, as you point out, Aldeth. I also thought the neither did well on the economy, and much like you, I was disappointed that Obama did not do as well, by pointing out how Mac was opposed to reforming healthcare and other pocketbook issues, which are troubling most middle-class Americans.

 

I didn't get a chance to see the debate so I can't comment.

However, in the spirit of Rosh Hashanah (which starts tonight at sundown) I have to post this. Don't worry, it makes fun of everybody.

 

... this certainly is a more suitable place for this post

What I find remarkable is that apparently we currently see the self-immolation of the Republican Party. They run around like headless chickens. The right wing of the GOP sees in McCain a loose cannon and doubt his Christian credentials. For them he is also way too moderate. On the other hand they are facing signs of GOP governing failures, currently most stark in the economic crisis, that they do not want to accept. Many try to find peace in myth making and practical exercises in cognitive dissonance: The market failed because ... it was Clinton who started deregulating (never mind Bush's two terms in which everything went right, until, blame Clinton ...) the bad seed he brought out, bore fruits) ... How pathetic is that?

Orwell observed that in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. His conclusion can be easily extended to the current political situation in the US, or the current state of the economy. Like the commies believing in socialism in face of its obvious failure, today's GOP free market stalwarts refuse to accept the current economic crisis as a failure of the market and a failure of self-regulation.

IMO the GOP has gotten ever more ideological since Nixon. Maybe there is a natural end state after which that doesn't work any longer? Look at the Bush appointees - they literally bred out professionalism and replaced experienced bureaucrats with political appointees with little experience but loyalty aplenty - think of Katrina and 'Browny'. Remember the hiring practices at the justice department under Monica Goodling, even for interns. Or think of the attorney scandal, the Don Siegelman case and all that. Or the handling of Iraq. Or the handling of those no-bid contracts. Or the unprecedented GOP grip on K-Street and the corresponding brazen corruption scandals. For what exactly is former majority leader 'Hammer' Tom Delay famous for? Anyone remembers Jack Abramoff? Under Bush politicisation permeated all aspects of government, with a pervasiveness hitherto unknown - no one before went that far. All of that went at the expense of the ability to govern.

In that sense the Bush years would represent the heyday of new conservatism, with people like Rove dreaming of a one party state. That's ... cough ... pretty extreme a view for people living under a constitution like the US one. It's a reflection of the GOP mentality under Bush/Rove: 51% is a majority, and the only accountability check is with the next election, see you there. Until then it's all ours. Make your own judgement about the legality of such an approach. In any case, the resulting politicisation to cement the permanent majority is a logical conclusion. A logical consequence is that loyalty and political orthodoxy outweigh expertise. It explains rather well how, while the Bush/GOP team excelled at playing politics, they failed so miserably at governing.

Maybe it's really just that: 'Things that can't go forever, usually don't.' That would apply equally for Bush hands-off governing style, emphasis on partisan politics, politicisation of government * and of course also an economy left to it's own devices because orthodoxy demands it - orthodoxy is of course the belief in the beatifying power of the holy market. Bush will be remembered as a president who wrecked both his own party and the economy.

Spoiler

* Yes, I am fully aware that the D's had their share and they are not immune to that as well. But what I assess is not blame but reality. The GOP, no matter what the D's have done in the past, had the mentioned problems and no one else to blame for that. Such realities have consequences. And the real GOP excesses need to be addressed. Obviously it cannot go on like that.

And of course D's are capable of cognitive dissonance as well. Yet their motivation right now would not be the maintenance of an illusion that is keeping to fall apart, but to keep up hope for victory in November. In the current economic situation and in face of Bush's past policies the promise for change is attractive. I hope that Obama can deliver on that if he gets elected.

 

Ragusa, your spoiler can be applied to the whole post. What you've said can generally be said about both parties, and Bush is not the most extreme politicisor we've had for President. Who was the one that told the Supreme Court (on a ruling he didn't like), "If you believe that, you enforce it"?

All in all, though, what you have to remember is that Bush isn't actually that conservative. He's probably more liberal than McCain. McCain, however, does seem more grounded, and will likely produce something of a return to previous moderation.

 

You have completely lost me with this paragraph. I cannot see how to logically reconcile the first two sentences with the last one. How, if we are to accept the assertion that Bush is more liberal than McCain, would McCain produce a return to moderation? That doesn't make sense. If you believe that McCain is a moderate (as many people do), then I could see why you would think that he would have a moderate administration. But then, you could not simultaneously think he was less conservative than Bush.

I'm also not sure if you're using the term liberal in a traditional sense when you say Bush is more liberal than McCain. I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush is more reactionary than McCain, and I have to wonder if that's what you mean as well. If you mean to call Bush a reactionary, then I agree with your statement that Bush isn't that conservative, but reactionary would have the exact opposite meaning of liberal.

 

That's a surefire way to know that the right has finally disowned GWB: by calling him a "liberal," it's like receiving the kiss of death from the mafia. Newt was right when he labeled his fellow Republicans as a "bunch of cannibals." Like the mafia, in the end, they usually devour each other.

 

I doubt you're correct on this, but feel free to persuade me that there was someone who actually exceeded Bush's excesses. And in that please include the claims of unitary executive power and an embrace of a program of torture. You won't. Iirc not even Lincoln did during the Civil War (someone more knowledgeable please comment).

As for extending the cognitive dissonance part on the Democrats now, in their current situation, that's where I vehemently disagree. That is relativism, and doesn't do the matter justice. You're comparing apples and peas (no typo) - to find them identical?

The D's right now do not have to distance themselves from a president and his presidency that left their party reeling.

If you don't see what I mean, just look where the R's where when Bush came to power - united and unchallenged (if not for that election thingie) and, considering their majority, in the driver seat - and look where they are now, and at Bush's approval ratings, record, and the support he has in his own party right now (hint: think of iirc Sunday's GOP vote on the bailout).

If even the R's are outright appalled by Bush, it's somewhat silly to blame the D's for putting hope in Obama and his promise for change and refer to that as cognitive dissonance. Dissonance to get over what?

 

Hold the phone.

We've been told by conservatives many, many times (even around here) that the reason McCain is so disliked and distrusted on the far right is because he's "almost a Democrat," of particular stinging memory because was once rumored to have considered switching party affiliation and entertained the notion of being Kerry's running mate. George W. Bush on the other hand, who is still considered a hero to the far right, has spent the last 7 3/4 years at the head of the most adamantly partisan and anti-liberal administration in my lifetime. If George W. Bush has a single liberal bone in his body, he's gone to great lengths to hide it.

It just occured to me that Bush is now officially the most disapproved-of President in our nation's history (70% disapproval). I guarantee you that few if any of that remaining 30% are liberals. Disowning the standard bearer of conservatism for being "too liberal" once he reaches historic unpopularity is a bit too sweet of a coincidence, don't you think?

 

The most troubling question hanging over the candidacy of Barack Obama has been this one: Is he the devil-spawned Antichrist? (linky)

Now, fortunately, in Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, two veritable authorities have weighed in with an authoritative statement. They conclude that, while it would be reasonable to suspect Obama of being a bit Antichristy, it would, in fact, be wrong:

Ah yes, indeed, Romania, wasn't it? (If that doesn't make the case against NATO expansion eastwards ...) This will sure will come as profound relief to Americans 'across the isle'. (h/t)

 

Ok, what I meant by Bush being non-conservative is that he hasn't exactly been big on small government, or on limiting the authority of government. He's not really liberal, but he's closer to that than McCain is (remember, there are more than two political extremes).

Ragusa, if you would have continued that quote from me, you would have seen my vote.

The cognative dissonance I'm accusing the Ds of is one surrounding the Bailout and financial collapse. They're actually saying it was the Rs deregulation and free-market approach that caused the collapse. That's about like saying it's the lung cancer that killed her, not the cigarettes she smoked for 50+ years.

Yes, that's what's been keeping me up at night. Nice to know it's been settled by the experts. Lol.

 

As for the Antichrist bit ....

Let me clarify: On the economic crisis both parties share blame. We're in agreement there. Yes, of course the D's deregulated as well - that deregulation is inherently good was neo-liberal mantra (and neo-libs you had at the helm during the Clinton days).

Where we disagree is about the question of extent, and there I see a blind spot in your argument. I hold against Bush the way he financed the war and the simple fact that it 'happened' on his watch while he did nothing about it. It is about proximity to the disaster. Bush watched (or didn't, doesn't really matter) for eight years. Experts have seen this coming for at least two or three years, if not longer. Did Bush intervene then? No. It's that he didn't want to: The market would find equilibrium on its own. In saying that I reiterate a standard GOP mantra that reflects the policy under Bush. I do not see the current crisis as an accident coming out of the blue, and I see in Bush's inaction a conscious refusal to act.

In a legal sense, an omission, when you have the possibility and responsibility to act, is an 'action', a deed, as well. Of course Bush could have done something. And considering the predictable consequences as illustrated in recent events he should have done something because his office brings with it the responsibility and obligation to govern, to act (on national security Bush stresses that all the time).

In face of this I find it strange, utterly strange, to look back at Clinton era legislation and find the culprit there. The ghosts Clinton allegedly conjured up, Bush and his GOP held them as a welcome company in those eight years, and now conservatives blame Clinton for conjuring them up? I doesn't convince me at all.

It is perhaps old fashioned of me, but I think that when I run a show, that includes me being responsible for not letting things get out of hand. I am responsible for the outcome. And I think, so is Bush.

 

Yes, and we alll know that the Republican Party is the party of "personal responsibility." I read that somewhere.