Obama v. McCain: Start your engines!

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]
Are you serious? If you think www.hillaryclinton.com or www.barackobama.com is easy to find, yet www.johnmccain.com is difficult, you are, shall we say, partisan?
[/QUOTE]
You missed my point. I could easily find his website with a simple googling, or simply guessing. My point was that the first two websites have been heavily marketed in the past six months or so. Although I consider myself to be an independent, I have been following this year’s Democratic nomination very closely. I haven’t had reason to stop by McCain’s site yet. That will change as I begin informing myself of his views and policies.

Part of the reason McCain’s site hasn’t been heavily marketed is because the Republican nomination was not heavily contested. I suspect, and my thesis is, another part of this lack of marketing and utilization is due to his age and average age of his supporters.

Case in point, their “supporter” counts on FaceBook are:

McCain: 135,500
Obama: 884,500

62

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So McCain has challenged Obama to 10 town hall style meetings. Obama has said several times and said it last night, “That’s a debate I welcome” to discuss issues with McCain Personally I think Obama can mop the floor with McCain in any kind of one on one discussion even though McCain is supposed to be good at those.

Do you think Obama should accept after negotiating the details?
Is it McCains plan to be so unreasonable on the details that Obama will decline and then McCain can claim he is afraid to discuss the issues?

I’d like to see it because I think it will clearly show Obama’s superiority. I’m acctually surprised that McCain would make the offer or his advisor’s would approve of it given Obama’s oratory skills.

thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding? Heh - Obama has been waiting to debate McCain for a long, long while…Town Hall Style or otherwise, Obama has been ready for that for along time. Clinton was tough as nails because he had to sharpen the razor thin line between their platforms…with McCain the platforms are completely different - Obama simply has to nail McCain to Bush, illustrate the major differences from his platform to McCains in an articulate and inteligent manner and then sit back and listen to McCain muttering to himself. Obama can defend Dem views till he blue in the face, and upper echelon dems really, REALLY want to be back in power. So expect them to get behind Obama and really ride this into the white house. What better way than behind a young intelligent change President?

63

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
There’s nothing mysterious about it: Most of the problems we have in this country WRT to health coverage exist because the free market has NOT been allowed to operate. Government interference and over-regulation is the problem, not the solution.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a nice conservative bromide, and I can see some areas around the fringes of the health-care issue where impediments to the free market have raised some costs and limited some choices.

But the central conundrum - that health insurance is going to be expensive for those who probably will need it in the near future, and cheap for those who probably won’t need it - isn’t something the unregulated free market can solve, because that’s exactly how the free market ought to work.

You can say that people with pre-existing conditions, or who are already in bad health, should just be SOL with respect to getting health insurance. I’ll disagree with you, but it’s an honest position, and if that’s yours, then you would of course prefer McCain and the GOP to Obama and the Democrats.

But if you’re saying that a much more lightly regulated market than at present can provide affordable health insurance to those people, I think you need to explain how this will occur.

64

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Obama can defend Dem views till he blue in the face, and upper echelon dems really, REALLY want to be back in power. So expect them to get behind Obama and really ride this into the white house. What better way than behind a young intelligent **change **President?
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that at least somewhat mutually exclusive?

The young candidate is going to be ridden into office by the old guard, of which he’ll appoint to advisor positions. Sounds kinda familiar, actually. Didn’t this happen once already this century?

65

I don’t think so. I think some people are seeing something that hasn’t happened in a long while, some actual image changing in D.C.

66

From my perspective, the least effective part of Obama’s campaign so far has been his performance in the debates. I was very much underwhelmed at how he stood against Hillary. He stutters a lot, makes the answers seem more complicated than they have to be, and seems to get agitated pretty easily. I didn’t watch much of the Republican debates, but don’t be so sure Obama is going to win in that venue against McCain. Obama may be a great speaker and speech writer, but so far he’s been a mediocre debater.

67

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
That’s a nice conservative bromide, and I can see some areas around the fringes of the health-care issue where impediments to the free market have raised some costs and limited some choices.

But the central conundrum - that health insurance is going to be expensive for those who probably will need it in the near future, and cheap for those who probably won’t need it - isn’t something the unregulated free market can solve, because that’s exactly how the free market ought to work.

You can say that people with pre-existing conditions, or who are already in bad health, should just be SOL with respect to getting health insurance. I’ll disagree with you, but it’s an honest position, and if that’s yours, then you would of course prefer McCain and the GOP to Obama and the Democrats.

But if you’re saying that a much more lightly regulated market than at present can provide affordable health insurance to those people, I think you need to explain how this will occur.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not talking about either candidate’s specific proposals, but I can give you some specific examples of what I’m talking about.

Drugs. In a free market, I could buy my drugs from Canadian companies at a lower price if I choose. Due to excessive regulation in the U.S., I can not.

Groups. If I’m an insurance company, and I want to offer insurance to everyone, young and old, sick and well, I’ll make them all part of one large group and rate the group as a whole. This is basically illegal in the US (It’s possible, in a roundabout way, the folks I work for do it, but the barrier to it are considerable)

Competition. If I find the perfect insurance plan for my family offered by a company in Alabama, I can not purchase it because I live in Maryland. State insurance agencies prevent inter-state competition, driving up the cost to consumers. and a lot of that has to do with…

Mandates. States mandate certain coverages for their citizens, regardless of whether a citizen needs that coverage or not, they have to pay for it. A good number of states mandate coverage for infertility treatments. If I live in that state I have to pay for that coverage whether I use it or not (and IVF is a really good example here; getting pregnant is NOT a health issue, it’s a lifestyle choice. If someone wants a baby, and can’t catch pregnant, I’m very sorry for them, but it’s NOT something insurance should cover, and in states where it is mandated, everyone has to pay for that coverage, even though the majority of them will never use it) New York actually put limits on what health insurance companies could make, as a result insurance costs a million bucks up there, and the only thing available is very restrictive managed care coverage. You read Michelle’s LJ, you know what she has to go thru just to see a doctor, that’s the result of over regulation killing the free market.

That’s 4 examples of how departure from free market principles has made insurance more expensive and less available for consumers. Fix just those 4 things and you’d go a long way towards helping the 12 million uninsured Americans get insurance, and you’d be doing it by embracing, not denying, basic principles of the free market.

68

[QUOTE=John Mace]
From my perspective, the least effective part of Obama’s campaign so far has been his performance in the debates. I was very much underwhelmed at how he stood against Hillary. He stutters a lot, makes the answers seem more complicated than they have to be, and seems to get agitated pretty easily. I didn’t watch much of the Republican debates, but don’t be so sure Obama is going to win in that venue against McCain. Obama may be a great speaker and speech writer, but so far he’s been a mediocre debater.
[/QUOTE]
But town hall-style formats cater to Obama’s strength, connecting with people. You’re right that, under the rigid formality of point/counterpoint and time limits and protocols, he hasn’t always been at his best. But in town hall meetings, you’re typically not stuck behind a podium but allowed to walk around. I think this alone will help contrast his level of energy and dynamism compared to McCain. Also, JM has not shown himself particularly adept at staying on point or thinking on the spot, and he hasn’t debated in months (while Obama’s got nearly 2 dozen under his belt). McCain’s used to preaching to the choir and getting tossed softballs, but if Obama is a little quick to get testy, that’s nothing compared to McCain’s anger management potential.

I remember the town halls where Bush Sr. was looking at his watch while Clinton 1 was completely in his element. The difference may not be quite so pronounced this time, but I do think that McCain is seriously underestimating the damage a prepared and experienced Obama can wreak on him.

69

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Drugs. In a free market, I could buy my drugs from Canadian companies at a lower price if I choose. Due to excessive regulation in the U.S., I can not.
[/quote]

And why are those drugs cheaper in Canada? (Hint: It’s not because Canada has a freer market.)

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Groups. If I’m an insurance company, and I want to offer insurance to everyone, young and old, sick and well . . .
[/quote]

Why?

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
. . . I’ll make them all part of one large group and rate the group as a whole. This is basically illegal in the US . . .
[/quote]

Cite?

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Mandates. States mandate certain coverages for their citizens, regardless of whether a citizen needs that coverage or not, they have to pay for it.
[/QUOTE]

Not following you . . . I don’t know any state that mandates coverage for all citizens (except Hawaii?). Or do you mean certain things have to be included in any health-insurance package that is marketed at all?

70

I am moderate on the social side, in terms of actual judicial appointments. I’m not a big fan of activist judges on either side of the political spectrum. I don’t like Alito, Roberts is okay. I’d say for anything related to land, I liked Rehnquist, otherwise someone like Sandra Day O’Connor was perfect. I will admit that I have a special fondness for J.P. Stevens, but you know, because he went to school in IL, so I got to meet him when I was in law school. Barack Obama too, ftr. And I’ll say for the latter that when you’re in his presence, it really is like being around a freaking rockstar or something.

Socially I’m very liberal.

Yes, you’re right, his economic policy scares me. For all his talk of bipartisanship, it’s very very leftwing and I’m an avowed free market capitalist. I don’t think he really knows what he’s talking about on free trade. I already know I’m going to be punished on taxes.

That said, I’m willing to ignore my personal economic interest this one time to a) make history and b) help restore our image in the eyes of the rest of the world, severely damaged over the course of the last 8 years with the completely unnecessary and expensive war (the costs of which we’re going to feel for years once all those vets start collecting their disability benefits). Actually, I think even McCain is capable of that, but sending Barack to the White House is a far more symbolic gesture.

In terms of the war, I think we’ll see MAYBE a partial withdrawal by the end of Obama’s first term. And partial won’t be as much as his supporters hope. But I sure as hell figure that he won’t go anywhere near escalating it and I hope he can convince other nations to sign on to help (again with the image rehabilitation).

My honest opinion is that McCain should have become president 8 years ago, not Bush. I’ll be okay with either win-either way I kind of feel like we’re on our way up. However, the war was a very big moral problem I had and I can’t vote for a candidate who won’t admit that a) It was a big fucking mistake and b) we need to withdraw as fast as possible. As possible, of course, is Obama’s lawyerly way out of “immediately”-but hey, I can’t fault him for that.

71

We are probably more similar than different then. I’m more of a strict constitutionalist on the judicial side, but I’m pretty much a flaming liberal on the social side (aside from the gun ownership thingy…and even then I probably wouldn’t fit in with the conservative crowd there). On the economic side I’m probably a bit more of a conservative than you are, but it’s a matter of degree.

Obama’s economics plans don’t exactly scare me, though I admit to some concern. The real reason they don’t scare me is that I have serious doubts he will be able to push through the more radical ones anyway…even with a slight edge in the house and senate I think it will be very similar to Clinton’s first term. And I think Obama is bright enough to moderate himself a la Clinton as well (at least I HOPE he is).

For my part I would probably rather have Obama in the White House than McCain, all things considered. I’m just unsure if I can bring myself to vote for him as on mainly the economics platform we are miles apart. Still, it’s not I’ll be greatly upset if (IMHO when) Obama wins. Should be an interesting 8 years.

That said, anyone who thinks that things in Iraq are going to radically or magically change when Obama DOES get elected are, IMHO, in for a bit of a shock. I fully expect we will still be in Iraq at the END of Obama’s term…and probably with a similar committment of troops and treasure to what we had before the Surge™. I could be wrong obviously…but I think if I AM wrong it’s because the wheels have completely fallen off and the situation is fully tits up…as opposed to the current cluster fuck. I guess we’ll see.

-XT

72

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And why are those drugs cheaper in Canada? (Hint: It’s not because Canada has a freer market.)
[/quote]
The government subsidized R&D, they don’t have absurd FDA regulations, Congress has passed bad laws that reduce competition and ensure high profits for US drug companies, US companies have insane liability costs…there are a lot of reasons

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why?
[/quote]

Because they can make money on it.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Cite?
[/quote]

You’re going to have to take my word on it. I’m not spending hours hunting through Federal regulations online, and the material that I used to study for my licensing examination (which I know has the cites) is packed in a box somewhere…10 years and 5 or six moves later I have no idea where it is.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Not following you . . . I don’t know any state that mandates coverage for all citizens (except Hawaii?). Or do you mean certain things have to be included in any health-insurance package that is marketed at all?
[/QUOTE]

Massachusetts does, But I meant the later.

73

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m not talking about either candidate’s specific proposals, but I can give you some specific examples of what I’m talking about.
[/quote]
Like I said,

But you haven’t touched the fundamental problem of access to affordable health insurance by those who actually need it, with one exception:

OK, let’s say it were legal, with no restrictions.

The problem is, there are still no restrictions on companies’ offering lower premiums to the young and healthy. So you wind up with only the customers who can’t find cheaper insurance elsewhere. Kinda like UHC without mandates.

The rest is kinda nickel-and-dime stuff, but I can’t help but note that your wiretaps are providing you with misleading information about my reading habits.

74

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Groups. If I’m an insurance company, and I want to offer insurance to everyone, young and old, sick and well, I’ll make them all part of one large group and rate the group as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
As a relatively young healthy person, your rates would be higher than I could find elsewhere because you have me subsidizing the old and the sick. You’d end up with more sick and old clients because they’d be getting a better deal, which would significantly raise your costs and make you unprofitable.

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
The government subsidized R&D.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, they fucked with the free market principles you were saying we shouldn’t fuck with.

75

I repeat:

:confused: What color is the sky in your world? Conservative Dems have been running the party since 1992 at least; it’s the left that’s been marginalized. And I ain’t optimistic the Obama nom heralds any real change there.
You do understand, don’t you, that DLC DINO scum like Bill and Hillary are conservative Democrats, feeble efforts at UHC notwithstanding?

76

One thing that struck me is how McCain looks eerily like Saul Tigh, do we really want a Toaster for president? :wink:

Maybe that’s his secret plan for “winning” the Iraq war, to replace U.S. troops with Centurions

77

[QUOTE=anu-la1979]

My honest opinion is that McCain should have become president 8 years ago, not Bush. I’ll be okay with either win-either way I kind of feel like we’re on our way up. However, the war was a very big moral problem I had and I can’t vote for a candidate who won’t admit that a) It was a big fucking mistake and b) we need to withdraw as fast as possible. As possible, of course, is Obama’s lawyerly way out of “immediately”-but hey, I can’t fault him for that.
[/QUOTE]

I thought so too. Watching his town hall meetings back then I got the idea that he was a man who genuinely had the best interests of his country at heart. I wasn’t paying as much attention then and unfortunately neither was a lot of Americans. Bush was able to use his cheap shots and dirty tactics to eliminate the better man, and the republican party let it happen.
I don’t believe McCain is the same man he was then. It appears he has compromised his principles a bit too much for this opportunity to be president. Perhaps he got tired of fighting for a public that seemed blissfully unaware and apathetic about the things he was trying to change. Leaders need the support and voices of the citizens to accomplish their goals.
Sadly, I can’t support JM now. It appears he has aligned himself with whatever fores control Bush.

78

[QUOTE=Weirddave]

Groups. If I’m an insurance company, and I want to offer insurance to everyone, young and old, sick and well, I’ll make them all part of one large group and rate the group as a whole. This is basically illegal in the US (It’s possible, in a roundabout way, the folks I work for do it, but the barrier to it are considerable)

[/QUOTE]

I’m a fan of free market myself but there’s a problem with this one.
In the insurance industry the way to make a profit is by offering coverage and then not paying claims. In a free market system there’s every reason for insurance companies to deny coverage for the people who need health care the most. From a free market POV that’s perfectly acceptable but it may not be from a moral POV in a modern society. Of course their are other alternatives than a government run health care system but so far I haven’t seen any viable alternatives being offered.
My brother told me years ago that in Texas some folks tried to establish a health care co-op where they all paid in a certain amount, but the insurance companies got it shut down. Anyone know anything about that?

79

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
… I don’t believe McCain is the same man he was then. It appears he has compromised his principles a bit too much for this opportunity to be president. Perhaps he got tired of fighting for a public that seemed blissfully unaware and apathetic about the things he was trying to change. Leaders need the support and voices of the citizens to accomplish their goals.
Sadly, I can’t support JM now. It appears he has aligned himself with whatever fores control Bush.
[/QUOTE]
First, being better than Bush is an awfully low bar to set now isn’t it?

But you have hit it on the head and Obama is smart enough to exploit that fact. McCain now is a man who had a choice last election: he could have stood for his the good of the country and supported Kerry across party lines, even have become a VP; or he could align himself with Bush and commit to whatever compromises he needed to have his shot at the Presidency. He found the price of his soul.

80

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t believe McCain is the same man he was then. It appears he has compromised his principles a bit too much for this opportunity to be president. Perhaps he got tired of fighting for a public that seemed blissfully unaware and apathetic about the things he was trying to change.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he just got old.

Old and cranky. This article is essential reading.

He’s a very good man, but he would make a very bad president. “Bad” as in extremely dangerous to America and the world. Not at W’s level, but still dangerous.