Bush is not a moron, he is a mainstream Republican. The Republicans talk “compassionate conservative” during election cycles and then always work to destroy benefits for any little guys when actually elected. Republicans have backed Bush very strongly and in lockstep for 7.5 years. Only during an election do they not vote his way. I am deeply disappointed that Democrats have had no spine during this time, and have also failed the American people. It is my hope that the difference is that the Executive branch has all the power. I liked the way Clinton ran the Executive Branch, and I hope that President Obama is able to to the same things.
I know you meant that as a joke, but he was a barely competent actor. Better then Schwarzenegger, but Arnold was a lot of fun in his action roles. Reagan was never fun.
Here’s some of the FactCheck.org commentary about the debate I found interesting about McCain’s claims:
In regards to the Kissinger claim:
But most amusing, for me, was that McCain seemed to score points during the talks about earmarks, but he completely mixed up the direction earmark spending has been going in the last 5 years:
Something I definitely didn’t know before I read that was that McCain actually voted in favor of the earmark for the $3,000,000 bear DNA research. Why do people still get away with this kind of stuff?
Because most people do not bother to follow up and read fact checking that comes out after debates. Why do we get so much right-wing glurge with the same old lies? Because it’s a lot easier to hit that forward button than to check out the allegations. Just make up stuff- Obama wants to raise taxes on people making $42K. It doesn’t matter that he doesn’t, it makes a great sound bite. Say he wants to bomb Pakistan. Who cares what he really said? The truth is completely irrelevant to true blue right wingers.
My opinion of McCain has changed somewhat because of the debates. I no longer think of him as Grandpa Simpson, I now think of him as Simon Bar Sinister.
Yeah, it was a joke. He was still a better actor than he was a President for the final 2 years of his term. We can blame that on senility or Alzheimer’s, sure — but my point in mentioning Reagan specifically is that he is exactly why we should be looking at the Recent McCain rather than the Old McCain? The man’s not young, and this is not the time when the U.S. needs to elect another Reagan. Even supposing McCain doesn’t fall victim to Alzheimer’s, he’s going be lucky to beat the actuarial tables during 4 years in office.
I say this is one mistake McCain can afford to continue making. Don’t correct him.
After all, if earmark spending has tripled despite his best efforts at trimming costs, he must not be any damn good at saving the taxpayers any money.
On the other hand, if earmark spending has gone down, that’s actually proof (in a way) that he’s having an effect.
Why he’d get that backwards, when it so clearly benefits his stated position, is beyond me. See point #1 about Reagan.
My first thoughts on the debate were centered around how it played to the undecideds. (And I think that the immediate polling shows that Obama won there, but the next few days will tell us more.) But the other issue is how it plays to motivating turn-out from their respective corners. I think that Obama’s turn-out is solid and, if anything, helped. McCain’s hard Right movements and choice of Palin excited his base, but Palin is beginning to disappoint even some of them and McCain really dissed Bush pretty badly in his desire to build some distance.
Any thoughts on whether or not there will be a backlash against him from those who will not appreciate hearing those words?
Yeah, McCain last night flip-flopped on most of the flip-flops he did in the last couple of years to get those voters. But he didn’t do the biggie, the one that really matters the most to those voters - the tax cut. Push to shove, that’s the only thing they really care about. Well, that and telling other people what to do about sex and reproduction.
And that the war is honorable and good and must be continued forever. He didn’t change his stance on that. But all the other flips remained fliped, not flopped. Oh, and torture. He has not changed his change from last year that torture is now okay as long as we call it enhanced interrogation. He hasn’t recently changed his position that it is now okay. But other than that, he has remained firm in all his positions. Well, other than the necessity of debating Friday night, but he was for it before he was against it and then for it again. But other than that, he hasn’t changed his positions. Nothing has changed since last night.
I had to work today, which meant that I couldn’t spend all day reading all the reports on how the debate came out.
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this thread. There has been a lot of good observations and clarifications and cites regarding the debate. I know this board tends toward the democratic, or at least towards Obama, but I do think that this thread has shown that a good debate is healthy.
I wish our politicians could speak as frankly to each other as we do here. I think it would serve us well, even if we need moderation at times.
Skipped the last few pages of this thread, but I did have a thought today (just the one): I think Obama could shown a little more edge, and I know where. After the third or fourth, “Senator Obama doesn’t understand…” dig, I think he should have begun, “Y’know, there are things I don’t understand, and I’d like Senator Mccain to explain them to me: what he was talking about when he said that he wouldn’t necessarily talk to the Prime Minister of Spain, a NATO ally of ours. Please explain why you said that, Senator. And when you get done, I’d like to hear what was so funny about you singing ‘Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.’ Because I don’t understand why a Presidential candidate makes fun of people dying, whether Americans or not. Go ahead, Senator McCain, educate me.”
I know he did bring up both those points, but I’m wondering if a little more edge might have pricked the bubble of McCain’s wrath, and shown a little more backbone. Your thoughts?
It would have pleased his base (such as you, I presume), but aliented the independent voters he is trying to attract. One reason most independent voters seem to think he won the debate, according to most surveys, is (IMHO) because he was the calm, cool, reassuring person. As opposed to McCain, who attacked a lot more.