1st Presidential Debate

Well, its 8:48 and as I write the clock moves ahead to the first presidential debate of this election. I’ve decided to keep a live blog, to write on each point or answer that the candidates give, effectively putting my thoughts directly on the page as they enter my mind. That way I can keep track of what they said.

Like with most people, this debate holds great import for my decision. I can see pros and cons on the side of both candidates, and I can DEFINITELY see many things to criticize, so I need to see their dynamic together and their individual responses to the issues affecting this country. I guess that sums it up, now, on to the debates…

Ok, Moderator Lehrer has determined a theme of Foreign Policy and National Security (and by extension, the “Global Financial Crisis” of course). He begins by quoting Eisenhower.

Q1: Where do you stand on financial recovery plan?

Obama begins by comparing the economy to great depression. connects to “common man.” has proposed:

Oversight, taxpayers must get a return, no money to CEO back accounts, must help homeowners

The economy is a final verdict on the failed economy under Bush, and supported by McCain ( trickle effect is highly ineffective). Is the middle-class getting a fair shake? Overall, a sound point to make, are we actually seeing the outcome of a trickle effect in our economy, or has the trickle been stopped up, with the water accumulating higher up?

McCain: Sen. Kennedy in Hospital (talk about an underhanded trick, seems to try and draw emotional response), he thanks University of Mississippi, claims to have been feeling down, but feels better now, because we are seeing bipartisan talks about the crisis, talking about failures on “main street” not wall street, home foreclosures, job losses, etc. But, points out, finally seen republicans and democrats joined together to create the financial package, which has a number of essential elements, claims House Republicans decided to be part of the solution to the problem. Must create jobs, eliminate dependence on foreign oil

*Alrighty then, where to begin? I don’t know where McCain thought he was today and yesterday when these “talks” where going on, but clearly he was definitely not present. whether that or else he was witnessing some warped, illusion-type version of said talks, because, as is well known by now, they amounted to nothing. Partisan rhetoric and interests ripped the proposals apart. And, ironically, for being the group that “decided to be a part of the solution” the House republicans were the most vocal idea-murderers during the discussions for the bail-out. My how the tides fluctuate at will…*

Mod: Thoughts on recovery plan?

O: have not seen language, constructive work out there, (he seems optimistic). How did we get into situation in 1st place: because of last regulation, had to stop abuses of mortgages, wrote to secretary of treasury, asked if he understood the magnitude of the problem, question needed, must intervene to deal with short term, must must also look back to see problem with the idea [sic]

Mccain: warned against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, against corporate abuse, must also look at issue of responsibility

heavily criticized for calling for resignation of chair of securities and exchange, “greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, as president, such people will be held directly responsible…”

Ob: McCain is correct, except, that reasonably needs to be done outside of crisis, must reform this “Wall street not main street economy”. John, you said ten days ago that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.” Disagrees, accountability day in day out, from higher levels down, Everyone needs help, not just CEO, down to teachers

McCain: fundamental problems with system, main street paying for greed of wall street

Q2: Are their fundamental differences between your two approaches over what you would do as president to lead nation out of crisis?

McCain: Earmarking is a gateway drug because it leads to out of control spending.

*Very true, he’s got a point, all that pork barreling needs to go, for everyone across the board.*

WHOA, whoa, claimed Sen. Obama wants $932M for pork barreling

Ob: Earmarks account for $18B. Sen McCain want 300B in tax cuts for major companies. So, in other words, CEO’s would be receiving major tax cuts, while the working man is left out in the lurch.

*Ok, McCain keeps going on and on about fighting against corruption, claims to have been called the sheriff” listen McCain, your not the only person who believes such things are evil, enough with the holier-than-thouness

McCain: Business tax, highest anywhere in this country. wants to cut it so that businesses will remain in America and keep jobs.

*HAHAHA, he’s joking correct? Businesses have already gotten a taste of overseas work and outsourcing, and they found it tastes good. There is NO way they’ll be returning to American shores now. Frankly, its a lost cause, we’d be much better off becoming more “untouchable” by having good general skills, technical skills, WITH creative thinking, specialization with the ability to adapt, and good social interactions. Education and Relationships are the way to provide new jobs, not isolationism!

*Wow, didn’t know about the loopholes in the business tax that lowers actual payment for tax.*

McCain wants to tax health services, based on notion of market being able to solve everything.

McCain: walking walk, talking the talk, Energy Bill,  voted against it, still trying to keep earmarking under control. Wants a fundamentally fair tax system (do the people want the existing tax code or a new Tax code?) Sen. Obama, has voted for bills that would increases taxes on regular folk.

Obama: Oil Tax Breaks, if oil companies are getting money, someones not receiving it*

Q3: Financial Rescue package, As president, under any Financial Rescue package, what will you have to give up as priority in order to pay for it.

Obama: Wants energy independence, which is good, as well as alternative energy. Wants to fix health care system, must start competing in education (math/science, affordable colleges). All good points, however, he kinda missed the point, we want to know what he’ll have to sacrifice, and he’s kinda glib about it: “those that don’t work!” *well obviously!*

McCain: I do agree with his lowering of the defense fund, it’s WAYY out of control. Cites record of fighting wasteful spending.

Thank you Lehrer for pointing out lack of changes that will be necessary!

Obama: Is willing to sacrifice individual components of the programs he wants to pass (gee thanks alot)

*IDK, it sounds as if Obama hasn’t really given much thought to the potential change the financial crisis will eventually have on his campaign.

McCain: Spending freeze in everything except defense and veteran support (whoa, hold up, a “spending freeze?” isn’t that a bit rash and unwieldy. Ax instead of scalpel)

Ok, McCain’s claim of our oversea money entering into the hands of terrorists is very Bush-like, I mean, seriously, in order to prevent such a thing, wouldn’t we need to isolate ourselves in our entirety. You can’t really regulate that, so its a weak argument.

Obma: wants government regulation of health care (good, but he doesn’t get around to explining how he would do so)

McCain opposes this. One more, his response to everything is “spending restraint.” Frankly, during a depression, what is spending restraint if not sitting on our hands and doing nothing? It most certainly is bad for the morale, and will definitely give the impression that the government can do nothing about the crisis.

Q4: Lessons of Iraq?

McCain: “Cannot have a failed strategy?” “War was very badly mishandled?”

*Oh yes! Most certainly it was, and do you know why? Because we did NOT understand our so-called enemy, and we both underestimated them, thus convincing no one.*

Obama: “Whether we should have gone into this war in the first place?”

*Enough said, I think. He opposed in in 06 because we had no exit strategy, no real budget, and we hadn’t tied up loose ends in Afghanistan. Now, we’re in debt because of it, and Al Qaeda is resurfacing again. If we want to talk about overspending how about 10M a day for this war!?” (I agree with him in terms of not going into Iraq, but still fighting terrorism in Afghanistan). However, I think that’s all in the past now, isn’t it? Shouldn’t he be looking more to the future? He doesn’t give any indication that he has a plan for dealing with iraq outside of a timetable for the removal of troops (more on that later)*

BTW, McCain raises a good point about Obama never spending time in Afghan, and Iraq.

Obama hasn’t gotten the point, he’s still pointing fingers but has yet to bring up a single idea about what HE will do if elected president to dealing with Iraq. The Judgment argument works okay, except that he himself has given us no inkling about what his judgment will be NOW (not then). Unless he means to say that he will pull our troops out immediately, which will of course wreak havoc in Iraq since its so very unstable.

Obama points out that both of them voted for limiting funding for war,

Q5: Do we need more troops in Afghanistan?

Obama does think so, and I’m glad that he reversed his earlier tactic and made it clear, he wants to divert troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, since we have 4x the number of troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan (“A strategic mistake”). Indeed, Al Qaeda IS the number one threat against the US… for now. Wait until Venezuela and Russia unite in ex-authoritarian brotherhood. Then there’s North Korea, and the breaking down Nuclear Deal… However, military intervention into Pakistan sounds oddly reminiscent of Bush Rhetoric concerning Iraq, does it not?

McCain wants to use the same strategy we’re using in Iraq in Afghanistan

*and that strategy would be what exactly? Introducing sectarianism and furthering the deterioration of regional stability? or perhaps overthrowing more governments Russian -style?*

Whoa, Obama, you IDIOT! “Presidents should be prudent in what they say?” Yeah, and they also shouldn’t say Pakistan needs to be taken out if it can’t or won’t fight Al Qaeda. OMG, you fool, you essentially left yourself open to be taken out of context (And I’m not sure whether you can salvage that IN context!)

McCain is making a pretty good emotive appeal of having a record of voting for intervention in periods/ eras of genocide (1st gulf war, bosnia, kosovo, etc.) Now he’s anecdoting a story about a mother who asked him to ensure her son’s death was not in vain, to not accept defeat. I suppose McCain is trying to make up for his image of being an emotionless corpse (lol, just kidding).

Plus, Obama makes a good point, no one is denying that American Soldiers died meaningful deaths, they’re following the orders of there commander-in-chief, if they die in combat, it was not in vain.

Essentially, McCain is trying to paint the differences in their experiences in Foreign Policy (namely Obama having no practical experience.

Q6: Reading of Threat from Iran

McCain: Iran with Nuclear weapons would be a threat to Israel, and to the overall stability (or lack thereof) of the region. McCain has proposed a league of democracies with common values, influence and ideas. Just one problem (well, more than one problem), what about the fact that the US acknowledges quite a number of “democracies” that are in fact poorly-disguised versions of authoritarian dictators anyway?

Back to Iran, must prevent second holocaust (of course, drawing on that emotional appeal again).

Obama believes Iranian Republican Guard is a terrorist organization (true). Plus, Iran’s influence has grown namely because we took out their mortal enemy, Iraq. Says we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran (once again, must choose his words carefully, can be mistaken to mean that NO nuclear power for Iran AT ALL [corrects himself later]. Wants stronger sanctions against Iran, and the chance for open discussion with them. This, “no talking” method, has so far proven vastly ineffective.

McCain’s point is, I think, very important, extending an open hand to Iran or other world dictator regimes WOULD increase their audacity and seem to legitimize their administrations.

What on earth did Obama mean when he said President Ahmadinajad is not the most powerful person in Iran? If he’s the totalitarian dictator, he sounds pretty important to me.

Frankly, I disagree with both of them. The “silent treatment” thing really HAS had no effect, its useless. I think stronger sanctions are necessary to give us leeway and weight when dealing with them, under pre-conditions. If we wanted to, we could impose sanctions on them until they reform their anti-humanitarian actions and THEN meet with them, thus saving face and actually getting something effective accomplished

Q7: Views on Russia?

While I agree that Russia’s actions are highly questionable, to call them resurgent and pull the “20th century dictator” rhetoric is playing into their biases. They already see us as pretentious fops with a holier-than-thou attitude, and essentially saying the same thing as Condoleeza Rice *shudders* will be taken with derisiveness on Russia’s part. It’s blatantly hypocritical in lieu of us and Iraq.

Oh! McCain is apparently now some kind of gypsy or oracle, because he is able to read letters in people’s eyes (“K”, “G”, and “B” in Putin’s eyes). Honestly now McCain, your strange allusions and backward thinking is getting on my nerves. Always dwelling on the past, you have to get yourself out of that habit and look more towards the future. (For that matter, Obama needs to be careful of that as well, especially when talking about Iraq).

Ok, Obama’s proposal to send $1B to Georgia to help rebuild the economy sounds very much like unnecessary government spending to me, doesn’t it? I understand he means well, in trying to invest in the rebuilding of a new ally, but if we were struggling with out of control spending, couldn’t we have helped them in other ways?

Q8: What is likelihood of another 9/11?

I’m proud of McCain for admitting that the likelihood of another 9/11 has lessened much over the years. However, his view on increasing intelligence gathering and interrogation still has the taint of a retrospective outlook. I am glad that he admitted that we HAVE tortured before, and that he wants to prevent it from ever happening again.

Obama on the other hand, kind of skirts around the question, leading the discussion along the lines of need for more nuclear proliferation control, redirecting funds from missile defense to more apparent needs for defense, and rooting out Al Qaeda. Also, we really DO need to remake our image to the rest of the world and become the shining beacon again. However, I still see his timetable in Iraq policy to be a little iffy. Yes, we do need to get out of there as quickly as we can and focus on Al Qaeda proper, but not before ensuring the stability of the country. If Iraq falls after we leave, it certainly won’t help our global appearance, but more importantly, it will create a power vacuum that Iran and Al Qaeda itself can exploit, to our detriment, and to the horror to that part of the world.

Well, the debate is over. So, my final thoughts…

Frankly, I hate to admit this, but I STILL cant decide between the two. As a whole, for the supposed optimist, Obama dwells way to often in the past, specifically about the economy, Iraq and 9/11. While I understand the importance of retrospection in determining the next course of action, such a system is useless if you never get around to actually determining it. From what I’ve seen tonight in the debates, Obama gives off the impression of being a criticizer and picking at the wounds of past mistakes, without actually proposing anything of practical significance (the whole timetable in Iraq business sounds pretty impractical, for any number of reasons, instability being at the top). However, I attribute that to it being his first presidential debate, though a careful eye needs to be placed on his understanding of these concepts.

McCain has proven himself to be incredibly intelligent in terms of international politics and overall national security. However, He too fell into the trap of retrospection, albeit differently than Obama. Whereas the democratic senator dwelled to much on the past, McCain kept referring to track records and past policies and a slew of other such arguments, ll the while forgetting that his track record under push puts him in an unfavorable position. Furthermore, he still lacks the Charisma that I think is necessary to help lead our people to better and greater things. Intelligence is one thing, but McCain lacks any actual emotive appeal (maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know, but from my perspective, he was trying waaay to hard to address the sympathies of the audience, to the point that it was ALMOST blatant psychological manipulation.

Anyway, end thought: I STILL CAN’T DECIDE! In terms of the economy and national defense, they agree on a lot of things and I disagree with many of their stances equally. This will definitely be a close election, I can feel it. Take care, and good night!