How many times is he going to let Obama get away with this bullshit that he's going to cut taxes for people who don't pay income taxes? He's done it twice now. It's a frickin' handout and redistribution. As I said, John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain.
Sounding a little better on spending cuts. Talking about ending ethanol subsidies and tariffs on sugar (writing off Iowa...). He should have point out how he was going to veto spending bills that Bush wouldn't (another missed opportunity). Another missed opportunity was to point out that while earmarks are small, it's how Congress logrolls other members on big spending bills.
[Update]
McCain is actually doing much better now. But he really should stop talking about the "overhead projector in Chicago." People like planetariums, and it makes him look clueless about science.
[Update]
McCain just pointed out that Obama's solution (increase taxes, restrict trade) was Hooverlike. This is good in two ways: it helps separate him from Republicans and it's true.
[Update]
McCain is on fire on health care. Obama seems to think that having an employer providing health care is a wonderful thing, and that everyone agrees on that. But McCain had a great (non?)-Freudian slip. He called his opponent "Senator Government."
[Update]
The discussion on Roe almost veered into a discussion on federalism. But not quite. But McCain went after him on his vote on the bill to allow failed aborted babies to die. And Obama is obfuscating on his vote.
[Final update]
Not a great debate for McCain, but it was his best. And he's not out of it.
What was missing? Gun control. It would have been a big issue in key states.
I caught the "Senator Government" slip too, nice. Overall, not a KO, not a TKO, not even any standing 8 counts, but, overall, besides using too many commas (me, not McCain) McCain won. I did like McCain pointing out Obama's "Eloquence", i.e., (or is it e.g.? I'm never sure and I'd hate to become the object of ridicule because I'm not sure) Listen to Senator Government, he will "look at offshore drilling", not actually do it. McCain used the eloquence line several times. Again, nice.
I disagree. Which isn't abnormal for me at this blog. ;-) I think McCain came across as a cranky mean old man. Way too negative. Obama to his credit did not even raise the Keating Five.
I bet the polls will suport my view. I'd say Obama won by about 10-15 points.
McCain needed a game changer. I'm not sure what he got. Even the Ayers attack looked incredibly flat. Though I must say McCain threw the kitchen sink at Obama; except Jeremiah Wright I guess.
I remember that once upon a time it was argued McCain was the strongest candidate for the Republicans because he would attract moderates and independents and had good press relations. I always knew that theory was bunk.
Polls are in favour of Obama on this one.
"kert wrote:
Polls are in favour of Obama on this one."
The polls said Kerry won all three of his debates too.
CNN had the reaction tracker of Ohio undecided voters up on the screen at 11 p.m. CT. They had it broken down by men and women. Just Obama's face showing up on the screen was enough to cause the women to jump upward. But it seemed the longer Obama talked the more their reaction would slowly spiral downward. McCain at one point had the highest level of agreement amongst both sides with the men even being pegged to the top of the scale. When Obama said, "I wish we didn't have to pay taxes, even I don't want to have to pay any taxes." The women took a huge nose dive way down into the negative. When McCain went negative it seemed the men were like, "yea!" But women were mostly, "Ew, No! Stop being mean!" But overall it looked like McCain held higher average levels of agreement with Ohio undecided voters than Obama.
McCain is probably at his best here. He's no Reagan, and even a Reagan would have trouble getting elected under current conditions. Bad economic news dominates. Since the market debacle happened under a Republican administration the Republicans (unfairly, but that's how these things work) will get most of the blame.
Obama is a skilled politician but he has also been lucky and ruthless. He got elected to the Senate because of the ineptitude of his Republican opponents. He became the Democratic presidential nominee because of his primary-opponents' mistakes and unintended consequences of the Democrats' delegate-selection reforms. How much his ruthlessness helped him is difficult to determine, but many of his opponents have suffered mysterious political accidents. If he gets elected President, it would be nice if his luck and ruthlessness applied in his dealings with foreign leaders, but it seems more likely that they will continue to be used entirely against domestic political opponents.
All snap polls gave it to Obama - CNN, CBS, Media matters, SurveyUSA, Politico and some by massive margins.
Josh, the CNN focus group in Ohio gave it to Obama 15-10, no matter the reactions on the meter. McCain did OK the first half hour and then lost his focus. Obama was simply steady throughout, unrattled, and as I mentioned earlier, apparently thought it beneath him to bring up the Keating scandal. Sometimes I really don't understand why he can't at least attack once in a while.
McCain looked like a white-haired kid with all his gestures, eye rolling etc. Though as I said, he had a few good rhetorical moments in the first 30.
Hey, Mike (Puckett), isn't it time for the whitey tape you've been promising?
Not that I think any negative attacks will have any more effect than every current failed attempt. These attacks only make the Fox Newsies.
And this is just sad:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/undecideds_laughing_at_not_wit.html
"Hey, Mike (Puckett), isn't it time for the whitey tape you've been promising? "
Nope. I told you when but you weren't paying attention. 12 to 14 days yet.
But then again, if you paid attention, you wouldn't be backing who you are
Mike, you wrote:
All snap polls gave it to Obama - CNN, CBS, Media matters, SurveyUSA, Politico and some by massive margins.
No offense, but the snap polls have been way off before. CNN's snap poll, for example,is easy to game.
Brad, you wrote:
I remember that once upon a time it was argued McCain was the strongest candidate for the Republicans because he would attract moderates and independents and had good press relations. I always knew that theory was bunk.
So why do you think you are right? As I see it, the Obama strategy would have worked even better on most of the rest of the Republican candidates.
TEMPE, Arizona (CNN) — Sen. John Kerry appeared to gain more momentum heading toward November 2, easily beating President Bush in the third and final debate, a poll taken late Wednesday night suggests.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry over Bush, 52 percent to 39 percent. …
“I think tonight that Americans saw someone who’s ready to be commander in chief,” said Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry’s campaign manager.
“Someone who has plans for where he wants to lead this country. I think that he did extraordinarily well and he delivered a faithful and optimistic vision of where the country can go in the future.”
If snap polls mattered, we would be preparing for the Ron Paul administration.
I wonder if gun control is an issue that has much traction any more, now that the Heller case has confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right. In my opinion, Heller was a real gift to the Democrats: it gives them perfect political cover to avoid addressing the tension between their leftist base and the moderates. This was in fact Barack Obama's tack, if I recall correctly -- immediately post-Heller, I remember him stating his support for the individual-rights interpretation. If you go back and take a look at his previous gun-related voting record, he's pretty consistently anti-gun. I think Heller allowed him to 180 on this issue, which simultaneously put him closer to the center of the electorate and defused it as a potent political issue. The good guys won big on this one, I think: the right to keep and bear arms is secure, and even Democratic politicians have been forced to recognize that the Second Amendment says...well, what it seems to say. Furthermore, every cooled-down hot-button issue (like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, or what have you) that gets resolved is one fewer thing for politicians to demagogue.
> Obama to his credit did not even raise the Keating Five.
There's nothing to raise against McCain, any more than there's anything to raise again Glenn.
The investigators said that both should be taken off the list because they didn't do anything. The Dems refused to take McCain off the list because he was the only Repub. The Repubs then refused to take Glenn off the list because of what the Dems did to McCain.
And, McCain has said that he was wrong and has gone the other way, trying to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (You may have heard of them, you're certainly paying for them.)
Meanwhile, Obama continues to insist that he's never done anything wrong. He didn't notice what Wright was saying for 20 years and Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood", who happened to get him started in politics.
Karl and Jack,
A real convervative candidate, as opposed to a 'Maverick', would have peeled Obama apart for Obama's far out of the mainstream history. And the gun issue is on point.
The Heller case doesn't give Obama cover, quite the opposite. Obama's game playing during the course of the Heller case exposes just how great an extremist Obama is on the issue, and just how much is at stake.
Obama tried to waffle on Heller, but his actions just show him for a bald faced phony instead. Obama has NEVER been confronted with his support for the extremist handgun ban laws of Washington D.C. and Chicago. How can Obama possibly reconcile that with his claim of supporting the second amendment? Why didn't Obama join his fellow senators in urging the Supreme Court to uphold the second amendment as an individual right? Obama has NEVER been confronted on that point. Obama is a phony and an extemist.
Heller was a 5-4 split decision. We came one vote away from having one of the bill of rights nullified forever by judicial fiat. Because the Heller ruling is new, the complete boundaries of second amendment rights are yet to be defined, but they will be within the couse of the next eight years as lower courts and possibly the surpreme court itself will make more rulings. Is now the time to let Obama pack the federal courts with anti-gun judges? Because that is what is at stake.