The first debate

[ionelv]

So last night we went to a voter registration event in Toronto organized by Democrats Abroad. We got absentee ballots, and stayed for the panel discussion and the first 2008 presidential debate (transcript). I think the debate was a scratch (despite the talking heads wishful thinking and the pseudo-scientific polls). Let's take the major issues one by one from one's "undecided" POV:
$700 billion bailout plan: both approved it with the promise to clean up the causes leading to it. Really?
Earmarks: Obama voted for $900 million in earmarks requests, McCain didn't? The first chink in the armor? Well, at least Obama saw the light when he decided to run for president.
Impact of the $700 bailout on their budgets: they both squealed and deflected.
Runaway deficits: Obama nailed McCain for voting 90% of the time with the president that let through ballooning deficits (nice guilt by association tag here), and all McCain could muster was that he did vote against some spending and that he's got another maverick by his side now who voted for or against a bridge to nowhere. I think they both failed this test and they'll keep failing.
Taxes: Obama supports lowering taxes for 95% of taxpayers (those that make less than 250k/year) but will raise business taxes by closing some loopholes. McCain will lower taxes for more people including bigger cuts for rich people. So, Obama will raise taxes on the rich and spend it on the poor, McCain will lower taxes on the rich and spend less on the poor. As a middle-class white-collar undecided voter do I vote for optimism or pessimism? Tough call.
Iraq/Afghanistan wars: McCain says we need to win in Iraq and muddle through Afghanistan while tip-toeing around Pakistan, while Obama says that we should pull out of Iraq soon, step up the 'stan campaign and blow the tents in Waziristan to bits if we have to. Hmmm... Kill Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants or keep sending coffins home of twenty-something poor and/or brainwashed Joes in the dead of night for however long it takes? Now, as a white voter with money invested in the lottery, an NHL pool and an NFL pool, do I vote for less war or perpetual war?
Iran: preconditions or preparations? You say potato, I say potahto. Besides Israel (who'll bomb the Iranians when they get too far ahead of themselves with their nuclear pipe-dreams), who gives a hoot? Don't tell me that Ahmadinejad has the balls to lob a Hail Mary over the pond!
Russia: A lot of posturing about Georgia and Ukraine. If US sponsors the former Soviet republics into NATO and Western Europe cow-tows to this stupidity, we got a nice WWIII brewing. Stealing berries from the hungry bear is penny-wise, pound foolish!
Another 9-11 attack possibility: That probability is almost nil, so they got into Reagan's SDI Star Wars scheme, and port security. Both plans are very costly and useless against terrorism.
China: Not much of a discussion beyond McCain's estimate of $500 bilion debt to China, or Obama's estimate of $1000 billion. I hope they cover this next debate 'cause it is the elephant in the vault...

Comments

[marinav.livejournal.com]

Though he disappointed me on some things, I was tickled to see Obama not let McCain get away with misinformation.

You're right. For those who are undecided, it's going to be a tough call, primarily because the undecided voters in this election are most likely to be conservative, or somewhat right-of-center, voters who are unhappy with the Bush legacy but who still carry the right of center personality traits. They need a message powerful enough to cut through their conservative worldviews, and, thus far, I haven't seen anything from the Dems that can do that.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

McCain is disingenuous about the earmarks. It's not all "pork barrel" projects that go to cronies. Some programs just happen to be funded through earmarks. You could say that that structure needs to change, but you have to look at what it was actually spent on.

[ionelv.livejournal.com]

Since McCain asked for a lot less earmarks, and given the usual superficial analysis by the punditry and the blogosphere, Barrack looks bad. If you start digging into it, or even think about it, requesting means a lot less when compared to voting for them, and here John fails the test (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/09/26/debate_reality_check_earmark_r.php). McCain could probably argue that he voted for those bills despite the earmarks and that someone like Obama only voted for some bills because his earmarks were tagged to them, but that's conjecture. Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/368907_mccain20.html) has a succint backgrounder on earmarks and McCain's crusade against them. Somewhat related, WaPo's Dobbs Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html) covers nicely McCain's claim about eliminating earmarks.

So, after about an hour of googling and reading a few articles I can say that Obama does not look as bad as McCain tries to make him look, although he (Barrack) did abuse the earmark loophole like everyone else until only one year ago, conveniently enough. Conversely, McCain doesn't look quite the earmark slayer he portrays himself to be as long as keeps voting for them. In a few words, McCain is better than Obama on this issue, although whether the difference is significant or superficial is in the eye of the beholder.