 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 26, 2008 at 22:59:38
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 9/26/08: by Kevin Gosztola Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
Besides the fundamental flaw with the debate---the lack of more voices and more choices on stage---the moderator for this debate, Jim Lehrer, was way better than I expected. I did not expect Lehrer to probe further and push the discussion of the economy by asking the same question once, twice, and then rephrased a few more times. Since the debate just came to an end, I do not have a transcript at my fingertips to reference. I have to rely on memory. But, the memory have right now is not a good one. Why do the two candidates that pundits on FOX News would call “practiced” and that pundits might say on other channels were “at the top of their game”---why do they leave a bad taste in my mouth? It’s not acceptable to say that my support for third party options in this election is why this debate stood no chance of satisfying my political intellect and ambition. Had the two actually discussed the issues and made the points that the American people deserve to hear presidential candidates make, I would have found myself considering a vote for one or the other. 
But, Jim Lehrer had to ask multiple times what fundamental changes would be taken to fix the economy. Neither answered the question, really.
McCain offered some remarks on how spending needed to be cut.
Obama offered some remarks on how this economy issue feeds into the need for energy independence.
Both failed tremendously to put forth meaningful solutions, and that was because both are okay with the bailout of Wall Street.
For all that Obama has said on the campaign trail, nothing was said of Main Street or the need for bottom-up policies to fix the trickle-down policies that have tainted this country.
For all that McCain has said on the campaign trail, he has flip-flopped on the economy so much that it is clear he is politically posturing himself through the use of campaign ploys and cheap gimmicks. (How else do you wind up choosing Sarah Palin to be your VP?)
As the debate transitioned into foreign policy, it became painfully clear that we were in for more of the same.
Obama was against the war because it was a poor choice. It was a bad war. He wanted a larger scale war waged in Afghanistan.
McCain was for the war but criticized the strategy. We would not, according to him, be greeted as liberators and now Gen. Petraeus has given us a strategy for achieving victory.
But, to both of the candidates, there is nothing wrong with fighting for victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither asks if we have the right to fight militarily for victory.
Neither questions the “war on terror.”
Both candidates perpetrate illogical thinking and irrational ideas for how to handle the issue of Iran.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 22 comments |
|
Another Debate
Kevin, it is normal to feel that you did not get enough out of one of these debates. First of all, the issues are so large that they simply do not fit into an hour and a half. If you are a McCain supporter then you liked him and the same for Obama. I am an Obama supporter, therefore I thought he did fine. I cannot imagine anyone being undecided at this point but for those people I think they have to look at how the candidate responded to Lehrer, which by the way, you are correct he did a great job, and how he looked overall. McCain came off an angry old man, who used the same old talking points. He is too old and stuck in the past for me. I do congratulate you on being interested, as it will soon be your generation that will be in charge. Hang in there. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:09:56 AM  (0+)
|
|
very good, Kevin
and very sad indeed. See my article ' Stepford Candidates...' Sad, what can I say by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:10:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Trivia, you say - I add "shallow"
Not the candidates nor the moderator. They performed well. Careful not to debate each other in depth. It's what Senators do. At least they did not say "My good friend" from the state of. Topic was to have been foreign policy, not how to run DOD. They acknowledged economic problems as being something "just there" while looking at foreign policy as a chessboard of military might. When I was in college The War was raging. There were issues like "second front" and "soft underbelly." I saw two sides fighting over minds and hearts--and future territory although we couldn't see at the time how the old concept of Empire was vanquished. "Morning after" requires waking up and drinking the coffee. I determined not to comment on new articles until I got a sense of the readership. I really need to do more of that, because it seems the big Mac got little respect and the young O was hanging in there. In 1960 two Senators battled it out on TV. I didn't have one because I was moving and was in the process of getting a newer model. The words cloyed: Matsui and Quemoy over and over. Two fellows who came to Congress after The War to save the world from Communism. I saw things differently, having lived in Copenhagen in 1950 and having seen the damage Joe McCarthy had done to the political process. Ike had done a reasonably good job of transitioning the country through economic reconversion, and he had calmed the waters over the Korean situation. But one global question remained: When would Americans (and other recent empires) see that people could not live half white and half black? The US in 1960 presented a metaphor. Taylor Branch, in the first volume of his trilogy of the King Years, explained how Rockefeller tried to woo the Black community (MLK) for the Negro vote. As it turned out, Kennedy did a better job than Republicans could have, mainly because his AG and VP recognized the split between Southern and Northern Democrats would have to give on the issue. However, much as the race problem made America look bad to the rest of the world, it would look worse if it didn't stand up for "capitalism"--take your pick, Capitalism/Democracy or Communism. It was true then and it's true now--that form of governance and method of economic policy are distinct issues. In 2009 and forward we have the same problem we had in 2000: How can the United States prevail in a global economy while preserving a decent standard of living at home? Buzzwords change but the underlying fear remains. Terrorism (communism) and consumerism (free trade) both must address the fact that the American economy is based on militarism. War and peace are bound together with The Bomb hanging over all. When the politics of fear came into rhetoric, it presented a picture of citizens' guilt versus fear of jobs lost in this military economy. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:18:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The worst thing
was that McCain, bastard as he was really was in his natural habitat and Obama was pushing himself, unnaturally to become a bastard, to be like McCain. It was horrible, like watching a man drinking himself to death. It was an abomination. The more Obama was trying to look 'tough', the more he looked malicious, even maniacal. It was so obvious that a man was an inlellectual by nature and he surely never believed all that nonsense he had to say( I mean on foreign policy). He forced himself. Of course, he was also ignorant and ignorance helps in trasformation to the malicious bastard but he HAD to be unnatural, to go against himselff. And he died. His soul died. There is not prostetic for the amputated soul. Integrity is gone. I pity his kids. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:45:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The rhetoric that scares me
Obama really is trying to beat McCain by saying the most aggressive rhetoric on Iran that he possibly can. If I thought this war in Iraq and the economic turmoil was a gigantic disaster, just add an Iran War to it. I don't think my mind can even imagine what that would be like. I don't think the people, though, could imagine their CHANGE candidate, Obama, taking us into a war based on false pretenses. But, he's posturing himself so that he can allow it to happen. All options are on the table. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the cloud..
First. Keep up as you are Kevin. One day soon you will be called to do more and help more directly the many who need a voice such as yours. Second. The rhetoric is a cloud. The sun cannot shine through. Neither of these 'gentlemen' have a clue of what gardening is. Third. McKinney, Nader or whoever else there is of any value that cannot win or even be allowed to speak to more than the mirror must continue, but I wish they'd each wake up and consider locking arms, agree to disagree on whatever issues and use their joining as a fulcrum from which to build a stronger base for the critical issue facing the possible complete breakdown of what is left of this country. Fourth. On Obama. At one time (04) he had vision and naivete' to speak honestly and with a firmness I have not heard since Bobby. Maybe he has always been all show, but I have watched him all but lose his soul as he has become the man. A man without balls. Many who still support him I believe, have a hope that after he wins, he will somehow turn back into himself or JFK and give birth again to our all but gone ability to care about each other. If he is just playing the game and plans to show us his real balls on Jan 20th, he will be gone before the clock strikes midnight. They hate the light. As Mark said. These folks have no idea how to be parents. They keep abusing their position of trust that we have given them. It is our fault and in the final equation, we are the parents. This is our lesson. Again Kevin. Thanx peace As Carlin said. "They have their little gang. And you and me ain't in it". Cool with me. by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Democracy
These debates (and I use the term loosely) exemplify one very important aspect that seems to slip under the carpet; that is, there were only two candidates on the podium. Although the moderator did a reasonably good job given the restrictions, input by third party candidates such as Nader, McKinney and Barr would have pressed both Obama and McCain to address issues rather than skirt them. For two parties who claim to represent "the free world" and a desire to spread "democracy" to other nations, they should check the OED for a definition of the term. by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:22:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Angelo
I agree with you. Ever since the two main parties took control of the presidential debates, forcing the League of Women Voters to say good riddence, it has been more circus than debate. The two parties decide what can or can't be asked of the candidates along with who will ask questions and who is allowed or disallowed in the debate. Though Jim Lehrer did a good job, I can only imagine the impact a Nader or McKinney would have had on these debates and after seeing this first debate I can't help but think both Obama and McCain would have been blown out of the water. by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Well Kevin
that debate left a sour taste in my mouth too but not for the same reasons. For me it was the response concerning Georgia. When Germany went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleaning it was an act of mercy. When the Russians reacted to a Georgian attack inspired by the neocons on one of the disputed territories to prevent the same kind of ethnic cleansing, they are called a renegade state who committed a criminal act. Also telling the world he would add Georgia and the Ukraine to NATO will no doubt inspire the Russians to use some of their oil capital to build those 40,000 more nuclear warheads Obama mentioned and point them at us. Also just as this economic crisis goes, so too goes the Russian-Georgian affair. A rock and a hard place for the democrats. Of course if Obama had mentioned the facts in this, he would have been painted as a commie traitor and weak on national defense. It would have been political suicide. That said, it is obvious that neither of the candidates are good at debating, unless of course they have a teleprompter in front of them. I find this disturbing frankly and unsettling. And although certainly McCain did not deliver a knock out punch as he needed to, I believe Obama needs to do much better then he did in this round if he wants to be president. I can only hope at this point Biden derails Palin. If he can't do that then neither of them deserve to be in the White House. and God help us if they don't win this election. by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I left that part out
I apologize for that. I should update and append this, but I will just thank you for your comment. That discussion was as bad if not worse than the discussion of Iran and Afghanistan. Neither can be honest with the American people and admit that Georgia provoked Russia's act of aggression. Georgia committed war crimes against its people. As for your talk about neither being able to debate without a teleprompter, that's more true for McCain than Obama. But Obama doesn't seem to take the opportunities that present themselves to really drive home the point that he is better than McCain. McCain was a jerk this week. And Obama could have really stuck it to him for trying to postpone the debate. But, Obama's too much of a gentleman---a gentleman that wants to be the next Commander-in-Chief. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ie McCain a jerk Obama a gentleman...
I agree Kevin. It seems he doesn't go for the jugular. But of course if he did he would be lambasted for lambasting the war hero. And what McCain did concerning the cancelation of his campaign came right out of Barnum and Bailey's. by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM (0+)
|
|
We heard from many punt-it's that this was
by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM (0+)
|
|
RUN FOR THE BANKS
Time to start taking our money out. If our votes don't mean anything, our money does. The debate shows more reason to refuse to vote for the Repugs or the Dems. According to Obama our real war should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Gee, that's REAL change now isn't it. House Repugs were smarter than the Dems in this whole bailout deal. by Matoska (22 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 33 comments) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Matoska
taking our money out of the banks will only hasten a total economic collapse, rendering our currency worthless and in turn leading us into an economic armahgeddon. Government itself would collapse. There has to be solvency or we can forget it. Certainly the bailout of these failing institutions is not the answer. Other more practical methods need to be addressed and that means government intervention and more importantly regulation and oversight of the markets. But practical intervention rather than insane intervention is what's called for. With all the bullshit we've gotten from Wall Street, we still need Wall Street and not everyone on Wall Street are to blame for this. Reward the good financial institutions rather then the bad ones and create jobs with alternative energy by taking a piece of the pie from any corporate bailout we manage. Use that money to rebuild the infrastruture which will in fact stimulate the economy, end the war, establish universal healthcare and make FM and FM provide low interest bailout loans to the millions of decent hard working people who are about to lose their homes to no fault of their own. Break up the trusts while you're at it and return the market to a fair and level playing field. FDR did it. Even to a degree Jimmy Carter did it. We can do it too! by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:22:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Do you know
How little money there actually is. If they were to distribute equally to every man women and child, you would have 1000 dollars in cash. There is 300 billion in cash in the US, 500 billion abroad. Your bank book is just an IOU, you loaned your money to the bank when you deposited it. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:34:58 PM (0+)
|
|
You call that a debate!
by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:37:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Re: "You call that a debate!"
by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:55:33 PM (0+)
|
|
It was what it was
The debate didn't present anything new. And as has been noted above, the partisanship showed and as much disguied the honesty which we as a people of a president or any public office. Nobody drooled or babbled or any offensive acts, much as mainstream and main street generally prefer. by Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 3:56:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Say what?
Margaret Bassett wrote: If people feared job loss, they wouldn't vote for Democrats or Republicans, since both have supported job outsourcing. The fear is that because they voted for war crimes, unless they spend a million dollars every two minutes on terrorism, they might be brought to justice. That is the fear that keeps American voters, who have consistently voted for war crimes, war criminals, and illegal wars of aggression, voting for more war, even though they understand that it has bankrupted our economy. Both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are illegal wars based on lies, which are crimes against humanity. And that's what a war against Iran would be also. Since both war criminals running for President support the continuing crimes against humanity, anyone who votes for either of them is a terrorist collaborator. And since the elections are rigged, anyone who votes 3rd party or casts a protest vote is a collaborator also, since they are knowingly allowing their vote to be flipped to a war criminal and consenting to the results of an election which only a war criminal can win. That said, it is very good to see a thoughtful comment from you, Margaret. I have a lot more respect for you now that I know you've lived in a country that actually has a political left (unlike the U.S., which criminalized and eliminated the left, leaving two right-wing parties in control), and that you know that the choices shouldn't be between war and war. That's not a choice, that's terrorism. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:45:50 PM (0+)
|
|
It's quite obvious
Obama and McCain agreed on most major issues. Bail out, GWOT, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Only difference is largely cosmetic. No surprise, since the electors at the top decide who gets to run, the voters are just manipulated to choose their predetermined candidates with a primary process designed for this purpose, and media - poll manipulations. Obama did well in pointing out the corporate tax loopholes and proposed tax in health benefits offset with a 5000 dollar credit. He wins on points for that alone. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:42:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Step right up folks ...
Come see a freak of nature, one candidate with two-heads! That's right folks, you heard me one-candidate with two-heads! There's plenty of room inside, just line-up over here to the extreme right and empty your pockets. That's right folks, you heard me right - give us everything you have, your money, your homes, your land, your trust, your liberties, your intelligence, or in this case lack of, and don't forget your children folks, because we haven't. Bring them in and leave them, because we're going to need them for our dirty little wars and the good looking ones for ... well, you don't want to know. What's that you say? You don't want war? SHUT-UP! Is that you up there on that stage? We're the show, you're just here to watch the show. You don't write the script. Now sit down and listen to the two talking heads and when they're done there will be something even freakier, we're going to have dozens of heads all on one body telling you what you should be thinking about what you just saw! That's right folks, we know how hard it is for you to figure things out, like the fact that these wars are illegal and we shouldn't be in any of these nations. And instead of this freak show we're giving you, in a sane world, these cretins posing as representatives of the people would be on trial rather spewing a pack of lies. And most of all don't pay any attention to the big 800 lb gorilla on the stage with the two-headed freaks, because they won't. We call that Gorilla 9/11, and you can watch how skillfully we'll ignore that fact that that gorilla is tearing the stage apart in ways King Kong could only dream of. Notice though how we can make the gorilla vanish and bring him back when it suits our purpose. It's magic. Just like the day 9/11 happened and all those buildings just down for no explainable reason. And how we can make a 747 vanish into a 16 ft. hole. But never mind all that, enjoy the show as best you can. We don't want you thinking too hard about that day. We know you've forgotten all about 9/11 and are in complete denial, pretending that these freaks actually represent you and aren't enabling mass murder, genocide, rape, torture, humane slave trade, drug dealing and all manner of human depravity and wouldn't spit on any of you if you were one fire. Makes one wonder who the freaks are under this tent. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:14:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Not Exactly
While I can admit Obama has many faults, it's not entirely true that Obama didn't address Main Street. You said, "nothing was said of Main Street or the need for bottom-up policies to fix the trickle-down policies that have tainted this country" - but he in fact said almost exactly that! He said several times that he believed that the middle class needed to be built up, that it was essential to our nation's economy. He also said that it was the old way of thinking, the current policies that have led us to this point. He may not have said the words "trickle down" but that was exactly what he was referring to, no doubt about it. To be perfectly fair, Obama also said it was a matter of prioritizing, making sure that things that are absolutely necessary are taken care of (like education, health care, etc...), the things that we absolutely need to get our economy back on track. McCain just kept on about his earmark thing, and it should be noted that not ALL earmarks are bad - that's an incredibly vague answer. Truth is that it's near to impossible to know what the economy will be like by January, and THAT will be the time to decide the specifics. I can't argue with you one little bit about your position on Iran - it's spot on. I also don't think we have the right to run around arrogantly like we are the world's police authority, and I believe the so-called "war on terror" is a total farce at best. And the fact that Iran is a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty, our ally Israel NOT being a member of that treaty, and the hypocrisy surrounding the development of nuclear energy drives me f***in' NUTS!!! Although I have to disagree with you on Pakistan; our relationship with them and the things going on there ARE an utter mess - not to mention a major disaster begging to happen (thanks to Bush). On the other hand, I can agree with you 100% about the lack of choices on stage, and I highly recommend you check out this website below. Join those of us that want to do something to change that : opendebates.com More specificly, check out their page about the secret contract made for the debates that we should all demand be made public : click here - this is just one of many steps to having truly democratic debates, but... I've also been an advocate of Instant Run-off Voting ( FairVote.org ), and publicly funded campaigns for the very same reason. I wholeheartedly believe that third party candidates would be winning IF they were actually seen by the public, and not shoved aside by lobbyists! I'm also following the abolishment of the electoral college movement very closely ( nationalpopularvote.com ). Did you know that several states have already passed bills, in one or both of their houses? I'm a big-time democracy idealist, optimist and downright dreamer. Yet because I'm also a pragmatist, and because these things are not in place; I'm going to cast my vote for "the lesser of two evils." I'm just being honest. Perhaps you're already aware of all these things and hope that is the case; but if you're not, as a third party supporter, you certainly SHOULD be! Point being that being a "player hater" isn't going to get us anywhere when it's the system that totally SUCKS. As for being opposed to the nasty bailout, try these links : Senator Bernie Sanders petitiion for a responsible proposal, benificial to The People - be a citizen cosigner. click here Denis Kucinich's "Ownership Society" proposal, opposing "cash for trash" click here Lastly, "Vote No Bailout" by sending a letter to Congress : www.votenobailout.org by Heather Meyer (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:11:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
