The Nashville Debate, October 7, 2008

Here’s a link to the transcript of the debate (CNN.com) and here is a page with a 3-part video of the debate. 

IMHO, this was a draw.  While McCain did nothing but unveil a plan about stabilizing home values and throw out the quickly infamous “that one” comment, Obama did not become ruffled or mis-step, and actually offered up realistic priorities.  Here are some quick points from FactCheck.org:

McCain and Obama debated for the second time, in Nashville. We noted some misleading statements and mangled facts:

• McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it’s not Sen. Obama’s proposal, it’s not President Bush’s proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

• Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal mortgage agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

• Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

• McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

• McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.

• Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we’ve heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from eBay, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.

LiveBlog the Nashville Presidential Debate!!

9pm Eastern
I wanted to go ahead and set this up…if nobody comes to join me, I’ll be sad, but it’s here, nonetheless!

The candidates will debate in a town hall format, with many questions coming from the internet. Tom Brokaw is the moderator, so this should be interesting. The campaign has heated up in the last few days…as Obama pulls ahead. Don’t throw down the gauntlet too forcefully, gentlemen.

The Great Debaters

With the Oxford, MS debate last night, my personal jury is still out.  One belief of mine—that we are entitled to some naivety, some faith in humanity’s ability to be reasonable—keeps coming to me as I read the transcript of the debate (I missed it on TV, closing at work again).  The positions and policies that the candidates set forth made me question what the real priorities are, in order for our children to even know the United States our generation grew up in.

Now, as some argued in defense of Palin’s ABC interview failure, a transcript does not give the fine nuances of speech. But I hope I can look objectively at the substance of Obama and McCain’s words. The assumption that Americans refuse to consider ourselves on the same level as the members of other countries…in Europe and some less “established” areas…as human beings makes me a little mad.  But when leveled at us from other countries, I can see the perspective of a French or Italian person that sees a United States bullying around the world, diplomatically, with cheers from the “sidelines”. If they had the opportunity, talking with the average U.S. citizen would reveal that we didn’t want anything but peace and prosperity for all peoples. I can’t think of a single person that wants people to suffer all the time—I feel like even those of us that lost loved ones in the September 11^th attacks would not want other families to suffer as they have had to.

In my opinion, our foreign policy has deeply embarrassed the nation.“World Police” is not exactly a compliment. So the candidates’ responses are important to me, in light of my faith in people.

In every country where tension currently exists, the candidates have distinct policies. Obama tends toward diplomacy, especially where at least some of the tension is our doing. Maybe once we establish with Ahmadinejad what the main reasons for nuclear enrichment are (and I think we might be surprised at Iran’s need for reliable nuclear power—in average citizens’ homes, that is), we can find ways to convince them not to use it for other purposes. Maybe propose ways to help them develop nuclear plants, lending our expertise (or best research) that will form some mutual respect, possibly earning some profit for our science and technology fields at home. Offer to lend them our brightest researchers—only if their safety can guaranteed. Or, bring their brightest developers and scientists to the U.S. for research, assuring them of the best resources and tools we have at our disposal. I agree that preconditions for talks should exist, but we must have some positive reinforcement to go along with any conditions we might set. If I’ve learned anything through teaching, I’ve learned that you get more flies with honey…

Concerning Russia, Obama said:

Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.

They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.

This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.

But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?

McCain, however, seemed more on the offensive with his positions:

Again, a little bit of naivety there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.

I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.

If we put ourselves in Russia’s shoes…say there is some disturbance in Mexico…and it threatens the stability in our region, what would we do? If the past decade is any indication, I’d say U.S. response would be similar in scope. I’m a little young to truly understand what KGB power means to the world, but I do see his point, in that a rational government would have come to Georgia’s aid, unless their government’s agenda is more sinister than we know. I just feel that the smartest thing we could do is know enough to keep an eye on the situation, and remain diplomatically friendly enough with the Russians that they’d be willing to keep us “in the know”. We have kind of betrayed the world’s trust by acting impulsively lately.

McCain also said something about a small part of our financial crisis–the loss of domestic, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and other industries:

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.

While I realize that many of these jobs will never come back from China, I would like to know the factcheck on this information. I will admit that this part of the crisis stems from some Clinton-era trade deals and some of the deregulation of the present administration, but would McCain’s policy actually help? 

Near the end of the debate, McCain says (in reference to being safer since 9/11), “We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.” My reading comprehension is average, at best, but everything stated in the debate suggested that McCain’s strategy or tactic (whichever one’s definition you understand better) could be influenced by impulse, or gut reactions.  We need a leader that will carefully weigh out the possibilities and consequences of national actions, and I can’t really trust that Senator John McCain is that man.

It is true that Senator Barack Obama does not have even a decade of experience in one of the premier legislative branches of the nation.  But how much worth can we attach to experience in “the way things have always been”? Our best chance to adapt to the 21^st century is to change the way we do things in America.  Obama isn’t old enough to be an “institution” in legislature, but he does have rational ideas, and a sensible approach to foreign policy.  It is usually new ideas that lead the United States around the next corner (remember the internet), so we can’t afford cling to policies that no longer work in this brave new world.  He has been criticized as having socialist policies, but I think that maybe balancing out the capitalism in our country with a few facets of the socialist ideology is a good idea, and part of a better long-term solution to our financial woes. 

Perhaps the suggestion (I won’t attribute it to anyone—I can’t remember who said this) that when the government creates the bail-out package, and every American taxpayer pays for it in some way or another, why don’t we award every American taxpayer with a stake in the affected institutions?  A stimulus check comes only once—then it is quickly spent.  How healthy would the economy be if everyone reaped the benefits of the bull market as stockholders? I bet that a little extra cash flow into average citizens’ pockets would boost the economy greatly, especially if it is regarded as a reward for paying taxes in the country.  But, I digress—that issue is another post altogether.  However, If Obama’s views lead us in a similar direction, where every family stands to benefit from taking a chance on saving our country in unorthodox ways…why not try his approach? 

Jihadists hellbent on destroying us aside, all people–not just Americans–have needs of safety and reasonable prosperity.  If we can come to a diplomatic understanding through reasoning with other world leaders, then a little open-mindedness is certainly called for. But these are my opinions. 

Form yours.  Here is a link to the transcript; read it.  Or if you’re more comfortable, watch it. We have to take this election seriously, because there has never been more at stake.