The Debate: Tie goes to the socialist, and I don't really care
10/8/2008 - 9:22am
Last night's presidential debate was certainly John McCain's strongest performance yet.
He attacked Obama, if belatedly, and emphasized the difference between their records on spending.
But my reaction to the debate overall was "so what?", and I believe the debate was effectively a negative for McCain's electoral chances in the sense that he really needed a big win.
The town hall format should have benefited him, and he did reasonably well, but Barack Obama has clearly increased his speaking abilities in the absence of a teleprompter.
I watched the debate with my wife, a new American citizen, who is (in my opinion) of slightly more-than-average political and economic understanding, but neither economics nor politics is something she spends much time thinking about.
Her take was that Obama's positions are not smart, his delivery is very smooth and it's easy to imagine people who don't think about taxes or the economy much (until we're in a crisis) believing what he's selling.
She thought McCain's positions were mostly smarter, but he seemed like he could be Obama's grandfather and a time like this requires someone with a lot of energy.
My views were similar but stronger. Obama simply deflects or lies about some of his most important positions, such as claiming that he's not planning to massively increase spending and not admitting that much of his so-called "tax cut" is really socialism, i.e. the government paying money to low-income people by taking that money from high-income people. McCain specifically asked Obama how much he would fine employers who don't meet Obama's health care demands and Obama didn't answer.
It is rather remarkable how to what lengths Obama will go to refuse to admit that the surge was a success. I wonder if that implies anything about Obama's personality, i.e. being as bull-headed as people think McCain is.
Obama did not deny McCain's assertion that Obama has voted 94 times to support tax hikes or oppose tax cuts. That's something that should weigh heavily on peoples' opinions as they consider whether to believe Obama's claims that he'll cut taxes and not increase spending.
Neither candidate offered good answers on entitlement reform, but at least McCain said there should be reform and noted that fixing Social Security is theoretically an easier problem than fixing Medicare. He also noted that future benefits would have to be lower than current benefits. Obama offered a non-answer about stabilizing Social Security.
A truly important distinction between the candidates came when they were asked whether health care was a right or responsibility. McCain said the latter, Obama the former. This is a very big deal and deserved a lot more discussion during the debate. This idea that everything under the sun is a "right" because we're a rich country is precisely what will end up causing us to no longer be a rich country. It represents Obama at his most dangerous.
McCain had some very strong points when he argued about taxes and spending, but he said a few things which I thought were just terrible. First, he again blamed the current financial market troubles on Wall Street, which is not the primary source of the turmoil. (Later, he blamed it on the Democrats' coziness with Fannie Mae, but it was the third debate in a row where McCain or Palin let the Democrat blame this mess on deregulation, whereas the real cause was anything but deregulation.)
Second, McCain said he'd order the Secretary of the Treasury to buy bad mortgages and then renegotiate them at "diminished home values". Not only is this socialist and a completely improper use of government, but it's also stupid. How many banks do you think will give mortgages knowing that the Secretary of the Treasury (or a judge, as Democrats would like to see) can simply change the terms of a loan...and not just the interest rate, but also the principal amount due.
Third, McCain went on a rant about the "danger of global warming gasses". Hasn't he noticed that the planet hasn't warmed in a decade? I've written enough about this subject, so I'll keep my critique here short and sweet: McCain's "cap and trade" legislation is a bigger threat to the American economy than Obama's tax and spend policies. McCain's legislative "solution" to something that isn't a problem will make the bailout's insertion of the government into our financial system look like outright laissez-faire.
Fourth, it turns my stomach every time McCain is proud of "reaching across the aisle" to Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, and Ted Kennedy. Every time he reaches across the aisle, our liberty is diminished. McCain bipartisanship is simply his trying to move conservatives to a liberal position, never the other way around.
McCain still seemed stronger than Obama on foreign policy, but Obama is getting sharper in that area as well, and people are much less focused on Afghanistan than on wondering whether their bank deposits are safe.
Unfortunately they didn't get to discussing free trade. McCain mentioned that Obama would be a protectionist and assumed a question would deal with the topic later, but that question never came. Obama's views on trade are not just stupid, they're dangerous. When you hear someone say the believe in trade that is "free and fair", just remember that their definition of "fair" almost certainly means something other than "free".
Overall, the debate was essentially dull. Tom Brokaw wasted a great opportunity to create an interesting event by choosing from what must have been some interesting questions submitted by the audience in the room and via the internet. Instead, he chose completely typical questions which turned the town hall into just another series of stump speech sound bites.
And a dull debate, even if you'd call it a tie in terms of pure debating points (or maybe even a modest win for McCain, though I'm sure Obama supporters could argue the other way), in election terms it was a win for Obama. He showed himself to be plausibly presidential and that was all he needed to do.
I continue to maintain that John McCain could have helped both his nation and his electoral chances by opposing the bailout, especially all the other junk that was attached to it.
My view has been slowly but surely crystallizing around what my gut instinct has been for most of the year. The economic crisis has cemented my view:
Obama will be a terrible president. His positions are anathema to fundamental American principles. But John McCain is not better enough to be supportable, particularly in the very important areas of economic understanding and "climate change". The GOP should be made to think that they can give us a candidate as flawed as John McCain and win. Furthermore, the economy is going to be bad for a couple of years. No politician will be able to help that. We might as well let the Democrats wear it. Yes, they'll work hard to say that the crisis started under a Republican president. But I don't think most voters are putting this at the feet of George W. Bush. Republicans will be able to make a strong case for tax cuts and spending cuts, and will do well in the 2010 elections.
Barack Obama stands a real chance of being the second Jimmy Carter. Maybe his presidency will be the catalyst for the appearance of the next Ronald Reagan who, while not without his flaws, was certainly the best president of my lifetime.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
debate
1 - I dont argue a win for Obama. THE Public says you are wrong - 51-38 %
2 Obama is not planning to massively increase spending
I guess you cant use the internet.
3 socialism is defined by "NOT paying money to low-income people by taking that money from high-income people."
4 McCain specifically asked Obama how much he would fine employers who don't meet Obama's health care demands and Obama didn't answer. - very good tactic by Obama and Mccain did not pursue.
5 another good tactic was not to admit that the surge was a success.
6 Obama did not deny a LIE by McCain's assertion that Obama has voted 94 times to support tax hikes
7 "reaching across the aisle" is compromise - what american taliban does not want to do
8 Obama positions are anathema to fundamental American principles but NOT to americans.
Concerning health care
You say that you lived in Europe for a while. Good. Did you work for a European company or American, or did you just live there? Perhaps I am really naive, but I'll put my two cents worth in anyway. I'm American and work for a Spanish company in Spain, and therefore have access to the Spanish health care system, which is "socialised". They take about 60 bucks out of my paycheck each month for health care coverage. When I go to the doctor, I never pay a deductable or see a bill and don't have an insurance company telling me I don't qualify for something or that they won't cover me due to a pre-existing condition. Prescriptions cost, on average, 4 to 5 dollars. Due to all this, I don't have to worry about whether I will be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital, and the service that I have here is comparable to what I had in Colorado. I also don't have to wade through the reams of paperwork that seem to flood in after a doctors visit or stay in the hospital like in the U.S. It seems to me that if people don't have to concern themselves about health coverage, they have more time to add value to the economy in terms of greater productivity, less stress and hours out sick, etc.
Most people here wonder how we can have so many without access to medical care, and that an insurance company can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, etc. (Later in life, most people I know have something going wrong) Spaniards are also dumbfounded when they hear about people who lose their homes, etc., due to the inability to pay outrageously high medical bills. And according to the World Health Organization, Spain's healthcare system is rated #7 in the world in overall quality, the United States is ranked down at #37. Your comments please.
Higher taxes = Marxism? Bunk.
Setting aside the question of whether more taxation is good or bad, your argument that higher taxation is tantamount to Marxism is rhetorical silliness...unless, of course, you'd like to argue that Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes, is a Marxist (best of luck with that argument, by the way).
In our society, regardless of tax policy, industries are privately owned, and respond to public demand, not state direction; in a communist system, industries are all state owned and produce whatever the government tells them to. In our society, regardless of tax policy, people can buy, sell and own property; in a communist society, this is not possible because private ownership of property is forbidden. In our society, class mobility is still possible even if taxes go up (or down); in a communist society, class mobility does not exist.
True Marxism equals total government control of every facet of a nation's economic life. What we see today - and that may include higher taxes - doesn't even begin to approach this.
What's needed in our country is a real discussion about what government should and should not be responsible for, not a bunch of silliness like the idea that raising taxes is Marxist.
Ross, First and foremost, I
Ross,
First and foremost, I appreciate and respect the coherent, factual approach you are pursuing towards the election, a trait that is lacking from both parties this year.
gop.com, an obviously partisan source of information, reports that Obama spending would force taxpayers to finance 1.238 trillion over his first term. Ok, how about Bush doubling our deficit to over 10 trillion during his tenure? Unavoidable given the war on terror? Then provide me with concrete evidence that Hussein had links with bin Laden, or that Iraq had WMDs. The only federal program that compares to the bailout is the War on Iraq, the cost of which is disputed but which certainly approaches the cost of the bailout. Which candidate is looking for a withdrawal, and which candidate is showing a pugnacious attitude towards countries with far more resources and defense than Iraq? Choose an Axis of Evil that will cost less than $700 billion to invade, if you can.
Can either candidate promise tax cuts? W. learned from his father's mistakes by enforcing his campaign promises, providing tax cuts and even a aesthetically-pleasing rebate this year, even at the expense of money that does not exist. Trouble is, this is not money our government has. It wasn't a refund, it was a loan, because we are in deficit. Somebody will have to repay that $1200 dollars per taxpayer, as well as the bailout, and you seem to believe it won't be any of the industries which have benefited from the current administration in the form of tax cuts and grants. Will you be prepared to pay this someday? The bailout alone is quoted at $2300 per person.
Global warming? Still very disputed... might even mostly be a sun cycle, from what I've read. Can't dispute the human contribution to the problem though, so what's wrong with conservation of resources and treading lightly, minimizing foreign dependence? Isn't that what conservation/conservatism is about? Nothing looks less Republican to me than a Suburban, Excursion, or Hummer these days. Congratulations new SUV owners... thanks for supporting the Middle East. Please be aware offshore drilling wouldn't be as much of an issue if you didn't have to get around on an extra ton or two of steel every day (not a cheap resource these days either).
"Food, housing, cars, vacations, birth control, beer, and tickets to a Broncos game?" Well, our government rightly helps those in need of food and housing through food stamps, unemployment checks, and shelter. Available shelter and foot are inalienable rights of every human being and shame on you if you wish to deny them of a fellow American. The others should not be provided freely, and they aren't. So what is the basis of your complaint?
I am happy that your article does not invoke the usual propaganda that is causing much more harm than benefit to the GOP these days, but unfortunately it fails to prove that Obama would be more harmful than McCain. You may choose to cling to Obama's lesser quotes (guns and religion) or you may expect more from a candidate than he or she is capable of delivering after Bush's tenure, but resolving the facts leads to one clear answer, one which hopes to help our nation at large and not just our large nation.
Obama. Hope you get over it.
Inflation Killing The Middle Class
I think Obama is wrong to increase any business taxes and I think his $250,000 figure is too low for a tax increase but he's spot on that the lower and middle classes need tax relief.
Since 1991, the US median income has risen 23%. Over the same period, the Consumer Price Index has risen 57% and a host of essential/important goods and services have risen more. Notably, natural gas (116%), medical services (100% from '91-2004), gasoline (137%), median home prices (119%) and the grandaddy of all inflation figures: college tuition: 214%. Add in a few items that are below the CPI yet still much higher than median income increase: electricity (42%), beef (37%).
Is it really any wonder that the middle class is screaming for tax relief? Do we really care if corporate execs can only afford $9 million dollar homes instead of $10 mil? Who are corporations go to sell their products to when we can't afford to buy anything? How much wealth have the US wealthiest lost since oil prices skyrocketed? Other than those in the oil industry ;)
A BALANCED economy is a strong economy. The wealthy need a fiscally strong middle class for growth. Trickle down quits working when there's not enough trickling down for consumers to make ends meet. And THAT'S what's happening right now. Shifting the tax burden a bit is good sense, not "socialism."
Attention: Intelligent Readers!
Let's stop reading and commenting about this moron's ignorant views, and, guess what? He will go away! The Post will cease to publish his worthless views. As Cap D from Chicago states, "I ceased debatin' with Satan, cuz there's no changin' his mind."
Debate
What kind of journalistic rag publishes this kind of garbage? The article is like some sophmoric rant you would read in the student paper of a third-rate university. I would certainly hope the leading newspaper in a city the size of Denver could publish something a little more thoughtful.
hmmmm....
Well thanks for that constructive comment.
Please write something profound about the debate and post it as a comment and we'll compare.
Also, please find long-standing media outlets that are willing to have you write for them (or get paid to write for them) and then we can talk.
(I do not get paid to write for the Denver Post, and let me preempt you by saying that I know you don't believe I should.)
In the meantime, have you noticed that I've gotten quite a few of you liberals hot and bothered? I must be doing something right.
Debate
You haven't gotten me hot and bothered; I just don't think what you wrote was worth publishing in a major newspaper. And whether I have the ability to write something more profound is beside the point: it is your writing the Post is publishing (on the front page of the electronic version, no less), not mine. I review a newspaper to learn about the news, not to hear someone's half-baked political rants. I could go to a bar for that. So the question is: what exactly does the Post think you bring to the table that is worthy of publication to a large audience?
The rich get richer
Wealthy people SHOULD pay higher income tax rates than poor people, hello? And I am talking about the gop's famous trickle-down economic principles, which should actually be called trickle-up economics. Corporate welfare and tax breaks are at an all-time high, and for what? To stimulate the economy? Newsflash: It doesn't work and our current financial crisis is living proof. Capitalism needs government regulation because humans are inherently greedy. Why has ceo pay risen astronomically, while the average worker's income stagnated? Because the gop's total lack of industry regulation has allowed corporations to funnel all the money to the top, leaving the average worker to make less and less (adjusted for inflation) and receive fewer benefits. You and your buddy davey harsanyi need to move away to a deserted island somewhere and take your ignorant views with you.
You and Karl
You and Karl Marx would get along well.
I can't argue with someone who is a committed socialist so I won't try.
Just one point I'd make: There is not a fixed quantity of wealth. This means that one person's making a lot of money does not mean another person must make less money. (I'm not saying that trade-off doesn't happen...simply that it doesn't have to happen on a macro scale.)
Oh, one more point: How do you expect anything to get produced in society if people were not "inherently greedy"? Haven't you considered the most basic of Adam Smith's excellent description of economics, regarding the benevolence of the butcher?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adamsmith136391.html
Anyway, we'll probably get a few years of trying it your way, and I'll bet you $1,000 that the result is a return to GOP control of at least one House of Congress within 4 years. Want to bet?
Regulated Capitalism is NOT Socialism
But I realize that the "S" word is the first term that the free-market cheerleaders like yourself are quick to throw out. And I wouldn't take that bet - one thing about de-emphasizing public education, as the gop continually does, is that it makes for a more ignorant society that is more easily manipulated. I am sure ignorant Americans will vote for the gop again, as many of them did in 2000 and 2004. They don't understand that unless you make more than 250K per year, the gop doesn't care about you. If free-market capitalism (with zero regulation) is what you feel is most effective, then why is our economy in shambles after 8 years of these principles? You have no leg to stand on, ross.
"Phishing"
"If he doesn't take the bait, he's guilty." Uhmm, that's Ross'conclusion and reason for why McClain's myths about Barack's voting record must be true! Or perhaps, it's best to pick your battles, to resist tit for tat with an opponent who is offering nothing but mud. Socialism? Dividing up assests at under 20 cents on the dollar (Bear, Stearns), ramming through a 700 billion dollar bail out or rescue for those who are victims of their own greed, and eight years of no bid contracts--why it certaily sounds like "each according to his need" to me. It seems the wealthy among us are the neediest, and help for families in the middle class is labeled and smeared as "socialism." Uhhmm . . .
various...
Walter,
1) You may have noticed that I strongly opposed the bailout.
2) Does it matter whether Obama voted 94 times or 84 times or 74 times? He is unfailingly for higher taxes and higher spending, and was in Illinois as well.
3) I don't understand what you mean about the wealthy being the neediest.
Those who think this bailout is aimed at helping the rich simply don't understand what's going on. Saying it's a bailout of Wall Street makes for a nice sound bite, but the rescue plan is clearly aimed at trying to ensure we have a recession rather than a depression. When times are bad, the rich are still rich. It's the poor who get hurt the most. This rescue is not a bailout of the rich. But it is socialism and will have terrible long-term effects.
You are backwards! Just really Backwards!
But I do agree - Obama's speaking without a teleprompter has improved dramatically. I was really impressed last night
I guess the GOP (like Nixon) has its die-hard supporters...
McCain's Judgment: Palin (Bush in drag).
8 Years of The Republican Party's Leadership: Economic Collapse.
It's time for competence, intelligence and serious visionary people to lead again: Obama.
If the GOP want to be credible again, they'll marginalize the cult of religious fundamentalism that's taken over their party. They'll disown the extremist, dishonorable and evil tactics of Karl Rove and his ilk. They'll move their party away from all forms of supremacist arrogant ideologies. Otherwise, your party won't be reborn until the current crop of whackos and fascists die off and a more moderate generation takes over.
By the way, health care ought to be a right in this country. The great majority of citizens agree more and more on that one. Why? The more U.S. citizens learn of the net positives in other countries with some form of universal health care, the more the arguments of the free market fundamentalists are revealed as lies.
Good luck.
health insurance and more
I agree with your criticism of the GOP and religion.
Karl Rove is the bogeyman for Democrats. He's just a smart guy. If it were James Carville, you'd be in love.
You apparently don't know what "fascist" means.
Having lived in Europe and having had quite a few friends live in different places in Europe, the consensus among those of us with experience in socialized medicine is that we understand why all who can afford it come here.
There are not "net positives" about socialized medicine, and there's no such thing as a free lunch.
The reason people get so cynical about the free market is that they're told that a horrible non-free market like health insurance today is a free market! How many people complain bitterly about the car insurance industry? Very few, even though everyone is required to have it. Because it's a much freer market than health insurance.
By the way, if health care ought to be a right, then why not also food, housing, cars, vacations, birth control, beer, and tickets to a Broncos game?
Don't you realize that as soon as you say someone has a right, you're saying that someone else has a responsibility? By what authority do you think anyone should be able to say that it's my responsibility to pay for your health care?
Rights and responsibilities
"Don't you realize that as soon as you say someone has a right, you're saying that someone else has a responsibility? By what authority do you think anyone should be able to say that it's my responsibility to pay for your health care?"
Fine in theory. In practice, though, all it takes is for you to (God forbid) come down with cancer or heart disease, and you'll soon be so over your head in medical costs that your insurance company will have to use the funds I paid in for my premiums to help cover your costs.
Unless, of course, you think insurance should only pay out what you've paid in...right?
Karl Rove is a little more than a "boogeyman"
Ross -
You write: "Karl Rove is the bogeyman for Democrats. He's just a smart guy. If it were James Carville, you'd be in love."
You omit a central fact: James Carville has never been hauled in front of a grand jury to testify about burning a covert CIA agent for political payback. Karl Rove has.
Next?
Responses to commenters
Ryecatcher: You're not worth the effort.
Purple: I do not defend how Republicans have behaved this decade. I have not been shy in my criticism of them and their destruction of the GOP "brand". I have been outspoken in my non-support of John McCain as well. Even today's article was much tougher on McCain than on Obama yet all you wild leftists don't see anything other than what you want to see.
YouOverThere: I said "Obama did not deny McCain's assertion that Obama has voted 94 times to support tax hikes or oppose tax cuts." I specifically called in an assertion by McCain and did not say whether I thought it was true or not. Furthermore, regardless of the number, is it not absolutely clear that Obama has always supported higher taxes and higher spending, regardless of the precise number of votes?
I stand by my assertion that the planet hasn't warmed, although alarmists do show studies that show very small warming since then.
The BBC, fully in the tank for the alarmists, has to admit as much even while spinning wildly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Almost every piece of data I've seen in the past two years points to CO2 not being an important factor in climate change:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Killrighty (nice name): In what way have we been giving to the rich? The share of total income tax paid by the rich is at an all-time high. The share of total income taxes paid by low-income people is at an all-time low, and the number of Americans who don't pay any income tax at an all-time low.
(By "all-time", I really mean within the context of the modern income-tax system, not for all of history.)
Why are the rich paying more taxes than ever before?
Ross -
You state: "Killrighty (nice name): In what way have we been giving to the rich? The share of total income tax paid by the rich is at an all-time high."
Correct. Why is this so? Because there are more wealthy Americans than ever before. And there's one critical element to this: taxation policies that have favored the wealthy for eight years.
Despite what you might want to tell us, this is NOT some Marxist-style giveaway from the rich to the poor. It's the rich having to realize that with the economy in the state it's in, they need to help create more wealth among the people who actually buy the products and services that made them rich to begin with - the middle class. And that means their tax bills will go up.
They can think of it as an investment.
If they don't like it, they can move to some third world place like India, where taxes are a lot lower, and hire a staff of 100 servants for $.25 a day each. Of course, the water gives you dysentery, the local officials all require constant bribing, and you could end up with a torch-and-pitchfork brigade at your front door after a good steak dinner, but hey...if you want a lower tax bill, you gotta compromise somewhere, right?
"YouOverThere: I said
"YouOverThere: I said "'Obama did not deny McCain's assertion that Obama has voted 94 times to support tax hikes or oppose tax cuts." I specifically called in an assertion by McCain and did not say whether I thought it was true or not.'"
That's like Dick Cheney saying that he had information from the Czech government of a meeting between an al Qaeda official and an Iraqi intelligence agent. The intent was to give an impression but to cover yourself by being able to say that you didn't actually make an assertion. Furthermore, the rules for the "debate", as I'm sure you know, precluded responding to the other candidate's statements. So you were dishonest in 2 ways here.
"Furthermore, regardless of the number, is it not absolutely clear that Obama has always supported higher taxes and higher spending, regardless of the precise number of votes?"
That may well be true, but you presented no support for it. Which was the point of my post.
"I stand by my assertion that the planet hasn't warmed, although alarmists do show studies that show very small warming since then."
Actually, all measures show a continued warming trend.
"Almost every piece of data I've seen in the past two years points to CO2 not being an important factor in climate change"
Unfortunately, none of the papers in your link disproves the idea that increased atmospheric CO2 can lead to warming. Actually, none of them even tries to.
A few climate links for your perusal
You:
Your assertions are very wrong. 1) Even people who continue to believe in anthropogenic climate change, such as the Hadley Center in England, admit that measures do NOT show a continued warming trend.
2) The second link in my prior comment is to an article which specifically says that CO2 is not an important factor in climate change.
So, that makes me believe you not only didn't read the pages at those links, but you have hardly read anything on the subject and you're just listening to whomever is filling your head with this stuff.
If you have enough of an open mind to do some reading, here are some links to consider. There are dozens (or hundreds) more stories and academic articles which support my assertions. That does not prove that I'm right, but it does prove that your comments above are wrong.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/environment/story.html?id=525590
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=145245
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,159624.shtml
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4025
This one has links to the entire National Post's "The Deniers" series:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4
Frankly Kaminsky who cares
Frankly Kaminsky who cares if you don't care. In my opinion your Libertarian platform on taxes, downsizing government, and LIBERTY is a lot of nonsensical unrealistic blather. "Liberty". If you feel deprived of your "Liberty" by having to pay more federal tax why bother staying in the US. Just move elsewhere.
We've had nearly thirty years of Republican free market tax cut conservatism in this country and look where its got us. Ronny Reagan is the best president of your lifetime. Obama's ideas are not very smart according to you and your wife. McCain's ideas are smarter. Right Kaminsky and the Marsians have landed in Jersey.
What should "weigh heavily on peoples opinions" is your stupid remark concerning Obama voting 94 times to raise taxes. Fact check put this McCain lie to rest. Its a FALSE claim Kaminsky and for a hot shot politico you should know better than to peddle this garbage. Whats more your laughable assertions that the "free market and LIBERTY" is the gospel and final authority on all matters regarding the economy, the government, and the welfare of the country is pompous crap. Your precious free markets have given us a 10 trillion dollar deficit, cost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US, left 45 million Americans without health insurance, driven health care costs throught the roof, and helped jerks like Reagan, Bush 41 and especially 43 to sell our country down the economic drain.
Obama will be a "terrible president whos positions are anathema to fundamental American principles". According to who. You. Your hardly the final word Kaminsky. Again who cares what the hell you think about the debates.
Obama bashing and GOP delusions
Ross,
Your seething animosity toward Obama is always a marvel. At least you're consistent. Obama clearly won the debate last night on both substance and style. McCain and the GOP have finally run aground ideologically - they're stuck without any more plausible excuses after governing unilaterally and with extreme partisanship for most of the last 8 years. We can all see the damage they've done if we care to look. McCain is in the awkward position of defending the indefensible. He can't - and he's going to lose.
Regarding a few other points:
The "surge" has resolved nothing. Combined with the Sunni awakening and the Iraqi realization that Al Qaeda is dangerous, the surge has contributed to a temporary lull in the violence - even though bombings and assassinations occur daily. When the US leaves, whether that happens tomorrow or ten years from now, the underlying hatred in Iraq will remain. Violence will surge again. The end result of this disatrous war may well be united Shiite majorities in Iraq and Iran in possession of billions of oil dollars, possibly led by radical Islamic clerics, seeking nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism around the world. America will not be safer. The point Obama made was crytal clear: Our invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder of vast proportions when the real front in the war on terror has always been in Afganistan and now Pakistan. Even defense secretary Gates has said as much. McCain and the GOP were wrong from the start, and are still wrong.
McCain made no meaningful points in regard to the economy or the fiscal disaster GOP deregulation has wrought. His rant against earmarks and wasteful spending was actually comical. Doesn't he realize his own party is the main culprit?
Finally, global warming is real and the cause is known - the burning of carbon-laden fossil fuels. The GOP and the oil and coal industries have tried to hide the truth for years, but they can't. The next President will do something about it - even if it's McCain.
There's more to say, but I've got to go. Thanks for the stimulating article.
Why is this guy's column even on The Denver Post website?
Why does this guy rate a column in The Denver Post? He can do little but apply simplistic labels to people. Otherwise, his columns just contain the same tired list of fallacious claims that have long since been debunked. Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times? That's been debunked numerous times in numerous places - see, for example, factcheck.org. The Earth has been cooling since 1998? A claim that is just plain false. Obama fining employers that don't provide health insurance? Another flat-out lie.
kaminsky blind
hey ross,
what's wrong with taking from the rich to give to the poor for a change? The gop has spent 8 years taking from the poor to give to the rich, so let's even things out for awhile. And for all the "tax and spend" claims that righties like you level at the Dems, why did we have such a huge surplus under Clinton? And such a huge deficit under lil georgie bush? The Dems tax and spend on social programs - to help people. The gop taxes and spends on wars - to KILL people and get rich from lucrative defense and reconstruction contracts. The fact that you are in complete denial about global warming shows what type of intelligence you have. Go get an education and keep your ignorant views to yourself.