Sunday, September 28, 2008

"He doesn't understand"

That was John McCain's message Friday night, in reference to the lack of experience Barack Obama has when compared to him, in the first of three live debates between the two US Presidential candidates in this remarkable election.

The first 90 minute debate traditionally is about major foreign policy and national security, but in light of the recent economic crisis it was the economy that seemed to take centre stage. Both McCain and Obama have somewhat different views on practically everything, the current crisis. How they would handle the future of the US economy was no different and they both put their respective viewpoints across adequately without much interference from each other.

The majority of the remainder of the debate focused on questions about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and the recently belligerent Russia. Obama was quick to point out that the war in Iraq was wrong and should not have happened, however McCain said that the next President of the US should be more concerned with ending the military presence in Iraq after victory and not be so concerned with why it started or how it's been handled. McCain all but issued warnings to those that would threaten the peace but objected to Obama's practically threatening the US ally Pakistan - "You don't say that out loud," McCain said.

One particular moment caught my attention. McCain told a poignant story about a serviceman killed in Iraq his name which is now engraved on a bracelet on his wrist (left) at the request of the serviceman's mother. Obama, in an extraordinarily infantile gesture exclaimed "I got a bracelet too," but he lost points by having to look down and read it before he told us the name on it, not very presidential.

During the foreign policy portion of the debate, McCain's message of "he doesn't understand" was hit home twofold as the maverick kept repeating it for all to hear and the obvious truth of the statement was apparent as he was speaking about his policies from a great breath and depth of experience for may years, something Obama is considerably lacking in.

The next chapter in this incredible saga will be be written on Thursday wen Governor Sarah Palin faces down Senator Joe Biden.

11 comments:

sith apologist said...

In the present credit-crisis I find it amusing that the Dems keep 'forgetting' to mention it was Bill Clinton who leaned on banks to get them to give loans/mortgages to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain them.
An inconvenient truth, as it were?

Bruce Russell said...

Unfortunately, we'll ll be paying for Clinton's failures for generations.

Civilian Overseer said...

From Bloomberg.Com

"Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. So who deserves more credit for fighting red ink?"

Now with Bush set to leave office after getting the U.S. Taxpayers in hock for an additional 700 billion,
Gentlemen, I believe the term is, BURN! ;)

Bruce Russell said...

Actually, Civvy, the fact is that the Clinton years, as has become more and more apparent in th intervening years, were a "gilded age." Pretty and shiny on the outside, hiding deep problems eating away at the core. The reason there's been such a deficit since Bush took office is because of his administration having to pick up the pieces from Clinton's sham Camelot 2.

And Jimmy Carter's still going to Hell for giving away the Panama Canal.

Civilian Overseer said...

That's Mr.Overseer to you, Brucie.

Thank you for your opinion but you still have not convinced me.

From The Volante Online

As governor of Texas, Bush passed $1.7 billion in tax cuts. When Bush moved to Washington, it took nearly $750 million of Texas' $1 billion surplus to keep the state budget from falling into the red. Today, Texas has the third largest deficit in the nation. In 2000, when asked about the state's fiscal situation, Bush said, "I hope I'm not here to have to deal with it."

Clinton may have been a womanising lecher but at least he was competent!. Can the same be said of Bush?

BTW, Lecher, a man given to excessive sexual indulgence; a lascivious or licentious man.

Bruce Russell said...

Most of you Europrans are so used to being taxed to death, you can't envision anything else. Cutting taxes? Not the problem. Cutting taxes while continuing to spend like a bunch of teenaged Arabs? Big bad hoodoo voodoo.

9/11 doesn't happen without the Clinton administration's policy of appeasing terrorists and rogue states, The current economic crisis doesn't happen without Clinton's soft-lending push. Clinton was a glib, slick shell of a man who thought he was John Kennedy, who was, alas, very much like Clinton. Imagine a Russian nesting doll of ineptness.

Obama's gigantic tax hikes will send THE WORLD into economic depression the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetimes. If I weren't a small-business owner and the father of an infant son, I'd be all for letting Team Donkey take the reins and see how badly they can screw up. But the stakes are too high.

Civilian Overseer said...

Most of you Europrans are so used to being taxed to death,

Now, Now Bruce, I've always though that resorting to name calling is the first sign that of losing an argument. It makes the person doing the name calling look weak. That's why I avoid it.

You didn't answer my question, How will Bush be remembered?, as a good president or not?

From CBS news,

"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch."


So, I reckon, that Bush could be considered No. One when it comes to wrecking the economy. ;)

You know when I employ someone to do a job, if they've screwed up, I don't accept them laying the blame on their predecessor, especially if they've been in the job for a long period, such as eight years. I'd be pretty disappointed with them that they couldn't fix the problem in such a length of time and I'd be disappointed in myself for employing them in the first place.

let me make my own decisions said...

To misquote Bruce Russell - and transfer from one side of the Atlantic to the other - "Unfortunately, we'll be paying for Blair/Brown's failures for generations."
We've had a rather poor shower of politicians over the last decade or so. Given a choice, I'd trust them with neither my personal details or my earnings.
Bruce - and other Americans - this is a well intentioned warning: electing socialist parasites leads to them creating a voting class dependent on them:
i) through benefit hand outs (paid for by private sector workers)
ii) creating non-jobs to bolster their unemployment statistics i.e. the notorious Breast-Feeding Coordinators, Five-a-day consultants (5 portions of fruit/vegetables)
iii) by taxing too much, in order to give it back in the form of 'tax credits' that some are 'entitled' to. They hope this will make those in receipt of these 'entitlements' vote for them in gratitude.

The cynical creation of such a voting class makes such their perpetuation in power more likely - who cuts off the hand that feeds them?
Please - don't let this happen to your country.

Constance said...

Since most of you who are complaining about my future President Obama's tax plans, I thought I'd share a few articles with you from FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They report on the factual mistakes made by both candidates. Since you're most concerned about what Obama's tax plans are, I found a few articles about how McCain got it wrong.

There He Goes Again

September 18, 2008
McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again.


A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
September 2, 2008

A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?


More Tax Deceptions

August 8, 2008
Updated: August 12, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.

McCain's Small-Business Bunk

July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.

The $32,000 Question

July 8, 2008
Updated: July 11, 2008
The McCain campaign falsely claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals earning "as little as $32,000 per year."


About FactCheck.org


Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Civilian Overseer said...

Damn Connie, Got to hand it to ya, that's backing your argument up with a verifiable source and then some. ;)

Constance said...

Oh yes, Civvy. Why do you think it takes me so long to reply to these things?