US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Chandos, I specifically asked anyone that knew any more to add to my admitidely limited knowledge of the situation. You, who usually know things, then seem to try to attach it to something completely different. Gramm just seems to have stuck his foot in his mouth (something Biden is well known for), unless UBS is failing too? I don't follow the economy too closely.

And the article you linked to is somewhat misleading. It seems to indicate that McCain supported the deregulation that led to this crisis when, as I said, he proposed legislation to re-regulate it in 2005.

 

OK, NOG. I get your point. The problem I had with your comments regarding Obama's "economic advisors" is that Gramm was considered a likely economic advisor (and still may be) in a Big Mac administration. The same guy who was one of those instrumental in the current collapse may be crafting future economic policy. You made a clear issue out of Obama's guys, while completely ignoring the reality of what Mac may bring us if he is elected (hence my "careful where you step" comment, since you may just get more of the same with Big Mac).

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 21 seconds later... ----------


TGS - Thanks for the "enlightening" piece of propaganda. I'm glad you are taking the future of this country so seriously.

 

NOG, (edit: ope, just noticed Chandos' response. I'll leave this up anyway).

Maybe I can help. The two advisors that the McCain camp is referring to are Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie who WAS originally on Obama's VP vetting team (but withdrew after a week) and has since been unaffiliated with the campaign. The other, Franklin Raines, also a former Fannie exec, has never been involved with Obama's campaign or was even an informal advisor, despite the claims in McCain's ads.

McCain, on the other hand, has two high level campaign advisors - Rick Davis and Charlie Black - who both lobbied heavily to rid both Fannie and Freddy of regulations, which is what lead to the current mess. Neither set of advisors is blame-free, but considering McCain's close associations, his attacks on Obama in this regard are obviously quite dubious to say the least.

 

Well, there's a big difference between a lobbyist and an exec, but if Obama's association is really as distant as you claim, then that does put the weight slightly on McCain. Basically, as I understand it, a lobbyist is like a lawyer or a hitman (sorry, those were the professions that came to my head ) in that he's basically paid to acieve a goal and generally doesn't concern himself with the why's or implications of it, just so long as he gets paid. In other words, the lobbyists aren't to blame, the people that hired them and the people that listened to them are.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong about lobbyists.

 

Your welcome. Or are funny bits by John Stewart (ones that make fun of McCain) the only ones allowed. I have such a tough time remembering the difference between propaganda and political satire.

 

Interesting take on the election from a friend of mine, who also happens to be my stock broker. At dinner tonight I asked her if she had been campaigning for Obama. I knew she was a committed Democrat and had voted for Al Gore and John Kerry and that she was a Hillary supporter during the primary. What I did not know is that she had been a Hillary delegate at the Convention and was still bitter over the primary. And that there was still a lot of strife between Obama and Hillary delegates. Since I'm not a Democrat, all this was only of passing interest to me. But here was the interesting part:

When I pressed her if she was going to vote for Obama, she commented that she liked Sara Palin. I reminded her that Sara was not going to be prez and probably never would be, since all this was nothing more than a cynical stunt to get voters exactly like her to vote for McCain. Then she reminded me that Sara was a hard working, accomplished woman and a mom; that Sara knows exactly how the game is played, and that sometimes misdirection was the best way to handle a bunch of sexist men who have no understanding of what Sara really represents, or what she had to go through to get where she is (they like her because she parrots what they want to hear, whether she believes it or not). She also commented that Obama passed up a great chance to heal the bitterness by not putting Hillary on the ticket.

Needless to say, I was stunned and the conversation was probably more illuminating for me than for her. I should have realized that Sara Palin obviously represents a lot to working moms. She is, of course, a politician who is quite good at the kind of misdirection it takes to make it past all the sexist bigots on the "religious" right of the Republican Party. The woman vote will prove very interesting indeed in the coming election. I wonder just how many ex-Hillary supporters feel like my friend....

Snook - Jon Stewart IS a comdian, as he often points out. It's his profession.

 

Snook, I did not get it. Was it to point out that Obama has little to no military experience, not a big secret and has he ever claimed any? Anyhoo, I did not find it funny. Stewart is a lot funnier when he mocks even the democrats. Saw some of the episodes they made from the democratic convention, funny and I even found it a bit offensive leftist as I am.

Stewart (again, the man and his crew are brilliant) did a take on these women voters last week on the daily show. The essence was something we have already discussed plenty here. People voting more for what a person is than for what their opinions are. Voting for Palin because she is a woman, Obama because he is black or McCain because he isn't black.

How can the Clinton supporters be bitter? Didn't they lose fair and square? The only "hanky panky" I heard about was from the Clinton camp aimed at the Obama camp during the campaign. I could understand McCain being bitter and pissed off after the 2000 primaries where he was shot down in a really really dirty campaign. What is there except the fact that they lost that are making the Clinton supporters bitter?

 

I recently saw a transcript of an interview McCain gave (I initially thought it was for Spanish newpaper El Pais, but it was conducted by a reporter for the Caracol Radio, which is owned by the same group but distinct from the newspaper), and I was dumbfounded. Now, I am not exactly unbiased, but McCain seemed to actually think Spain was a Latin American country. I kid you not - listen to the English version at http://www.cadenaser.com/internacio...ccain-english/seresc/20080918csrcsrint_1/Aes/ for the full interview or http://cdn2.libsyn.com/americablog/...06&nva=20080919142706&t=0c49259f9274071bb2c5b (the Spanish one is at http://media.libsyn.com/media/americablog/mccainspain.mp3) or read the transcript:

Spoiler

QUESTION: Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you be willing to invite President* Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.

QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?

MCCAIN: I don't, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he's willing to meet with you, or you'll be able to do it in the White House?

MCCAIN: Well again I don't, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.

QUESTION: Okay... what about [either "you" or "Europe"], I'm talking about the President of Spain?

MCCAIN: What about me what?

QUESTION: Okay... are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not.

Now, I have been wary of McCain's foreign policy credentials, but this seems ridiculous. First of all, his evasiveness imo suggests that he was not prepared for any questions regarding Spain, which is not such a big gaffe in itself - but for a guy who prides himself on being a foreign policy expert, it is a little embarassing. However, the mention of the Mexican president as an example, and talking about Latin America and "the hemisphere" do suggest that he thinks he is being asked about a Latin American leader - and from the talk about meeting with friendly/democtatic leaders and standing up to those who do not, probably a not very friendly one (did he confuse Zapatero with Zapatista?). We are talking about Spain, for crying out loud - and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, its president. This is a country that is a member of the EU and NATO and had sent troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and such evasions are almost offensive. It was imo basically a rhetorical question - especially as McCain had said in April that he basically has no problems meeting with Zapatero, despite the chilly relations the Spanish president had with Bush after he pulled out the Spanish troops in Iraq. Yet his answers left me groaning.

And this is coming from a guy who, though he has admitted that he is not an expert on economy (in the past, of course), claims a lot of experience in matters of foreign policy. Maybe it's just me, but this interview left me questioning not just his credentials, but his very lucidity.

*Actually, I did not know Spain had a president; apparently this is the title of what would normally be called a Prime Minister. It must be the only country that has a President and a king.

Edit: commentary on this interview can be found on http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/18/mccain_slights_spanish_prime_m.html .

 

As it is presented, this does seem kind of embarasing, but there are a few items that really reduce that. First of all, McCain is an expert on international relations, and he has the credentials to back it up. Just like, as being a military expert, he could get away with a few gaffes around military issues, he can do the same here. Gaffes like this are only problems when they highlight actual weaknesses. Second, apparently they had just been talking about Latin America. I don't know for how long or what the transition to talking about Spain was, but if it were the one sentence given in your 'spoiler' above, that could easily have been missed which would throw everything off. I could just see him thinking, "Wait, I thought Zapatero was president of Spain. Weren't we talking about Argentina? I better fudge this for a bit."

Considering he's already established his position as wanting to fix relations with Spain, I think this is nothing but a minor embarrasment.

 

McCain is likeable enough and as I'm not a citizen of the states I'm not taking a stand here about whether he should be the president of USA or not...

...but seems to me that he just didn't quite hear or understand what the interviewer asked because of her accent and since she spoke pretty fast, and missed the name of Spain's president completely. Understandable, but it really didn't help the situation when he continued rambling about South-America after the interviewer specified that they were talking about Spain...

 

NOG,
just a gaffe? McCain makes them with remarkable frequency lately. Let's face it. War hero or not, the Vietnamese beat him to a cripple. He is not in good health. McCain is an old man. He wouldn't be the first to end up senile. It even happened to Republican icon Ronald Reagan.

As for expert, McCain is sitting on Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. And apparently he has only cursory knowledge of global geography (which makes him 'folksy' I guess).

McCain has involved himself rather exclusively with the military. It's more likely that he just likes the military and things military. A militarist with global ambitions doesn't necessarily need to have any expertise in foreign or international relations. Enthusiasm and swagger suffice. Anyway, McCain is decidedly not an expert on foreign or international relations.

 

In my opinion, neither is impartial and both were constructed with a particular agenda in mind. However, propaganda adds little to a debate because it is designed to play on the emotions and the inherent biased of those who may already have formed an opinion about a particular subject or person. Propaganda seldom appeals to reason, which is important in any debate in which some kind of common ground or consensus can be reached. It divides people by its very nature.

Political satire is something different. Wiki states that political satire does not usually have an agenda but is supposed to provide "entertainment." This is from Wiki:

This is certainly a "purist" definition of satire. The reality, IMO, is something different. But I certainly agree with the second part of the definition, that it does "establish the error of matters rather than offer a solution." That is something that comedians such as Stewart and Colbert are very good at, and in that sense their satire tends to be classic satire. It can appeal to reason - while still not providing a solution - by just pointing out the "error" of matters, or the lack of reason within a particular stituation.

At the same time, while we can argue that they mock both sides of the political equation - and they have commented that that is indeed what they do - nevertheless that seems to me to be a bit disingenuous. IMO, there IS a liberal agenda to Stewart especially, and his barbs at Dems are usually aimed at them when they tend to agree with Republicans on particular issues that are not decidely "liberal." In this sense, they are trying to influence the political process, rather than just provide entertainment. IMO, there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is understood by everyone upfront.

But just posting a link without providing any of your own thoughts on the subject or topic adds almost nothing to the debate. If you wanted to make some point about a link, which you may or may not agree is purely "propaganda," then some comment of your own would have been helpful. It's just a suggestion and not offered as a criticism.

 

Maybe I did look too much into it, but McCain has had a fair share of foreign policy gaffes in this campaign alone. I'm not sure how much of an expert he is, but as an expert he should do that kind of mistakes less often than his opponent, not - as it appears - more.

 

One thing I've noticed since these campaigns have started is that McCain always seems full of energy and quick with answers. There have been a few gaffes like this, but far less than some successful politicians. At the same time, Obama seems to have been growing slower, more tired, and more angry as things go. That certainly doesn't paint McCain as the one in poor health. For all the comments about his age and his history with cancer (skin cancer, of all kinds), McCain has held up perfectly and recieved repeated perfect bills of health.

And for your insinuation that being a 'cripple' somehow makes him less worthy of the candidacy, I'd like to remind you that FRD, the man who led the US out of the Great Depression and through WWII, the only man to be elected president four times, the man that congress decided to put term limits on the Presidency afterwards, was also a cripple. His legs were completely paralyzed from Polio as a child. Compared to him, McCain is an olympian. Now yes, FDR did die in office from old age, but that's after serving about 3.5 terms, not one.

I'm sorry, Ragusa, but this sounds like a bias sham of an interpretation even from you. From your apparent logic, Obama is a puppet of Pelosi and Biden is a senile biggot. I'm not saying either of those are true, but there's about as much support for them.


Shaman, I'm not an expert either, and I certainly haven't payed that much attention to all of Obama's speaches, but I have yet to hear him say much of anything relating to foreign policy. Of course, that's usually a wise move in areas you aren't too experienced with.

Now, on the current crisis of the economy, both candidates seem to be making fools of themselves. McCain's policy seems to be flip-flopping between regulate and bail-out, and don't do either, while I have yet to hear anything from Obama and Biden seems to think it is the patriotic duty of the rich to pony up and pay the bill through taxes in situations like this. Of the three, I think I like Obama's answer the best: stay out of it.

 

No, NOG, what I am saying is simply that it is entirely possible that McCain is not making gaffes but that he perhaps simply can't do better. That is considering his medical history and his age not unreasonable, whether you like it or not. That is no bias attack; it's just a realistic assessment. Amusingly, the last one I heard speculating about Palin succeeding McCain as CinC was a Republican strategist. Does McCain's health and age play a role? Sure it does.

Let's assume that, hypothetically, Obama is perhaps appearing tired at times. He still is twenty years younger than McCain and went through much less hardship, making some hypothetical explanations for that tiredness improbable.

 

It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-against-jewishness.htm What do you think of the parallels?

 

The apostate story is smear, nonsense

 

Only in Massachusetts I'm so ashamed.

 

Ragusa, you have to remember that people age differently, and at different rates (in terms of impacts to the body). McCain shows no signs of mental deterioration other than here apparently making a mistake probably due to an accent. There's nothing in his medical history that I'm aware of to indicate anything other than a risk of non-serious melanoma. My point on energy levels was that McCain, at however old he is, is showing plenty of energy and that he's led an active career in the Senate and politics in general for longer than I've been alive. It looks to me like a transition from the Senate to the campaign trail to the Oval Office would be only a minor change in terms of drain for him. For Obama, on the other hand, simply going on the campaign trail seems to be draining him considerably. To be fair, that kind of live for months on end is draining, but so is the office of PotUS.

Basically, if you accept that McCain's age is not immediately indicative of him suffering from all the typical ailments of old age (which it doesn't seem to be), and look strictly at the evidence, McCain is handling things better than Obama is.

That bit about how the Vietnamese 'beat him to a cripple', combined with supposition that he's going senile, all simply because he seems to have misheard an accent amounts in my book to severe bias. I might as well make the claim that Obama's a closet gang-banger from the hood simply because his wife gave him a fist-pound instead of a high-five. It's a biassed, unfounded attack on an aspect of his physical nature that doesn't seem to have any impact on his ability at all.

 

NOG,
I am perfectly aware that you will probably vote for him anyway, no matter what I say. I won't relativate any of what I said before. You were so protective of him that I wanted to tell you that there is an alternative explanation, even if you don't like it. Just keep an open mind.

But I don't think that health is really going to be McCain's problem. It isn't his health but rather his demeanour that worries some people. For that I'll let conservatives speak.

Roundtable on McCain and the economy. Especially listen to arch conservative George Will

George Will again, in his article 'McCain Loses His Head'
The Lehrer Newshour on McCain decisionmaking
Colin Powell's (very correct view) on Russia and Georgia - and McCain's response

Read the article, and never mind that 'liberal' source, just watch the video clips. In that order they make an argument that you can figure out yourself. I wouldn't let McCain anywhere near a trigger.

Spoiler

And in saying that I haven't even addressed the neo-con kooks (to wit: Abrahms wanted Israel to attack Syria, too, when it attacked Lebanon a while back and got their asses handed) he will let run his foreign policy. McCain will be consistent with the worst of Bush's first term, and add to that his volatility. Awesome.