US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Ragusa, don't believe for a second that I like McCain. I don't. The guy makes me worry, and him in the White House makes me worry more, but Obama makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time, and the thought of him in the White House scares me out of my mind, especially with a democratic Congress. I think the best thing we can hope for at the moment is a democratic Congress with McCain in the White House. It'll give us at least 2 years to come up with some better candidates, hopefully 4.

 

Justified doubts, because it is, as I said before, all

The story with is much like Bush's claim that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. It's cynical, dishonest and callous political smear at its worst. It was iirc broached most vocally by mystery neo-con Edward Luttwak. The entire apostate story, how does that ring like? What about wooing evangelicals and those who believe we're in WW-IV against them intractable Islamofascists? That this negro is one of them? On 'otherizing' Obama.

McCain has had a rocky relationship with evangelicals. Many of them don't trust him. He might have better chances of winning them over, if Obama is being cast as a threat, as an 'other'. I think that's the simple motive behind the apostate fairy tale: Be very much afraid of Obama. You'll elect a suicide bomber to the Whitehouse! 9/11!

All the more disgusting is that it obviously comes from the McCain camp's general direction, however loosely organisationally connected. McCain has enlisted many of Bush's old hands in his campaign. Unless they suddenly got purified by joining McCain's team, chances are they are pragmatic (or ruthless, make your pick), and retry what worked once, in hope it will work again. That includes Rovian hallmarks like voter suppression, vote caging, smear and all the other dirty tricks.

Fair enough, I just think your short term hopes are mistaken.

My hunch is that McCain, if elected with a Democratic Congress, will show us what an impulsive, aggressive president relying on the unitary executive theory can do when he is faced with an obstructive Congress. That would from a GOP point of view be a logical step to make: If our rule is being impeded by this pesky opposition, this reading gives us maximum sway. Hasn't Bush mauled the constitution enough that way? As I said, four more years of the worst of Bush's first term.

And that doesn't even take into account the dreadful foreign policy (or military action) McCain can undertake on his own. As I said, just think of the kooks that'll be advising him....

 

So you do not particularly like either candidate? I find that strange as they are strinkingly different in what they offer - nearly polar opposites in fact. I find most people who don't like McCain like Obama. Similarly, I would imagine if an Obama presidency scares you, you would find the thought of a McCain presidency comforting. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic in this particular case.) What specifically do you not like about McCain's proposed policies, and what of Obama's proposed policies scare you? Also, if you dislike a lot of what McCain is saying, it at least suggests that you agree with Obama on some points. This could be genuinely enlightening, as up until now I considered you very partizan in your political views.

For my part (as I'm sure you'll ask the same of me) is that while I generally agree more with Obama's policies, there are definitely issues were I take the more conservative position. For example, I don't care much for tons of gun control laws. I could care less if some paranoid person keeps a handgun in every single room of his house "just in case" and has a rack filled with hunting rifles. I also think that promoting nuclear power is a major stepping stone on the path to energy independence.

 

For McCain it's more his character than most of his proposed policies. The guy left his wife of I don't know how many years and two children to the poor house so he could marry a rich, young hussy. Yes, she's also great at business, but that's no reason for a divorce. Now I've heard some rumors stating that this was right after he got back from Vietnam, so that may mitigate things some. On top of that, while I don't think he'll do anything to continue Bush's policies (he's openly criticized them in the past, and has a long history of truely bi-partisan work), he does seem like a bit of a warmonger to me. That being said, though, Clinton's era wasn't exactly peaceful either. I worry about is abortion policy, his global warming beliefs, and I fear he may bend to much to the liberals in areas where it'll hurt and not enough in areas where it'd work.

All in all, though, this pales in comparison to my fears for an Obama administration.

 

I have the exact same criticisms of McCain - but in the oppostie direction! I think he IS a warmonger, I worry about his stance against abortion, his global warming beliefs (although I believe he refers to it as climate change), and I fear he may be unwilling to live up to his maverick credentials and bend to the liberals in some areas. This is all definitely ironic, although I'm not sure if I should find it humourous or cynical.

 

One interesting thesis for why McCain left his first wife came from a Vietnam vet. It was that McCain had a problem with his wife because in his absence she became, had to become, independent in her views and life. After all, even when hubby is at war or a POW, life goes on. Did this vet make a similar experience I wonder? Not unlikely.

That explanation is pretty plausible to me. My grandpa had about the same problem after WW-II when he returned after being a soldier and then a POW for a couple of years. In his absence it was my grandma who had to keep the family together and take care they get fed and all that. She had adjusted to that when he returned, not that she had a choice. When he returned my mother called him 'uncle dad' because she barely knew him, after all he had been to war or been away ever since she was born. That must have been tough. Iirc she only really met him when she was seven or eight years old. It wasn't easy for him. I presume McCain had a similar experience.

McCain not only has a temper, he has a problem with people having different opinions as well. He knows best. He doesn't like dissent. Not from his colleagues, and I gather not from his wife as well. Presumably his new wife was not only rich, but also more pliable.

 

Yeah, well she has all that money...

 

He was released in '73, Carol(his first wife) had been in a serious car accident in '69 & suffered through 23 surgeries & physical therapy in the next 2 years. They were married until 1980 before they got divorced. The divorce settlement accorded Carol McCain alimony, child support, houses in Virginia and Florida, and lifelong financial support for her ongoing medical treatments resulting from the 1969 automobile accident.

Mccain had this to say about the divorce "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

All of this is from wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain

Just wanted to include some info so it doesn't seem like he got back & kicked her to the curb the next day.

 

Well, that improves my opinion of him a good bit. It takes a lot to admit something like that was your fault, especially when you have a nice excuse like '5 years as POW' to turn to.

 

DISCLAIMER: Wasn't sure if this post belongs in this thread or the associated economy thread, but since it covers the pros and cons of how the presidential candidates will vote on this bill, and how that will play politically, I went with here. If a moderator feels it deserves to be moved to the other thread, I won't complian.

Well, here's the latest: At Obama's urging, the candidates released a joint statement last night, which basically said that Democrats and Republicans need to work together to get this bailout ... err... bill pushed though Congress. At McCain's urging, both candidates are returning to DC today to meet with Bush and other top members of Congress to try to hammer out a compromise.

The proposal that Bush sent down to Congress to fix the financial crisis was one of the few things that Ds and Rs have been able to agree on lately. They were in agreement that they didn't like it at all (albeit for entirely different reasons).

The Rs major compalint is that the bailout is antithetical to Republican dogma. They are always the ones on favor of less government involvement and less government regulation. When you're bailing out banks and actually gaining partial ownership of said banks, that certainly doesn't meet either criteria. (Also, I'm sure the Republicans are not comfortable that this bailout is very socialistic in nature. How uncapitalistic of them.) However, I think that it is good that there will be part ownership here. It's not that I like socialism, but the government is getting what amounts to stock options from the banks, meaning that the government can, at least in theory, recoup a significant portion of the money they are fronting for this bailout.

The Ds don't have a problem with regulation. In fact, if they are going to agree to fork over $700 billion in tax money (and I'm sure they will), they are rightfully insisting that there be oversight and accountability for how the money is spent. Their major beef was that it was a helping hand to business but was doing nothing for the homeowners. The two problems are obviously linked - all those subprime mortgages that banks currently hold trace back to home owners. So the Ds favor a two pronged recovery plan, or to use the euphemism I heard yesterday: "We should be helping Main Street in addition to Wall Street."

What I find interesting about all of this is that neither Obama or McCain are taking a stance on this just yet. They both are in agreement that something must be done, but neither one wants to come out in support for or against this bill, because there is some political benefit and baggage no matter how you vote.

If you vote in favor of the bill, you may been seen as trying to help the economy and the people. That could play well, but the problem is there isn't going to be a quick recovery of the economy. Chances are, things will not be much different on Election Day as they are now. If things are still bad, people may look at a vote in favor of the bill as wasting $700 billion of tax payer money. This course I think is more dangerous for Obama, as we would likely hear the old yarn about being a "tax and spend liberal". (That's my biggest concern about this - I remain unconvinced that this bailout is going to provide significant help. There is no guarantee that this is going to fix things, and the comments I have heard thus far from Bernacke and Paulson have not been particularly reassuring.)

However, a vote against the bill would also bring it's share of problems. If you state that the market is self-correcting and will fix itself if given some more time, you can say that you are avoiding racking up $700 billion in additional debt. (None of this is in the budget - anything that is done - no matter what the final bill turns out to be is getting heaped on top of the nation debt.) But if you vote against it and things continue to get worse and we see some banks fail next month, then a vote against this bill is policial hemlock.

In short - I think that whatever gets passed (and some version of the bill will likely be passed possibly as early as today or tomorrow at worst) is going to get a significant percentage of the Rs on board. I don't think either side is going to try and score major policial points on this, because there is no obvious way to spin this that you can be sure won't blow up in your face a month from now. With the election around the corner, I think that you'll see most people regardless of political stripe agreeing to the bailout, as the potential consequences of a for vote seem less than that of an against vote. I also fully expect both McCain and Obama to vote for the bill. (Even if things don't improve much in the next couple of months - and they likely won't - you can at least say that things would be WORSE with banks failing left and right if they didn't agree to the bailout.)

One thing I thought was odd: McCain requested they delay the first debate (scheduled for Friday evening) until they get a bill passed. That seemed odd to me. First of all, citizen rightfully expect the president to be able to do two things (and sometimes more) at the same time. I think it's presenting a false choice the way McCain is framing this: "We can find a way to fix the economy OR we can have a debate" seems to be his stance, while Obama seems to replace the OR with an AND in the statement. Secondly, if Obama and McCain cannot rally their charges Thursday to reach an agreement, what makes them think that they will be able to do so on Friday? I guess McCain is trying to play the part of the populist, but it could also come off as he doesn't want to debate Obama. This may all be moot though, as it appears we will have a deal in place in the next 24 hours.

 

I agree with you 99% on that post Aldeth.

My only disagreement with it, and Obama for that matter, is that a crisis should take priority. If the experts are correct we are looking at a depression era causing financial crisis here. I believe it would be irresponsible for two senators to "go off and play" (have a basically meaningless debate) when there is an issue of this magnitude that is unresolved -- it is their responsibility to help fix this mess.

McCain and Obama are essentially the leaders of their respective parties right now. That leadership is needed in Washington, not on the podium. I agree with Obama that a president should be able to multitask, but not with such a major crisis. There are some issues where even the President must focus almost exclusively on the issue until it is resolved -- these have not happened often on our history, but I believe this is one such emergency.

I also believe the future president must be onboard with whatever solution is passed.

 

McCain's campaign is imploding. I'd like to elaborate on why, but I've decided to suspend my elaboration until this financial crisis is resolved. I expect all of SP to join me in doing the same.

 

Brilliant, DR.

 

Leaders are also expected to explain their decisions to the people. This has been a bad last week for McCain, who is not viewed to be strong on the economy, and saying he wants to delay the debate seems like a dodge to many people.

I do not think it particularly matters whether the bill is passed today, tomorrow, Saturday, or Sunday. Or next week even, as I doubt Congress will leave without passing some type of fix, and the effects of this won't be seen in the short term anyway.

While I agree that both McCain and Obama must be onboard with whatever solution is passed because one of them is going to inherit this problem when they take office, I fail to see how them physically being in Washington throughout the process is going to facilitate a resolution any quicker. How will the physical presence of McCain convince reluctant Republicans to vote for the bailout? He doesn't have a charm person aura surrounding him, and has himself admited that he would never win a congeniality contest. He seems like a very unlikely candidate to be the Republican Whip on this issue.

Both McCain and Obama are in Washington this afternoon. The plan is for them to meet with Bush and Congressional leaders and hammer out a consensus that they hope will be acceptable to both parties. I'm confident they can do this today. Once their positions are stated, that is all they can do to convince their fellow party members to vote for the bill. Assuming they accomplish this, relay that to their parties, and ask for a vote on the bill, what exactly will staying there on Friday accomplish? And I don't think that's a rhetorical question. They are the party leaders. If they leave the meeting today and say, "OK we're cool with this compromise, can we vote now?" then they have done their job. They are not the ones who should have to reiterate their positions tomorrow. They are not the ones that should have to ask pretty please to get support. There are Republican and Democratics Whips in Congress for exactly that purpose. But just because McCain and Obama agree to a plan, they cannot force their respective parties to fall in line, so I think they will accmplish all they could hope to accomplish in this afternoon's meeting.

 

And this is exactly the point. Having both Presidential candidates descend on Washington - entourages, campaign staff, secret service, press gaggle and respective protestors in tow - helps speed this process along...how? Of course it doesn't. Especially in McCain's case, who is admittedly far from an economic policy expert and hasn't even been in Washington to conduct official business as a Senator since April. How can he contribute meaningfully to this crisis by being there that he couldn't do by phone? Why is he flipping out now - when the compromise bail-out is close to being finalized - and not a week ago when they began negotiations?

It's another in a series of absurd, desperate (and IMO, transparent) campaign stunts on McCain's part. This is not the behavior of a heroic, tested leader, it's the behavior of a drama queen.

 

It appears that the deal is pretty much done. They hope that it will be in place when the markets open on Monday. There are a few minor details to be worked out, but the framework of the deal, including where most of the disagreements were, has been worked out.

Now go to the debate.

 

Which is funny because...had McCain bothered to call ahead and see where they were in terms of progress, he wouldn't have had to swoop in and attempt to save the day. Clearly, he did not. Obviously they didn't go from crisis mode to agreement in the last 14 hours. His flip-out was quite unnecessary.

 

Actually, from what I've heard, most of this progress was made in the past few hours. If McCain had called ahead, they would have still been in the midst of a debate with no end in sight. On top of that, the idea that McCain is dodging a debate is ridiculous. He's the one that was calling for debates all summer, even offering to pay Obama's fair there (a joke, sure, but still). Even more, the debate is on foreign policy, an area where McCain is miles ahead of Obama. Passing the debate may not be the right decision, or necessary by any means, but it isn't dodging.

From what I've heard, the plan that's being tossed around now is much less than 700 billion, is a loan not a buyout, and establishes somethingorother to oversee how the money is spent. An improvement to be sure.

On a side note, I just got this email:

I like it. Let the borrowers pay off all those bad loans and wouldn't the market restabalize pretty quickly? And anyone that doesn't pay it off deserves to loose their house/car/etc. Of course, there's the problem of how to get that money out to every US citizen with any trace of haste. I'm sure we all remember how long it took to get the summer stimulus package out.

 

I haven't heard anything that McCain was responsible for the breakthrough. Why do you assume this is so?

 

Oh, I didn't say anything about McCain being responsable, just that the status when the anouncement was made was a bad one, not one of progress.