US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Agreed

Agreed

Totally disagree. Obama seemed to me to be more specific in his answers, whereas McCain seemed to be mostly full of rhetoric and generalities. And I was getting so sick of McCain's "my friends" crap that I wanted to strangle him.

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

I also thought Obama did a better job of countering McCain's criticisms.

I watched the debate on CNN, where they have those lines to guage responses from a selection of undecided voters (in this case, from Ohio. Or was it Iowa? I forget.) The response to Obama's comment here was very positive. Now I'm not saying that this very small group of voters is necessarily representative of the entire nation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Although granted, they were reacting more to the idea rather than the telegraphing of the idea. I'm also not so sure that Obama making this statement is as bad as you suggest - the fact that Pakistan has nukes doesn't really matter until the U.S. actually crosses the border. Obama has basically given Pakistan notice that they better get their act together. However, I agree that it would probably have been better if he didn't say anything.

Overall, I though Obama did a much better job than McCain (although I might be a bit biased here, as I'd like to see Obama win). And the CNN voter reaction lines I referred to earlier seem to suggest that the group felt the same - the lines were positive for Obama much more frequently than for McCain.

 

Oh, What the hell...

You're honestly arguing that oil companies will leave the country if we raise taxes on their profits? Yeah, sure.

Martaug, Obama and Biden have made it quite clear that they intend to increase taxes for the wealthiest Americans. There will still be plenty of extra revenue to pass a little onto the middle class.

That's not what the Canadian Embassy said.

Canadian Embassy Statement, 28 Feb. 2008: The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night the Canadian television network, CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any Presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA.

A common conservative argument, but it isn't actually true. Most of the cuts Clinton was criticized for were actually made by George H.W. Bush.

This isn't true, either. Much to my chagrin, Barack Obama has refused to take Nuclear energy off the table.

He's only promised a tax cut to the middle class and working poor. Bush's "tax cuts to the wealthy", on the other hand, will be reversed.

 

Ragusa he stated last night at the debate
"A resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party -- or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.

And we also have to affirm all the fledgling democracies in that region, you know, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Poles, the Czechs, that we are, in fact, going to be supportive and in solidarity with them in their efforts. They are members of NATO.

And to countries like Georgia and the Ukraine, I think we have to insist that they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements, and they should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in.

Also "Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship."
Lets see the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom& security of its member countries by political & military means.
He wants to fast track georgia in so that if russia aggresses against them they are aggressing against nato, which part of that do you think won't draw us into conflict?

Drew, Why don't you look up y=the number of companies that moved their companies to other countries that offer lower taxes before being skeptical.
So you want to tax the highest 5%(remember obama says he is cutting taxes for the other 95%) an additional 100-500 billion dollars a year to pay for his projects?
As far as that not being what he said to the canadian, thats funny as the memo, which was obtained by fortune magazine said exactly that as reported on cnn money

I noiced that you completely skipped the second part of the military issue because you know he stated he would slow the development of the future weapon systems.

So you are for forcable wealth redistribution by the government? What else would you call it?

 

My quick debate reaction: McCain was much improved from the last debate. He was less grumpy old man, much more the McCain people know - likable, respectful, authoritative. I thought he did a very good job. Not great, but much improved. Having said that, I think Obama did good or slightly better. In terms of strategy, McCain really needed a game changer last night, and that didn't nearly happen. Nearly every poll this morning has the public scoring Obama the winner.

T2: I see what you're saying about Obama's comment, but it doesn't bother me much for a number of reasons. First, it's not like it's the first time that has been mentioned. Second, the Bush administration evidently thought it was a good idea, as they are currently doing precisely that. Third, Republicans have been talking about bombing strikes and targeting even potential nuclear facilities inside Iran, and while yes they aren't nuclear, it's still very irresponsible to be telegraphing those punches, too. But that's me.

EDIT: *sigh* I see some people still don't know how to source properly, and copy/paste the thoughts of others and pass it off as their own. The google is a very dangerous thing.

 

T2 - We've already done that with our special forces and drones. Obama would just be continuing what we are already doing.

 

Did somebody spike his punch??

 

...According to McCain, that's his appeal as well....

 

Martaug, whether a gas company bases itself overseas or within the United States, it still has to pay taxes on profits made within the United States. Leaving won't help.

 

True, but these days they can move their operations to countries like Venezuela to punish the US for raising taxes (though they run the risk of those countries nationalizing their businesses.) If they do that, American jobs are lost. It's a fine line between making companies pay their fair share and making them leave the country in a huff. I myself do not have the perfect solution to this problem, and I don't think either McCain or Obama do either.

I don't care what the polls say -- this election is too close to call. I still hold that many members of the American public will vote for McCain because of his experience and (it pains me to say it) his race. But whether that will mean enough to offset the disdain that many Americans feel for the Shrubbers is a good question. We'll have to wait for early November.

 

LKD, aside from all that oil that we get from Alaska and Texas (which no company is going to be willing to write off), these companies are still going to want to sell their fuel in the US. When they do, they will be taxed. I feel compelled, after all, to point out that the largest fuel company in the US (BP) is actually based in the UK. They still pay US taxes on their US sales.

 

That makes sense -- and please don't for a minute think that I advocate kowtowing to oil companies because they constantly threaten to "pick up their ball and go home" -- not at all. But the fact is that they can take some steps to penalize a country that they feel treats them too harshly. The thing that governments should remember is that they too can take steps to counter those moves by Big Oil. So a proper balance must be found to avoid an econimic war between the international oil companies and the countries wherein they operate.

 

Yes, and one of the other giant oil companies is based in Holland.

 

While I thought that last night's debate was easily the best of the three debates (including the the VP debate) thus far, I still do not think that either candidate clearly distinguished themselves. I agree with T2 that Obama didn't finish of McCain, and that McCain didn't cast any serious doubt on Obama. As a result, I do not feel that last night's debate will do much to alter the trajectory of the race. That is to say, the results of last night should be fine by Obama, but unacceptable to McCain.

Obama has a pretty significant lead in all the polls at this point. Even factoring in the 3% margin or error and factoring in another 3% error for people who say they will vote for Obama but won't vote for him on election day because he's black, Obama is STILL ahead. The problem for McCain is that the public impression of McCain is that he is not skilled with handling the economy, and as long as the economy remains the #1 issue in this campaign, I don't think there is much McCain can do to change that public perception. As is stands, he has one more chance one week from today at the last presidential debate. He has a chance if he can somehow shift the focus back to foreign policy, but I don't see how he can do that.

 

I do! If Bush bombs Iran and ends up having to send a bunch more troops over to the Middle East, the focus will be 1000% on foreign policy!

Of course, that is the LAST thing that any of us wants to see happen. Not to mention that it would probably hurt McCain more than it would help him.

 

I don't know if anyone linked this yet:

Fact Check: Obama, McCain twist records

Oh, yes. I never said I didn't agree with Obama's position on bin Laden -- only that making the announcement in such a forum was irresponsible. The approval spike was due to the message "KILL BIN LADEN" which is a popular sentiment among all Americans. I think most hearing his comments totally missed he just told Pakistan he would launch an attack. Most people do not realize Pakistan has nuclear weapons, nor are they aware of the instablity of the government. As I said, I was astounded Obama just told an unstable government with nuclear capabilities that we will attack within their borders.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Americans just recently launch an attack into Pakistani borders?

To me, the point is moot. Pakistan is not about to seriously defy the Americans. If they do, the Americans will merely remove their protecting hand from Pakistan and the country will find itself at a SERIOUS disadvantage in its never-ending conflicts with India. And India has a LOT more people. Pakistan isn't going to aggravate one of its militarily strongest allies if it means becoming India's <female dog>.

 

LKD - There has been more than one raid conducted by the SOF into Pakistan. And there's really nothing to announce, since we've already been there several times recently. The missions are "covert" but everyone knows about them.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with what they are doing, and I agree with Obama, Mac, and yes, GWB, that we can't give these guys any safe haven - anywhere.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/07/1500617.aspx

 

This discussion is quite interesting as it to some extent highlight the fact that although Europeans in general tend to favour Democrats over Repubicans the choice from our point of view especially when it comes to foreign policy is a choice between absolutely completely bonkers (Republicans) and just mildly insane (Democrats). As Ragusa has pointed out both parties pretty much share a view of teh goals of your foreign policy (basically all power to the US we are the biggest kid in the sandbox, do not mess with me) the rest of the world is generally not the biggest fan of it. The Dems are *slightly* less prone to use force to get what they want than the Reps but the goals are the same and I together with many other Europeans are no fans of having a jealous, paranoid hegemon trying to rule the world. The perception in the US is that it at least is a benevolent hegemony and I can give that very often (but not always) the intentions are good but as they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A good example is the entire middle east, instead of having the poor, uneducated and desperate masses in the region pissed off at their crappy governments they direct the anger at the US to such an extent that they are willing to fly freaking airplanes into two skyscrapers. One question that I find it odd more Americans do not ask themselves is "why do these people hate us so much?" If that question was asked more often and adressed maybe you could stop playing wack-a-mole with lunatics willing to die to hurt you and do something more constructive.

 

Don't you know? They hate us for our freedom.