McCain vs. Obama Debate #2: Real-Time Commentary

9:16: Smart of Obama to point out how unhelpful it is for candidates to get bogged down in he-said she-said bickering and "pointing fingers". How is any ordinary person, with absolutely no expertise in these complex issues of public policy, supposed to be able to tell who's telling the truth and who's lying?

9:16: But I'm not as confident about the economy's short-term prospects as Obama is. Only time will tell who's right.

9:18: It's equally smart of McCain to explain precisely what he meant by "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", though he'd do well to go into it in a little more depth. Then again, of course, there are those pesky time constraints...

9:19: Thanks, Sen. Obama, for noting that most ordinary people are tightening their belts--spending less money in the midst of this economic crisis. If only the federal government could do the same...but of course, a few seconds later, here the good Senator is already laying out all his plans to spend more money as President, despite the titanic federal budget deficit and national debt.

9:21: McCain, if you're smart--and if you've got an ounce of heart left in you--you'll point out precisely what I just did above. But who am I kidding--you won't do that. You're washed up these days. The John McCain of the 2000 Republican primaries is long gone. Plus you'd have a gay old time trying to reconcile that with your own reckless and irresponsible tax cuts anyway.

9:22: All right, so there you are pointing out Obama's spendthrift liberal track record and campaign platform. Smart move...though we'll see how many voters remember it on Election Day. And what about your damn tax cuts?

9:24: Tom, you're the man! THANK YOU for bringing up entitlement reform!!! Now let's hear McCain...speak on it!!!

9:24: Awww, damn! Surely you can give us more on entitlement reform than just "We'll sit down with our friends in the other party [whom we've just spent the past couple of years maligning, lol] to find a solution to this issue." How about some specificity?

9:25: Fair comment on energy independence, Sen. Obama. Given the national security implications of it, it makes sense to keep that on the front burner.

9:27: And good point on analyzing both sides of the government's balance sheet! If it doesn't make sense to spend recklessly, how much sense does it make to cut taxes recklessly?

9:28: So far, McCain's answer to this question on Americans' sacrifices in times of war and crisis isn't speaking to what I think the questioner (a member of the Greatest Generation, if I heard correctly?) had in mind. Cutting the less necessary and least efficient government programs is good talk, all right, but what direct, non-passive sacrifice does that demand of ordinary Americans in their day to day lives?

9:30: This preamble of Obama's--as treacly as it sounds--actually hit the question dead on. He seems to have understood the thrust of the question better than McCain did. Not that I think the rest of his response will answer it any better than McCain's did...but we shall soon know for sooth.

9:32: Incentives to live more fuel-efficient lifestyles...hmmm. If the government is giving you incentives to do it--essentially making it profitable for you to do it--I don't see the altruistic self sacrifice there. Clearly election campaign debates are no time or place for logical niceties.

9:33: Good for you, Senator Obama! There's no reason to expect more financial responsibility of ordinary Americans than of their elected representatives. That damn deficit needs tackling! But how do you do that while still spending an extra several hundred billion dollars--on top of existing expenditures, not to mention this $700 billion bailout of the financial sector?

9:35: Oh, boy. Here goes McCain about Obama's tax plans again...well, hear what. Obama keeps insisting he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Senator McCain, why not point out that approximately 40% of Americans already pay virtually (or actually!) no federal taxes (thanks to America's system of progressive income taxation)? How can as many of 95% of Americans get a tax cut when 40% of them pay little or nothing to Washington already?

9:38: All right--back to entitlements! Of course Obama is going to duck this one. He is, after all, a liberal Democrat. And sure enough, here he goes back to the tax issue again, after giving what was basically a vague non-answer on the entitlement issue! Then again, wait--he's doing it to point out the 95%-tax-cut thing. Not like I didn't see that coming.

9:39: Hold up. Now it's 95% of American businesses that will get a tax cut from Obama? Is it individual American taxpayers who'll get the tax cut, or 95% of American businesses? I'm no fiscal actuary, but I have this sneaking suspicion that these two different proposals will have very different ramifications--and chances of success. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

9:41: Social Security will be easy to reform?!? Whatever McCain's hopped up on, I want to know where I can get my hands on some...I'm sure it'll get me through the brutal Canadian winter that awaits me. Or maybe McCain's actually sober, and has simply forgotten how President Bush abjectly failed to reform SS three and a half years ago, despite his party's then-commanding control of both houses of Congress?

9:43: All right, McCain, point out your bipartisan work on climate change and environmental issues generally. Whore after those independent swing votes like there's no tomorrow...it's your only hope.

9:46: Way to use McCain's 2+ decades of Washington experience against him, Sen. Obama. If he's been there this long, why hasn't he done more about it before now...?

9:47: I have another sneaking suspicion: that most ordinary Americans prefer cheap gas to protecting the environment. Call me crazy.

9:48: "That one"? I was looking at my computer screen instead of my TV screen just then..was McCain referring to Senator Obama?

9:49: Right on, Sen. McCain, pointing out the basic economic fact that increasing supply decreases prices, or at least keeps them from spiraling out of control. But haven't economists objected that there's not enough oil under American soil to make much of a dent in global oil prices?

9:51: Aha--here comes the health care bomb! Obama (and the US Chamber of Commerce) are quite right that McCain's proposal would unravel the employer-based health insurance system. But isn't that specifically McCain's goal--and isn't it a worthy one? Hasn't the existing system imposed excessive burdens on American businesses--the very same impediment to their competitiveness that Obama himself referred to earlier in this debate? Isn't the status quo untenable? Wouldn't it be better to free up the whole system, and better enable Americans as individuals and families to buy their own health insurance affordably, without letting their bosses get in the mix?

9:54: What's this about hair transplants? Was that a dig at Biden?

9:55: Careful, McCain, with these "mandate" critiques. I thought Obama's refusal to mandate health insurance coverage for individuals was the main--if not the only--difference between his and Hillary Clinton's health care proposals? This sounds like a blatant distortion of Obama's position as he's articulated it over the past, uhhh, year and a half!!!

9:56: Now we get to the philosophical heart of the health care debate--is it a right or not? Obama, of course, said "yes"--straight up. Can someone remind me of McCain's answer to that? I must have been looking at my computer screen again. Or maybe I was flipping through the satellite cable channel guide to find out when Kitchen Nightmares is rerunning...

9:59: Oooohhh, nice question, Mr. Elliot! Reminds me of the "fungibility" of American economic power as taught to me in my International Political Economy class of two years ago.

10:00: Okay, McCain, here we go...keep emphasizing the importance of judging when American military intervention is warranted and when it isn't...remember, I suspect that were you president instead of George W. Bush, you might never have invaded Iraq at all (though I also suspect you would have rightly put the screws to Saddam to make him let the UN weapons inspectors back in.) So prove me right, you old coot!!!

10:02: Not that I didn't see Obama's inevitable retort about the Iraq invasion coming! And sure enough, there's my mom hollering "Thank you! THANK YOU!!!" at the TV upstairs in my kitchen!

10:03: Hmmm. Obama wants to do something about the genocide in Darfur, does he? Will he go to the UN Security Council for its seal of approval first, like he wanted to do in response to Russia's invasion of Georgia? Fat bloody chance of that happening...America's creditors in Beijing would never allow it. Which is just as well, because even if China (not to mention Russia) were to assent to such an intervention, America's ballyhooed European allies would still sit on their hands, like they've been doing since the crisis started. And even if they didn't, Uncle Sam would still shoulder the vast majority of the burden of any intervention--for isn't that what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo, even with a Democrat in the Oval Office?

10:08: Who is that bug-eyed, cross-eyed lady behind the questioner?

10:09: Fair point about Iraq distracting America's attention from Afghanistan, Senator Obama. Way to take your eye off the ball, President Bush.

10:10: I declare, I wish someone would ask both candidates about that British ambassador who recently called for withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan and the installation of "an acceptable dictator". Then again, I don't wish it. They'd both respond with some dismissive bullshit anyway.

10:11: Aw, hell. A "my hero" answer, John? "Walk softly and carry a big stick"? You know what always annoyed me about that particular "favorite quote" of Teddy Roosevelt's? The fact that TR himself actually walked--and talked--pretty damn loudly, and carried a decidedly small stick! (Other than that Panama Canal thing, of course.)

10:12: John, you're right that an incursion into Pakistan--however brief--would turn Pakistani public opinion against America. But, uhhh--hasn't it already been turned against America for the longest time? And didn't the invasion of Iraq have that exact same effect--and not just in the Arab world, either? Clearly the effect of American interventions abroad on public opinion in the subject countries isn't such a dispositive factor...

10:16: AHA!!! An "acceptable dictator" question! Lovely!

10:18: Hmmm. Maybe I'm too hard on Sarah Palin. My main criticism of her is of her inability to debate these issues in greater detail and depth. Yet how capable are ordinary people--i.e. voters--of wisely judging which candidate's factual claims are more credible, and which proposals are sounder? Not very, I'm guessing.

10:20: There's no point belaboring this Russo-Georgian War thing, Sen. McCain, without pointing out how Senator Obama spent three days scrambling around like a chicken with its head cut off for three days last August before finally coming around to the same position on the issue that you, McCain, staked out right out of the gate.

10:21: Senator Obama: "We've also got to provide them [i.e. former Soviet satellite states on which Russia now has resurgent imperial designs] with..."...NATO membership, Senator? Missile defense protection, perhaps?

10:23: Good job, Senator Obama, in pointing out how energy independence would blunt the sharper edges of Russia's current muscle.

10:25: Audience member question: "Would you react to an Iranian attack on Israel by committing US troops to Israel's defense, or wait on UN Security Council approval?" What kind of transparent softball question for McCain's benefit is that?

10:28: Funny, though, how Obama ends up answering that question more directly than McCain did--and turns it to his own advantage, no less? Smart brother!!!

10:29: Great idea, Sen. Obama, about choking off Iran's oil supply in order to "put the squeeze on 'em"! Now I want to hear you say you'll take just those kinds of measures before meeting with the sons of bitches--in much the same way that Ronald Reagan spent the first three-quarters of his presidency kicking the Soviets' asses from Afghanistan to Nicaragua to Angola to El Salvador before sitting down with Gorbachev (which I believe is one of the main reasons why those negotiations worked). Now that's what I call a precondition!

10:32: McCain: "We don't know what's going to happen..." As facile as this sounds, it's actually a very wise and intelligent point. How a potential leader would respond to completely unforeseen occurrences is one of the major factors anyone should take into account in deciding whether or not to follow that leader. As British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once said, in response to a question about what is most likely to blow a government off course: "Events, dear boy, events."