From a wholistic perspective, Lehrer, the moderator, allocated maybe a third of the debate on domestic issues related to the bailout. I think McCain's people should go to the Presidential debate commission and argue to get that time back during the remaining two debates. I don't think that McCain threw a knockout punch or that Obama drew a blank; I do think that Obama held his own, but I'm sure any substantive parsing of the debate will show that he was delivering more precanned responses, and he was evasive, which wasn't necessarily obvious. Lehrer seemed to realize it, but couldn't pin him down.
A key example was the point about new spending given the financial bailout and its implication on future budgets. I thought McCain did a fairly good job indicating his protected areas (e.g., national security and veteran affairs) in terms of substantive cuts elsewhere, in particular, looking to streamline government and flat-bid vs. cost-plus contracts, but Obama kept evading coming up with specifics and in general where he would trip his nearly $1T in new spending programs.
From a stylistic standpoint, I think (and others noted as well) McCain kept answering to the moderator instead of at the camera and/or Obama. Obama kept on calling him 'John' (instead of senatorial courtesy, which McCain extended to Obama, repeatedly saying 'Senator Obama'). I think this was a deliberate strategy on Obama's part to try to portray himself as "equally qualified" to be President. McCain was little repetitive at times, especially on earmarks (plus, on things like flat-bid contracts, he should have some numbers to go along with the savings).
Some key points raised during the debate I think merit additional attention because I think that Lehrer or McCain didn't challenge enough some of Obama's disingenuous responses:
- McCain's Business Tax Cut (35 to 25%). Obama has been advertising them as a giveaway, in particular to Big Oil; I can't believe that McCain wasn't waiting to pounce on that one: he could point out that domestic reserves are actually shrinking, and Democratic and/or special interest group legal tieups against domestic energy exploration (offshore drilling, oil shale development, ANWR) and production (e.g., nuclear power plants) have the majors scrambling elsewhere for business investment. McCain specifically gave as an example that Ireland's rate of 11%. Obama gave a flippant allegation/response that with tax loopholes, the corporate effective tax rate is at or below 25% already. McCain should have hit back hard. In fact, a typical Obama tagline is that he's going to stop giving tax breaks to companies investing (i.e., "shipping jobs") overseas. McCain should have anticipated Obama's demagoguery on this issue, point out American jobs lost because of Democratic protectionist opposition to allies like Colombia and South Korea. But to the point at hand, McCain should have directly put Obama on the spot by demanding to explain if tax policy is so accommodative, why are businesses looking elsewhere? The fact is that taxes are a business cost, and the way you attract businesses and the jobs they create is by addressing cost issues. Incidentally, this is also a good segue of bringing up the fact that despite Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues are up considerably over the Clinton years and higher taxes.
- Obama's Denial of his Youtube Debate Response on Ahmadinejad. I can't believe that Obama can lie about what he said in front of a nationwide audience in a Democratic candidate debate, available on Youtube. He's trying to argue he was really talking about lower-level contacts and then is implying that McCain doesn't believe in lower-level contacts? McCain should have called Obama a liar and suggested that America should watch the video and then ask themselves who they believe--the Obama talking to his fellow Democrats or the pandering Obama in front of them, trying to explain whatever it takes to steal the election.
- Obama's Disingenuous Attempt To Use Kissinger Against McCain. First of all, McCain should thank Obama for reminding everyone that former Secretaries of States under at least 4 former Presidents have endorsed him and his foreign policy expertise. Second, Obama is smearing Kissinger by saying that Kissinger advocates rewarding rogue nation leaders with a platform at the White House to use for their own propaganda objectives. It should be noted that Kissinger was extremely angry that Obama mischaracterized his views and reaffirmed McCain's position. However, he wasn't available to directly refute Obama in front of the national audience.
Suggestions for McCain
- Be prepared to nail Obama on the judgment against liberating Iraq not having intelligence data, including that from other countries. The real judgment is realizing when a mistake was being made and doing something about it. Note that Bush, like Obama, lacked military and foreign experience and was too slow to challenge the operations in Iraq, whereas you were on the record as early as 2003 arguing for a bigger footprint to stabilize the region. Note that not having the right strategy and tactics didn't help the Soviets in their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Point out that Al Qaeda chased out of Iraq have shown up elsewhere, and they are on our radar. Refute Obama's ludicrous allegation that Afghanistan and Iraq are zero-sum issues--that just like he (McCain) would work on the bailout and be at this debate, Barack Obama doesn't seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and this inflexible attitude about multi-front battles should really concern American citizens. Point out Obama's continued, stubborn reluctance to talk to Gen. Petraeus, whom has essentially wiped Al Qaeda out of Iraq and brought military and civilian casualties down 80% has implications for Obama's strategy in Afghanistan--it's not just enough to put more soldiers into a meat grinder--which was a lesson we learned from not using the right tactics in Iraq--we have to transform the area. Note that Pakistan itself took exception to Obama's statements about unilateral actions against targets in Pakistan, earning a rebuke from the assassinated leader Benazir Bhutto herself. Argue with Obama's retreat-at-any-cost has implications for our alliances, and remind fellow Americans what it means for terrorists in an unstable Iraq to have access to $150/barrel oil--and where would they put their priorities? Afghanistan doesn't have oil (however, it does have critical pipelines); it also has opium poppies.
- Just slam Obama the next broken-record occasion Obama brings up the $79B Iraq oil surplus via August GAO report. Note that that's an artifact of higher oil production, record high oil prices (now, much lower), and that reconstruction efforts had been put on hold because of earlier violence; Iraq has announced a $79B budget for next year, a 58% increase over this year with about $19B in capital spending. In comparison, the US has spent about $42B since 2003 on Iraq stabilization and infrastructure. Given the fact that this information has been posted for about a week, Obama's using this sum, which reflects part accumulated oil earnings since 2005 (accounting about 94% of Iraqi income) and Obama fails to note that over $100B of the $181B revenues have been spent. This is an explicit example of Obama knowingly passing along misleading statistics and letting Americans draw invalid inferences. Maybe he learned how to mislead people during his Harvard Law School education, but the American people deserve better.
- Obama the reformer? The next time this "we are what we've been waiting for" demagogue opens up his mouth, claiming to be a government reformer at heart, ask America what it's going to believe: a man who not only wrote the book when it came to campaign reform, earmark reform and Senate ethics reform, but he walks the walk, while Obama has taken hundreds of millions of earmarks, including one for his wife's employer, and who has reneged on his commitment to public financing, because he knows he can raise more money than McCain receives, which gives Barack a competitive advantage.
- Focus on the JOB-KILLING side effects of Obama's toxic brew of higher tax rates and globally uncompetitive business taxes. Point out that Obama favors tax giveaways to people whom pay no federal income taxes and suggest that any tax relief applied to payroll taxes should be applied consistently and fairly, across tax brackets.
- Obama the "Change Agent"? Even though he himself admits he did not bring "change" to the Chicago neighborhood where he was a "community organizer", he wants the American people to belief he can bring change to America where he failed bringing change to Chicago or typical Chicago machine politics during all the years he's been representing Chicago in the state and national legislatures? Give me a break! Put him on the spot! Point out he's all sizzle and no steak when it comes to change....
- Nail him the next time he trashes your record on deregulation. Explain you focused on deregulating unnecessary rules and regulations costing businesses and the federal government money. Note that the issue is not how many regulations but how smart the regulations. And point out when it really counted, in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Obama made the wrong call, to protect the accounting-scandal GSE's, holding too much of our nation's housing debt, but McCain was right in his attempts to reform its regulations.
- Point out how Obama/Dem efforts to expand Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's share of the US mortgage crisis and political efforts to pressure mortgage lenders to get lower-income, higher-risk households into houses they couldn't afford was a big factor in the current mess, and to paraphrase Obama's spiritual mentor: "The chickens have come home to roost." Just another reason we can't afford 4 years of Obamanomics.
Major Point on Addressing the Financial Bailout
First of all, LEARN TO SUPPRESS YOUR INNER TEDDY ROOSEVELT. Listen, John McCain, you are NEVER going to out-demagogue Obama. People who believe in class warfare and socialism are NEVER going to vote for you however many times you've voted against Big Oil and Big Agriculture (i.e., ethanol subsidies). Stop griping about Wall Street greed, etc. Your initial response to the federal bailout was very similar to Obama's--you should be differentiating yourself.
Second, you need to come up with a rationalization for your involvement in the financial bailout issue. YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED IS YET ANOTHER MASSIVE INFUSION OF FEDERAL SPENDING. Say that you're sick and tired of a Republican President whom pays lip service to limited government and spending but will leave office leaving a bigger budget and higher cumulative national debt than Clinton.
Explicitly identify yourself with the House Republicans whom are trying to work out a way for the mortgage industry itself picking up most of the cost and risk, not the American taxpayer. Point out that Obama had bought into the President's original plan, which is backdoor socialism. Point out the reason you showed up at the meeting was to ensure the House Republicans were heard, and you agree with the principles they bringing to the table to resolve this liquidity crisis.
A Final Note
For the next debate, see if you can find and bring those goofy glasses you wore in the early 80's which the Obamacans used in that tasteless ad involving your use of a PC (always classy for someone like Obama, with no military service, making fun of your war-related disabilities). Also, bring along one of your bumper stickers. Then tell Obama you think he needs these glasses worse than you do, because everytime he sees your bumper sticker, he says "Bush". Tell him he must be confused; you do know some guy named George Bush, but he ran against me in 2000. That guy's experience was mostly in state government and lacked military and foreign experience; he claimed to have bipartisan experience with the Texas legislature and ran a change election. Does that sound familiar? And after 8 years of that, do you really think the American people want more of the same on-the-job training?
