US Presidential Election: Debate Thread

It is tomorrow night, and probably the economy 1st. Both Candidates have made additions to their economic plans. I fully expect each to do their best to highlight their additions.

It would be great if they had a respectful debate of ideas on the economy, but I have a strong suspicion that will need rubber gloves for all the mud he'll be slinging. I saw something just today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-at-wednesdays-deba_n_134506.html) that indicates McCain might well go bonkers on Ayers. All mud, all the time.

I think if he tries that tactic, it won't go well for him. My instinct is that he would do this to please a few of his base, but possibly lose his moderates and independents who have not cared for the negative tactics.

But, I suppose we shall see soon enough.

Okay guys let's deal with the issue of mudslinging after we have seen what happened during the debate.

It would be great if they had a respectful debate of ideas on the economy, but I have a strong suspicion that will need rubber gloves for all the mud he'll be slinging. I saw something just today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-at-wednesdays-deba_n_134506.html) that indicates McCain might well go bonkers on Ayers. All mud, all the time.

Why is discussing the person who launched Obama's career, gave him his first high profile job, has an almost decade long relationship with Obama, and happens to be a unrepentant terrorist mudslinging? Why is questioning the political relationships Obama formed and has maintained to this day unacceptable?

Why is discussing the person who launched Obama's career, gave him his first high profile job, has an almost decade long relationship with Obama, and happens to be a unrepentant terrorist mudslinging? Why is questioning the political relationships Obama formed and has maintained to this day unacceptable?

In my opinion you can talk about it, but the polls are showing that the discussion is unwanted by voters. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15poll.html?hp

I would, however, question what the tone of the discussion would be. And what is the point? Do you want people to think Barack Obama would do the same things that William Ayres did in his youth? Because that is the impression I get from the Rebpublican side of the aisle. Why else bring it up.

Also, should we start looking into where every dollar that was given to McCain's long policital career came from? Is he really an angel, or should we start playing Six Degrees of Separation.

I'm sure Obama is ready for any Ayers attack & you have to admit, Obama prepares well.

Actually, all McCain's aggressiveness backfired, IMHO, in the polls. People thought he looked "angry" (vs "tough").

If I hear McCain say "I know how to ...." without explaining what he plans to do one more time, I will just ... well I don't drink, but I think it deserves a drinking game.

I think if he tries that tactic, it won't go well for him. My instinct is that he would do this to please a few of his base, but possibly lose his moderates and independents who have not cared for the negative tactics.

If a party has a competent candidate, the base should take care of itself. The candidate's job is to bring those outside in.

If a party has a competent candidate, the base should take care of itself. The candidate's job is to bring those outside in.

Which is exactly what has happened with Barack's candidacy. He's leading McCain with men, women, white voters and independents in all the battleground states. I posted a rash of Quinnipiac results in the Obama thread just this evening.

He even has his own "Rednecks for Obama" groups across Appalachia and in the south and upper midwest.

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/rednecks.jpg

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/rednecks4obama.jpg

Those pictures prove nothing. I can find pictures of Rednecks for McCain. I've already mentioned this and I'll mention it again. There are groups all over the place for both candidates. Having a group proves nothing.

...and back to the debate!

What will McCain have to do to come off as a 'win?'

A tie won't work to push him ahead in the polls at this point, so what things will he have to do in the debate to be perceived as a win?

I for one think it's great that each candidate has given themselves something new to talk about in tonight's debate on the economy. I think they'll both have to admit (if even only to themselves) that with the economy the way it is what they wanted to do gets put on the back burner a bit. And the candidate who wins can pick and chose and still attempt to do some of the things they always dreamed of accomplishing as president, but it will be a lot more difficult. Regardless, I know after the first debate people had already felt like they had already heard it all, after the second debate everyone talked about how it sounded just like the first debate...so this will hopefully give them something to make people tune in, to make them feel a bit of a new energy after such a long and tiring campaign season.

Those pictures prove nothing. I can find pictures of Rednecks for McCain. I've already mentioned this and I'll mention it again. There are groups all over the place for both candidates. Having a group proves nothing.
That's true and from what I can tell they aren't a large group, but it is what they represent. It's seemed to me that there has become a bit of a "redneck" identity in the last decade or so, with a lot of people taking pride in the title.Ultimately, it means that Obama is getting at gun-lovers (and where I live, being very near an area that is large on hunting, we see ads by McCain on how a Vet wants to keep his guns, so he's voting McCain) and people who are usually thought of as being part of the conservative base. Even if he doesn't have a huge percentage of these votes, they are certainly people who would be expected to fall into the McCain column. If Obama starts doing well in Appalachia, McCain has a lot to be worried about.

Questions I'd like to see:

1. Ayers - Obama answer, the person who founded that board Annenburg was in the Reagan White House and on a list of your supporters John, are you saying your supporter supports a terrorist?

2. John Lewis - Repudiate John Lewis !?! The hero that marched at Selma ? If there's anyone who knows anything about hate speech, it's John Lewis. John, didn't you say at the Saddleback Forum in August that John Lewis was one of three people in the world you would take advice from ? But when he tells you the tone of your campaign is wrong, you repudiate him ? tsk tsk tsk. When I get an advisor, such as Joe Biden, I want someone who is going to tell me the truth, whether I like it or not.

3. Spending Cuts? I agree we are going to have to evaluate what we spend money on, and I expect government to be far more efficient, but this is not a time to be doing massive spending cuts. Government provides jobs and much needed liquidity in the market. The market needs that right now. A spending freeze would just freeze up the liquidity markets & plunge us straight into a depression.

4. Who would be your secretary of the treasury ? (I'd like to hear that).

5. How will you handle the transition time between November 4th & Inauguration Day?

6. Would you continue the U.S. progressive tax structure in your Administration?

I heard Hillary will be in the audience tonight at the debate. If she is nice to McCain I will ... be upset.
Do you think Bill Ayers will show up ?

If Obama starts doing well in Appalachia, McCain has a lot to be worried about.
On RCP West Virginia has gone from solid for McCain to toss up in the last week.

What will McCain have to do to come off as a 'win?'

A tie won't work to push him ahead in the polls at this point, so what things will he have to do in the debate to be perceived as a win?

I think McCain has to talk about what exactly he will do for the economy and go into detail as much as possible. Last debate neither candidate had a chance to really go into detail because of Brokaw constantly saying "Both of you agreed to the one minute rule" so hopefully tonight the rules will be a bit more relaxed.

I think McCain has to talk about what exactly he will do for the economy and go into detail as much as possible. Last debate neither candidate had a chance to really go into detail because of Brokaw constantly saying "Both of you agreed to the one minute rule" so hopefully tonight the rules will be a bit more relaxed.

I agree. I'm not sure he will, though. His campaign has been in full attack mode since McCain lost the lead. I've seen quite a few stories about the good ol' days when McCain was McCain - the whole maverick, honor and honesty thing - before he became a captive of the people working for him. Or something to that effect. Roger Simon (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14555.html) of Politico had such a story today about how nice it was that McCain is trying to calm down the nastiness of his crowds, after spending the better part of a month letting Palin incite them into such a frenzy of hatred that they resemble a lynch mob these days.

I don't buy it. At some point, the media folks need to come to grips with the fact this is John McCain. This is the race he has chosen to run. Stop making excuses for him, for gosh sakes!

Please stop with the attacks! Do you have proof that McCain's campaign is in full attack mode. You'll post ads I know, but that doesn't prove anything except that he's got negative ads which Obama has, too. I've seen them. They'll run a negative McCain ad on TV followed directly by a negative Obama ad.

But, what does that have to do with the debate? Nothing. At least not to me. It seems to me every campaign for every office that runs ads on TV has at least one negative ad. Sure, they may be negative during the debate ("What Obama won't tell you..." "The truth about McCain's..."), but the overall tone, I hope, won't be negative.

Please stop with the attacks! Do you have proof that McCain's campaign is in full attack mode. You'll post ads I know, but that doesn't prove anything except that he's got negative ads which Obama has, too. I've seen them. They'll run a negative McCain ad on TV followed directly by a negative Obama ad.

Why do you think McCain has been working to correct his own suppoters?

Questions I'd like to see:

1. Ayers - Obama answer, the person who founded that board Annenburg was in the Reagan White House and on a list of your supporters John, are you saying your supporter supports a terrorist?

McCain answer: Actually he was trying to support education, but after Obama funded some questionable, for lack of a better word, groups, not the actual schools and no tangible improvement was shown, I suppose he feels pretty failed by Ayers and Obama. I would support me too.

2. John Lewis - Repudiate John Lewis !?! The hero that marched at Selma ? If there's anyone who knows anything about hate speech, it's John Lewis. John, didn't you say at the Saddleback Forum in August that John Lewis was one of three people in the world you would take advice from ? But when he tells you the tone of your campaign is wrong, you repudiate him ? tsk tsk tsk. When I get an advisor, such as Joe Biden, I want someone who is going to tell me the truth, whether I like it or not.

McCain's answer: The truth is that John Lewis recinded the percieved intent of the comments himself. I am satisfied that he didn't mean it the way it was recieved, but I can't see why the misinterpretation wouldn't be commented on by my opponent, unless the benifit of the misinterpretation is just to tempting an advantage. Of course if he himself agrees with the initial interpretation of the comments he is welcome to say so.


3. Spending Cuts? I agree we are going to have to evaluate what we spend money on, and I expect government to be far more efficient, but this is not a time to be doing massive spending cuts. Government provides jobs and much needed liquidity in the market. The market needs that right now. A spending freeze would just freeze up the liquidity markets & plunge us straight into a depression.

It isn't government spending the people's money that grows the economy, nor does limiting the waisted money flowing from government create a negative economic impact. Liquidity provided by government? Only recently and only to offset the failure of government to oversee its own organizations, even after some of us called for it to happen. While the party of Obama claimed everything was alright and there was no problem, we went from bad to worse. I realize that spending other people's money is really the root of Senator Obama's experience, but it is now that we need the government being as responsible as we are asking it's citizens to be.


4. Who would be your secretary of the treasury ? (I'd like to hear that).

Unlike Senator Obama, I am not currently assigning my cabinet, creating my own seal or attempting to usurp the sitting Administration with allies. I would consider several qualified candidates, but I would prefer to discuss appointments with the actual people on the short list before publicly announcing something of that nature. I can assure everyone that the officeholder would change though.


5. How will you handle the transition time between November 4th & Inauguration Day?

I would establish a transition team and get up to speed in cooperation with the current Administration and the appropriate points of contact. I would do as much as posible to begin making positive changes right away, but we have to remember that the office isn't the electee's until they are sworn in.


6. Would you continue the U.S. progressive tax structure in your Administration?

I have never suggested a flat tax or alternate type of taxation, but I would entertain any system that would let every American keep as much of their money as posible, while still providing government services. It is a misnomer that I am only proposing cutting taxes on a few certain people, I will be attempting to cut taxes on all Americans, leaving more money in the hands of people who pay salaries, build, and grow the economy.

Creating and selling tangible products and making a profit on it is what enhances our economic growth, not the government collecting more and redistributing it. A tax cut with higher inflation, less money for payroll and less expansion is not even break even for anyone, middleclass and lower income people especially.

Letting everyone, including the people who create jobs, build new buildings, develope new industries and advance our technologies, all while paying the payroll, keep as much as posible from what they have earned, is what we need to expand and grow. Again, we all need to be responsible for our earning and spending and that starts at the top. By establishing real fiscal discipline and efficiancy in the government, we will spend less and need less from the people who make and buy the goods and services that drive our financial engines.

Senator Obama doesn't want to reduce spending, because he sees your money as "our money" to be spent by the chosen few. I see your money as an investment when government gets it and we have done a poor job making that investment pay off for you and by freezing spending, cutting taxes and letting people keep more of their money I plan to make the dollars you do sacrifice to taxes worth more in benifits for you than they ever have before.
Until we in government treat your money like it is payment for services, how can we expect anyone not to feel they are being taken for a ride? Senator Obama wants to take us for a long expensive ride and his track record and proposed spending tells a whole different story than his tax cut can support.
I know I've heard plenty of candidates claim they were going to cut taxes, but it doesn't always happen, does it? Let us ask ourselves, wasn't it spending more than we made that got us in trouble in the first place? How then can Senator Obama spend a trillion dollars in new programs and not run us toward financial ruin from the government down? Read my lips, someone will have to pay for all of this and it won't be Senator Obama.

Lupe: I think Linda was referring back to debate 2, where McCain answered a question from Brokaw that Buffett and Meg Whitman (I think that's her name) were good candidates for SecTreas. Obama danced around the answer more, actually. So your perceived answer from McCain has already been answered differently by the candidate himself :lol:

Posting in all the election threads:
Hey guys, let's watch those blanket statments. Stuff like all democrats do this or all republicans do that aren't helpful. I'll reinforce with warning points, if I need to.

I've said before and I'll say it again...McCain needs to go after Obama hard. So far he's talked a good game...I want to see it tonight.

Dow is down 733 so far today (is market closed?)
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081015/wall_street.html

I want to hear about the economy, what is happening and what we are going to do.

It is very complicated, so the advantage of talking about Depression era solutions is that at least people have SOME familiarity with them, AND the reassuring memory that "this too shall pass".

If McCain keeps on this "footnote" stuff, while Obama stays in the center of people's concerns, Obama will look like the more tuned in candidate, and the better horse to ride to the future.

I think Bob Schieffer (CBS) is no fool, so we will see some moderating.

I was thinking that visual aids might be helpful (or video, like if a candidate flat out lies or contradicts an earlier statement) but they don't do that.

I've said before and I'll say it again...McCain needs to go after Obama hard. So far he's talked a good game...I want to see it tonight.

What if McCain knows the attacks are factually thin ? What is his best move then?

After the gain in the market earlier this week, we were bound to see another drop. This rollercoaster is going to go on for a while longer.

I would be surprised if they covered much more than the economy tonight. I think it is in both of their best interests - and ours as well!

After the gain in the market earlier this week, we were bound to see another drop. This rollercoaster is going to go on for a while longer.

I would be surprised if they covered much more than the economy tonight. I think it is in both of their best interests - and ours as well!

I can see the debate focusing on the economy, Iran, the economy, North Korea, the economy, and possibly but I'm not real sure about it, the economy.

All Obama has to do to win is not throw up. In fact, even if he did throw up he'd probably still be declared the winner by the media. McCain has to turn water into wine, literally, the be declared the winner and even then he'd probably be condemned for pulling a last moment political stunt.

I know this is wrong of me, but I sense another dull non-debate. Maybe they'll be allowed to have a real one this time since it's the final one.

I know this is wrong of me, but I sense another dull non-debate. Maybe they'll be allowed to have a real one this time since it's the final one.

I got my flu shot yesterday and now I feel like I have the flu so I'm not all that jazzed about the debate. Now, if we made things more interesting, like had feats of strength or a spelling bee, I might watch. While I support McCain, I have to admit that if they made the candidates wear the spandex costumes like they do on that show where the people bash one another with the big q-tip looking thing, I'd much prefer that McCain stay home.

I just wish the debates could be like how they were when I was on the forensics/debate team in high school (I was pretty much a spectator). Those participating literally argued the points with one another, cross examined, all that good stuff. With the way the debates have been done, it seemed more like, "I'm going to talk to the moderator, not my opponent."

It's like the candidates aren't given much of an opportunity to counter one another.

I just wish the debates could be like how they were when I was on the forensics/debate team in high school (I was pretty much a spectator). Those participating literally argued the points with one another, cross examined, all that good stuff. With the way the debates have been done, it seemed more like, "I'm going to talk to the moderator, not my opponent."

It's like the candidates aren't given much of an opportunity to counter one another.

I've found them rather boring myself. I kept waiting for one of them to do something funny, but with something as serious as a debate funny comes across as creepy so they were pretty contained.

I may be biased, but at end of first question I think Obama has won.

It's sounding good so far.

John McCain is in the house. It's high noon, thank God!

The third debate's over. Please keep only to the (many) issues they raised.

My take: McCain's best performance, Obama's remarkably consistant in each debate, and again, not much change in the overall picture.

I think McCain did better in this debate, but I didn't like the interrupting, and eye rolling, and also a lot of what he said was self-contradicting between questions.

1. Chosing Judges should be not per a litmus test.
vs I am proudly pro life.

2. Teachers should be qualified
vs Veterans should be able to teach without certification.

3. Life of the mother is not an important exception.

Still, McCain much better prepared tonight.

Not listening so much to the content but McCain sounds tired and, dare I say it, old.

I thought Senator Obama seemed to be more focused on the issues, while Senator McCain seemed to be focused on the flaws in Obama's platform. I would have liked to hear more of what McCain plans to do, and less of what Obama is doing wrong.

I also disliked the interrupting by McCain.

Not listening so much to the content but McCain sounds tired and, dare I say it, old.

Yeah, he did. He also smirked, looked smug when he thought he'd made a good point, rolled his eyes, made condescending statements and interrupted the flow of the conversation in a rude manner. [not needed]

McCain did much better tonight than in the previous debates. He said things and tried to make points (Ayers, for example) that will thrill his base but won't help in the polls, where voters have repeatedly shown (1) they don't care about Ayers or Wright; and (2) they think McCain has been entirely too negative in this campaign. So making points that hurt him in polls may not have been a smart thing to do.

This debate was no game-changer.

I think also notable was that McCain's solutions seem to be all in the deregulation line, ie schools, health care, etc. which supports the Obama meme that McCain is a deregulator, which is the tide that got us in this mess.

Further, McCain talked about initiatives but would commit to no new spending, just talking about cut cut cut spending yet also saying things that needed to happen. How ? At least Obama was straight that we need to cut, reform & invest appropriately.

I also thought Obama picked up points on talking about re-tooling car plants for solar panels & wind turbines, I thought that would play well in the rust belt.

I also think that McCain doubling down on the people that go to his rallies & Sarah Palin was ... it was what it was.

My mom said she thinks Obama won and that her concern is that if McCain wins, where will she move to.
(which is an almost universal meme on our side of the fence !).

Hmm. I thought this was McCain's worst performance. He just seemed so tired and irritated...
And rude.

Obama did a better job discussing the issues, while McCain spent too much time simply trying to make Obama look bad.
And the Joe the Plumber---It's clear that McCain was using that as a gimick. Then Obama started reacting to it. They spent too much time on that. It came off as a bit cheesy to me.
And I was getting really tired of McCain repeatedly bringing up the same false claims on Obama's tax policies. I mean, Obama has explained his plan a trillion times, yet McCain wants to keep trying to stir up his words. I just wanted to yell at him to give it a rest. Obama's tax plan is simpy better, in my opinion...
When McCain made the comment along the lines of "I'm not Bush. If you wanted to run against Bush, you should have run 4 years ago." I'll admit, I almost got excited. I though McCain was finally going to say how he was DIFFERENT from Bush. But then he fell flat, again. He made no distinctions about how he was not standing for more of the same. Shame.


Hee hee. Hillary is talking on CNN and she keeps saying "President Obama." I like the sound of that.

I think McCain won. He was into the debate. He answered the questions and he offered the attack. Obama wouldn't answer the questions. I think it was the first or second question of the night where his answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question and I think Schieffer commented on it or something of that affect. Obama was on the defense and he gave no substance. McCain would say "Obama is..." and Obama would respond "I'm not." without telling us why he's not and what he is. He offered us absolutely nothing. This was definitely McCain's best night.

McCain never came off tired. He seemed fully into the debate. I, like McCain, am sick and tired of hearing Obama claim that if McCain wins it will be four more years of the same. Why? Because McCain and Bush are in the same party? You want McCain to say why he's not like Bush, I want Obama to tell me why he thinks McCain is like Bush.

I do have to say this was the most interesting of the three Presidential debates.

The first snap poll is in: CBS gives it to Obama 52-33 (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/).

This was definitely a good debate. I liked Schieffer as a moderator.

I think McCain was very lively in the first half of the debate, but then got negative and killed the energy. Obama seemed to take a while to build up steam, but when he got going, he switched from the defense to the offense.

We'll see how this affects the Polls tomorrow.

I want Obama to tell me why he thinks McCain is like Bush. He has answered why he thinks McCain is like Bush repeatedly. In Barack Obama's words 'John McCain votes with George Bush 90% of the time.'

I don't agree. I don't really think there was a time when Obama was on the offense. He just appeared to me to be on the defense the entire night. Every time McCain said something Obama felt he had to defend himself, but with what? Saying you aren't something isn't enough. You have to say why you aren't that. You have to say what you are. Obama doesn't do that. I hear no substance when he speaks. I can't trust that as president.

Hee hee. Hillary is talking on CNN and she keeps saying "President Obama." I like the sound of that. I noticed that too. It should put to rest any doubts anyone had about who Hillary supports. :)

Obama doesn't do that. I hear no substance when he speaks. I can't trust that as president.

I don't agree. Obama has been talking substantively on issues for 20 consecutive months now. [staff edit]

Saying you aren't something isn't enough. You have to say why you aren't that.I don't think McCain did any better at that. When he said the zinger "I'm not George Bush" why wasn't there a bit about what differentiates them. If you're going to defend yourself in a statement like that, back it up. He would have done well if he did.

I do think a debate can be won even if someone isn't on the offensive the entire time. What one person may call aggressive others may call angry. Or vice-versa. There's a lot that's in the eyes of the beholder.

I don't think McCain did any better at that. When he said the zinger "I'm not George Bush" why wasn't there a bit about what differentiates them. If you're going to defend yourself in a statement like that, back it up. He would have done well if he did.

I agree, but he did good to interrupt Obama from making that same argument again. Obama has done nothing to prove why he thinks McCain is like Bush and frankly, I'm sick of him saying it. It's not true. Take a look at McCain's record and you'll see it's not true. If Obama thinks it's true he needs to tell us why he thinks its true. For once I want him to tell us why instead of just that he does.

I do think a debate can be won even if someone isn't on the offensive the entire time. What one person may call aggressive others may call angry. Or vice-versa. There's a lot that's in the eyes of the beholder.

That's fine and it's true. Are you saying you think Obama won? I don't see that. McCain did a much better job of expressing himself and what he believes.

I don't think McCain did any better at that. When he said the zinger "I'm not George Bush" why wasn't there a bit about what differentiates them. If you're going to defend yourself in a statement like that, back it up. He would have done well if he did.

He sure would have. He had a great opportunity there to perhaps change the narrative a little and he blew it. It was almost like he practiced his big line and forget what was supposed to come afterward.

Did you see the first poll results? Last post on the previous page.

I I, like McCain, am sick and tired of hearing Obama claim that if McCain wins it will be four more years of the same. Why? Because McCain and Bush are in the same party? You want McCain to say why he's not like Bush, I want Obama to tell me why he thinks McCain is like Bush.

Well, with McCain supposedly being such a "maverick", it would seem that he should be different from Bush, should he not? Yeah, they're from the same party. But look at what the Republican party, under Bush, has done to this country. No future president, regardless of if he is a Republican, should be satisfied with being aligned with Bush. Heck, McCain recognizes that being compared to Bush is an insult in the eyes of many, which is the point behind the whole "I'm not Bush" comment.
And it seems to me that Obama has repeatedly mentioned why he thinks McCain is like Bush. Obama has said time and time again that he feels McCain isn't offering much on how he plans to fix/change the failed policies of Bush.

:lol: I sort of ducked the question of "who won" in my original post, in part because I was stuck on the phone the entire time so I had to rely on the close-captions :p. Sometimes real life intercedes!!!

That being said, I thought it was essentially yet another draw. Both had high points and low points. But, I think that the overall picture of the race didn't change.

:lol: I sort of ducked the question of "who won" in my original post, in part because I was stuck on the phone the entire time so I had to rely on the close-captions :p. Sometimes real life intercedes!!!

That being said, I thought it was essentially yet another draw. Both had high points and low points. But, I think that the overall picture of the race didn't change.Ah, the safe answer. ;)

One problem I have with Obama is that he doesn't refute what McCain is saying. It's like with the Ayers issue. McCain said Obama announced (or was it started) his political career in Ayers living room. Obama says "No, I didn't." I wanted him to tell me how this was not true. Where did he start his career or maybe what was his relationship to Ayers at that point in his life. I don't care too much about Ayers, but it was that point I thought to myself (and maybe I said it out loud) that Obama's not doing much to refute what McCain says.

Some people on the attack can do very well, but that's when they dispell what the other person is saying, when they explain their answers, when they give reasons why and why not. Obama's a great speaker. He's got that skill. I wish I had that skill. He's a better speaker than McCain. But it covers up the fact that Obama's not saying anything.

I'm a moderator, what do you expect? :rotfl:

Moving on, this is about the debate, not me...

I, like McCain, am sick and tired of hearing Obama claim that if McCain wins it will be four more years of the same. Why? Because McCain and Bush are in the same party?

Yes.

Because no one governs alone, they rely on a structure & organization. McCain's campaign is made up of Bush operatives. Bush & McCain are the same party, and voted together on key issues. Thousands of appointments are made on a partisan basis just based on how the system works (Sec. of Treasury, SEC, Judges, Cabinet heads, Ambassadorships, advisors etc. etc. etc.).

If your party is the same, your policies are the same, your organization is the same, your advisors are the same, how will your government be different ?

I don't agree. I don't really think there was a time when Obama was on the offense. He just appeared to me to be on the defense the entire night. Every time McCain said something Obama felt he had to defend himself, but with what? Saying you aren't something isn't enough. You have to say why you aren't that. You have to say what you are. Obama doesn't do that. I hear no substance when he speaks. I can't trust that as president.
Well, McCain really had to go out and be aggressive. Not only because he is down in the polls, but because his base was practically screaming for it. They felt like he wasn't fighting hard enough so he went out there to fight harder. Obama on the other hand is ahead in the polls, he doesn't want to lose his advantage by turning people off, and I think he's also been very aware that he can't afford to come off as the "angry black man" (even though there is certainly a segment of the liberal population -read some of Maureen Dowd's editorials- who wish he were a bit more angry about the state of the country). I saw Obama do more than say "I'm not". He did a lot of explaining about the attacks that McCain had been levying on Ayers on ACORN, etc. Really, Obama didn't defend himself on a lot of things he could have because it would have taken up time in the debate. He didn't comment on the earmark for a "projector" which from what I understand is something in a planetarium. There were lots of little things. Polls have already been showing that people have found McCain too negative, and I don't think tonight helped him on that front. There will be people turned off by his attitude. Obama would explain his various plans, and then McCain would give his version of the Obama plan. Obama can't have much to say to that other than that he just explained his plan and that McCain's assertions aren't true.

I noticed the difference in the Vice Presidential section. Obama tried to not criticize Palin. He knew there was nothing for him to win there. People who mock Palin are already going to vote for Obama. But McCain did not hold back on his criticism of Joe Biden.

Ah, the safe answer. ;)

One problem I have with Obama is that he doesn't refute what McCain is saying. It's like with the Ayers issue. McCain said Obama announced (or was it started) his political career in Ayers living room. Obama says "No, I didn't." I wanted him to tell me how this was not true.
Well to be fair, this was an interjection of Obama's which McCain talked over. Not giving him the greatest oppurtunity to respond.

Where did he start his career or maybe what was his relationship to Ayers at that point in his life. I don't care too much about Ayers, but it was that point I thought to myself (and maybe I said it out loud) that Obama's not doing much to refute what McCain says.This isn't something that Obama just started. Obama tends to ignore what many people would call attacks.

Some people on the attack can do very well, but that's when they dispell what the other person is saying, when they explain their answers, when they give reasons why and why not. Obama's a great speaker. He's got that skill. I wish I had that skill. He's a better speaker than McCain. But it covers up the fact that Obama's not saying anything.And one from the opposite side could say that McCain isn't saying anything at all. It was afterall McCain's own campaign that said this election was not about the issues.

Yes.

Because no one governs alone, they rely on a structure & organization. McCain's campaign is made up of Bush operatives. Bush & McCain are the same party, and voted together on key issues. Thousands of appointments are made on a partisan basis just based on how the system works (Sec. of Treasury, SEC, Judges, Cabinet heads, Ambassadorships, advisors etc. etc. etc.).

If your party is the same, your policies are the same, your organization is the same, your advisors are the same, how will your government be different ?

Not just for McCain but for anybody that is the wrong thing to think. Just because you are in the same party does not mean your policies are the same, your organization is the same, your advisors are the same, and that your government is the same. That's true, no one governs alone, but that doesn't mean that every person in the Republican Party thinks exactly alike and that every person in the Democratic Party thinks absolutely alike. Obama and Hillary Clinton are in the same party. Do they think absolutely alike? Are they two different people? You tell me.

The majority of the people here (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/youdecide_1015/) seem to think McCain won.

Here (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/debatewrap_1015/) things are more even. Their view of winning is different than ours, I think. We think of winning of purely how they did during the debate and they think of it in how it will affect the polls. I think most say McCain was better, but not good enough to change the polls. I'm not sure, we'll wait and see.

Remember that the purpose of this thread is to share what you have to say on the debate, not to copy and paste what the media, or bloggers, etc. have to say. Posts with only quotes and no member input will be deleted.

Thanks.

ETA: If you want to discuss President Bush, please go to the appropriate thread and keep this thread to the topic of the debate.

I just heard that the McCain organization has pulled out of Maine & Wisconsin. I would post this in the McCain thread but that thread is closed (*cough*). So that's three states now that McCain has pulled out of.

I heard this on MS-NBC Hardball post debate analysis confirmed with a GOP Governor who said he disagreed with the decision (debate thread tie in).

Really, Obama didn't defend himself on a lot of things he could have because it would have taken up time in the debate. He didn't comment on the earmark for a "projector" which from what I understand is something in a planetarium.

Gosh, to me that projector is just a symbol of pro-science/education/future/space versus anti-science. Leaving McCain's antagonism out there on the subject is enough. [not needed]

Ethanol. Not sure McCain's anti-stance will pick up any votes in the corn belt either.

So McCain wins bible belt, Obama wins corn-belt & rust-belt.
Putin has a black belt & Palin has a Valentino belt.

Obama got some of his highest margins yet.

-SUSA CA Independents: 55-29 Obama
-MediaCurves Independents: 60-30 Obama
-CNN: 58-31 Obama
-CBS Undecideds: 53-22 Obama

I thought it was funny that Mccain opened up his attack with the basis that Obama has been unfairly attacking him...

Twilight zone moment.

I think planetarium projectors are great things. I'll bet most of the public thinks so too.

The majority of the people here (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/youdecide_1015/) seem to think McCain won.

Here (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/debatewrap_1015/) things are more even. Their view of winning is different than ours, I think. We think of winning of purely how they did during the debate and they think of it in how it will affect the polls. I think most say McCain was better, but not good enough to change the polls. I'm not sure, we'll wait and see.

That's from Fox News, which tends to favor Republicans. Obama even made a comment during the debate about how it is surprising when Fox News actually questions McCain's policies in comparison to his because it rarely happens (meaning they generally don't support Obama, so obviously their viewers would dominantly be McCain supporters). You have to look at more neutral outlets.

From the CNN Poll:

Who did the best job in the debate?

Independents

McCain (R) 31
Obama (D) 57

Republicans

McCain (R) 68
Obama (D) 18

Democrats

McCain (R) 5
Obama (D) 88

I'm watching it a second time through, and I'm liking Obama's performance more.

Given McCain is losing all the debates, the "we should have done more townhalls" just makes you want to slap your head.

That line of McCain's, "we can use a hatchet and a scalpel" I think will come back on SNL.

I thought Joe the Plumber won.

I noticed that too. It should put to rest any doubts anyone had about who Hillary supports. :)

I'm glad she is there spinning for Obama. Given how McCain has tried to grab her mantle, it is an excellent move for her, and her future, and for Obama. I saw Romney on MS-NBC and he is smiling about comments he would have been the better VP pick (but then loyally says the Palin energizes the base line). I think we may see him in 2012. (I wouldn't be surprised if he and Huckabee make a ticket).

I thought Joe the Plumber won.

:lol: References to Joe the Plumber (my count)

Obama 4
McCain 22

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008d.html

They also said that McCain blinked 3,000 times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/mccain-frowns-roll-eyes-a_n_135085.html

This link is pro-Obama, but has screen shots from the CNN focus group & snap surveys which are very interesting. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/15/23610/024/717/627807

I'm thinking that McCain, by refusing to use the phrase "middle class" (maybe because of the "class warfare" meme on the extreme right) is actually losing the middle ground and sounding more & more like he is only speaking for the interests of the very rich. His laughter at the idea of a $250,000 dividing line is really grating, and ... doesn't his side do any research ? 95% of wage earners are below that line. That's a big group to annoy.

Actually, I think this was the most interesting debate and Schieffer the best moderator, although the first one was good too.

I think planetarium projectors are great things. I'll bet most of the public thinks so too.

The Adler Planetarium has plenty of money to buy their own projector...the society is funded by admission tickets, and a plethora of private donations. I think Obama could have focused more money toward things that matter on a local level than obtaining funds for a wealthy foundation.


As for the debate, Obama did a lot of attacking, but much less focus on the issues. When he did focus on the issues, most of his focus was spent poking holes in McCain's ideas or what he had done in the past. McCain spent much more time this debate projecting his plans for the economy, and how he will bridge the gaps between both parties. Of the three debates this is the one he clearly won on the issues, but Obama won if you want to talk about who won the stabbing contest.

References to Joe the Plumber (my count)

Obama 4
McCain 22


I admire Joe a lot. Nothing like an ordinary voter tackling a politician head on. No spin. No co-ordinated, choreographed moments that the campaign can control. It's just a guy who has real concerns and he rightfully took those concerns to the guy seeking his vote. The 'Joe' votes will be interesting as there are probably a fair few people in his position.

Debate performances were better and more engaged. I hope notes were being taken for the 2012 campaign so we get more like that.

I thought that when McCain sarcastically referred to the "health" of the mother (his air quotes) in reference to abortion, he really lost Independent women. Few women want to face a difficult pregnancy without, at least, the option for an abortion should things turn nastily sour, threatening life or health. A woman could always exercise her choice if, or when, the unfortunate time came for her to face that terrible alternative. McCain came across uncaring and insensitive for a matter that could genuinely be life or death or the loss of the ability to have more children.

EDIT: I'm watching the debate a second time on split screen. And I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand something McCain said. I don't think he understands the difference between autism and Down's Syndrome. He mentioned autism and then said that Sarah Palin knows about that very well (sorry paraphrase). At first I thought he was just using an example of a special needs child when he linked Palin and autism several times, but this sentence indicated he was just confused.

Well, I'm on the third time through the debate and Obama's performance keeps getting better. His job WAS to distinguish the choice of McCain vs Obama on policy, and he did that.

My husband said Obama's performance was "solid" & "he's our next President".

If I tell you that my husband was raised in the South you may have an idea of how far his opinion of Obama the candidate has come since we first saw him against Hillary in the debates.

I'm watching the debate a second time on split screen. And I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand something McCain said. I don't think he understands the difference between autism and Down's Syndrome.

This is what he said (in reference to Palin): "She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I'm proud of her."

And just when I had decided he was just talking about special needs kids in general, he said the following which told me he didn't know the difference: "And I just said to you earlier, town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. "

I thought that when McCain sarcastically referred to the "health" of the mother (his air quotes) in reference to abortion, he really lost Independent women.

Even Palin says there should be an exception for the health of the mother.

The Autism / Down's Syndrome thing was a bit of a surprise, but I didn't know if McCain was confused or if he just preferred to address autism which is a hot button issue. The connection of autism & Palin was like "huh?" - maybe - because she's a woman she would understand (her legislative history notwithstanding) but still it was an odd linkage.

*edit* I just read your quote, and you may be right, he got confused. How annoying must he be as a running mate to Palin ?

One last thing. McCain's "denture whistle" is really annoying.

I'm watching McCain say condescendingly that Obama "has never travelled south of our border". Like Obama is an un-travelled rube. :wow: I think Obama smiles when he wants to knock someone's block off. Obama does not fidget. It is a bit weird.

Isn't Indonesia south of the border?

I think Indonesia is south of the equator ...

Carolyn Kennedy at the debate.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/rt_caroline_081015_ssv.jpg

Doesn't she look like her mom Jackie in this picture ?
I've never seen the resemblance before.

I don't agree. I don't really think there was a time when Obama was on the offense. He just appeared to me to be on the defense the entire night. Every time McCain said something Obama felt he had to defend himself, but with what? Saying you aren't something isn't enough. You have to say why you aren't that. You have to say what you are. Obama doesn't do that. I hear no substance when he speaks. I can't trust that as president.

I'll have to disagree here because Obama had repeatedly shown substance, what he's made of and what he stands for. He can't afford to lose his cool, so he fired back and gave reasonable answers to McCain's accusations.

McCain was definitely aggressive, but aggression does not represent victory. Maintaining a cool head, being composed, answering calmly with reason are attributes that I saw in Obama time and time again, and these are just a few things among many, that IMO has given him a lead.

I'm watching the debate a second time on split screen. And I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand something McCain said. I don't think he understands the difference between autism and Down's Syndrome.

..."And I just said to you earlier, town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. "

I've re-watched the debate and you are definitely correct. He confused autism & Downs. (but Downs is VISIBLE at birth & autism doesn't manifest until verbal skills should be coming in), I mean, did McCain see the baby Trig ? :sigh:

I re-read the Indecision2008 liveblog of the event.
Someone posted that when Barack mentioned Joe Biden the woman's line fluttered :lol:

OK SNL Predictions:

- Joe the Plumber
- Odd birth defects with Senator Palin
- McCain snorting into the microphone or making faces.

Also McCain said no he didn't want to answer a question from the moderator too. I thought he would pivot into a talk about energy, but he didn't.

Obama got some of his highest margins yet.

-SUSA CA Independents: 55-29 Obama
-MediaCurves Independents: 60-30 Obama
-CNN: 58-31 Obama
-CBS Undecideds: 53-22 Obama

I thought it was funny that Mccain opened up his attack with the basis that Obama has been unfairly attacking him...

Twilight zone moment.


OF the polls posted above, one in particular is flawed, which makes me wonder about the others. CNN's Campbell Brown, when explaining the demographics, disclosed that 40% of respondents were Dems, 30% GOP, rest independent. If you factor out the 10% bias CNN gave the Dems, the spread is less. Of course this puts doubt in one's mind as to the independency of the other 30%!

On McCain, I thought this was his best effort and wish he had done this in debate #1. That was the John McCain I know! He had Obama on his heels much of the night, and tore into him pretty effectively. Is it too late? We'll have to see. I do think the "President Obama" references by the Dem spin meisters afterwards (eg Hillary) are premature, especially when it's John McCain.

It was the first presidential debate I watched in its entirety and I went to bed happy. :tu:


AOL Poll results: (news.aol.com/elections/debates/article/presidential-debate-hofstra-mccain-obama/203722?icid=100214839x1211670540x1200705762)

Who do you think won the debate?
John McCain 47%
Barack Obama 46%
Neither 7%

Total Votes: 477,467

Rig - The earmark evidently went unfunded (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/obamas_adler_planetarium_proje.html), despite the efforts (http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pressroom/pr/2008_10_08_AdlerStatement_aboutdebate.pdf) (link to Adler's statement) of republicans and democrats from Illinois. I would also imagine that they tried to raise money and found themselves not being able to raise money - if I'm wrong on this and you've got support for your assertion that admissions costs could have supported it, please correct me, but I'm under the impression that these sort of non-profits operate on a very tight margin. I'm in science myself, as many here know, and I can assure everyone we're feeling an overall crunch in the field, in part because of an abrupt doubling in the mid-late 1990's in funding followed by no increases - jobs are not easy to come by now.

Factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html). Nothing major "new", they just hit Obama and McCain for the same things that they hit them for before. Misstating health care and tax plans, in particular for each other, is the primary "fault".

OF the polls posted above, one in particular is flawed, which makes me wonder about the others. CNN's Campbell Brown, when explaining the demographics, disclosed that 40% of respondents were Dems, 30% GOP, rest independent.

Apparently that division is fairly close to the actual registered state of the electorate now, so not as biased as it might appear. Apparently the controversy is that 50-50 D-R is biased since there are more registered D's this round.

AOL Poll results: (news.aol.com/elections/debates/article/presidential-debate-hofstra-mccain-obama/203722?icid=100214839x1211670540x1200705762)

The "volunteer your answer" polls on different sites are not accurate. Drudge always shows McCain winning, MSNBC always shows Barack winning, FOX always shows McCain winning, etc. It just reflects the interests of the people who are part of that site's audience.

That is why the major networks fund studies limited to the "undecideds" run under fairly rigorous conditions in sufficient number (more than shown on the TV's).

Joe the Plumber

Saw interviews with Joe the Plumber this morning. He agreed he was surprised that Iraq hadn't come up but his name had been mentioned 25 times. When he was asked why his name came up, he said "it wasn't because of Barack Obama ..." Then when asked if he considered himself "a distraction" raised by the GOP campaign, he said he hadn't considered it but he would think about it.
he hadn't thought about it and would have to

Apparently that division is fairly close to the actual registered state of the electorate now, so not as biased as it might appear. Apparently the controversy is that 50-50 D-R is biased since there are more registered D's this round.



The purpose of the poll is to determine who did a better job. If the poll is biased towards one side, their candidate will usually come out on top. So we must take it with a grain of salt.

One thing the debate didn't do is change the momentum.

According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14624.html), Obama might be expanding his campaign into West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky and North Dakota as part of his "blitz red states and make McCain pay big to hold them" strategy. All the states that DuHaime mentions in the article are going for Obama by +5 to double digits. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania are all double digit leads for Obama.

I think planetarium projectors are great things. I'll bet most of the public thinks so too.

I am pretty sure the perception is more positive when it is accompanied by the perception that everything economicly is sound. When we are in tough times financially, we tend to have less patience for what could be seen as unnecessary spending.

I believe what McCain was pointing out is that right now we need to eliminate that type of spending and refocus the funds to more practical matters. It is plain common sense that the government do what everybody else is expected to do and trim the nicity spending when more serious issues need so much funding and attention.

I thought that when McCain sarcastically referred to the "health" of the mother (his air quotes) in reference to abortion, he really lost Independent women. Few women want to face a difficult pregnancy without, at least, the option for an abortion should things turn nastily sour, threatening life or health. A woman could always exercise her choice if, or when, the unfortunate time came for her to face that terrible alternative. McCain came across uncaring and insensitive for a matter that could genuinely be life or death or the loss of the ability to have more children.

Actually his point was that the term "health of the mother" was too broad for his position and that it was an all encompassing and abusable standard for abortion when the verbiage of a bill is written to include it. I am fairly certain that life threatening and serious medical issues are not what he was refering to with the air quotes and the reiteration of the word health in that instance. That isn't far off from where some pro-choice advocates that believe in limits stand on that verbiage, so independant women may not be as lost if that was what came across to them, IMO.


I don't think McCain finished his platform positions very well. He did start to say, Obama wants government to handle everything for even if it isn't really what you want or need, I want you to give you the means and let you choose for yourself. He didn't finish that thought well though. He also missed the $10,000 401K penalty waiver, a huge point to make, and something that would expose the pandering element to what Obama is claiming to want to do. We have a roller-coaster market that is still well below recovery and Obama is advocating taking large sums of money out of personal retirement plans and the market now? Whew, missed that completely. I suppose I kept waiting to hear the "piling on" rebutals from McCain when he hit an area of differences, some directed passion for why he believed his plan would not only work, but work well, yet with the exception of vouchers, it was all start and no finish, IMO.

One think I wonder about. He is reluctant to bring up Wright, not because of polling but, because he has moral issues with it. He percieves it to be a call to arms on a race issue and McCain has been unmovable on any such issue in this campaign. It would be the most tactically valuable association, but it is off limits. Why do the association thing at all, if the key associate is not going to be at issue? In that whole line of questioning, Wright is the linch-pin to Obama's philosophical ideology.

McCain also failed to ask why Obama has voted so often in contradiction to his platform. Obama even dared him to go there when he said that his platform was consistent with his record. That is inaccurate on taxes, on being bipartisan and on being a moderate if McCain brings up his voting record on these areas. Yet he seemed content to allow Senator Obama to simply sit there respond and leave it at that. Not what I had hoped for or expected and regardless of who won that debate, I have to agree that this was no game changer for either side.

I think planetarium projectors are great things. I'll bet most of the public thinks so too.

IMO, it's P-O-R-K. :td:

I admire Joe a lot. Nothing like an ordinary voter tackling a politician head on. No spin. No co-ordinated, choreographed moments that the campaign can control. It's just a guy who has real concerns and he rightfully took those concerns to the guy seeking his vote. The 'Joe' votes will be interesting as there are probably a fair few people in his position.

Debate performances were better and more engaged. I hope notes were being taken for the 2012 campaign so we get more like that.

Here, here! :tu:

Speaking of pork, it would be interesting to know how much, if any, cash the candidates would be willing to throw behind the Chicago 2016 (http://www.chicago2016.org/) Olympic bid. It would be the final major event of the winning candidate should he manage a second term and being in Illinois has a particular relevance to Obama.

IMO, it's P-O-R-K. :td:

P-O-R-K represents less than one percent of the federal budget. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone makes such a fuss about it. I'm more concerned with the money being wasted by the Pentagon, which gets about 40% of the dough.

For Morgoth, here is video of Barack and Joe the Plumber:

2Ym1-jkuZ8s

P-O-R-K represents less than one percent of the federal budget.


Pork is waste and it should be fought rigorously.

That's from Fox News, which tends to favor Republicans. Obama even made a comment during the debate about how it is surprising when Fox News actually questions McCain's policies in comparison to his because it rarely happens (meaning they generally don't support Obama, so obviously their viewers would dominantly be McCain supporters). You have to look at more neutral outlets.
Same old argument. We had a discussion a while back, I think it was a few months ago in the now closed combined presidential thread and someone posted the percentage of Reps, Dems, Conservatives, and Liberals that watch each news channel and Fox News came out with the most unbiased outcome, close to 50-50 I believe...well, they were the closest. Also, I must point that there is nothing wrong with me putting info from Fox News if others are going to post results from liberal news channels like CNN and CBS.

CNN is no longer a liberal, or even a centrist news outlet. I'm not sure CBS is either, if you consider that Couric and Schieffer are both McCain supporters.

I think what tripped you up, Leah, is that you posted a link to a message board. That's kind of a different animal than people who were being asked specific questions by a pollster. The pollsters don't have to content with trolls, as a general rule.

CNN is no longer a liberal, or even a centrist news outlet. I'm not sure CBS is either, if you consider that Couric and Schieffer are both McCain supporters.

I think what tripped you up, Leah, is that you posted a link to a message board. That's kind of a different animal than people who were being asked specific questions by a pollster. The pollsters don't have to content with trolls, as a general rule.Nothing tripped me up, purple. I posted two legitimate links (one may be a "message board" but it is just as reliable as a non-scientific poll--where someone can vote more than once). If you don't want to pay attention to them fine with me, I don't care. But, as long as you post liberal links (and yes, CNN and CBS are liberal news outlets with liberal viewers) than I will post Fox News links. There is nothing wrong with Fox News. They aren't always happy with Republicans, Conservatives, George W. Bush, John McCain... , but they just happen to agree more with them than the other channels do. Despite what you may think they actually say nice things about Obama.

CNN is no longer a liberal, or even a centrist news outlet.

Bah!

I watch a LOT of CNN because I want to hear what liberals are saying. They are so in the tank for Obama, with rigged polls and stacked liberal commentators (poor Bill Bennett always looks like Custer at the Little Bighorn), that I fully expect to see a Vote Obama sign behind Wolf at any time!

Okay listen up:

Sources that can be considered left or right are both allowed to be posted. We welcome sources, sources are good.

Let's not make assumptions about other members and what sources they are deliberately ignoring or do bring up/read/view and if that's bad or not.

I think we can move back to Obama and McCain now.

CNN is no longer a liberal, or even a centrist news outlet.

You have some support for that claim?

Couric and Schieffer are both McCain supporters.



And especially that!?

Okay listen up:

Sources that can be considered left or right are both allowed to be posted. We welcome sources, sources are good.

Let's not make assumptions about other members and what sources they are deliberately ignoring or do bring up/read/view and if that's bad or not.

I think we can move back to Obama and McCain now.

What she said. Now.

Can I jus say that I love Joe the Plumber? Here's an interview with him from his local news channel. This dude rocks!

BdLPWfTczM4

Apparently Joe the Plumber is NOT a licensed plumber, voted Republican in the spring Primary, and has had 2 tax liens filed against him, one of which is still outstanding. So apparently it is not just progressive taxes he doesn't like, it is ANY taxes.

“All contractors are licensed, and he does not have a license, either as a contractor or a plumber,” the union official said, citing a search of government records. “I can’t find that he’s ever even applied for any kind of apprenticeship, and he has never belonged to local 189 in Columbus, which is what he claims on his Facebook page.”

According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,000, one of which — a personal tax lien — is still outstanding.

And his question to Mr. Obama about paying taxes? According to some tax analysts, if Mr. Wurzelbacher’s gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut.

Mr. Wurzelbacher is registered to vote in Lucas County ...

The records, she said, showed he voted Republican in the March primary.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp

I saw him interviewed on MS-NBC this morning, and he also does not believe in social security.

:lol: That's too funny! Thanks for posting, Linda.

So why was he at the rally at all? He wasn't a ringer, but he was there to be a contrarian.

Apparently Joe the Plumber is NOT a licensed plumber, voted Republican in the spring Primary, and has had 2 tax liens filed against him, one of which is still outstanding. So apparently it is not just progressive taxes he doesn't like, it is ANY taxes.

He doesn't have to be a licensed plumber to do residential work.

I saw him interviewed on MS-NBC this morning, and he also does not believe in social security.

I don't think I'll ever see anything I've contributed to social security and tend to think that it creates a false sense of security for people.

So why was he at the rally at all? He wasn't a ringer, but he was there to be a contrarian.

Barack did a neighborhood walk through or something. Impromptu for security reasons.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with people of any party going to hear a candidate speak. Far better to see the person, talk to them if possible & make up your own mind.

I don't think I'll ever see anything I've contributed to social security and tend to think that it creates a false sense of security for people.

I'm 44 and I doubt I'll see anything too, but people are receiving funds from it now, so it does exist.

Barack did a neighborhood walk through or something. Impromptu for security reasons. Also, I don't see anything wrong with people of any party going to hear a candidate speak. Far better to see the person, talk to them if possible & make up your own mind.I don't have a problem with people going to a rally to make up their minds. I think that's great. But if they go when their minds are made up, just so they can ask slanted and pointed questions, whether or not they are deliberate plants is irrelevant, since that is how they function.

In this case, if he met the guy on a neighborhood walk through, it would depend on why Joe the non-so-legal, unlicensed plumber asked Obama his questions. He sounds like he is not only unable to purchase that business he referred to (unlicensed and in trouble with the IRS), but also not interested in Obama as a candidate (since he compared him to Sammy Davis, Jr. doing a tap dance).

Since the debate is over I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.