The Battle Continues: A lengthy but in-depth look at the 2nd Presidential Debate
At the beginning of the 2nd presidential debateall eyes are on McCain. Obama hastaken a significant lead in the polls since the collapse of the economy. Tom Brokaw welcomes us in the same ominoustone that broke the news of 9/11 to us. He says that much has changed in the world since the last debate and itsbeen for the worst. And aspessimistic as it sounds, he unfortunately is correct. It’s a dire time in America as theinfrastructure implodes on itself. We need a leader, and we need them now. We’ll see if the candidates can give us one…
The first town hall question comes from an elderly man inthe front row regarding what is the worst economic fallout since the GreatDepression. Obama blames theadministration of the past 8 years. Obviously the lassies-faire economic system of the republican incumbenthas failed. The approval of theuncommitted Ohio voters running on the bottom of the CNN screen is at highestapproval of what Obama is saying. There is an immediate drop of approval as McCain takes the mic.
McCain stresses energy independence… even though that wasn’tthe question asked. He talks aboutthe burden of the debt (that was put on by Bush… who we all know is too muchlike McCain). The old man thenappeals to elderly people by sympathizing with their decreased home value. He now calls for governmentintervention in the stabilization of real estate market… ironic the amount ofgov. intervention he’s suggesting…
Sec. of treasury position- McCain jokes ‘not you Tom(brokaw)’. He suggests someone wecan trust- Meg Whitman (CEO of ebay- epitome of the capitalistic/materialisticAmerican Dream). Obama suggestWarren Buffett, and interesting choice, especially considering the distanceBuffett has from Obama’s strongest voting base (the middle class). Then again, I appreciate his admirationfor Buffett’s success.
Oliver Clark (audience member) asks what about the economicpackage is going to help everyday people. McCain responds first by attacking the greed on Wall Street and its affecton main street- a phrase that was overly played out by Palin in the VPdebate. McCain claims he tried tostop Fannie May and Freddie Mack three years ago- and he does bring up a strongpoint about the high campaign funding of Obama by the two financialempires. He says they were thematch that started this forest fire- never answering the question.
Obama starts by addressing the question, and what thepackage means for the people. Since the credit market is frozen, business’ can’t get loans, and payrollis getting increasingly difficult to pay. He now moves on to correct McCain’s claims- Obama blames thede-regulation of the financial market- and I concur with his claim (although,respectively my economic knowledge is limited). He brings up the fact that McCain’s cohorts lobbied forFannie May- so much for McCain’s original stab. He then slyly says that “you’re not here to listen topoliticians point fingers”… love it.
Obama wants to keep ordinary families in their homes, ashe’s saying this, both the men and women in the uncommitted ohio group arestrongly approving. Again, as soonas McCain starts to speak, approval goes down.
A woman asks how we can trust either of them of them withour money- obama understands her cynicism (but probably not the extremenervousness exemplified by her deliver). And then it’s the same jargon we’ve been hearing the whole campaign,health care reform, more affordable college educations etc. McCain says system in Washington is‘broken” and that he’s always been a ‘reformer’… please, he’s just been Bush’syes man. I smell a “Maverick”remark coming soon…
Tom Brokaw asks the candidates to put in order of priority:Energy, Health Care, and Entitlement (Social Security)
McCain says we can work on all three at one time. Of course! He does posses a remarkableability to avoid answering a question directly. He says they are compelling National Security Issues.
Poor Tom, has to keep reminding them that there’s a oneminute response time. Obama saysthat priorities are essential- he puts energy at the top of the list, he saysnot only is it a matter of concern for gas prices and ordinary citizens, butit’s also a matter of National Security- our dependency on the middle east isdangerous. He wants to invest 15billion on the project. He putshealth cared second, with entitlement in the third slot. Even if you don’t agree, you have toadmire that he actually answers the questions.
Again Tom reminds them of the time limit. Way to go wordy politicians. At least Obama’s words address thequestions asked.
What sacrifice do Americans have to make to get us out ofthis economic hole? McCain saysprograms have to be eliminated, calls for an examination of governmentbureaucracies. He wants tore-examine defense spending ( a refreshing thought from the republicans). “We’re going to have to tell theAmerican people that spending has to stop in America. There needs to be a spending freeze”- what does that evenmean!? Doesn’t have anything to dowith the actual question, telling us we need to sacrifice without telling ushow doesn’t solve anything! Weneed a leader!
Obama critiques Bush’s order for America to go out and shoppost 9/11. The approval of theOhio voters here is neutral. It’sno surprise as any discussion of Bush is naturally viewed more negatively thatother topics at this point- unless it’s outright Bush bashing. He says that people need to be moreenvironmental conscious and conserve energy and resources. He wants to double the peace corp. andother groups, taking some of the burden off the military to restore America.
Tom says that we’ve all gotten wasted (drunk on credit)- howis this going to be remedied? Howdo we break our addiction to easy credit? He says that everyone has to tighten their belt, that everyone has tocontribute, that a total freeze wouldn’t work as its and unfair distribution ofburden. He says that a totalfreeze (McCain’s idea) would be like a hatchet, and he prefers to use a scalpelto help those that need it, and put a greater responsibility on those livingabove average means.
McCain tries to preach his $5,000 tax credit private healthcare plan- what he doesn’t realize is that if every citizen is given 5 G’s forhealth care, insurance companies could just as easily charge $5,000 more fortheir services! We’d be in theexact same spot.
Obama seeks to clarify the different plans of the twocamps. Again, the same discussionwe heard in the last debate- Obama’s cutting taxes for the middle class, that asmall percentage of small business’ fit in the tax bracket of income over250,000 that would be taxed more heavily then they are now.
Come on boys, this is the same stuff we heard 12 daysago. The people should bedemanding more! I don’t wantrehearsed lines and talking points, let’s get down to the nitty gritty!
McCain says it’s easy to fix social security… he says weknow how to do it (then why aren’t we?!) he says he’s already taken on partyleaders on the matter in Washington, then why isn’t there a solution!? This, John, is where you tell us how wedo it! Then again, you are themaster at not answering questions…
The next question is ‘what would you do to keep congressmoving as fast as they did on the bailout plan, on other things like theenvironment, green energy etc.” McCain says that’s traveled the world with Liberman to see the effectsof green house gases… his solution: NUCLEAR POWER- he says that it’s safe andclean… they why is that we can’t dispose of it effectively, so we’re puttingnuclear waste in cement barrels at the bottom of the ocean that are expected todeteriorate within our lifetimes? How safe and clean is that?
Obama sees this as an opportunity, if we make a new energyeconomy, we can make 5 million jobs, he compares this move to the effect of theinvention of the computer- a bustling domestic job market would emerge- a pointmany middle class Americans must be in agreement with. He wittily says that McCains right, weneed energy reform, and have for the last 30 years, only problem is McCain’sbeen apart of the gov for the last 24 years.
Interesting Fact:
We have 3% of the worlds oil, and we use 25% of the worldsupply. This has got to stop.
Tom again reiterates the time limit and the light that tellsthem when they need to wrap it up. He is such an epic man, its humorous to watch him try and corral theserowdy politicos.
Obama outlines his health care plan in depth. Easing the burden on the middle classAmerican, lower premiums, better insurance from employers. He points out that McCain’s plan callsfor a taxation of health care plan, for the first time in history. He says that this is fundamentallywrong, and I couldn’t agree more. The Chamber of Commerce has said that McCain’s plan would unravelemployee health care (the chamber historically has supported republicans, sothis is an interesting anecdote). He counters that Obama would fine employers who didn’t provide healthcare for their employees- well why not! It’s better for the American people to have health care. Bottom line. The privatization of such excludes those on the other sideof the economic tracks.
Privledge, right or responsibility- health care
McCain- Responsibilty- nervous of gov. mandates, hisresponsibility and small bus. Responsibility- yet he says that small business’getting fined for not providing.
Obama says that it should be a RIGHT of every citizen of theUnited States (this earns clapping from the group gathered in my living roomwatching the debate), that it’s fundamentally wrong that his mother who spentthe last days of her battle against cancer fighting insurance companies. He seeks to eliminate these battles andtake care of the American people. The uncommitted Ohioans are loving him right now.
Next Question: How does the economic crisis affect ourability to globally peace keep? Hesays that American is the greatest crisis solver in history. He says that we’ve been to all fourcorners of the world (fact check: The world is in fact round, therefore doesnot contain corners…). Hecloses this statement out with a stab at Obama’s lack of work experience.
Obama: How didwe end up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Criticizes Bush’s assumption that we’dbe greeted as liberators. Says weowe gratitude to the troops. WE SPEND10 BILLION DOLLARS IN IRAQ A MONTH. The Iraqi’s have a 79 billion dollar surplus… it just doesn’t quite addup. He makes the historicalconnection between economic collapse and loss of military effectiveness- sayingthat b/c of our economic struggles, we’re having trouble providing foreignaide.
Brokaw shifts the focus to foreign peace keeping efforts,quoting that there are 4.5 mil. dead in African Congo since 1998… where have webeen?
While we may not have nat’l security issues, we have moralissues. Says we can’t beeverywhere all the time, so alliances are essential. Senator Obama refers to Darfur, says our help wouldn’t costmuch if we could lead the int’l community into cooperation over the eliminationthe genocide occurring there. Whata nice idea.
McCain refers to his hero Ronal Reagan. Says our national security takesprecedence over the fine individuals fighting abroad, but they come 2nd.
There’s another reiteration of things we already know, Obamawants to send more troops to Afghanistan and encourage democracy in Pakistan,offering non-military aide. Againboys, give us something juicy!
McCain feebly tries to present his policy on Pakistan. Neither the undecided voters nor I areimpressed. We are unenthused byall that comes out of his mouth.
McCain says that when he looked into Vladamir Putin’s eyes,he saw three letters K-G-B… those are fighting words John… Be careful.
Is Russia and Evil Empire- obama says they engage in evilbehavior, not the soviet union.
McCain actually says ‘maybe’. Seriously! Hecan’t even answer a yes/no question… Seems as though he’s afraid of aresurrection of the Cold War, and yet he just said Putin was a member of theKGB!
All in all, I would say that Obama was more charismatic inthis debate than the first (perhaps a confidence boost because of his risingpoll numbers) and McCain shied further and further way from answeringquestions. Perhaps this is becausemany of his ‘answers’ are coming under serious scrutiny as of late.
America loves a winner, so if the polls go up even furtherafter this debate, the fate of John McCain will be all but sealed… hopefully-the tension in between my shoulders is still intensifying, despite an increasedfaith in democratic victory. Perhaps it is my fear of the underlying racism baring its ugly head inthe voting booth, either way, we’ll have an answer in just a few weeks!
I’ll see you all on October 15th!
Any Thoughts? Iapologize for the severe length of this report, I’m just trying to give thoseof you unable to watch a legitimate (biased, yes) breakdown of the debatehappenings. Let me know what’s onyour mind.
- savannah.peterson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Delicious
Digg it
Stumble it
Reddit
Share on Facebook
Subscribe to comments
Comments
Are you a libertarian Mr.S? Should we not have tax dollars that go to public/free education? Should we not tax so that all of our roadways deteriorate? Medical care is not the same as providing a job- at all. When a person is at the their worst- usually when they're ill and headed to a doc- the journey should be affordable. Without insurance, the costs of medical procedures are 10's of 1000's of dollars.
I'm not libertarian, libertarians tend to be fiscally consevative and socially liberal. I am conservative in both ways.
I actually do think public education should be canned, if not for the fact that its a pure disaster, then for the fact that its not a power granted to the government by the Constitution. However, things that ordinary citizens cannot logically pay for themselves, like road, bridges, airports, and other economically important infrastructures have to be government funded. If a corporation built all the roads, bridges, airports, etc. can you imagie the hassle and cost to the consumers?
Health insurance on the other hand is not unreachable for the common person. Most people have insurance, the supposed 45 million that do not is easily explained. 20 million of those people are illegal aliens, since clearly they cannot and will not pay for it themselves. Besides, they get free healthcare in emergency rooms, which is another huge financial budren. the other 25 million are either young people who do not want to pay for insurance or people that are inbetween jobs and will have it within 6 months. There is not some huge crisis of uninsured people like they make it seem. Young people can get insurance for as little as $100/month with decent coverage.
Its a hugely overexaggerated problem and nothing more than another attempt at a government power grab.
that's right, if you don't have medical insurance, the medical establishment will destroy you. It would really help if we closed corporate tax loopholes, withdrew from Iraq, cut earmark spending and so on. I do think we need to get to the point where we have small centeral government, but for now, we need to reform the system enough to make ends meet. I don't know though, I think in some cases, we need to change the way we spend money instead of just spending more
Nothing that is paid for can be a right... I'd like to counter with the belief that we pay to PROTECT our rights, not to posses them. It's not a buying of rights, but a purchase of safety. Our tax dollars that pay for education and police officers go to protecting our right to primary education and fighting infringement of our rights (theft, murder etc.). I am not opposed to such action.
In terms of universal health care/socialized medicine, there are a few ways to go about it. I spent three months in New Zealand studying HIV/AIDS last winter, and got a feel for socialized medicine;
The Perks:
-Cheap Medication (no more than $3/prescription fill, even for things often expensive like HIV/AIDS cocktails)
-Care for everyone, even visitors. Anyone who gets injured on Kiwi soil can receive care, for free.
The Downfalls:
-The lines can be long, but something like cancer would get a patient to the front of the line, one wouldn't have to leave the country. It is still a problem with the system, that with more doctors and facilities could be remedied eventually.
As humans, we have the right to live, and in turn the service that can keep us alive- no matter social/economic class.
You do not have the right to reach into my pocket to pay for your needs, nor do I have the right to reach into your pocket to pay for my needs.
Or would you prefer that tax payers foot the bill for everything that is required to live? food, clothing, shelter, where does it end? Should government guarantee a job as well?
providing a universal healthcare plan would not simply be someone reaching into your pocket for their own needs. Do you think it's right for a person who volunteered during the 9/11 rescue to suffer lung cancer for serving their country in its time of need, and in repayment they have to pay 100s of dollars for some kind of care to repair it? Do you believe its right when an insurance company doesn't cover a worker's injury that someone will have to choose between whether to get their finger re-attatched or whether to get eye surgery?
A balance can be achieved. Look at all the countries with universal healthcare. Europe, Australia, etc. They're all successful, yes? Then why is it so hard for Americans to adopt this as well? In reality it would be us paying healthcare insurance companies less, and us being able to get more help from hospitals. In essence, we'd stop making the rich richer and we'd be able to help ourselves.
All of us. Not just the one "reaching into your pocket".
If you serve this country in the military, police, fire, or any other life risking position I have no problem paying for your healthcare. I'm almost 100% sure that these people do have good healthcare for life anyways, as they should. As for your other example, I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with socialized healthcare.
Universal Healthcare in Europe has been nothing but a disaster. Its cost is overwhelming, quality suffers, and countries go bankrupt. Hawaii just this last week shut down its universal healthcare for children because it simply cost too much. In Britain they are literally telling people to go without treatment for certain things and are refusing to use new cancer treatments because they cost too much. The cancer survival rate there is slowly decreasing while ours is not.
When you make the rich pay for everything, at some point the rich are gonna call it quits and either retire to a tropical island or join the rest of us rubes for the free stuff. Socialism does not create new wealth, it just moves it around like sand in a sifter until its all gone. Rich people, while you may hate them, give people jobs and the opportunity to become rich themselves. Nobody is going to give you a job unless they are rich, not a poor person, not a middle class person, not the government.
Universal healthcare in Europe has not been a complete disaster, if you look at Germany, you see a great system. Rich people continue to be greedy. Yes there are rich people who give back, but if you look at the percentage of his wealth that Bill Gates gives away, it's not that high. He may give away alot of money, but he has a ton of money, its not a big deal to him, and he gets called a saint? If you have a whole bunch of working class famalies whose amount of net worth is equal to that of bill gates, they give more to charity. He has stuff he never uses, rooms he never sees. I know it's not just him, but my point is that when you say that "Rich people are gonna call it quits" that's what they should do! What reason is there other then pure greed and lust for power is there to continue work to make money in buisness when you already have enough to live like a king for the rest of your life? None. What we need is more equality, a bigger middle class and smaller lower and upper. We need smaller buisnesses, with less power in the market.
I agree that the question of where it starts and where it ends is a big one. It's this balancing of what collective invetment in our social and civic community that is at the heart of America's democracy. We're always faced with decisions about the common good (e.g. should we chip in to build streets or have bus service, have fire protection, schools, parks or hospitals...). It's not whether it's a right for one to reach directly into another pocket, but the balance of what portion of your crop is shared for common good along with the cost of not caring for our infrastructure or each other. (When you're down - who will pick you up; is it a greater cost to institutionalize someone than give them an education to increase self-sufficiency.) Granted, it's not an easy or simple balance.
Im not into deciding innate rights and innate human traits. This is a thread on policy, not rossueau. I got another email about this thread, and so i decided to leava comment. I stand by my point in the previous comment. I beg you all to stick to the topic at hand, and present facts about this country and not wax philosophical. Based on your reasoning CEO's were born with the innate right to decide how much they should be paid. Frankly it is eerily similar to the arguments of supporters of pedophilia and rape. the world is not so crisply cut into innate and not inate is it? cuz there's enviornmental factors, learned behaviors, and culture.
Besides we owe it to this wonderful blog author to discuss policy with respect to the larger arena of the presidential election.
They were adamant alright. But take public education. If People are not educated about their rights and do not have the ability to read, they may as well not have any rights(post civil war).
And therefore, the right to education must be enforced by the government.
I see no problem with this extending to healthcare.
I don't understand the choosyness of Americans when and when not to socialize. Bail packages? SURE! diabeties prevention? blasphemes! We are no doubt influenced by media, but I really believe socializing medicine(like every other first world country on the planet) is humane, progressive and logical.
we have our priorities backwards. Seeing privliges as rights, and real rights as something unattainable.
When you have to take money out of one persons pocket to pay for your "right", its not a right. Rights, by definition, do not burden others so therefore socialized ANYTHING is not a right. Like i said, socialism does not care about natural rights or human nature which is why it does not work. You simply cannot punish success and reward lazy do-nothings and expect good results.
Other nations with socialized healthcare have proven that it is a tragic failure every time its tried. When costs get high, which they inevitably do, people will be turned away or put on infinitely long waiting lists. The actual quality of the healthcare declines and people go elsewhere like the USA. So where will canadians go to get their cancer treatment when we have our own ridiculously long waiting lists?
hmm..my right to a speedy trial should I be arrested takes money out of your pocket. I think the beauty is in the collective financial and mental burden of protecting something sacred even though it is the harder thing to do. And over time things are accepted as rights. All animals are born with a sense of what equality and freedom is , but there are no innate rights to the degree you suggest. We enter into an implicit contract to make life better for all of us and define our rights. There's no such thing as pure unfettered capitalism, or supieriority hierarchy of ideology, so please stop pretending there is.
Furthermore, I never said healthcare is a right. anywhere on my comments. I got sucked into it, because it was interesting. I think I am exacerbating it though.
A judicial system cannot be run by anyone but the government, health care can. Plus, the right to a speedy trial is in the constitution, health care isnt.
True but just because something is not in the constitution, doesn't mean that they cannot become true. Other countries have found the way to do it without changing their constitution. The constitution does not bar the formation of a healthcare system so I fail to see the point in your comment. Gotcha there on the financial point.
The Constitution was intended to limit government power by listing exactly what the government can do. A nationalized healthcare system is not in there. But you are right, that does not mean it will not be tried.
If you interpret the constitution strictly, then yes it was intended to limit the government. But technically the Constitution is mainly there to tell the government what they can't do. Not what they can. Otherwise, we would be violating the Constitution with a lot of things today.
The founders were adamant that our rights do not come from government, so how can anyone reconcile that with the idea that health care is a right that must, well, come from government?
Just because the government administers a program, it doesn't mean that the right that is then served "comes from the government." The right is innate in our humanity. The fact that the government administers a program which enables us to enjoy that right is simply what takes us out of the "state of nature" so that we may enjoy the benefits of civil society. If your house catches on fire, would you prefer that the fire department not help you put it out? If Canada attacks you, should the US military not defend you?
No one is saying that having government-run institutions is the ideal way of handling things, but without it, YOUR life as well as mine would be much, much more difficult.
How can healthcare be an innate right if it does not exist without civil society? Self-defense is innate, so we have the right to own weapons. Speaking is innate, so we have free speech. We are naturally social, so we have the right to assemble and to organized with whom we please. Going to the doctor on someone elses dime is not something we all have innately within us.
That is the problem with socialism, it does not cater to natural rights or human nature. It does just the opposite.
I like Barrack's health plan. One of the major miconceptions of mccain's health plan is that it will be cheap. Giving 5,000 in tax breaks to families who sign up for insurance will actually leave more uninsured as employers no longer have as much incentive to cover worker's health. Insurance is still exceeds ten thousand doallars a year in many cases and families will still need more support than 5,000 bucks off come every april.
I liked this thourough coverage btw. The formating made it easier to read. Thanks!