Tonight John McCain made his case against Barack Obama’s failed economic policies and doomed to fail foreign policy. “That one,� (there is already a website) as John McCain affectionately referred to Obama, is responsible for blocking legislation proposed by John McCain two years ago that would have placed tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That one was also the second highest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae money in history. That one wants to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that have employees. John McCain rightfully countered with “lets not raise taxes on anybody today.� That one has never taken on the leaders of his party on a single issue. Let us look at their records.
“That one” has opposed nuclear energy, a crucial element in our endeavor for independence from foreign oil. That one has recently spoken out against drilling off-shore, suggesting we ought to put more air in our tires. That one has even voted for a Bush Administration energy bill, full of pork barrel ear marks and “goodiesâ€? for the oil companies, while John McCain voted against it. That one would pass a health care plan that would impose fines if people don’t get the insurance that the government thinks you should have.
“That one” was wrong about McCain’s successful policy of the surge in Iraq. Instead, that one would have brought our troops home in defeat. That one was wrong about Russian aggression in Georgia. That one was wrong when he publicly announced to the world his foreign and military policies for the future regarding Pakistan. That one would meet with leaders of terrorist states without preconditions.
“That one” has been friends and neighbors with some very shady people, including Tony Rezko (recently convicted on political corruption charges), Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist who held Obama’s political coming out party in Chicago), his Reverend Jeremiah Wright (known for preaching radical hatred of whites and America), and anti-semitic neighbor Louis Farrakhan. There is not much time left before the election. America, you have the facts before you, now make the right choice.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Well,I’m voting for “That One” - because as I recently found out this past year, $5,000 for family health insurance is a joke. Try $12,000.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:30 am
[...] That One Right Pundits - Lafayette,CA,USA That one has been friends and neighbors with some very shady people, including Tony Rezko (recently convicted on political corruption charges), … See all stories on this topic [...]
October 8th, 2008 at 2:52 am
you would think mccain would have some intelligent advisors who can do the math and present coherent workable policies to him. But yeah the 5000 for health care and taxing workers employer health insurance is such a nonstarter. Doesn’t he see this? Why does he so stubbornly stick with a poor policy that is stuck at the gate? lapse in judgement.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:11 am
The most telling point of the whole debate was that NO ONE asked about Obama’s association with Ayers. No one in the audience, no questions from the internet, and none from the moderator.
This is a very strong indicator that the Ayers smear simply doesn’t have traction.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I love it. You right-wingers are trying to turn “That One” into a positive - trying to spin sh!t into silk. It’s yet the latest evidence of how out-of-touch you nutters remain. Yeah, referring to a U.S. Senator and the future first black president as “that one” is a real winner (especially for those undecided voters and Independents). I think you should stick with it. Please. Stick. With. It.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
CG, Brian, I guess you’re both of the mindset that someone should pay for all your expenses ?
Whats next ?
You’re mortgage ?
Oh, no, wait…
Never mind.
———————————————
Stagolee, it just means that the moderator didnt feel it was important.
Those people had little to no control over the selection of the questions.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
cg and Brian: I have to echo micky’s sentiment. The whole point of both Obama’s plan and McCain’s plan is to make healthcare more affordable, not free. If health insurance is $12,000, then giving $5,000 will almost cut the cost in half. That would help me out a great deal. But a lot of people out there want a hand out and don’t understand the detremental effect of large government. I know people who have worked in the federal government. Billions of dollars just disappear and are unaccounted for every year. Is that who you want running the health care system.
What is amazing is that somehow Obama has turned all the sh#tty liberal ideas into silk. I can call him “that one” and feel fine about it because he is a dufus, and I DON’T CARE IF YOU LIKE HIM. I can call all the presidents I don’t like “that one.” Only crazy brained double standards liberals would try to make this negative spin.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Stagolee, there 100000 questions posed over the internet and Tom Brokaw decided which got asked. I’m sure people asked, it’s just Brokaw stuck to the issues.
As for That One, it’s kinda like a grandfatherly way of pointing at a younger man. If anyone took offense at that, well, you must lead a very difficult life being that freaking sensitive.
In any case, take a look at the polls today?
Reuters: +1 Obama.
Zogby: +2 Obama.
Gallup: +11 Obama!!!!
Mind you, Gallup had it +10 for McCain exactly one month ago.
Well…someone is wrong.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Themain reason I’m going with Obama isbased on foreign policy. Pakistan in particular. As you might recall, Bush announced TO THE WORLD that henceforth the US would hunt down its enemies, and holdfully accountable any andall nations which harbor them.
Bush was 100% correct on that issue. One states this policy PUBLICLY, and PUBLICLY proceeds to make good on this promise, to deter terrorist harborers like Pakistan. At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason we need this kind of PUBLIC deterrence is that without it, more terrorist bases will sprout, some of which we will fail to detect in time to act.
Second, the al Qaida/Pakistan situation is by far the more serious threat. The militants have fully infiltrated Pakistan’s government
and military. Pakistan has over 100 nukes, plenty of fissionable material, and the facilities to make more. Iraq is many years away from being any threar,much lessthiskind of threat. Could Iraq’s government some day become a threat, either directly or indirectly by failing to root out al qaida bases? Of course. We would act later, which is not ideal, and possibly by more indiscriminate bombing rather than ground forces if we are fully committed elsewhere, but such is life when you have limited financial resources and a long “to do” list with far more pressing matters at the top. It’s called prioritizing.
Some might say how could you violate Pakistan’s sovereignty to go in and take out the bad guys, when they are our friends and have helped us. Well, letting a terrorist base flourish in your country doesn’t cut it. See the above Bush rule.
Others might say you can’t do this because Pakistan has nukes. I say so what. If you back off for that reason, then you effectively cede Waziristan to Bin Boy and his heirs, who will likely someday get all or some of Pakistan’s nuclear materials. Plus, you encourage Iran, and everyone else to develop nukes.
By contrast, if we keep Bush’s PUBLIC promise, and waste OBL in Pakistan rather than waiting another 5 or 50 years for the Pakistani government to do what they clearly never will do, we send a message of strength at a time when we can completely destroy any nation which nukes one or two of our cities. Horrible, yes, but do you want to wait until al Qaida or host Pakistan becomes able to destroy 50 of our cities? I do not like these options, but some times one must take a big risk now when failing to do so guarantees facing worse outcomes and longer odds later on.
One candidate sees this. One apparently does not.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Justin, I just think that it was a poor choice on McCain’s part to refer to Sen. Obama as “that one” during a presidential debate. It showed a real lack of respect for the opposition as well as a lack of civility. Had the roles been reversed, we’d be discussing how rude Barack Obama is to disrespect an elder that way, would we not? In fact, it wasn’t that long ago we were all over him for referring to Sen. McCain as “John” (gasp!) But “that one” is just blatantly rude and it was a mistake, plain and simple.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Also, welcome back micky!
October 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Justin, McCain referring to Obama as “that one” rather than “Mr. Obama,” or “he,” or whatever, is strange. It was a mental glitch. He probably meant to say something like, “that person over there,” but his thoughts or his words got mixed up. It is sort of a non-issue, in my opinion.
But both sides have jumped on it. It is the Silly Season.
I thought McCain came off as a crotchety old man. Obama had trouble relating to the people, he seemed sort of standoffish. The most telling moment was when McCain said that health care is a responsibility, while Obama said that it is a right. This distinction underscores the differences between the right and the left.
So what do you think? Is health care a responsibility, or a right? If it is a responsibiity, then whose responsibility it is? The government? Each individual’s? The insurance companies?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Tom,
I have very little (if any) insight into the Pakistani problem, but what seems to me Obama is missing is the “actionable intelligence” part. I will gladly stand corrected, but my opinion on this so far has been that in order to obtain such intelligence - on whereabouts of OBL and such - reasonable relationship with Pakistani Army/Intelligence is required. It is uneasy alliance for both parties, to be sure, but open confrontation isn’t the answer, either. By sidestepping the issue of how to obtain such “actionable intelligence” without help, or even just lack of interference from the Pakistanis, and focusing exclusively on the military aspect of “taking the terrorists out,” Obama has exhibited the typical folly of many Democrats, who will say anything “tough” just for sake of sounding tough.
This is just personal opinion, though - clearly, I can’t back it up with any real facts about the true nature of operations in Pakistan.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Micky and Ignatius Reilly:
I understand your points about there likely being thousands of questions submitted through the various channels, but I believe that had there been a significant portion of those focused on the Ayers smear then Brokaw would have been compelled to include it out of respect for the populace.
I see two possible conclusions:
1) There _was_ a sizable influx of Ayers smear-related questions and Brokaw chose to overlook it and omit it from the debate, or
2) There was NO NOTABLE INFLUX of Ayers smear-related questions and it was deservedly omitted from the debate.
I’m obviously leaning toward #2.
You?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Stagolee, I’m not sure. There’s also the possiblity that it’s really hard to ask about Ayers, etc., in the format of a good debate. The question would be, “How do you justify your relationship in the past with radicals?” That comes off as more of a tough question for an interview, since it’s not really one that leads to fair discussion in a debate format.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
“The question would be, “How do you justify your relationship in the past with radicals?â€? ”
Would McCain have to answer the same question, since that’s how debates work?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Obama’s biggest supporter pompously calls him “The One.” It’s something that cuts both ways.
http://gothamist.com/2007/12/09/oprah_calls_oba.php
October 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Demitri, you make a good point. You can’t really phrase a question like that without giving a huge advantage to McCain, who doeesn’t have any communists/terrorists in his past. I think that’s probably why we don’t hear those questions in debates.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I was way ahead of them all. I have called Obama “The O” for a long time now.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“The O�
The more conventional mathematical notation would be “The 0″.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I have to agree with cg and Brian. The $5,000 healthcare plan is very very dumb idea. If you look at health insurance costs today, yes, the employee typically pays about $5,000 per family. But the employer pays their share of $7,000 to $10,000 on your behalf even though it doesn’t show on your W-2.
By shifting that cost from employers to employees and give you $5,000, net-net, the employers save $2,000 to $5,000 per family. Another tax-break for the employers.
Now, if they do tax the $5,000, your after-tax money would reduce to $3,500.
Lastly, the biggest benefit for the employers is they no longer obligated to future health insurance cost increase. If the health insurance goes from, let’s say $15,000 to $20,000 per family, you and I would have to pay make up the different. Not your employer because they have paid you $5,000, remember!
A very smart plan, indeed, for the employer, that is.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Demitri,
It can be both. Most people say “O” when they mean “zero”. But I like the way you think.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I noticed a lot of Conservatives today washing their hands of McCain after he proposed another $300 billion bailout program.
I wonder if we’ll see the same sentiment here on RWP?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
” Brokaw would have been compelled to include it out of respect for the populace.”
Who says so ?
Otherwise I could think of few more questions that would of been fair to McCain.
We deserve to know why BO always seems to trace back to radical lefists.
First Gwen, then this, hows that for a #2 ?
Its bullsh*t. You would think we could get a moderator for once that has some commitment to the middle or a least does not have a left leaning history.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Ben, you miss the point of govt. mandated standards on the doctors and HMOs along with the mandate on the people.
Great plan ?
Not if the govt. is running it.
No thanks, let me have my own money and rights over it and my body and I’ll take my chances.
The odds are that the private sector will do better as it always has.
By the way, didnt BO call health insurance a commodity ? Do we want to open the door to government dictating the directions and actions of our commodities ?
Tell me one point in history where they have had any success in doing so ?
Take a look at our schools and the govt. record of infrastructure maintenence.
And lets not forget one very important thing here.
Most people without medical insurance choose not to purchase any only because they opt for a set of wheels or a wide screen. And then when they do get sick they hold their hand and run to the ER.
Or vote for Obama