Debate 3

Bob Schiefer ran the best debate yet.

The problem is this should have been the FIRST debate. I'm reading various blogs and I have to say, unlike them, that Obama's going 3 for 3.

I dont believe a word Obama's saying but he has me hoping he lives up to them.
- What I mean by that is, Obama talks a good game. He'll raise taxes, the economy will suffer longer. But it could be even WORSE if he pulls a post election surprise. We all saw how Nancy and Harry lived up to their election promises.

 

Schiefer did outstanding, I agree. These two candidates have demonstrated a need to be brought back to the call of the question, and as best he could, Schiefer did that.

They both put in their message, McCain did better than previously, but did this make any difference to undecideds? If it wasn't a debate for the presidency, and the country in a $hithole right now, I'd laugh at the post-debate commentary I'm listening to right now.

Regardless of what these two talking heads spouted tonight, we've all got good ol' American ingenuity going for us, adapt and overcome, regardless of party affiliation - eventually we'll re-invent ourselves and grow. It may take a few rough years, but we'll do it if history is any indicator.

I only hope that I may keep Setanta in the interim to watch FFC.

 

Nice edit and bolding, 'fog. Geez. HE'LL RAISE TAXES!!! Heaven forbid Americans are asked to pay their way in this country. If you want to fight multiple wars and bail out banks, then paying taxes is an obligation to the cause and to future generations. Trickle down has sure worked well these days, eh?

 

In case you didnt notice, but you wont admit it if you do.... this banking crisis is 'trickle up'.

 

In theory.

 

Theory, hell... there's no 'theory' about it. Between CRA II. ACORN v Banks and FM/FM it was the perfect storm.
- edit: No I am NOT ignoring the idiot Wall St securities analysts. We already covered that. They SHOULD have been allowed to FAIL and go broke. Trouble is we forced it on too long and the deficit between mortgage values and equity owed just got too big.

Watching Mike Huckabee critique McCain on the debate {paraphrased}: "He left the 7-10 split... but dont bet on him not picking it up"

Well, I aint gonna bet ON him picking it up, either.

Notice that as a Pres candidate, Huckabee makes a great TV host/analyst.

 

I respectfully maintain theory. Because who receives the bailout/rescue money? Who is receiving the injections of liquidity? Those folks represented by the aforementioned organizations (which just so happen to be Democrat influenced)? The DOW dropped further today primarily b/c consumer spending indicators dropped below forecasts...then as a remedy, why don't we truly peform trickle up and cut every citizen a few checks to spend. 250 million citizens divided by 700 billion - dang, I like that idea.

There's plenty of blame to go around, including to all political parties for their hand in this mess (Fannie/Freddie, deregulation, asshats with MBAs) and you're too smart not to recognize this situation wasn't caused by any single party. Your insistence on a political blame for this situation debases your argument.

The real culprit in my opinion: greed. Short term greed. And greed knows no political affiliation.

Also, maybe the movie "Wall Street" is to blame as well.

 

Nevzter, this is the first I've gotten in on the economy conversation, but spending is exactly what got us into the situation we are in. I agree, because of GREED. Unfortunately, in this country, we have to compete with our neighbors.

If we, I include myself, could actually save instead of spend, we wouldn't have gotten into the mess we are in. This may be oversimplifying it for most of the board.

 

I skipped this one in favor of the USMNT match and despite the loss, I'm pretty sure my life is the better for that choice.

Heard a Brit on the news not long ago and he was asked how he felt the candidates would do in their system, having to go before Parliament. It was interesting in that he pointed out our debates aren't even debates but more like elongated press conferences with some interruptions. Given the way all parties have avoided the questions and spun their rhetoric, I'd have to agree with him.

 

Fwiw, the dude wasn't smug at all. And I'm in no way trying to imply their system is either better or more desirable. Just merely pointing out that our debateless debates are pointless. You could air McPalin and O'Biden stump speeches and come away with the same thing as any of the debates.

I think the better question is what scares you more, a dem sweep with a possible fillibuster proof Legislature or "4 more years of Bush" (if you buy that). The former scares me far more than the latter but none of the above gives me much cause for optimism.

 

I'll have to agree with Don on this one, I'm excited to see what either man can do if elected. I think the attitude of most people I talk to is that they are just ready for something different and are excited for the election.

 

Don, I'm crying right now because I finally, completely, agree with you on your last three posts on this thread. :banana:

 

Don, I actually disagree with your last point here - I don't think we are in for better times. You mentioned Ford - and I can't help but think of the Ford years and the post-Vietnam doldrums that the US endured. I think the Republicans have been gearing up for 2012 for a long time, and they will 'snipe' at Obama for a plodding retreat from Iraq, an inability to balance the budget, and for not following through on many or any of his platforms. The Bush administration's problems are all (in)conveniently being punted away to the successor while they are all at critical mass, making it near impossible to actually turn things around in a single term. As for fringe extremeists, I don't think that they are going anywhere, I think they get more emboldened as time goes on and as the media gets more sensational.

I hope you're right, though.

 

I agree 100%, if Obama is elected and can not follow through on anything that he has promised, he should be held accountable and not re-elected. but talking about 2012 when we haven't even seen the results of 2008 is a little premature.

 

Pre-Rove, I'd have agreed with that. Post-Rove, I'm afraid their ulterior motive will be to do nothing and make the Rep Pres look bad. Afterall, even though the Dem majority Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush, they are going to make gains in this election. The last decade would indicate that divisiveness is the new formula for winning and trumps such trivial things as job performance.

 

Republicans will come back in 2012 because there will be no alternative. Dem Pres. and Dem Congress means one thing for almost certain, blame the Dems!

 

well that's better than blaming ourselves.