~Goji

I first noticed this during this last debate: each candidate is talking only to his party. The debate started to make sense once I realized that McCain’s position on the issues–and therefore his debating style–was that experience=good for business=knowledge=president, not precociousness. I constantly hear hesitant opinions from more conservative voters about Sen. Obama. If I was able to state it simply: his change campaign, etc. is disturbing to conservatives precisely because it is not at all interested in appealing to conservatives. On the other hand, Sen. McCain doesn’t even try to capture liberals in a direct sense–maybe by being combative to the current rules of debate that Sen. Obama seems to embody–but certainly not on the wispy issues of how trillions of dollars ought exactly to be spent.

I would just end by saying that, with this in mind, I found your analysis to be from a clearly, deeply and exclusively liberal perspective. Which is not to say bad (biased, yes).

A couple of points:

–When McCain said that if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have run 4 years ago, Obama didn’t respond by saying that “Sen. McCain so frequently votes with Pres. Bush that it is hard to tell the difference.” He responded later in the exchange, which was also about spending and independence from party, by saying that “the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.” In other words, he simply repeated his earlier charge. Repetition apparently is effective when Obama attempts it.

–The point of the sugar ethanol tariff isn’t to raise revenue but to prevent the importation of sugar ethanol. The subsidy for corn ethanol works with the tariff on sugar ethanol to effectively keep a low-cost energy source off the market. In other words, it’s a handout to farmers in Illinois and Iowa that causes everyone else to pay more for energy and food, as McCain accurately said. To suggest that McCain’s view is “nonsensical” simply demonstrates how little you know about these policy issues.

–You describe the exchange over Joe-the-plumber’s taxes as follows: “McCain simply could not respond to anything Obama said about Joe’s taxes other than to simply repeat that Obama would raise them. This even after Obama described his tax plan and specifically explained why a small business owner (especially a first-time small business owner) would not see his taxes increase under that plan.” This simply isn’t an accurate account of the debate. To the contrary, despite an avalanche of words, Obama conceded that he would raise Joe’s taxes–he said he’d have given Joe the tax cut five years ago, when he made less, but not now. Obama very much wanted to talk about raising Warren Buffett’s taxes, and tried to change the subject. Obama wanted to talk about a billionaire, not a plumber who makes $250,000 a year. But both are “rich” in Obama’s eyes, as McCain accurately pointed out. Obama similarly tried to change the subject to corporate taxes, again without addressing why he wants to raise Joe’s taxes. Apparently you misunderstood most of this exchange, because you came away thinking that Obama had refuted McCain, rather than that he had conceded he would raise Joe’s taxes. McCain wasn’t repeating an assertion, he was trumpeting the concession. And for good reason, politically speaking, if you ask me.

–McCain asked Obama for examples of times Obama had stood up to his party’s leaders. Obama provided one “example”, his vote for tort reform in 2005. As McCain interjected, the vote was overwhelming that day, and Obama voted with 71 other senators in favor of the bill. That’s Obama’s example–a vote in which his party was split and the other unanimous. The other two things Obama cites aren’t votes or instances of standing up to his party’s leadership. They’re simply not responsive. One weak example and two non-responsive positions is hard to describe as convincing.

–The exchange on abortion is one which you say demonstrated Obama’s ability to “respond on point” and McCain’s inability to do the same. This is of course the exchange in which Obama tried to turn the discussion to Ledbetter, which isn’t on point at all. The suggestion that McCain had no response to Obama’s “explanations” for his votes against protecting infants who survive abortion and against banning partial birth abortion again simply ignores the events of the debate. Obama’s response was followed by what the moderator described as a “short response.” McCain wasn’t allowed the opportunity to respond to Obama’s distortions. To conclude that McCain “had no response” is just bizarre.

–Your lack of familiarity with abortion law is amazing. Obama said that he favored a ban on partial birth abortion so long as the ban included “an exception” for the life and health of the mother, but that the relevant bill lacked that exception. Obama did not say that the bill lacked an exception for the life of the mother, and the bill did not lack that exception, and no one familiar with the issue would expect a response on the part of the exception. McCain responded briefly, as that’s all he was allowed, that “health” has been stretched by abortion rights activists to mean almost anything. This of course is not a new issue, and it’s something that Obama discussed in June. At that time, Obama said this: “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.” The next day, Obama backtracked from this position.