September 26th 2008
They’re Asking Me About The Debate?
M
artin Wisckol, who blogs on politics at the OC Register, has a bunch of GOPers and Dems lined up to answer emailed questions during the debate - and I’m one of them. Thought I’d pass along my answers here:
There were four exchanges in all.
Exchange One:
Barack Obama accused John McCain of “shredding regulations” in a way that has led to the current economic crisis. I asked our panelists if they thought this was a fair analysis.
Laer Pearce is a Coto de Caza Republican who supports McCain - but he gave the first round to Obama.
“McCain’s 2005 bill would have regulated Fannie and Freddie - he should have made a much stronger argument on this,” he said. “It is easy to counter Obama’s statement about McCain being largely against regulation by saying (1) No, he’s against over-regulation and (2) his longstanding and proven anti-corruption and anti-over-spending positions offset his positions on regulation. Also, McCain showed in his reversal on off-shore drilling that he can read a situation and change his position if need be. I haven’t heard him say a peep about not stepping up financial regulations.
“All in all, though, Obama won the first exchange. McCain’s getting better now, hitting business taxes, spending and earmarks.”
Exchange Two
Some big, basic differences on Iraq. Which attitude and approach do you find preferable? Which do you think will appeal most to the American public?
My Response: Obama is completely clueless, or thoroughly disingenuous. Or both. Al Qaeda is “resurgent” in Afghanistan only because we killed them by the thousands in Iraq, so they finally gave up, dragged their sorry selves back to Waziristan’s mountains, and started running more raids in Afghanistan. Worse, he seems fully committed to engaging in a land war in Afghanistan. He should talk to the British and the Russians about the prospects for victory if we follow that strategy. Worse yet, he apparently doesn’t understand that Pakistan has a nuke and a large militant Islamist population.
I think the American people see through Obama’s Afghanistan ploy. He understands that if he’s perceived as a George McGovern, he will lose, so he has to find a war he’s for, and he’s decided he’s for the war in Afghanistan. It’s ludicrous. If al-Qaeda wins in Iraq, they seize oil, a presence on the Gulf, and a base of millions of people. If they win in Afghanistan, they win one of the most remote and poorest nations on earth. But he’s got himself in a corner; he’s decided he’s got to find a war to support, and he’s sticking to it.
The overall discussion on Iraq and Iran showed McCain to be seasoned, knowledgeable and trustworthy, but Obama came off as sounding good but certainly not someone to trust with matters of this importance.
Exchange Three:
Which approach to Iran makes more sense to you? And Russia?
My Response: McCain had the right answer about Iran when he talked about the terrible economy and human oppression that is life in Iran today, and the need to exploit that weakness to weaken the Iranian regime. I also agree with his idea of a “League of Democracies,”‘ an idea I’ve held for a long time. I don’t trust that a young, inexperienced tyke like Obama has the acuity and depth to deal with a regime like this, and that showed as he tried to defend his position on talks without preconditions by trying to redefine the term, and redefine Kissenger’s statement instead of saying anything cogent on Iran.
On Russia, I just kept going back to McCain’s original statement on the invasion of Georgia … and Obama’s Herculean efforts, over three drafts, to finally get to the position McCain held in the first place. “I looked in Putin’s eyes and I saw three letters … K, G, B.” Classic.
Exchange Four:
If you had to pick one moment or interaction or difference that stood out to you most in the debate, what would it be?
My Response: My wife and I were discussing this and she made a point that I agree with: Obama came out stronger at the outset with clear and well-spoken answers, while McCain seemed to struggle a bit with his first couple answers. But overall, the debate was a tortoise and hare affair, with McCain’s experience and strongly held convictions overtaking Obama’s quick start, careful parsing of words and inability to state strong opinions.
All in all, Obama did better than I thought he would. For McCain, I set such a high standard, working out what I thought he should say, worrying when he missed opportunities to drive *my* points home, so I felt a little disappointed in his performance. Thinking back though and talking to others here, I think I was too harsh.
One final thought: I think it really hurt Obama when he said America has lost its appeal, that kids around the world don’t feel the same way about us as kids in earlier generations did. Gee … I haven’t noticed immigration to our country slowing down … and I bet we will notice a lot of people taking offense to that phrase, just as they took offense to Michelle Obama’s only now becoming proud of America.
# # #
More people participated in this than me, and the opinions expressed span the political spectrum. They are posted in multiple posts here.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Comments
September 27th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Laer,
I have two questions of those that watched the debate. First, did your preferred candidate win? Second, did the debate diminish or improve your opinion of the other candidate?
I’d love to see some polling data that addressed those two questions.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:47 am
It seemed an indecisive debate from my perspective. McCain did not win it in any definitive sense although he appeared more prepared to be president. That was offset by him looking like a bit of a guy who’s stuck in the past. I did not become more appalled by the prospect of an Obama presidency based on his performance.