Prez debate #1 my review

I didn't feel surprised by anyone at last night's debate. The debate started out with economic issues and Obama sounded better with a promise for tax cuts to everyone making less that a quarter million dollars. McCain sounded less populist by offering tax cuts to businesses to level the international taxation attraction. A tax cut for me is much more interesting than a tax cut for my company who will pay my executives the difference. That is probably not true, but it takes time for these things to trickle down. McCain attacked Obama's 900 million in ear marks before his campaign comversion. Obama attacked McCain's support of Bush's budgets and war. At this point the tide started to turn.

One interesting aspect throughout this debate is that the moderator, Jim Lehrer, urged the candidates to dialog with each other. Obama complied and spoke directly to McCain who never looked at Obama. He never engaged Obama, he always looked at Lehrer, the camera or the audience.

At this point, the debate moved to its originally scheduled topic, foreign policy. This is an area where senators running for president are much more interesting than governors. McCain shined in this area. He's been to more hot spots than Obama. He's seen more history unfold. Obama was outclassed, but that's partly why he chose his running mate, Joe Biden, who will dismantle Palin next week, while simultaneously self-destructing by saying something foolish or making a pass at her on stage. But, at least, he would be a huge help to Obama in foreign policy.

Who won? Neither. It was a draw because economic issues needed to be addressed which is where Obama has a lead. They both support a bailout and I'm not sure I do. I'm still not voting for either of them. Hello Constitution Party.


Jeremy Dalton said…
I agree with most of your thoughts on the debate. I will say that McCain's condescending attitude towards Obama really rubbed me the wrong way.
Joe said…
Please don't vote for candidates of the Constitution Party. They have a good philosophy but they cannot win. By taking votes away from the Republicans all they do is strengthen the stranglehold that the Democratic Party has on our society. This does nothing but damage to the causes espoused by the Constitution Party. This is strategic madness.

Perhaps nobody has thought through the implications of the Constitution Party gaining strength and really starting to take a bite out of Republican support in future elections. The results would be horrific. The White House would be gone for good, the Democrats could get 75 to 80 seats in the Senate and possibly 300 or more in the House. Roe vs. Wade would be never be overturned and unlimited killing of unborn children would be impossible to end. The economy would be smothered by taxation, welfare would be expanded, labor unions would have the power to strangle the economy. We would have gun control, homosexual marriage, severe trade protectionism and high minimum wages which would ravage the inner city with unemployment. Economic insanity would rule the day, to an even greater extent than today.

Republicans and Constitutionalists could end up splitting the conservative vote, getting about 25% each. There would be little hope for either to win and both would see the defeat of all the causes in which they believe. The economic and social damage would be terrible and there would be nothing that could be done about it. If the Constitution Party did eliminate the Republican Party its more conservative Christian agenda would drive away centrist voters and it would very likely have a permanent 35-40% minority.

If we want to be rational, the best course of action would for members of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and the American Independent Party to rejoin the Republican Party, thereby making it more conservative and libertarian and trying to influence it in a good direction, working to select sound candidates in primaries where you can really make a difference in party direction .

The third party route is a destructive dead end which cannot have much effect until the party starts to gain strength, at which point it starts to reduce the likelihood that its ideals will ever win.
John Umland said…
Thanks Jeremy and Joe for such quick feedback.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post Joe, but I live in Connecticut which is solidly Democrat for the presidency. Hence I have the luxury of voting for a party that is more pro-life than the Republican party since neither pick will sway where Ct's electoral college votes end up.
God is good
Joe said…
I live in the very blue state of Maryland and the ultra blue county of Montgomery, but I would not support a third party campaign because I believe that this is a phenomenon which must not be encouraged.
John Umland said…
i encourage you to see my post from last week about voting for minority parties at

i'm grateful for minority parties. they tend to force the hands of the major parties.

God is good
Joe said…
I thought BO was smart alecy and condescending.

I thought McCain was a bit aloof.

I thought McCain won the overall debate...that's my story and I am sticking with it.

When I vote, I will be holding my nose.

I don't like either one of them.

I'll take Palin over Biden any day of the week and twice on a Saturday afternoon

Popular Posts