• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Final Debate Thread

What has stuck me most about McCain in all three debates is that for 40 minutes, give or take, he proclaims the federal government needs to be doing this and that just like Obama and then says he's the small government guy. A theoretical person with no prior knowledge of the two or American political parties could never deduce that McCain is a fiscally responsible, stay out peoples business conservative. Who the heck is buying this?

Also I thought McCain might have a seizure when he brought up Ayers and ACORN. Clearly he doesn't feel comfortable talking about it outside the comfort zone of rallies, in front of millions of undecided voters he's trying to sway and yet he seems genuinely infuriated about the two subjects.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I really hope McCain is okay. Despite all the crap he's pulled this election, I wouldn't wish anything bad to happen to him. In fact, I would very much like to see him stay in the Senate long enough to redeem himself - I want to see McCain 2000 back in the saddle before he retires (or dies).
Click to expand...

We'll see how many times he votes with the Democrats to break Republican filibusters...
 
ZenFountain said:
Also I thought McCain might have a seizure when he brought up Ayers and ACORN. Clearly he doesn't feel comfortable talking about it outside the comfort zone of rallies, in front of millions of undecided voters he's trying to sway and yet he seems genuinely infuriated about the two subjects.
Click to expand...


So he did bring up Ayers (and ACORN?) - bad move.

It may be great red-meat rhetoric for the GOP base, but for swaying undecideds it's a deal-killer. Oh well, McCain is between a rock and a hard place - he's basically got to try satisfying both the zany right-wing nutters of the GOP while still appealing to undecided indies. At this stage, he might as well demand that the Earth stop spinning :faint:
 
MattusMaximus said:
I really hope McCain is okay. Despite all the crap he's pulled this election, I wouldn't wish anything bad to happen to him. In fact, I would very much like to see him stay in the Senate long enough to redeem himself - I want to see McCain 2000 back in the saddle before he retires (or dies).
Click to expand...

I agree, having switched parties in 2000 for the sole purpose of voting for McCain in the GOP primary.
 
The "Joe the plumber" thing didn't work. It started out looking like a gimmick and it ended up looking like a stupid gimmick. McCain used it to prevent answering questions.

Right now, McCain will need a miracle. He'll need to catch Obama smoking crack or sumpin.
 
ZenFountain said:
What has stuck me most about McCain in all three debates is that for 40 minutes, give or take, he proclaims the federal government needs to be doing this and that just like Obama and then says he's the small government guy. A theoretical person with no prior knowledge of the two or American political parties could never deduce that McCain is a fiscally responsible, stay out peoples business conservative. Who the heck is buying this?

Also I thought McCain might have a seizure when he brought up Ayers and ACORN. Clearly he doesn't feel comfortable talking about it outside the comfort zone of rallies, in front of millions of undecided voters he's trying to sway and yet he seems genuinely infuriated about the two subjects.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think when McCain and Obama were trying to outdo each other on who would crack down on Government Spending the most, I bet most people though like I did: They Are Both Lying,just saying nice sounding crap that will never happen.
 
Brendy said:
Did anyone see the fox news poll about who won the debate? I'm curious because last time they had 80 percent of their viewers saying Mccain won the debate.

It's such a biased audience it's funny.
Click to expand...


But Fox is fair and balanced don'tcha know?! :D

(apologies for any damage to irony meters!)

I just flipped over to check, they're showing McCain 87% and Obama 11%.

During the process I was inadvertently exposed to 5 seconds of Sean Hannity, so now I need to go have a decontamination scrubdown, ugh... :(
 
dudalb said:
Frankly, I think when McCain and Obama were trying to outdo each other on who would crack down on Government Spending the most, I bet most people though like I did: They Are Both Lying,just saying nice sounding crap that will never happen.
Click to expand...
Yep. Obama listed exactly one thing he would cut. McCain listed exactly zero.

And so it was throughout the debate. Obama made a half-hearted passing feint at answering the question that was asked, but it was still better than McCain's confusion as to what the question was. I almost preferred Palin's "I'm not going to answer that," because it was at least honest.
 
dudalb said:
Frankly, I think when McCain and Obama were trying to outdo each other on who would crack down on Government Spending the most, I bet most people though like I did: They Are Both Lying,just saying nice sounding crap that will never happen.
Click to expand...
Perhaps on that issue, but overall I do think it's far more likely that Obama will be able to keep more of his promises than McCain, given a Democrat controlled congress. Control that I'm positive they will lose at the midterms if he's perceived to have reneged on too many of them.
 
Oliver said:
Yep, videos here:
Click to expand...

Actually it's in part 7 of the YouTube segments that McCain abruptly brings up Ayes and ACORN.



"I don't care about an old washed up terrorist."

Is that so Senator McCain? Seriously, how can he say something so ridiculous after Ayers has been the centerpiece of his attacks for the past few weeks? Throughout this segment he swings between angry, uncomfortable and flustered, it didn't come off well at all. McCain in a very bad position now where his most ardent supporters simply want him to kick Obama in the teeth while he's still clinging to to the idea that he's his own man, a genuine maverick that is going to win over the undecided voter his way.

This wasn't what McCain needed, if anything it only accelerated the pace at which his campaign is apparently flying apart. If he tries to shift gears into something else it will only look like another desperate move and play into Obama's attack that he is erratic.
 
McCain demonstrates his firm grasp of the issues.

"And people were able to stay in their homes, and eventually the values of those homes went up, and they actually made money ... So, obviously, if we can start increasing home values, then there will be creation of wealth."

Brought to you from the same man who said he wished that interest rates were zero.

"Sen. Obama will tell you, in the -- as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe."

The idea that nuclear power should be safe is extremism now? Well color me radical.

"He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, health."

More extremism!
 
Dr Adequate said:
The idea that nuclear power should be safe is extremism now? Well color me radical.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. I'm for nuclear power but the thought of building 40+ new reactors as quickly as possible seems incredibly irresponsible, not to mention impossibly expensive because the nuclear power industry only exist as a government subsidized enterprise. The start up capital cost per megawatt on a brand new reactor is enormous and it takes a decade, if not more to design and construct a new nuclear facility. What McCain is proposing with this nuclear idea sounds more akin to central planning in Soviet Russia; we need a lot of power so we're just going to run roughshod over all practical considerations and build a bunch of new reactors, regardless of safety and cost effectiveness? It so ridiculous, I hope Bulletin of Atomic Scientist dissects this idiocy for what it is in the next issue.
 
OneShotKi11 said:
He should be proud of the people who come to his rallies, whats your point?
I see absolutely no point at all when all the information is taken in context.

So are you saying that Mccain has not condemned people at rallies who spoke blatant harmful lies about Obama?

Yes..
or
No...

If you agree he has then why wasnt Obama able to extend him the same courtesy when asked for it. Like i said showed Obama character that he wasnt able. It was a simple thing to do and wouldnt have hurt him in the slightest. Would have made him look more like a man!

If you claim he hasnt then you just arent informed.
Click to expand...

From tonight's debate:

Obama: ... my response. I do think that he inappropriately drew a comparison between what was happening there and what had happened during the civil rights movement, and we immediately put out a statement saying that we don't think that comparison is appropriate.

And, in fact, afterwards, Congressman Lewis put out a similar statement, saying that he had probably gone over the line.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding your point...how did Obama fail to show McCain the same courtesy? Here is the public statement which the Obama campaign released immediately after the Lewis incident:

"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies.

But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’

As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Sen. Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead."
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

Obama did give props to McCain for correcting the bad behavior at his rallies, but also condemned Palin for failing to do the same, which is true.
 
Last edited:
BTW...did anyone else jump out of their chair and spit soda through their nose when McCain said "overhead projector" again?? No? Just me?
 
I think McCain looked better in this debate than the other 2 but on one point (and I'm sure there are others but I could only stand to watch for 45 minutes) is that McCain really bungled the attack ads part. For one, he went back to the Ayers/ACORN accusations and Obama responded fairly well. For me one of the most striking things about this exchange was not what they said but that when Obama responded he always maintained a calm and collected facade looking very presidential where as when Obama responded to McCain's accusations I thought McCain was ready to let the Irish temper loose.

Regarding the negative comments at campaign rallies, has anyone checked if McCain and Obama addressed the crazies at every campaign rally? (I have only seen the one clip of McCain confronting the one woman calling Obama an Arab Terrorist.) However, I have seen a number of videos where Palin never addresses this issue.
 
Looking at factcheck, I find most of the supposed factual errors to be pretty minor. One of their corrections I think is iffy is the counter to Obama's claim that he votes against the party, and they list that he voted "with the party 97% of the time." I'm not sure if that is insightful, however.

The problem with these types of stats is that there are so many votes, many without any significance, that you can't interpret them in a vacuum. I remember seeing a website earlier this summer, when the "Obama is the most liberal senator" claim first came around, that did the following analysis: how many times did each congress person vote against the democrats when the majority of the democrats opposed the majority of the republicans?

This is a more meaningful breakdown, because it gives an idea of who is breaking party ranks. Why do we care if the candidates voted with their party when the vote is 99 -1? Everybody voted with their party, but then, everyone agreed. If you want to spin it negatively, you say that they voted with their party. If you want to spin it as a positive, you say that they voted with the other party.

The real question is who is breaking ranks when the parties are opposed to each other, defined by what the majorities go for.

In this analysis, Obama was found to have broken ranks about 1/3 of the time. That put him about in the middle of the democrats. Meanwhile, McCain only sided with the democrats about 9% of the time. Sadly, that also put him in the middle of the republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom