I'm so surprised at what we are talking about before and after the debate. Before the debate the speculation was all on Sarah Palin, how well can she do, can she answer the tough questions? Nobody was paying attention to Joe Biden. I think Joe Biden had his best night tonight. He came with one mission, and that was to go after John McCain, and he did it, backed up by facts. I think he did a better job tonight of tying McCain to the Bush administration than Obama did last week.That was Torie Clarke who worked with McCain and in Bush's Department of Defense.
Then there's this:
That was I think Sarah Palin did reasonably well. The death spiral she has been on for the last week, she survived. She's lived another day. She did well. But I think, when the polls come out in the next two, three days, Joe Biden won this debate.
(H/T to the Huffington Post)
UPDATE: I CORRECTED MY OBVIOUS ERROR. MATTHEW DOWD - MATTHEW DOWD - MATTHEW DOWD. Apologies all around.
24 comments:
john K: No, the expectation was that Palin would be crushed by Biden and that would be it for McCain. After all MSNBC reinforced this opinion by saying the election was over. But no, Palin was not crushed. Just the left admitting that Palin held her own means she outplayed Biden. So here is Biden, with all that experience being beaten by a person the left describes as having no experience. You lose lefties. LOL
Maureen Dowd (Bitter New York Times Harpy)worked in the Bush White House?
Don't you mean
"Matthew Dowd, who worked for George Bush's communications team"
Good night for Gov. Palin. With her credibility on the line, she lived to wink another day.
Good night for Sen. Biden. He did nothing to divert attention from the Obama-McCain matchup. A small job, handly competently.
Great night for Democrats. In the current context, the Republicans need a game-changer, and last night wasn't it.
In the longer term, the evangelicals and other hard-core social conservatives will probably keep Gov. Palin in the GOP limelight for some time, and that seems like very good news for everyone else.
John K: Republicans do not need a game changer. Republicans need to energize the base. Palin does exactly that. So register all the Democrats you want. Just like in 2004, we only need Republicans to show up to vote and we win. So letting Palin be Palin works. After all, letting Manny be Manny works well for the Dodgers (they are up on Chicago by two games).
John K: The entire Hussein Obama campaign strategy is to cause Republicans and conservatives to stay home on Nov 4th. Olbermouth has crafted his entire show around that point. To depress the Republican base. So Palin does not need to produce a game changer. Palin just needs to be Palin and the conservatives will show up just like they did in record numbers in 2004.
"Whistling past the grave yard," eh, johnk?
So John K you don’t think that McCain is interested in the “Reagan Democrats” , the independents and the undecided’s? I would suggest that when McCain was up in August and last month, that it was because Palin had charmed precisely that group. And she may again, at some time in the next thirty days. But for whatever reason, people were not impressed by what they saw of John McCain in the first Presidential debate, and the polls shifted. Actually, the pundits were calling that one a draw too, saying that Obama might have gained an edge because he was assumed to be more poorly versed of foreign policy, the nominal topic of the debate.
I think the Republican base has been largely loyal in the last few elections, but if you define the Republican base as the 22% that still think George W Bush is doing a good job, then I think John McCain is in trouble. Sarah Palin probably does energize that 22% and a few more, but apparently so far the Republican base is not a majority of people polled. The permanent Republican majority apparently isn’t.
John K: See Ed Heath, (by the way isn't it neat that the bail out bill includes benefits from your bike lobby) that is where the left continues to make its mistake. You folks think people in cornhole, Alaska (wherever the left thinks that is) or Podunk, Iowa (wherever that is) are moving in your direction. Forget it. You have been insulting these people since May. The left ignores these people. And just like in 2000 and 2004 they will show you and show up to vote simply because of the demeaning manner in which you treat Palin. So Ed, don't let me stop your bigotry. Keep at it. Those folks ain't in your camp.
John K: Remember, the goal of the left is not to drive their voters to the polls but to keep mine at home. Olbermouth has an entire campaign built around this. You tried this in 2004 (boy, wasn't Bob Schrum made to look like a fool on election day) and it backfired. So keep calling those folks racists and bigots and trying to use their religion against them. Don't forget to insult gun owners also. Its working well for me.
John K: And now you are going to take this bail out bill and require middle Americans to pay for the mortgages of acorn deadbeats. Hard working people in middle America who pay their bills on time are going to have to bail out city folk in Philadelphia and Detroit. You have no idea of how deep you guys are going to sink.
bail out is just not going to work...
Pamela Pressley
---------------------
Pamela Pressley, Atlanta, Georgia 30349 - SSN, Credit Records, Arrest Records, Court Records, Criminal Records ..
The format was skewed in such a way that this, unlike the first one between Obama and McCain, was not really a "debate" at all; it was just people standing up and repeating their talking points.
Palin is essentially GWB with glasses and a skirt. She is a thinly experienced person who is glib. Great. We need more of that, don't we?
But you shouldn't hire a Veep based on their "performance" before an audience; this isn't Toastmasters...this is the real world. Can you imagine how the leaders of North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Iran are licking their lips over the idea that this complete and utter neophyte might one day be their "equal?"
Clyde
As people keep saying, John K , you are living in your own little fantasy world. People might agree with you - I don't watch Olbermann myself because I when I have he has annoyed me, partly because he seems as pointlessly insulting as Bill O'Reilly. I think a lot of what liberals said about Sarah Palin was over the top, although a lot was spot on, too. But you keep giving us these distorted characterizations of reality, and then lashing out at the people who run this blog and others who comment here. Very rude.
Clyde, that is pretty much how I see things. I think the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese are going to be very angry about and at John McCain if he wins, for taking this incredible chance with the future of the world. And yes, Putin might send assassins (hire Arabs?) to kill McCain, so he can intimidate Sarah Palin into capitulation (whatever that might entail). Not that I want that (John K), I am just speculating on a possible future.
John K. is so confused.
This is simply not a base election, John. Republicans face a significant deficit in terms of registration compared to Democrats, who hold about a 13 point advantage.
When you factor in how Independents lean, Democrats/Democratic-leaning voters make up over 50% of the electorate. If you think Republicans can win, when they account for less than 40% of the elctorate, good for you. You'll be very surprised on Nov. 4.
And, John, I'd really like you to explain to me how you can attack Demcrats for supporting the Rescue Plan when your own candidate voted FOR IT.
Do you mind enlightening us on that question? How do you reconcile that, John?
As someone who lives in a very small town of only a few hundred people, frankly, John, I just don't buy your concern for small town folks like my family and friends.
I see your party supporting economic policies that led to this mess, that cripple the middle class and pamper people who don't need pampering.
Many members of Congress were told not to vote for it if their districts were in jeopardy. (purely political motivation) The rest had to vote for it because the Country was in a vice. What they do next will be important.
I believe Congress should have passed a 1st Emergency Bill, one they could build upon, one without the grease that seems to make Congress flow. Pork for Emergencies, not my idea of Congress doing their jobs.
$700B doesn't fit on some calculators. $700B will cause Obama to retract some promises. $700B will slide the economy to a new low.
That is a game changer, for all of us.
"I see your party supporting economic policies that led to this mess, that cripple the middle class and pamper people who don't need pampering."
jaywillie:
Bush warned; McCain warned; Even Clinton warned . . .
It's more than pampering people who don't need pampering. This was caused by people who were so greedy they cared for little. It was caused by people who were so anxious for the "free lunch" that they got it at our expense, without our knowledge, without our consent.
The "Me" generation and the "Gimme" Groups who feel no sense of responsibility, or accountability. 73M "baby boomers" will feel the change and be furious. They face enormous challenges, as will the younger generations.
Obama and friends took advantage and pushed some of this along. Frank and Dodd didn't do the job, looked the other way, and sometimes condoned. Paulson didn't scream with a megaphone the size of Delaware.
Check on it, read it, watch it. We'll live it for a long time.
Obama can't help us and might make it substantially worse.
Max... Well said.
We, the productive taxpayers, are going to bail-out people that received mortgages who COULDN'T AFFORD THEM. We're going to bail-out people who took out 100% (80%/20%) mortgages, many with ARMs... 125% mortgages... mortgages to finance their SUV, their plasma TV, their vacation(s). They thought their home was an ATM. Complicit in this whole fiasco - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, Frank, Dodd, Obama, et al.
And now, only HOURS after the Bill was signed, certain people are saying "It's not enough. We need more." Obama wants a stimulus package (aka a vote-buying package). And the leftists worship "The One".
Bush warned? McCain warned?
Hmmm...yeah, go peddle that somewhere else.
But let me see if I can follow along with you:
So, Bush was the President, saw the crisis coming and only issued a warning...the Decider decided not to act, because what could a President whose party controlled the Congress for 6 of the last 8 years possibly have done?
And McCain - the Maverick, a genuine leader - proposed no solutions, offered no reform legislation to address the problem he saw coming? The man who puts "Country First" only issued a warning?
Because, you see, what led to this didn't start two years ago when Dems took over Congress.
So, what you're saying is that seeing a problem on the horizon and having a chance to act, George W. Bush and John McCain could only offer warnings, when both were in position to take the kind of action that may have either prevented this or lessened the hit.
My point was not that the Rescue plan pampers people; my point is that conservative fiscal policies that pamper the highest income brackets of this country led to this problem, such as:
Irresponsible tax policies that have transferred the burden disproportionately onto the middle class to prop up the elite, because when you reduce revenues on the Federal level, those offsets are frequently made up by increases in local and state taxes - in a very real sense, conservative tax policies of wishful thinking and trickle down generally result in an increased tax burden for the middle class.
Support for deregulation, like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 or the Commodities Modernization act, which permitted the kind of speculation that led to the Depression and contributed to the current mess.
The invention and complete lack of oversight of Credit Default swaps.
In some respects, Max, I would agree with you, but I most certainly do not blame Democrats or Obama for this mess. Frankly, oversight of this administration by the Democratic Congress has been met with nothing but stonewalling. And many of the regulators in place to make sure someone was watching the henhouse were Bush appointments, in place regardless of what Democrats thought.
kgc, you are correct about the speedy "Gimme" more.
Congress knew when they passed the bill it would not be enough. They threw money at it, added pork, threw more money at it; AND, raised the debt ceiling beyond $11 Trillion. Was that to cover the next load of pork? (Rhetoric question . . . the answer is YES)
(banging head on desk)
Yes, jaywillie, Bush warned, McCain warned, and (I'm sure you just overlooked the "Clinton warned") . . . facts and truth don't need to be peddled. You can check on them.
As you already know, the President does not make the laws, Congress does. The President vetoes, or signs. When Congress doesn't pass the legislation, there is nothing to veto or pass . . . nothing.
Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate when this sparked into flame. I didn't know about this until 2 weeks ago. When did you learn about it?
McCain did propose better regulation, and it was pushed aside. It was deflected, and shuffled.
The man who puts "Country First" only issued a warning?
No, he tried to correct the situation, or at least slow it down. Obama, the man who wants to lead the Country, did nothing!
The problem was sub-prime mortgages, and that caused a domino effect when the housing bubble burst. Was Congress busy overseeing the Administration, not watching the Banking and Finance developments. I can hardly believe that.
I know it's difficult, but McCain really was calling for more regulation. Granted, it's unusual; but, he did call for it.
As I understand it, McCain signed onto a bill in '05 that Chuck Hagel had written. The Congress was still controlled by the Republicans, but I guess since Hagel and McCain are not that popular in the party, the bill never made it out of committee. I guess the Republicans were not convinced of the urgency or importance of the issue.
And of course there was Graham-Leach-Billey Act of 1999, passed with a veto proof majority (so Clinton signed it without yelling). Phill Graham was a major figure in the McCain campaign until he shot himself in foot, so to speak.
Meanwhile, according to the Wikipedia, the Bush administration proposed weakening regulations for the CRA in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act). It's was opposed by Democrats, but I assume not successfully.
It sounds like several people, Bush, Clinton, McCain, both warned and helped cause this crisis. By comparison, Obama doing nothing almost seems wise.
Clearly Obama is not a saint. He has taken an almost obscene amount of earmarks, he and others have taken money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, his tax proposals will leave us in some debt (if they get through a Senate which has been strangled by the Republicans in the last couple of years).
John McCain's tax proposals would leave us in a greater amount of debt, but I don't think they will get through Congress. What’s up with giving the biggest tax relief to the rich?
Max, you say that the President can not legislate, but that does not take into consideration the powers the President has in adjusting regulations (such as in the EPA) and in issuing Executive Orders. I assume also that if the President had wanted to introduce legislation between January 2003 and January 2007 he could have found a friendly Congressman somewhere.
I think a lot of the parties here had and have dirty hands, even as they also “called” for reform and oversight. But I also think it is fair to point out that the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for a four year period, when the media was running stories on predatory lending and sub prime mortgages, when Ralph Nader testified in 2000 about problems he saw coming with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when people were aware that there was a housing bubble and that bubbles burst.
I’m not saying that the Democrats are better, but conservative commenters here and on other blogs and in columns are flat blaming the Democrats for the entire mess. Both parties turned a blind eye because ( iassume) the donations were good.
I’m not saying Obama is a saint. But he is smart, clearly well educated and has spent time lecturing at a fairly conservative institution. His proposals, while expensive, appear to be designed to help people: extra money for the poorest, help on healthcare and education for everyone else. By contrast John McCain seems to be moving closer to President Bush on issues such as tax cuts for the rich.
There’s more to say, for example about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite having just awful management, mostly were actually victims of the effects of sub prime loans made by laxly regulated banks. But I am going to hang it up here
John K: Biden lost. He was supposed to deliver a knock out punch. Instead he uttered 14 lies.
One of the over-arching constants in this whole mess is that no one wanted it to stop. It was an orgy and the dawn only arrived within the last month.
Certainly the administration didn't want it to end, because it represented one of the few "industries" which was flourishing in the United States. Having been striped of most real, tangible manufacturing capability, the economic "engine" had become this constant, and ultimately pointless, transfer of faux wealth.
Even the most ardent liberal bashers must admit that the GOP mantra, ever since Reagan, has been one of deregulation and unfettered "free market" capitalism -- to the point that any proposal that might have pulled in the reigns would immediately be met with howls of dissent.
And yet we don't live, and never have lived in a free market...any more than we live in a pure democracy. Their are thousands of constraints on business and on our personal lives, most of them for very good reason. In another context we might call those things laws; the sort of things that separate us from our primate forbearers.
Max -
Just wanted to point out that though you claim Bush, McCain and Clinton warned about this coming crisis, that it's only fair to include Obama, who wrote both Paulson and Bernanke in March of 2007 about the impending crisis.
Considering Obama was sworn-in to his Senate seat in January of 2007, it's quite obvious that the freshman senator didn't take long to act or to draw attention to this.
I still have to point out that whether McCain or Bush warned of the impending crisis, they did not take action despite being in a position to do so.
The legislation McCain eventually sponsored was orinigally pushed by Chuck Hagel - it took McCain a year and a half to sign on to the legislation. That was in 2005.
The point is, despite your attempts to lay the blame at the feet of Democrats, the problem was known as early as 2003, when all 3 branches were controlled by Republicans.
Whether Bush or McCain issued warnings seems irrelevant considering they did nothing to address the situation, despite being in a perfect position to do so.
I think it should also be noted that had it not been for the Democrats willingness to work with Republicans, no deal would have been achieved this past Friday - and there's no question in my mind that something needed to be done.
Post a Comment