This map from the New York Times is a great indication of the swing of the country from when Kerry ran in 2004. This illustrates how effective the Democrats' strategy ended up being.
Barack Obama owes his Presidency to three major things:
First, the economy. The economy reached a point of failure on the very day McCain announced, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." This shifted the middle in Obama's favor and the daily tracking polls never looked back. Unfortunately, neither has the economy. Mr. Obama has a large plate of problems to digest in his first few months. It will be a true test of his ideas.
Second, the ground game/fundraising effort from the Obama campaign. This election is historic in many ways. One of these was the enormous amount of money raised by small donors by Obama. Obama ended up with THREE MILLION individual donors bringing in a whopping $650 MILLION dollars. It is very difficult to win an election running against those types of numbers. Revisions to campaign finance reform will likely result, due to this.
Third, Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. The person not getting credit where credit is due? Howard Dean. Howard Dean implemented his 50 state strategy in February of 2005 when he became the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. When he first announced his strategy he was met with harsh criticism from many in the Democratic party. However, once the 2006 rout of the Republican Party became evident, many began to support the idea. It was this borrowed GOP post-Watergate idea that sealed the deal for President-Elect Barack Obama. Man I love saying that...
I will leave out what I believe is the fourth reason, Sarah Palin, out of respect. I am endorsing Sarah Palin in 2012 for the Republican Presidential nomination so I cannot, in good conscience, list her as a reason.
Onward to January 20th, 2009 - The End of an Error:
For many, "still President" George W. Bush is a lamest of lame ducks. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has announced that he will make the next 70+ days of his Presidency about transition. I admire his stance on this and he should be praised for his dedication to the seating of a new First Family. Unfortunately, his transition rhetoric is not without flaw. "Still President" Bush could not leave office without attempting to scare the pants off the American People. Bush warning that terrorists “would like nothing more than to exploit this period of change" is another Rovian attempt to scare the American People in a time of triumph and euphoria. Perhaps he is not wrong in doing so. We should never be complacent again.
Sometimes the whining from the GOP gets to an all-time idiotic level that makes most of the American public throw up their hands in disgust. This is one of those times.
The GOP could have taken this opportunity to claim they helped America by not passing this bill. 95 Democrats could have joined them in this cause. Democrats could have said the legislation did not contain enough regulation or enough punishment for Wall Street executives that got us into this mess. The GOP could have said their constituents were upset and did not want them to vote for it. This didn't happen.
Instead, the GOP blamed the Democrats for the bill not passing.
What? Did I hear that right? I did.
The GOP is blaming the Democrats for this bill not passing because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving a speech telling the TRUTH?
Partisan Politics Aside:
Now we've heard from both sides that they want partisan politics & presidential politics off the table when voting for this bill. Because of this stance by the American people, John McCain suffered his worst poll numbers in a long time after the debate. Now, because of the bailout not succeeding, it is fair to say that he can re-stable his white horse. This is the fault of the GOP, hands down.
Most GOP & Democrats have resisted this bill since it's inception, as they should have. The lack of oversight and regulation by the original Paulson legislation was horrific, irresponsible and downright wrong. The Democrats knew this and immediately pounced on it. Good for them and for the fiscal Conservatives in the GOP that did as well. Though they did it for different reasons, the end result was the same.
Working Together:
I hate the term "Bi Partisan" as it has been an oxymoron of stupendous proportions in the last 8 years (sorta like Military Intelligence). This wasn't about bipartisanship, it was about political posturing during an election year. This is why so many democrats said no to the bill. Nancy Pelosi did not want the democrats owning this bill, period. I don't blame her. She wanted 2/3 of Democrats and 2/3 of Republicans to vote for this bill. There is VERY GOOD reasoning for this. She wants the Democrats AND the Republicans to own this equally. The way it was setup was to show that not everyone agreed with it, but that it was agreed upon on both sides of the aisle.
The Republicans did not vote NO to this bill because their feelings got hurt. But, stupidly, they are saying they did! What a crock! They have now taken a giant foot and inserted it directly in their asses because of this. Their original plan did not work so now they are crying foul on the Democrats. I cry foul on the GOP!
The Plan & Political Posturing:
The original plan of the GOP was to get Democrats to vote for this bill and then have the Republicans not show up so that later they could say, "We have nothing to do with this bill that George W. Bush and the Democrats have signed on for." A clever tactic that Nancy Pelosi saw right through. Nancy Pelosi saw that the only way for this bill to not cost the election for either party was to have bi-partisan support as well as bi-partisan negativity. This would create a political environment that would not only allow the bill to pass, but would also make it so that neither Presidential candidate was affected.
It worked perfectly.
Pelosi did her job on the phone with this one. She knew exactly how many FOR and how many AGAINST we had on the Democratic side. She knew this and adjusted where necessary. She knew the possible plan of the GOP and made sure the numbers on the Democratic side were right. The Democrats would not own this bill alone, PERIOD.
The Speech:
The day of the vote was like any other vote day in Congress with something a little bit different. It seemed the Republicans and Democrats were actually on board with what was happening. There was no feeling of smugness permeating the hall of Congress. There was no stink of ill feelings towards one another. This was all smoke and mirrors.
The GOP had never planned on signing off on this bill, and all they needed was an excuse. Nancy Pelosi gave them one.
Nancy Pelosi got up to give a speech that was full of truth. She let Congress know exactly why we got into this mess and that we should never let it happen again. She attempted to shame congress into doing the right thing. Unfortunately, thinking she could shame a Republican into understanding the truth was a mistake.
The Republicans saw their excuse and used it. They still voted JUST enough to lure American into believing it was Pelosi's fault it didn't pass. Thanks to Barney Franks (who happens to be one of my favorite congressmen), it didn't work.
Barney Franks, an outwardly gay congressman, has been at the forefront of the financial crisis for quite sometime. He is one of the first to dismiss Henry Paulson's plan and has fought diligently to get a bill passed that would keep Americans from losing jobs in the next few months. He's smart, funny and angry. His reputation as a hardball is only outweighed by his knowledge of the facts in any debate. This man knows what he is doing
Thursday:
Not only are we having a historic debate on Thursday, but we may see another version of the bailout plan up for a vote. Watch for major political posturing and for the Democrats to cave in as usual. Watch for the Democrats balls to shrink, voices go squeaky and dicks go limp.
They may have won this round...but the GOP knows how to be angry...and right now they are angry. If Democrats perform as they normally do when the GOP is angry...I expect them to give in to whatever they want.
The debate last night was one of anger vs. level headedness. Many times it was also a debate on lies vs. the truth. While I feel Obama had a better night in terms of truth, McCain showed his strength on Foreign Policy in a haughty and, according to some, in a disrespectful way. McCain seemed to force himself to not look Obama in the eye even once the entire debate. I doubt any Republican out there will feel that McCain was too haughty and dismissive of actual facts. On the other hand, I am a Democrat who feels Obama could have done so much more, and didn't.
The polls showObama winning by at least 1% amongst all the ones performed. I disagree with the polls.
Obama vs. McCain Round One:
While I was hoping to give this debate three rounds, it simply wasn't meant to be. As the debate begins Obama comes out strong on the bailout plan:
"No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.
No. 2, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.
No. 3, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.
And, No. 4, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country. Read more about the expectations"
With McCain siding with the House Republicans' initial plan for less regulation, less corporate taxes and lowering the capital gains tax it is apparent he doesn't realize that that is the exact recipe that got us in this mess in the first place.
"And (I) have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking about failures on Main Street"
It is obvious how out of touch McCain is with a statement like this. While "Main Street" can take some of the blame for our crisis, it is, in the end, the investment banks & lending institutions that approve loans. The crisis roots in their inability (thanks to no regulation) to vet the borrowers' ability to pay timely as well as passing around debt with far too little care on what happens in the long run. It is also failures of the Bush Administration to put taxes on shipping jobs overseas to encourage more growth at home. Adding to this the investment banks lack of oversight and extreme corporate greed, you have a recipe for the disaster we currently have. These three factors played a roll in our current crisis and McCain just doesn't get it. While he claims he wants oversight, his actions speak to the opposite. Let's not forget that McCain didn't even bother to read the 2 and a 1/2 page Paulson document until Wednesday of last week. He was making opinions on the crisis situation as if he had read it, but when pressed admitted he would have to get back to the reporter.
It is also important to note that in the opening question McCain decides to tell his first lie of many:
But there's also the issue of responsibility. You've mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.
One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.
And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.
Not only is this a bold faced LIE...but it is so widely known to be a false claim, that this, once again, shows how out of touch with the truth John McCain is.
It is also important to note that McCain claiming move oversight on Wall Street prompted Obama's first invocation that John McCain is "absolutely right." While I know some debate analysts will claim this is a bad debate tactic, I disagree. I think one candidate showing that they have the ability to think the other is right on some issues is noble and NORMAL. John McCain, I believe, did not claim Obama was right on ANYTHING the entire night. Not only is this the "Old Boys" way of thinking, it speaks volumes on his current stance on bi-partisanship. This is a different McCain from 2000. This McCain continues to scare me.
After a few minutes of all talk and no substance by both candidates, McCain had this gem to lay out to the American people:
"You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control."
Now, I don't know if the bears needed their DNA studied or not, but what I do know is that John McCain himself voted FOR the legislation containing this study. Again this shows that McCain continues to use poor judgement in his attacks against the 'system.' A clear point that needs to be made is the change in John McCain since the year 2000. He is no longer the maverick voting against his party. He has gotten more conservative as he's gotten older, not less. John McCain outright panders to the "evangelical right" (as an example) even though he's made direct attacks against them years ago. My real fear is, "Which John McCain do we get, old John McCain or the older John McCain?"
Obama: Let's just be clear. What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we're giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage. I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of it. Now let me be clear on this one. The plan Obama currently has for public view does NOT appear to "pay for every dime of it." Obama did an excellent job of fending off the "Raise your taxes" attacks from Mr. McCain. He did so without admitting he is raising taxes (on the rich). Great debate tactic and kept the lie of earlier at even. While Obama DOES pay for the new projects that he proposes he fails to let the public know that he is inheriting a $700+ billion dollar deficit (thanks to Bush, the former rubber stamp congress and Iraq) and Obama needs to update his plan to account for the deficit.
Don't get me wrong, I feel Mr. Obama will do this but he needs to get more specific on spending cuts, capital gains tax increases, and more importantly, taxing companies who ship jobs overseas. This worker tariff tax could very well solve our national debt over the next few years. And if it didn't, it would create a huge amount of new American jobs, give us a better sense of national pride in our own products and give the world the view that we can still do it on our own now and then! Allowing companies like former CEO, Dick Cheney's Halliburton, to move their home base to Dubai just to avoid taxes should NOT BE ALLOWED. Especially when this company was given NO BID CONTRACTS in Iraq to do work on behalf of the American people.
McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and his tax plan actually rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas. McCain's tax plan gives all corporate players tax cuts without any stipulations that give punishment to corporations for shipping jobs overseas. I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that giving Corporations tax cuts should come with stipulations. If the government is scratching YOUR back...then you should be scratching the American people's backs in return.
Debate Tracker: Round 1 on Economics goes to BarackObama.
McCain vs. Obama Round Two:
I ended up having to split this debate up into two rounds instead of the three I originally wanted. It was a little less than halfway through that the debate shifted to Foreign Policy. This is where McCain gets angry and nasty and Obama is too timid on some responses.
I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Our initial military success, we went in to Baghdad and everybody celebrated. And then the war was very badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we've got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it. And finally, we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded.
While McCain centered his Iraq policy around the Surge, Obama maintains the position that it was the poor judgement of leaders in Congress, like John McCain, that got us into a war based on lies in the first place. Unfortunately, the presentation by McCain was sharper and I think resonated a good knowledge on the subject.
Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.
Let's be clear here. The surge was not and is not a complete success. While there was not an increase in sectarian violence, there was not a lessening of it, either. Never forget that we are paying off the Iraqis to not fight. A move that is politically motivated to help maintain peace until after the election. The sunnis and shi'a are still on the brink of a civil war. While I feel the surge was a great initial strategy, the list of goals originally proposed has still to be completed in a timely fashion. The Sunni Awakening has a lot to do with helping the short term success of the Surge appear to work. However, it hasn't. What it DID do was reduce U.S. troop death averages. I am totally glad it did, but we need to be thinking of the Iraqis as well as ourselves in this conflict. With over 100,000 Iraqi's dead and the countrymen and women still maintaining a 300-500 person death toll per month since the surge, a phased redeployment is obviously needed to get the Iraqis to stand on their own.
Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.
Despite the truth being on Obama's side throughout much of the debate, John McCain still came off better when it came to foreign policy. Unfortunately, the McCain lies appeared to be truth and the likelihood of normal America researching the truth is very low.
Because of his haughty and almost angry debate style John McCain lost the economic battle against BarackObama. Ironically, the very same debate style is what led Mr. McCain to win the second round of the debate. Mr. Obama came off as cerebral, but he was not tough enough to call out McCain's lies and didn't have enough substance to offer himself.
Debate Tracker: Round 2 on Foreign Policy goes to John McCain
Conclusion:
In my opinion, last night's debate was a tie.
Obama showed his strength on the economy and silenced the critics who felt he would be severely beaten on Foreign Policy. While Mr. Obama did not win the debate on foreign policy, he showed that he has a plan and will make sure it gets executed. Mr. Obama did a far better job at telling the truth than his opponent. While some figures were off and "families" should have been used instead of "people," the list was very minor. Due to this, I believe Mr. Obama showed himself to be very presidential and maintaining a presidential sense of integrity and gave him Round 1.
John McCain showed his strength with several harsh and haughty responses. A lack of direct contact with Mr. Obama, which some may have seen as disrespectful, I saw as a smart move to keep Mr. Obama on the defensive during the entire foreign policy segment. It was this harshness 'street fighter' mentality that helped him in the end. Most of the American people will likely see him winning the debate on Foreign Policy. While I do not feel his tactics are right for (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb) Iran & the rest of the world, there is no doubt he is driven in his desire to resolve foreign affairs. Mr. McCain did an excellent job of making Mr. Obama seem almost too reserved at a few key moments later in the debate. Mr. Obama needed to win at the podium, not in the fact check later. This is why I give John McCain round 2.
Congratulations on both Candidates for winning a round. I have major policy differences with John McCain, but I'm not so blind that I cannot see where he performed well.
What's next?
On Thursday, October 2nd, 2008, VP candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will participate in a debate that will likely cover a large amount of topics. While most of the country is anticipating a blood bath, I am not. Sarah Palin will show up poised, knowledgable, and confident thanks to McCain's strong finish last night.
Do not be fooled into believing she will mess up. Instead, focus on her policies and the way she could shape the country. It doesn't take long to realize that Sarah Palin is more like George W. Bush than even McCain is. Her lack of experience is real, but she will be trying to hide that the entire evening. I feel Palin will be successful unless the moderator actually follows up on questions and encourages answering the question with something other than the memorized responses.
The problem with that is that Biden will be put into the same spot. While I like Joe Biden and feel he is the most qualified of the entire bunch to be President, he has gaffe issues and sometimes doesn't think before answering.
Here's the list of lies and how much they weigh:
McCain's Debate Lies, Half Truths and Exaggerations Lie: 1 McCain Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.
Lie: 2 McCain McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.
Lie: 3 McCain McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.
Lie: 3.5 McCain (McCain's healthcare gaffe is only worth 1/2 point) McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
Lie: 4.5 McCain (here's where a simple Google search would have prevented) McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.
Lie: 5.5 McCain McCain claimed that Admiral Mullen suggests that "Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America." It is important to note that this was a particularly heated exchange between the two and McCain appeared to win the exchange with an outright falsity.
Lie: 6.5 McCain McCain brought up that he went against President Bush when it came to torture. This is not true. While McCain was outwardly spoken against torture, in the end he voted AGAINST the bill that would ban waterboarding as an interrogation tactic.
Lie: 7.5 McCain McCain again repeated the claim that we send "$700 billion to foreign country's that don't like us very much." The number is actually $536 billion. Normally I would let this go as a 1/2 point, except one third of that money is sent to the U.K. (ally), Canada (ally) and Mexico (ally). A slap in the face to our 3 best allies.
Lie: 8 McCain (Would have not counted it at all, except he's repeating lies that have already been debunked a while back - 1/2 point) McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
Lie 9 McCain McCain was went too far when he said, "I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it." McCain did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. But the contract isn't exactly "fixed" yet. In fact, questions have been raised about the role McCain has played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.
Lie 10 McCain McCain said Obama was against storing nuclear waste. That's very obviously not his position. Obama's official position has always been that he does support safe storage of nuclear waste.
Lie 11 McCain McCain stated, "I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time. ... No one can be opposed to alternate energy." But McCain's record says differently. He has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.
Obama's Debate Lies, Half Truths and Exaggerations Lie: 0.5 Obama (no such increase is in Obama's current plan and the legislation voted for would not actually tax the single taxpayer without further legislation being written, so as it stood the taxing of that bracket did not take place in that particular vote - 1/2 point) Obama denied voting for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.
Lie: 1 Obama (a dumb mistake that was true not long ago - 1/2 point) Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.
Lie: 2 Obama Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.
Lie: 2.5 Obama (saying employers instead of employees is more of a gaffe than a lie and since McCain made his own 'gaffe' on healthcare we will call it even) Obamamischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
Lie: 3.5 Obama Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy.
Posts
