I've already heard several different takes on this debate, but for me, I would give McCain an B plus grade, and Obama a B minus. Both good, but I'll explain where the differences were for me.
(1) I think that although this debate was more muted than it could have been, McCain was able to keep pressing Obama on a number of points, and seemed on the offensive to me in terms of energy level and challenges to his opponent's policies and record more than Obama did in return. Obama several times seemed to want to stray from the debate rules to respond, again, more defensive in handling the challenges McCain was laying out.
(2) Obviously the financial crisis remained the #1 topic, and although Obama continues to try to paint McCain with the broad brush of deregulation (which by the way, largely misses the point, since the companies at the heart of this mess were already highly regulated by law - just not effectively in practice by those in charge), McCain was able to show that specifically in this area, he was arguing in 2006 for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie. And in general, McCain seemed steady on the financial/economic front. But more to the point for McCain, he did a pretty good job of reminding people of the very large size of the increased spending and increased taxes to cover the increased spending, that Obama is proposing.
(3) McCain does clearly seem to me more seasoned and experienced and comfortable with the foreign policy issues past, present, and potential future.
The above would be reasons I felt McCain did somewhat better overall. These of course do not represent the entire debate or points well made by Obama. I'll try to come up with a more thorough look at the points made by both in the next day or two.
Addendum: I need to add a couple of complaints about points that I think McCain still fails to make strongly enough. First (and Palin did a better job of hammering this home in her debate), the fact that in the current economy, a large increase in taxes on businesses already under pressure will most surely cause significant large layoffs by those businesses who have to make the bottom line work and who will be writing large additional checks to the government that increases their operating costs. The second, which I don't think McCain or Palin have made strongly enough, is the point that a tax on businesses is ultimately a tax on the people. Businesses can only handle the additional costs of taxes paid to the government in two ways: cut costs (primarily lay people off), or charge higher prices for their products, which higher prices are paid by us, the consumers. I still say Fred Thompson said it best..."they say these tax increases won't affect you or your family, just businesses. So, unless you own a business or work for a business, or buy something from a business, then this won't affect you!" Obama and the Democrats have not given a good response to these charges that I've seen.
And a couple of commentary posts:
From NRO's Rich Lowery:
"[Obama is] a kind of genius at appearing plausible. If the Nobel committee had a prize for appearing plausible, he'd win it every time."
From me:
I agree with K-Lo that too often the tone I hear Obama take with regard to 9/11 and Iraq is somewhat trivializing, and that disheartens me greatly. I agree with Lowery's assessment of Obama, and would ask: is that really what we want? Someone 'plausible?' How about someone with wisdom and experience instead? What disturbs me is the thought that Americans, in a present mood of fear and uncertainty, will rush into the open arms of big-government liberalism without thought of the long-term future consequences. Let's think, people!
No comments:
Post a Comment