McCain almost never shakes hands. His war injuries. You might have heard about it? Vietnam? Ring any bells?

That he shook hands with the vet was significant and a measure of respect.

"That one" ... please. Molehills and mountains. If were are that PC and whipped it's time to just surrender now to AQ.

McCain failed to take Obama on wrt Education, his work with Ayers, handing out the money to radicalize students, not teach them math and science. He was Ayer's man handing out the money. Mostly to hard left radical groups like ACORN.

What the heck bar were you watching in? Oakland? South Central? West LA?

However, McCain failed to paint Obama as the dangerous, hard-left radical he really is. So Obama "wins" since he's not coming across as the hard left radical that in reality, he is and has always been.

Disaster for America.

Get your pictures of Dear Leader now! You WILL Pray to Obama.

whiskey, I've had my share of hand injuries myself - martial arts, you know - and what you do is to grab the person's wrist above their hand and shake their elbow with the other hand.

The flat reality is that the grinning at-ease John McCain who persisted through the early GOP primaries is a stronger candidate than the grim, serious man who stood on stage tonight.

A.L.

Same old song and dance. McCain wont name names of his co-workers, and it makes his attacks look like he's just poxing everything house instead of making a substantative argument about specific wrong doing. Oh, and greedy Wallstreet. Wallstreet is supposed to be greedy, our Congress is not.

McCain looks desperate by peacemealing out his attacks over time like this... getting more specific and verbose as the election get nearer. It doesnt work, he just looks like he's grasping at straws.

Give Obama credit, he's got a good enough lead to win with and he's neither going too hard to the whip, nor showboating. He's not going to make a mistake down the stretch and McCain has missed too many opporunities to change the dynamics. It will take something external to shake up the race at this point I think.

I'll take a turn defending McCain here - I watched the video clip a few times, and I think this particular narrative is nonsense. Obama was talking to some audience members, McCain walked up behind him and tapped him on the shoulder to get his attention, and then introduced him to Cindy. Perfectly friendly.

The 'war injuries' explanation is silly, though. They shook hands at the previous debate.

At this point I am hoping that my friends who are fervently pro-Obama are right and that I am wrong.

I heard both debates on radio, no TV. I thought McCain won the first debate. This one, no way. Maybe he'll look better in a written transcript, but his tone sounded like nails on blackboard throughout.

Liberal blogs admit McCain and Obama shook hands right before the shot where McCain is redirecting him towards Cindy.

Frankly, I think they both managed to lose this one. I wonder how many people actually managed to stay awake through this one. They both sleep walked it, just one long recitation of the standard campaign talking points. No real energy from either side.

At this point I am hoping that my friends who are fervently pro-Obama are right and that I am wrong.

Well, that's a better attitude than the rightish folks who are preparing for a siege and 'inevitable civil war'. On January 20th, Limbaugh will doubtless start another 'White House Under Siege' counter. Works for his ratings, but do we really need to go through another round of that kind of polarization? After the Clinton years and the Bush years, are we tired of the juvenile approach to politics and government yet?

Contrary to whiskey, et al, I don't regard Obama as some kind of perfect, infallible person. If he is elected president, he will make mistakes and I will criticize him for them.

It's not even that I see a vast gulf between the policies he would implement and those McCain would (or Hillary would have). What I see as the most important difference is that Obama behaves like a responsible, sane adult in a political climate that seems to reward circus acts and frothing, rabid rhetoric. That shouldn't be a huge thing, you should be able to take that for granted with any plausible presidential candidate, but lately it just ain't the case.

Right now, Obama has my trust that he will make decisions in the national interest and not in the interest of a never-ending combination of campaign and culture-war. He could lose that trust, but for me it is going to take a lot more than the nonsense about Ayers and Rezko to do that.

At any rate, there's still four weeks to go before you have to retreat to your bunkers.

I've always respected and slightly feared McCain. He spoke to my high-school group when I visited Washington, and even though I leaned Democrat, he was inspirational. Though, at that visit, I was struck by some of the venom he displayed when his talked about Jane Fonda. I got why and still get why, and that venom was richly deserved. But I think it may be kinda toxic too, especially if McCain equates Obama with someone like Fonda.

I can understand why he would do so, since the worst parts of Obama and his supporters stem from the spoiled childishness of the 1960's.

That said, I think McCain's dislike is toxic for him, since to many, Obama represents something new, positive, and different from the muck of Code Pink, "Bush-derangement", or moronic 1960's leftism. Like it or not, is Obama a symbol that lets many Americans feel better about themselves after a pretty gut-wrenching 8 years. McCain's contempt of that probably rubs people the wrong way, since it shows contempt for something that many people hope to see as as sign that America really is a good place. After all, a Post 9-11 USA has a black man named "Barak HUSSEIN Obama" as a serious contender for President.

I doubt people will get too carried away with the whole symbol thing (Obama as the Messiah). Policy realities will come crushing down, and Obama will be just another politician, though perhaps slightly more skilled than most. But the symbolism in this race can't be ignored. McCain is in a bind here, because he's running against what many are tempted to believe is a fresh start.

He could lose that trust, but for me it is going to take a lot more than the nonsense about Ayers and Rezko to do that.

Oh, that, combined with the Obama campaign's tactics, are exactly what make me worry. I'm just hoping he's using them more badly than he plans to use us.

Oh, that, combined with the Obama campaign's tactics, are exactly what make me worry. I'm just hoping he's using them more badly than he plans to use us.

Well, I suppose the toughest job he's facing next year is to earn some trust with folks like you. Hope he's up to it.

Me too. But tell me, Anachronym, if he moves to pull Fox's broadcast license, will that be a plus or a minus for you?

Obviously we have a huge disconnect here, if you think there is even the tiniest chance that he would do something like that.

But I'll bite. What specifically is it that makes you think that's a plausible scenario? Or is it just a generic sense that he's evil?

McCain almost never shakes hands. His war injuries. You might have heard about it? Vietnam? Ring any bells?
Ummm, no. Go to youtube, any image source, and you can find plenty of sources. You are almost entirely wrong about this in your fervent defense. Look at the end of this, see why as well.

Get your pictures of Dear Leader now! You WILL Pray to Obama.
Seen Jesus Camp too, have you? It was scary. Wait, you got the name wrong there.

#2 from Armed Liberal
The flat reality is that the grinning at-ease John McCain who persisted through the early GOP primaries is a stronger candidate than the grim, serious man who stood on stage tonight.
I think it's a few things. There were a good dozen of them, the mass of candidates made them hard to stand out so they got pigeonholed (Romney the rich guy, Huckabee the religious guy, Guiliani 9/11, Ron Paul as RON PAUL!) and all tried to out-conservative each other.
Now, he has to deal with problems created (in part) by a President he doesn't like, some of which he doesn't understand, few of which people trust his party to deal with as time goes on, many signs point to things getting worse, without being to showcase his main adviser on economics (Gramm) because he called the hundreds of thousands of people who are now jobless and millions more who are worried whiners, another (Fiorina) wouldn't trust him to run a business, and having a running mate who people seem to like more for reasons he can't be happy with.

I'd be a bit grim at that as well, and that's without talking about the opposition.

That being said - they did shake hands at the end while blocking Brokaw, though I wouldn't say there's joy in that moment. I look at people funny if they try to shake my hands twice in 3 minutes too, but everyone I was watching it with thought it was bad too.

"But I'll bite. What specifically is it that makes you think that's a plausible scenario? Or is it just a generic sense that he's evil?"

Well, there's this.

And of course the astroturf campaigns against WGN's call-in shows that cast Obama in a negative light.

Evil's a bad word. Unscrupulous is better. Worked well for Nixon, though....

McCain had two "grouchy old guy" moments - the "that one" moment when discussing the banking crisis

Not only that, looks like the Republicans might be using it more

Wow.

ack, left one thing off.

Anyone else think we'll see 'that one' combined with 'was McCain bringing race into the campaign?' on the news networks? I have this feeling of dread that is going to be the next week.

Well, Obama went to a church, that derides middle-classness, that responds, wildly, to KKK of A, to God Damn America, to America deserved 9/11, to Hate Whitey. He was there for twenty years. He damn well knew.

He knew, damn well, what the church, the Congregation, and the Pastor were all about. HE chose them. Obama HATES White people, he always has, ever since his mother abandoned him to write her 300 page thesis on Peasant Blacksmithing in Indonesia. He's even written in his own books in his own words about his hatred to dislike of White people.

He's in up to his eyeballs with Louis Farrakhan, who runs South Side Chicago and Obama.

He's in up to his eyeballs, over twenty years, with Ayers and Dohrn. In his own book he wrote how he always chose radical, Marxist people to associate with. He was raised a Muslim, and believes that in his own words the call to prayer is the most beautiful thing he's ever heard, and can recite it himself in fluent Arabic and has done so. He attended a Madrassa in Pakistan in 1988, during his summer there. He donated several million to cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya, to make Sharia the law of the land there.

Obama wants to ban guns (take Armed Liberals first please), hangs out with terrorist supporters, of the radical Palestinian and Weather Underground type. His "uncle Frank" Frank Marshall Davis, was a Black Communist, White hater, and the closest thing Obama has had to a father.

People are voting for him because he's Black. That's it. That's all he has. People WORSHIP him because he's a Black pol who likely will be President. Dear Leader kid singing videos, Obama Corps videos, the whole bit.

Obama IS THE GOD of his followers. He IS the God EVERYONE will be REQUIRED to Worship.

Most of you all want a Big Man, a Chavez or Castro -- you'll get one too. Since Obama has no skills whatsoever to deal with a Depression/Recession, and declining revenues, demanding cuts not expansions. It's his only play. Be the Big Man forever.

You cannot have Open Borders, citizenship for Mexicans, and instant Affirmative Action as Obama wants during a Recession/Depression. Imagine THAT fight. Or Reparations for Slavery as Obama wants, so working class whites can send more money to Oprah and Will Smith. Or more political indoctrination of the Hate Whitey™ mode in schools, as Obama did with Ayers in the CAC.

Obama offers nothing on the two great issues: expensive energy (he wants it higher, to save the Polar bears) choking off our economy, and nuclear proliferation promising a dead NYC. McCain is not responsive on the latter either, but at least has a clue about drill here for US jobs and energy.

Obama is like Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Buchanon, and Hoover combined. He's Hate-America, first, and weak. Inviting attack. He empathizes with people who hate us and hates most Americans.

I, like 75% of America, am White. I know damn well Obama hates me along with all other Whites. Will do his best to "punish" me however he can. I feel zilch guilt at all for slavery or segregation. Don't want to worship Obama as a God. Don't want a Big Man running things. Don't want NYC nuked. Don't want to send 800 billion plus to the UN for a Global Poverty Tax.

I don't even LIKE McCain who is a Conservative Democrat. I still will vote for him over the Messiah you all want to worship as your God.

Which frankly, I find disgusting.

BTW, after Obama gave us a big lecture about how he could no more disown Wright than the Black Community, and excused all the stuff he said AND how his Congregation ate up like it was a WWE show [just as damning, the reaction shots] ...

I want everyone to drink a big tall glass of Shut The Hell Up about Racism.

Period.

Including and especially, that One.

Ooops. I forgot. "The One." Who is literally worshiped as a God.

Oh, one more thing -- everything is racist. Unless you worship Obama. Then you're "redeemed" from that "sin."

Otherwise, you're a racist.

Racists!

And of course the astroturf campaigns against WGN's call-in shows that cast Obama in a negative light.

The campaign asked people to call in (gasp) to a call-in radio show and present campaign talking points to counter Stanley Kurtz's Ayers publicity tour. Ham-handed? Yes. But hardly sinister.

The AIP story is one I hadn't heard much about before; I clicked through to the Election Law Blog linked from that article, which makes a pretty good case that AIP is breaking the law. They have one 3 million dollar contribution from one wealthy contributor paying for the entire ad campaign, which seems like a lot more than the $2300 contributions the rest of us are limited to. And I hate to point this out, but the law supposedly governing campaign finance issues like this is known as McCain-Feingold.

The question is, are they breaking the law? That link also mentions that the FEC has been very vague on how the law is applied to 527s, insisting on deciding these on a case-by-case basis rather than issuing a clear guideline. Wikipedia (heh) mentions that cases similar to this one resulted in fines against MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat group (interestingly, the same contributor at issue as with AIP). So it's not that the legal case here is either unprecedented or unfounded. It's pretty much identical to cases from 2004. Does all this constitute a damning indictment of the Obama campaign, for demanding that the campaign finance rules originally championed by John McCain be enforced in this case? Should Obama unilaterally disarm and refrain from challenging 527s that are (in this case) pretty flagrantly violating the rules? Seems like a pretty tortured version of fairness to me.

So we've got some (as you put it) astroturfing, and we have an anti-527 lawsuit which looks the same as successful lawsuits from 2004. And from that you extrapolate that Obama is predisposed to yank the broadcast license from one of the largest media networks in the country. Pardon me if this seems like a bit of hyperventilating more than anything else.

On the other hand, at least there's more substance to these than to the missouri law enforcement thing from last week.

Obama IS THE GOD of his followers. He IS the God EVERYONE will be REQUIRED to Worship.

Well, crap, you convinced me. I had better get to church before anyone notices. :P

"On the other hand, at least there's more substance to these than to the missouri law enforcement thing from last week."

It's all about what can be proven, isn't it? And how soon you can do it?

Too bad no one is actually following the money. Or maybe who's been to Camp Obama. Or

"Anyone else think we'll see 'that one' combined with 'was McCain bringing race into the campaign?' on the news networks? I have this feeling of dread that is going to be the next week."

Frankly, I think most people would think it far stupider to think that was racist, than that McCain said it. Let 'em run it all they want.

Ah, this is a better Camp Obama link. Not so sugar-coated. Also doesn't treat it as an outing for school kids. Sorry for propagating the NPR spin.

Note the use of "ruthless". Not so different from "Unscrupulous".

And Anachronym, I know it's off-topic, but you never did answer the direct personal question about whether pulling Fox's license would be a good thing. I'm curious.

Armed Liberal:

"It's got to be frustrating as heck to be a McCain supporter - or campaign worker - these days."

It is what it is.

I don't think these debates are genuine opportunities for Republicans to turn around the race. Sarah Palin couldn't have said anything to reverse the course of the contest. Nor could John McCain have reversed the flow of the river that is carrying Barack Obama to victory.

As a great election-winner once said: "It's the economy, stupid."

With the media wind blowing so strongly for the Democrats, bad news is Bush's fault, and Bush = Republicans: all Republicans, including John McCain. So the economic news has to be all good. But it's not going to be.

Barney Frank is winning this election for Barack Obama. With the aid of many other corrupt politicians in both parties, but nobody has done more to earn the Democrats increased political power than him, because nobody has done more to debase politics and damage the economy.

I don't see what John McCain can do at this point.

I do see what Sarah Palin can do. She should swing from the hips from here to election day, because she has nothing to lose and why not have fun?

I think that's the best approach that conservatives can take.

Jesus Christ couldn't save John McCain at this point. It is one of the crueler ironies of American politics that the Democrats created a crisis then got elected because the country is in crisis. Well, the one bright spot is that the inevitable disaster of a McGovern retread with extremely naive views of foreign policy and domestic policies arising from an ideology that was proven not to work thirty years ago will keep Republicans in power for 50 years after '12.

#27 from Fred:

Jesus Christ couldn't save John McCain at this point. It is one of the crueler ironies of American politics that the Democrats created a crisis then got elected because the country is in crisis.

What you said.

But conservatives should keep doing their best, as Sarah Palin is, because why not?

#27 from Fred:

Well, the one bright spot is that the inevitable disaster of a McGovern retread with extremely naive views of foreign policy and domestic policies arising from an ideology that was proven not to work thirty years ago will keep Republicans in power for 50 years after '12.

I don't think so.

I think this is a transformative election for Republicans, because the Reagan coalition is on its last legs.

Ronald Reagan bound together (1) people who wanted stronger armed forces and a more aggressive foreign policy against Communism, (2) people who wanted lower taxes and generally less government on their backs, and (3) social conservatives and specifically people who found Roe vs. Wade unconscionable and wanted it reversed. And he did this on the basis of the U.S. population as it then was, with a lot fewer Hispanics and consequently a much better chance to make his case.

That's all damaged goods or gone. Ronald Reagan did some harm himself, though more good. George W. Bush has fundamentally refused to accept the "religion of peace" as being hostile, so an ideologically driven pro-military foreign policy in the style of Ronald Reagan is out. There is only endless war with no honestly defined enemy, or even wars to benefit our enemies, because they have oil and we fear their hatred.

The late, unlamented federal Republican two-house legislative majority, in combination with George W. Bush's inactive veto pen, has set records for corruption, government waste and government interference with the exercise of basic rights such as freedom of speech (of course I mean McCain-Feinegold), so that "leave me alone" leg of the three-legged stool is also weakened.

And at some point, and it may be soon, the third leg of the stool is going to fall off. Roe vs. Wade initiated a typical strategic crisis where one side seizes vital ground, and the clock is then running for the other side, which must overturn that victory or lose totally. Barack Obama is now proving that the votes are there to elect the harshest possible pro-choice candidate, and the decades old pro-choice majority on the Supreme Court will be refreshed for decades more to come. That means those who are inclined to religious quietism and came off the political sidelines to undo a great evil and save innocent lives have no further incentive to participate in politics. The only think vital to them cannot be achieved. Unlike the national security warriors and the tax-cutters, they cannot get part of what they want, enough to make it worthwhile to stay in the game, because the Supreme Court has federalized and constitutionalized the issue. Therefore, they might as well spare themselves the corruption, exasperation and cost of politics, and instead stay home, pray, and live quietly to the extent they are permitted to in evil times.

To build a new great coalition will require a new political genius. I like Sarah Palin a lot, but she hasn't yet proved that she's anything like Ronald Reagan.

Nor do I see great new conservative forces ready to replace pro-lifers when they finally break. I think we saw in this election right up to the day John McCain selected Sarah Palin how much enthusiasm the Republican Party has going for it unless social conservatives want to get off the sidelines.

So, there won't be one term of Barack Obama and fifty Republican years to follow.

We are seeing the rise and the victories in debate of a great liberal champion, a man who has dared to be out of the mainstream, as Reagan was out of the mainstream. We are seeing the rise of his coalition. We are seeing the success and vindication of the big media victory model, with the full court press MSM and the suppression of unwarranted opposition. We are seeing a method of political fighting so strong that those who use it can profit politically from economic debacles that they themselves inflict. And we are not seeing a systemic answer to that.

So here's to the liberals. Congratulations on the debate win, and on the debate winner, and on your many victories to come. These are golden days for you. There's no reason to begrudge you your victory cups. It's not like if your champion were suddenly to fall over, which he won't, the Republican Party would be in great shape.

I think that there are two bright spots in this, maybe three. One is, we don't get to watch John McCain push through bipartisan open borders. Another is Sarah Palin, who was shockingly bad in her early interviews but who seems to be getting her act together now and is a great hope for the future. And the third is, we get to find out if Armed Liberal was right about how liberals will react when they own the whole War on Terror: executive, legislature, Baumedine-penning Supreme Court and all.

I missed the "disdain" that commentators projected onto McCain last night, but I've seen it before and don't like it. But "That One" is an abbreviated form of a longer critique:

McCain uses "that one" frequently in his stump speeches; the set-up is usually clearer, as McCain refers to Obama's being one of the senators who supported it, not McCain -- as in, if you had to guess who supported the Bush-Cheney '05 energy bill, it's that senator, not this senator. But it came off awkwardly on stage tonight.

Ambinder

It's a pity that the truth doesn't matter, because if it did, John McCain would defeat Barack Obama, not despite the economic crisis but because of it.

This is the truth, in sixty-one seconds on YouTube: (link).

But if conservatives can't make that case and be believed, which in the present media climate is the case, that's just tough for conservatives.

Barack Obama still won the debate, and that's what history will record.

By the way, I also concede that Joe Biden won the vice-presidential debate. He sounded like he had more facts at his command.

He invented them, but so what? It doesn't matter whether anyone kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, it only matters whether Joe Biden got away with saying it happened, and whether he got away with many other things of the same character. He did, and in this mainstream media climate he can continue to do so.

Whining is useless. I hope conservatives won't get into the liberal habit of calling for the wahhmbulance. "Fair" is irrelevant. This is for blood, and all's fair in love and war.

The story of this campaign, which is unquestionably over, will be Obama's generalship. Excellent strategy, brilliant tactics, phenomenal logistics. He has left the vaunted Clinton machine and the Republican Party shattered in his wake.

It is really quite remarkable.

I am stunned at the strength of his coattails which now may allow him to enter office with 59 senators in tow (Including, most incredibly, Al Franken!!!!). I haven't seen any House numbers, but I would think that they would be similar to those in the Senate.

The world has changed... It is really quite remarkable.

Look David,

Both campaigns are making up facts about the other campaigns. On healthcare, for example, both sides are peddling half-truths. The problem for McCain, is that Obama has been very good at explaining away McCain's criticisms. So Obama is not only getting in his word on the platform, he is also refuting McCain's statements.

Again, I still haven't heard a good outline for McCain's plans. I thought Obama did a much better job of outlining his concept of presidency better than McCain did.

Note: I thought the debate was only narrowly won by Obama. In general, it was pretty much a rehash of the first debate.

I have to keep in mind though, as AL did above, that peripherals matter alot in american debates. How they look, how they sound. And McCain sounded grumpy. It seemed to me (unofficially) that Obama went over the time limit more often, and I'm I'm surprised it didn't hurt him more (I thought he could've streamlined his answers a touch). But McCain didn't help his case by acting like a smart@$$ about it. It made him sound petty.

I also wish both candidates had answered more questions. For ex: Social security. Obama continued to talk back about other questions, McCain said he would apoint "a committee" (whoopee!). I guess that's +1 McCain by lip service.

Either way, the time system was badly organized, I don't think that was Brokaw's fault; just a bad system. I wish there was a penalty for avoiding questions, I would love to see a formal scoring system set up. (Then I could play fantasy debate too....)

I'm not so blown away with Obama's campaign. Its been adequate for the task, which is certainly something, but not inspired. With two wars and an economy in the greatest meltdown since the Great Depression, its a wonder this is even a horse race.

#27, the Democrats have been out of power in Congress for most of the last 14 years. No wonder the Republicans, with their profligate spending, loathing of regulation, and misdirected tax cuts, are getting the blame.

If this is all about Fannie and Freddie, here's another fact-based refutation of the idea poor brown people are at the root of the crisis.

#32 from TOC:

The story of this campaign, which is unquestionably over, will be Obama's generalship. Excellent strategy, brilliant tactics, phenomenal logistics.

Logistics: the art and science of getting guys and supplies where they have to be so you can fight with success.

In terms of supplying his army, are you referring to his brilliant and bold decision to use the "alternative system of public financing"?

If so, I am on board with applauding Barack Obama for that. Republicans have hugged themselves over and over with the thought that his resources must run thin. They haven't, and there's no sign that they will. He was right.

#32 from TOC:

He has left the vaunted Clinton machine and the Republican Party shattered in his wake.

It is really quite remarkable.

Yup, and yup.

#32 from TOC:

I am stunned at the strength of his coattails which now may allow him to enter office with 59 senators in tow (Including, most incredibly, Al Franken!!!!). I haven't seen any House numbers, but I would think that they would be similar to those in the Senate.

We'll see. There'll be plenty of time for conservatives and semi-conservatives like me to read the damage and weep.

#32 from TOC:

The world has changed... It is really quite remarkable.

That's the strongest of my impressions too. It's a new world. It is really quite remarkable.

#33 from Alchemist:

"Look David,

"Both campaigns are making up facts about the other campaigns."

Both campaigns are also talking in chopped-up, shredded talking points so much they often don't even rise to the level of being wrong. Bits of the debate online sound bad, but reading the transcript is worse - these guys are effectively no longer interested in putting together readable, coherent paragraphs of English. They're just straining to come out with the magic words to work the oracle, the key phrase to make some half-alert dial-twister perk up.

I don't think Sarah Pain is any worse than the others in that respect - including in the devastating Saturday Night Live passage, where she was portrayed as a total mutton-head by simply reciting her own words straight. It's just that she was coached in speaking this gobbldygook very recently, and she didn't have the skill that other politicians do of making this sound like it ought to make sense if only you could work it out. In her mouth, everything sounded as phony, calculating and incoherent as it actually is.

#33 from Alchemist:

"On healthcare, for example, both sides are peddling half-truths. The problem for McCain, is that Obama has been very good at explaining away McCain's criticisms. So Obama is not only getting in his word on the platform, he is also refuting McCain's statements.

I'm not sure Obama is explaining anything so well, but he doesn't have to in this media environment. (shrug) This is a difference that makes no difference. At worst, Barack Obama is doing no worse than John McCain - and with the wind at Barack Obama's back, it's John McCain that would have to do phenomenally better to make any difference.

#33 from Alchemist:

_"Again, I still haven't heard a good outline for McCain's plans."

Me either. And I was looking.

Another thing is: where is the clear outline of John McCain's principles?

I thought about this when I was trying to figure out why Sarah Palin's coaching went so horribly wrong. I think part of it is that she came into the game totally in a deferential position: Thanks for giving me a chance, Sir! and in no position, then, to contradict the boss on anything but the one issue she knows best in Alaska. And in never cutting across the boss, there were no short cuts. John McCain is principled in that in every case he does what he thinks is the right and patriotic thing to do, but the conclusions he draws from that are idiosyncratic. You would never think that the corollary of the nationalist "Country First!" would be open borders, amnesty and McCain-Kennedy - but such is the case. That means, with no operative principles to guide you, the only thing you can do as John McCain's running mate is learn off by heart decades of instances of John McCain winging it, and whenever you hear a question, don't contradict any of these random positions, while simultaneously hiding most of them. (I mean, there's something Sarah Palin could have done much worse than not give an answer on when John McCain was ever for regulation, and that's start talking about the boss's signature: McCain-Feingold.) I think being in that position would drive a lot of otherwise reasonable people to incoherence.

I don't think John McCain has a clear economic offer on the table - or I can't see one in his words in the debate - because he doesn't have clear underlying positions that would drive him to on. He's not an ideologue. Which means in a sense, he's always winging it.

#33 from Alchemist:

"I thought Obama did a much better job of outlining his concept of presidency better than McCain did."

I can't begrudge you that.

#33 from Alchemist:

Note: I thought the debate was only narrowly won by Obama. In general, it was pretty much a rehash of the first debate."

I'm of the view that Barak Obama gains by being a radical who sees no enemy on the left, and if he also gets to run as a moderate he wins. So all the time he's in debate, you're pinning him to his radical positions or you're losing. (And in radical times, such as we are now in, when people do want and need solutions that go to the root, you may still be losing if you do define him as not a normal politician.)

I think Barak Obama is walking away with these debates, because he's getting to play it both ways. He's becoming more credible as the next president, while not sacrificing his hard core support, just like the remarkable Ronald Reagan did, approaching the presidency from the hard right.

#33 from Alchemist:

"I have to keep in mind though, as AL did above, that peripherals matter alot in american debates. How they look, how they sound. And McCain sounded grumpy."

I think he's at Stage 2: no longer in Denial, aware that there is no Bargaining to be done, and not ready to give up and go to Depression. Which makes him pluckier than a lot of Republicans right now.

#33 from Alchemist:

"It seemed to me (unofficially) that Obama went over the time limit more often, and I'm I'm surprised it didn't hurt him more (I thought he could've streamlined his answers a touch)."

I thought it helped him. It made him more dominant, more above the rules and his opponent.

#33 from Alchemist:

"But McCain didn't help his case by acting like a smart@$$ about it. It made him sound petty."

I think there was no good option for him. Barack was simply right about what he could get away with.

#33 from Alchemist:

"I also wish both candidates had answered more questions. For ex: Social security. Obama continued to talk back about other questions, McCain said he would apoint "a committee" (whoopee!). I guess that's +1 McCain by lip service."

At this point? Say after me (as Bill Murray leads the chanting): "It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter!"

#33 from Alchemist:

"Either way, the time system was badly organized, I don't think that was Brokaw's fault; just a bad system. I wish there was a penalty for avoiding questions, I would love to see a formal scoring system set up. (Then I could play fantasy debate too....)"

Time's up, your microphone automatically turns off?

If this is all about Fannie and Freddie, here's another fact-based refutation of the idea poor brown people are at the root of the crisis.

You know, the line about Democrats deflecting all criticism with cries of RACIST! are supposed to be caricature wrapped around a grain of truth. If you keep insisting on making it an out-in-the-open primary talking point, you're going to ruin a bunch of easy jokes for us.

(AJL's linked article, incidentally, manages to whistle past the macroeconomic argument it purports to refute, by focusing on a handful of symptoms and bad leverage decisions. Very low on actually relevant facts, but good enough to flog the racist strawman the author set up in the first part then completely ignored while whipping the usual Wall Street suspects.)

AJL #35 --

If this is all about Fannie and Freddie, here's another fact-based refutation of the idea poor brown people are at the root of the crisis.

It's occasionally boring to repeat what most readers here, Left and Right, already know: the problem with cartoons is that they are cartoons.

Anyone with a modicum of sophistication recognizes that characterizing opposing arguments as "this is all about Fannie and Freddie" or "the idea [that] poor brown people are at the root of the crisis" is spinning, not a reasoned approach to "what happened?" and "what should we do?" Straw-man arguments.

Of course partisans can link to examples of the crummy arguments made by demon-opponents. And of course media-driven quips and soundbites will be simplifications. But so what. If given 10 seconds--or even an impossibly generous one minute!--could I offer a non-oversimplified summary of the mortgage crisis? No. Anybody think that AJL could meet that challenge?

The linked piece by Daniel Gross does indeed support AJL's prior beliefs. That should be taken as a tribute to the weakness of Slate.com's superficial polemics, not to the strength of the Democratic Party talking points on this issue.

Gross' misrepresentations ought to be evident to anyone who has spent some time learning about the origins of the mortgage crisis, e.g. by reading through earlier threads on the subject at WoC.

Here's the NYT's three-hankie take on some of the executive-suite backstory of the demise of Fannie Mae from earlier this week.

Here's Sailer's cogent view of the origins of the crisis. link.

As I've been pointing out for a long time, much of the "diversity recession" theory does not rest on minorities per se defaulting on home loans, but on contortions to the market rationalized in the name of diversity, such as Bush's attack on down payments (for everybody) in the sacred name of raising minority homeownership by 5.5 million; or by the see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil politically correct mindset about lending to heavily Hispanic states and black parts of town by fear of discrimination lawsuit discovery of intra-firm emails asking "Aren't we out of our minds to lend $340,000 on a 500 square foot house in Compton? Do you know who lives in Compton?"

Still, ideas have consequences, and these ideas, which both parties supported, no doubt led to higher defaults among minorities.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and his ilk deserve much (a different word than "all," by the way) of the blame for enabling the irresponsibility and short-sightedness of the doing well by doing good crowd, most particularly those in charge of the GSEs. Plenty of others are following Frank's lead by evading culpability for the practices of the mortgage and real estate industries, the rating agencies, and Wall Street. That Frank is being hailed as a savior rather than being forced to resign in disgrace speaks volumes about the notion of Responsibility and Ethics in the current political climate.

36 from David Blue at 3:14 pm on Oct 08, 2008

Logistics, of course, is for professionals. The fact that Obama has outspent McCain 3 to 1 in battleground states last week and that is just the beginning of what I see as a well funded and crushing final attack in the next few weeks over an opposition in rout, speaks to his campaign's professionalism. In contrast, McCain's, as I mentioned in a post yesterday, is the least professional and most disorganized I have ever witnessed and I go back to Eisenhower.

Remember, we have yet to see the full power of his ground game, now fully and remarkably well deployed, which, in the coming weeks, will begin its final assault.

I have said that this guy should not be underestimated as long as I have posted here, though I didn't think he was this good. There is a lot of work that has to be done. Conservatives have to go right back down to the foundations and re-build. Nothing we have in place will be effective in the radically changed environment we will see in the next 2 to 4 years.

The first step should be purge the NeoCons and the Rovians that led us into this debacle and begin to wean ourselves from over-dependence on the Religious Right. The old Reagan coalition is as dead as that which the Democrats depended on when there was a solid Democratic South.

I was not put off by McCain's "that one" comment, and I also see that many do agree he did shake hands with Obama following the debate, just not when Cindy McCain was there.

(BTW, I just love the comment in #1: "McCain almost never shakes hands. His war injuries. You might have heard about it? Vietnam? Ring any bells?")!

What really does put me off about McCain, and one reason why I think he is the far inferior candidate, is that he thinks that it is sufficient to repeat the self-aggrandizing phrase "I know how to...." in response to questions about his policy and plans. I know how to fix the economy, I know how to get bin Laden, etc. etc. Along with this are the "I stood up to" comments in reciting his history. This only works for people who are looking to elect a King, not a POTUS. He wants first to take credit for things he has only been peripherally involved in, or even opposed to, while at the same time saying, essentially, "trust me" on what I will do as President.

His ego-centric personality, coupled to his emotional instability, is incompatible with being President.

I think this article pretty clearly decimates the idea that poor housing loans (or even housing loans in general) are the largest problems in this crisis. Instead, look an large capitalist giants that defaulted on their loans (or heavily invested in now defaulted loans) causing banks to sputter in response.

#41 from TOC:

"The old Reagan coalition is as dead as that which the Democrats depended on when there was a solid Democratic South."

I think so.

It died, partly because it succeeded - the Soviet Union is no more - partly because it failed - Roe will now be supported and supplemented by judges appointed by a president of indescribable harshness - and partly because it was unable to find politicians to carry out its other aims. When the president, both houses of the federal legislature and the Supreme Court were Republican, what happened bore little resemblance to what was supposed to happen. To reassemble the coalition, you'd have to round up a lot of people who were burned by the shameful, wasteful and corrupt late, unlamented Republican legislature, and tell them "but this time we really mean it!" That's an inherently weak position. And even if the appeal could be believed, it can't be properly made yet, since anti earmark reformers aren't on top in the legislature.

#41 from TOC:

_"The first step should be purge the NeoCons and the Rovians that led us into this debacle and begin to wean ourselves from over-dependence on the Religious Right."

I don't think that's a step, any more than disbanding the Iraqi army was a step. The army self-disbanded. And in the same way, the game of asking for ever more efforts from the religious right while never giving it what it is struggling for will reach a natural end. It won't be necessary for the medium big money boys who are the true owners of the party to say to the religious right: "You are not to speak. We don't like you." The believers will have worked out for themselves that they aren't liked and they won't be rewarded for their efforts, and they will neither speak not appear. And the level of enthusiasm for John McCain's campaign before he appointed Sarah Palin his running mate is a foretaste of what that will be like.

Victory often has consequences. (Not always: Borodino, from Napoleon's point of view.) Barack Obama's great victory, which we see a-borning in these debates, will have great consequences.

Gotta love folks like whiskey; they save us liberal trouble-makers from the work of having to caricature the views of their right wing nativist wing of the Republican Party, since they do a better job than I could ever do. I neither have the imagination to write a rant like 18 and 19, above, nor do I have the sales skills, had I written it, to sell it, as a plausible depiction.

So, whiskey, is your theory that "that one" is a fundamentalist Muslim, or a Marxist, or is he both?

BTW, whiskey, has someone forced you to send money to Oprah and Will Smith? Admittedly, I'm not crazy about my dish company applying my dollars to re-running Independence Day , but that's a matter of taste, and I don't know if I'd call that "forced"...

"The story of this campaign, which is unquestionably over, will be Obama's generalship. Excellent strategy, brilliant tactics, phenomenal logistics. He has left the vaunted Clinton machine and the Republican Party shattered in his wake."

I'm not sure how you can say that after his wilting finish against Hillary, and the fact that this election was supposed to be a stroll in the park for Dems after 8 years of W. What happened? Obama may win, but it will be closer than the polls show now.

AJL and Alchemist, I'd love to hear your detailed response to AMac #40 and the Sailer piece. It's what I've been arguing to you in the other thread- it's not "the idea poor brown people are at the root of the crisis" (we don't think in terms of 'poor brown people'), it's the idea that stupid policies aimed at helping the supposedly helpless 'poor brown people' never work as intended, and have serious unintended consequences because they ignore human nature and the checks needed to contain it.

That you would so blatantly mischaracterize the argument, makes me wonder if you sincerely are interested in understanding it and/or debating it on it's merits.

Alchemist #43 --

You link to the same axe-grinding Daniel Gross piece on the mortgage crisis that AJL did in #35. It hasn't improved.

The picture is a bit different than you describe. The failing loans appeared first in the subprime seqment, then spread to Alt-A. Now default rates are rising rapidly in the prime mortgage segment — which was considered an almost-impossible event as late as last year.

It is not a subprime crisis, or a mortgage crisis. These were just the first links in the system to break from the rising stress.

Think of dropping grains of sand — each a different color — to form a pile. Eventually one will collapse the pile. But there was nothing special about that grain. The collapse is not a “green grain” problem.

That’s the point of the graphs in [the post] A picture of the post-WWII debt supercycle.

The first thing Obama did was to get in his obligatory kick at the hated market (soon to be a thing of the past, apparently):

And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.

Which is open to two interpretations:

1. Obama really, truly thinks this is what happened. In other words, Obama has no freaking clue what happened, other than what unreconstructed Reagan-hating progressive hacks tell him.

2. Obama is a liar.

My question to AL and other serious democrats: What third interpretation makes you willing to put this man in charge of the worst economic crisis we've ever seen?

I replied to FMax:
"It is not a subprime crisis, or a mortgage crisis. These were just the first links in the system to break from the rising stress.

Think of dropping grains of sand — each a different color — to form a pile. Eventually one will collapse the pile. But there was nothing special about that grain. The collapse is not a “green grain” problem."

The grain of sand analogy is a poor model. As for the first line, how is it not a subprime or mortgage crisis if they were (by your admission) the first links in the system to break down? When a link breaks, your chain is useless. It's as if you're saying that the match struck by the arsonist was just the start of the fire, not the cause.

Actually, perhaps the sand analogy could work, but you'd have to look at who was allowing the sand to drop, and continue to drop. That would seem to me to be those who supported ideas of social engineered mortgage lending.

Glen,

Since you're basing your question on a presumption that Obama doesn't know "what really happened" to cause the credit crisis, you have to first tell us what it is you believe did. I don't think anyone wants to get into yet another argument about CRA loans.

#44 from David Blue at 5:38 pm on Oct 08, 2008

I don't think that's a step, any more than disbanding the Iraqi army was a step. The army self-disbanded. And in the same way, the game of asking for ever more efforts from the religious right while never giving it what it is struggling for will reach a natural end. It won't be necessary for the medium big money boys who are the true owners of the party to say to the religious right: "You are not to speak. We don't like you." The believers will have worked out for themselves that they aren't liked and they won't be rewarded for their efforts, and they will neither speak not appear. And the level of enthusiasm for John McCain's campaign before he appointed Sarah Palin his running mate is a foretaste of what that will be like.

You are probably right here. Such is my revulsion for the Neo-Con/Rove Clique, I find it often hard to look beyond them. But you are right. they have finished themselves and will wither away.

It is always good to look forward, engage in hard work and see your labors come to fruition. Rather than looking at this as a defeat, I look at is at the beginning of a grand enterprise. We conservatives are now forced to think and examine ourselves. Neither are ever a wasted exercise.

I don't think anyone wants to get into yet another argument about CRA loans.

Quite unnecessary to do so. There are a wide range of reasonable interpretations to choose from, emphasizing different aspects of the breakdown.

Obama's is not one of them.

#48 from Glen Wishard at 6:21 pm on Oct 08, 2008

My question to AL and other serious democrats: What third interpretation makes you willing to put this man in charge of the worst economic crisis we've ever seen?

I am a serious Republican and my answer would be that the present circumstances make the question totally irrelevant. I would also add that this answer needs no further explanation.

Ok, Glen, then let's hear the one you think is reasonable. For the second time.

I'm a little surprised that McCain plan to get the government into the landlording business is getting so little play. Am i the only one havent fits over the unintended consequences if this plan catches on? Is the government ever really going to foreclose on anyone? And if not, what does that do to the rest of the market. Isnt this how industries get nationalized?

I am a serious Republican and my answer would be that the present circumstances make the question totally irrelevant. I would also add that this answer needs no further explanation.

The present economic crisis makes the candidate's understanding of the economic crisis irrelevant?

If I could bottle this sort of logic and sell it, I'd make a killing at political debates.

I suppose one could argue that due to the speed and immediacy of the crisis, it would all be over by the time the new President-elect takes office. But that's a rather huge assumption and a bad avoidance of the core question.

McCain plan to get the government into the landlording business is getting so little play. Am i the only one havent fits over the unintended consequences if this plan catches on?

I didn't understand what McCain meant. Does anybody? More importantly, should I stop making mortgage payments now?

Am i the only one havent fits over the unintended consequences if this plan catches on?

You're not the only one, but the shenanigans apply to both sides. The Obama plan seems to be even worse. My particular favorite is the headline: Obama-Biden and the Death of Mortgage Loans to You or Anyone Else

A better way to destroy the mortgage market than what Biden-Obama propose could not possibly be imagined. For what Joe said (said twice, count 'em above, twice) is that the government will decide, completely arbitrarily, what the future value of a home will be by adjusting the principal balance to be repaid. Because Joe will never adjust the principal upward, there will be no bottom. Lenders will not be able to predict with assurance whether they will even be able to recover their principal, much less recover their opportunity costs of the loaned money plus enough profit to run the business.

The "said it twice" refers to Biden in last week's VP debate :

Biden - "Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe." [emphasis added]

AL: I think that's fair. Your comments echo those of many McCain supporters.

I'm not too surprised really. As you may know, I have no love whatsoever for McCain, and among the many things I fault him for is not having the necessary temperment of a President. He's a deeply emotional, deeply passionate, and frequently angry individual. I don't think he just comes off as a grumpy old man; I think he really is a grumpy old man.

As for the claim that they both lost this one, that doesn't surprise me either. I think the election is coming down to the fact that Obama's supporters are excited by him and believe in him, and McCain's supporters aren't and don't. But I also think that Obama's supporters are largely drunk with excitement, and when they wake up the morning after and look over at their candidate they are going to find that Obama doesn't look nearly as good as he did after that sixth shot of koolaid.

Not that the ones composing Obama hymns, leading Obama worship services, sending their kids to Obama camps, doing Obama salutes, and proposing Obama youth corps are ever going to sober up. You can thank that group for finally settling me on shudder McCain.

Really the mind boggles that this is the best our democracy can produce.

Time for Conservatives to circle the wagons i think. Maybe we better find 40 votes in the senate and concentrate on keeping whichever big government candidate wins from destroying the real estate market completely.

Unbeliever: Biden is talking about relief available only in bankruptcy. I think there are enough implications from filing bankruptcy that the scope would be more limited than what McCain is suggesting. Plus, in bankruptcy the court will do an accounting of personal finances and seek appraisals.

Also, at least some form of this was available prior to the recent bankruptcy reforms. I believe that if you owed $20k on a car worth only $3k, the bankruptcy court could cramdown the loan and allow the debtor to pay only the $3k. I don't know whether this was available for houses, which usually aren't depreciating assets. But the main point is that car loans were probably made more expensive, but were still available.

McCain is scaring me more than Obama on this one. As an undecided, I react primarily on fear.

[Deleted. Correspondent is suspended until 23 October 2008. --NM]

#56 from The Unbeliever at 8:18 pm on Oct 08, 2008
I am a serious Republican and my answer would be that the present circumstances make the question totally irrelevant. I would also add that this answer needs no further explanation.
_______________________________
The present economic crisis makes the candidate's understanding of the economic crisis irrelevant?

If I could bottle this sort of logic and sell it, I'd make a killing at political debates.
__________________________________

We are not in logical times. People are afraid. Thus your comment only underscores my point, because, like it or not, under the present circumstances logic is flawless.

#57 from PD Shaw at 8:23 pm on Oct 08, 2008

McCain plan to get the government into the landlording business is getting so little play. Am i the only one havent fits over the unintended consequences if this plan catches on?

I didn't understand what McCain meant. Does anybody? More importantly, should I stop making mortgage payments now?
______________________________

It is completely impossible to take anything that comes out of McCain's campaign seriously. Someone came up with the idea that having the candidate behave like a Chicken running around without a head was a good idea.

The policy and position announcements, like this one and suspending the campaign are only props for the Principal player in this Opera Bouffe to circle as he runs hither and thither.

#60 from Mark Buehner at 8:39 pm on Oct 08, 2008

Time for Conservatives to circle the wagons i think. Maybe we better find 40 votes in the senate and concentrate on keeping whichever big government candidate wins from destroying the real estate market completely.
__________________________

Best and most lucid post in the thread.

#62 Robert M: You've been specifically warned by AL about using that cant expression. Please take two weeks off to think about things. Any posts by you before 23 October will be deleted out of hand.

I regret that it has come to this.

Maybe we better find 40 votes in the senate and concentrate on keeping whichever big government candidate wins from destroying the real estate market completely.

Yes, but if we recall, "Sound Fiscal Conservatism" never was on the list of "Things We Like About John McCain, in Spite of that Wretched McCain-Feingold Business".

The things I liked about John McCain were the foreign policy backbone, and the proven record of knowing which goddamned country he's supposed to be serving.

Maybe we better find 40 votes in the senate and concentrate on keeping whichever big government candidate wins from destroying the real estate market completely.

Hmmm,

Vote Obama.

He at least has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping Reid and Pelosi from destroying the country.

That would be an awfully effective campaign spot from where I'm standing...and reading the Congressional poll numbers I don't seem to be alone.

What Barack Obama is up against. When we next talk about low-information voters, you might think of these people, caught at a Palin rally in Ohio. One woman said Obama founded Acorn; she said she'd learned it that day. Another said you could tell he was a terrorist from his name.

McCain isn't the only candidate up against unfairness.

And Anachronym, I know it's off-topic, but you never did answer the direct personal question about whether pulling Fox's license would be a good thing. I'm curious.

Apologies, I thought my tone made it clear enough, but I'll be more direct. Pulling Fox's license for any reason, short of Roger Ailes suddenly joining Al Qaeda, would be unquestionably wrong and harmful to the country. I think the idea of Obama doing that is laughable, but I gather that you seem to find it quite plausible. If it turns out that I am wrong and you are right, I will be here protesting alongside you. In the meantime, I think you're being a bit unreasonably paranoid, but then, so are most of the contributors to NRO so I suppose we all have a long way to go.

I read your link on 'Camp Obama' (the non-NPR one).

Woodards, an Obama campaign staffer who used to work for the Democratic National Committee, tells the campers to break up into groups of two and spend 20 minutes at a time just listening to each other.

_"Listening, listening, listening. Listening is the No. 1 tool," she says. They hold a mock Iowa caucus in which campers learn to try to lure other candidates' supporters to Obama during re-alignment periods. _

Chilling.

Again, late to the party here; I must say that I share David Blue's despair--and for much the same reasons. Glen Wishard@#48 puts it best when he asks the question as to whether Obama is a buffoon
or a charlatan. He also asks if there is a possible third interpretation. I would reply by saying yes, but not the positive one AL might wish for. Has it occurred to anyone that Obama just may be simultaneously both a charlatan AND a buffoon?

I'm starting to wonder whether, deep down in his heart of hearts, John McCain just doesn't really want to be the next President of the United States after all. Or maybe he still does, but he has belatedly come to realize that at his age and state of health he just may not be able to handle it.* Either of these scenarios would explain his suboptimal (to put it charitably) campaign approach in recent weeks, particularly his unwillingness to vigorously challenge Obama on, well, just about anything, such as in Tuesday night's debate.

Barring a health-related emergency McCain couldn't just quit the race now even if he wanted to - doing so would instantly wipe out a lifetime's worth of hard-won respect and deal a crushing blow to the GOP's already sagging credibility and morale, not to mention hand the keys to the White House over to a hard-left product of the Chicago political machine without further struggle, and in any case that sort of thing just isn't in McCain's nature. So, if McCain is indeed getting cold feet about the Presidency, he still has to soldier on and go through the motions of campaigning, if only for the sake of keeping up appearances, even at the (now diminishing) risk of actually winning the election anyway.

===
* And as long as I'm indulging in such wild speculation, I might as well also wonder aloud whether the whole McCain campaign hasn't morphed into a Trojan horse for Sarah Palin, to introduce her to the national stage and begin to prepare her for a run of her own in 2012.

Today introduces speculation that the USA will begin nationalizing the banks.

I hate watching the country get flushed down the toilet. Once again I remind everyone who dislikes Bush, that this whole 'bailout' fiasco probably wouldn't have happened without the support of both parties Presidential candidates. Whoever wins, like it or not, both candidates are as a matter of substance promising little that differs from the past 8 years policies. Once again we are like we were with Kerry, were the speaches boils down to, "I'm nothing like Bush, but don't be afraid I'm going to do everything like just Bush."

Once again I dispair by reminding everyone that I one thing that I've hated about the last 5 or 6 years of political debate is that unfair criticism of Bush's rather decent and reasonable foriegn policy has distracted completely from what I've always said was his disasterous domestic policy - policy that by and large has been supported and furthered with the full cooperation of a Democratic Congress. And once again I remind everyone that on the domestic front, neither McCain nor Obama is offering a substantial shift in direction and indeed differ from Bush only in promising to spend even more money we don't have.

#73 from celebrim at 2:03 pm on Oct 09, 2008

Bush's rather decent and reasonable foriegn policy

The problems that we older Republicans have with Bush's Foreign Policy is that it is one dimensional, one-eyed, lacks perspective, alienates allies and weakens our position in the world, diplomatically, militarily and economically.

Aside from that it is fine.

#71 from virgil xenophon at 5:28 am on Oct 09, 2008

Name calling really works!!!!!

"The problems that we older Republicans have with Bush's Foreign Policy is that it is one dimensional, one-eyed, lacks perspective, alienates allies and weakens our position in the world, diplomatically, militarily and economically."

Oh good lord. I've got no desire to go down this again.

Bush's foreign policy has been complex, nuanced, assertive, and considered.

You say it weakens are position in the world? Compared to what? Compared to the prostrate diplomatic and military position the US was in circa 2000? We were practically inviting people to attack us we'd exuded weakness so often! Do I have to run down the list of diplomatic and military blunders again? Do you think 9/11 was a fluke?

Look, I know you aren't going to believe me, but the fact that Bush has managed to strengthen our ties to both Pakistan and India at the same freakin' time when at the start of his term the two were poised on the brink of all out nuclear war is I think pretty darn good.

But even if you don't believe that or care, then consider this - neither Kerry nor either of the present candidates is promising to depart from the Bush foriegn policy in any significant way. If it has been so bad, you'd think someone would be putting forward a sound alternative of some sort, but the fact of the matter is when you go over their foriegn policy platforms they pretty much conform to Bush except that they promise a change in tone - as if talking alot is somehow going to get nations or tyrants to go against their own interests just because they like you so much.

The only people we alienated are a few western European nations, who over the course of Bush's presidency generally switched over to more pro-American somewhat more free market governments - most of Bush's European political enemies didn't out last him. So that makes me question just how much we really lost, if anything. NATO is a joke because other than the Brits (whose military is in their own appraisal collapsing) no one is spending money on military force. Germany, Italy and France are mired in economic and domestic troubles that make ours look simple. Kyoto? The European nations never met its targets anyway are are now thinking of dropping the pretences to begin with. Otherwise, it's just general European angst over America that long predates Bush, and the Euro 'elites' won't get over it and I don't care. They and you can whine about the Iraq war and how the UN and the French can't skim billions of dollars off the Iraqi people anymore all you like. It's like music to my ears. I'll give a crap about what France thinks when it starts being honest about its role in the Rwandan genocide, which won't happen until after it privatizes its state owned TV networks which is to say 'never'.