The First Debate

[mattstick]

I've been waiting for someone to do something with McCain/Palin & Top Gun's Maverick/Goose.

[cactusfan]

not too exciting overall. i mostly thought obama sounded like a reasonable adult and mccain sounded like a petulant child. but then i usually think that.

here's some nice analysis:


http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php

The least self-aware moment for John McCain in last night's debate came at the half-way point, when he said, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy."

In a sense McCain was sticking to his battle plan in saying this -- the plan being on-message hammering-home of the "Obama doesn't understand" theme. In another sense, he lost his way, since he immediately segued not into a discussion of strategic matters in Iraq and Afghanistan but into an anecdote. But that kind of literal parsing of his answer -- tactical analysis, you might call it -- really misses the point.

There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy. And McCain's dismissive comment suggests that he still does not realize this.

Some examples are so familiar as to need no explanation: McCain choosing the ten-day tactical "bounce" from the surprise choice of Sarah Palin, in exchange for the enormous strategic risk in choosing an un-vetted and now obviously unqualified running mate. Or McCain rolling the dice with his threat to boycott the debate -- and then, once on stage, appearing to be only mildly interested in the financial-bailout deal that 72 hours earlier was the stated reason for overturning all agreements about the debates .

But the personas that the two men chose to present in the debate indicated the difference in a profound way. The truths of debates are these:

    * Emotional messages, which are variants on "how do I feel about this person?", are all that matter in presidential debates. Issues discussions are significant mainly to the extent they shape these impressions. For instance: a candidate's view on the economy feeds the impression of whether he sympathizes with "people like me." Or views on foreign policy feed the impression on whether he would be "a leader we can trust."

    * Barring a truly disastrous performance, each side's partisans will think their candidate did well, and will be reinforced in the reasons for supporting the person they already like. Thus John McCain supporters will think he sounded confident and masterful; Obama supporters will think he kept presenting the big-picture perspective on national security and the economy. Which means therefore:

    * The audience that matters is people who start out undecided or uncertain -- and finally are looking for emotional reassurance about who they can imagine as president for the next four years. In general, such viewers are only now starting to pay serious attention to the campaign -- in contrast to people already committed to helping (or stopping) one of the candidates. That is why the first debate is a unique "re-launch" opportunity for the candidates to present themselves to people who realize it's time to make up their minds.

Everything John McCain did on stage last night was consistent with trying to score tactical points in those 90 minutes. He belittled Obama with the repeated "he doesn't understand"s; he was explicitly insulting to him in saying at the end "I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience" for the job (a line Joe Biden dare not use so bluntly on Sarah Palin); and implicitly he was shockingly rude and dismissive in refusing ever to look Obama in the eye. Points scored -- in the short term, to the cheers of those already on his side.

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more "likeable," the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. Update: though he doesn't have to say "John is right..." ever again during this campaign.

For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it.

[sophist]

bvaz, please see "McCain Leaps into a Thicket" posted on the Road to November thread, last page. by rowjimmy, for an explanation of "bragging about bringing people together". Obama is actually doing it, and McCain is not, simple fact. Stated by his fellow senators.

And please explain to me why I should be interested in seeing what McCain can do? I am a liberal and you ask why am I "so scared to see what McCain can do?" Look around you, we've seen what he can do for the last 8 YEARS! He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, why should I think he is going to be that much different from what we have just been through?

How and when does the president vote?
He doesn't.  He suggests policy and the policy is implemented (or not) by the legislative branch.  That is a "scare" tactic talking point.  Let's focus on the actual flaws and real flubs of McCain. 

Unfortunately due to the usurpation of our checks and balances the white house has been dictating legislation to sheep minded Republicans in the house and senate.

Sure it's not how it's supposed to work but that's been the deal, I mean how long did it take for Bush to veto a bill?

Dictating legislation isn't passing it, and for the record that is a trend that goes back to the 1900's.  How do you think the new deal, great society, and the moral majority agenda's made it to congress (same system W is using)?  The president sends out a "memo" and someone in congress puts said memo into bill format.  To attempt to phrase it like Bush has complete control is baseless and inaccurate.  The republican congress is to blame for failing to think (I know it is a lot to ask a politician to do such a thing) and actually enacting such poor policies.  While it is much easier to assign blame to one person (Bush), the truth be told, the failed policies of the RNC are the real problem, not the talking head that currently symbolizes them. 

The current quagmire extends much deeper than one crappy president, and his crony congress.  It is a failing at the intellectual, philosophical, moral, and economic level.  Like I stated in another thread, the republicans are using 18th century ideals in a world that is no longer applicable to such ideals.  Not that the DNC has it right, far from it imo.  However, the DNC has some concepts that will put us in the correct direction.  As a whole we must evolve and change the way we approach the issues of today's world. 

[Mr Minor]

bvaz, please see "McCain Leaps into a Thicket" posted on the Road to November thread, last page. by rowjimmy, for an explanation of "bragging about bringing people together". Obama is actually doing it, and McCain is not, simple fact. Stated by his fellow senators.

And please explain to me why I should be interested in seeing what McCain can do? I am a liberal and you ask why am I "so scared to see what McCain can do?" Look around you, we've seen what he can do for the last 8 YEARS! He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, why should I think he is going to be that much different from what we have just been through?

How and when does the president vote?
He doesn't.  He suggests policy and the policy is implemented (or not) by the legislative branch.  That is a "scare" tactic talking point.  Let's focus on the actual flaws and real flubs of McCain. 

Unfortunately due to the usurpation of our checks and balances the white house has been dictating legislation to sheep minded Republicans in the house and senate.

Sure it's not how it's supposed to work but that's been the deal, I mean how long did it take for Bush to veto a bill?

Dictating legislation isn't passing it, and for the record that is a trend that goes back to the 1900's.  How do you think the new deal, great society, and the moral majority agenda's made it to congress (same system W is using)?  The president sends out a "memo" and someone in congress puts said memo into bill format.  To attempt to phrase it like Bush has complete control is baseless and inaccurate.  The republican congress is to blame for failing to think (I know it is a lot to ask a politician to do such a thing) and actually enacting such poor policies.  While it is much easier to assign blame to one person (Bush), the truth be told, the failed policies of the RNC are the real problem, not the talking head that currently symbolizes them. 

The current quagmire extends much deeper than one crappy president, and his crony congress.  It is a failing at the intellectual, philosophical, moral, and economic level.  Like I stated in another thread, the republicans are using 18th century ideals in a world that is no longer applicable to such ideals.  Not that the DNC has it right, far from it imo.  However, the DNC has some concepts that will put us in the correct direction.  As a whole we must evolve and change the way we approach the issues of today's world. 

Totally agree here.  It is extremely easy to blame W. for all of this, but the reality is there was a republican president and a republican congress for 6 of his 8 years.  If things were great, we could say the RNC is making smart, informed decisions but they are not.

The Democrats are trying to change things to make them better.  Not sure if they are going about it in the right way, but at least they are trying to fix things rather than staying in the same frame of mind.

Btw, great use of quagmire.

[messengerbird]

It is great to hear everyone's point of view. I can't wait for voting day. :-)

[Hicks]

bvaz, please see "McCain Leaps into a Thicket" posted on the Road to November thread, last page. by rowjimmy, for an explanation of "bragging about bringing people together". Obama is actually doing it, and McCain is not, simple fact. Stated by his fellow senators.

And please explain to me why I should be interested in seeing what McCain can do? I am a liberal and you ask why am I "so scared to see what McCain can do?" Look around you, we've seen what he can do for the last 8 YEARS! He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, why should I think he is going to be that much different from what we have just been through?

How and when does the president vote?
He doesn't.  He suggests policy and the policy is implemented (or not) by the legislative branch.  That is a "scare" tactic talking point.  Let's focus on the actual flaws and real flubs of McCain. 

Unfortunately due to the usurpation of our checks and balances the white house has been dictating legislation to sheep minded Republicans in the house and senate.

Sure it's not how it's supposed to work but that's been the deal, I mean how long did it take for Bush to veto a bill?

Dictating legislation isn't passing it, and for the record that is a trend that goes back to the 1900's.  How do you think the new deal, great society, and the moral majority agenda's made it to congress (same system W is using)?  The president sends out a "memo" and someone in congress puts said memo into bill format.  To attempt to phrase it like Bush has complete control is baseless and inaccurate.  The republican congress is to blame for failing to think (I know it is a lot to ask a politician to do such a thing) and actually enacting such poor policies.  While it is much easier to assign blame to one person (Bush), the truth be told, the failed policies of the RNC are the real problem, not the talking head that currently symbolizes them. 

The current quagmire extends much deeper than one crappy president, and his crony congress.  It is a failing at the intellectual, philosophical, moral, and economic level.  Like I stated in another thread, the republicans are using 18th century ideals in a world that is no longer applicable to such ideals.  Not that the DNC has it right, far from it imo.  However, the DNC has some concepts that will put us in the correct direction.  As a whole we must evolve and change the way we approach the issues of today's world. 

Eh, there's a big difference between forcing through centerpiece/legacy initiatives like the New Deal, Great Society, Reaganomics etc. and controlling the majority of legislation uninterrupted for six years straight. 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm

As of May 2008, President Bush has vetoed only 10 bills since taking office in January 2001; only one occurred before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. This is the fewest of any modern President; in March 2006 Bush set a 200 year veto record.

Surely you've noticed that this administration has done everything it could to increase executive power, often times at the expense of the legislative branch, and clearly has no respect for our Constitution's framework of checks and balances.  I agree our government's been on a downward trajectory for quite some time, but the acceleration of this during the last eight years has been truly appalling. 

[sophist]

bvaz, please see "McCain Leaps into a Thicket" posted on the Road to November thread, last page. by rowjimmy, for an explanation of "bragging about bringing people together". Obama is actually doing it, and McCain is not, simple fact. Stated by his fellow senators.

And please explain to me why I should be interested in seeing what McCain can do? I am a liberal and you ask why am I "so scared to see what McCain can do?" Look around you, we've seen what he can do for the last 8 YEARS! He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, why should I think he is going to be that much different from what we have just been through?

How and when does the president vote?
He doesn't.  He suggests policy and the policy is implemented (or not) by the legislative branch.  That is a "scare" tactic talking point.  Let's focus on the actual flaws and real flubs of McCain. 

Unfortunately due to the usurpation of our checks and balances the white house has been dictating legislation to sheep minded Republicans in the house and senate.

Sure it's not how it's supposed to work but that's been the deal, I mean how long did it take for Bush to veto a bill?

Dictating legislation isn't passing it, and for the record that is a trend that goes back to the 1900's.  How do you think the new deal, great society, and the moral majority agenda's made it to congress (same system W is using)?  The president sends out a "memo" and someone in congress puts said memo into bill format.  To attempt to phrase it like Bush has complete control is baseless and inaccurate.  The republican congress is to blame for failing to think (I know it is a lot to ask a politician to do such a thing) and actually enacting such poor policies.  While it is much easier to assign blame to one person (Bush), the truth be told, the failed policies of the RNC are the real problem, not the talking head that currently symbolizes them. 

The current quagmire extends much deeper than one crappy president, and his crony congress.  It is a failing at the intellectual, philosophical, moral, and economic level.  Like I stated in another thread, the republicans are using 18th century ideals in a world that is no longer applicable to such ideals.  Not that the DNC has it right, far from it imo.  However, the DNC has some concepts that will put us in the correct direction.  As a whole we must evolve and change the way we approach the issues of today's world. 

Eh, there's a big difference between forcing through centerpiece/legacy initiatives like the New Deal, Great Society, Reaganomics etc. and controlling the majority of legislation uninterrupted for six years straight. 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm

As of May 2008, President Bush has vetoed only 10 bills since taking office in January 2001; only one occurred before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. This is the fewest of any modern President; in March 2006 Bush set a 200 year veto record.

Surely you've noticed that this administration has done everything it could to increase executive power, often times at the expense of the legislative branch, and clearly has no respect for our Constitution's framework of checks and balances.  I agree our government's been on a downward trajectory for quite some time, but the acceleration of this during the last eight years has been truly appalling. 

Veto count doesn't validate the argument that Bush is "seizing" control of the legislative branch.  It only proves that the republican congress and republican executive branch were on the same page (Consequently this validates my point about the failed policies of the RNC- which both branches relied heavily upon).  Sorry, but your being a partisan liberal in this example.  Your attempting to blame Bush for a problem that doesn't exist (he isn't controlling the legislative branch- the members of it go along with him to further their careers, and yes this includes some democrats).  He has expanded the executive branch, yes I agree about that.  However, the legislative branch has no power to control said expansion, that is for the Supreme Court to decide if said expansion is legal or illegal.   

Further, eradicating the constitution is only relevant to the Supreme Court, which has done nothing since they can only overview issues brought to their attention, which reflects on how poorly the SC has done on choosing cases that challenge the Bush form of government.  Congress (i.e. the legislative branch) has no authority to correct the executive branch when they overstep their boundary.  This is the whole purpose of the checks and balances set up.  So I see your point, but it is based entirely on the assumption that congress has the right to do so, but they do not.     
 

[Hicks]

bvaz, please see "McCain Leaps into a Thicket" posted on the Road to November thread, last page. by rowjimmy, for an explanation of "bragging about bringing people together". Obama is actually doing it, and McCain is not, simple fact. Stated by his fellow senators.

And please explain to me why I should be interested in seeing what McCain can do? I am a liberal and you ask why am I "so scared to see what McCain can do?" Look around you, we've seen what he can do for the last 8 YEARS! He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, why should I think he is going to be that much different from what we have just been through?

How and when does the president vote?
He doesn't.  He suggests policy and the policy is implemented (or not) by the legislative branch.  That is a "scare" tactic talking point.  Let's focus on the actual flaws and real flubs of McCain. 

Unfortunately due to the usurpation of our checks and balances the white house has been dictating legislation to sheep minded Republicans in the house and senate.

Sure it's not how it's supposed to work but that's been the deal, I mean how long did it take for Bush to veto a bill?

Dictating legislation isn't passing it, and for the record that is a trend that goes back to the 1900's.  How do you think the new deal, great society, and the moral majority agenda's made it to congress (same system W is using)?  The president sends out a "memo" and someone in congress puts said memo into bill format.  To attempt to phrase it like Bush has complete control is baseless and inaccurate.  The republican congress is to blame for failing to think (I know it is a lot to ask a politician to do such a thing) and actually enacting such poor policies.  While it is much easier to assign blame to one person (Bush), the truth be told, the failed policies of the RNC are the real problem, not the talking head that currently symbolizes them. 

The current quagmire extends much deeper than one crappy president, and his crony congress.  It is a failing at the intellectual, philosophical, moral, and economic level.  Like I stated in another thread, the republicans are using 18th century ideals in a world that is no longer applicable to such ideals.  Not that the DNC has it right, far from it imo.  However, the DNC has some concepts that will put us in the correct direction.  As a whole we must evolve and change the way we approach the issues of today's world. 

Eh, there's a big difference between forcing through centerpiece/legacy initiatives like the New Deal, Great Society, Reaganomics etc. and controlling the majority of legislation uninterrupted for six years straight. 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm

As of May 2008, President Bush has vetoed only 10 bills since taking office in January 2001; only one occurred before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. This is the fewest of any modern President; in March 2006 Bush set a 200 year veto record.

Surely you've noticed that this administration has done everything it could to increase executive power, often times at the expense of the legislative branch, and clearly has no respect for our Constitution's framework of checks and balances.  I agree our government's been on a downward trajectory for quite some time, but the acceleration of this during the last eight years has been truly appalling. 

Veto count doesn't validate the argument that Bush is "seizing" control of the legislative branch.  It only proves that the republican congress and republican executive branch were on the same page (Consequently this validates my point about the failed policies of the RNC- which both branches relied heavily upon).  Sorry, but your being a partisan liberal in this example.  Your attempting to blame Bush for a problem that doesn't exist (he isn't controlling the legislative branch- the members of it go along with him to further their careers, and yes this includes some democrats).  He has expanded the executive branch, yes I agree about that.  However, the legislative branch has no power to control said expansion, that is for the Supreme Court to decide if said expansion is legal or illegal.   

Further, eradicating the constitution is only relevant to the Supreme Court, which has done nothing since they can only overview issues brought to their attention, which reflects on how poorly the SC has done on choosing cases that challenge the Bush form of government.  Congress (i.e. the legislative branch) has no authority to correct the executive branch when they overstep their boundary.  This is the whole purpose of the checks and balances set up.  So I see your point, but it is based entirely on the assumption that congress has the right to do so, but they do not.     
 

Congress can't challenge the president?  Hmmm, I guess you were too young to remember impeachment proceedings against Clinton.  Not to mention all of the special prosecutor BS that lead up to it.  :roll:

[sophist]

That was a completely different situation and your attempting to connect the two based on the same means.  Clinton lied under oath.  Bush hasn't lied under oath.  There is a difference.  Using an executive order to expand power is a legal move by the white house.  Congress can't check that which has been my point all along.     

[Hicks]

That was a completely different situation and your attempting to connect the two based on the same means.  Clinton lied under oath.  Bush hasn't lied under oath.  There is a difference.  Using an executive order to expand power is a legal move by the white house.  Congress can't check that which has been my point all along.     

If you don't think Bush has committed anything justifying at the very least a congress mandated investigation then we really aren't living on the same planet. 

[sophist]

Being a shitty president doesn't equate to having a hearing or trial.  I've read the "impeach Bush" literature, and while interesting, it holds no legal merit.  Sorry, it is the cruel truth of our checks and balances system. 

edit to add: Same reason why Johnson and Kennedy were never tried for using the same tactics for Vietnam and Bay of Pigs. 

Both lied to the public, but that isn't a crime.  Torture is legal, and the constitution has no clauses about preemptive war.  The patriot acts were carried out under executive order.  I don't like it one bit, but that is the situation. 

[Hicks]

You do know that congress can conduct investigations without initiating impeachment proceedings right?

Who knows what else they might turn up if they bothered to look. 

Did Kennedy or Johnson ever out a CIA operative? 

[JimmyWilson]

Torture is legal 

Are you serious? 

[sophist]

You do know that congress can conduct investigations without initiating impeachment proceedings right?

Who knows what else they might turn up if they bothered to look. 

Did Kennedy or Johnson ever out a CIA operative? 

I did know that, and it would be a universal waste of time and money in my opinion.  If they can't debunk baseball players, how the hell are they going to get to the bottom of an administration?  Surely you remember the constant interventions by congress to prevent doping in sports?  You want those same incompetent morons to investigate serious charges?  

I couldn't tell you if Kennedy or Johnson did such a thing.  If it did happen, it wasn't public, and I'm not speculating that they did: just saying I don't know the answer to that question.  

Torture is legal 

Are you serious? 

Of a foreign enemy: yes.  I oppose it, but no where in our constitution does it grant said rights to foreign adversaries.  Bush is choosing to ignore UN policies (UN policies aren't enforceable), but that isn't illegal either.  We have no world laws.  So we can legally torture our enemies, which is immoral in my opinion (but that is a discussion in itself). 

[Hicks]

You've convinced me, I'm voting for McCain.   :wink: