The Whole Debate in 90 words
Barack Obama likened John McCain to George W. Bush. McCain pointed out that he is not George W. Bush and insisted it's important we learn the full truth about Obama's associations with a "washed up terrorist," starting with the untruth that Obama "launched his campaign" in the washed-up terrorist's living room. McCain thereupon likened Obama to Herbert Hoover.
Neither candidate acknowledged that to rescue the American dream and really vindicate the American people, corporate capitalism will have to be reconfigured substantially enough to cause enormous transitional dislocation and pain.
Advertisement
Debate III: Joe the Plumber Butts In
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4019
October 15, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube downloader
December 22, 2010 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 21, 2011 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The debate was an almost total waste of the public's time and valuable bandwith that could have been better used to broadcast a rerun of America's Stupidest Bloopers.
Schieffer was dreadful. The US and global economic mess should have received 90% of the attention, but Schieffer was in so deep over his head economically that he skated over he whole matter, and let the debate meander boringly and foolishly into all matter of tangential matters.
The "What programs are you going to cut? question that seems so appealing to old codgers like Scieffer and Brokaw is quite obtuse. Even McCain was baffled by this strange obsession with budget balancing during a deep recession. Neither McCain nor Obama is in any rush to balance the budget, and rightly so. You balance the federal budget during boom times, not when the economy needs demand-side pump priming and lending-side capital from the federal government.
October 15, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The debate was only a waste of time for Republicans, my friends.
The rest of it loved it.
October 16, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hated it, and I'm no Republican. There are some really, really, really important things going on in the world right now, and watching another MSM buffoon try to navigate his way through matters he is intellectually unequipped to handle was just too much for me.
Three presidential debates: each one moderated by an old white man representing poorly informed, old boy conventional wisdom. This country is filled with a large number of brilliant people who could press these candidates on their ideas and proposals from a position of deep learning and comprehensive information. I'm so tired of seeing our political process held hostage to the kind of seniority, privilege and intellectual mediocrity that seems to appeal to the debate organizers. Lehrer wasn't bad, but Brokaw was weak and Schieffer was dreadful.
What is this? Some kind of affirmative action for superannuated white males? Why do we have to carry these people? Tom Brokaw, for example, is just a news reader with a nice baritone and a charming speech impediment. What qualifies such a man to interrogate presidential candidates on issues of the highest moment?
Meanwhile, we have Nobel Prize winning economists in this country who could really press the candidates, push and probe, and deepen the discussion far beyond what we have seen in any one of the debates.
When is American going to choose excellence? When do the really smart people get their turn to guide the discussion?
October 16, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we did what you're asking, we might get to some fundamental truths about our society. Those at the top can't allow the truth to be discussed openly among us because we might decide to take most of their power away.
October 16, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll be getting the "transitional dislocation and enormous pain" in any case. Nobody's going to suggest infusing the vast amount of money we need from the Americans that actually have it.
October 16, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The anger on display from McCain tonight was that of a rich guy whose been forced to share with others.
October 16, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like most Americans that constitute the ever-growing class of “disillusioned” voters, I watched the recent “town hall-style” debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. As expected, my perspective of politics and its participants remained the same: no matter how many direct questions you ask a politician, regardless of party affiliation, the answers you receive are nothing more than generalized sound bites. The New York Times described the debate as “ninety minutes of forced cordiality,” and I certainly agree. The Boston Globe reported that although the discussion was “mercifully free” of personal attacks, the discussion was also free of much of the tension that generates compelling television. McCain reiterated the value of his experience, his “stay the course” stance on Iraq, and his oil drilling policies. Obama condemned the Republican policies that he believes have led the American economy into its current recession. Based on the debate performances, we really have no concept of how either candidate would work to avoid a pending economic catastrophe. A realistic, well-thought out economic plan is what America needs. Obama’s stance on “predatory lending” – effectively sanctioning payday advance lenders – is not a legitimate solution to the real economic problems we face.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
October 16, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
i too felt the debate was a waste of my time.
so mush so that i actually walked in and out of the room doing chores, loading the dishwasher etc.
the problem as i see it is that we lack true leadership potential in our political candidates. no one is willing to voice the true sacrifices that we will have to make in this country to get back on firm footing if we can at all. i have a son that is a senior at yale and before he matriculated there had to make some momentous decisions. he actually was accepted at harvard and princeton and we visited those schools as well before he decided. i remember sitting on the princeton campus on a lovely spring day reading some kind of course catalog. one of the majors was financial engineering. does that sound as ludicrous to you as it does to me? financial engineering. financial engineering. financial engineering. it sounds like an oxymoron. i think it truly reflects the zeitgeist of our times - just keep saying it over and over and over and everything will be okay. we can engineer our way out of the clusterfuck we have become and it was apparent to me as both of the candidates attempted to answer questions. and scheiffer was a disaster. no one articulated the awful choices that we are going to have to make. people in the audience would throw rotten eggs at them. we really can't have our cake and eat it too, but that is what politicians want us to believe. if we just close our eyes, click our ruby reds together we can do it. we can do it!!
October 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet this is not only my case, but also the case of many others like who decided to start a business in the 2000s. And I tell you, it`s not quite easy. If your business is crossing a rough time due to harsh economical transition conditions, best thing to do in order to optimize resources and make the best decisions given the circumstances, is to resort to an executive coaching Tucson program. A specialist is used to these kind of situations and he can provide you with his best advice on the matter.
March 1, 2011 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 4, 2011 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This informayion is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v network configuration, iscsi initiator multipath
April 4, 2011 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability network
April 29, 2011 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink