In-Depth Debate Analysis: Part I

This is a long one, and the first of three installments.

The beginning of the debate was quite cordial, both men shook hands prior to going to the dais to speak. The first question asked, after a short quote of former President Eisenhower by Jim Lehrer was “Where do you stand on the economic recovery plan?”

Barack Obama spoke first. He called this a defining moment in history and then launched into his four point plan: Oversight, potential of making money on this expenditure, no golden parachutes, and help for the homeowners involved and not just the companies affected. He Also interjected that this crisis is a “final verdict” on eight years of failed economic policies, and tied John McCain to George Bush.

John McCain then spoke. He said he wasn’t feeling good about things but that things were looking up because Republicans and Democrats were working together to fix the crisis. He said the plan needs transparency, oversight and accountability. He said he met with “My Republicans in the House of Representatives” He said that they weren’t part of negotiations but they decided to be part of it.

For the next several minutes there was haggling over whether each man would vote for the package, each making side points, and John McCain saying he would vote for it, and Barack Obama saying he was in favor of it.

The strongest point of the exchange during the first question came from Barack Obama, simply pointing out that Sen. McCain had made the observation that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Question one and it’s responses were neither crisp nor powerful, but each man made the points he thought he needed to make. One thing started to become clear here. John McCain would not look at or address Senator Obama directly. That to me seems a tactical mistake. The man could have been stronger and more forceful but seemed to shy away.

Question two: Are there fundamental differences between your two approaches to lead this nation out of this financial crisis?

John McCain First. He spoke of runaway spending, of Washington changing the Republicans, of Tom Coburn calling earmarks a “gateway drug”, he mentioned a $3,000,000 earmark to study bear DNA in Montana, and tried to make a joke. Then he got to the meat of his argument and said that he will do away with earmarks and will veto every spending bill that comes across his desk. Also brought up the fact that Sen. Obama has had almost $1,000,000 in earmarks for every day he’s been in the senate.

Barack Obama. Agreed that the earmarks process has been abused. Agreed that lobbyists often introduce requests for earmarks. Brought up the point that Senator McCain wants to spend $300,000,000 in tax cuts for wealthy corporations. Mentioned that John McCain’s tax plan would give Fortune 500 company CEO’S an avergae of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100,000,000 out. Brought up his tax plan, which gives 95% of working families a tax cut.

The back and forth after this question was stronger than after the first question. And things got a little silly, to be honest. Plans were discussed and dissected. The business tax, which currently sits at 35% was discussed, as was Barack Obama’s $800,000,000,000 in new spending. Obama countered by saying that he could pay for his new spending, and made it clear that loopholes that currently exist make American business taxes among the lowest in the world. Neither point was countered. there was talk of tax credits and health care money that bounced back and forth. John McCain did not fare well in these exchanges, though he kept punching throughout

The silly stuff was The “sheriff” quote by John McCain ,that an as yet unnamed person had called him a sheriff, and that he hadn’t won miss congeniality in the Senate. He also tried to pass off a lie about Barack Obama voting to raise taxes on everyone who makes more than $42,000 a year. I have touched on this before, as have several other publications, notably politifact.com and Factcheck.org.

In context he was talking about how he has fought pork barrel spending and the like. But it still, to me, came off a bit dumb sounding. He did try this tactic several times, to play to the audience and get a laugh. It failed each time. It did not look good when he did it. I hope the man learns from this.

Question Three: What are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities you would bring as President, as a result of the Bailout?

This question both candidates waffled on, speaking in generalities instead of focusing on what exactly would have to go. Obama initially focused on what he felt he had to keep, while McCain spoke in terms of cutting spending in general, but did mention cutting a particular type of contract that the military enters into, a cost-plus contract, that should go.

When pressed, Barack Obama said that portions of his energy plan may have to be put off, not shut down or stopped, but put off, and that there is a $15,000,000,000 subsidy that goes to insurers in Medicare that can go the way of the dodo.

It was here where McCain became bold. A spending freeze on everything but defense, veterans affairs, and entitlement programs. Barack Obama made this sound like it was too much. The words he used were “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel” Effectively cutting McCain’s boldness down.

There was much more here, Sen. Obama pointing out that Sen. McCain’s $300,000,000,000 business tax break and his health plan would crush Americans, and would be a bad decision. John McCain made a point about sending $700,000,000,000 to countries that don’t like us very much for oil (the actual number is $536,000,000,000 and fully 1/3 of that goes to Mexico and Canada) and said that he wants to greatly expand our nuclear program, opening up 45 new nuke plants.

The exchanges were more tense and terse here than before, and I have to tell you this part was entertaining. Not the Fireworks that were expected, and not the strongest exchanges of the night, but there were some fairly sharp words here on both sides.

So far in this debate, it has been fairly smooth sailing for both men, but the advantage that I saw here went to Barack Obama, simply with the ease of manner, and his willingness to speak to John McCain, where John didn’t seem to want to acknowledge Barack Obama’s existence. That and the fact that every point McCain made, Obama countered, but McCain did not do the same.

Some have noted Sen. Obama’s continual agreement with John McCain as a negative. I do not. It was not a simple “yes you were right john” It was “yes, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough” or more bluntly stated “Yes, but….” Agreement in part, but not agreement in whole. A semi-subtle point lost on some, I think.

In tomorrow’s Installment, coverage of the next 3 questions asked in the debate.

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Today I am going to look at 3 men, one a Lobbyist, one that lobbyist’s business partner, and the other a former lobbyist working in the McCain Campaign, and their baggage.

First Up: Harry Sargent/Mustafa Abu Naba’a. The McCain campaign last week had to return $50,000 in contributions from donors due to the fact that the donations were in fact collected by a foreign national, Mr. Mustafa Abu Naba’a, a man who is a citizen of both Jordan and the Dominican Republic. This is seen as potentially conflicting with election laws, because it is illegal for foreign nationals to give to American political campaigns. Not to mention that the money came from donors who do not even back Senator McCain.

Mister Abu Naba’a owns a 1/3 share of Mister Sargent’s company, which supplies oil to the U.S. military in Iraq, and has contracts that could be worth up $1,400,000,000 with the U.S. military.

That’s a nice piece of change.

Also of some interest here was the amount given and the people who wrote the checks that Mister Naba’a allegedly picked up for Mister Sargent for the McCain campaign. The amount given? The most allowable to give, by law. $2,300 per person. It is HIGHLY unlikely that an Auto Mechanic, a Taco Bell Manager, and a couple that at one time ran a liquor store would have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not exactly the people you would normally imagine giving this much, and I severely doubt that any of these people actually have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. I know auto mechanics. They don’t make enough money to actually be able to give that kind of money to a political campaign. The guy doing your brakes doesn’t make enough to give like that. Trust me on this one.

And if Taco bell pays that much, I’m leaving the copy center of the Law Firm I work at and going to taco bell to chase my dream of wealth and success. Oh wait. They don’t…pay.. that much…. Hmmmm… Neither does working a Liquor store. That job is more likely to get you on TV as a shooting victim than any real prosperity.

But Wait there’s More!

Mister Sargent is also being looked at by Rep. Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for overcharging the military for the fuel he sold them. And the contract that he signed with the Military is interesting, insofar as it was not the lowest bid for the supplying of oil used by the American military in Iraq.

Another Bundler of joy is a man named Randy Scheunemann. He is former President of the committee for the liberation of iraq, of which John McCain was a member, which was widely seen as a PR organization for the Iraq war push back in 2002. He was also closely linked to the Project for the New American Century, A Neo-conservative think tank, which is stated as an important shaper of American Foreign policy. Other Members of this Think tank Included Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

He was also an Advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He is now foreign policy aide to John McCain.

This man, Scheunemann, has been linked to Ahmed Chalabi, The First Iraqi Oil Minister, who has given state secrets to Iran and has been accused of fraud involving Iraqi currency as well as grand theft of both national and private assets in Iraq.

Scheunemann has also been linked to, and in fact worked for, Stephen Payne, the disgraced former lobbyist who offered access to Senior administration officials in exchange for large amounts of cash for the George W. Bush Public Library.

And Until March of this year, Mister Scheunemann had been a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, who were recently attacked and mauled by the Russian bear. Could this be the reason for John McCain’s rush to take the Georgian’s side in the recent Georgia-Russian conflict?

This is very fertile ground for analysis. There are TONS more Lobbyists, and not just McCain’s men who I can skewer. Are there any shady dealings going on anywhere that you would like to be brought to light? Anyone out there you think needs to get the third degree? Drop me a Line and Let me know!

Uncle Mikey