Thoughts on the Debate?

# on 26 Sep 2008
Uncategorized

Comments (0)

Related Posts

• Kirk Cameron Defends God Against Atheists
• TUP – God's View of President Barack Obama Part 1
• God's View of President Barack Obama – Part 2
• Does God Exist Debate?
• God's View of President Barack Obama

No Responses to “Thoughts on the Debate?”

1. minnowspeaks on 27 Sep 2008 at 1:44 am #

   I did not see the debate. I was asleep because I work the graveyard shift. I did hear about it from my son however and have been reading about it for an hour or so. You are one of the few voices that seems to think Senator McCain did okay.
   Personally I am worried about a President Obama because he was one of the top five most liberal Senators during the last session and his runningmate is also in that top five list. 96% of the time he voted with his party and another 2% of the time he voted against both the dems and the reps. His words sound nice. Some of his ideas appeal to my “help for the underdog” heart strings. I do not however believe charity via taxation creates selfless attitudes. Instead it creates resentment and division. The Church and not government ought to be the caretakers of the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. We, sadly, have fallen down on the job.
   The part of the debate my son told me about was Senator McCain’s attempt to tell Senator Obama that he voted against supporting our troops only to have the tables turned and senator Obama point out that Senator McCain did not support the bill with time tables. I would have jumped for joy if Senator McCain had looked him in the eye at that point and said, “You know and I know that that bill did not have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it past the president’s desk. You know and I know and what’s more the American people know that that bill was a bunch of whiny democrats choosing to play politics with the lives of our servicemen and women who are right now in harms way. The only bill that had any chance of seeing the light of day is the one we passed without your support. How dare you ask to be their commander and chief!” But, I’m not one of the Sentator’s handlers so I can’t encourage him to take the gloves off and let the American people know that he is mad as hell and not going to take it any more–from Senator Obama or the media.
   I appologize for the rant. It probably isn’t what you expected.

2. Tim Ricchuiti on 27 Sep 2008 at 2:27 am #

   Um, except that the bill did pass, and went right by the President’s desk. McCain took the day off. I’m guessing, though, that this is probably just another example of Obama’s naiveté.

   As far as the traditional frames and those crazy socialist Democrats, can you believe they keep bailing out these giant companies? I mean, why are we nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with 100 billion and AIG with 85 more. Crazy! Wait, what’s that you say? It’s the Republican Fed and Treasury that are bailing out those companies? It’s the Bush administration and Henry Paulson that are pushing for another 700 billion? Hmm. Perhaps we should rejigger those traditional frames.

   I am, quite frankly, surprised at your partisanship in this post. I thought the debate didn’t really do much to change anyone’s mind, that it basically would play more into what people already thought. But the idea that it somehow demonstrated that Obama wasn’t ready to be Commander-in-chief is ridiculous. Obama wasn’t the candidate fuming on stage, contemptuous of his opponent to the point that he wouldn’t even look at him. It was all McCain could do not to start every single sentence, rather than just every other sentence, with “What Senator Obama doesn’t understand…” If you’d like to be discipled by such a person, that’s your thing, but I wouldn’t project it onto others.

   For what it’s worth, at the recent negotiations McCain crashed, it was he, not Obama, that sat silent, offering “only a vague sense of where he stood.”

3. David on 27 Sep 2008 at 2:50 am #

   The debate transcript:

   http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

4. steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:05 am #

   When you’re aiming to take the most powerful position in the world (as you describe it) it is important to have the potential to win the confidence and respect of the rest of the world. Only Obama can do that. The emphasis on McCain’s particular “experience” is not impressive to those outside America and nor is his notion of “defence” which involves pre-emptive attack and seemingly imperialistic agenda.

   While I thought Obama delivered too many cliches, it didn’t lessen my admiration for him. McCain just came across as a very weary old man with war in his eyes who mentioned experience too much. I have to admit that my attention wandered while he waffled.

5. Truth Unites... and Divides on 27 Sep 2008 at 9:26 am #

   I think debates matter.

   Oftentimes, it seems that who you think “won” or “lost” is oftentimes contingent on your pre-debate political leanings.

   While many people do, many people don’t make their votes based on substance and debate. C’est la vie.

   And media spin and influence matters.

   Based on polling (with all its attendant risks and bias), Obama is winning in the electoral college.

   My peace and rest: Knowing that God is sovereign and in control.

6. Stan on 27 Sep 2008 at 9:59 am #

   Michael, you are a voice of reason!

   McCain is clearly more experienced and prepared to lead our nation then Obama is at this point. Anyone watching with an open mind and heart will pick up on that.

   However, we often vote based on our feelings & emotions (or sinful wants & desires) rather then on what is right and who is best to lead. As a Gulf War veteran, McCain has my respect and he is someone whom the troops will admire and follow and I think that matters.

   I do believe though that we should pull out 1/2 our troops at least and see what happens over the year. We are simply over-comitted and it is costing us in so many ways. I hope McCain sees that.

7. Andrew on 27 Sep 2008 at 11:22 am #

   No one won. The American people lose… again. The options are yes and yes. The two party system is a sham. They both approve giving the government 700 billion dollars to buy bad debt and then debate minor issues like earmarks. The empire is falling.

8. dac on 27 Sep 2008 at 11:34 am #

   eh

   it was boring

   Obama made the best point – the war began in 2003, not 2007

   The choice of the “right” decision was 2003, not 2007

   And most people think it was the wrong decision in 2003

9. Alden on 27 Sep 2008 at 12:20 pm #

   To me, the debate embodied everything we already knew: McCain is experienced, outspoken, and passionate. Obama has relatively no experience, and maintains that liberal naivete that we’ve seen before, but he’s smart enough. I was a bit surprised that McCain seemed to keep his cool better than Obama- I’ve always thought of McCain as a hothead. Basically, both seemed to overcome their weaknesses last night and put on a pretty good debate.

10. Crazyupstart on 27 Sep 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    Stan,

    McCain’s whole view on the war was that the only thing that has worked has been the surge, i.e. more troops. The more we keep over there the sooner we can bring them all home. Give the military what they need to finish, don’t tie one arm and one leg behind their backs and tell them to win in 18 months.

    I don’t know if there was a winner to the debate. I know that every time the moderator asked for a straight answer on what to do about the economy crisis, Oboma’s answers were: raise taxes and increase government programs i.e. (rebuild the entire infrastructure of the continental U.S.).

    My concerns:
    1) we are at war: McCain has far better experience to deal with the whole world at this time.
    2) we are in a financial crisis: Everyone knows that in a financial crisis it is conservative economics that get one out, not socialism.

11. Del on 27 Sep 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    It’s sad how far from the founding fathers’ ideal of small, inconspicuous government this nation has come. I’m only interested in what both of these power-mongers think because it’s important to know who the enemies of freedom and Christianity are. I make my own way peacefully in the world with Christ as my guide. I’m amazed at how mildly we sit by and say, “hmm, who do I want to rule over me today, steal my money (via taxation) and kill in my name (by going to war). We need to rethink the whole perverse system and stop pretending like we have a real choice.

12. Denny on 27 Sep 2008 at 3:30 pm #

    I general I would agree that Obama would be a non-voice, etc. but the fact that there could be up to 4 Supreme Court justices up for appointment cause me to think otherwise. Obama’s policy can be reversed with the next president but Supreme Court justices appointment is much harder to undo.

13. steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    crazy upstart: you will never “win” your war(s) with McCain. He will spread it all over the Middle East and opposition will grow. Pakistan, Israel, Iran and probably Russia now… The only way to end the bloodshed is to withdraw all your foreign control and leave foreign soils. I see little hope for the planet with McCain.

14. learning on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:51 pm #

    I don’t think anyone really won the debate. The debate was boring ,for the most part. Actually I would say both ’sounded’ or presented themselves well…..as presidential? Next is the v.p. debates. Even though I’m voting for Mccain I’m a bit worried how Palin is going to do. Her first interview with Charles Gibson wasn’t that good. She sounded defensive and mechanical.

15. steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:58 pm #

    when asked what he thought of Palin, the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said on “Rove”, “I like moose”. The Palin/McCain ticket will be disastrous for international relationships.

16. Jason on 28 Sep 2008 at 12:43 am #

    I do’t know why we christians fall into this two party system lie.
    Both these guys are bone heads. Neither of them will do what it takes to bring
    this nation back to a Constitutionally based Republic.

17. rayner markley on 28 Sep 2008 at 6:10 pm #

    Education and libraries are not a model for universal health care. They are run locally and by the states. The Federal government has no authority in the Constitution to run health care, in my opinion; it would require an amendment. And it wouldn’t be desirable for the Federal government to be involved so deeply in people’s lives, making people dependent on the government rather than themselves. That discourages initiative and lowers self-respect.

18. steph on 29 Sep 2008 at 4:35 am #

    rayner:

    other countries can manage national healthcare.

19. rayner markley on 29 Sep 2008 at 7:36 am #

    Let them. It’s not a government function here, except in cases of welfare, and then not on the national level.

20. britphil on 29 Sep 2008 at 7:48 am #

    Permit me if you will to offer a contribution from the other side of the pond!

    Can I begin by saying be grateful that the American electorate appears to be so engaged in the democratic political process. Here in the UK and Western Europe confidence in politicians and the political process is lower than it has been for years.

    My own take on the debate and the process is that I can see valid reasons/arguments for supporting bort candidates. McCain is very much campaigning on the “I have the experience” approach yet it seems primarily to bopl down to his “I am an ex-Vietnam vet” side of things. What about the rest of his lifetime experience. Did he have a raltively priviliged upbringing or has he known what’s it;s like to be poor and struggle. Could you not argue that Obama’s experience os a black man growing up in a primarily white man’s world is as valid.

    “I was a bit surprised that McCain seemed to keep his cool better than Obama- I’ve always thought of McCain as a hothead.” Yes ‘hotheads’ are passionate but is having a hothead as the most important and influential perosn on the world political stage advisable or desirable?

    “we are in a financial crisis: Everyone knows that in a financial crisis it is conservative economics that get one out, not socialism.”

    Crazyupstart, I am sorry but this comment cannot be left unchallenged. As one whose degree is in Economics I’d like to offer a slightly and may be more informed alternative view. What “everyone” also needs to know that under the Conservative government in the UK, when infamous Black Wednesday took place and billions were wiped off the value of shares on the UK stockmarket, it was conservative economic principles and practice which plunged us almost over the edge of the economic abyss in the UK and Labour/Socialist (of a sort!) policies and practice which restored and stabilised the situation. On a much more contemporary note, is it not the total failure of rampant, unbrilded conservative/capitalist economic policies and practice which has preciptated the current finacial chaos currently being experienced in the the USA and has let to the release of much needed State funding. Surely the most appropriate response of a conservative Republican administration would be for American economy should be left to the harsh and random effects of market forces shouldn’t it, ie the economy should be left to really go down the pan without any external financial help or intervention to restore consumer confidence.
    ‘Conservative economic policies’ surely have no other solution suerly than to merely “tough it out and accept the inevitable consequences” which does not seem to be the response of the current conservative administration in the US.

    “As far as the traditional frames and those crazy socialist Democrats, can you believe they keep bailing out these giant companies? I mean, why are we nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with 100 billion and AIG with 85 more. Crazy! Wait, what’s that you say? It’s the Republican Fed and Treasury that are bailing out those companies? It’s the Bush administration and Henry Paulson that are pushing for another 700 billion? Hmm. Perhaps we should rejigger those traditional frames.”

    Tim, can I just reach across the Atlantic and give you a warm embrace my friend…It must be pretty galling for conservative American economic politicians to have to strongly advocate such an interventionist response. Here in the UK over this past weekend, we have seen the second large financial instutution being taken into government hands/management and I guess they won’t be the last! It also appearedd to me that it was the Democrats who were acting as the voice of reason trying to make sure that the rescue package was reasonable, affordable and appriopriate and not just a package put together as a means of placating US voters in the run up to an election

    “Obama wasn’t the candidate fuming on stage, contemptuous of his opponent to the point that he wouldn’t even look at him. It was all McCain could do not to start every single sentence, rather than just every other sentence, with “What Senator Obama doesn’t understand…” If you’d like to be discipled by such a person, that’s your thing, but I wouldn’t project it onto others.For what it’s worth, at the recent negotiations McCain crashed, it was he, not Obama, that sat silent, offering “only a vague sense of where he stood.”

    Once again Tim, this is a point very well made.

    For the record, I do have concerns as to whether Obama possesses the necessary substance to match the cool and calm persona, but I also think that McCain is a lot more one-dimensional than the hype would have us believe.

21. Threads from Henry’s Web » Seeing What We Expect on 29 Sep 2008 at 6:41 pm #

    [...] second was from C. Michael Patton. Quite unsurprisingly he thought McCain was the most [...]

22. britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 6:36 am #

    A very interesting report on from a BBC news correspondent last night.

    The correspondent made a salient point. He stated that John McCain may have begun to lose some of his credibilty/leading in the standings in the poll.

    His mistake apparently was, true to his nature, to somewhat impetuously suspend campaigning to fly to Washington with the intent of sorting out the financial crisis and virtually saying he was going to do. A risky stategy, if ever there was one. The intent was admirable, his ability to deliver on his promise less so.

    What has now happened is that we have an incumbent Republican president who has been virtually totally ineffectual in solving the crisis and a Republican Presidential candidate who has been equally ineffectual in trying to persuade the many Republican opponents of the Bill to change their minds and support it. The correspondent also stated that more Americans a e beginning to feel that Barrack Obama, who has remained calm and level headed throughout the crisis may be the one to trust most with the economy rrather than a somewhat impetuous presidential candidate, who has as his running mate, in Sarah Palin, someone who told the world, in her own words, that she was the equivalent of “a pitbull with lipstick!” I bet you that approach goes down well in the negotiation process! Little wonder then to discover that the negotiations broke down and ended up in “a slanging match” according to news reports!

    The next few days I feel are going to be crucial for John McCain. If he can be influential in helping to broker a deal behind the scenes (so far, there is not much evidence that he will be able to do so), then some of his credibilty may be restored. Barrack Obama also has a job to do to persuade the 95 Democrats who voted against the rescue package to accept some form of compromise.

    For the record, and this may astound you, my sympathies tend to lie with those (mainly Republicans) who have rejected the rescure package. If the reasons for doing so are truly because they do not wish to bail oyut irresponsible financiers and to show them that they are need to be accoutable for their decisions, then I am all in favour and applaud their courage. My guess however is that the decision to reject the deal has been taken partly out of fear of a backlash from the electorate at the coming election who are unhappy about such an easy “way out” being given to reckless financiers.

    Also I feel that a simplistic, knee-jerk rescue package is a dangerous road to travel down. A few more days of strenuous, considered negotiation will hopefully result in a more balanced, structured, thoughtful and considered rescue package which may be palatable to the majority of people, politicans and lawmaker alike.

    My guess is that there is a great deal of brinksmanship going on here and that a more responsible, considered package deal will be hammered out over the next few days and ratified sometime over the coming weekend.

23. britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 8:11 am #

    It’s official!! I have just read in “The Times” newspaper, a respected British broadsheet, a quote from Paul Ryan, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, who admitted that the reason why he and his colleagues voted the Bill down is becasue “quite simply we were terrified for our jobs”.

    Call me old-fashioned if you will, but is not the primary purpose of an elected representative to primarily serve the interest of those who elected him/her to office? I am sure the electorate are delighted to hear that Mr Ryan’s concern is primarily with his own economic welfare rather than theirs!

    If Mr Ryan had said I am prepared to vote this measure down because I object to the taxpayers of this country paying out on average $5000 dollars per head to bail out irresponsible fianciers I would have been much more assured, which appears to be the reason why some of the more liberal Democrats opposed the rescue plan.

    As I mentioned previously I am in broad agreement with those who opposed the package for the reason outlined above. However, as I intimated in my previous post, this has the whiff of electioneering posturing all over it.

    I sense that we may discover that the right decision has been taken, but, sadly, for all the wrong reasons ie self interest dressed up socially responsible clothing.

24. Bill Kitchen on 30 Sep 2008 at 9:09 am #

    ?

25. Stan Leeds on 30 Sep 2008 at 10:28 am #

    Can we afford to live under President Obama?

    INCOME TAX :

    McCAIN – (no changes)
    Single making 30K – tax $4,500 Single making 50K – tax $12,500 Single making 75K – tax $18,750 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250
    OBAMA – (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 125K – tax $38,750
    Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.

    Democrats love taxes. Liberals like to dress it up with fancy terms like social justice.

26. David R on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:11 am #

    I hoped this website would not become another forum for partisan politics. Apparently my hopes were in vain.

    Kindly remove my name from your mailing list.

27. britphil on 01 Oct 2008 at 11:19 am #

    David

    I understand and partially share your concern over the “partisan politics” issue but I would contend that it is unhealthy to divorce our faith from our political thinking which helps shape both our lives and society as a whole.

    What this site does when it operates at its at its best is to enable people with different theological viewpoints, and other viewpoints, to disuss, debate, disagree, listen and hopefully, respect each other more for it.

    It also I hope helps us to understand each other a bit better which is surely beneficial.

    If we simply live in polarised theological ghettos based on what we believe poiltically as much as theolgically, I would argue that is not a place where we should choose to dwell for too long.

28. rayner markley on 01 Oct 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    Well, I wouldn’t want to take a class from Mr. Obama. What would he teach? He isn’t an expert in anything. He emits an intellectual arrogance that sees truth only in himself. Democrats have chosen their most inexperienced and unaccomplished candidate. Such a person who cannot learn from experience isn’t fit for the office.

29. steph on 02 Oct 2008 at 3:42 am #

    Well now – that’s a piece of cross rhetoric.

30. britphil on 02 Oct 2008 at 5:49 am #

    “The Palin/McCain ticket will be disastrous for international relationships.”

    Steph…I couldn’t agree more. If you pose the question “who would you prefer to handle the field of international relationships?”., as I have said elsewhere, McCain is by his own admission fairly impetuous and impatient by nature and Palin took great delight in desribing herself as a “pitbull with lipstick”. Not exactly complementary are they and it sounds like a potential recipe for disaster! Give me the cool, calm and collected approach of Obama/Biden any day! Wheras the pitbull with lipstick apprach may be neccesary on occasions, it surely has to be the exception rather than the rule!

    With regard to Rayner’s earlier comments, I carefully observed both Obama’s and McCain’s speeched yesterday advocating that Senators should pass the revised finance bill. McCain looked edgy, stressed and very uncomfortable, not suoprising as he was advocating acceptance of a strategy that he and his party are not really meant to believe in (are there not issues of integrity there?).

    Conversely, Obama did not look arrogant, merely calm, dignified, collected, measured and confident (which is not the same as “arrogance”).

    Although initially I had doubts, over the last few days, I actually am becoming more of the opinion that both in terms of handling national issues eg the economy etc and in the field of international relations Obama is looking more like the one to trust. I have noticed that several contributors of a Republican persuasion here are becoming more aggressive in tone towards Obama. My guess is that there may be a feeling (borne out by more recent polls) that their man is on the verge of blowing his chances looking at his performance over the last few days.

    My hunch is that this financial crisis could not have come at worse time for the Republican party, highlighting an already neutered and ineffective lame-duck President (let’s face it, he wasn’t even welcome at the Republcian convention, though of as being so much of a liability that his appearance was limited to a relatively brief videolink!) and a Presidential nominee who is on the verge of losing the confidence of some key floating voters.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.