About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, October 2 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
These presumed criteria by which we are to judge the respective candidates in the presidential and vice-presidential debates are how well they think on their feet, how confident and articulate they are in answering questions and how knowledgeable they appear on the issues. But, while these considerations are certainly important, are they the primary standards by which we should be judging the prospective leaders of our country?

Aren't their political ideals, and their economic and foreign policies more important? In other words, aren't their beliefs and values what we should be focused on? We're not electing a champion debater, a glib spokesperson or an articulate and charismatic media personality. We're electing someone who will be involved in determining political policies and decisions.

We should, therefore, want to know everything we can about their moral and political values. Whether they stumble over questions, appear uncertain in how they answer them, or are not as knowledgeable in a particular area as one might expect is less important than what in direction they would take the country if elected.

Yet, the candidates' actual political views seem less important to political pundits and the media than how "statesman-like" they appear in front of a camera, on stage or in an interview. Perhaps, we can blame this attitude on a culture obsessed with superficiality, glitz and glamour, but this obsession is far less excusable in judging a political candidate's performance in a debate. There we want substance over style.

Good luck getting it. If either candidate stumbles on a question or commits an embarrassing gaff, that's all you'll hear for the next several weeks. The candidate will be judged as having "lost" the debate, and his or her political views and policies drowned out in a feeding frenzy of political ridicule, on the same level as that of playground bullies who enjoy poking fun at a clumsy kid who isn't cool enough to be popular.

A presidential or vice-presidential debate is not a contest, like a high-school debate, in which there is a "winner" and a "loser." It is simply an opportunity for the candidates to present their views on the issues and to highlight the differences between them and their opponents, so that voters can determine which candidate best supports their political values and is, therefore, worth voting for. Yet that is not how it will be viewed by political commentators, who will be quick to decide who "won" the debate, as if that decision were a disinterested appraisal that could be rendered independently of which of the candidates one happens to agree with.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/02, 9:41am)




Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, October 2 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill,

Well said. It is an area I despair of seeing improvement in. Our media and intellectuals should be serving exactly the purpose you've outlined. The media is a mess and caught between partisan bickering and outdoing each other for the most sensational sound-bite. And we don't see much in the way of intellectuals in the process.

That old saying that a people get the government they deserve.... This approach to selecting the representatives is no doubt the way the truth of that statement is manifesting.

If we were choosing between different sets of principles, instead of different people, that would help a lot. If the parties were clear representations of different political principles it would make choice easier. Vote the principles, not the man.



Post 2

Thursday, October 2 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Excellent post. Sanctioned.



Post 3

Thursday, October 2 - 2:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill,

True comments. I generally vote based upon their principles or values - which is still frustrating, given the platforms of both leading parties. So, I usually vote, pretty much, straight Republican. I feel the Republicans have less chance of getting into my bedroom, than the democrats have of getting into my wallet (they've already proven how well they can pick my wallet) - the lesser, then, of the two evils. I would consider Democrats for positions of dogcatcher, or in other areas where they will leave my money alone.

This all said, it is impossible for an intelligent voter not to still consider the competence of an elected leader to fulfill their post. There are issues, such as national defense, which require a smart statesman, who has a talent for knowing and negotiating the right actions. I suspect at any given time, it is always wise to weigh which issues are the most important - e.g. international affairs or national affairs - for that time. Of course, in the current circumstances (US), both are likely intermingled.

As far as ability goes, what we probably need is a candidate with Obama's measured approach, but McCain's gut instincts. Personally, I've learned long ago my gut instinct is usually more accurate than my methodical reasoning (yet I still feel a strong obligation to stick to the latter - a frustrating, and often costly dichotomy). That's why all president's need good advisors.

jt



Post 4

Thursday, October 2 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
So who won?



Post 5

Thursday, October 2 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What ethical system should they base their non-superficial judgments on? I think they use postmodernism/Marxism/sensationalism. What can you expect with that?



Post 6

Thursday, October 2 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
well, would say she is no Dani Quayle...



Post 7

Thursday, October 2 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Observations on the VP debate

No one lost - that is no one made any big mistakes
No one was a giant winner - no knockouts

Biden seemed more knowledgeable and stronger and more confident. One has to remember that she is very new to this, and she really did well from that perspective.

Biden seemed to speak more extemporaneously, and Palin spoke a little more in sound-bites and some of them were old at this point.

Biden did a good job of tying McCain to Bush.

Biden was far more slippery with the truth.

Palin may have eliminated the poor impressions from the short got-cha questions they keep showing from her two interviews.

She is still more authentic compared to other politicians but I don't know how strongly this came out this time. She wasn't a Reagan.

She failed to differentiate her ticket from Obama-Biden with much strength.

She was greatly disadvantaged by her altruistic base - When a liberal (Biden) argues about regulating greedy business and she is saying "me too" it comes out as a pale imitation. Biden has good reason to sound more credible in anti-business positions. And McCain is closer to Bush than they would like him to be and they are stuck with it.

The country may give a couple points to McCain-Palin due to her not screwing up, and her authenticity, and her populism but I don't see any big or lasting gain for them from this.

I just kept thinking that an Objectivist, a Libertarian, or even a Conservative with strong free-market understanding would have really torn up Biden and that neither McCain nor Palin will ever be able to do that.



Post 8

Thursday, October 2 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I just kept thinking that an Objectivist, a Libertarian, or even a Conservative with strong free-market understanding would have really torn up Biden and that neither McCain nor Palin will ever be able to do that.
...............

Yes - economic illiteracy held sway, sadly...



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, October 2 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Imagine this:

Moderator: Starting with Senator Biden; what you do plan to stop global poverty?

Biden: Children are dying by the millions and no one of good conscience can stand by let this continue. We are the strongest and richest nation on earth and Senator Obama and I would shirk our responsibilities. Senator McCain has voted against aid to Africa, Senator McCain has voted against aid to Asia, Senator McCain has voted against aid to Central America, and Senator McCain has voted against aid to South America. This is deplorable. I can tell you that Senator Obama has specific, workable plans to stop malaria, to interrupt the effects of famine, to provide education to children. Like the Bush administration, Senator McCain talks about fighting poverty, but doesn't walk the talk.

Palin: John McCain adopted a child from India. He is as generous a man as I have ever known. With all respect, Senator, you are mistaken, Senator McCain has supported aid again and again. He is a man with deeply held reglious beliefs that inform his sense of service. He is a maverick and the people can count on him to do what is right. He has a record for going across the aisle to gain support for foreign aid. We completely support many of the same bills that Senator Biden has mentioned and it is wrong to try to link us to the past administration - let's look forward. Our administration will work strongly to fight global poverty.

Objectivist: America is the greatest hope for all of the world. It is the power of our free market that will lift everyone out of poverty. Look at the record. But Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain and Governor Palin have forgotten that this only works when people are free. The government has no ability to eliminate poverty because it can only take money away from some to give to others. When it take from those who produce, it stops that one engine that IS capable of ending poverty. These people want to take your money and send to foreign countries for programs that don't work. Poverty is the child of too much government. Vote for no one who wants to play Santa Claus with your money.



Post 10

Thursday, October 2 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Damn, Steve! is it too late for you to get on the ballot? I certainly sanctioned your last remarks.

jt



Post 11

Friday, October 3 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I agree with Steve's summary of the debate.  I have to say that I really disliked the format.  I would have welcomed more interactive exchanges between the candidates, but as I understand it, the McCain camp negotiated against that possibility. 

At this point, Palin is unable to do anything but regurgitate soundbites of basic taling points on each issue.  She is getting better at doing this, but she dodged a lot of questions and Biden attacks last night.  On too many occasions, she resorted to one of my great pet peeves of politician behaviors: when faced with a question she's unable to answer well, she changed the subject to something she'd rehearsed, and then spit out her talking points.  It annoyed me when she described this as "talking straight to the American people".

She did what she had to do, though, and that was not appear as "dear-in-the-headlights" as she did in some of her interviews.  One of her big jobs last night was to quell fears that she is a political novice and keep the base fired up.  Last week, Kathleen Parker at National Review, an early Palin supporter, was even calling for her resignation.  With the bar set at mediocrity, Palin rose to the occasion. Barely. 

As for Biden, he certainly seemed more of the statesman, but his socialism was on display almost every time he opened his mouth.   




Post 12

Friday, October 3 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think both candidates did what they set out to do. Winning the debate itself almost seemed like a moot point, but I think you'd have to give Biden the edge (even though I disagree with both his points and facts).

I'm not sure that I understand why Palin wasn't encouraged to go after Biden on the 2005 vote to curb Fannie and Freddie. All financial pundits seem to believe this would have at least greatly lessened the problems faced now. It was supported, then co-sponsored by McCain, and it was defeated, essentially, by Democrats - including Obama. I would think that this should have been a major talking point for Palin to hammer away at Biden, yet at most she made a small reference. This leads me to wonder if I am missing some details about events, which would weaken this - I would otherwise think, important - argument.

Does anyone know of any reasons why they did not use this? What am I missing here?

jt



Post 13

Friday, October 3 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I would rather have someone who is not knowledgeable but will make the right decisions than someone who knows the facts but makes the wrong decision (i.e. Biden).

Also, anyone notice Biden say that Iran is years from a bomb and no danger -  and later berate Bush for not doing anything to prevent Iran from getting the bomb?




Post 14

Friday, October 3 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
BIDEN: "Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem."

From here:
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190 [introduced 1/26/2005] the bill that would have averted this mess.




Post 15

Friday, October 3 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin,

That is exactly what I understood... but why aren't the Republicans using it? They should be swinging it around like a big steel bat, and cracking a few numbskulls with it.!

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 10/03, 7:41pm)




Post 16

Saturday, October 4 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
BIDEN: "Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem."

Biden mis-heard. That "alarm" was the sound of Obama's cash register collecting campaign contributions.  :-)

Here is the alleged warning (about 18 months ago). There is at best a mention of Fannie and Freddie. "I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge." 

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 10/04, 6:44am)




Post 17

Saturday, October 4 - 7:37amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Typical political rhetoric.

It is damned easy to say the ship is sinking when you can see water beginning to wash across the stern. March of last year, most of the damage was done. The housing market had frozen. It was obvious to everyone that things were sliding South. Obama's 03/22/07 letter only shows he was finally beginning to understand it, and dashed off something quick and 'noble' to try covering his fanny. His vote against the 2005 bill to rein in Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac reflect his true lack of intuition.

jt



(Edited by Jay Abbott on 10/04, 7:39am)




Post 18

Sunday, October 5 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Saturday Night Live -- Palin-Biden debate
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/




Post 19

Tuesday, October 7 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Minutes to the 2nd Presidential Debate (my personal notations):

======================
2008 Presidential Debate # 2

question (q)
--what about retired, fixed-income elders?

obama (o)
--worst financial crisis since Great Depression
--failed economic policies of Bush / McCain (last 8 yrs)

mccain (m)
--let's not raise taxes on anybody (today)
--half-trillion to China
--have govt buy up all bad mortgages -- new mortgages for homeowners at reduced home price

tom brokaw
--treasury secretary is most powerful office in the cabinet now -- what's up with that?

m
[looked at and acknowledged o]
--corruption on Wall Street and greed and excess in Washington, DC

o
--middle-class tax cut for 95% of working Americans

m
--fannie and freddie are the ones that with the encouragement of o and his cronies who got folks risky loans
--o is the 2nd highest recipient of funds from fannie and freddie in history
--f and f were the match that started this forest fire

o
--the biggest problem was the deregulation of the financial system
--2 years ago I wrote to sec. paulson and fed chairman bernanke and said that sub-prime loans were a risk
--I never promoted fannie mae

m
--get rid of the cronyism and special interest in Washington that prevents fixing the problem

q
--how can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into a global economic crisis?

o
--we have had the biggest increases in national debt and budget deficits in US history
--I'm cutting more than I'm spending -- a net spending cut

m
--the system in Washington is broken
--I've taken on special interests
--this is the most liberal based spender in the Congress
--o is planning $860 B in new spending
--o voted for every spending increase I've seen since he's been in Washington
--stop sending $700 B / yr overseas

q
--healthcare, energy, entitlement reform - what should be prioritized?

m
--we are not going to be able to provide the same benefits as we do to retirees today

o
--we're going to have to prioritize
--energy has to be first - for economic and security reasons
--invest $15 B / yr over 10 yrs -- totally free from middle east oil by then!
--healthcare is number 2
--education is number 3
--m proposes a $300 B tax cut (100 from extending Bush tax cuts; 200 more to the CEOs)

q
--what sacrifices will you ask every american to make?

m
--there are some programs we have to eliminate
--defense spending is corrupt
--I advocate a spending freeze -- except for defense, veterans, and entitlement programs

o
--after 911, Bush told us to go out and shop -- that's a missed opportunity
--oil companies have 68 million acres they're not using -- use it or lose it
--I'm interested in doubling the Peace Corps

q
--how would you as president break the cycle of debt?

o
--m talks tough about earmarks -- but that's only 18 B of our budget
--across the board spending freeze is a hatchet job -- I'd use a scalpal

m
--we've lost 700,000 jobs in america -- but small business employment has grown
--o will increase taxes on 50% of small business owners -- killing what works
--I'd give every american $5000 for healthcare

q
--social security and medicare will eventually become bigger than the mortgage crisis -- what do we do to solve it?

o
--if you make less than $200K or less, your taxes will go down
--I support a 50% tax credit for small businesses to buy medical insurance for their employees

m
--fixing social security isn't hard, it just involves tough steps (which we know will work)
--medicare will be harder to fix
--o has voted 94 times to increase or not decrease taxes

q
--what will you do about needed climate change and "green jobs"?

m
--I, with Leiberman, introduced the first green legislation and forced a vote
--nuclear helps with climate and jobs
--95% of the people who are our market live outside of America

o
--I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix
--m voted 23 times against alternative fuels
--we have 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use 25% of the world's oil -- we can't drill our way out of this mess
--China is setting up one new coal powerplant each week!

m
--I voted against alternative fuel bills with billions in earmarks for oil execs -- o voted for that!

q
--should healthcare be treated as a commodity?

o
--most of you have seen your premiums double in the last 8 years
--if you have healthcare and like it -- keep your plan and doctor (I'll work to lower your premiums)
--if you don't have health insurance -- you can buy the Congress plan

m
--if you're a small business owner and you don't insure employees -- o will fine you ($?)
--if you're a parent and you don't insure your kids -- o will fine you ($?)
--$5000K refundable tax credit

q
--is healthcare a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?

m
--a responsibility
--I'm nervous about a govt mandate

o
--healthcare should be a right for every American -- for as wealthy as we are
--small businesses won't have a mandate, but parents will
--interstate health insurance will be like interstate banks and "move to Delaware" (where they don't have any strict laws regarding credit cards)

q
--how will the recent economic bust affect our power as a peace-maker around the world?

m
--America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world
--things we've done -- though not always done well -- but we've done because we're a nation of good

o
--we're spending $10 B a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 B surplus
--this is the greatest nation on earth
--we are a force of good in the world

q
--genocide is common -- what is the obama doctrine for govt use of force when US security interests are not at stake?

o
--[mumbo jumbo, mumbo jumbo, mumbo jumbo]

m
--o would have brought our troops home in defeat, I will bring them home in victory
--we went into somalia to make peace and we had to withdraw -- almost 300 marines were killed
--sending america's most precious asset -- american blood -- into harm's way

q
--should the US pursue Al Queda into Pakistan?

o
--bin laden escaped and set up base camps in the NW province of Pakistan
--it's the central front on terrorism
--secretary Gates said the war on terror began there, and that's where it's going to end
--if we have OBL in our sights and Pakistan doesn't give the go ahead -- we have to go ahead and take him out anyway

m
--when you announce you'll launch an attack into another country -- it turns the country against you
--our relations with Pakistan are critical, we have to get their support, Gen. Patreus had that strategy
--speak softly and carry a big stick

o
--nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan
--if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down OBL and take him out, then we will
--m sang "Bomb Iran", m wanted to annihilate N Korea -- that's not speaking softly

q
--senior British military commander said we're failing in Afghanistan, how would you reorganize Afghanistan strategy?

o
--withdraw troops from Iraq in a responsible way
--work with Pres. Karzai to keep democracy in Afghanistan where govt is responsible to the people there

m
--we have to double the size of the Afghan Army
--I have confidence that Patreus will succeed there like in Iraq

q
what about the resurgence of russia?

m
--because of their petro-dollars, they've gotten Big-Shot-itis
--Putin is basically a KGB bully
--we won't accept naked agression by russia

o
--we've got to provide countries like Georgia with concrete assistance to help build their economies
--we've got to have foresight
--our getting fully energy independent will keep russia at bay

q
--if Iran attacks Israel, would you commit US troops, or would you wait for UN Security Council approval?

m
--commit troops right away / russia and china would be obstacles for UN Security Council approval
--my idea of a League of Democracies would prevent a 2nd Holocaust

o
--we can't let Iran get a nuclear weapon -- I'll do everything required to prevent that
--it is important for us to use all tools at our disposal to avoid having to make the difficult choices
--US energy independence would keep Iran at bay
--we should have direct talks with our enemies (to talk tough to them) -- we get a better chance at better outcomes
--Not talking =
Iran went from no centrifuges to over 4000
N Korea quadrupled their nukes

q
--what don't you know and how will you learn it?

o
--here's what I do know: I wouldn't be standing here unless this country gave me an opportunity
--I was able to go to the best schools on earth and succeed
--are we going to pass on that same american dream to the next generation?
--over the last 8 years, we've seen that dream slip away
--we can't expect to do the same things and to get a different outcome
--that's what's at stake, that's why I'm running for president

m
--what I don't know is what all of us don't -- what's going to happen at home and abroad
--there are challenges around the world and they will be different
--I don't know what the unexpected will be
--I know what it's like in dark times
--I know what it's like to keep one's hope going in difficult times
--I know what it's like to have your neighbors help you and pick you back up to re-enter the fight
--the times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller, I've put this country first my whole life
======================

Ed




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.