Thoughts On Debates and Bailouts

Two things kept moving around tonight, top of mind, as I watched the debates, taking notes for my post-debate appearance on Northwest Cable News.

First, when is either campaign going to bite the bullet and be straight with voters: we're not going to be able to make tax cuts and we're going to have to raise taxes. Period.

Second, why didn't either Biden or Palin speak out against the earmark-laden "rescue" plan. I'm sorry, calling this financial package a "rescue" instead of a "bailout" does not make it any more palatable. How in the name of all that is holy did a (reasonably) simple need to assure Wall Street (manage panic) turn into a 400+ page Christmas tree?

Taxes:
We can't "save" (ie, cut budgets) our way out of the hole we dug the last five years. Remember, the cost of Iraq is off budget. So is all the bailout money so far. Today we have a growing hole (Wall Street), and we still haven't addressed the hole that is Social Security (the money Congress borrowed from SS without a plan on how to pay it back). Then there's Medicare and Medicaid and a lot of boomers who are getting older.

Be honest. Treat voters like thinking adults instead of pandering to us.

One-Liners
To all those Democrats elected in 2006: you'd best hope you don't have a lot of competition in November. This ain't the kind of change most people were seeking.

To Obama and McCain: enough with the misleading "vote" numbers. They are meaningless without context, and you KNOW that. Moreover, voting for or against an amendment is not the same as voting for or against a bill. You know THAT, too. All you're doing is giving your base "data" to hit opponents over the head. Why not talk about something proactive, like the need for nexus in legislation?

To Obama and McCain: enough with the gross exaggeration of opponent positions, too. All you're doing is alienating the undecided voters and making the rest of us roll our eyes and tune out. For example, McCain was one of the three co-sponsors on Sen. Chuck Hagle's 2004 bill to tighten regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Kinda opposite of the "he always supports de-regulation" claim.

To the youngsters: the president doesn't have line item veto power (Obama, that bit Friday about going through the earmarks one-by-one) and the vice president has only the power to preside over the Senate and vote in the case of a tie (Palin, I really think you were blowing smoke and the team didn't prep you for a question about Cheney - their bad).

To the people who don't like folksy: get over it. Palin's not talking to you, anyway (more than likely). And no, I don't think she's deliberately sprinkling her talk, I think she's talking her talk.

What did I learn tonight? John McCain (as well as Joe Biden) voted against the 2005 Energy Bill. (It was 85-12, Joe, not 85-15.) Hoorah for both of them; it was a bad bill; the only thing good about it was that it could have been worse. Obama voted for it.

Joe can get through 90 minutes without putting his foot in his mouth. But his prep team needs to steer him away from complex topics unless they can come up with clear explanations. More than once tonight, I couldn't follow his train of thought. That's too bad, because he's a smart and personable guy.

And Sarah is an intriguing candidate. For someone who has had to come up to speed on issues that people like Biden have spent decades with, she's done pretty good. That said, her ad libs on policy (not her quips) sometimes go sideways. But I thought she redeemed herself tonight.

Oh. And we can't drill out way out of our energy hole, no matter what folks in Alaska might think.

Update:
Roll call votes: House (263 to 171) and Senate (74-25-1).