This, the third presidential debate, was clearly the best of the batch and a lot of the credit has to go to the moderator. Yes, having the candidates sit around a table helped, but Schieffer's willingness to push the candidates past the soundbites that peppered the first two debates made this an event worth watching.
Here's what I wrote before the debate about what the two candidates needed to do in their final pairing:
McCain is behind in the polls -- how far behind depends on the poll (range 4-12%) -- and tonight is his last chance to convince independents that he's their man. Having accepted public financing for the campaign, he doesn't have an (almost) unlimited advertising war chest like Obama, so he needs to make the most of this 90 minutes. He needs to be engaging, not defensive, brittle or waspish.
Obama has met the "are you qualified" challenge in the prior two debates, at least according to polling organizations. Tonight, he needs only to remain poised. It would be nice if he'd clearly acknowledge that his ambitious domestic policy is not tenable under current financial conditions -- but don't expect it.
How did they do?
McCain came out swinging but smiling, using "Joe the Plumber" to make a point about the difference in Obama's economic and tax policies and his. He regularly used phrases designed to appeal to the "smaller government" crowd (many are libertarians and independents) and tried to paint Obama with the classic Republican brush, a "tax and spend liberal."
And in the first half hour, McCain had Obama on the defensive. Obama's responses were not eloquent, but stumbling. (Try listening to the debate instead of watching it; I think it makes this more obvious.)
Then McCain played the Bill Ayers card, a card that I knew that GOP advisers were pushing but one that I thought would be a sign of weakness. Obama had a prepared response -- a good one, I might add -- and the momentum shifted. Obama got his feet under him.
Where I thought McCain lost the independents, the people he really should have been talking to: abortion (criticizing exceptions for mother's health) and Supreme Court appointment (no litmus test - yeah, right). Yes, those positions appeal to the base, but that base isn't going to vote for Obama.
Throughout the debate, Obama kept his temper and his poise, even when his responses weren't as robust as they could have been. He is very effective at soundbite messaging ("I have a four point plan..."). He ducked the question related to the other guy's Veep (McCain didn't), and both he and McCain sidestepped Schieffer's question about how much energy independence can you really expect to achieve in four years.
I thought Obama's call for Detroit to create an energy-efficient (or alternative energy) car was smart on many levels (jobs, the environment, energy independence).
Why Can't They Be Truthful?
So much of what passes as political rhetoric these days is a factoid that has been stripped from context. The result is a lot of "almost" truths. Here's an example: Obama said that the average health insurance policy in the US costs $15,000. I didn't believe him, so I Googled it. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, in 2007 "the annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400." I don't know about you, but I was thinking "policy" (singular) as in "one person." And it's a big jump from $12K to $15K in one year. (Besides, averages are often meaningless.)
Obama said that he'd manage the $750 million billion Wall Street bailout so that taxpayers get their money back. Huh? By the time either candidate is sworn in -- three months from now -- that money will be allocated, nothing left to manage.
McCain longs for a line item veto. So did Obama, in the first debate (implicitly, not explicitly). Get over it guys, not gonna happen without a constitutional amendment. So really, the questions about the budget (and tax plans) are almost moot, as it's the Congress that sets the budget, passes the laws. Yes, the President can ask ... and with a compliant Congress (the first six years of the Bush Administration) what's likely to happen is a lot of spending and not a lot of revenue-gathering.
That means that negotiation and experience (there's a reason LBJ was so effective) are perhaps more important than ideas. Hmmm. I think I just described Jimmy Carter's presidency.
So What Now?
McCain has an uphill battle for the next three weeks. He was competent Wednesday night -- Reagan-like at times -- but he's being outspent two-to-one. Remember, McCain accepted public financing (an Obama flip-flop - the first presidential candidate to shun public financing). Given the difference in spending -- and the fact that President Bush is one of the most unpopular sitting presidents in history -- Obama should have a more commanding lead than he does.
Will the McCain campaign hold money back and pull an Adali Stevenson (or Ronald Reagan) -- give an address directly to the people the night before the election? Probably not - 30 minute blocks are expensive and they might not be able to buy the time. That's because Obama has already purchased "30-minute blocks of prime-time advertising six days before the election." And in at least some parts of the country, Obama has had two-minute ads running on Channel 73 on the Dish Network since 1 October. The campaign has purchased the channel slot through 4 November.
McCain's campaign could do something similar online -- call it a series of keyboard chats instead of "fireside chats." It would be bold and innovative and less expensive than buying prime or sub-prime TV time. And if the John McCain who showed up for the last debate is the McCain in those chats, they'd have the potential to go viral, in a good way.
Comments
“I served with Joe the Plumber, I knew Joe the Plumber, Joe the Plumber was a friend of mine. You’re no Joe the
Plumber.”—Mike the Plumber from NYC/917-974-6367
nice recap. 3 quibbles.
1. flip-flopping on financing. McCain did it in the primaries. My understanding is that McCain and Obama agreed to agree to the same terms for the general, and Obama backed away from the agreement McCain wanted to make. I.e., McCain was further committed to the path he did not end up taking before changing his mind than Obama was to the course he did not take.
2. Most political money-speak is done in terms of households. When policians talk about “middle class families,” they don’t cite average or median wages for individuals, they talk about household income. Obama’s reference to the average cost for a family’s insurance isn’t in any way out of line from general campaign money-speak. Is McCain’s $5,000 credit for individuals or families? I’d bet it’s families; the point is the gap between the credit and the cost. If McCain’s credit is per individual, your point is well taken; the fact McCain didn’t raise that point suggests to me that they were both talking about family finances.
3. biggie. The $750 is not millions, it’s billions. And the first large chunk of it is now — thanks to significant pressure from Democrats — to be used to buy equity in banks. Paulson outlined who was getting the money and how much was going to which banks on Monday. Those preferred non-voting shares will be sold at a later date, probably back to the banks themselves, after the financial markets have recovered and the bank stocks have risen in value. That’s what Obama was referring to when he spoke of recouping the money.
Did you also notice how often McCain interrupted Obama? That made him look desperate. I think Obama interrupted McCain only once.
Like Nora Carrington commented, hopefully, a huge portion of the $750 billion will be used to purchase assets that can later be sold to recoup the investment cost. It’s quite doubtful, though, that much of that amount can every be recouped, for two reasons:
1. A portion was going to quietly be used to make whole foreign banks who invested in the U.S. We will never get that back.
2. The costs of the Treasury department program to administer this entire program are supposed to be deducted from the cash in-flows to the program. Thus, as the program makes money, expenses must first be deducted from it before taxpayers can be reimbursed.
One thing you don’t mention here: McCain’s verbal commitment to balance the budget by the end of his first term. (He said it twice!) At least Obama found a way to avoid answering that question that clearly has only one truthful answer: not possible, probably not even by the end of eight years.
Deborah, thanks, I didn’t know that. I’d also like to revise my comment to note that much of the pressure applied to Paulson by Democrats was ineffective; it took him almost two weeks to move off his original plan. The successful pressure came from the G7 and foreign banks, who are doing the same thing and who’d never planned to do anything different.
I don’t know what planet McCain is on when it comes to the cost of health care plans.
We live in HIS state…Arizona. My husband works for the school district and has medical insurance coverage….for himself.
To get coverage for me, we have to pay an extra amount of over $600/month…for a basic plan with no bells and whistles! Do the math! McCain’s plan would not give me medical coverage we could afford…and then he would tax it like the government already taxes my social security disability!!!
…and he wants to give Joe the plumber a tax break!!! PUH-LEEZ…let’s get realistic here!
Have you had to call a plumber lately? It cost 3/4 of my month’s disability payment to install a hot water heater in 5 hours….and that was JUST the labor!!! We paid over $400 to have a $129 kitchen faucet installed!
I’m sorry, but my heart just won’t bleed for Joe the Plumber!
He should be willing to pay his fair share of taxes like the rest of us!
I think it’s a crime that people on social security disability (around $12,000/yr) should have to pay taxes on the pathetic amount of money we even get…which we paid into during our working years…and which is not even a living wage!!
I sure hope McCain doesn’t win! It would be devastating to me in terms of health care alone…to say nothing of his other cockamamie ‘protect the wealthy’ politics…. his bad temper and hatred which would NOT fare well in international situations requiring a cool head and some diplomacy and COMMUNICATION and NEGOTIATION with our real or perceived ‘enemies’!
He’s just not up to the job and he’s not the right person for the job.
Just because he was a good POW, that doesn’t mean he would be a good president!
Thanks, Nora. That “million” is obviously a typo which I’ve corrected.
I’ll look into the public financing pledges.
I’ll also see if I can find some data on cost of insurance by state or region because averages tell us very little, a range and median are helpful.
Thanks, Deborah — I did forget to mention budgets. Obama used “pay as you go” as his way of saying “I’ll balance the budget.”
Both of them are blowing smoke, IMO.
And with a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the odds of fiscal restraint are slim.
Nora, Deborah — one more thing about the Wall Street bail out.
In the bailouts in the past — the only ones where the public has NOT gotten its money back have been those rescuing banks (I call S&Ls “banks”). That’s because, in part, we haven’t held stock or warrants.
That is the big difference in this bailout and the S&L bailout and the 1907 bailout (I’m not talking about FDIC actions). Somebody slipped in language at the end that allowed the Treasury to buy preferred stock. Bless ‘em, because that clause should stem our net losses.
Hi, str84wird — your point about the variance in the cost of health insurance is well taken.
I don’t think either man is addressing the cause (insurance premiums are a symptom, IMO, not a cause).
I can’t believe we’ve been talking about universal health coverage as long as I’ve been able to vote — since Jimmy Carter (and probably before him). :-/
Kathy writes, “And with a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the odds of fiscal restraint are slim.”
I once heard an economist say that the most productive fiscal periods in modern U.S. history were when Congress was greatly controlled by one party, and the White House by the other. He pointed to Clinton’s years with a Republican Congress as an example.
Certainly having at least one House of Congress controlled by “the other” party is “the norm” (as defined by >50% of the time) since the 50s.
What annoyed me was that smarmy arrogant smile on Obama’s face every time McCain would bring up one of Obama’s many past transgressions.
Overall McCain missed many opportunities to pick Obama’s tax plan apart. Mostly the part about taxing the rich and giving money to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s simply welfare.
Healthcare is another topic. Neither side has a winning issue on this. Who wants the government taking over their healthcare??? Would they run it like they’ve run the immigration department? Or, the post office, the military(now there’s a cost effective branch), FAA, public education, SEC, Federal Reserve, FEMA, Congress(Yikes! that’s just plain scary)and so on? Come on, who in their right mind can believe that U.S. Government intervention in healthcare would be a good thing?
C
Hi, Chuck – appreciate your comment on health care. IMO, neither candidate addressed the crux of the problem which is costs that consistently increase faster than inflation.
RE: Healthcare…IMO healthcare costs can only be mitigated. With a rising population, people living longer and wanting to live longer as if they never aged, it’s impossible to reign in spending. Now, if we go to single payer healthcare it’s possible to cut spending but at the expense of our expected living standards.
C
Hi, Chuck, you mention “expected living standards.”
We already pay more than any other country, per capita, and we do NOT have the best measurements on “expected living standards” by medical measurements such as life expectancy, etc.
We are “paying more” and “getting less” than other democracies. Why?
Life expectancy and living standards don’t necessarily equate. I wasn’t referring to life expectancy. My point was that Americans expect better drugs, surgery etc to enable them to participate as though they were still in their 30’s. This is very costly. That was my point. If they live 4 years longer that will only raise the cost of healthcare.
Life expectancy in the U.S. is another topic and arguably healthcare may play a part in how long we live but other factors probably play into our statistics even more. Factors such as minority homicides, drug use and probably the biggie would be obesity and sedentary lifestyles. We’re a lazy Krispie Kreme fed country. I don’t think there’s a healthcare plan out there that will alter our tastebuds but then again, I don’t live in utopia.
But back to your point about healthcare costs rising, I don’t see how a single payer healthplan could possibly curb rising costs. Exacerbate, yes, curb or cut, not a snowballs chance in Phoenix. And I don’t subscribe to driving down the quality of 95% of U.S. citizens to accommodate the 5% who are not insured.
C