CANDIDATES ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF RECKLESSNESS ON ECONOMY, MILITARY by FOXNews.com Friday, September 26, 2008
Sept. 26: McCain speaks during his first presidential debate with Obama at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss. (AP)
John McCain explicitly portrayed Barack Obama as “dangerous” and “naive” on the world stage Friday, in a tense and wide-ranging debate that focused as much on the economy as it did on foreign policy.
Obama, meanwhile, repeatedly accused his rival of being President Bush’s protege, dismissing him as out-of-touch with the working class and simply mistaken on the Iraq war.
Both candidates used their first presidential debate, held at the University of Mississippi, to cast each other as reckless and unsteady at a critical time in American history.
“There are some advantages to experience and knowledge and judgment, and I honestly don’t believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience,” McCain said at the close of the 90-minute bout, claiming he’s been involved “in virtually every major national security challenge” of the past 20 years.
“You were wrong” on Iraq, Obama repeated three times at one point in the debate. “John, you like to pretend the war began in 2007.”
The face-off was meant to focus on foreign policy, ostensibly giving the Republican presidential nominee a platform to highlight his decades of experience on the world stage.
But with the current economic crisis confounding lawmakers on Capitol Hill, moderator Jim Lehrer kept the candidates on the economy for the first 40 minutes.
Obama accused his rival of wanting to follow “the policies of President Bush” by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations.
“You voted for almost all of (Bush’s) budgets,” Obama said. “To stand here after almost eight years and say you’re gonna lead on controlling spending … I think is just kind of hard to swallow.”
McCain accused Obama of being an extreme liberal on spending.
“Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far left,” McCain said, casting himself as the scourge of pork-barrel spenders and accusing Obama of heedlessly requesting nearly $1 billion in earmarks in his first Senate term.
As the debate moved back into foreign policy terrain, the candidates traded sharp barbs over the Iraq war and how to handle nations like Pakistan and Iran.
McCain charged that Obama had been wrong not to support the introduction of 30,000 additional troops last year, a move that significantly tamped down violence.
“Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge we are winning in Iraq,” he said, warning that U.S. forces would risk defeat in Iraq if the administration set the kind of withdrawal timeline that Obama advocates.
He criticized Obama for saying he’d be willing to unilaterally strike at terrorist targets inside Pakistan’s borders if the Pakistani government would not cooperate. And he scolded Obama for saying he’d meet with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“This is dangerous. It isn’t just naïve, it’s dangerous,” he said.
Obama countered that “our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their effort to get nuclear weapons.”
Obama acknowledged the situation in Iraq had improved since the surge but said that war was distracting the U.S. military from going after terrorist leader Usama bin Laden and quelling violence in Afghanistan.
The Illinois senator focused on the original decision to go to war, and questioned McCain’s judgment in supporting it.
“The war started in 2003.” he said. “At the time when the war started you said it was gonna be quick and easy … you were wrong.”
In the opening moments of the debate, both candidates said they felt optimistic about the negotiations over financial bailout legislation on Capitol Hill.
“We have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely,” Obama said.
“I’m feeling a little better tonight,” McCain said. “We are seeing for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together sitting down trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we’re in.”
Asked directly whether he intends to vote for a rescue plan taking shape in Congress, McCain said, “I hope so.”
“We haven’t seen the language yet,” Obama said. “I do think there is constructive work being done.”
The two rivals took the stage at the University of Mississippi after a week of wrangling over the rescue package, and a set of surprise maneuvers by McCain’s campaign.
It was only late Friday morning that debate organizers found out for certain the prime-time match-up would be going forward. McCain on Wednesday called for the debate to be delayed until lawmakers took action on the financial rescue package, but in an announcement shortly before noon Friday said he would travel to Oxford.
The political jockeying, both on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill, coupled with ongoing financial turmoil, placed the economy at the forefront of a debate that was intended to focus squarely on foreign policy.
The debate was a chance for Obama to answer criticism about his readiness to lead, but it was also a chance for McCain to regain his footing. The Republican presidential nominee took a political risk by suspending his campaign Wednesday to head to Washington to work on the legislation, and got bruised Thursday after Democrats and Obama’s campaign accused him of disrupting the delicate negotiations.
The high-stakes summit Thursday with President Bush, congressional leaders and both presidential candidates, ended on, by all accounts, a bad note. On Friday, though, senior lawmakers expressed optimism they were getting back on track and moving toward an agreement.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the debate probably ended in a “draw,” but that it could help McCain recover from the turmoil of the past two days.
“I’d be surprised if McCain gets a jump in the polls as a result of this,” he said, but “it does end the drama of the McCain week.”
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In their first head-to-head debate, Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate who "doesn't understand" the key issues the country faces, and Obama linked McCain to President Bush on several issues.
"I'm afraid Sen. Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," McCain said Friday as the two traded jabs over Iraq.
Obama shot back, "I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there."
McCaindrew from his experience overseas as he tried to portray himself as the more qualified candidate.
"Incredibly, incredibly Sen. Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with Gen. [David] Petraeus," he said.Watch McCain, Obama talk about fighting in Iraq »
McCain slammed Obama for not supporting the surge, an increase of about 30,000 troops to Iraq in early 2007. Bush sent the additional troops as part of a campaign to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces.
"John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007," Obama shot back. "You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong." Watch entire debate: Part 1 » | Part 2 » | Part 3 »
Obama repeatedly criticized the Bush administration and charged that McCain is an endorser of his policies. See scenes from the debate »
In describing his tax plan, Obama said, "over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the -- the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to -- wants to follow."
Obama also said the economic crisis is the "final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Sen. McCain."
Both candidates squeezed in a few cheap shots. Obama brought up McCain's jokingly singing a line about bombing Iran, and McCain jabbed Obama for his short-lived "presidential seal."
Immediately after the debate, both campaigns issued statements declaring their candidate the winner. Grade the candidates' performance in the debate
"This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain's home turf. Sen. McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy," said Obama-Biden campaign manager David Plouffe.
"John McCain needed a game-changer tonight, and by any measure
Well MT it depends on what news outlet you are listening to or reading. The liberal media reported that Obama came out the winner. The conserv media reported that McCain emerged as the winner. I watched it last night on FOX and when it was over, the commentaries referred this debate to a 'boxing match'. Naming each issue discussed as 'round 1,2,3 ....'. I thought that was tacky at best.
CNN was a definite Obama supporter. Personally I thought they both did a good job, but I thought McCain was better.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
It was interesting to watch. Though I must admit to switching back and forth between the debate and the Red Sox game.
I thought both candidates did well. Though Obama did better to some because he "looked good doing it." I think McCain made a mistake in treating Obama like a child at times (even though he is in political terms). Obama hit on all the right buzz words, which I'm sure will just cause his followers to swoon, but lacked any specifics, or any depth or detail. Mac put more concrete ideas on the table, but he too spoke too often in generalities, but had some good zingers in there. Mac looked more relaxed than Obama, who just seemed to have too many "deer in headlights" looks on his face.
Kudos should be given to the last real journalist in mass media, Jim Lehrer. He not only managed the debate well, he showed no favoritism to either candidate. He kept both candidates on target, and on topic, sometime forcefully so (cutting off the lengthy expositions that rambled).
It's a win/win situation for both candidates.....if they disagreed or said otherwise they would not be "true Capitalist Americans"------therefore truly not knowing what 'middle America' knows/feels.......
TRUTH is soooo freakin' hard to find.........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg Quote...Ten Years Later 11-21-1
Quote:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
So it really doesn't freakin' matter---------------------- does it folks????????
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com. Great debate was a fake on torture
I don’t know who won the great (or not so great) presidential debate last week, but I’ll tell you what most impressed me, what, in fact, almost knocked me out of my chair. First it was John McCain saying that he “opposed the president on torture.” And then it was Barack Obama saying later in the proceedings, “I give Sen. McCain great credit on the torture issue.” It was fit for Alice in Wonderland. True enough, McCain opposed Bush on torture back in 2005, but at the beginning of this year, when Congress passed a bill to specifi - cally bar the CIA from using such techniques as waterboarding forced nudity, electric shocks and attack dogs and limit it to the military’s approved police-like techniques, McCain voted against that bill, saying the CIA needed its own “extra measures,” and he urged President Bush to veto the bill, which Bush did. Can you imagine the effrontery for him now to boast that he opposed Bush on torture? And can you imagine the opacity, or the cunning — I don’t know which — for Obama to give him credit for it? It was a hardly a secret back in February. Human rights organizations, which had counted McCain as an ally, called his position “disappointing,” and McCain defended himself. But now it’s forgotten, and he airily presents himself as a opponent of the kind of treatment he himself endured in North Vietnam and gets away with it. I’ve read any number of commentaries about the debate, and haven’t seen a word on this little subject. I think it’s one that neither the candidates nor much of the American voting public wants to think about, that for the first time in our history our government has encouraged and approved the torturing of prisoners of war, while constantly dissimulating by talking not of prisoners but of “detainees” and “illegal combatants,” and not of torture but of “harsh interrogation techniques” or McCain’s “extra measures.” I guess it doesn’t fit our image of ourselves as a morally superior freedom-loving people. It seems to me it ought to be a hot topic in a presidential campaign, but instead both candidates look up in the air and whistle a congratulatory tune. Anyway, let me not get on my high horse. With that one little exception I was mostly put to sleep by the debate. The candidates were too good. They were too well practiced, too smooth, even too noncombative. The poor moderator kept trying to get them to argue with each other — “Say it directly to him!” — and they wouldn’t comply. They just made their little speeches. McCain didn’t rip into Obama for picking a plagiarist for his running mate, and Obama didn’t rip into McCain for picking Little Miss Moosehunter. I wish he had. When McCain declared that he didn’t need any onthe-job training but was ready to run the country right now, Obama could have asked him if he thought Little Miss Moosehunter was also ready, but he let it pass. Better not to challenge him on experience, I guess, his own not being exactly vast. Nothing said about McCain’s marital history either, that also being apparently off-limits. McCain came back from five years as a prisoner of war to fi nd that in his absence his wife, a former swimsuit model, had been horribly injured in a car accident as a result of which she had undergone multiple surgeries on her legs, leaving her five inches shorter than she had been and with a pronounced limp, none of which she had told him about so as not to distress him any further in his imprisonment. And what did our war hero do? Did he stand lovingly by her as she had stood by him? No, he ran around on her till he found a tall and striking beauty queen, 18 years younger than him, with a multimillion-dollar inheritance, and then he dumped Missus No. 1. Little Miss Moosehunter gets moral credit for bringing into the world a child with Down syndrome. What kind of credit does McCain get for his treatment of his disabled wife? Too tetchy a subject, maybe. As for Obama’s long association with the race-baiting, Americadamning preacher Jeremiah Wright, I wouldn’t expect McCain to bring that up since he has his own kooky preachers to forget about. Now we must see whether Mc-Cain’s penchant for casino gambling, which was reported in The New York Times on Sunday and which I did not previously know about, becomes a subject of debate. I will not predict anything, my record at political forecasting being extremely poor. I do admit that I am enjoying the ducking for cover by our leaders over the socialization of our financial industry. At least it looks like socialization to me, though of course that’s a loaded word. But what else do you call a disputed $700 billion infusion of taxpayer money to keep the industry afloat? Democrats ought to be gloating, since it’s Republicans who have long decried government intervention in “free markets,” and Democrats who have long been identified with regulation, but they are all quite timid, Democrats and Republicans alike, trying to look like capitalists while acting like socialists, sort of the reverse of China. It did sound quaint to me, though, in the debate, when McCain argued that Obama’s health plan would turn things over to the government, as though that were an unarguable evil. I thought maybe he hadn’t turned the page in his briefing book yet, or in his own thoughts.
Logged
