McCain is in trouble – The Presidential debate moderated by Tom Brokaw

As of this writing, I am watching my investment portfolio dissipate into thin air. Pope Benedict XVI the other day said that money is ephemeral, the economy is built on sand, and only the word of God will stand forever. He is right.

October 7^th 1984, exactly 23 years ago from yesterday's debate. President Ronald Reagan faced off with Walter Mondale in their first debate. Mondale believed the road to reducing the deficit was raising taxes, President Ronald Reagan believed the way to reduce the deficit was lower taxes. He spelled out exactly how he was going to do it, and he was able to sell his plan to the American people. Reagan came from 16 points behind to a landslide victory. Last night, McCain didn't come close to Reagan's performance. There was no cohesive argument that Americans could understand. There was no passion. Where was the passion McCain has so often used on the Senate floor? The headline in the Drudge report is, "Boring!" In American Idol, Simon Cowell calls it "the wow factor." If a singer sings okay, but nothing spectacular, Simon Cowell says, "There was no wow factor." In last night's debate, I am afraid, "There was no wow factor."

The first twenty minutes should set the tone for the debate. McCain should have begun naming names right at the onset of people responsible for this financial debacle. He did not. Instead, he comes up with another 300 billion dollar bailout package for homeowners to stabilize the housing market. I wanted to get up from my seat and choke him. The majority of Americans were against the 700 billion dollar bailout, so why did McCain think that another 300 billion dollar bailout was going to get him any votes. What about his spending freeze? I heard a Democratic pundit call it a "Hail Mary Pass." Unfortunately, I would have to agree with her. That was the most ridiculous populous rhetoric I heard from McCain in the entire debate.

McCain finally talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

>But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis. But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Senator Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back. And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess. Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.

That was a good start, but he left it there. He never mentioned it again, and didn't name names. How can he not name the people responsible and hold them accountable? Poll after poll shows that Americans want accountability. Why did he not name Frank Raines, the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and a current advisor of Obama, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, and Democrat Barney Frank? Why did he then not tie these together to the Democratic congress that has a lower approval rating than President Bush? A president Obama and a Democratic congress are tantamount to a blank check, and Obama will use it. I wanted to put some dynamite in McCain's rear-end to get him fired up.

McCain did begin to talk about taxes, and he made some salient points. At one point McCain said, "the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point." I was waiting for McCain to explain his statement. He did not. If 50% of Americans according to polls do not know who is in charge of congress, how many does he think know who President Herbert Hoover was? Herbert Hoover was the president at the beginning of the depression, and his increase in taxes, and his protectionist policies such as the Smoot-Hawley act made the depression much deeper and made it last longer, but McCain failed to explain this.

Tom Brokaw asks who will be the next treasury of the state and McCain comes out with Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is one of the greatest financial geniuses of our century but he is a big liberal. Couldn't McCain come up with a conservative? And why wouldn't have the candidates have thought of this before since the treasury secretary is now the most powerful person in the United States Government? Of course, Obama is going to come back and say, "Yeah, Warren Buffet sounds good."

McCain then elaborated on Obama's tax policies,

"Small businesses across America will have to cut jobs and will have their taxes increase and won't be able to hire because of Sen. Obama's tax policies. You know, he said some time ago, he said he would forgo his tax increases if the economy was bad. I've got some news, Sen. Obama, the news is bad. So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000. "

McCain also made the point of Obama's spending over 800 billion dollars in new spending, but he did not effectively tie the two together. He was off to a good start but again it was not enough. He also knew Obama would come back with his usual talking points when Obama said,

>"I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent. If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down. Now, Senator McCain talks about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan. "

McCain left this statement unchallenged. There is no way with Obama's spending plan that he can only tax his so-called rich. In one of Obama's crackpot ideas he wants to spend 25 billion dollars a year to send to foreign countries to cut down on poverty. Guess where that money will end up? – In the hands of terrorists and warlords. He wants to enact a windfall profit tax, the same type of tax that proved an abysmal failure during the Carter years. A windfall profit tax is no different than the excess profit taxes tried before World War 2 that ended up hurting the economy. He wants to expand the earned income credit which is welfare. He says his taxes won't affect small businesses but there are currently 21.6 million sole proprietorships under the individual tax system. Obama's taxes include these taxpayers too. These rates would change from 33% to 39.6%. And what about stifling economic growth with an increase in the tax rate of capital gains and dividends? Obama's tax plan is the same-old redistribution of wealth that has always hurt economies. That is the only way 95% of Americans can get a tax break. This is the opposite of supply-side economics.

McCain talks about earmarks, but it's beginning to lack credulity. His 700 billion dollar bailout was laden with earmarks.

Why did McCain not mention the far-left organization ACORN and Obama's involvement in it which is well-documented? Acorn has been involved in a number of voter fraud cases and just today, the FBI raided the Las Vegas offices of ACORN for more voter fraud including the falsifying of forms with fake names, addresses, etc. This is a commonality of ACORN.

Governor Palin had referenced that Obama was palling around with terrorists such as Bill Ayers, former terrorist of The Weather Underground. This was in reference to newly released documents last Thursday According to these documents, Bill Ayers wanted to radicalize students "in his words" and he hired Barack Obama as chairman of the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" who was responsible for distributing the 50 million dollars raised by Ayers to various schools. This would have left more doubt in the mind of voters. Why did McCain not mention this?

Or, what about Obama's cozy relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko from whom Obama bought a house under suspicious circumstances that even Hillary Clinton mentioned in her debates?

We have one relationship after another from Obama's past of characters of unsavory and dubious quality yet McCain does not mention one of them. One relationship wouldn't mean much, but it is the pattern of these relationships throughout his life that we have to wonder on who Obama really is.

McCain should have refined his energy plan a lot sooner. This is the first time I heard McCain say that he would reprocess nuclear waste like France and other countries. Before it was all about where do we put the waste? France reprocesses 95% of their waste, and the remainder is almost nothing. It is only recently Obama has been for nuclear energy. McCain lost this as an issue.

Obama's plan even sounded better on health care. It's going to cost an arm and a leg, but it sounded better than what McCain was proposing. But again, Obama wants healthcare for 45 million uninsured individuals. That number has always included 14 million illegal aliens. What kind of burden will that put on the government? We don't have money for any of these spending programs.

As we watch our economy crumble, who does not think Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations are looking on this as an opportunity?

There will be one more debate, but who will be watching?

This is not about who will be the best president of the United States, because both of these candidates are dolts. The question comes down to who will do the least damage to our country?

"Dime con quien andas, y te diré quien eres" Show me your friends, and I will tell you who you are." is a favorite saying in Spanish and a warning to America. In last night's debate McCain was unable or unwilling to make the sale. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will be our next president, but be warned. Barack Obama will take us to places we have never been before, and these are places that are not good. Barack Obama is a product of far-left George Soros and Moveon.org and he comes from the corrupt Chicago political machine, and anyone who has looked at his relationships understands what I am talking about. Last night's debate was a turning point in our country. We have now begun the metamorphous transformation from what America used to be to a socialist style of Europe. Its Ironic that Europe is electing leaders by the droves that are right of center because their socialistic policies are killing them; France - Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany – Angela Markel, Italy – George Napolitano and Sweden – Fredrik Reinfeldt. This country will now be run by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Like Britain, our greatness will be greatly diminished by socialistic and protectionist policies. Barack Obama will turn this country into just another member of the European Union. I hope we will be able to recover.

Opportunity lost – the First Presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama

The McCain debate needless to say was a disappointment. Prior to the debates, the media revealed that Obama spent days practicing for the debate. It was also said that McCain didn't spend much time preparing, because he does better without preparation. Well from watching the debate, I think McCain should have practiced more. I was hoping for an Obama knockout by McCain. Admittedly, McCain did better on foreign affairs, but he didn't do well on the bailout, and that was the most important issue of the night.

I have said before that we should do debates more like the French where the candidates sit down at a table and dialogue, and the moderator only controls the questioning process. Friday night was the closest to these French debates I have seen except that the candidates instead of sitting were standing at a lectern. Jim Lehrer, the moderator, was to start with a lead question, and the two candidates were to dialogue, but I don't think either candidate got it. On several occasions, Lehrer, said, "Talk to each other", as opposed to the television audience or he would say, "say it directly to him" directing Obama to McCain. McCain not catching on sneered "are you afraid I can't hear him?" This prompted Lehrer to say, "I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try." It was like a schoolmarm trying to get her students to follow a new process, but the children, hesitant to change, just couldn't get what the teacher wanted. Isn't Obama big on change? Lehrer just gave up after awhile.

Obama did catch on after awhile, and began talking to McCain, but McCain did not look at Obama once during the entire event. That did not look good. It was also obvious that Obama had practiced for this debate because he had improved in his debating style quite extensively with very few uhs and duhs as is his custom. But, this was a referendum on the economy, and McCain should have and could have done much better even though the focus of the debate was supposed to be on foreign affairs.

What polls showed and what the American public wanted to know was; why did McCain feel it necessary to go to Washington? And what is the difference between his bailout plan and Obama's bailout plan? These questions were not answered. When the three page Paulson plan was announced, the senate was receiving 100 to 1 phone calls against the plan. Obama said, "We haven't seen the language yet "but there is a huge difference between what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want. McCain needed to spell out these differences, and why his plan is what the American public wants. This would have gone a long way in alleviating the public's fears. Moreover, it would have shown once again how McCain is not Bush since McCain was against the Bush plan, but he remained reticent, and said nothing. During this entire round, I wanted to grab McCain's neck and shout, "Don't let this radical leftie near the White House." – but I didn't think he would hear me.

And why didn't McCain say anything about Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd. These are two of the principals involved in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess yet they are overseeing this bailout. Wasn't McCain going to name names?

What was amazing was how Jim Lehrer kept asking if there were any fundamental changes that either candidate would do because of this new economic crisis. As circumstances change ones plans would presumably change. But both McCain and Obama stuck to their talking points. McCain finally said he would consider a spending freeze which is actually a good tool. Businesses do it all the time during slow periods in a business cycle. Obama not understanding economics once again said, "The problem with a spending freeze is your using a hatchet instead of a scalpel." At least McCain's pro growth policies of drilling off shore, lower taxes, lower corporate taxes, cutting spending works in any environment whereas Barack's policies of high taxes, socializing health care, etc will hinder growth and kill a slowing economy. Barack, however, stuck to his talking points of raising taxes even on corporations and even after Jim Lehrer prompted questions to both candidates on what they would do differently.

McCain did not spell out how Barack's taxes would destroy the economy and cause the bailout to fail. He needed to do this. He would say one line about Barack's taxes and then go back to his earmark talking points. We all know about McCain's earmarks, but he needed to expose what Barack's taxes will do. Imagine how much it is going to cost to socialize medicine when we just bailed out Wall Street. That is going to kill the economy.

McCain said, "Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent." And Barack Obama shot back that American corporations have all kinds of loopholes. McCain should have said how Ireland has been booming because of its low tax rate. Ireland is a good example. Not sure what loopholes Obama was talking about, the point is you lower corporate taxes, you grow the economy period.

The second part of the debate was McCain's shining point and while foreign policy should be as or more important than the economy, Bush's success on the war on terror has actually hurt McCain – Why? - Because the American public has the memory of a gnat. 9/11 is as distant to the left as Pearl Harbor, and many on the left don't even believe the war on terror remains a threat. They still believe global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama made three evolving statements, the first showing he had no clue as to what the incursion of Russia meant into Georgia. During the debate, McCain said the following, "Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."" McCain, then showed a very deep understanding of the situation with Georgia and Russia. As McCain derided Obama's naiveté on Georgia, Obama appeared flummoxed. Obama had no clue that Georgia was an ally of ours with 2000 troops fighting alongside of us in Iraq. A sound bite that the media will repeat over and over the next day is an important aspect of a debate. But again, McCain missed an opportunity. McCain knew he would be speaking about this; this would have been an opportune time to sneak in a memorable sound bite. How about, "Obama first said each side needed to show restraint until others made it clear that this was purely Russian aggression, and then he had to google whose side we were on." Or something of that sort.

Obama looked visibly flustered at times during the second half of the debate, and interrupted McCain several times. When Obama first interrupted McCain, McCain should have put him in his place by saying, "Do you mind if I finish my point." But, he did not, he let Obama interrupt him. Several times Obama raised his hand like an impatient child, but then just smirked in the usual Obama condescending way. This is the man that could be president.

In any event the foreign policy part of the debate clearly went to McCain, but the country is focused on the economy and because McCain did not score any major points against Obama on the economy, I believe that Obama won the debate. Polls show that Americans trust Obama ten points more than McCain, and only God knows why. I wonder what the voters base this on. I can only surmise that we are dealing with an illiterate electorate.

I hope someone is prepping Sarah Palin correctly for the VP debate. I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning, and she makes a valid point. Whoever prepped McCain for the last debate should be fired, whoever has been handling Sarah Palin should be fired. I hope that Sarah Palin does well on the VP debate, and I hope she is being well prepared. She needs to be authentic. She needs to be Sarah Palin.

As of this writing, latest poll data per Gallup shows Obama up eight points less than 40 days to the election - God help us all.

Gordon Smith?

A Republican the Republican party does not need.




Any Republican who would support a far-left radical who is Obama is not a conservative and does not belong in the Republican party.