Who won Round 2?
Posted on October 7th, 2008 at 9:26 pm by Jason Wright, EditorTalk about false advertising. The debate wasn’t a Town Hall, it was just like the last one but without podiums. I was hoping for something much more interactive and the audience just seemed to be reading Brokaw’s questions. Despite his best efforts early on, Brokaw lost control of the format and gave up on enforcing the rules.
So who won? Did anyone?
72 Comments
Leave a comment
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
For the record, I thought McCain performed well, but Obama didn’t trip. It was probably a draw, and that means a loss for McCain.
But honestly? I’m ready for November 4th. Let’s get it over with.
Are you looking forward to Nov 4 because you are anxious for the Obama coronation (are they booking odds on whether he turns water into wine or walks on water at the his victory party?) or because you feel sorry for Mccain and are ready to see his suffering end? The campaign has become painful to watch.
Debate was a draw in substance (though obama drives me nuts without his teleprompter…the great communicator he is not). On style Obama wins based on the fact it looks like ‘fresh prince’ vs ‘the crypt keeper’.
Jason
This is exactly why network news has become so irrelevant. My GOODNESS! How did Brokaw get such gravitas?
Russert he is not.
I agree, let’s get this whole mess over with and crown the heir apparent. Man, this country still falls for the pretty face dressed in a nice suit with a style like the myhical Pied Piper. Obama is like Bill Clinton without the baggage with a “man from hope” sort of ring to it. Oh please, give us a break!
I think McCain did better than Obama, but overall it was rather boring.
Somebody check the soundbite from Obama about the Holocaust, did he say didn’t intervene or something?? Dude, get your historical facts in order.
YAAAAWWWWNNNNnnnnnn……….
I agree with Jason 100%.
McCain simply could not do enough within this format to overcome the Obama surge. A loss for J-Mac.
Need more Sarah “Barracuda” before November 4th, she is the only interesting thing in this election.
Obama won economy. After all, his mom died from cancer, so he knows health care is a right.
McCain won foreign pol. After all, he learned everything from a Chief Petty Officer, so he knows how to kill bin Laden.
Snooze……
The most entertaining element was Tom Brokaw trying to keep time limits.
It seemed like the same rhetoric they’ve been rehearsing for months. Definite draw.
BTW - Drudge Headline: “BORING”
I’m want to know if any of you McCain supporters are behind McCain’s new program to buy mortgages from people who’s home prices have fallen and then re-negotiate a new lower mortgage. Say what? If this is the future of Republican policy, then it’s a train wreck about to happen. Get ready to be the minority party for about the next 40 years.
Gary, Brian, Alaina, RedEd any of you hard core McCainiacs ready to defend that one?
Nope… not gonna touch that one.
And seriously, where did that come from?
I will not try to defend what I don’t understand. The truth is that I, like others, depend on people we trust to to help us grasp these complicated issues. I can’t say I can “defend” John McCain’s policy but I can say I trust John McCain.
I know nothing about the economy but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Not only will I not touch that one with the proverbial 10 ft pole, I’ll take said pole and whack Mac on the head a few times since he’s obviously got some kind of clot going on up there. Why don’t you just pay off my mortgage while you’re at it? Universal Housing for all…
I was stunned to hear that. I thought perhaps I heard him wrong, but he repeated it. So, first we bail out irresponsible financial institutions, and now we bail out irresponsible consumers. I recently heard a pundit somewhere saying a bail-out of the consumer credit market was next. Good grief!
I’m heading out to buy a new, bigger house right now!
Seriously, I have no idea what to make of that statement.
btw…I’m not a “hard-core McCainiac” - just a “hard-core anti-Obomanator”.
There are a couple of dozen conservatives that I’d MUCH rather see as pres. I’m just a realist who knows that a “Republidem” is better for the country than a socialist.
Right there with ya, GR!
Me too!
Sorry for having to ask, but, which one was the socialist again? Kinda hard to tell from last night’s debate.
I’ll say a little something about it since that’s highly related to what I do for a living. From what I could get out of what he said about it, he basically wants to do government mandated loan modifications. The “Bush Plan” kind of already did this where a certain group of people was designated for modifications regardless of whether or not they really need one or know it’s coming.
As far as whether or not it would be a good idea, that’s really hard to say. The place I work actually does a really good job at dealing with crap loans (we specialize in subprime) and there are a lot of ways to help reduce the hard hits to investors that hold the loans. The banks that don’t have a good approach to these options are the ones that are going to take the hardest hits. As far as the government getting involved, I don’t really like the idea. I’m still a fan of the market.
Boring, boring, and boring.
McCain did a better job pointing out Obama’s record than last time (A $3 million projector? Really?), and I really liked the “that one” comment, but it was boring.
Where the (insert choice word here) did that mortgage program come from? I haven’t seen the details, but at first glance it sounds like a horrible idea. However, he still has my vote because Obama would be even more of a disaster than what I think (again, at first glance) that mortgage program will be. Look for a post on that one from me as soon as I get a chance to research it.
I think that thing that carried the most over the last debate was not any policy positions, but the tone in which McCain approached Obama, which was angry, condescending, and unfitting for a colleague. This did not change in this debate, and Obama wins on that regard. Anytime McCain looks like a grumpy old man, that is bad. Also, Obama won on policy, getting it correct that health care is a right, and showing his concern and support for the middle class.
Health-care a right? Seriously?
Yes, seriously. We believe that every citizen in this country is given inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As rich as we are, it is inexcusable health care is so expensive. It is inexcusable that 41 million Americans don’t have health care. We can end that, with just a simple change in priorities.
1) It’s expensive because the govt alrady mandates that any poor slob who shows up penniless at the ER for a nosebleed gets treated, and you and I are stuck with the bill.
2) Can you say idiotic lawsuits?
3) Most people are clueless about the most economical ways to run a major med policy. That’s because employer based plans were historically “pay it all” plans. We’re no longer able to manage that kind of coverage. Get moving on portable insurance that is individual based, offered to be written off in tax rebates or credits, assisted with HRA’s and MSA’s. It will wake up the patient to manage care better, and force companies to respond to market pressure and customer service to keep their co. afloat.
For major illness, people don’t have the benefit. If you want long term treatment, the ER will not do it. People then go bankrupt trying to pay off these bills. If you don’t think something is wrong with that, the I don’t know what to say. People don’t choose their sicknesses. They should have access to affordable healthcare.
The tax credit will not work because $5000 out of $12000 still very expensive. Not to mention the fact that employers cannot tax benefits. This does not answer the questions of reducing the amount of people without healthcare.
J, it sounds like you know first hand the issues with medical costs. I trust all is well. I, too, have much too much firsthand knowledge of this. Thankfully, I have good insurance, and my wife is doing very well.
In regards to your comments, I think Obama’s solution is masking the real problem, and potentially creating more problems. The USA has a good health care system that is able to provide needed care. The problem is the administration of the system, and abuses that have grown out of it through government and insurance ties.
Unfortunately, McCain’s plan is not addressing the real issues, either.
I’m sorry - would that be the self-evident right to life, liberty, and pursuit of affordable health care?
Puleaaasse. I once went 2+ years without any major med because I was just out of college, poor, and working 2 part-time jobs. I even tore ligaments in my ankle playing volleyball while I was at it. Should I be crying for health care to cover me? I survived, and so can most people if they apply their brain and get moving on a plan.
It’s a privilege to have it, a responsibility to offer it in affordable plans and options, and a right to deny it.
I thin I’ll be spit-shining my boots for my Obama-uniform so I can parade around like a goofball and tell everyone I can be a nuclear physicist b/c the Oba-wan is now CCOOTUSA - Chief Community Organizer of the USA.
Red State Eddio, your story does not apply to other Americans who cannot afford it, and have families to watch over. They can’t afford to not work, and to take any risk with their health. People should not have to fight for healthcare. They should not have to go into the ER and come out with an astronomically high bill that they can’t pay.
And I don’t understand why you want to mock him for being a community organizer. He did this out of college, to help those affected by Steel Plant closings. It is another way to serve, and even McCain agrees.
I mock him because he is mockable.
And it drives his worshippers crazy.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, J.
As a member of the health field i will admit the system is messed up. However, much of it is due to prior government mandates. Yes, some people go bankrupt due to healthcare costs, just as some people go bankrupt due to failed businesses or divorces that they may have done everything in their power to prevent. Should the government mandate a job for everyone and happy marriages?
The problem with the idea of ‘health care is a right’ is that health care is a provided service. So if it is a ‘right’ then that means that you have a right to my time, energy, etc (my service) and i see no rights in any of the founding documents that are rights of one to be imposed on another citizen. The unintended consequence is a lack of people to provide said service because we will find another way to make a living. There will be massive numbers of people leaving healthcare (already occuring) and a healthcare provider shortage (also occuring in some areas/specialties). This leads to what most socialized medicine countries have which is rationing of healthcare. That is not a bad thing per se, but people in this country will scream when government says grandma is too old to have that surgery that the family wants or that your ‘elective’ knee replacement that you need in order to walk will be scheduled 12 months from now.
If health care is a right,
and that means I have a right to you time, energy, and resources as a health care provider,
does that mean you have a right to my hard-earned money?
That’s the line from the Oba-wan we’re not hearing…
Oh and one other thing.
For the more libertarian among us…when government provides a service there are always strings. If government provides your healthcare coverage then they have the right to mandate your lifestyle choices. Be prepared to outlaw smoking and fast food and have mandates to increase exercise. Also, instead of your doctor recommending you take a medication, your government will require you to take your lipitor (or whatever drug is recommended for your condition) in order to cut their costs later from preventable complications.
Good insights, JE. It’s going to be a train wreck of a mess if we keep marching down this road. Misapplied compassion is going to tank an industry and kill us off economically as well as having Big Brother “House” breathing down our necks with lifestyle mandates.
And all you kiddies who couldn’t wait to be 21 so you could drink that bottle of beer whenever you wanted (and however many you wanted) - say goodbye to those days under the Oba-wan Health Care plan. You thought you were being structured and rigid while living with your parents. Ha! Just wait till the Oba-wan and his liberal policy buddies are through with you.
Liberals might lead with the heart, but they leave the brain behind, giving us all kinds of unintended consequences.
Oh wow, that’s a lot of naivite gong arond about the role gouvernment would take to everybodies live in a more regulated society.
I really want to leave myself out of this discussion, but just have to state, that living in a European country, the government almost completely stays out of my personal live. I can choose which school I attend, which Doctors I go to, if and whom I marry, which job profession I like to have, where I want to live etc. pp. It’s more like, that gouvernment offers services which I decide to take or not.
To predict that Doctors or even the gouvernment would mandate which drugs I take or if I smoke or not is just pure nonsense. Indeed my Doctor always tells me, I should stop smoking, but he does so in my best interest and for concerns about my health (and I always ignore his advice with a bad consicousness).
I wonder if you think that the rest of the free world just lives in Sodom and Gommorah.
German, the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
I’ll try my very best.
G.O.
Seriously, how does the system there work? What are your tax rates? I honestly do not see how we could transition from our system to a socialized one. The friends i have in canada have crossed the border to come to america for health care because they say the wait to get anything done is horrendous and people in the united states complain if they have to wait a few days to see a specialist.
I would like to better understand how those systems work, though, so any clarification would be welcome.
So, if this is a serious question, I’ll take some time to write some lines. But stating first: I am not really an expert. And second: we actually are really really struggling, but i come to that later.
The basic concept is that everybody obligatory pays some ratio of his salary as health insurence. This ratio is actually about 14% of your gross income, your employer adds another amount. Unemployed people and other people who depend on social welfare don’t pay, so don’t retired people.
What you get for this is free access to every medical care you require or feel to require. Not only in cases of emergency but in any case - theoretically you could run to a doctor for every cold (but in fact nobody really does). Your choice of doctors is absolutely free, though it is recommended to see a general practitioner who then sends you to a specialist, if he/she feels there is a need. Usually you don’t have to wait for long to get an apointment at a doctors (depends on the reputation of the doctor of course) nor do you for operations at hospitals. Average life-expectancy is at about 80 years, so the standard is fine I suppose.
Parallely to that state-run system a privatized health-insurance-industry emerged- which causes some trouble. If you earn more than about 1.900 Euro (roughly 2500 USD), be a freenlancer or run your own business you are free to make a contract with private insurence companies. These contracts are cheaper if you are young and they provide a somewhat better better health-care as the insurance-companies have their own contracts with the doctors, which guarant them somewhat higher prices for their service (though doctors deny that they treat differently those who own statewise or private insurance).
The effect of the system is, that it gives each and everyone a free access to medical care of a pretty high standard under any conditions, regardles of income, age, health condition or any other factor. This assumption, or better goal, is unquestioned by the society in Germany (and in other western European countries as far as I know).
Now comes the part with the trouble. It’s no paradise here either. The system as such is constantly at the fringe of collaps, due to the enourmos costs. The system only works, if there are enough people, who pay and the number of people, who don’t (read can not) is confined. Some factors constantly shale up these factors. First: as high-income-people tend to chose private insurance, they are missing in the system. Odd enough, if rates for private insurance rise with the age, some people go back to state-run-insurance exactly to the point when teir condition gets worse (for age reasons). Bad! Secondly, as unemployment still is a big problem, unemployed people don’t contribute to the sytem, but only use it. Tird, and probably most important, as people become older and older, but remain to retire at the age of 65 the negative effect is obvious. Due to ever improving technologies the costs for treating older people are rising and that for an ever expanding time (due to stretch of live expeteny). So there is a constant discussion going on, how to limit costs and still hold the system up (which is a consensus basically). So far i Germany we are not at the point where the Neherlands or England have landed if I can believe some friends, who live there. That is, that operations are delayed for long, if not indespensible fr life, people have to wait to see a doctor etc. We have complaints about the quality by and then, but overall the standard is okay. Anyway there have to be some adjustements to the system.
Regarding taxes: with out going into detail, if you count health insurance and obligatory unemployment insurance to taxes, the average rate is about 40%. Quite high, but I guess the US is not that much less, and benefits like unemployment-support, free health care, free access to schools and universities are included.
You said what I was going to ask: what are the economies of scale you’re dealing with? That is, how many people are paying into the system, using the system, and how much $ is going into it? Whatever the creative plans may be, the bottom line is always will it balance out in the end or not. That’s the issue none of the countries I’m aware of have solved that piece of the puzzle. Care for all, but books that balance out in the end without bankrupting anyone.
Yes, i actually meant the question. Some of us actually like intelligent discussion of issues and as someone living under that system you bring a perspective i am interested in.
Anyone who will not consider other opinions is as foolish as the person who constantly changes theirs with the prevailing winds (i.e. most politicians). I still do not see me ever supporting socialized medicine in america for a variety of reasons but thank you for taking the time to share.
JE, ask and you shall receive …
You display an open mindedness which I like a lot and which is rarely to be found on this blog. You might like the concept or not, but at least you should have a look on it, at least, that is what I do vice versa.
RSE: I don’t see, that the thing has anything to do with economies of scale in that sense, as cost-efficiency does not rise with the number of participants. But yes, you are absolutely right, the system stays and falls with the number of people involved and with the balance of people who contribute and those who can’t. And yes, as I said, we have enourmous problems actually and frequent discussion how to adjust is going on. I’m not blind to the problems of state-run welfare-systems at all. There is always the tendency of inefficiency and some people always will exploit the system. Anyway, there are quite a lot of measures to imply more efficiency. But it takes time, hurts interests of special interest groups and sometimes requires cuts into the net.
Anyway, step one, as I think, is IF you want to have a state-run-system and step two is to think HOW you run it in the most effective and most efficient way. The first decision as I see it is answered better here than in the US, as inded I strongly believe that health care is a RIGHT - at least in those industrialized and wealthy nations, we are living in.
Wow. I just got on the computer, and look at the conversation that ensued. Thanks JE and Eddio. This was exactly my point. (I think I might feel a post brewing…..)
Because it’s a horserace…this race is over.
Due to the political environment there is little doubt that track conditions were favorable to the Democrats. A muddy dirt track of war and recession is not conducive to the grass turf preferred by the Republican horses following eight years of a Republican administration.
Obama, a 4-1 contender, has successfully shaken the morning line favorite Hillary, has run from the front in a perfect position to “run for the roses”.
McCain, a 30-1 morning line long-shot, has run a great race. McCain paced himself early allowing Romney to get tired out by the 99-1 unknown long-shot Huckabee. At the ½ pole both Romney and Huckabee faded fast. Taking advantage of the Romney/Huckabee battle, McCain was able to pass his opposition, making him the only Republican contender left in the race.
Coming out of the ¾ pole and into the stretch Obama has a steady lead of 5 links and gaining. McCain has taken to the whip but seems unable to respond. Obama is running hard and not looking back. Barring a frontal leg fracture or the jockey falling off, this race is over.
Wait to see how the Ayers thing plays out before you throw in the towel. It has a lot more legs to itn (e.g. the economy, voter fraud, his only executive experience) than a question of Obama’s character for associating with an unrepentent terrorist. It just depends on how it all plays out.
Ayers is not a new story. If McCain’s hopes now rest on the Obama/Ayers association then he will lose this election by 10 links.
His association with Ayers isn’t new to us, but it’s new to all those people who are just now tuning in and the Acorn link it new (at least it is to me). The Acorn thing could and should be a big deal if they’re successful at getting it out there.
This really is old news, in the sense, that we are not asking who is the Real Obama. Whether, it’s the tax and spend liberal, a dangerous radical, or the future, people know who Obama is. What matters is the economic and foreign policies that will take this country into the future. That will be the central question, and no petty tangential relationships already discussed in the Democratic Primaries.
Thank God for Hillary Clinton. Originally I thought it would be best for her to bow it, but by staying in the race, she was able to negate these arguments by the Republicans. These arguments remain irrelevant to the current problems America face. He is not even showing it to the main audiences, as the rallies they are speaking at are playing to the base.
Mac got an RBI single, but he needed a 3 run home run. As long as things continue to tank economically, we’re all going to be chanting Christmas carols to the Oba-wan. Unless Putin wants to pull an October Surprise, or Osama drops a nuke on US soil, Mac is not the man - Ayers and all.
Too many libs have fingers in their ears chanting “La, La, La, we love the Oba-wan” to hear the truth. Half would say they’d defend Ayers “right” as an American citizen to chuck bombs in any general direction. Heck - they’d even admit to probably being the door holder for Bill if they were in college at the time.
Latest Poll: Nine out of Ten despots and crack-head dictators are pulling for Obama. And you thought the media was biased…
Which crack-head dictator is the one pulling for McCain?
That dude must be really high on crack…….
It’s Putin. He wants to man up and go head to head just like the good ol’ Soviet days.
partisan politics aside for the moment….
If the credit crunch had struck last year, would Gov Romney have won the GOP nomination do you think?
I would have thought that his economic credentials might have been enough to see off Senator Obama despite his religion and the shortcomings that cost him the nomination.
Absolutely. Romney would have cleaned house, and J-Mac would have been left chairing some Senate whatchamacallit.
It would have been a totally different ball game. I for one never had a problem with his Mormonism (I’m not), but I’m sure we would have had reporters quiz him mercilessly about any strange teaching they could dig up.
Timing is everything.
Or, we could spin the biggest conspiracy in the world and say that all the libber-haters of Bush wanted the Oba-wan to win, so they held back on all the data until they knew for sure that Romney was out of it, since he’d pose the biggest threat to any domestic policies the Oba-wan crafted. Only a whacko would believe that, but that’s pretty tame compared to what’s been slung around with Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
I think he got his tactics wrong, the country is leaning towards the left (you might not like it, but the GOP did pick its most left leaning candidate). Gov Romney was pretty moderate in Mass. perhaps had he stuck to this, he would not have had the frankly embarrassing inconsistencies and flip flops (NRA, hunting, gay rights etc) and may have won.
I never thought he was the true conservative the majority on PD seemed to be looking for, though he tried to make out that he was.
Just like I don’t think that Senator McCain is being allowed to be himself on this election.
This is the most frustrating things about politicians, for us as well, I wish they could be who they are, try to persuade us that they are the most suited and if they lose, so be it. Instead, they try to pretend they are who we want them to be.
Whether you liked them or not, I think you can’t deny that the likes of Mrs Thatcher and President Kennedy were leaders who pursuaded and influenced rather than pamapered to the persceived will of the day.
Sorry, I got side tracked. Debate number 2 was at 2am this side of the Atlantic so can only go on what others say as to who won.
I never liked Romney… I felt like he made a check list of conservative stances for the primaries and it didn’t match up to his record in Mass.
Latest Polls: Barr @ 1%, Nadar @ 1%
Proving? I dunno…
But, were they in debate,
Might have been a better show!
Big Mac did fine, me thinks
If he keeps it close, he
Has a chance election day cause
On election day, voters more
Conservative be.
Whodat seeing polls close just a tick up this week from last
Next week will be closer cause
The turmoil will be more past…
Whodat
Actually, Obama did infer he has a right to your money. He has repeatedly asserted that those making more should pay more, to be fair. There is nothing at all fair in what Obama says. He’s a communist at heart, trying to masquerade as a socialist, trying to masquerade as a liberal.
Classic class warefare.
They shouldn’t have to fight for healthcare, but they should have to pay for it just like the rest of us.
Oops… this was supposed to go under one of J’s comments.
I had the same problem with the post you replied to. It appears that only the first post is nested correctly. I have to reload the page to be able to post additional replies in correct nesting.
Are they irrelevant? Through Ayers, Obama funded Acorn and trained their people… the same people who pressured banks into making sub-prime loans to uncredit worthy people. Is that not the root cause of our current economic crisis?
Dang it… again, this was supposed to go under one of J’s posts.
Do we need to run you through a remedial posting class Alaina?
Apparently.
It’s just one of those days.
A boring debate was made even more insufferable due to PD’s lack of a live blog/chat feed.
Help a brother out next time!
We’ve not had great turnouts, so we bagged last night.
How many of you would have joined us if we’d live-blogged?
I would have… I kept checking for it during the debate. You need to advertise earlier to get a crowd.
I would have as well. It definitely would have kept me awake.
I would have…I was also looking for it throughout the debate.
I’ve tried during the VP debate and could not get in…
I watched the first half with the fam (which was a stretch for them), then checked it at 10 to see if anyone was on-line.