Debate analysis: Both men improve, McCain wins on points
posted at 11:00 pm on October 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The second presidential debate goes into the record books, and this time both men managed to stick closer to their game plans. Barack Obama rid himself of the “John is right” tic that appeared in various forms almost a dozen times in the first debate. John McCain gave a much more focused response on economic issues. In the end — literally, in this case — McCain prevailed on his strength on foreign policy and national security.
Obama improved from the first debate. He kept his voice even and didn’t get as rattled. Last time, Obama’s voice kept pitching higher when McCain attacked him, and he spent most of the evening defending himself. This time, Obama stuck to his own agenda, only getting flustered once after a McCain attack, and stumbling when Tom Brokaw shut him down, invoking the debate agreement between the two camps.
McCain also improved, most clearly in the economic debate. This time he hammered Obama on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and challenged the assumption that “deregulation” caused the financial crisis. He looked more confident and spoke more clearly on that subject, and didn’t get nearly as deep into populist blather as in the first debate. On health care, he offered a strong endorsement of free-market principles and providing choice to consumers. (In fact, I think both candidates did very well on health care, with Obama and McCain making the clearest pitches for their approaches than on any other subject.)
McCain did somewhat better on entitlement reform than Obama did. Unfortunately, the question came as more of a follow-up than a separate topic, but McCain offered details and substantive proposals, while Obama talked about spending even more money on a series of new entitlements. McCain also used that to underscore his credentials as a bipartisan agent of change, and noted that Obama has none at all.
Coming into the last 30 minutes, though, I thought the debate was more or less a draw. That’s when Brokaw turned the debate to foreign policy and national security, and McCain simply outclassed Obama. Despite the nearly two weeks between the debates, Obama still couldn’t offer a coherent policy on Russia. He stuck to general themes, and more than once tried to invoke Iraq on completely unrelated topics. McCain, on the other hand, had extensive knowledge of the subjects and gave detailed answers that demonstrated Obama’s superficial knowledge — to the point that Obama complained that McCain thought he was “green behind the ears”, a flub that will no doubt live in ridicule for the next couple of days.
Brokaw did a solid, professional job as moderator. I didn’t think Brokaw would do poorly, and I failed to catch any obvious bias in his moderation. I thought the town-hall format was a joke, though. Brokaw and his team selected the questions ahead of time and chose the participants, and in the end it just looked like Brokaw had outsourced some of the moderator duties to guest voices.
McCain won, but he didn’t score a knockout by any stretch of the imagination. Is this a game-changer? I think not. It may help narrow the gap a little, but I think the two men are pretty evenly matched in these debates. I wouldn’t expect a knockout in the last debate, either.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
slimeball on Fox going after Hannity for show on Saturday. Its sick
memo to Hanntiy, point out Obama’s church gave out pamplets to Hamas
jp on October 7, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Gibbs just stepped on a waist deep pocket of crap…………
JVelez on October 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM
RAAAAAAACIST!
John_Locke on October 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Notice how McCain limits his physical touching to a hand shake while Obama always finds a way to touch more – grabs McCain’s arm or puts his hand on his shoulder/back. It has happened each time they’ve met for debate. An attempt by Obama to make himself look confident and gracious and McCain small and weak. Needs a “take your hands off me” moment.
Wendy on October 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Thanks, Ed. Once again your honest and independent analysis is well worth the read. And what you said on Hugh Hewitt that this is how debates are supposed to be is a sober reminder but I do wish there was more time for real discussion. Saddleback was the best.
mbabbitt on October 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
No way you are Canadian. Well, maybe, and if you are I’ll hide you in my basement until we can get you citizenship papers and a voters registration card.
Limerick on October 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I hate it that we have a candidate with spokespeople who say stupid things that continually get thrown back in our faces.
Someone criticized Graham above. I saw the same thing about Rick Davis.
BuckeyeSam on October 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Mom, please. The kids are reading the blog. Can’t you wait for them to go to bed?
Tennman on October 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Oh ya,me forgot,it was a bit
close,but the win goes to
McCain,for being a bit more
specific in some of his
plans!!!!
Hopey,was busy with his lib
talking points!!:)
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 11:49 PM
By the way, I think Obama lost the debate right at the outset when he failed to give any straight talk about the economy getting worse. McCain gave the right answer to that, a grownup answer – “it depends on what we do.” Government policies caused the Great Depression and the wrong policies now will send us into another one. But we are in for a nasty recession regardless. No economy can take the kind of hits this one has without some serious job losses. Obama sounded clueless about that. He blew a chance to talk about all the liberal bromides like infrastructure and extended unemployment. I’ll bet Axelrod blew a gasket over that answer.
I was also flabbergasted at the answers on Israel. I’m afraid Obama showed his true colors tonight. He is no friend of Israel and can’t even lie about it. This was pretty close to a John Kerry ‘global test” moment and could be a game changer. McCain had better jump all over it, as should Gov. Palin.
rockmom on October 7, 2008 at 11:49 PM
McCain would be winning Independants if it was Hillary we were facing like most of us thought. Romney was the one with the best chance against Obama. We greatly overestimated the popularity of the Clintons with Democrats.
Speedwagon82 on October 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Nothing from Ed or AP since I e-mailed them this morning about this.
Two days later, just old news I guess.
Ok, good enough. I posted last Sat. night that I was going to drive down to the anti-Palin protesters in Burlingame CA and cover that event with my “CamCorder of Truth”.
I uploaded my latest adventure in the “breach” of “liberal Land” on YouTube last night.
The three part thriller does not leave time for you all to view now. But, bookmark it for later viewing.
I gave several “shout outs” to HA for being there for us.
Libs at there best.
Enjoy, like I enjoyed making them unhappy for a few hours.
Over.
1GooDDaDDy on October 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM
You’ve been on the island waaay too long.
infidel4life on October 7, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Stop, you’re killing me! LOL!!!
Tennman on October 7, 2008 at 11:51 PM
It’s been downhill since, with the exception of Palin. I really thought McCain would just cream Obama in debates. I think Obama is a terrible extemporaneous speaker. He does poorly thinking on his feet. Somehow, McCain has managed to look worse.
Maybe McCain did have the answer at Saddleback.
McCain did a crappy job of explaining removing the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance in exchange for the credit. Oy.
BuckeyeSam on October 7, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Probably. At this point, scary smoke monster and evil people shooting at me is preferable to an Obama presidency.
John_Locke on October 7, 2008 at 11:52 PM
No way…..
Limerick on Oct 7,2008 at 11:49PM.
Limerick: I’m gonna hop the fence,and impersonate an illegal
but knowing my luck,ICE would get me!!haha:)
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I bet the polls,have HopeLess up by, (*rolls eyes*)
15 Liberal points!!
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 11:54 PM
That’s 15 Messiah points now.
John_Locke on October 7, 2008 at 11:55 PM
People here hate Morris, but he just provided an incredible analysis of Obama’s involvement with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
C’mon, McCain, wake up.
BuckeyeSam on October 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM
McCain got his fricking ass kicked…He let Obama get away with sounding like a measured, moderate and reasoned person. And he also basically made Obama look attractive and acceptable to the so-called independents out there. Yeah, there were a few lines here and there, but it ain’t enough to mean crap tomorrow.
John Doe on October 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM
rockmom, when are YOU running for office?
Can you explain to the rest of us what McCain’s Lindsay/Feldstein proposal is that makes it a proposal at all? Seems like a lot of people are getting the wrong idea about it, especially if you’re right that in some way or another it’s already embedded in the big bailout.
The way McCain brought it up, it sounded a) like something that would have a lot of appeal to homeowners and the construction industry, even people who have no great need or interest in re-negotiating their mortgages, since anything that helps stabilize home prices helps, and b) like it was something big and new. Krauthammer, like lorien, seemed to think it was a novel idea amounting to socialization of a huge part of the housing market. I don’t believe that Lindsay and Feldstein would participate in something like that.
So what the heck is it? Do you understand it?
If it’s something we can get our arms around, and if it’s not a $300 BN socialization of the economy, then it could be helpful, and give M-P something to talk about on the economy. I guess we’ll find out over the course of the next few days.
CK MacLeod on October 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Oh ya,Obama said the US should of been
more involved in the Holocaust!!
What history did Obama learn,the US
basically saved the world in WW2!
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Here’s details on the home mortgage plan for those interested. I’m just looking into it for the first time myself.
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=b73bbd90-c0ba-4fe9-af93-87ec54c5de5b
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 12:01 AM
There has to be a way to bring up Ayers. There just wasn’t a question that would have given him the opening. I don’t think you can get enough details it a 30 sec add.
KBird on October 8, 2008 at 12:02 AM
That 15 Messiah points..
John_Locke on Oct 7,2008 at 11:55PM.
John_Locke: Sh#t,I HOPE it CHANGES!haha.:)
canopfor on October 8, 2008 at 12:03 AM
He meant to say wet-behind-the-ears but he got got a little flustered, just because he cares so very much.
I, like all tolerant Americans, let it go…
but then you had to go and make a big deal out of it.
RACIST!!
billy on October 8, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Were you watching Dancing With the Stars or something? Ed had it right. McCain on points. I’ve seen McCain live and he’s really good in this format. Obama looked like the man child that he is.
Mojave Mark on October 8, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Ed, good spot work on Hewitt AS ALWAYS.
After the debate’s 9th question, I gave up on taking notes. Here’s the first three.
1. Economy
Obama: this little piggy went weeweewee all the way home with the same old hype from the last debate and all along, AGAIN.
McCain: clearly set out his own economic plan.
Reform pkg. peace/prosperity in the world.
Fed buy and refinance @ lower value bulk of bad mortgages to stabilize home values in order to follow up with establishing new jobs.
2. Economic Crisis: How will the bail-out help?
McCain: rescue main street, oversight, protect pax payers with tax payer repayment. The crisis catalyst was F/F fiasco. Obama & cornies made risky loans; McCain tried to stop. Democrats defended corruption and persisted …Obama a $taker.
Obama: Frozen credit market adverse affect on everyone. Deregulation the real problem. Treasury Sec. has power in pkg to bail out homeowners, it must be exercized by the NEXT Treasury Sec.–Obama “blows off” Brokaw’s direct question to name his Treasury Sec., going on a blah rant again instead. Obama’s “confidence” halts with his assessment that the 21st century is bound by the 20th century financial system. Obama wants the 21st century financial system to help families stay in homes and pay bills. (grotesquely oblique)
WHO IS GOING TO PRODUCE THE SO-CALLED “SUBPRIME LETTER” THAT OBAMA CLAIMS TO HAVE WRITTEN TWO YEARS AGO TO WARN PAULSON? Where’s the post-dated document? Obama just recently began this claim that I don’t believe.
McCain: American workers are the best in the world. Whether things improve or worsen depends on what we do–we must give our workers a chance!
3. “Can’t trust either party with money”
Obama: plenty of blame to go around everywhere.
Reform health care. Energy indep. College affordability, End lobbyists. Spending cuts/cut more than spend, a “net spending cut” (hahahaha)
McCain: Washington System Broken, I’m Reform, Bipartisan on the record, Obama has never taken on the leadership of his party . Obama votes as the most liberal of all for organizations having proposed $860 Billion new spending dollars, having voted for every spending increase, a $Billion in pork, ex: $3million planetarium projector for Chicago. MCCAIN is for energy independence, beyond alternatives to focus on drilling as a bridge to independence as we build NUCLEAR FACILITIES to fix our economic security via energy industrial leadership.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM
SO Obama is going to claim McCain was disrespectful to Obama for referring to him as “That one”. hahaha
jp on October 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Duh. My brother is one of them. They bought a million dollar home and couldn’t afford it.
So, you know what they did? They rented it out and my brother is living with my dad temporarily, doing some painting to earn some extra cash so that they can rent an apartment or something.
And if they weren’t able to rent it, it probably would have foreclosed. On the other hand, how sorry can I feel for my brother when the only home I owned, (which I sold some years back because I could see what was happening to the real estate market), only cost about a tenth as much? I lived well within my means and my brother didn’t. I even told him of my concerns, but he didn’t listen. So why should myself or anybody else pay for his mistake?
And, by the way, my brother isn’t even asking anybody to pay for his mistakes.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM
McCain needs to have his opening and closing statements prepared ahead of time, responding to no question or event in the debate, but saying:
Obama and a Democrat Congress have presided over what could turn into another Great Depression. Obama has friends that you and I would find despicable. Most people do not hang out with men who have advocated violent revolution, but perhaps his history of radical friends is why he wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, because the only view point missing in his gang of psychopaths is Holocaust denial. Why are you seriously considering him as president?
John_Locke on October 8, 2008 at 12:06 AM
If Palin had said “green behind the ears,” it’d be every headline tomorrow.
Jim Treacher on October 8, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Ed, did you miss the part of the debate where John McCain nationalized a chunk of the home mortgage industry without so much as a whimper toward capitalism?
And the only rationale he gave is that people’s houses have declined in value to less than the value of their mortgage.
And the purpose of doing this is to bring down housing prices?
How, exactly, does that make any sense at all?
How, exactly, is that a Republican plan in any way, shape, or form?
And what does that to to the millions of people who have been diligently paying their mortgages who have also seen their house value decrease because of the blizzard of crap mortgages the federal government was forcing into the market?
Jimmie on October 8, 2008 at 12:09 AM
you’ve done some good posts on this subject area, mm, and this is maybe the best so far.
It may help, and it won’t hurt…….
My worry is that for most people, their eyes glaze over as soon as economic theory comes up, in word or print
Janos Hunyadi on October 8, 2008 at 12:09 AM
I love to make fun of mixed metaphors! Maybe–he means the ears of corn are still green! Or maybe it’s a little wet somewhere else? I know his POLICIES ARE ALL WET! He’s a little wet behind the policies.
I know one thing. Obama should never start a conversation about ears.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:10 AM
That debate sucked.
NeoKong on October 8, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Here is McCain’s answer followed by Obama’s answer to the ‘Iran attacks Israel’ question. I think with this one moment Obama lost Florida. The question starts at 3:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMb1DTdpi18
greggish on October 8, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Big government social cons. Nothing else can explain peoples’ non-outrage of this monstrosity.
I’m so pissed.
People -hated- the bailout and you wanna do $300 billion more on top of that?
Palin scored huge with personal responsibility in the other debate. WTF is wrong with taking care of yourself?
Oh well. No matter. 2011. It’s gonna be a nuclear financial explosion. So our socialist utopia will be short lived.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:12 AM
I understand that this is really only clarifying some vague language in the Bill that was already passed and that it isn’t new money. It is trying to keep ACORN and Barney Frank from making the decisions by pinning down the rules with a vote.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:12 AM
I only heard the last 20 minutes of the ‘debate’, and that was disappointing. Sen. McCain failed to hammer home the defense of Israel, or why we went into Iraq. My wife says he failed to respond when Obambi said he was going to give CEOs $500K tax cuts. And also failed to explain the virtues of his health-care proposals, especially cutting the tie to employment, and offering portability! No mention of Communist Ayers or Racist Wright, either.
Sounds like another exercise at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. I find myself hoping the Clintons (of all people!) will come to the rescue.
MrLynn on October 8, 2008 at 12:13 AM
I’m well past the point of being annoyed. We have two Democrats running for the president. No, we have one Socialist and one far left Democrat running for President. I’m voting for neither. McCain’s proposal to buy bad mortgages and reduce the principal amount so that irresponsible borrowers can stay in their homes was the proverbial straw that broke my back 5 minutes into the debate. I literally turned the debate off at that point.
Folks who did the right thing by purchasing a house they can afford and paying for it without defaulting get hosed. Those who bought way more house than they could ever afford are rewarded. Reminds me of amnesty for illegal immigrants — let’s reward those who break the rules. I’m disgusted!
Bob L on October 8, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Read the plan on McCain’s site. It says part of the money can come from the bailout. So, uh, the rest has to come from someplace else.
The country is 10 trillion in debt right now. And it has like a 400 billion dollar deficit each year. We are so screwed. It’s unreal.
McCain didn’t even bother trying to talk about, oh I dunno, balancing the budget tonight. Too busy handing out houses to people.
Dammit.
I hate this.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Please let me know what you and Ed were drinking so I can be prepared properly for the next debate. I’m trying to look at the debate from the perspective of all the dummies out there who are still undecided and don’t understand the difference between the parties. And I would guess these people don’t understand points either. But I hope you and Ed are right…I would love to be wrong and hopefully the polls will bear it out soon.
John Doe on October 8, 2008 at 12:16 AM
There isn’t one.
Socialists. All of them.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Ed, you give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t trust him. I would have loved to see the entire list, and the people associated with their respective questions to determine how Brokaw framed the “debate”.
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM
If Palin had said “wet behind the ears” it’d be a headline.
If she’d describe the sky as even “remotely blue from certain angles” it’d be headlines tomorrow.
Biden however can pontificate on our alliance with France to drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon…
not much, headline-wise.
It’s almost as if the press wants the Democrats to win or something.
billy on October 8, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I said the same thing during the debate! Has this man ever read a history book? Probably all those drugs he was doing in High School and then he went to especially liberal colleges and they probably taught him that the US just sat around and watched the gas chambers on TV.
Putin just went into Georgia in the same way Hitler went into Chekoslavakia (sp?) what was the great and wise response of Barack Obama? Couldn’t be bothered he was surfing in Hawaii.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I think that McCain did well at this debate. Obama went off track with some of the questions at the beginning and did not seem to put any new info on what he is going to do. McCain answered the questions very clearly and with more detail than Obama’s answer’s. This debate IMHO was boring. This debate seemed similar to the first debate they had. They should have changed it from a town hall debate to a forum like Saddleback. At least in a forum they would get a more variety of questions to answer.
pb88 on October 8, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Tom Browkaw is a professonal journalist. We may never see his kind again for a long, long time.
Tuning Spork on October 8, 2008 at 12:20 AM
“That one.”
“That one?”
“The One.”
indythinker on October 8, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Your right…what was I fricking thinking? I need another drink.
John Doe on October 8, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Congratulations.
I used to work for a major mortgage servicer, and unlike anyone else here I have actually talked to many homeowners. Part of my job was taking calls that had gone to members of Congress and other elected officials from desperate homeowners. They are not your brother and they did not buy million dollar homes. Most of them are in homes bought for less than $250,000 and some of them are now worth less than half what they paid for them. LESS THAN HALF. Most of them have adjustable rate loans that have adjusted beyond the point where the homeowners can afford them, and because the values have dropped they cannot refinance them into a fixed rate mortgage. Countrywide has 25% of its loans in default right now.
I will repeat, lenders have already voluntarily modified over a million mortgages. This is not socialism, it is self preservation for the lenders because they lose their shirts when these homes go to foreclosure. And the lenders who aggressively marketed 2/18 and 3/27 ARMs know they screwed up, and most of them are holding the interest rates at the teaser rate. Any return for the investor on these loans is better than zero.
It’s a bitch of a problem and it has been going on for over two years now. We all thought the ACORNs of the world were full of it when they predicted 2 million foreclosures, but we are already almost there and we have not even seen the beginning of the wave of defaults on all the pay-option ARMs that were originated in 2005 and 2006.
I was mistaken, McCain’s plan is somewhat new, though he has been talking about something like it for a while. It does not need any legislation if the loans are already part of the securities being bought by Treasury or owned by Fannie or Freddie. It’s a new wrinkle on a refinance program already in the housing bill that passed last summer, which appears unlikely to work very well. I’ll take a look at it tomorrow and post my analysis.
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 12:21 AM
According to NR, he wrote it in March 2007, after 25 subprime lenders had already gone out of business and mobody was making any subprime loans anymore. Also well after the federal bank regulators issued strong guidance that virtually shut down the NINJA, pay-option, and interest-only loans. So he was trying to close to barn door after the horse was out.
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 12:26 AM
You’re kidding, right?
billy on October 8, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I’ll tell you why this is a disaster mom. When the government gets into the market and decided what was fair and what was not and decides to start changing the terms of a contract for people who ‘they determined’ got a raw deal, what do you think that does to the value of a home??? Think about that for a second. If there is the possibility that the govt could capriciously go into any home deal and lower the cost of your home, what would you do if you were a home seller? PAD THE PRICE???? I got news for you mom, this is a dangerous power for the govt to have, AND, once the govt gives itself a power, it never gives it up! Here’s the real hard part, if the govt does this, it will keep artifically high prices high, and who can afford to put down a 20 percent down payment on a half mil home? This CAN’T work, no matter how much you want the govt to cover your stupidity! It wont be long till people realize this concept absolutely destroys any concept of a free market, just about as long as it takes them to realize bailing out AIG was a mistake when only a few days later, they are throwing a half million dollar party at an expensive spa!
I wanna hear all you bailout supporters talking about how great an idea that was now!
Bikerken on October 8, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I hate to tell you folks this, but it should not be difficult for most people to ask unbiased questions and/or moderated a debate, whether a professional journalist or not. No need to give praise where none is due.
Blake on October 8, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Palin Talks to Press On her Plane
“Away from the campaign staff.”
Oh, how the world is underestimating this woman.
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 12:29 AM
don’t forget that it betrays McCain’s belief that the federal government is there to fix all of your problems.
Palin got huge points in the last debate by talking about personal responsibility. And here’s McCain telling you that “I’m from government and I’m here to help”
McCain took a hatchet to the free market tonight. I’m sure, in the next 3 weeks, he’ll hack it up some more.
I want a refund on my contributions.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:30 AM
McCain didn’t hit any home runs tonight, to my chagrin. He’s got one last debate, but he’s been much better on the stump, so I don’t hold much hope for a debate throw-down.
————-
By the way, Ed / AllahPundit, Ustream + open comment thread: EPIC FAIL
Please open two threads, one with Ustream and one without.
common sensineer on October 8, 2008 at 12:31 AM
“Brokaw did a solid, professional job as moderator.” I think he did a terrible job and let Obama run all over him-He had no control and his questions were all feel good liberal questions with the exception of the one on israel.
Bullhead on October 8, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I don’t think you understand McCain’s proposal. Some consider it effectively redundant to the bailout plan that’s already passed. Others see it as an innovation mainly within the bailout plan’s already passed authority. It’s not a new $300 BN appropriation. In any event, you should await the details before you go ballistic. If you decide in the end to throw a fit, does it really make much difference whether you do it tonight or, say, this weekend?
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Wow. I thought that was Jimmy Carter.
I usually agree with you, but not this time. Not at all.
capitalist piglet on October 8, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Roger that. It was crystal clear the connection between the Navy chief and McCain was immediate. It was also quite clear that Obama didn’t want to get too close, possibly afraid of catching Joe Sixpack cooties, I guess.
BillH on October 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM
We seem to do a good job of pounding our own candidate over the head. If it makes anyone feel any better, a lot of my lib friends are furious. They thought McCain was mean and beat their guy up pretty bad.
The Opinionator on October 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I can’t remember the last time I saw a professional journalist.
Jim Treacher on October 8, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Mega dittoes.
RushBaby on October 8, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Opinionator, that reminded me of the guy in Fat Frank’s Focus Group who said that he didn’t like McCain being “snide” or some such thing to Obama. I wonder what kind of reaction we would have seen if McCain had behaved the way a lot of us wanted to.
capitalist piglet on October 8, 2008 at 12:43 AM
In fairness to you and me. I haven’t seen that part of the debate I had an appointment. And I have not yet read the proposal. But–I am not all that opposed to the idea in general.
I know, I know, not very Republican… But sometimes circumstances call for looking at the options and choosing the lesser harm. Having all those people taking that much loss–all those houses being sold for such a low price after being abandoned… and all else that goes along with massive foreclosures…
That is bad for everyone. (Except a few real estate speculators–who will find a way to buy those houses.) Foreclosures hurt everyone in a neighborhood even those who made good decisions and are current on payments because house values fall further and recover more slowly.
Appraisals are on SALES in the neighborhood. If there are several foreclosures that effects every single house,
including mine and yours. A bank renegotiating the principle shouldn’t effect the neighborhood prices.
This is a huge mess. I would rather see individuals get the tax payer money than the banks. Does that make me a Democrat? I don’t think so.
My choice would be to go back about ten years and make it so this whole thing doesn’t happen but we can’t do that.
There really are no great options. I’d rather have something upfront and voted on–than a back room deal by the same politicians that caused the problem in the first place, ie.–Barney et. al.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:43 AM
On the mortgage proposal, I think you also might want to consider what the Democrat alternatives have been to this point. They’ve included a complete moratorium on foreclosures – I believe that was part of Hillary’s plan even when the situation was much less of a crisis than right now – as well as direct outlays or other forms of aid to those in danger of foreclosure, as in the Democrat draft of the bailout bill.
Rockmom can probably explain this better than I can, but, as I understand it, having foreclosure-endangered homeowners re-negotiate mortgages at stabilized market rates is believed by legitimately conservative economists to be a more market-friendly, more economically effective, and likely less costly way to deal with this problem than buying up devalued MBSs on the back end. Presumably, once the market was stabilized, many of those MBSs would no longer need rescuing.
Creditworthy homeowners with more reasonable mortgages would not benefit if a housing depression eventually puts them upside down as well.
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 12:46 AM
The government is renegotiating the principle. Tax payers will pay the difference. I am paying a price for your lowered principle. You keep the difference in your property value.
If you thought Biden having the courts do it. This is far worse.
Say, if your principle is 400,000 and you can’t pay your payment.
You can ask the government. Hey, my house is only worth 300,000 and will you adjust my principle? Will you vote for me? Yes. Done. Taxpayers pay that 100,000 difference. Your home is still worth 400,000 in reality.
What ever happened to people, oh i dunno, owning up to their obligations?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I don’t know… from my conservative viewpoint, McCain seems to be doing all he can to break that record BEFORE he becomes President.
dominigan on October 8, 2008 at 12:51 AM
What was the phrase Obama used about 9/11? Something like, “Some of you remember the tragedy of 9/11″, or something like that. I thought, “SOME of you?” Damn.
capitalist piglet on October 8, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Jim Treacher on October 8, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Amen! Fourth Estate my Aunt Agnes.
Cindy Munford on October 8, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Hey, I thought 9/11 was an awesome segue to talk about tax increases. Which is what he did there.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 12:54 AM
But what you’re failing to note is that…
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
And finally, IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
dominigan on October 8, 2008 at 12:55 AM
The alternative–what is happening now without McCain’s bill is that the government takes the 400K house owns it. Do they then become a landlord and rent it? Or does it stay vacant? Either way it will need repairs and updates when they get around to selling it.
When the government does sell it they will do so at something like 20-30 cents on the dollar (I heard that somewhere sounds outrageous. I hope it is wrong.) Anyway they sell it to some investor for like 100K who fixes it up and sells it at huge profit… the tax payers take a bath for the 300K.
If the loan is redone like you said the government only takes a 100K bath rather than a 300K bath. Plus the neighborhood prices are less likely to fall as far as if the 100K sale is recorded.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I have read your posts on this subject, and I can say you are clearly know what you’re talking about…but anyone with an ARM that’s getting their tits ripped off right now gets zero sympathy from me…
BigWyo on October 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM
There are these cool things called banks. They own the mortgage (and thus the house). They have the option to recast your mortgage on their own. Or they can foreclose. Sell the house and do all sorts of neat things.
Cuz. You know. They own it. It’s not the government’s house.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I think that is the one thing we exported to China.
Murphy9 on October 8, 2008 at 1:01 AM
That is something I don’t think most people have gotten their heads around yet. A 400K house is not going to hold it’s value. Not just because of foreclosures but because ARMs will not be available anymore. ARMS drove up the prices because they drove up demand. More people could afford a 400K house with ARMs. Since the pool of people who actually can afford a 400K house is less now, prices have to come down.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Why isn’t anyone talking about Barry slamming Delaware for lax banking laws. Delaware is Biden’s home state.
SouthernGent on October 8, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Too bad, historically, home prices always go up. Unless you believe (which apparently McCain does) that owning a home is now like owning a car. Diminishing returns. I guess we’ve decided that owning a home has no value any longer.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Did you just miss the whole bailout thing? The government is taking on the distressed houses from the banks (paying the banks $700billion for them) so the banks can get them off their books so they can restore confidence…
The government owns the houses now–not the banks. Or it will when Paulson figures out which houses are causeing the most trouble. The worst houses are going to go to the government.
Congratulations! We all now own the most overpriced houses in America! Isn’t socialism grand?
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Yes, that was the fallacy that drove this whole debacle. Real Estate always goes up. Well, not anymore. It was a speculative bubble. Like tulips in the 1600s… or dotcoms in the 1990s. Only this time it effects all of us. Even if your mortgage is not in trouble.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Two thoughts.
1. McCain’s campaign is dysfunctional. He slams Obama hard when he talks to his base. Palin brings up the dirt. Then, when he has the big tent he goes soft and wobbly, taking about BI————PARTISAN BS!
2. Somewhere in the McCain camp they actually believes that #1 works. Maybe they have a plan and internal polling that we done have. You know, turn on your base, and pander to the Indies.
hestrold on October 8, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Yes, funny but so true.
I have never quite understood how McCain’s insurance plan really helps more people get insurance. Because a tax credit isn’t that helpful for people who don’t pay taxes anyway. Which are the same people who don’t have insurance.
Don’t get me wrong I will welcome $5,000 dollars for insurance. But low income people don’t pay taxes so does the government hand them $5,000 to buy insurance?
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 1:15 AM
The Star of Kansas City says McCain won:
This mirrors Ed’s impression and mine.
Conservatives tend to be hard on McCain. As we watch him debate, we are answering the debate questions in our minds and our answers don’t always match his. Surprise — we like our answers better. Tonight viewers saw him defend his positions with facts and forcefulness bordering on passion.
Terrie on October 8, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Even if you agree with this (look at home price graphs over the decades and you are dead wrong. But anyways), then it does not follow that because you are upside down on your mortgage that tax payers have some sort of obligation to fix your problem for you.
May as well bailout car owners then. And people who finance computers. Etc etc etc.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 1:19 AM
It’s not about winning or losing.
It’s about what you believe in. McCain, in an attempt to commiserate with people, decided that the free market should be murdered.
Obama, in an effort to commiserate with people, decided that taxes were too low and that government just wasn’t big enough. And that free markets should be murdered.
It’s a helluva choice.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I definitely would have liked to have seen McCain respond to some of Obama’s worst groaners.
I especially think the dumb line about a No-Fly Zone in Darfur should have prompted an extended attack. The janjaweed militias who are committing the genocide there do not have an air force. What exactly would be accomplished by forcing them not to fly the planes they don’t have? This was an opportunity to clearly illustrate the painful shallowness of Obama’s understanding even of issues he claims to be interested in.
It’s more of a gotcha, but when Obama was asserting that he would force Health Insurers to lower premiums, I thought this would have been a great time to talk about how the government forced mortgage issuers to sell mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them. This would have been a wonderful time to introduce the term “sub-prime health insurance” into the national discussion.
Dozens of other opportunities went by — and while I understand that trying to hit them all is a bad mistake (it lets the other guy drive the debate) I think he should have swung at a few more of them, and pushed them hard.
Among other things, the refundable tax credit to let individuals buy health insurance is a great idea precisely because it takes an axe to employer-based health insurance. McCain should have slammed Obama hard on this one — Does Senator Obama not understand why American workers get into binds with preexisting condition when they get a new job? Does Senator Obama not consider this a problem??
Anyway… I think McCain won on points, but I’m not sure who won on style for viewers who aren’t up on the issues. More importantly, I’m not sure what real jobs the two were trying to accomplish, so I have no way to judge whether they got it done.
I think the only question which might have swung a real block of votes was the Israel question. If there are pro-Israeli voters out there who were still fooling themselves into the belief that an Obama presidency would be anything but an unmitigated disaster for the state of Israel, they got a wake-up call tonight.
Could this be the year when the Jewish vote swings over to the GOP? Probably not, but Obama probably just lost Florida.
ClintACK on October 8, 2008 at 1:26 AM
OH? Do they really? I would say that if you mean that over time, home prices will always go up, you are kinda correct, but then, over time, the price of everything goes up. It’s a fallacy to think that home prices are different that anything else. The prices rise and fall in relation to the one solid variable that many of us would like to forget as being the controller of home prices,….wages! You cannot sell a home to people who can’t afford it. You generally can’t afford a mortgage more than about a third of your annual income. And because we generally pay for a home over the majority of our working life, the connection between your earning power and the home price is carved in stone. Now, there may be some minor exceptions, but this is an economic law that if you try to break, will bite you in the ass.
Lets face it, a lot of you recent homebuyers bought because you thought you were going to get rich quick, the quinticential american dream. You were greedy, you really bought as an investment and not a place to live. Home prices will normally rise on a pace with wages. When they start going up 135% in a five year period like they did here in San Diego, you have to be an abject MORON to think, “Wow, they’ll go up another 135% in five more years and I’ll really score!!” These people reeeeallllyyy need to learn the meaning and implications of what the word, “exponential” means.
So no, I don’t feel any sorrow for those of you who will not admit that you screwed up and want your taxpayer neighbors to bail you out. And to echo what dominigin said above, “IT’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL” I would bet good money that the first person or organization that sues the federal govt saying that they have no right to come in and re-write the terms of a legal contract that was entered into in good faith between two parties will WIN and WIN BIG! Get a clue people, anytime someone tell’s you the rules have changed, run like hell in the other direction! The rules don’t change.
Bikerken on October 8, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Actually, that is what many are suggesting might be next!
I am certainly not supporting this. I don’t know what should be done. But the financial industry has been making these risky loans and the banking industry is colapsing world wide. Iceland just borrowed money from Russia and is nationalizing their banks, whatever that means, but it can’t be good.
I think McCain’s plan tonight was just to direct some tax payer money to individuals instead of directly to the banks. And to try to make the loss to the government not as high.
John Shadegg said something along these same lines in a telephone townhall he did last week… But I think they wanted this so the full 700billion wasn’t needed.
It isn’t really quite as simple as the government owns the houses. It is that the government owns the notes on the houses. Which is why they could redo the terms of the loans. They own the loan.
But because the government is going to own the note. I think it is more likely that the value of the house will be even less than if a private bank owned the note.
petunia on October 8, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Those of you crying about socialism are right to cry, but what you’re missing is that the housing crisis, as therefore the financial crisis, is the result of a kind of massive socialized housing program under a different name that we’re only now finally being asked to pay for.
You probably should have started crying thirteen years ago, or at latest six years ago.
The MBSs and related mechanisms in effect amounted to a peculiar, innovative but not very well thought out (to say the least) deferred financing scheme for the Clinton-Bush Ownership Society Housing and Economic Growth Initiative.
The bill’s now coming due, and it doesn’t look like there’s any way to escape paying it: The costs will be socialized – literally, in the sense of all society paying the price – in one way or another. The only question is how much and how lasting the harm will be.
In short, this McCain initiative is not some novel socialistic program. It’s one aspect of working out a way to pay the bill for our long Ponziesque socialistic self-indulgence. What we’re waking up to is that the country went “market socialistic” back in the ’90s. Just having realized it doesn’t mean that we somehow escape responsibility for it. And we all are going to take responsibility for it, socially, whether we want to or not. It was easier for us as a nation to buy into, accept, and enjoy the fruits of an essentially socialistic fantasy.
We can have a hard landing or a softer landing, but free market purity is not an available option. I don’t think it’s much of a mystery which of the two choices are going to be more popular electorally.
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Yikes! I hope McCain and Palin will explain this — they’ve been saying it, but in Washington jargon.
It’s a “fully refundable” tax credit — that’s jargon that means that even if you don’t pay taxes, you can subtract this credit from the taxes that you owe and get a negative number — and the government will send you a check for that negative number.
So it really is up to $5,000 for every family in America to use to buy Health Insurance.
It’s just like School Vouchers, but for your Health Insurance policy.
ClintACK on October 8, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »