The Final Debate: McCain Attacks, But He's No Longer in Control
A political campaign can be like a rock slide. At some point, it's just going to continue in the direction it's heading--and not much can stop it. After the final debate between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, it may well be that the 2008 presidential contest has reached not the tipping point, but that rock slide point. This is not a prediction of a pro-Obama avalanche on November 4--though that's a possibility. It's merely an observation that the campaign may be done in the sense that there are no major inputs to come (barring a bolt-from-the-blue event) that will affect the final tally. Polls will show that there are still some undecided voters out there. (Who are these people?) But whatever's going to determine this election--economic concerns, a desire for change, racism, you name it--is probably already in place, and the candidates may not be able to alter this, at least not in a proactive manner. Certainly, at any time, either can turn the race upside down by saying or doing something particularly dopey.
Neither got dopey on Wednesday night. McCain even had his best (or his least unsuccessful) debate performance, but it was no--damn, I hate this cliché--game changer. McCain was more aggressive than in the previous face-offs, and he finally dared to challenge Barack Obama directly on the--drum roll, please--Bill Ayers Question. But there was this: viewers watching McCain's reaction shots during the evening could have easily wondered if the Republican presidential nominee would make it to the finish without his head exploding, for he seemed to be in the midst of an exercise in anger control.
Prior to the debate, there was much chatter about whether McCain would play the Ayers card. Judging from video of his recent rallies, it appeared that his base was demanding blood on this front. But polls indicated that these sorts of attacks have been hurting McCain with in-the-middle voters. So he faced a tough decision: ignore Ayers and upset the diehards or accuse Obama of being a pal of a domestic terrorist and alienate the indies.
McCain and his strategists came up with a hybrid approach: take a shot on the Ayers front and combine it with a traditional political assault. "I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist," McCain huffed, but then he went on to say, "we need to know the full extent of that relationship." Huh? If you don't care about Ayers, why do you care about the relationship? And why repeat the false claim that Obama launched his first political campaign within Ayer's living room?
This was essentially McCain's love letter to the GOP base. ("Now get off my case, okay?") More important, he attached it to his true attack of the night: Obama will raise your taxes. After quickly running through his Ayers index cards, McCain noted, "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track...I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes." In what was probably the last big moment of the campaign before Election Day, McCain offered this meta-argument: Obama is a liberal tax-and-spend Democrat, and I'm a conservative. (He left off the Republican part.)
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Repeatedly, McCain accused Obama of wanting to throw money at problems and of yearning to raise taxes. When Obama maintained he would give tax breaks to the bottom 95 percent--and more tax relief than McCain would to this large slice of the American public--McCain replied: hey, this guy wants to raise taxes. And, by the way, he wants to spend your money.
McCain did tout his own plan to spend $300 billion to buy up troubled home mortgages, and he maintained his health care tax credits were the right medicine. (Obama blasted the former as a "giveaway" to banks and noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had slammed the latter.) But his main message was, Obama is just another Democrat and, my friends, we all know what that means. Obama, he charged, wants to spread the wealth. J'accuse: he wants class warfare.
After nearly eight years of a conservative Republican White House now held in disdain by many voters--and at a time when the federal government is partially nationalizing banks--how much juice is there in this old Democrats-are-bad argument? Sure, McCain was punchier in this debate than in the previous two. But being aggressive on a tired message won't do a candidate much good. "I am not President Bush," McCain proclaimed with some anger in his voice. But this declaration of purported independence may have come a bit late in the process.
And Obama did fight back. He repeatedly corrected McCain when McCain mischaracterized his tax plans. He reminded viewers that McCain favors handing $200 billion in tax cuts to corporations, including ExxonMobile. Obama talked about raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for "core investments"--tax breaks for middle-class Americans, health care, education, and energy independence. McCain fired back: there he goes again, thinking that the government can do better with Joe the Plumber's money than Joe can. (Joe the Plumber is a real guy, and McCain cited him as someone who would not fare well under Obama's tax proposal.) But at a time of crisis, such Reaganistic rhetoric--as much as it jazzes up base voters--could come across to some as either retro or, worse, irrelevant.
McCain talked much about how he would cut spending in Washington; Obama discussed how he would assist middle-class Americans. Perhaps the key question then is, do voters want a president who will kick butt on Capitol Hill regarding certain types of spending, or one who will help them during tough times?
And do they want a grouch? McCain frequently appeared irritated. He interrupted Obama more than he should have. And he stumbled over his words too often. (In deriding gold-plated health care plans, he equated transplants with cosmetic surgery.) At one point, McCain went on too long, demanding that Obama repudiate Rep. John Lewis' observation that the hatred on display at McCain-Palin rallies was reminiscent of the worst days of the civil rights movement. On this matter, McCain came across as petulant. (Obama noted his campaign had put out a statement calling Lewis' comparison inappropriate.) More than once, McCain sarcastically complimented Obama's "eloquence."
Obama was, again, cool and calm. He praised McCain for showing "commendable independence" on some issues, such as the use of torture. Obama never took the bait. He ably batted back McCain's attacks on his tax record and proposal. He spoke in measured tones about abortion and voiced respect for those who differ with him on this topic. If his goal was to look steady and smooth--like someone capable of dealing with, say, a mega-crisis--Obama succeeded.
In his closing statement, McCain said the fundamental issue of the campaign was whether "you can trust us or not to be careful stewards of your tax dollars." He noted his decades of service to the country--as in, Country First--and asked voters to "give me an opportunity to serve again." Obama took a different approach: he again outlined what he wants to do for the middle class: tax cuts, health care reform, greater access to college, an energy independence program. As had happened in the last debate, McCain finished by referencing the McCain-the-Hero Story; Obama was offering himself as a leader who will do right by and for you. It was past versus future. Old guy versus young guy. You do the math.
Though television pundits initially praised McCain's feisty performance, the quickie polls, once more, indicated viewers scored the debate a win for Obama. (CNN: 58-to-31; CBS: 53-to-32.) That was no surprise. The issue is not whether McCain's attacks this time around were slightly more focused or assertive; it's what he's selling. And in the midst of an economic maelstrom, how many voters want a fellow at the helm who says government is the problem. There's also a significant measure of cognitive dissonance within McCain's pitch: one moment, he's assailing Obama's addiction to government solutions; the next he's calling for the government to buy up all those bad mortgages.
Which brings us back to the rock slide. The forces that will dictate the final outcome may well be set by now. And there was not much McCain could have done in this last debate to change the movement of the tectonic plates of this election. There could be last-minute bombshells. And it's likely that independent outfits on the right are preparing a final blitzkrieg of negative ads against Obama (that secret Muslim/Black Panther socialist who hangs out with domestic terrorists who want to kill you and your family). But the race might be over but for the remaining shouting and the actual voting--though early voting has begun in many states, with already 540,000 people having voted in the state of Georgia.
It sure is not an encouraging sign for a candidate when he does his best in a debate and the insta-polls indicate that he was crushed. Following this debate, Obama will continue to stride along--being reassuring, if even boring. And for McCain, there does not appear to be any obvious path. After all, he's not behind the wheel. For the next three weeks, he's stuck in the passenger seat. And see that sign? Caution: falling rocks.
Comments
Exactly, Steven, you state:
Not if you open the Karl Rove Playbook to the chapter on how to count the votes?
You are right. This is the real issue and the one I cannot believe has not been aggressively pursued by all.
Exactly, Steven, you state:
Not if you open the Karl Rove Playbook to the chapter on how to count the votes?
You are right. This is the real issue and the one I cannot believe has not been aggressively pursued by all.
Good article, David. I hope you're on the west coast. I'm on the east and juiced with post-debate ebullience and Hendricks martinis - how elitist of me: good gin! - and, so, happy to be up reading this at 2:00 a.m. But I hope for your sake you're either, a] submitting this from the west at about 11:00 or b] also enjoying the rejuvenating benefits of a martini and post-debate euphoria at 2:00 p.m. eastern.
I'd love to elaborate, but I really think you nailed all of my observations succinctly.
I am disappointed that the press who disdains McCain --as it should -- has so little critical comment on Obama. Yes, he must win the election first. Then, perhaps tell the voters that given the level of private and public debt and the redistribution of capital/wealth the last 25 years, that he has no idea how to restore the economy unless Americans work abroad and send remittances home? College for all? For what? Without a dramatic shrinkage of on-campus services that have so driven up costs that they are extraordinarily expensive year round camps for late adolescents?
Obama (and wife) would be willing to pay "a little more" in taxes. That's all, just a little more considering they are beneficiaries of low maximum income tax rates?
Health care: Insurance reform is small stuff compared to the overconsumption of the stuff. Someone with courage would point out the minimal benefits of spending 17% of GDP on health instead of 11%.
I watched Nader's campaign ad in which he appears side by side with a Palin impersonator. It could have been funny; but Ralph has been ravaged by time. The man of 8 and 12 years ago who could have sliced and diced the faltering Obama is no longer. Nor is there a critical left press who will demand what is needed of the candidate it backs. It should be worried that so much of the financial collapse resembles failures of the 90's during Clinton years.
IOW solutions will not be found in the return of the old New Democratic party. Has Obama once looked like someone who understands that? (This is something on which McCain really is correct. You would show integrity to do an Obama on that one, and graciously agree with John.)
Finally, what do you folks think Bacevitch is, just an Old Testament scold to keep around and honor, but otherwise ignore, with no ideas transferable to an evaluation of what Obama is offering and promising?
To me, the choice between the two candidates as presented by last night's debate boils down to this:
rational vs irrational.
Poor John McCain looked like a nutjob whose body language portrayed someone who you cannot trust to put in command of the US military.
Incredulous... Nader may have lost his edge a bis since 2000 (who hasn't?), but he's still the best candidate in the race. I think David is right about the rockslide although I'll just say get out of the way, here it comes. By next week, McPalin's campaign will be jetting around the country, sinking in the polls to Bush popularity levels, talking about Joe Six Pack and his other brother Joe the Plumber to diminishing crowds. They will be wondering what the use is and it will show. It will be a spectacle of horror... a living dead campaign that still moves but doesn't know it's dead.
Nader '08.
-Wexler
OPEN QUESTION TO SEN. MCCAIN:
If you are so sincere in your positions, namely, if you are such a 'maveric' with solutions--not to be compaired with Bush-W, WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN FOUR YEARS AGO? Didn't you see this situation comming--with half-trillion dollar budget deficites? Because I did and so did Sen. Obama.
The debate was John McCain's Cain Mutiny moment. He looked more unhinged as it went on.
Joe the Plumber. does anyone else think this guy is a plant? His situation was too custom fit for McCain's camp to build an entire debate narrative around. "Joe" was very arch in his confrontation with Obama last week, and he's kind of shaddowy about his actual situation. Now he's calling Obama's tax plan "communist" and saying "Obama tap dances better than Sammy Davis Jr." I say by the weekend he's making campaign appearnces with McCain.
Todd Palin is a selling point for the choice of Sarah Palin as runningmate? Who knew?
Did John McCain present any concept that wasn't a tired rehash of typical Republican policy that has lead to problems we now face?
Could anyone imagine John McCain, with the temperment and confusion he demonstrated last night, dealing with serious issues domestically or dealing with sensitive issues internationally?
Saint Zak:
I call Joe "Joe 6-Pack the skinhead plumber". What initially upset him was that Obama wrongly assumed he made under $250-k per year. While that is a fair enough reason to be resentful, his comments were a vast (and rhetorical) overreaction. Obama said: "Spread the wealth around". Joe SP-SHP translated that into "Robin Hood" who "Stole from the rich to give to the poor" and from that he further extrapolated that Obama had called him a "pauper". (At least this Germanic man did not resent being compared with a British pauper). In fairness to Obama, any plumber from Ohio who makes $250k per year (or more) is probably ripping-off his clients--12 hour work days not withstanding. (I can line up heart doctors who practice in East Hampton NY who don't make that much.)
There is no excuse for Mr. McCain's attempt to defend the people at the McCain/Palin rally who were shouting suggestions re: death to Obama. I did not hear the original event and had only hoped that it was a bitter rumor. After hearing McCain defend it last night during the 3rd Debate, my ire rose. First, it is nothing more than sociopathic behavior to make such a comment. If any of us, today, made such a comment about George W. or myriad other prominent people, we would be carted off to jail. Second, if the perpetrators were indeed veterans, as Mr. McCain suggested, then he should not be excusing the behavior but referring those veterans for counseling services through the VA. In any respect, it is unacceptable and should never be condoned by someone who thinks he has the capacity to seek placement in our Nation's highest office. He is obviously not qualified for the command of this country as he apparently lacks the general stability and intelligence necessary to truly understand our complex issues. Our highest office needs the stability and intellect exhibited by Senator Obama. Regardless of any past history or records on either side, current performance demonstrates that McCain just doesn't get it.
The real kicker about Joe the Plumber is that once he takes over his business, he will have a ton of operating costs that he currently doesn't incur as an employee and his yearly income will likely fall below $250k/year. I hope he's ready to refuse Obama's tax credits when he is offered them.
The future:
Q: Wow how did McCain manage to pull off a 52% victory and 3% margin on electorate? Can we recount? This seems wrong!
A: No, electronic ballots did not retain the records as expected. We believe (insert non-US country here) managed to hack the ballot process, in order to steal a win for Mr. Hussein Osama (sp?). Fortunately, the American people spoke in enough numbers to save the US by electing McCain.
Now on to business. This country's future depends on you taking a 25% pay cut...
[Translation from Wexidecimal: 2.7% of the vote in 2000 to 0.4% of the vote in 2004--to the point where Fox news has him as a guest in hopes of hurting Obama]
Translation from Troll-boy...
"I've given up on the notion that we can ever have a democratic society. But I think if you've been reading my posts, which I doubt, you'd already know that."
;-]
Wexler
Did anyone notice that Sen. McCain mentioned autism in reference to Gov. Palin's child (I believe he mentioned it at least twice)? In fact, Gov. Palin's child has been diagnosed with Down syndrome--not autism.
Wexidecimal:
We live in a 'Constitutional (representitive) Republic', which is a 'lite' form of democracy, designed to provide an advantage during war.
If we do not have a democracy, please explain what system you believe we live in.
I want to know when someone is going to call this filthy old creep on "palling around" with Islamic terrorists? Read this article:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j022500.html
These are actual terrorists who have killed people, unlike Bill Ayers who has never killed anyone. Truth is - McCain loves death.
"Joe the Plumber" is a plant! He is a hardcore right conservative who does not make any where near 250k. He is a fake every man who will soon be exsposed nationally. allthough I am sure the facts will mean nothing to the republican base and fox news who will hold him out to be the last desperate hope of the dying campaign. My money is on donkey kong!
Exactly, Steven, you state:
Not if you open the Karl Rove Playbook to the chapter on how to count the votes
You are right. This is the real issue and the one I cannot believe has not been aggressively pursued by all.
"Wexidecimal:
We live in a 'Constitutional (representitive) Republic', which is a 'lite' form of democracy, designed to provide an advantage during war.
If we do not have a democracy, please explain what system you believe we live in."
Heavy sigh.
There are some people that just aren't worth the keystrokes, ya know?
How about this, TS... I stop reading and answering your posts, you do the same with mine. It's obvious we aren't going to get along. We're not on the same wavelength at all.
Peace, dude.
Makes sense to me.
How about it?
-Wexler
Wexler:
I would be in favor of a 'cease fire', in that I would not abuse you if you agree not to abuse me. What this means is you and I would be free to disagree without disrespect--on any level. You and I would be able to confront facts and conclusions but not attack the other personally.
If you do not agree, I will still not insult you personally, unless provoked in kind, but I will still comment on your posts. That is the core nature of a blog. If you don't want random comments on your statements, I suggest you make them in private.
If you don't wish to reply, I don't necessarally think it exactly relates to our incompatible 'wavelegnths'. My blog debates are often one-sided in the Q&A department. (I answer reasonable questions but my questions rarely get answered). The lack of answers generally just mean the questions are good. Someone else could just as soon ssign the same questions and they would not get any greater return of answers then Trollstein.
(PS> Everything I previously said about my past was 100% factual.)
So Joe the Plumber ask a question on taxes and the next
thing you know he a small business owner that afraid
to earn $250.000 in a year because his taxes will go up
then he gets mention 50 times at a presidential debate. Then we
fine out he is a plumber's helper not a small business owner and
owns $1200.00 in back taxes. If I was advising Joe and
he had a small boniness that earn $250.000 in a year then
I suggest, "Get a new accountant."
How can all the politicians say they support small business?
But the new metal health bill that was added to the Wall Street
Bailout only cover businesses with 50 employee are more and
If you don't layoff 50 employee or more they don't get counted
on the unemployed rolls. They always like to tell you how many
are included but not how many are excluded. Where is a free
press when you need one?
McCain could turn the campaign around by doing an Al Gore speech on George Bush!I mean to really go after Bush and Cheney as lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction-using their leadership to take the Nation to an unjustified war instead of against the ones who attacked us-denounce Paulson for causing a run on Wallstreet by fear mongering tactics designed to get the bailout money for his cronies on Wallstreet! Believe me, that would get National Attention and the voters would know he really wasn't G.W. Bush!
"Joe the Plumber" was desperately grabbed by McCain as a replacement for "Joe Six-Pack".
Why? Consider Cindy McCain's Busch Beer inheritance ... built by her parents' exploiting the three-tier alcohol wholesaling scam put in place after the Prohibition to "protect" Americans from poisonous booze. Alcohol wholesalers are simply middlemen who take the brew from the manufacturers, mark it up, and pass it to the distributors.
This form of business isn't one that needs creative people, or innovation, or anything other than a license to steal. There are no original products and no trucks required. It's not the kind of business that creates jobs, because all that's needed to run one is an insider's connection, that license and a phone.
The inner workings of the McCain fortune are starting to come out and could easily have become another thorn in McCain's side if he kept pressure on "Joe Six-Pack", so he's taking advantage of Obama's discovery of "Joe the Plumber" to direct attention away from how his wife's family got their millions.
It's true that Obama also used "Joe the Plumber" in the debate, but for him it was an organic reference, since he found the guy and was the only one to have actually engaged him, at the time.
It doesn't surprise me that in so many hours, we know everything there is to know about Joe, "the Plumber", but other questions of BO's background go unanswered. Nor does it surprise me that the bloggers of this post casually glance over Bo's statement to Joe, "the Plumber". It was a pure socialistic statement; "spread the wealth around."
Joe IS every citizen in the U.S. that makes 250 G's. His profession was irrelevant.
Now, as OUR gov't gave banks the incentive to over burden the stock market w/bad mortgage loans, under BO, the incentive will be to declare no more than 249g's of income. The will be paid in dividends, stock shares, options etc.
Also, this will be a boon for the under the table, cash crowd.



