Debate #1: Massive Upgrade

As the eight people who regularly visit this blog know, I’m currently a little bit pissed off at John McCain for the stunt he pulled in jeopardizing the subprime bailout these past few days.  I couldn’t be more conservative, and for me to question my vote this November, you know it must have been a pretty huge f up.

But tonight, I did everything I could to shut off my internal dialogue and really listen to what these two knuckleheads had to say.

It was terrific.  I think back to Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry, and how I cringed through the halting drivel I heard from both sides of the divide, and tonight what I saw was two men, absolutely Presidential, ready to lead this nation.   Smart, confident, fine….. imperfect, but thoughtful and ready to lead.

Anyone who visits this site and reads this post better leave a comment in agreement.  Because if anybody tries to tell me that these two guys aren’t head and shoulders above what we were offered the last two times around, I will find out where you live, pretend to be a Domino’s delivery boy, ring your doorbell, and smash a big old pizza in your face when you open your door.

5 Responses to “Debate #1: Massive Upgrade”

  1. Mark Grannis Says:

    “Upgrade” is a very low standard, and I think either candidate is an upgrade. If you’re insisting on “massive upgrade,” I’ll take my pizza with pepperoni and mushrooms.

    I won’t rehash what everyone who is interested saw with his or her own eyes, but I will say that the low point in the debate for me was when both candidates stubbornly refused to answer Lehrer’s question about what else in the budget has to be changed if we need to spend $700 billion on a bailout package. Some may say that it’s unreasonable to expect discussion of budgetary line items at a televised debate, and I have some sympathy with that view, but I couldn’t help but notice that the candidates were perfectly willing to speak with some specificity about what they would spend. We don’t need line items, but we need some indication of general direction.

    In general, I think people wildly overestimate the President’s responsibility for the economy, but setting budgetary priorities is serious business and it’s all his. I’m not asking for a lot here. I’m grading pass/fail. Last night both guys flunked. I hope they have better answers for the make-up exam with Bob Schieffer.

  2. Mark Esswein Says:

    I agree whole-heartedly that last night’s debate was a vast improvement over those in the last two cycles. Mostly thoughtful answers from both sides, largely devoid of sound bite gotchas. I think some of the credit goes to Jim Lehrer for setting the tone and working hard not to tee-up any possible quips.

    Mark G. is correct that both candidates ducked the budgetary adjustment question, but I would have been really surprised if either had answered with more specificity. Even without the latest crisis, I don’t expect any candidate to do more than sketch an outline of their priorities – which both did.

    BTW, did anyone else read the article about McCain that appeared in this month’s Atlantic? I thought that the Iraq/Afghanistan portion of the debate bore out the main point about McCain viewing all international relations through his Vietnam lenses.

  3. roger backstrom Says:

    I am sickened by the thought that I have to choose one of the two candidates and be happy about because “they are head and shoulders above what we were offered before”.
    Why must we continue to settle? And what good will that do for our situation?

  4. Timothy Peach Says:

    Roger: Before I “deliver” your pizza, just out of curiosity, who would you like to see up there for consideration?

  5. Roger Backstrom Says:

    I would like to see the day when it is not just a two party system. Where currently I feel like I have to choose the lesser of two evils when I go to the polls. In trying to convince me to support one cadidate or the other, I have heard many use the phrase, “at least he is better than the other choice.” Well, that is just not good enough for me anymore! Yet that kind of logic has mostly become accepted. Yes, I can support a non mainstream candidate like Ron Paul as I did in the primary. However, until we can break away from the assumption by the media and the voters that it must come down to two, it will be business as usual at the polls and in Washington. And look where that has brought us to today.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: