We wrote this "streaming commentary" as the debate in Nashville was taking place, our reaction to what we heard as it was being said:
Barack Obama said gas "could go up"...yes, you’re right, and it likely will if you and the leftist wing of your party are in charge. Y’all weren’t exactly yelling "drill, baby, drill" all those years.
Obama admits he’s against extending the Bush tax cuts...that means anyone who pays taxes NOW will pay MORE taxes THEN, if he is elected. As for McCain, "Horay!" He finally said this very point, though we wish he had driven it home even further [see our previous column, Here, There, and Someplace].
Obama had no answer for McCain’s point that Obama had sought over $900 MILLION in earmarks, while McCain has sought a grand total of ZERO.
Obama is taking Bush’s remark of "go out and shop" after 9/11 totally out of context. To us, Bush meant that these terrorists are not going to rule our world...we will mourn the loss of those they murdered and deeply sympathize with those who lost loved ones that day, but the terrorists will not dictate how we live our lives. That’s what Bush meant, and regardless of whatever boulders are thrown at him now, he was right. That remark by Obama was no doubt a would-be "pre-prepared zinger" someone on his staff thought up. Guess what, pal, you missed the mark.
Obama says he’ll use a scalpel on the budget, rather than the hatchet he says McCain will use. What he doesn’t say is that he, Obama, will bring a tidal wave upon the economy–a tsunami, if you will, in the form of massive tax increases, not just on the rich, but on all of us. That won’t be a scalpel or a hatchet. It will be a guillotine.
McCain recognized this in saying he will not raise taxes on anyone, and will increase exemptions that will include the middle class – we dearly hope that the middle class recognizes that actual "relief" won’t be coming from Obama.
Again, Obama’s claim of a tax "cut" for "95%" of Americans is a great big fib...if he’s going to ditch the Bush tax cuts–and he will–then YOUR taxes will go UP, provided you pay taxes now! Yes, we’re repeating ourselves, but so is he, and Joe Biden told the same false fable in the VP debate.
Good analogy by McCain of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill working together. John McCain has done quite a bit of bipartisan work himself. Barack Obama cannot accurately make that same claim.
Energy creation can create jobs? So why did you oppose off-shore drilling for the longest, Senator Obama? How many jobs have you and your liberal colleagues cost Americans by dragging your feet for years and years on off-shore drilling? Also, in the past Senator Biden said he opposed clean coal, even though he said he favored it in the VP debate.
He can’t get away: Obama cannot escape the fact that he has voted for earmarks the same way a kid runs for the candy section in the grocery store. Conversely, McCain does not do that, and has long opposed the pork-barrel mentality of Congress. The line-item veto would be a good tool in the hands of President McCain. We wouldn’t have that same confidence if his opponent were elected. We think it much more likely that Obama could use that tool, if given by Congress, as a mechanism of control–vote my way, or it’s the highway for what you wanted in that bill...
"Wo-oh-oh it’s magic, you know"... Listening to Obama talk about how he’s going to fix health care reminded us of that old song. That claim that he will reduce insurance premiums by $2500 a year is a total fantasy–as in, "dream on" [to quote another song]. We don’t hear any specifics that make sense as to how that will occur. While McCain gives a specific $5,000 refundable tax credit, which is something tangible.
Obama’s claim amounts to a "I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you" approach to health care – not always a good thing to hear when you really need help, unless it’s our military bringing the help. We do agree that decisive action is needed on the issue of health insurance companies trying to claim "pre-existing conditions" but we recall that McCain has the same position on that issue.
Foreign policy: sure, Senator Obama, the rest of us do wish it would have been "easy" in Iraq, but it wasn’t, and that wasn’t Senator McCain’s doing. If he’d been listened to, the surge would have been sooner, and the positive benefit realized more quickly.
Here’s something we wonder every time we hear Senator Obama rail about Iraq, which is almost every time we hear him say much about anything: just what was it about removing a ruthless, murdering dictator named Saddam Hussein that was such a bad idea? What does he find so objectionable in that action? Why doesn’t he go ask the survivors of the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam, his sons, and his cronies–go tell them it "wasn’t worth it" to liberate their country, and to create a democracy in place of a repressive regime.
While he is at it, why doesn’t he go tell all those survivors of our brave soldiers who lost their lives that it really was all just a waste of time. He can also tell all those members of his own party how wrong they were, most of whom are now marching in place behind him, pointing fingers at those war-happy Republicans--but who thought going to Iraq was a good idea when it all started.
As McCain recognizes, if Obama’s path had been followed, the "defeat" that his liberal colleague Harry Reid claimed had happened in Iraq would have happened–it wouldn’t just seemingly be a figment of Reid’s hopeful imagination. The "ending" of the war in Iraq that Obama wants would have been a devastating defeat, with a mire of a mess left behind–had McCain’s call for the surge not been followed.
John McCain wants to listen to General Petraeus. Apparently, Barack Obama does not. We imagine General Petraeus will be relieved of his command duties if Obama is elected. Would that make any sense? Not in the least, in our opinion.
Please, Senator Obama, some who follow music know it was Vince Vance and the Valiants who had the most popular version of "Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" (the take-off on "Barbara Ann") back when the Iranians held the 52 American hostages captive for 444 days, the ones who were imprisoned while Jimmy Carter was president and released on the day that Ronald Reagan took office [ok, ok, so that recording might not have made the top of Billboard’s charts, but...].
John McCain reminds us of Ronald Reagan. Sarah Palin reminds us of Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama, on the other hand, reminds us of Jimmy Carter. We imagine that most anyone who is not a leftist knows that reminding us of Jimmy Carter is not a good thing.
Back when the Georgia crisis arose, John McCain had the quick and proper response to the Russian invasion ["We are all Georgians"]. Barack Obama was fumbling the ball on that one. We can’t afford turnovers in foreign policy from the next president.
We don’t recall President Bush or Senator McCain ever saying that catching Osama was not a priority. Nice try, Senator Obama, but if anybody buys that, they don’t need to be operating heavy machinery, and thinking for themselves might be a bit of a challenge, as well.
As to Israel’s security, both John McCain and Barack Obama both claim the United States will "be there" for that ally, though McCain sounds more certain. All we need to say on that is, who is Senator Joe Lieberman supporting? That speaks volumes.
As for those "direct talks" with the heads of enemy countries that Obama wants, think back, would you, to Nancy Pelosi’s "Big Adventure" to Syria. Want more of that foolishness? That is what we may get if our president meets without pre-conditions with the president of Iran. Something our enemies can use as propaganda fodder, courtesy of the president of the USA.
Here’s an unsolicited suggestion for the McCain "debate prep" team:
You have one more chance on a nationwide stage to have your candidate tactfully but firmly state just how horrendous it is that Barack Obama is the Democrats’ nominee for president, given his associations with a known terrorist, William Ayers [and serving on the same board isn’t the real meat of the coconut on that one], and a "blame America" pontificator, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and a Louis Farrakhan admirer (Rev. Michael Pfleger), and the terribly partisan group ACORN, which, as an organization or as individual representatives, have been and are the target of various investigations by several states–for voter fraud and other illegal and/or inappropriate activities. What happens in Vegas may not stay in Vegas in this case, as ACORN got raided there today. Something about allegedly registering people to vote in the names of the roster of the Dallas Cowboys–no, we’re not making that up [and, yeah, we know, we know, they are a "non-partisan" group–we also fervently believe in the tooth fairy].
Please read our columns Are You Kidding Me and Can You Say "Voter Fraud"?–heck, just go ahead and read all our columns. Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but we are working really cheap here–for free, while you are paying people big bucks to tell you stuff like this, we imagine. Please read the volumes that others have written about ACORN, Wright, and Ayers. You’re not going to get "the leftist" vote. So how about not worrying about offending them? There are plenty of Hillary supporters and independents who were and are alarmed by Obama’s associations. Give them still another reason to vote for McCain/Palin.
Back to the debate, at the end: We don’t know what is going to happen next, either. Neither of these gentlemen do, as Senator McCain mentioned. But we do know with whom we would feel much more comfortable at the helm of our government, as leader of the free world, as Commander-in-Chief. Without a doubt, that person is John McCain. We’d rather have "country first" from a battle-scarred proven leader over "whatever change I want, ‘yes you can’ believe in" from a political "celebrity," any day of the week.
Don’t let what the mostly-liberal pundits say have much influence on what you think. We know we have a preference in this election, and that we wanted Senator McCain to win this debate. Still, we think he did win the debate, and it was clear to us that he was more comfortable in that setting than Senator Obama was–a stadium rally, this was not. The pundits who say that McCain "had" to "score a knockout" in this debate are full of hot air, in our modest opinion. No one as polished as Obama is going to get wiped out in such a forum, no matter what. He didn’t get where he is by being haphazard and unprepared.
Instead, we wrote as we watched, and gave our impressions of what we heard above. On the issues, and on the challenges our country faces, we are convinced that John McCain is the person for this job.
A race for senior class president, this ain’t.