Notes from the Debate: Facts on Colombian Free Trade

Congress, oh mighty home of the ineffectual part two, Colombian Lobbyists have put the full court press on Congress to approve a free trade agreement that would eliminate tariffs and normalize trade relations between that Andean Republic and ourselves. Businesses here look to benefit far more than their Colombian brethren as our tariffs on Colombian exports are significantly lower then Colombian’s tariffs on our exports. Congress seems to oppose the deal on human rights grounds, which would at least be a legitimate base for discussion except we are supplying the country with billions of dollars of munitions, financial aid, and we have special forces in country training their soldiers. This is akin to Congress and Senator Obama saying, “here’s large pistol and a box of explosives, Let me show you how to use them. But, no, we don’t trust you to sell us guava juice. “ If the Colombian regime is so egregious that it would be criminal to trade with them then it seems beyond belief that we should be arming them. If instead, as our strongest ally in South America and a country which has made great strides in ending its own civil war with our aid, we deny them a trading deal they want that would in the short term benefit our producers more then theirs, well, it seems a gross inconsistency bordering on madness. Oh, and naturally they have exportable oil. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a friendly country close by with oil to sell now that Chavez is drifting into cloud coocoo land? Oh well… perhaps just another example of Senator Obama’s habit of voting present when the tough issues come up.

McCain's Got Nothing To Say

Woooo!!! 3rd and final debate last night!  Of course, I was rooting for Obama, but I was really interested to see if either of them had anything, ANYTHING new to say, or if it would simply be the same old, same old.  Even Bob Schieffer agreed: "By now, we've heard all the talking points, so let's try to tell the people tonight some things that they - they haven't heard."  And, of course, we were both disappointed.  This far close into the campaign, there's nothing else to say, it's all been said before - they're just fighting over every small difference in their policies, trying to win those few percentage points in the battleground states.  

But one thing really struck me hard - McCain focused so much on attacking Obama, it just made me want to puke.  On the majority of the issues, he would make an attack on Obama's policy, and then seem to ignore what Obama said to refute the attack - because he would then repeat his attack, with different wording, in his next chance to speak.  Here are several examples I picked up on:

TAXES

McCain used an encounter with a plumber named Joe from Ohio to accuse Obama of planning to raise his taxes.  Obama refuted the attack, saying that the plumber would most likely be making less that $250,000 a year, and so therefore would not see a tax raise.  McCain then came right back at him, saying all over again that Obama would raise his taxes.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

McCain made his good ol' attack about Obama's relationship to Ayers, and then threw in a new one, where the organization ACORN was "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy" - and then having the gall to insinuate that Obama was connected to them.  Bizarre claim, but Obama refuted the attacks with skill, proving there was no justification for McCain's claims.  (All of this is old hat, been said before by both of them).  But does McCain listen? No, of course not!  He comes right back with more of the same, taking a quote from a book Ayers wrote way, WAY out of proportion and still insinuating Obama had something to do with ACORN.

HEALTH CARE

McCain goes back to his good buddy Joe the plumber, and claims that under Obama's plan, Joe would have to pay fines if he didn't take Obama's health care plan.  But Obama refutes this point, saying that Joe, as a small business owner, would be exempt from the health care requirements that big businesses would have to cover.  But McCain wasn't listening, because he repeated himself once more, saying that, under Obama, Joe the plumber would have to pay fines if he didn't provide the health care that Obama wanted.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that McCain really has nothing to go on now.  He's slipping in the polls, the voters trust Obama way more than McCain on economic issues, and his policies really don't look that different than Bush's.  So what does he have left to run on?  Nothing but (incorrect) attacks on Obama's policies, and, what's really troubling, accusations calling into question Obama's character.  I believe I've said this before in an earlier post, but it seems like I need to say it again: McCain is calling out the worst in American Politics, by getting down and dirty in his attacks against Obama.  We, the voters of America, need to show him and his fellow Republicans that we are not going to accept any longer the terrible and demeaning campaign methods that "elected" Bush into office.  Vote Obama into office on November 4, and vote out an era of negative campaigning.

Source: CNN Transcript of the Debate

Warm Up for the Last Debate: Thoughts from the First

Thoughts from the first debate or
"Between the idea and the reality ...lies the shadow. " - T.S. Elliot

Just around the point when Obama was fumbling with that mystic talisman that would seemingly prove his righteousness in demanding his form of peace, the bracelet of sergeant Jopek, the Senator from Illinois said "No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided." It was an odd turn of phrase, perhaps the fault of a man unused to speaking in terms appropriate to military service, but did the Senator mean to suggest that the value of our soldier’s sacrifices was proportional to their fealty to the orders of their ultimate commander? That sort of sentiment seems more at home in an autocracy, where, as a representative of the will of the people or as a reflection of personal over institutional loyalty, soldiers swear their allegiance to their leader rather then to their homeland. American soldiers fight for "their country", for “the republic”, for “freedom”, or more simply, for the "folks back home" or "for the man next to them." They do not fight for the whim, or desires, of their leader, not as the legions fought for Caesar, and not even as the British fight for their Queen. Ours is a republic, our soldiers fight, or are said to fight, for the maintenance of our democratic institutions and our freedom. And the "we" used in the second sentence, does Senator Obama presume to speak as the embodiment of the nation, in the monarchicial plural, as a prince would?
Now, I would have left these phrases alone (one doesn't like to parse, and it should be said that the words of any man can be taken out of context) if they didn't speak to the duality of the Obama phenomenon. On the one hand we have Obama the avatar of change, the light worker, the capsule of hope for a nation that yearns to end division, to bring about righteous change and to be loved, again, among the countries; On the other their is the man, of flesh and blood; the enigma, the sphinx, a community organizer who accomplished nothing, a lecturer who never wrote, and a Senator who never voted. His plans are ever shifting, ephemeral; does anyone soberly imagine that he can bring his health care through? Some of his plans are at best at best cheap bribes, 500 dollars to each taxpayer. But then there is that awesome pride, the fake presidential seal, the acceptance among roman columns looming out over 60,000 eager acolytes, and the already placed transition team. "We are the change we have been waiting for" meaningless, except if "he" is that change. One of the great dangers democracies have always faced is that of the demagogue, whose paltry record, clear voice and deep charisma lacerate the people into believing that they are electing more then simply a politician.
Remember, you may vote for the dream on November 4th but it will be the man who takes office on January 20th.

To Follow Shortly: More sober reflections on the third debate. The second one need not be spoken of.