Skip navigation

It was the closest thing to a real debate that Americans have seen in decades. They interrupted each other. They let no cheap shot go unchallenged. They both seemed presidential and steady. And––this was the fascinating part–– they both use the exact same brush to tar their opponent: George W. Bush. Apparently, a vote for McCain is four more years of Dubya according to Obama. And according to McCain, Obama has a bit of a stubborn streak that is eerily reminiscent of someone currently in the Oval Office. So which is it? Are they running against each other? Or just running away from Bush?

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. Good point.

    I gave Obama points for not laying into McCain as much as McCain laid into him. Diplomacy is what I call that.

  2. Missed the debate last night, so I had to force myself to watch it this morning. Here is the recap that I agree with:

    McBama favors the Billionaire Bailout.

    McBama won’t say what programs have to be cut to pay for the Billionaire Bailout.

    McBama thinks “we should never hesitate to use military force.”

    McBama wants to escalate the other unwinnable “land war in Asia” (Afghanistan).

    McBama is not sure about whether to start a third unwinnable land war in Asia, against nuclear power Pakistan.

    McBama would go to war against Iran for the sake of Israel if necessary. He is not sure if he wants to talk with the Iranians before bombing them.

    McBama thinks that Russia is the villain in Georgia.

    Since they essentially agree with each other on everything but tactics, I wouldn’t even call it a debate. I would call it an infomercial on big government. At least, they didn’t make much of a pretense towards being Constitutional about anything.

  3. Debates are just campaign stump speeches where it is harder to get away with lying. I remember a debate once where the candidate claimed to be opposed to “nation building”. I think what he meant to say was he was just really bad at it.

  4. Thats for sure.

  5. I think George W. said be wanted a “humble foreign policy”. Actually he wanted to “bumble” foreign policy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: