McCain v. Obama: Round 2


I’ll start off at the outset by noting that I really hate townhall debates. I think that this faux effort to look like a candidate of the people–Haroun al-Rashid in the marketplace meets the best of Lincoln v. Douglas–is about as contrived a political spectacle as there is. How authentic is it really when the questions that are being asked by the citizenry are vetted by a professional journalist in order to decide whether they are actually acceptable? Whoever you believe was the winner of the debate, let us all agree that the format was the big loser–though in fairness, it ought to be noted that Tom Brokaw worked manfully to overcome the limitations of the debate setting.

As for the debate itself, I know that there were people who said that McCain needed to make up for all of his electoral problems with a single knockout win tonight. That kind of thinking is, of course, unrealistic and it is mainly propagated by (a) people who don’t quite understand how Presidential elections work and (b) denizens of the Obama campaign who sought to set expectations ridiculously high for McCain. But all of this having been written, heads should explode all around if serious attention is not paid to some whoppers by Obama during this second debate. He told us that the government invented the computer, which is silly. He told us that we ought to stop humanitarian disasters overseas but never contemplated the possibility that a humanitarian disaster could and likely would unfold in Iraq if we follow Obama’s precipitous plans for a withdrawal and if we listened to him when we were contemplating implementing the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy. And Obama wondered what it might have been like if we intervened to stop the Holocaust, but was apparently unaware of the fact that the liberation of concentration camps was part and parcel of the Allied offensive into Germany near the end of World War II.

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine what would have been the mainstream media response if Sarah Palin made these mistakes.

Done? Good. Now, let’s see if the same response unfolds in mainstream media circles in response to Obama’s verbal blunders. By all rights, it should.

Category: , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

44 Comments Leave a comment

holocaust

liberallibertarian Wednesday, October 8th at 1:11AM EDT (link)

the US govt rejected jews fleeing germany and sent them back before we entered the war.
just saying….

 

Who is Barack Obama?

jennintexas Wednesday, October 8th at 1:33AM EDT (link)

One question that was not brought up was who the true Barrack Obama is. Shawn Hannity did his own documentary type show on FoxNews tying Obama with many radical people and groups.. very interesting.

 

Umm...did you not see Eric's thread re: holocaust?

MiddleMan Wednesday, October 8th at 1:36AM EDT (link)

This shouldn’t be a campaign issue. America did not rush to the aide of Jews in Germany until we were finally attacked by Japan.

If you’re saying that was our plan to save Jews, then it was a very costly one.

 

computers

liberalgeek Wednesday, October 8th at 1:37AM EDT (link)

The first modern electronic computer was the ENIAC. It was, indeed, designed and built under a US Army project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

 

ENIAC

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 1:37AM EDT (link)

You’re the second person i’ve seen tonight try to pass off Obama’s comment about the government creating computers as silly.

You should really google “ENIAC” sometime.
In short - it was the first true computer created. Who created it?
The department of defense. Namely the Army Ballistic Research Lab. If i remember correctly, it was designed to aid in the calculation of trajectories for artillery - but i could be wrong on that last part.

A lot of people get that confused with the UNIVAC - which is understandable - although the ENIAC came first. If memory serves, the univac was the private sector spin-off, and came shortly after the ENIAC. This was in the early/mid 40s, and the technology hit the public sector in 1950 with the Univac.

It may be nit-picking, but if we’re going to call something silly - we should make sure the facts are correct first. In this case, calling it silly is in fact - wrong.

 

I agree, but one point

Henryfielding Wednesday, October 8th at 1:38AM EDT (link)

By the way, I’m an independent, and I hope you won’t mind my “lurking” on this sight. You’re completely right about the format. It was painful. There has to be a better way to do this.
Regarding the Holocaust, something that this is likely to bring up is that Obama has a grand uncle (I think) who was among the soldiers who liberated Buchenwald. So I don’t know that there’s a lot of traction there. He clearly meant “intervene soon enough to stop the Holocaust,” which neither we nor anyone else did.
I thought that McCain’s answers, particularly on the economy, were quite good, and that that’s really the thing that needs to be talked up.

Problem is...

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 1:44AM EDT (link)

… You have to consider the source. Just as using Mathews or Olberman as a credible source against a McCain piece would be ridiculous, using Hannity as a credible source for an Obama piece is equally silly.

This thing a lot of the right is trying to do with trying to paint Ayers and Obama as the same person, is in my opinion - on par with the crazies on the left who try to say Bush is responsible for 9/11 because of his ties to the Saudi Royal family. If you have something made up in your mind - it’s very easy to walk backwards and find evidence of your position, but if you simply look at the facts and try to connect the dots - it’s a bit of a stretch.

There’s better arguements to be made, and better arguements MUST be made if McCain is to make up ground this late in the game. Rumors and conspiracy theories aren’t going to cut it.

This says nothing of the fact that if Obama were truly a manchurian candidate terrorist, I seriously doubt the NSA/FBI/DOD/Whoever would have given him the clearance needed to receive the presidential level security briefings that all Pres. Nominees receive.

Wrong

Pejman Yousefzadeh Wednesday, October 8th at 1:53AM EDT (link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarvardMarkI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_Computer

“At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

 
 
 

You know what really sucked about this debate?

Henryfielding Wednesday, October 8th at 2:04AM EDT (link)

OK, another thing: what really sucked was that NEITHER candidate was really talking about what needs to happen about the economy, even though the questioners were clearly desperate to hear about it. That question about sacrifice, for instance: people are saying “Tell us what we need to do to get through this.” And neither guy is willing to deliver the bad news. We’re $10 trillion (well, now $11 trillion) in debt. Taxing the rich isn’t going to do it. Cutting earmarks isn’t going to do it. Cutting taxes has gone about as far as it can go. So it’s cutting entitlements, raising taxes, or both, or both and more. About raising taxes: until 2003, this country had never gone to war without asking citizens to help shoulder the costs through higher taxes.

Not to mention

Nachiman Wednesday, October 8th at 2:12AM EDT (link)

we waited years to get involved; while they were dying. . . .

Seems to me

Nachiman Wednesday, October 8th at 2:20AM EDT (link)

the answer lies in your definition of computer. . . .

All four were firsts, but they all had different capabilities

General Purpose Computers

johnTX Wednesday, October 8th at 2:24AM EDT (link)

None of those were turing complete general purpose computers.

If you want to get into non-turing complete computers, you might as well go back into the analog computer world. The first programmable analog computer was built in 1206.

ENIAC was the first electronic general purpose computer and it was indeed financed by the Army.

The Z3 however was the first turing complete computer (it was electro-magnetic and not electronic), though no one knew it was turing complete until about 10 years ago.

Correction

liberalgeek Wednesday, October 8th at 2:28AM EDT (link)

None of those computers were Turing-complete. This one of the major criteria often used for defining the modern computer.

The German Z3 could theoretically lay claim as the earliest electronic Turing-complete computer. Practically, however, it couldn’t be programmed akin to modern computers.

Long story short, the ENIAC is generally considered the first modern computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historyofcomputing_hardware

And the Government...

liberalrepublican Wednesday, October 8th at 2:51AM EDT (link)

The government invented the first computer… if you consider the Army to be part of the government.

“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”

he meant the internet

zebrapants Wednesday, October 8th at 2:56AM EDT (link)

maybe the computer was the product of government research, maybe it wasn’t… it just depends on which early computer you want to point to as the “invention”. many potential candidates were indeed the product of government funding.

regardless, if you look at obama’s remarks, it’s almost certain he was referring to the invention if the internet, rather than the invention of the computer:

And we can do it, but we’re going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we’ve got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.

colossus was designed to break crypto, eniac was made to do ballistics, harvard did general purpose arithmetic. since none of these were in any way related to “defense purposes, how to communicate”, its highly likely he meant the internet. and as we all know, the internet was indeed the product of government funding.

eh

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 3:12AM EDT (link)

The hangup there is - within the technology industry, and in the history books - the Eniac is considered the first computer. Period.

Debating that point is purely a political move.

Could Obama have been referring to the internet? Quite possibly.

I’m sure if he would have said that though - there’s plenty of people out there that would be arguing that while DARPA was influential in putting together management and resources - the actual work was done at MIT and Berkeley - therefor it was an academic exercise, not a government one.

Again - if you have your mind made up about something, you can walk backwards and find “facts” to support your position. When you look at history and try to connect the dots, often times you will come up short in that approach.

It was all Al Gore...

liberalrepublican Wednesday, October 8th at 3:21AM EDT (link)

just ask him.

“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”

Well actually, moron,

Achance Wednesday, October 8th at 3:27AM EDT (link)

the British invented the first electrical/electronic computer at Bletchley where it was used for Enigma and other German signal decoding.

I so love modern illiterate children who love The One.

In Vino Veritas

show me anyone...

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 3:28AM EDT (link)

Show me anybody on the planet right now who really knows exactly what needs to be done. They don’t exist.

Nobody’s 100% sure how far the rabbit hole goes, how much further the economy is going to deteriorate - and therefore doesn’t have a whole lot of perspective on exactly how to fix it.

As for taxes - it’s not simply a matter of raise or lower taxes, but rather a matter of a balanced tax policy.
Trickle-down supporters are singularly focused on cutting taxes at the top. More populist minded folks tend to be for cutting taxes at the bottom. Fact is - the best approach lies somewhere in the middle for a progressive tax structure to be effective. Other than that - switch to a flat tax, which personally I think would be better - but good luck getting it done.

In the end a singular approach is rarely ever the best option. Tax policy and economic policy must adapt to economic realities of the time. Ideally those policies would anticipate market conditions and preempt disaster, but more often they are reactionary (for obvious reasons).
When you look at the current economic crisis - there is little reason to think that anything would be “trickling down” by taking a supply-side approach. Not sure if you noticed, but investors are pulling their money out of just about every vehicle out there. Cutting taxes at the top isn’t going to change that until the markets calm down.
The other option is to try to put more money in the hands of the middle/lower class. That money then gets injected into the system from the bottom up - helping boost bottom lines of businesses, and bringing confidence back to the marketplace. At that point - you will see a return of investment capital - and we can start talking about Trickle-down again.
I guess to summarize - to assume the supply-side approach will be successful, is to assume that there is a willingness on the part of those who benefit from that policy to engage the market. Current conditions are proof positive that is an incorrect assumption. As McCain likes to say - you need to “look at the conditions on the ground”, not some arbitrary ideology.

Good point

liberalgeek Wednesday, October 8th at 3:38AM EDT (link)

I think you’re right.

Nonetheless, none of Yousefzadeh’s examples seem to be significant “verbal blunders” or “whoppers” by any means.

Both computers and the internet are fair examples of government aided innovation. Also, Obama’s use of the holocaust as an example of an event of moral importance seems fair to me.

Finally, Yousefzadeh mentions that Obama didn’t explain that a pull-out from Iraq could lead to a humanitarian crisis. That’s a valid critique - but I’d say the onus is on McCain to point that out. I’d never consider that a “blunder” or “whopper” on Obama’s part.

Anyhow, Yousefzadeh’s assertion that the media should take Obama to task on those points seems a bit weak.

Btw, this is my first time cruising the site. Figured I’d try and get the conservative slant about debate.

Kudos

liberalgeek Wednesday, October 8th at 3:47AM EDT (link)

That was well put.

Whoa there....

megaduck Wednesday, October 8th at 4:19AM EDT (link)

Liberalrepublican (darn strange name…) isn’t wrong. ENIAC was an army project, and it was the first Turing-complete computer. The Colossus at Bletchley park was cool, but it wasn’t a “computer” in the modern sense of the word because it wasn’t Turing complete.

Most computer scientists and engineers would agree that ENIAC was the first Turing-complete machine, and therefore the first real “computer”. It seems like I’m picking nits, but the distinction is highly important to the handful of us that build the darn things. We couldn’t write much useful software without Turing machines. Your computer, your phone, your DVR, and your car engine computer are all Turing-complete.

Let’s get back to Pejman’s “silly” comment. This is a bad line of attack. Obama seemed to conflate ENIAC and ARPANET, which shows that he has a fuzzy grasp of technological history. However, both of them were government projects, so his larger point still stands.

“Green behind the ears”, now THAT’S silly.

Your point is well taken, but...

Lamplighter331 Wednesday, October 8th at 6:54AM EDT (link)

One thing that I noticed on the differences in tax plans was that Obama kept harping on “fairness” and how businesses needed to pay their fair share. At another point (I can’t recall exactly where) when trying to repudiate McCain’s assertion that Obama would raise taxes on 50% of small business income, Obama said that it’s not true, because we need to cut taxes on businesses so that they can hire more people.

I’m not a very intellectual person, but wouldn’t that mean that Obama should be for McCain’s tax cuts on business. He just posited that position would help create jobs, but at the same time, he was going after those wascally CEO’s. I’m confused by The One on this.

“We make war that we may live in peace.”
–Aristotle–

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

—George Orwell—

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Obama is fluent in the language of lies!

Scope Wednesday, October 8th at 7:29AM EDT (link)

After the first 2 questions, I decided it would be much to painful to watch the debate any further. McCain is not a great speaker, but he missed great opportunities to nail Obama when he blamed the current mess on the Bush admn. policies. Yes Bush was an enabler who did not forcefully try to point where we were headed with the sub-prime mess and Fannie and Freddie despite Franklin Raines getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar by manipulation of the books. McCain needed to be alot more forceful in pointing the finger right back at the Democrats where the blame lies. Palin would have done it with style and substance and time to spare of her two minutes.

When I saw Obama leaning against his stool like he was modeling for men’s suits, with smirks on his face I had to turn the TV off before I threw something at it.

The silent majority will come out in force against Communism. I read some comments from Chicagoans on another site where two people said that Obama will not even get the votes from his beloved Chicago, mainly the business owners. Yikes!

 

The first computer.

KWH Wednesday, October 8th at 7:30AM EDT (link)

The first computer was actually built in Germany prior to World War II. It was destroyed in the Allied Bombing. The memory was physical magnetic switches and it took hours to complete a problem but it did used the same binary processing used in computers today.

 

A losing argument

dd564 Wednesday, October 8th at 8:57AM EDT (link)

While Barack continues to sell his ideas on re-shaping America, and American’s are buying in around 55% or higher, you people are wasting your time arguing over who created the first computer.

This is a losing argument. It was used as an analogy.

The fact this is the best you have to combat Obama shows how desperate you’ve become.

It’s sad that conservatives like myself need to identify with Obama, a democrat, to trust we’ll see fiscal responsibility.

Also, why can’t McCain sit still during the debate? Why was he lurking around in the backround like an Iguana?

Now this one is a Moby.

Dave_in_Fla Wednesday, October 8th at 9:08AM EDT (link)

I liked the “conservatives like myself” line, personally.

“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” - Joe McCarthy

Moron?

liberalrepublican Wednesday, October 8th at 9:11AM EDT (link)

Ok.

“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”

another Koncerned Khristian Konservative

PaRep Wednesday, October 8th at 9:12AM EDT (link)

who is Koncerned about Astroturfing

Actually, if you call a "computer" ...

skorrent Wednesday, October 8th at 9:27AM EDT (link)

A machine that can be programmed to perform different operations at different times, you go all the way back to the textile industry and punch cards. (Yes, I remember punch cards.) For those whose “history” begins with WWII, it’s pretty obvious that government has sucked up and dispensed most of the basic research money, and much applied research funding, too.

The philosophical difference expressed in the debate was quite clear. BO implied that progress toward energy independence and alternative energy would be made IF AND ONLY IF government were in control of the research and investment funds. Mac said government has a role in basic research (arguable) but should not tax investment capital away from the private sector. Is there a non-socialist reader who would not prefer Mac’s position?

 
 
 
 
 

Time to stomp Obama on this 'budget surplus' nonsense

Finrod Wednesday, October 8th at 10:01AM EDT (link)

In the final debate, when Obama blathers about the Bush administration inheriting a budget surplus, McCain needs to say– “I’m getting tired of having to refute my opponent’s mythology. When President Clinton left office, the budget was back in deficit and the economy was in recession. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of the Clinton recession and kept us out of recession until this current crisis.”


Finrod’s First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

 

Manfully

Grazni Wednesday, October 8th at 10:06AM EDT (link)

This was the most manfully moderated debate is recent memory.

Maybe Brokaw ate a manwich beforehand to enhance his ability to act in a manfully manner.

The Internet

johnTX Wednesday, October 8th at 12:07PM EDT (link)

I agree. Definitely meant the Internet - or rather - ARPANET.

i don't think moby

SeanF2000 Wednesday, October 8th at 12:57PM EDT (link)

means what you think it means.

no -- he hit it right on the head

David Hinz Wednesday, October 8th at 1:01PM EDT (link)

We can multitask.

Moe Lane Wednesday, October 8th at 1:07PM EDT (link)

For example, I can feed the baby and ban a moby at the same time.

Blam.

He forgot "lifelong".

NightTwister Wednesday, October 8th at 1:33PM EDT (link)

I give him a 4 out of 5.

he (Obama) was talking about small businesses

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 2:10PM EDT (link)

There’s a difference between Microsoft, and a private consulting firm with 4 employees.

Drilling is a start - not the means to an end

izoneguy Wednesday, October 8th at 2:19PM EDT (link)

If America waits to long they won’t be able to start drilling. We are right on the cusp. If Obama gets elected we won’t be drilling anything. Pelosi will tell him to sit down and shut up. We need to drill to MAKE MONEY. We need to drill to SAVE MONEY. We need to BUILD nuclear power plants so that in ten years we don’t say - Gee wished we would have built those nuclear plants so we can charge our ELECTRIC cars. Drilling will immediately put people to WORK. Making money and paying TAXES. The federal government makes more off drilling activity than the oil companies do. Piss off the oil companies and they will MOVE offshore FOREVER. Not to mention that drilling for our own resources will make us more SECURE. What part of this do the liberals not get?

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson

Please read this post before commenting further, Sinixstar.

Moe Lane Wednesday, October 8th at 2:22PM EDT (link)

Link

Thank you.

Moe Lane

PS: By all means, provide us with the quoted text where Obama’s business tax plan cut is based on profits, not taxable income. In fact, do that in your next post on the subject.

Why McCain didn't push back...

Sinixstar Wednesday, October 8th at 2:25PM EDT (link)

McCain didn’t push back because the point could be argued that really it goes back to Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Gramm as in Phil Gramm, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that McCain was all about back in the 99.

It’s easier for both parties to put the blame at the feet of Bush - for right or wrong. There’s plenty of blame to go around up and down both sides of the aisle, and nobody really wants to shine a flashlight on that aspect right now - McCain included.

It’s the same reason why McCain doesn’t push the 2005 reform point harder. Yes, he got on board with that bill - but when you actually look at it, it would have done very little to prevent the mess we’re in. By the time it would have been enacted in late ‘05 (and btw - it was killed in the republican controlled committee) we were already so far down this hole there was very little turning back. It’s also a leap of logical faith to assume that the oversight bodies would have had the forward looking ability to actually put a stop to what was going on, and also a HUGE leap of faith to think that Fannie and Freddie were actually at the center of this mess - they weren’t.

Traditionally fannie and freddie had a more active and controlling role in the market, but after the 99 deregulation that was no longer the case. They were essentially on-par with the investment banks at that point, and lost a lot of their influence over the market. This is seen by the fact that leading up to this - Fannie and Freddie were losing marketshare to the big investment banks, as their guidelines did not permit them to dabble in these toxic loans. It was only after they were at risk of becoming completely irrelevent that they got involved and started taking on some of this debt.

But again - all of this goes back to assuming that anyone in government would have had any idea to step in and say ‘this isn’t smart’ and put an end to it. Considering you could turn on the TV or the Radio at any time 24 hours a day and get bombarded with these loan adverts, it was right out there in your face, and still nobody saw it - i find it hard to believe that would have been the case.

You can make the argument that there was pressure from the government, or from various groups to partake in these loans - but i just don’t find that to be a very credible line of attack. Some of these lenders themselves have said the reason why they loosened up their standards the way they did was simply to compete. If there was some greater plan, that wouldn’t be the case - and certainly these guys wouldn’t have had to go through such extraordinary steps to hide this mess in complex products, under a mound of paper.

So again - the deregulation of norms that have stood since Glass-Steelgall (1933) opened the door for this stuff to take place, and everybody pretty much looked the other way while it happened. That’s why you’re not seeing a harder line about all these supposed dots that can be connected back to the dems about where the blame lies. As many dots as there are pointing to the left, there’s just as many pointing to the right. It was a universal failure of government.

That makes two homework assignments then, Sinixstar.

Moe Lane Wednesday, October 8th at 2:28PM EDT (link)

1 on Obama’s assumption that you don’t know what’s defined as a small business; and one on the attempt to regulate F/F by the GOP in 2005.

Have fun.

Wrong again

Pejman Yousefzadeh Wednesday, October 8th at 2:38PM EDT (link)

Again - if you have your mind made up about something, you can walk backwards and find “facts” to support your position. When you look at history and try to connect the dots, often times you will come up short in that approach.

A statement that could apply to anyone who believed that ENIAC was the first computer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_Computer

John Vincent Atanasoff’s and Clifford Berry’s computer work was not widely known until it was rediscovered in the 1960s, amidst conflicting claims about the first instance of an electronic computer. The ENIAC computer was considered to be the first computer in the modern sense, but in 1973 a U.S. District Court invalidated the ENIAC patent and concluded that the ABC was the first “computer” (see Controversy).

“At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

Moe's got this ...

Martin Knight Wednesday, October 8th at 5:45PM EDT (link)

Though I must point out again, for the benefit of anyone reading this and thinking this guy knows what he’s talking about, that no serious economist thinks that Gramm-Leach-Bliley is to blame for the sub-prime mess.

PS: Note that “Leach” is Jim Leach, the so-called “Republican” who delivered a speech at the DNC endorsing Barack Obama. Maybe that’s why Obama didn’t bring up the silly Gramm-Leach-Bliley talking point.



 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.