The Final Debate: A Recap

Our Variety story is here.

A special post-debate edition of “Wilshire & Washington on the Radio,” with Maegan Carberry, Teresa Valdez Klein and guest Media Lizzy is here.

Some more reflections on the debate:

Obama barely flinched during the entire 90 minutes, he was unflappable, even if he wasn’t exactly eloquent or inspirational. McCain by contrast couldn’t disguise his contempt for his rival, and already a YouTube video has appeared that collects his various eye rolls and grimaces. He did get in some of the best lines of the night, but it still had the feel that he was throwing a lot of stuff against the wall to see if anything would stick. There were points during his arguments about Ayers and ACORN where I was just lost, maybe because I was wondering how angry McCain looked. Maybe Joe the Plumber, who seems to be leaning toward McCain, will get some traction in the coming days, as a kind of quasi surrogate. But other than trying to woo a man enjoying his fifteen minutes, there wasn’t anything in the debate that would send the Obama camp into chaotic spin control.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 1

Leave a Reply

1 Comment

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

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

You are commenting using your 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

  1. William Bauer, MD says:

    Turning Point?
    We are now seeing what Obama America is going to be like and if the McCain campaign is serious about winning it they need to capitalize on this ominous possibility of a future. This week we have seen the “tells” that reveal where Obama really wants to go with America.
    The first agenda is fraud. Obama is a product of the smash mouth Chicago Democrat machine which was infamous for dumping voting machines from Republican districts in the Chicago river during the 1960 election and stealing the election for JFK. His agenda includes stripping workers of the right to vote on unionization with his advocating “card check” unionization laws. He and his party recently tried to give ACCORN 20 billion dollars in the recent Billionaire Bailout bill (BBB) (after successfully including $500 million to them in the ineptly named Housing Rescue bill). Now his fellow Democrats have succeeded in their appeal to the Supreme Court to allow the Democrat Ohio Secretary of State to refuse to cooperate in clearing fraudulent names and registrations from the voter roles. This will allow massive voter fraud which as a rule is at least on average 3-5% of the Democrat “base”(Ever wonder how 99.5% of large Indian reservations vote in South Dakota or voting districts in Detroit manage 100+% turnout in precincts where voter roles have not been updated or dead voters purged since 1980). Now with the current voter roles in Ohio it may reach 10%. It is amazing in that Obama clearly would win without this tactic yet for some reason he persists in his almost Nixonian paranoia to use fraudulent means to advance his election. He refuses to condemn ACCORN (similar to Nixon not disavowing the White House plumbers). He refuses to instruct or advocate that his own party members work to make sure this is the “cleanest fairest election in history” and he even refuses to condemn ACCORN’s voter fraud effort and instead merely acts as an apologist for it. Any one of these could be forgivable but in its totality it bespeaks of his world view. One now sees that this an integral part of his psyche. He does not trust the citizen to make the choice he is advocating, so he simply will disenfranchise them. Once in power we can only wonder how far this will go.
    Secondly, we see his redistributive, dare I say communist, leanings. In the debate this last week he has said he wishes to redistribute the wealth of this country. This tendency is evidenced in his Obama seeks to take more from those who succeed and distribute it his favored groups. This is seen in his support of the Billionaire Bailout Bill, his Single payer health plan, and his tax policies and now his outright admission of his philosophy of redistribution. This is clearly a nonstarter with most Americans. Most of us feel that we should be rewarded based on our hard work, thriftiness, and entrepreneurial spirit. Our earnings should reflect those efforts. Obama (and this is his real tie to Bill Ayers) feels that what people earn is not fundamentally theirs. It is the property of government to be redistributed as he and other politicians feel fit. In the case of the recent BBB, this does not necessarily mean the unfortunate but instead the politically connected Wall Street firms, ACCORN, as well as Rum manufacturers in the Virgins Islands and Puerto Rico. I doubt we will see Obama advocating for more money be given to the highly effective and worthy LDS church sponsored welfare programs in Utah, no matter the very low level of per capita and household income in that state.
    Many people understand that there are real burdens on this country’s budget, be it defense, debt service, welfare or even that union black hole called public education. I feel that most are willing to see the merit in giving the wealthy, or for the fortunate few in receiving, most of the burden. This is why Bill Gates and Warren Buffet advocate for high estate (or death) taxes and income taxes on the wealthy. I doubt though they advocate them for redistributionist policies. They both have charities that could easily redistribute their wealth in numerous ways. They do not chose to do so. Similarly most Americans do not want to see their taxes going to those who do not chose to participate in hard work or thriftiness. This was Bill Clinton’s genius in agreeing to welfare reform. He made it an available but a time limited “hand up and not a hand out.” Now Obama seeks to lower taxes on the 45% of American households that do not even pay taxes. How do you do that? By giving them larger “earned income” tax credits. This is back door welfare and redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and to the less productive without end. Welfare now looks positively good compared to this program. At least welfare comes with legal expectation that it is for only a short time and basically to help one get past a difficult period. These “earned income” tax credits have no limitations and no responsibilities attached to them. They do not even come with a job expectation attached to them.
    Furthermore he is going to mandate and force health care converge and subsidies on the half of the uninsured that choose (and I do mean choose) not to participate in health insurance. I agree that everyone who wants insurance should be given a chance to buy affordable health insurance. I do not believe that those who chose to forgo it should be subsidized, outside of bankruptcy court, for their choice to go without coverage. Nor do I believe that the government should set priorities for families living on the edge. When my children were young, we lived on a very meager resident’s salary in a very expensive part of the country. Clearly there were times when propane was more important and appropriate then health insurance for our young family. I would have resented more of my salary going to the federal government at that time for health care. Even if we did get “Medicare quality” health care in the exchange, we would have froze in subzero weather without propane to heat our rented house or our water.
    Also do not be deceived, in the past 90 years, no Democrat president has held his promise to limit his tax increases to only the wealthy. Be it FDR who put taxes on even the poorest earners in the country with his Social Security tax to Bill Clinton with his “Millionaire” tax hike which increased taxes on those families making $40,000 and above. Now with a filibuster proof Democrat Congress we can only pray that the wealthy does not include poor widows and disabled orphans.
    So what can we expect from President Obama. A return to what the historian Paul Johnson called the age of gangsterism. Where the powers of the state are fraudulently taken over on a massive scale to rob the middle and working classes for the benefit of the corrupt few and their allies. This is what in this last week Obama has confirmed to us by his words, his actions, his acceptance of the fraud committed in his benefit. I wish we only had people to vote for who would put their country first.

More Biz News from Variety