CE Week #7: “Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy”
Senator John McCain used the final debate of the presidential election on Wednesday night to raise persistent and pointed questions about Senator Barack Obama’s character, judgment and policy prescriptions in a session that was by far the most spirited and combative of their encounters this fall.
At times showing anger and at others a methodical determination to make all his points, Mr. McCain pressed his Democratic rival on taxes, spending, the tone of the campaign and his association with the former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, using nearly every argument at his disposal in an effort to alter the course of a contest that has increasingly gone Mr. Obama’s way.
But Mr. Obama maintained a placid and at times bemused demeanor — if at times appearing to work at it — as he parried the attacks and pressed his consistent line that Mr. McCain would represent a continuation of President Bush’s unpopular policies, especially on the economy.
That set the backdrop for one of the sharpest exchanges of the evening, when, in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Mr. McCain had repeatedly supported Mr. Bush’s economic policies, Mr. McCain fairly leaped out of his chair to say: “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”
Acknowledging Mr. McCain had his differences with Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama replied, “The fact of the matter is that if I occasionally mistake your policies for George Bush’s policies, it’s because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.”
The debate touched on a wide variety of issues, including abortion, judicial appointments, trade and climate change as well as the economy, with the candidates often making clear the deep differences between them.
But it also put on display the two very different temperaments of the candidates with less than three weeks until Election Day. The lasting image of the night could be the split screen of Mr. Obama, doing his best to maintain his unflappable demeanor under a sometimes withering attack, and Mr. McCain looking coiled, occasionally breathing deeply, apparently in an expression of impatience.
Sitting side by side with only the host, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, between them on the stage at Hofstra University, Mr. McCain made clear from the start that he was going to follow the prescriptions of many of his supporters — among them his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska — and try to put Mr. Obama on the defensive and shake him from his steady debate style.
Seizing on an encounter in Ohio this week with a voter — Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber — who told Mr. Obama that he feared that his tax policies would punish him as a small-business owner, Mr. McCain pressed his attack on Mr. Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal. Mr. Obama’s plan would raise taxes on filers earning more than $250,000 a year, a category that includes some small businesses, but would cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year.
Seeking to suggest that Mr. Obama would hurt the economy and many entrepreneurs, Mr. McCain said, “The whole premise behind Senator Obama’s plans are class warfare — let’s spread the wealth around,” repeating a phrase Mr. Obama had used to Mr. Wurzelbacher in explaining the rationale for his upper-income tax increase.
“Why would you want to do that — anyone, anyone in America — when we have such a tough time, when these small-business people like Joe the Plumber are going to create jobs unless you take that money from him and spread the wealth around,” Mr. McCain said.
The plumber came up directly or indirectly 24 times during the debate, an Everyman symbol of the divide between the candidates on how best to address the economy.
As he has done in previous encounters, Mr. Obama looked into the camera and repeated his plan: “Now, the conversation I had with Joe the Plumber, what I essentially said to him was, five years ago, when you weren’t in the position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then. And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn’t yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now.”
Coming on a day that the Dow Jones average had one of its worst drops in history, Mr. Schieffer tried something other moderators had failed to do this fall: get the two candidates to enumerate which proposals they would specifically have to postpone or cut in the face of an economic environment that has changed drastically since they first drew up their plans.
Neither man went very far, though Mr. McCain perhaps offered a more detailed list. Repeating his pledge of an across-the-board spending cut, he said, “Well, one of them would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be a number of subsidies for ethanol.”
Mr. Obama, for his part, specifically cited the “$15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies,” a component of the Medicare program. But, he said more generally, “we need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work, and I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page. Programs that don’t work, we should cut.”
Still, though the winner of this election will inherit the most sweeping federal intervention in financial markets in at least three generations, the debate, while not short of policy discussions, was at least as much about the styles of the two men as they engaged one another.
In the days before the debate, Mr. Obama had appeared to have goaded Mr. McCain, saying in an interview with ABC News that he did not know why Mr. McCain had not personally made an issue of Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Ayers, with whom he worked with on two nonprofit boards, in their last debate considering that Mr. McCain’s campaign had done so repeatedly in recent weeks.
And there was some degree of anticipation over whether Mr. McCain would do so this time. He did, though only after a bit of prompting from Mr. Schieffer, who, in a question about the tone of the campaign directed at both men, asked Mr. McCain specifically, “Your running mate said he palled around with terrorists.”
Mr. McCain initially did not address that point directly.
But as Mr. Schieffer seemed prepared to move to another topic, Mr. McCain returned to Mr. Ayers on his own. Mr. McCain seemed most agitated in that moment, saying: “I don’t care about an old, washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship. We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with Acorn, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”
He was referring to a community activist group that focuses on housing issues and has been running voter registration efforts in many states that have drawn accusations of fraud.
Mr. Obama’s aides said during the day that he was preparing for the Ayers question.
“Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago. Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts,” Mr. Obama said. “Ten years ago, he served and I served on a board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.”
On Acorn, Mr. Obama said, “Apparently what they have done is they were paying people to go out and register folks. And apparently some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. Had nothing to do with us. We were not involved.”
Speaking of his involvement with the group, he said, “The only involvement I’ve had with Acorn was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people register at D.M.V.’s.” Mr. Obama’s campaign made some payments to an affiliate of Acorn.
Mr. Obama said sternly as Mr. McCain bristled, “And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.”
McCain really has gone negative. Obama really nailed it when he said “And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.” McCain is desperate he is trying to do everything he can to make Obama look bad. It has to be said that McCain did a good job by stating “Senator Obama I am not president Bush. If you wanted to run against president Bush you should have run 4 years ago.” However too little to late, he should have spaced himself from Bush months ago rather than letting the democrats plaster him with Bush’s policies. Obama also did very good in stating that McCain’s economic policy is the same as president Bush’s because the economy is what is on everyone’s mind at the moment. McCain’s going negative will not accomplish anything if the economy stays the way is, because Obama has benefited tremendously with the economies downward spiral. McCain’s only hope is an October surprise and it will have to be a really good one. Like the capture of Osama Bin laden, the economy miraculously improving, or uncovering that Obama murdered a man while dosed out on meth. Connection: We had a discussion in class regarding mudslinging. We talked about McCain having to turn to it as a last resort and he has. He is trying to cover Obama with enough mud that people will not want to vote for him when they get to the polls.
The final presidential debate was interesting indeed. McCain acted extremely aggressive while Obama remained calm and reserved while enduring intense scrutiny. Needless to say, this debate reinsured my support for Barack Obama.
One of the most heated portions of the debate occurred when McCain said “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” Obama responded saying, “The fact of the matter is that if I occasionally mistake your policies for George Bush’s policies, it’s because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.”
Honestly, I think Senator McCain will loose this election because his economic policies are too similar to President George W. Bush’s. McCain has even mentioned that the stock market will self correct itself, which is an extremely ignorant statement. News flash, tickle-down economics only works in times of economics prosper. Is the United States prospering economically? NO. Also, McCain seems to be convinced that ridding earmark spending will help the economy tremendously. Earmark spending accounts for one-half of one percent of overall spending. Therefore, ridding earmark spending is probably essential, but will have little influence against a financial deficit. Last night when Barack Obama pointed out the insignificancy of earmark spending he said, “And I think the fact that this (earmark spending) has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.”
Connection: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. In general the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement. Because Bush W. Bush chose to lower taxes, and spend tremendous amounts of money, our nation is experiencing incredible debt. McCain’s economic plan is similar, thus making him unpopular.
The last presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was by far the most interesting. This debate was also, by far, the most aggressive, sharp, and revealing debate of the three. More was told of the differing plans and policies from both candidates than ever before in at one time. One thing that stood out to me was the attitudes of the candidates. John McCain was much more aggressive than I’ve ever seen him; he was, at times, bordering on disrespectful, in my opinion. McCain truly was playing the aggressive underdog card, but I’m not so sure it will help in the long run. Some people might find that kind of aggressive assertion appealing and McCain will gain standing, while others, like me, might find McCain as overaggressive, disrespectful, and unelectable. Barack Obama’s behavior can be similarly scrutinized; some might find Obama’s demeanor as cool and unflustered, like me, or they might see it Obama being uncertain, and defensive. Another thing that struck me was about how little was actually discussed, despite the variety of issues discussed. “Joe the Plummer” was frequently brought up, tax policies were almost constantly mentioned by both sides, personal issues were brought up (mostly by McCain), and education policies were brought up frequently. This was despite the topics ranging all over the political spectrum. One thing that was clear was John McCain’s desire to try to halt Obama’s momentum and get more momentum for his campaign. McCain did better this debate than in the others, in my opinion, but I’m not sure it was all that McCain wanted.
Connection: Political Ideology. The debate was center to Obama and especially McCain trying to play to there core base of constituents for the election by pointing out the disagreements in ideology and why they’re ideology is better. The article said that McCain was trying to paint Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, while Obama drew connections to McCain’s similarities to President Bush’s policies.
The first presidential debate was pretty much all about calmly talking about each candidates ideas and what they plan to do if they are the one that gets the job. The second one was a little bit more personal, and it was clear that they spent more time attacking eachother than they did attacking the questions. And lastly, the third presidential debate was all about attacking one another. As we have seen over the last few months, are two qualified presidential candidates taking the stand to campaign and campaign until election day, in the hopes of becoming preisdent, and each day, it seems that either Obama is on the offense and McCain is playing defense, or visa versa. When the campaigning first began, things started to slowly unravel and they VP’s were picked and so on, and then as the economic struggle took off, American definetly panicked. I think this will greatly affect the outcome of this election. Watching the October 15th presidential debate, it became clear that each candidate is trying to make the other look bad in front of America, or at least demean them. Obama, telling McCain that he is the same as president Bush, and of course McCain bringing up Obama’s affiliation with the “underworld”.
Connection- Like we’ve read in class, Americans are ideally conservative, but operationally liberal. We want to believe we are doing everything for our country and the good of mankind, but we really want what is best for us and we want that level of satisfaction that we are doing something to change the way we see things.
To me, the debate last night was very entertaining. Finally, both candidates were pushed to the edge and became a little flustered. McCain, especially, looked very uncomfortable (on the split screen view) when Obama would go on the offensive and attack his policies. Obama, on the other hand, seemed to keep cool under the heat and pressure he was put through by some of McCain’s remarks, but you could tell he was getting frustrated, too.
Also, I began to get annoyed by all the “Joe the Plumber” references made by each candidate. Until reading this article, I did not know “Joe the Plumber” was an actual person (Joe Wurzelbacher). It makes sense, though, that a “Joe the Plumber” is an ideal example to describe our current economic crisis, so I now understand why the phrase was repeated throughout the debate.
Connection: In our reading we have learned about the Motor Voter Act of 1993. This legislation made voter registration easier by allowing people to register by checking a box when they renew their license. During the debate, I noticed that Obama mentioned he played a big role in establishing the Motor Voter Act in Illinois.
Connection: Mr. Kautzman is always warning us to look out for an “October surprise.” Just recently, the McCain Campaign has released the first one. They are accusing Obama of having terrorist ties because of his affiliation with Bill Ayers, the leader of the Weather Underground radical group. The Obama Campaign is currently doing well at patching up these attacks. I’m still waiting, though, for the Obama Campaign to reveal their “October surprise.”
This presidential debate was pretty intense. Both candidates had very valid points. What was pretty amusing was how they kept getting mad at each other and you could just see it in their eyes. What I did not understand was that Obama kept saying that he was going to lower taxes for the ordinary person, and the McCain would come back and say that Obama was going to raise taxes. That was confusing. Which is Obama going to do?
It seemed to me that McCain was trying to attack Obama more than he was trying to sell himself to the country. Oh, and “Joe the Plumber” is a very infamous man now. Referenced TWENTY FOUR times (I found it to be getting very annoying.) Personally, I think the candidates should be more focused on the war in Iraq more than the economy because the economy is just made up of paper, and yet we have people dying each and every day over seas. If the economy persists to fluctuate the way it is, I believe that Obama will get more votes. On the other hand, if something big happens with the war, McCain will be in favor. Are the American people truly looking at each and every issue that the candidates bring up, or are they just focusing on that specific letter by their name?
CONNECTION: This connects to policy voting because many people in this country are so focused on being a member of a certain party that they forget to evaluate the positions of the candidates. I have talked to many adults who told me that they are voting for a certain person just because of which party they “belong to.”
I watched this debate and I thought it was starting to get a little ridiculous after the 10th “Joe the Plumber” comment. Both Obama and McCain did well in the debate. Both of them also avoided questions as stated in the article for example which social programs to cut.
Obama met his expectation. As usual he was very articulate and spoke about his beliefs even though some comments were a little ambiguous as mentioned about the social programs. I also noticed that when McCain placed an attack on Obama, he corrected McCain’s statement immediately following the attack.
On McCain’s side of the debate, I think he won the debate only because he exceeded the expectations set by the people. The bar for McCain was set very low this debate because in the last debate he would avoid many of the questions completely by somehow rerouting his answer so it was directed towards the economy, more directly taxes. This time around he did not avoid as many questions. He did, however, go on and on about the infamous “Joe the Plumber” which after its first mention was very repetitive saying the same thing. I found it amusing that McCain messed up his last name 3 or so times before he became known as Joe the Plumber (it was also amusing that today Joe was busted for not being licensed). I also noticed that when Obama turned the tables on the attack that McCain didn’t even respond to the attack. The only attack I can recall that McCain responded to was the call the McCain was another Bush. I think this debate will give McCain a slight bounce but nothing extraordinary that will put him ahead of Obama.
Connection: Debates are won and lost on the idea of exceeding the expectations set.
McCain needed to act like this, in the first debate. He’s been too passive in the last two debates, and it seemed like for the first time he was really aggressive. He’s over emotional response to Obama’s turns, might have been too much. “…looking coiled, occasionally breathing deeply, apparently in an expression of impatience.” Otherwise, his direct response to the Bush remarks by Obama, should have been done long ago. Has it really taken Obama’s lead in the final weeks of the race for him to get spirited about the election? I don’t think that McCain’s performance tonight will make a huge difference in the race at this point.
“The plumber came up directly or indirectly 24 times during the debate.” I thought that was interesting, and probably one of the highlights. I feel like McCain was really trying to use Joe and Ayers as a winning card against Obama. It really didn’t seem to make as much of an effect as McCain was hoping for. Obama definitely was prepared to answer the questions regarding Ayers.
My favorite question from the night wasn’t included in this article. It was something along the lines of, do you think that Biden/Palin is suited for the Presidential office is something should happen to either of you? It’s definitely an issue that seems to come up quite a bit, especially for Palin. I don’t feel like McCain gave an adequate answer, but that’s just me.
McCain was also using the amount of money that Obama has spent on the race against him during the debate. Again, too bad it’s a bit late for this. Obama’s already made a great impact on the public with the amount of media he’s been able to spread. Refer to page 208 in our Government book. Obama’s pulled of the 30 second presidency.
This was, by far, the most interesting of the debates. I, myself, did not get the pleasure of witnessing it in its entirety but what I did see intrigued like none of the other debates had up to this point. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama pulled out all their guns, so to speak, and aimed them at their opponent. (By the way, the article was wrong in addressing both SENATORs as Mr.’s. They are misters but, just as in the case of MD’s, they have risen to a different title and should be called by it… just as a side note.) In regards to what Senator Obama stated about the Mr.Ayers’ issue, Senator Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’ house. No, that doesn’t mean they are friends, you know, Mr. Ayers just has a pretty house. I would have to say that the question that almost stated, “So, both your campaigns have been going at each other fiercely in the past few weeks. Would you two like to duke it out in front of the American people instead,” was the most interesting question I have ever heard of. I thoroughly enjoyed both candidates’ responses. The statement by Senator Obama that the ACORN and Ayers’ issues had become so important to Senator McCain’s camp said a lot about his campaign is 100% true. It shows that Senator McCain and the Republicans care about the background of candidates and want the American people to be fully aware of who they are able to vote for in regards to this esteemed office. Senator Obama has been involved in several sketchy relationships and each one of them needs to be exposed.
Connection: This debate was a semi- good way for voters to see both candidates’ stands on issues. It may improve voter turnout even more and aid to a slightly more educated voter. This also aided in strengthening policy voting because the candidates disagree strongly on many issues.
This is a response to Rachel Damiano’s post.
I disagree that the the reasons that Ayers and ACORN are such an important talking point to the McCain campaign right are because McCain cares “about the background of candidates and want the American people to be fully aware of who they are able to vote for in regards to this esteemed office.” First of all, if McCain wanted an open discussion of character and background, he wouldn’t be so angry when the Obama campaign brought up his own character, such as in the Keating Five scandal. The Obama campaign hasn’t been hitting this as hard as McCain has been hitting Ayers, however. Second, why were these not issues months ago, when things were neck and neck and could have brought him ahead? We can’t exactly guess McCain’s motivation for not attacking then, but the fact that he’s doing now when he is the underdog definitely seems to indicate a last-ditch effort. If roles were switched, perhaps we’d see McCain fending off slings from Keating Five and maybe even how he wasn’t divorced 5 weeks and married his current wife, or the circumstances of why he left his wife. I doubt that making these attacks has anything to do with a concern for revealing the truth to the American people, and more to do with poll numbers.
Megan Smith-
I think that a lot of what you said is pretty creditable, but I do have to disagree with you on thinking that it is too late in the race for McCain to be pulling out his big guns. It could be a strategy to come out from behind and leave an ever strengthening campaign trail rise. After all, what happens latest in politics is what the mass public bases their opinions off of. By coming out on top on the last debate, McCain surpassed many expectations and therefore did better. Thus, the last impression the public will have of the candidates is shown with McCain on top.
Dear Katherine,
I agree that “It seemed to me that McCain was trying to attack Obama more than he was trying to sell himself to the country.” McCain’s had a very offensive debate strategy, forcing Obama to perform accordingly defensively. In fact, it felt like nothing was actually said, McCain merely attacked Obama, and Obama responded by defending himself. Since nothing pivotal was said, I don’t think either candidate really benefited from that debate.
I disagree that “I think the candidates should be more focused on the war in Iraq more than the economy because the economy is just made up of paper, and yet we have people dying each and every day over seas.” Your “people are dying” argument is faulty. People are dying each and every day in Spokane. And if you claim to be concerned about war, and the fact that people are dying in them, you should probably mention Afghanistan along with Iraq. Also, the economy isn’t made of paper. Credit card debt (plastic) is a large contributor to our current economic situation. (Not to say that the economy is made of plastic either, the term “economy” is used to label certain systems of money; many factors make up our “economy.”) The War in Iraq is important, but it doesn’t really affect the American people as directly as the economy. Therefore, the economy is a priority over the war.