On October 7, the candidates for president faced off for a second time. After a couple of weeks of mudslinging, John McCain and Barack Obama participated in a Town Hall style debate from Belmont University. Here is a log of the notes written down from one Valley voter during the debate.


PART THREE-The end of the Debate


Question-What don’t you know, and how will you learn it?

On October 7, the candidates for president faced off for a second time. After a couple of weeks of mudslinging, John McCain and Barrack Obama participated in a Town Hall style debate from Belmont University. Here is a log of the notes written down from one Valley voter during the debate.


PART TWO- International Relations


Question-How will America continue to be a peacemaker? McCain-The United States is the greatest force for good in history. The challenge is to get someone who knows when it is time to send in the troops. Obama is wrong on this.

Obama-One of the difficulties is Iraq. The war in Iraq has caused strain on soldiers and financial cost. No country in history has seen a decline in the economy and maintained military superiority.

Valley Voter-Obama and McCain are basically going through their same differences on Iraq and the question of whether or not we should have gone in the first place and also the merits of staying in Iraq.

Question- (from Brokaw) When would you justify the use of force?

Obama-We should intervene when we know we can make a difference. We need to work with allies and improve international standing.

McCain-If we had followed Obama’s advice on Iraq, we would have lost. That would have resulted in Al Qaeda establishing a base of operations and Iranian influence expanding. We must temper decisions to send in troops to when we have the ability to make a difference. Never again to a holocaust; never again to a Rwanda. But I will safeguard our troops. They are our most precious asset.

Valley Voter-McCain’s response seemed heartfelt and sincere, especially regarding his love for the troops. Obama makes good points on the importance of improving American standing in the world.

Question-Should we ignore international borders to attack terrorists, as we did in Cambodia?

Obama-We have a troubling situation in Pakistan. We must end the war in Iraq and put some more troops in Afghanistan. We must encourage democracy in Pakistan, and demand they go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in their border area. If we see them, and Pakistan will not do it, we must take them out.

McCain-We should not announce we will attack Pakistan. Our relations with Pakistan our critical due to the extremists’ use of the border area. We need the support of the people of Pakistan.

Obama-Nobody is calling for an invasion of Pakistan. If we get the opportunity to take out Bin Laden, we should. McCain is the one who sang “Bomb, Bomb Iran” and called for the annihilation of North Korea.

McCain-I was joking about Iran. Look, I know how to get Bin Laden. I will, I’ll do it, but I won’t telegraph my punches.

Valley Voter-The idea of sending a missile or assassins into an ally’s territory is obviously a serious matter. McCain seems to be overstating the reality of the situation. Furthermore, I believe if either of these men found out the location of Bin Laden, the full might and capabilities of the US Armed Forces would be unleashed upon him. He is our number one enemy, after all. I’m sure reasonable people in Pakistan should not be surprised that if they did not assist in his capture or destruction, the US would act without their help.

Question- (from Brokaw) The British commanders in Afghanistan have said we are failing, and suggested we install an acceptable dictatorship.

Obama-They are desperate for help. We must draw down troops in Iraq and shift to Afghanistan.

McCain-General Petraeus is there now. He will save us.

Valley Voter-Obama is certain Aghanistan is more important in the war on terror than Iraq is. McCain is, and has been, engaging in hero worship for some time now. Sure, Petraeus is a highly capable officer. However, McCain’s thoughts of military success shouldn’t be 100% based on the input of the General.

Question-How will we put pressure on Russia without starting a new cold war?

McCain-Ukraine must be supported. International pressure must be placed on Russia. They must understand aggression is intolerable.

Obama-The resurgence of Russia is a central issue for the next president. We must provide economic assistance to Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and other countries. We need to anticipate problems, rather than react to them afterwards.

Question- (from Brokaw) Is Russia the Evil Empire?

Obama-Depends on how we react to them.

McCain-Maybe. If I answer yes, it means we are back in the Cold War, and if I answer no, then it forgives recent Russian aggression. I think we can work with Russia. I don’t think the Cold War will return.

Valley Voter- I liked McCain’s answer of about the evil empire. He gave a good reason to dance around the issue. I worry about Obama’s (and probably even McCain’s, though he didn’t really mention it) ability to disburse economic aid in times of financial distress.

Question-On Nukes, Israel, and Iran…

McCain-We cannot wait for the UN Security Council to act against Iran’s nuclear program, as China and Russia will stand in our way in putting pressure on Iran. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, everyone in the region gets it.

Obama-Iranian nuclear possession means terrorist will get the weapons and there is a grave threat to Israel. We need to put economic sanctions on Iran. When we take to approach of not talking to people, we see the results. We must engage in dialogue.

Valley Voter-The candidates then engaged in the subtlety between participating in talks with Iranian officials “without condition”. I don’t know. Sounds like high level diplomatic tactics to me. I don’t see a problem with talking to someone you have a disagreement with. I know that not talking to them will not resolve differences. Both candidates are against the Iranian nuclear program, which is good. Obama seems to have more options at his disposal in dealing with Iran, due to McCain’s belief in no engagement.

To be continued…

The United States are clearly now engulfed in a situation of despair and depression. Between the fall of the stock market, to the banking and insurance scandals, to the rise of foreclosures and unemployment, Americans have seen better days. In fact, the world is financially troubled, and much of the blame, according to foreign leaders, is on the American financial system.

What does this mean for the future of this country? No one knows. There is wide-spread fear and discomfort, but not really panic, yet. However, the signs of unrest are there. For a while now, Americans have been dissatisfied with the performance of President Bush and the Congress. John McCain's campaign for President has taken a hit due to his support for Bush proposals of the past.

In a new Gallup poll, only 9% of Americans are now "satisfied with how things are going" in the United States. Of the dissatisfied, 69% of respondents believe economic issues are the most important problem. With about 90% of Americans dissatisfied, the presidential election's theme of change is resonating even more. In many countries, approval ratings this low might mean the opening for regime change, dictatorial power wielding, or military coup. In the United States, this still remains highly unlikely.

However, the dynamics of power over the economic system will surely change.

Already, the government is bailing out distressed companies that hold the financial futures of millions of Americans in their hands. This marks a trend towards more government control over the free market economy, while also increasing the amount of money the country is in debt. Debt is not an ever expandable option. The increase of debt results in higher interest payments on the National Debt, limiting the fiscal flexibility of government, unless of course more is borrowed.

Could there be a point where no more money could be borrowed? Apparently, with the condition of the credit markets worldwide, even the Federal Government may be getting closer to the ceiling of limitations. It seems incomprehensible, but can one really believe that there is no limit whatsoever on the amount that can be borrowed?

Depending on how the country's leadership deals with this financial crisis will affect how deep and how long this depression will last. The image next to this article is a quote from Martin Luther King the day before he was assassinated. The year was 1968, a year in which the United States experienced a great deal of turmoil. This year, the turmoil is growing. In 1968, King offered a vision of hope coming out of a time of distress. While his assassination helped punctuate the uneasiness of the time, Americans emerged from it a better country, due in part to his message of unity. Now, in an election year, Americans look for a leader that will bring hope and change. While it does not necessarily have to be an elected official, it just so often is. We will see who will emerge as the American hero of our times.

______________

Minutes ago, the one Vice Presidential debate concluded. The debate featured John McCain's running mate--Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and Barrack Obama's running mate--Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

As alluded to in the title of this article, one thing that was prevalent in the discourse of the debate was the strangeness of how Palin speaks.

OK, saying "Nookyalur" instead of "nuclear" is a pronunciation that is typical among many Americans. However, in the political sphere, it certainly calls to mind the way President George W. Bush says the word. And that works against what Palin was trying to accomplish.

In all seriousness, Sarah Palin proved to many that she is no political slouch. In the very least, she is a quick study, and could demonstrate a wide range of knowledge applicable to her possible position as the Vice President.

Rhetorically, though, she was not the polished politician Americans have come to expect in executive elections. Not since Admiral Stockdale, running with Ross Perot, participated in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate did a debater seem so over matched. The distinct difference between Palin's participation and Stockdale's was the level of confidence Palin exuded in herself and in her candidate.

The thing about Palin is that when she is searching for words to say, she has substituted political jargon as her verbal pauses. Whereas others who use a lot of verbal pauses say "uh", "um", "like", or "you know," it seems Palin has trained herself to use phrases like "in America, at least in some of our states," "put more attention in that", "things that we stand for that we can be put to good use," or "we are a team of mavericks". Then at times she sticks to colloquialisms that she is used to, and at those times, she seems the most genuine and identifiable to the average American.

Joe Biden had an exceptional debate. He sounded knowledgeable and earnest, while at the same time, did not seem overly aggressive towards Palin. Although Palin has experienced tough debaters in Frank Murkowski and Tony Knowles in her election as the Alaskan governor, it would seem Biden's years of experience in the Senate may have prepared him better for a Vice Presidential debate. After all, some of the greatest orators in America sometimes find their way into the Senate.

Biden's speaking style was described by the media prior to the debate as problematic for the Obama campaign. He has plagiarized speech material in the past, which is a strong discredit against him. He has also been accused of rambling on a little, and there were fears he would seem patronizing to the over matched Sarah Palin.

Biden never went over the edge, and kept his focus on attacking McCain's positions, while Palin attacked directly quite a few things brought up in Biden's dialogue and record. Conspicuously absent were any references to Palin's legal issues in Alaska, or for the most part anything she has done as Governor of that state (unless it was brought up by Palin herself).

Palin's competence in the debate fortunately allows Americans to consider the issues. Americans are concerned about the economic conditions. Obama-Biden wants to approach the systemic problem created by the last 8 years through reducing taxes of the lowest paid and placing a larger burden on the highest paid Americans. McCain-Palin acknowledges the problems with the economy, but how it wants to fix the economy is less clear from Palin's statements. Palin says the greed of Wall Street must be curbed (although it arguably the buying and selling Wall Street does is based on the guiding principle of greed.) Whether you believe Biden or not, as Palin did not address it other than to say he sounded warning signals about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, McCain also is for the same kind of deregulation that has disrupted the world financial markets. McCain also will apparently not be reducing taxes for anyone except big business, as Palin believes that will result in the movement of the economy and the creation of jobs. Biden was quick to point out that this was the same idea proposed by the Bush Administration, and we can now see the results.

Americans are also concerned about health care and education. Palin and Biden pretty much stated the standard beliefs of their respective political parties on these issues.

Americans are concerned about the war in Iraq and the international standing of the country. Biden stated a clear exit strategy on Iraq, and Palin went with the approach that an exit strategy was akin to sending up the white flag. Palin and Biden both believed Iran should not be able to obtain nuclear weapons, but Biden insisted on the importance of diplomacy and discussion, while Palin focused on economic sanctions with friends and allies against the Iranians. On Afghanistan, Palin wanted to institute the same surge strategy that was successful in Iraq, while Biden was adamant that the surge would not work, as the ground commander in Afghanistan has stated.

All in all, issues were more distinctly divergent than they were in the first Presidential debate. While it is possible that Palin's inexperience in major debates may have caused a little drifting towards head to head confrontation, it is just as likely that the major contributor was Biden coaxing it that way with his direct communicative style.

Hopefully, the next two presidential debates will be a little more representative of the two candidates' political beliefs. Suggestion for Obama and McCain--be less of afraid of losing the debate. This means that minutes after the debate, neither one of you should release on your websites or in email that your candidate won the debate. It means that when moderators Tom Brokaw and and Bob Schieffer ask a question, be as informative to the voters as possible. A little "straight-talk" perhaps...

These banks, and really the rest of the finance industry, made it commonplace to loan to suspect borrowers, or to extend too much credit to borrowers that would clearly have been better served with a more modest loan. While borrowers could have certainly made it work with $200,000 fixed rate loans, lenders got creative, and allowed customers to fall into the trap of unsustainable payments with adjustable rate loans of tens to hundreds of thousands more. This drove up the median price of houses, creating an even larger customer base that would have to accept adjustable rate mortgages to own a home or borrow against their home.

When interest rates eventually rose (who would have thought over the length of a 30 year loan that rates would go up?), massive numbers of borrowers could not continue to pay. Lenders like Wachovia and Washington Mutual had a huge inventory of repossessed homes, with an inability to sell at previously inflated prices, while also being unable to keep up the charade that adjustable rate mortgages would be a safe investment for future homeowners. There seemed to be no way to climb out of the hole they had dug themselves into. They had no recourse, setting up Wamu's public seizure and sale to Chase last week.

Are there any lessons in this? Who knows. It seems that in capitalism, some companies will always seek short term gains rather than long term stability. Our financial system requires ever growing dividends for stock holders, who rail against the sometimes reasonableness of stagnant growth. In a way, we are doomed to repeat the failures of today's financial systems. It may take another form, in another industry, but shaky investments and an avoidance to recognize the worst case scenario will return again. Plus, we are not yet into the clear.