I’m looking forward to the final presidential debate this Wednesday – I can’t help it. Regarding the financial crisis, I wish either candidate would show the leadership regarding personal finances and use of credit that many non-politicians I know of have displayed. If you want to find true leaders, look for those who have been talking about this for months and years before this crisis made headlines and before it was popular to do so.
This involves talking MORE about what people don’t want to hear – that their use of credit in buying things they can’t afford is at least as much to blame as the villains on Wall Street and the politicians in government. These problems could not exist without each other. It would obviously be politically risky to talk about this since many people probably want the finger only pointed at government and Wall Street (where it also belongs) and not at them. I personally would respect the candidate that talks more about this. The cold hard truth is that if you aren’t focusing on maintaining adequate emergency savings and are carrying a significant balance month to month on a credit card(s) for non-emergency items, you’re probably an example of the mentality in America that has contributed a great deal to this financial crisis. There are exceptions outside of one’s control of course, but those are not typical. As a general rule, that’s the truth. I say this as someone who has been guilty of this before too.
Back to this last debate, there’s one answer that politicians from both parties sometimes give in interviews and debates that really annoys me…the answer begins with something like “Well we will get the smartest people in the country together to come up with a solution to that…”. A four year old can give that answer to any question! Well of COURSE they are going to have smart advisers. But it’s a fair assumption/expectation that the President of the United States needs to be one of those smartest people in the country. That doesn’t mean they need to be an expert in every area, but they should have an opinion and point of view on the subject too by now. After all, what are they going to do when the smartest people don’t agree?
So whether you’re in Idaho Falls area or somewhere else, what do you want to hear or don’t want to hear in this last debate?
Popularity: 20%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Don’t hold your breath waiting for much from either candidate on the meltdown. It’s still developing and spreading, and neither one is going to climb out on a pre-election limb at this point in time. It’s also far too complicated to try to get much out of a 2 minute response from either side.
I think you hit on several good things, Towelsnapper. Americans have been living far over the edge of the easy credit cliff for a long time, and there is going to be some massive pain to come from the fall, especially for those who are the most over extended. You made a good point mentioning this.
And there will be plenty of villians. Lots of villians from all directions will be exposed in times to come.
What I would like to see in the debate is both candidates making efforts to damp down the rising anger that is developing on both sides. The Republicans are more vocal, but the Democrats, though quieter, are equally pissed.
Our country has been busy dividing itself for over 20 years now, and if we don’t change this attitude fast, we will all be hunkered down in the poorhouse permanently, still chucking rocks at each other, until either the rocks or our strength runs out.
As long as the widespread belief that our government is no damn good persists, neither candidate stands a snowball’s chance of meaningful success in the next term. We don’t have the luxury of time to allow any more failure from the White House from either side.
Watching the debates is much like watching a WWE wrestling match. A punch here and a punch there, then after the game it’s all buddy buddy and the folks leaving the coliseum reluctantly are forced to admit that it may have been fun – but yeah, they know it was all staged and scripted.
If things were not such a sham, they would invite everyone from Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin and even the other two jokers to the debates. But no, we block all these guys (okay, and the gal) out and then tell everyone that the rest of the world ‘hates us for our freedoms’. Does no one else smell a rat?
I want to see John McCain tell the country that if he is elected he will put Rudoplh Giuliani as Attorney General to prosecute the Wall Street Finks and Mitt Romney as Secretary of Treasury to rebuild the financial industry and manage corporations like Freddy and Fannie so they get on better footing to make the government money for a change.
In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in this position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, resulting in the convictions of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading. He also focused on prosecuting drug dealers, organized crime, and corruption in government. He amassed a record of 4,152 convictions and 25 reversals.
This would be a step in the right direction and put some real experienced folks in the cabinet to deal with future issues the country will be facing.
I noticed a sidetrack to the national debate reflected locally last night. Republicans got all bunched up over Gwen Infill moderating the debate, because she had written a pro-Obama book. They did not feel she could be fair (in asking questions?)
Last night Neal Larson moderated the Senate candidates’ debate between Larocco and Rammell (Pricesss Jim Risch claimed he was not given enough advance notice to prepare). Neal Larson is well known for expounding his conservative politics on his daily radio show, but so why didn’t any Republicans around here object?
Did that coward Jim Risch show his face at the first debate, and will he show up at the final debate later this week? Sounds like he has already been anointed heir to the Senate seat and does not feel he needs to campaign for our votes. And yet Idaho conservatives will still vote for him. I am voting for Rammell.
I just read that Jim Risch was not at the first debate, either. What a schmuck!
Who the moderator is, and what the moderator has done are all just fluffy distractions.
The candidates can challenge a moderator, can ignore his questions (and do), or any number of other tactics. Either candidate can object to any moderator, and another mod will be selected from a list. They know who the moderator is going to be beforehand.
I wrote to the Risch campaign asking why he won’t debate. A spokesperson replied and said Risch would participate in 3 upcoming debates. But I don’t know if he will appear on the Idaho PBS debate, which is the only one that will be carried on tv throughout the state. He previously announced that he would not. So far, none of our local stations have picked up feeds from other commercial stations to air the other debates where Risch was a no-show, so we here may never see one on tv.
All are re-broadcast on the net, but that leaves out a lot of folks who don’t use the net or don’t have high-speed connections.
I’m not holding my breath that Risch will appear on the upcomings, either. He has backed out of all of the debates until now with one excuse or another, and I expect he will continue to chicken out and run away.
This has been typical of his campaign, which has only been held from his Boise bunker or in the back yards of supporters, surrounded by high fences. I could live with his election if he was able to summon enough courage to actually appear without a gang of insider supporters surrounding him… Simpson, Crapo, Sali, Rammel, LaRocco, and even Pro-Life have enough guts to take whatever heat happens in a public debate. Not Jim Risch, though.
I want my Senator to have conviction, the desire to help Idaho and courage, whatever party he comes from. He needs to be quick with his wits and clear in his thinking, able to debate and win where it counts- on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
We need strong people representing us because we’re a small state. The Risch candidacy stinks of insider corruption and deal making, and the stench gets worse every time he boogers out and runs away.
This is probably not the right place to post this, but I thought it was interesting when I first heard it. What do you think of the theory that is going around about why McCain won the Republican nomination? From what I heard, when it became apparent to a lot of the Rep that they would not win the election this year, they didn’t want any of their big guns (i.e. Romney, Thompson) to come across as a loser so they put in McCain. If McCain should happen to win, then that would be a plus for them, but if he loses, then it won’t be such a blow to the Republican party since he is really too liberal to be a true blue Republican.
Hi, Native…
I’m sure I’ll get some disagreement, but I think McCain got the nomination from a larger combination of things.
For sure, a lot of Republicans knew the party was going to have a hard time this election. For many of the voters, McCain was seen as the safest choice because he has the best name recognition and has a a reputation as a Senator who can work with the other side of the aisle. All the others were either more conservative or tended to appeal to only factions of the party.
Mitt and Thompson were both seen as being moderates, which is apparently what the Republicans wanted, but Mitt had real problems with being a Mormon to much of the country outside of the West. He faced the same prejudice Obama is facing now; people wouldn’t come right out and say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, but that’s what happened in the booth.
Thompson was never enthusiastic about running. He played cute for far too long, and then didn’t ever work as hard as McCain, Romney or Huckabee. I also think that his being an actor didn’t help- Reagan was a better one, and had much more fire in his belly for the job, and one actor in a generation seemed to be enough.
All the others played to the Evangelical side of the party too heavily. While Evangelicals are a big part of the Republican base, most Republicans are still mainstream Christians, and there has been a lot of friction off and on between the two camps, especially in states outside the Bible Belt.
McCain is still very strong with the Republican base, but the independent and undecided voters decided both Bush elections, and they have deserted the the party this time.
Obama’s gains have all been in the undecideds and independent voters. Either party’s faithful have made up their minds long ago. Even though the tide seems to be coming in for Obama, I still believe the election will either be very close or a near-landslide. This tendency has become the most common since 1968, which was the last narrow but ‘normal’ victory.
In large part, this is the natural swing that has always been a part of American politics. The nation as a whole became more conservative, beginning in the late 70’s, and the conservatism reached its apex with the Bush presidency. There is a big desire now to swing back to more liberal politics, and if the liberals do well enough, they’ll probably hold the job for about another 20 years. This 20 year swing has happened regularly throughout the 20th century, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt.
These things always take a lot of time to develop. The liberal swing really started in 2004 with Dean. He was a misfire, but a staunch liberal, and did a lot to cut away all the warring social factions that messed up the Democrats. He left a large base of strongly liberal activists and a completely new approach to gaining support for his base. The momentum now is simply a result of 4 years of solid Democratic work that was helped along by one Republican catasrophe after another. The socialism of our banking system under Republican leadership was the big topper to a general disapproval of many agendas that came before. Liberals distrust socialism as much as Republicans.
I think the Republicans will do similar changes if they lose this election, and a stronger party will eventually emerge again.
Given the incredible amount of correction that is needed in almost all areas of our government right now, I seriously believe that the next President will be a one-termer.
The biggest problem we all face is our cynicism as a people; the majority of us believes that neither party will be able to fix things, and there is very little faith in either candidate’s abilities. As long as we have no faith in our candidate selections, for whatever seats they are running, this will only make our problems worsen continually.
We have lost a lot, but we can still lose much, much more. The last time this country was as bitterly divided was during the decade before the Civil War. If we continue down this path, Al-Quieda wins without ever firing another shot. All they have to do is sit back and watch us tear ourselves apart.
McCain won because of a messed up system in New hampshire gave him a giant boost, the liberals there love him, a couple lucky breaks after that and we were stuck with him.
Republicans might like him but we conservatives don’t but I will vote for him anyway because he isn’t the socialist in this race.