Debate Round 2

ALL ABOARD!

  The Gravy Train left the station last night in a big way.  Perhaps this election will come down to who promises more to the American people, without actually being able to follow through on any of it.

Last night's debate did nothing more than further solidify the average voter's position.  Whether that be in Obama's camp, McCain's camp, or undecided I cannot fathom that anyone saw anything that would convince them to switch their vote.  What we witnessed last night was a scathing condemnation of our debate system as it stands right now.

 Might I make a suggestion?  Lets have Rush Limbaugh question Senator Obama, and Bill Maher question Senator McCain.  At least then we'd get interesting questions, and the candidates would have to really grind it out against someone who literally is out to destroy them.  It would be a great way to get more than 40 million to watch the debate, and it would answer a lot more questions about how these men would govern than the same softball questions that they answered in the first debate.

A FEW QUESTIONS I'D LIKE ANSWERED

  "Senator Obama, how is it that during the primaries you were against drilling domestically, using coal or nuclear power, but are now a supporter of all three?  Is it better to have a leader who is willing to change their mind when they're wrong, or a leader who wasn't wrong to begin with?"

  "Senator McCain, a big tenant of your campaign has been your opposition to pork spending in Congress.  So why did you vote for the latest Bailout plan knowing it was heavy loaded with hundreds of millions worth of pork projects?  How can the American public trust you to veto legislation in the future if you don't vote against it now?"

  "Senator Obama, what do you say to Americans who are uncomfortable with your position that abortion should be legal up to and including the 9th month of pregnancy?  Or your opposition to providing children born alive due to botched abortion medical care, preferring that they are left to die because it might undermine the legality of abortion if we give them medical rights?  How do you support those positions on an ethical level, and how do you get the American people to agree with you?"

  "Senator McCain, how do you justify spending an additional $300 billion on buying bad mortgages on top of the Bailout plan, when we are in such difficult financial times already?  Where is the money coming from?"

  "Senator Obama, why did you launch your political career at the home of Bill Ayers, someone you said you are 'friendly' with, someone you worked with closely in Chicago, and who provided you with $50 million of funding in Chicago to disperse as you willed?  What do you think the American public would think of your close association with him, considering he has bombed the American Capitol and Pentagon and said he wished he bombed more?"

  "Senator McCain, what does your choice of Governor Palin say about your judgement and view on government?"

  "Senator Obama, when you referred to small town Americans as being "bitter, clinging to their guns and God with antipathy towards others" what did you mean by that?"

  "Senator McCain, was your support for the War in Iraq justified and why?"

  "Senator Obama, when you supported the idea of prosecuting someone who shoots an intruder in their own home, were you at all concerned with violating the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?"

  "Senator Obama, why do you want to provide the federal government with so much more power when time and time again, with FEMA, Social Security, Education, Welfare, the War on Poverty and many more programs like that the federal government has demonstrated it's complete inability to successfully implement strong and effective programs?  Why is now different?"

DEBATE MEMORIES THAT WILL STICK

  Senator Obama, in an effort to balance his opposition to the Iraq War and support for U.S. rights to military intervention in foreign countries, made the point that when genocide is occurring, the U.S. should get involved.  Either the Senator doesn't know that Saddam Hussein killed over 300,000 of his own people, or he 

ignores that fact.  I don't know which is better.

  Senator Obama still refuses to explain how, when we are already running a $450 Billion deficit and just spent $700 Billion on a bailout, he will find money for his $700 Billion in new spending (I realize he says that number is incorrect, but I'm using it based on what independent economists estimate his plans will cost).  The Senator says he'll get rid of wastefully spending, but there are two problems with that.  First and foremost, taking into account his spending and the deficit and the bailout, we're talking about a $1.8 Trillion swing from the red into the black.  In a government with a $2.8 Trillion budget, how are you going to cut enough costs to 'find' an additional $1.8 Trillion? You would have to cut over 50% of the current spending.  Secondly, can we trust the man who has requested $900 Million in his own pork spending to eliminate wasteful spending?  How against pork could he be if he requests it in the tune of that amount? 

  Senator McCain needs a strong debate performance more than Senator Obama does.  There is a large section of Senator Obama's fan base that, no matter what they learn, are so on board his rally for 'Change' that they won't switch to McCain for anything.  However unfortunate that is, it leaves room for McCain to point out just how liberal Senator Obama is.  According to the National Journal, which records our representatives voting record, Senator Obama's voting record shows he is the most liberal Senator in all of the Senate.  What that means is he votes straight down party lines, rarely (if ever) crossing over to work with Republicans on any measure.  That should cause people to pause when he calls for a new kind of politics.  While that might not bother people in love with the image of Senator Obama, it certainly will bother the moderates.  People who would be concerned with the Democrats controlling both the House and the Senate, and sending their most liberal representative to the White House.  

  Senator Obama's assertion that Health Care is a 'right' is an indication of how he views things and how he would govern.  The Socialist state wants everything to be owned by the public.  Not only the food that is grown, but where it is sold and the profit it makes, all is to be owned by the public at large.  Conversely, the rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are free and are designed to keep us free.  What that means is the only way to take those away is for the government to get involved and forcibly remove them from us, or provide us with additional 'rights'.  That is why our Founders wanted small, limited government: so it doesn't have the power to do that.    What Senator Obama is saying with Health Care is the opposite of what our Founders wanted.  The only way to implement a 'right' to Health Care is for the government to force people to provide it to us, at whatever rate we deem 'fair.'  Either by taxing everyone to pay for it, or forcing prices down with legislation (neither of which has worked in other countries), it isn't about removing the government as an obstacle as the Founders did with our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Contrarily, it is about imposing the government on us, with enough power to force this 'right' into our lives.  Once again, at his very core Senator Obama has revealed that he is way too close to Socialist principles for us comfortable with.

CONCLUSION

  These debates are only useful for one thing: telling how a person would govern.  Let's be honest, the individual points the candidates speak of are just regurgitated political talking points.  We have to get our hands dirty and examine what their policies mean for how they would govern, and what they reveal about their theory on what a successful government is and does.  

  At this point, it should be pretty clear that for good or bad, Senator Obama thinks a big, strong, federal government is best.  Senator McCain thinks the opposite, although frequently he isn't Conservative enough to really get a lot of support from the Conservatives among us.  There is a saying among Conservatives that the only person who could make them vote for McCain is Obama.  Meaning, while McCain isn't a true Conservative on many issues, Senator Obama is so far left that there is no other option than voting for McCain.

  Whether we like individual policies or not, this election comes down to big government vs. smaller government.  What we decide will impact us for years to come, as the president will have power to elect judges to the courts who agree with their interpretation of how the government should work.  Do we want someone who is as Liberal as Senator Obama appointing judges, who are unelected, to posts that they'll hold for the rest of their lives?  

  Additionally, if Senator Obama wins the election, he will have a House of Reps controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate controlled by the Democrats.  So we really need to ask ourselves, what is the cost for the 'change' that Senator Obama is selling?