The debates--McCain/Obama: what took so long?

Palin/Biden--uh-oh!

By Wes Vernon

The style that emerged in the Sept. 26 debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama is exactly what presidential debates should have used right from the beginning:

One moderator was there, basically to keep the process moving, while as much as possible, letting the two candidates have free rein to go at each other and do their back and forth.

Poor performance in the past

In previous years, the panel style of questioning inevitably led the four journalists into a game of one-upmanship in questioning — who can ask the best pop-quiz style "gotcha" question? And of course, that encouraged the gaffe patrol to come out in full force. It became more of an entertainment event, and less of a serious inquiry into what made the candidates tick.

Kudos to Lehrer

For even-handed professionalism, the first debate could not have done better than to select Jim Lehrer of PBS as the moderator. From the get-go, he saw his job as being to get information from and about the candidates and their outlooks.

But it was obvious Lehrer understood that though he had an important role, this was not about him. Had all questioners in previous debates exhibited the same approach, the results of those debates would have been more edifying.

McCain did well

Some people were surprised — after all the late night comics and their jabs at the so-called geriatric running for high office — that Senator McCain held his ground so well.

Off the record

I was not among the surprised. Last year, I saw McCain close-up for the first time at an off-the-record meeting. Contrary to my previous impressions of him as a hot-head given to rash judgments, I found the Arizona senator to be adept at fielding questions with lucid answers that, whether you agreed with them or not — and this column retains some differences with McCain on a few key issues — you had to credit him for thoughtful answers based on careful analysis.

I also found him to be a man of good humor and — contrary to previous impressions — one who takes his responsibilities seriously without taking himself too seriously. Considering all he went through at the Hanoi Hilton for five years, he has a reasonably balanced view of life.

When I shook his hand on his way out the door, he saw my name tag and seemed a little taken aback. This column had not always been kind to Senator McCain. But he was gracious nonetheless.

On the record when it counted.

McCain not only did not look as if he were ready to be put out to pasture as he faced off with Obama a few days ago, he was right on target — not only up to speed, but quite illuminating in his grasp of the issues in foreign policy and — more to the point — in the grave and threatening area of national security.

One wishes, however, that he would get off the complaints about "torture" — which (as practiced by our own officials in the field) comes down to nothing more than pouring water down a detainee's snoot for 30 seconds. Surely, in the interest of heading off a terror attack that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park, that practice cannot be categorized as "cruel and unusual," as the phraseology would have it.

But Senator McCain — who knows what real torture is — is undoubtedly more sensitive than most to complaints employing that trigger word.

Energy and economic issues

The senator has shown more respect for the Republican Party's conservative base than he used to — specifically in his willingness to revise his positions on the Bush tax cuts, which he now says he wants to keep, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Hopefully, Sarah Palin can bring him around on drilling in Alaska's ANWR.

Still, one hopes that the next time Obama says his tax hikes will affect only "the rich," McCain will be ready to blow that one right out of the water. And on the Democrat candidate's plan for huge increases in the totally destructive Capital Gains Tax, Mr. McCain should have a swift and definitive comeback.

The Capital Gains Tax serves absolutely no useful purpose. It has proven time and again that whenever it is raised, the tax serves no purpose other than to reduce revenue to the U.S. Treasury. So Senator Obama's Capital Gains tax hike would discourage investment and thereby cost jobs and, in the process, leave fewer people paying less money into the treasury. Other than that, it's perfect. It is worse than useless.

Why, then, do liberal politicians like Obama insist on raising it? His answer to a debate question last April was not to deny that Cap Gains taxes were a net minus for the U.S. government. No, not at all. You see, said Senator Obama, it's a matter of "fairness." Fairness to whom? Nobody's benefitting by it, so where is the "fairness?"

The answer is that in Obama's Marxist mind, if one guy is getting a tax break that does not accrue to someone else, that in itself is a no-no. Never mind that cutting it benefits everybody. They've got to have their vindictive class hatred. That's all the Democrats have these days. Hate the guy who makes more than you do. That's their answer to everything. Beyond that, they are bereft of meaningful or workable ideas. (Note — Millions of modest retirement portfolios benefit from Capital Gains).

McCain's debate victory

Senator McCain won the Sept. 26 debate because he was so strong in the areas as noted above, because he stayed on offense without being obnoxious, and also because Obama came off as professorial and elitist. One could almost hear him speaking again to the San Francisco wine and brie set about blue-collar people clinging to their guns and religion.

Ifill

Gwen Ifill, a PBS commentator, has been selected as the moderator for the vice presidential debate — Palin vs. Biden.

Given that Ms. Ifill is writing a book about Barack Obama, set for release in time for Inauguration Day in January, the woman has an obvious conflict of interest — if not an ideological one, surely a monetary one. If Obama is elected, her book will sell well and make her a pile of money. If not, it will be relegated to the steep discount shelf in most bookstores.

Ms. Ifill says her book merely deals with the phenomenon that the Obama candidacy involves — i.e., the first (half) African-American in a serious bid for the White House. But columnist Michelle Malkin notes that Ifill wrote a "fawning" magazine cover story about Obama and his wife Michelle.

There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Jim Lehrer — also of PBS — was doing just fine as moderator. So why ditch his impartiality for someone who has an axe to grind?

© Wes Vernon