McCain Loses Debate and Dignity; National Discourse Just Loses

As we begin, it is important to mention that there have been some media outlets, including Fox “News”, calling the debate a tie. In the spirit of practicing what I preach, I am obligated to tell you that those people are liars. Debates are difficult events to rationally process; by their nature they suffer from opinions masquerading as facts, and getting straight answers from people as to why they think a particular candidate outperformed another is complicated. The best we can do in the pursuit of reason is use polling samples as a general measurement of the voters’ opinions, and ensure those polls use truly random sampling that accurately reflects pertinent differences of the electorate such as gender and political affiliation. With this in mind I will present data from three polls conducted in a legitimate fashion, then move on to Senator McCain misplacing his dignity.

In a poll sponsored by CBS News, respondents were asked which candidate they thought won the debate:

Obama     39%

McCain     25%

Draw         36%

A similar poll from CNN asked respondents which candidate “did better” in the debate:

Obama     51%

McCain     38%

Unsure/Draw     11%

Another poll, this time sponsored by USA Today and conducted by Gallup asked which candidate “performed better” in the debate:

Obama     46%

McCain     34%

Staying with the USA Today/Gallup poll, respondents were asked which candidate had “the best proposals to solve the country’s problems”:

Obama     52%

McCain     35%

Another question from USA Today/Gallup surveyed respondents regarding which national leaders they thought had handles the “Wall Street crisis” appropriately. This question included leaders not currently running for office and was not strictly related to the debate.

Senator Obama is the only national leader to receive a net positive response, with 46% saying he handled it appropriately and 43% saying he did not. (For all candidates, the remainder was unsure, felt neutral, or did not respond). On the contrary, 37% felt McCain had handled the crisis (he helped create) appropriately, while 58% felt he did not.

The Gallup poll also singled out Independents and Undecideds during their surveying. Among this group, 37% said they were less confident McCain was the right choice for president while 23% said they were more confident. The remaining had no change of opinion.

Staying with undecided voters for minute, CBS News did a poll of 483 undecided voters after the debate and found that McCain did little to improve his standing with those who haven’t yet chosen a candidate, while Obama may have won many of them over to his candidacy. I will include a sample here, but those who want the full picture should go to the .pdf version of the CBS news results. There were categories where McCain is rated higher than Obama (such as the Iraq War), but the largest differences came from the following questions:

When asked if McCain “Understands their needs and problems”:

41% say YES

When asked if Obama “Understands their needs and problems”:

79% say YES

When asked if McCain will “Make the right decisions about the economy”:

42% YES 57% NO

When asked if Obama Will “Make the right decisions about the economy”:

66% YES 33% NO

Undecideds polled before and after the debate also showed a likely change in final voting behavior. Of course, it is still possible these voters will change their minds. Before the Debate, Respondents were asked “If the election were held today, who would you vote for”:

Obama / Biden    36%

McCain / Palin    34%

It Depends¹ 29%

Third Party        01%

Same Question After the Debate:

Obama / Biden    41%

McCain / Palin    29%

It Depends        29%

Third Party        01%

[1- It seems to me that anyone unable to decide who he would vote for, were the election held today, is too stupid to vote. Being in a relationship with one of these people must be hell. They have truly mastered the art of being withholding. I wonder if it makes them feel smart and powerful, as though they truly cannot be categorized, or if they merely haven't been to church recently and can't remember who their reverend told them to support.]

Returning to the CNN poll, respondents were asked who would “better handle terrorism,” a category that has long favored Senator McCain, but his lead is apparently slipping even here as voters get a chance to hear more of Senator Obama’s ideas.

McCain     49%

Obama     45%

On the question of who would “best handle the economy”:

Obama     58%

McCain     37%

The CNN poll reflected similar numbers on the question of who would best handle the current economic crisis, but exact percentages were not available as of this writing.

Anyone who believes these results are indicative of a tie falls into the same category as those who said “It Depends.” Had one poll shown Obama winning, while another showed McCain winning, and a third showed it being a statistical dead heat we would have a tie. When all three show Obama winning, it means Senator John McCain lost Ω.

Of course, there is no shame in losing a debate. Particularly when you finished 894^th in a class of 899, while your opponent graduated significantly higher, and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Where McCain first managed to lose his dignity when he hit the trifecta, twice mentioning he had not won “Miss Congeniality” in the Senate, letting everyone know that another politician once called him “The Sheriff,” and dropping the “M word” in reference to himself, in case someone watching hadn’t yet figured out what he was talking about.

Though no longer a supporter, I cringed when Senator McCain said: “I was called the sheriff, by the — one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee. I didn’t win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate.” It’s embarrassing to watch a man that once stood for something sell out every one of his principles in pursuit of power. Still, I couldn’t help but smile when he went back to the dry-well and did a bit of verbal slapstick that would have made Buster Keaton jealous.

McCain: “It’s well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoners, on – on Guantanamo Bay. On a — on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that’s as independent and a maverick of the Senate and I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.”

Saying you are a maverick is a little like saying you are mysterious, it works as irony, but doesn’t shape people’s perception of you in the way you might have hoped. Stephen King doesn’t go around telling people he is a best-selling author, Michael Jordan doesn’t go around telling people he is the greatest basketball player of the modern era, and Governor Sarah Palin doesn’t tell people how under-qualified she is. These are things you let people learn for themselves.

On the other hand, I may be misinterpreting the intentions of Senator McCain. Where I think he’s using the first definition of the word, and showing us what an independent thinker he is by letting us know he has been reading his own hype and believing it, he may be using the second definition as a kind of coded warning to the electorate.

It seems that the way we use maverick today evolved from the idea of not belonging to anyone. My dictionary puts it this way:

2. unbranded animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother and herd.

By convention it can become the property of whoever finds it and brands it.

Now I understand. McCain is warning those of us who supported him in 2000 that he is no longer rogue, but has been branded by a convention of Republican neo-conservatives, making him their property. Suddenly, his changing positions on social issues, and reliance on rhetoric rather than substance, don’t seem so strange². He has a new herd now, and we would all do well to remember it.

[2 - This may also serve to explain why he would offer the vice-presidential nomination to a woman he had only spoken with for half an hour. Ever. In his entire life.]

One could also argue that it is more than a little undignified to treat your opponent in the way McCain treated Obama during the debate, but I suppose that has been satisfactorily beaten to a bloody mess by the mainstream media. All I will say on the matter is this: someone running on the platform of experience should act like he’s been on that stage before. To do otherwise is humiliating to your supporters³.

[3 - I've noticed that most politicians like to look their opponent in the eye while they lie about him, as is only appropriate. It seems Senator McCain cannot even muster that much respect for the Senator from Illinois. Perhaps this is just an inferiority complex and McCain feels bad enough without me piling-on, but it seems that a man who claims to always "put country first" would want to elevate the discourse rather than denigrate it.]

The real issue is voters were once again lied to in the pursuit of soundbites, while facts and issues were often left out in the Mississippi night. Early in the debate, McCain told a nice story about Eisenhower writing two letters (which may or may not be true depending on who you believe), then finished by saying: “Somehow we’ve lost that accountability. I’ve been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We’ve got to start also holding people accountable, and we’ve got to reward people who succeed.” This is the sort of intellectual dishonesty I attempted to discuss in my last post. McCain was not criticized for wanting accountability as his statement implies, he was criticized for saying the President should fire a man whose employment he has no authority over. He was criticized for running on experience, and not knowing the limitations of presidential power. He was criticized because it was the second time he had gotten it wrong, (originally calling for the resignation of the FEC [Federal Election Commission] chairman), before he gave another speech and got it wrong in a whole new way. He was not criticized for believing in accountability, and it is an absolute lie to imply anything different.

The national discourse relies on each voter being given accurate information, and Senator McCain did not uphold his end of that agreement. At one point he went so far as to imply that Senator Obama intends to raise taxes for average American families. This is so far outside the realm of truth; it can hardly be spoken of without one of McCain’s (trademark) debate-giggles. There is a chart available that details the findings of an independent organization which ran the numbers for the tax plan of each senator. It seems the much vaunted Senator from Arizona once again showed himself to be a liar, a man who when the opportunity arises will say whatever is necessary in the pursuit of power, a war hero who is willing to flush his legacy down the drain for an outside chance at sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Obama is not going to raise taxes on average citizens, and McCain knows it. In fact, Obama will be giving a tax cut to every household with a combined income of less than 250,000 dollars. Conversely, Maverick gives his largest tax cuts to those making more than 250,000 dollars.

As a sort of cover for this bit of intellectual dishonesty, the pride of Arizona continued by interweaving business tax numbers in a discussion of personal taxes (an excerpt of the transcript covering the entire tax issue can be found here). McCain’s new approach included mentioning that business taxes in Ireland are only 11% while business taxes in the United States are the highest in the world at 35%. Unfortunately, this cover for previous intellectual dishonesty is also intellectually dishonest⁴. What McCain has actually done is use a pre-deduction rate as though it is the rate actually being paid. To Obama’s credit, he called McCain out on this and made note that U.S. businesses don’t pay anything close to 35% income tax. In fact, two-thirds of all U.S. companies haven’t paid any income tax for the last seven years and possibly for as long as five years previous to that. (Sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)⁵.

[4 - And I thought calling yourself a maverick was wacky! This piece of debate threatens to tear a hole in the space-time continuum. (Not literally, but in the same way that religious people fake outrage, and John McCain thinks for himself. You know, the make-believe way).]

[5 - To be fair, there is always the possibility that McCain didn't know he was being dishonest. There is a lot of information out there and he can't be expected to track it all down on the internet that he doesn't know how to use. Unfortunately, this excuse holds up like a prostitute's looks – better if you don't look too close. It seems that there were two studies of corporate and business tax revenue done in the last ten years, and both were done by… Oops, the federal government… while McCain was a member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce. Ouch, like most people who play loose with the truth, this leaves the Senator in an untenable position: He lied, or he doesn't read reports crucial to his position in government. This being the case, he can either stop campaigning on the experience issue or the honesty issue—or save us all some time and just stop campaigning.]

If Senator McCain wants to impress the undecided voters, or generally redeem himself with those of us who once believed he was the last good guy in the United States Senate, he should try a campaign of transparency. He should admit to dropping the ball on the economic bailout, lying about why he suspended his campaign⁶, and being dishonest in his positions during the debate. He should explain that he got bad advice from his far-right Republican handlers, never should have gone along with selecting Governor Palin for VP, and has gotten too close to oil interests to be objective about the energy crisis facing America. I still won’t vote for him, but I might respect him again, and I’ll definitely believe him when he says he puts country first.

[6 - It seems that after suspending his campaign it took Senator McCain nearly 24 hours to get to Washington D.C. This wouldn't be so outrageous if he didn't have a private plane. Also, saving the economy makes a better excuse if it doesn't turn out you actually killed the deal that already had general approval from congress. For more on this see Andrew Romano's piece for Newsweek (complete with video and nicely written).]

[Return to Main Page]