Obama, McCain argue over war, taxes in first debate

The Associated Press

Published Fri, Sep 26, 2008 (9:21 a.m.)

Updated Fri, Sep 26, 2008 (8:29 p.m.)

Associated Press

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., participate in the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., Friday.

Sun archives

Archive of Sun politics stories

John McCain accused Barack Obama of compiling "the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate" Friday night in their first debate of a close campaign for the White House. The Democrat shot back, "Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong-headed policies."

Obama said his Republican rival has been a loyal supporter of the unpopular president across the past eight years, adding that the current economic crisis is "a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain."

"And we can't afford another four," he added moments later.

The two men stood behind identical wooden lecterns on the stage of a performing arts center at the University of Mississippi for the first of three scheduled debates with less than six weeks remaining until Election Day. The two vice presidential candidates will meet next week for their only debate.

The 47-year-old Obama is seeking to become the nation's first black president. McCain, 72, is hoping to become the oldest first-term chief executive in history _ and he made a few jokes at his own expense.

"I've been around a while," he said at one point. "Were you afraid I couldn't hear you?" he said at another after Obama repeated a comment.

Moderator Jim Lehrer's opening question concerned the economic crisis gripping Wall Street. While neither man committed to supporting bailout legislation taking shape in Congress, they readily agreed lawmakers must take action to prevent millions of Americans from losing their jobs and their homes.

Both also said they were pleased that lawmakers in both parties were negotiating on a compromise.

But they clashed over spending, taxes, energy and war in the first half of the 90-minute encounter.

McCain jabbed at Obama, saying he had requested millions of dollars in pork barrel spending, including some after he began running for president.

As he does frequently while campaigning, the Republican vowed to veto any lawmaker's pork barrel project that reaches his desk in the White House. "You will know their names and I will make them famous," he said.

The debate unfolded at a particularly tumultuous point in the campaign, with Bush and Congress struggling to avert a full-blown financial crisis.

McCain announced he would suspend his campaign earlier this week to return to Washington and take part in meetings on the crisis. Initially, he said he would not debate unless lawmakers had reached an agreement.

He reversed course earlier in the day, deciding to attend the debate, then return to the capital later.

The stakes were high as the two rivals walked on stage. The polls gave Obama a modest lead and indicated he was viewed more favorably than his rival when it came to dealing with the economy. But the same surveys show McCain favored by far on foreign policy.

Both men are veteran debaters after winning their respective presidential nominations. Obama debated former rival Hillary Clinton more than a dozen times, while McCain stood on stage with his Republican rivals in numerous states.

Both candidates have been rehearsing extensively, Obama prepping with advisers at a resort in Clearwater, Fla., and McCain putting in debate work at his home outside Washington.

The two presidential hopefuls are scheduled to debate twice more, at Belmont University in Nashville on Oct. 7 and at Hofstra University in Hempsted, N.Y., on Oct. 15. Vice presidential contenders Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are to square off in a single debate Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis.

Discussion: 26 comments so far…

By cignetti

9/26/08 at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

what's the big deal here????? Both are two empty suits. Listening to these two is a waste of time both parties are a disgrace for putting these two up for election and that's a fact!!!!!!!!
By stabill

9/26/08 at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

The same state that would put Harry Reid up for political power needs a path to redemption--and Obama ain't it.
By Gordon

9/26/08 at 12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

McCain has already displayed an ad stating "McCain wins debate" on the Wall Street Journal's website (it is a shame that a highly respected paper has bowed to it's new owner Rupert Murdoch's propagadist ways)http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html

This after he drops out of the debate to derail a bipartisan bailout agreement. "In the battle over perceptions, it really is this simple: There was a deal before McCain came back to Washington. There was not a deal by the time the evening ended." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/s...

McCain has said many times that he does not understand the economy and needs to be educated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp...

Now McCain stops the bailouts' bipartisan progress for his own political gain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0663DHLr...
By gqbossing

9/26/08 at 12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Right... So if the deal was done then how did McCain stop it? The truth is there was no deal, there were reports of progress and the hope that the deal was emminent. That was all speculation. McCain coming in and encouraging the deal to be thorough (as the Dems and Repubs suggested the night before)all of a sudden was political fodder by Harry Reid and other Dems to say he was slowing them down.

If I were shopping for a car and was leaning towards one model becase the salesman was pressuring me to buy now, and a family memember came in and told me to sleep on it I would think that was a favor instead of a hinderance, same thing here.

If Obama had decided to halt his campaign instead of McCain and done the same thing the Repubs would have claimed the same, or said he said nothing and contributed nothing.

It's a classic lose/lose scenario. Speaking of lose, Obama decision to not halt his campaign will be an advantage for McCain going forward, mark my word on that, the next campaign ads will be all over this...

Regardless of who wins, one of these guys is going to have to deal with this problem; I'd rather vote for the one who decided to put down what he was doing and take a hard look at it rather than the one who decided he could multitask his way into the White House, anyone who has the comprehension of multitasking knows you miss things when you don't have focus on one thing. Seems to be Obama's focus is on getting elected, not what he's going to do once he gets there:

http://www.yallpolitics.com/images/Bergv...
http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/oba...
By Future2012

9/26/08 at 12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had failed. They never had Republicans on board, but told the markets that they had a deal.

McCain did the right thing to force them to listen the the House Republicans.

Fiscal conservatives among House Republicans needed a position at the negotiations.

Ideas like a FDIC like insurance system for these financial packages is long over due and would not require gov monies in the future.

I see that Democrats refuse to call this bill the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Dodd-Frank Act of 2008.
By MichaelGreen

9/26/08 at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

McCain forced Reid and Pelosi to "listen to House Republicans" like I am a finalist in the Miss America pageant. If he was so committed to settling this, he would have been true to his word--which unfortunately would have been a first--and stayed in Washington, DC, where he is SO indispensable.
By NVMakz

9/26/08 at 1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

The liberals LIED again and said there was a deal. Dodd, Frank, et all who NEED this massive dose of Socialism that they - imo - thought they'd "shame"(a primary lib-tactic) the Republicans into it.

Today, Frank says (because the deal stinks) that Pelosi et all will not "send a partisan bill to the floor" for a vote = that is, imo, until they (shame) some more Republicans on board with their socialism.

The Democrats can pass any bill they want to in the House. They have the Majority and Republicans can not stop them; as like the filibuster in the Senate.

The bill is socialism in-our-faces and the more that comes out about what the lib-leadership says is "a deal" = the more it smells like rotten socialism.
By redferret

9/26/08 at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yeah Sidney the Third really rushed over to Washington, with stop overs in New York, an interview or two, and a leisurely return to DC.
Come on, both are grandstanding in their own way, and both are wrong for different reasons. Maybe Obama should have dropped stuff to work on the economy, but maybe he was putting together his thoughts on it or whatever.
On the other hand, McCain probably should have actually rushed to Washington instead of dithering here and there and saying he was rushing. Also I would like to see the two candidates square off. Hell, I want more debates, because I want to hear how they interact, especially when under pressure in front of a national audience.
By gqbossing

9/26/08 at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

What House Republicans want:

The bankruptcy provision is not the only sticking point, however. House Republicans are not on board, according to Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point," Boehner said.

Instead, they issued a statement of economic rescue principles that calls for Wall Street to fund the recovery by injecting private capital - not taxpayer dollars - into the financial markets. Easing tax laws would prompt investors to put in their own dollars, they said.

The plan also calls for: participating firms to disclose the value of the mortgage assets on their books, ending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's securitization of "unsound mortgages," reviewing the performance of the credit rating agencies and having the Securities and Exchange Commission audit failed companies to ensure their financial standing was accurately portrayed.

House Republicans also want to create a panel to make recommendations for reforming the financial industry by year's end.

Meanwhile, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee has another idea. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said he doesn't support the Treasury plan until there is serious consideration of alternatives. He proposed Thursday adding funds to the Federal Reserve and Treasury to allow them to lend more to financial institutions.

The differences are these:
Dems: taxpayer money
Repubs: private money with lowering capital gains taxes

Dems: instutuionalizing companies by giving ownership to government
Repubs: Leave private, lete free market system work

Dems: control salaries of execs
Repubs: Leave private, lete free market system work

Dems: Allow judicial system to make new mortgage terms for homeowners effectively canceling contracts between homeowners and their lenders
Repubs: Leave private, lete free market system work

Overall:
Dems: Instutionalize and regulate companies, let homeowners off hook for poor decisions

Repubs: Lower taxes for Capital Gains to give private investors incintives for investing in troubled companies, no plan on homeowners

The Dems sounds just like Socialism to me, how's the working in Great Britian and for Tony Blair these days???
By NVMakz

9/26/08 at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

" Hell, I want more debates, because I want to hear how they interact, especially when under pressure in front of a national audience."

Then, your guy, Barry Obama, blew it for you by refusing the 10 town-hall meetings McCain wanted to schedule right after the conventions, ims.

Obama's an empty suit who I now understand was tounge-tied in the WH yesterday when asked his input. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall, lol, lol, lol.............

Where is Obama's public input on this massive socialist bailout? Nowhere!

Rush said it well today when he said that Obama leads most effectively WHEN HE IS NOT THERE! My eyes teared up in laughter at the truth of it.
By Gordon

9/26/08 at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Paulson, who authored the original request, and Bush who addressed the nation asking for support of Paulson's plan, are both REPUBLICANS.

So who are the Republican's in congress arguing with?...the REPUBLICAN administration.

Who is trying to nationalize private corporations?...The REPUBLICAN administration.

Who caused the worst economy in history?...The REPUBLICAN administration

What party is McCain?...REPUBLICAN

Notice the pattern... VOTE FOR OBAMA and other Democracts in your district.
By gqbossing

9/26/08 at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz, you had me until you mentioned Rush...
By NVMakz

9/26/08 at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

"What House Republicans want.....

I applaud this whole post first of all, but love the counterproposal and the fight in the Republicans.

Great post. Well done!
By NVMakz

9/26/08 at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

"NVMakz, you had me until you mentioned Rush..."

Fair enough. Great post.
By LaDiDa

9/26/08 at 2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Man, these Mccain supporters are grasping at straws.

How scared they must be...just wait until November and McCain loses, they will be FREAKKKKKKINNNNNNNN OUTTTTTTTT!

ahaha, I can't wait.
By Future2012

9/26/08 at 2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

The bailout bill will give a % money to Acorn, the democratic organization for public housing which Obama used to be the lawyer for.

Three GOP congressmen (Hensarling, Feeney, and Royce) have called on Barney Frank (D-Housing Boondoggle) to investigate ACORN's taxpayer abuses.

Obama needs to defend why
By redferret

9/26/08 at 2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yeah what's all this garbage republicans talk about socialism from the democrats. This was a deal involving tax payer money that was first proposed by... the WHITE HOUSE. Hmmm... who's been in the White House for the past seven point five years? Who's been egging for congress to just accept a 700 billion dollar bail out with no oversight or no strings attached? God, how can you eel away from the fact that White House REPUBLICANS want this 700 billion dollar tax payer bailout?
By the way, the dems want main street to get a piece of the action, because it is a little off that the little guy is suffering while Wall Street whines that it has been hard hit, AND the little guy has to foot the bill for Wall Street's incompetence. Why are we saving these morons again?
By NVMakz

9/26/08 at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Isn't that the same ACORN that has stretched or broken election laws in most - if not all - of Obama's 57 states?

Interesting!
By gqbossing

9/26/08 at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon, have you not been paying attention since 2005 when outside of certain party line politics the Repubs have been going AGAINST Bush, they have butchered his budgets, administration plans and such for 3 years now. McCain has openly admitted Bush's administration is corrupt and he would fire Paulson...

I agree with voting for some democrats, just not the socialist ones like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi...
By redferret

9/26/08 at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hey gq,
You still have not backed up how all those democrats are socialist in the face of the White House crafting and attempting to push through a 700 billion tax payer dollar bail out/nationalization of those major financial institutions. It sounds more like the republicans are carrying the hammer and sickle and not the democrats. Or is it only socialism when you want to help the little guy?
By true_rebel_fan

9/26/08 at 9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hey REPUBLICANS,
You're still Republicans even though you've lost your home, lost your job, and your kids can't get health care? Who knows if the Democrats are going to do anything, BUT at least there is hope. Fortunately, I am successful and educated -- it has not effect on me or my family. I have to admire your loyalty with the times being so bad.
-A Political Observer
By avatar

9/26/08 at 9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bush and the Repubs always have the same answer.

Privatize the gains and socialize the losses. Give a few and powerful the obscene profits but when the losses are severe, make the entire country pay for them.

The boards of directors of these huge companies need to be held accountable for these problems as well. Any dudes you know of get this kind of deal?

Washington Mutual's new CEO Alan Fishman -- who had been on the job a measly 17 days -- was paid nearly $20 million in the last month.

That includes a $7.5 million bonus when he was hired Sept. 8. And it includes a mind-blowing $11.6 million cash severance now that the company has gone under. That's on top of his base salary -- a cool $1 million a year. Plus, he was eligible for annual bonuses worth up to 365 percent of his base pay.
By avatar

9/26/08 at 9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bush came into office eight years ago complaining that he had inherited a recession. It was brief and mild.

When he delivered his speech Wednesday night, Bush had 118 days left before the next president is sworn in on Jan. 20.

When Bush leaves, his successor will inherit a problem of historic proportions.
By jfnance32

9/27/08 at 1:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama said about 6 or more times that "John is right".

What an idiot that the Democrats have nominated.
By R_Linn

9/27/08 at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here's your "eloquent" Democratic nominee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYF...
By morgen

9/27/08 at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

"What an idiot that the Democrats have nominated."

An idiot that graduated at the top of his class at Harvard and worked as a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Nance, where did YOU go to school?

While Barack is out there trying to win this election so he can make America better for all of us, you are here like a moron posting stupid comments of the LV Sun. You're so damn PATHETIC.