Debate III: I pity the fools watching this debate

So Palin is part of the fringe.

Will someone tell Joe he is going to need customers?

Will someone tell McCain cutting spending is not something to do during a recession?

More discussion and interaction but nothing new.

Would it be in incredibly bad taste to try to pick up girls by introducing oneself as Joe the Plumber? That's a completely hypothetical question, an inquiry into the Zeitgeist, as it were.

I'm enough in tune with the public mood to know that Joe the Plumber probably won't last as a national icon, maybe one slot as a balloon at the front of this year's Macy's Parade on Thanksgiving and that's it. Maybe fifteen years from now some garage band will call itself Joe the Plumber and cover old punk songs from the early '80s, but that's just speculation.

OK, let's serious up here. McCain used Joe the Plumber to illustrate the idea that the larger, more prosperous small businesses could pay higher taxes under Barack the President. Barack the Candidate responded with great empathy for Joe the Plumber's concerns, except for that one. He also emphasized that nearly everyone would get tax cuts when he became President, because they need a break until the economy recovers or the currency depreciates, whichever comes first. John the Other Candidate reacted with anguish to the idea that anyone's taxes would be raised in a world where a half-trillion dollar budget deficit can be reduced with magic beans. That went especially for Joe the Plumber.

None of that was as funny as McCain's best moment of the night, when he looked Obama in the ear and said that he was not George Bush. For that moment, McCain looked decisive, in command, utterly Presidential, which was a pretty good trick for a guy who has adopted nearly all of Bush's positions on major issues and hired half of Bush's 2004 campaign staff. Obama must have been thinking about Joe the Plumber, because his response drifted off into the same bloodless rhetoric he always uses about "the failed policies of the last eight years." He didn't respond either to McCain's charge that he, Obama, had voted against confirming Justice Breyer either, but he had an excuse on that one. Obama was trying to recall Joe Biden's Iowa caucus stump speech, to use on Bob Schieffer's Vice President question. This must have distracted him a lot, because when Schieffer hit him with the question about whether his opponent's running mate was qualified to serve as President he passed on the right answer ("no") and went into a waffle answer, the kind candidates in debates use when they are afraid they will get marked down by the audience if they finish before their time is up.

Look, this election is over. The ground fell away beneath the Republican candidate's campaign when the stock market went into a power dive while the incumbent Republican President gave speeches saying we'd come back stronger than ever. Like he'd know. McCain did all right in this debate, better than in the earlier ones, but more of the audience had already decided to vote for the other guy, Joe the Plumber notwithstanding.

[...] Dan Drezner has some more substantive thoughts. I didn’t think Senator McCain did as well on economic policy as Dan, but I agree that he was better on trade. Other than that I hope to never hear about Joe again. Anyone have other thoughts? addthis_pub = 'meatyreads'; addthis_brand = 'MeatyREADS'; [...]

[...] agree with Dan Drezner 100%: The split screen is going to kill John [...]

OT but I am curious to know what Dan thinks about it. (European hubbub or serious consideration?):

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders pressed for an overhaul of the global financial system to prevent a repeat of the credit crunch that sparked the biggest stock-market selloff since the Great Depression.

EU leaders called for a global summit as soon as next month to rewrite the 1944 Bretton Woods accord that paved the way for Europe's post-World War II reconstruction and set up the institutions that oversee the world economy today.

(Taken from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOb4n0deWmNU)

There are few things less important to the economy and nation right now than a "free" trade agreement with Colombia (excepting intellectual property, of course, which must be strictly regulated). Oh but fewer labor leaders are being murdered, rather than more. Well that settles it. Is it really so much to ask that union leaders NOT be murdered before they get a preferential trade agreement? Or is that too high a standard?

Beg leave to disagree with #4. An important point in conducting foreign policy is to treat your friends well - Columbia has been trying to be a friend. Even if it's small it's not insignificant. Columbia is a test cse, and Latin America is watching to see whether being a freiend of the US pays off better than being an opponent.

A second point is that Columbia is home of the drug cartels, and the US has encouraged them to supress the drugs. Problem is that drugs ARE the Columbian economy - or a large part of it anyway. So to cripple the drug cartels means to cripple the Columbian economy - unless a substitute can be found for growing, processing, and transporting illegal drugs. Signing a free trade agreement with them would create attractive alternatives to the drug trade.

I was glad to hear McCain bring up Brazilian ethanol

Sure McCain did talk about cutting import duties on ethanol (and that makes at least two of us btw), but did you notice how he brought it up? It was in answer to a question about he was going to pay for all his tax cuts and spending. That's right, he's going to pay for tax cuts with another tax cut. Makes sense to supply siders I suppose.