Civility Watchdog: October 22nd Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Boca Raton, FL

Following are excerpts from the presidential debate [NPR Transcript, NYTimes Transcript, RCP Video] between President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) in Boca Raton, FL on October 22, 2012, hosted and moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS:

ROMNEY: [T]he key that we're going to have to pursue is a -- is a pathway to -- to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. We don't want another Iraq. We don't want another Afghanistan.

Comment: Romney is indulging in "extremism" rhetoric. What, in particular, does Romney believe that the Muslim world should reject?

***

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia -- not al-Qaida, you said Russia.

Comment: Obama is describing Romney's remarks as contradictory when they aren't. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that al-Qaeda is a threat while also saying that Russia is the biggest threat. Romney may be incorrect about which threat is bigger, but his statements aren't contradictory, as Obama asserts.

***

OBAMA: I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong.

Comment: Really? Every opinion Romney has offered on foreign policy has been wrong? Even on policies where he has agreed with Obama? This is an exaggeration.

***

ROMNEY: [A]ttacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. … Again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country.

Comment: This is a "negative politics" accusation. There's nothing wrong or unproductive -- in principle, at least -- about Obama criticizing Romney's positions (and vice versa). In fact, that's the point of debate, to show that your positions have fewer flaws than your opponent's positions. If Obama is making unfair criticisms -- employing faulty reasoning or distortions -- then that's another matter, and Romney should protest. But he can't simply complain that it's unfair for Obama to "attack" his positions.

***

ROMNEY: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel.

Comment: Strictly speaking, this is false. Iran borders the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Given his mention of Lebanon, Romney clearly meant that Syria is Iran's route to the Mediterranean Sea, which is true. Romney's opponents, though, probably won't make this charitable interpretation.

***

ROMNEY: [O]ur Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285. We're headed down to the -- to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration.
…
OBAMA: [Y]ou mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's -- it's what are our capabilities.

Comment: Obama is correct that military capability isn't simply dependent on the number of ships, it's also dependent on the quality and type of ships. But he could have made this point without derisively suggesting that Romney is ignorant of the fact that we now have things like aircraft carriers and submarines. Plus, it's not necessarily playing "a game of Battleship" to count ships, as there is a minimum number of ships needed in order to perform certain functions, which is what the Navy assessment was stating.

***

OBAMA: The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that during the course of this campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake because when I've sent young men and women into harm's way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.

Comment: Obama is misrepresenting Romney's position on military action. Perhaps Romney is willing to resort to military action sooner than Obama is, but Obama represents Romney as believing that military action should be the first resort. Where has Romney said that?

***

ROMNEY: And then the president began what I've called an apology tour of going to -- to various nations in the Middle East and -- and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.
…
OBAMA: Bob, let me just respond. Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign, and every fact-checker and every reporter who's looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true.
…
ROMNEY: Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to -- to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to -- to Turkey and Iraq. And -- and by way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.

Comment: This exchange -- regarding the claim that Obama went on an "apology tour" -- deserves much more detailed treatment. Here, suffice to say that most of the problem comes down to an ambiguity regarding what constitutes an apology, the result being that it's vague as to whether Obama really apologized for anything.

***

SCHIEFFER: What if -- what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said: Our bombers are on the way. We're going to bomb Iran. What do you say?
ROMNEY: Bob, let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of action.

Comment: Romney is refusing to answer a hypothetical question, here. However, he gives a reason why: because the premise of the hypothetical -- that Israel would send bombers to Iran and then alert the United States after the fact, not beforehand -- is implausible. We could argue about whether it really is implausible, but I don't think this is an unfair evasion. Romney wasn't rejecting all hypothetical questions, he gave a plausible reason for rejecting a particular hypothetical.

***

OBAMA: You know, when I came into office, we were still bogged down in Iraq, and Afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on Afghanistan. And we did deliver a surge of troops. That was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in Iraq.

Comment: It's not clear what Obama means by "bogged down" in Iraq. By December 2008 and January 2009 (the latter month is when Obama was inaugurated into office), Iraqi civilian deaths, US and Iraqi military deaths were among the lowest they had been since the invasion in 2003. Moreover, President George W. Bush by then had signed a status of forces agreement (SOFA) which set a 2011 withdrawal date for US forces from Iraq. In 2011, the Obama administration attempted to extend the presence of US forces in Iraq beyond the SOFA, but could not reach an agreement on a new SOFA, so US forces withdrew as planned. Arguably, Obama is distorting the situation to make his contributing to winding down the Iraq War greater than it really was.

***

ROMNEY: The secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. It's not my term. It's the president's own secretary of defense called them devastating.

Comment: Romney is employing faulty "even my opponent agrees" reasoning. He's arguing that, since Obama's own secretary of defense (Leon Panetta, a Democrat) agrees that the cuts to the military are a bad idea, there must be true. But, just because people who typically disagree on things find themselves in agreement on a particular topic doesn't guarantee that their correct.

***

OBAMA: Well, Governor Romney's right. You are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas, because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas. And, you know, that's your right. I mean, that's how our free market works. But I've made a different bet on American workers. You know, if we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

Comment: First, Obama is again making a flawed argument about outsourcing: just because Romney outsourced jobs while a member of Bain Capital doesn't mean he'll do that as president, any more than Obama as president organized protests just like he did when he worked as a community organizer. Second, Obama is again questioning the patriotism of those who opposed the bailouts of GM and Chrysler by saying that he was betting on American workers (the implication being that those who opposed the bailouts were betting against American workers). Lastly, even if GM and Chrysler were to go out of business, there would still have been a US auto industry, because Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and other car companies would still have been operating car factories in the US and hiring US auto workers. To say we'd be buying (presumably, all or the bulk of our) cars from China is an exaggeration.

***

ROMNEY: America's going to come back. And for that to happen, we're going to have to have a president who can work across the aisle. I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. We've got to do that in Washington. Washington is broken. I know what it takes to get this country back. And we'll work with good Democrats and good Republicans to do that.

Comment: Romney is indulging in "bipartisan" rhetoric, here, but not in the sense of arguing that bipartisan = good. Rather, he's making the claim that it's difficult to get anything done without bipartisan cooperation, therefore having a record of bipartisanship is a virtue. However, Romney doesn't make any mention of rebuking incivility -- in particular, from his own party and his own campaign -- which would probably be one of the most effective ways to encourage bipartisan behavior.

Civility Watchdog: October 16th Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Hempstead, NY

Following are excerpts from the presidential debate [NYTimes Transcript, Fox News Transcript, CNN Transcript, RCP Video] between President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) in Hempstead, NY on October 16, 2012, hosted and moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN:

JEREMY EPSTEIN: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can -- what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
…
ROMNEY: I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. And kids across this country are going to recognize we’re bringing back an economy. It’s not going to be like the last four years. The middle class has been crushed over the last four years, and jobs have been too scarce. I know what it takes to bring them back, and I’m going to do that and make sure when you graduate … I’m going to make sure you get a job.

Comment: Romney didn't answer the question. Romney spoke about things he would do to help future college students graduate with less debt, but he didn't give any real detail to what he would do to ensure that Epstein would be able to support himself when he graduated.

***

OBAMA: I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. You know, when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it’s come surging back.

Comment: This is a distortion. Romney never said he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt. He said he didn't think GM and Chrysler should get bailouts. GM and Chrysler are not the totality of the US auto industry -- referred to as "Detroit" by Obama -- there is Ford along with foreign manufacturers that have factories in the US and employ US auto workers (like Chrysler, which is now owned by Italy's Fiat). More, without bailouts, GM and Chrysler would not necessarily have gone out of business. Many companies go through the legal process of bankruptcy and continue to do business. Also, Obama is perhaps questioning the patriotism of people who opposed the auto bailouts by saying he "bet on American workers", as if refusing to bail out an American company means you don't support American workers or believe that they can succeed.

***

ROMNEY: And one thing that the -- the president said which I want to make sure that we understand -- he -- he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt, and -- and that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and -- and -- and Continental Airlines and come out stronger. And -- and I know he keeps saying, you wanted to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And -- and I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommend and ultimately what happened.
…
OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open, and we would have lost a million jobs.And that -- don’t take my word for it; take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.

Comment: Partly, what's going on here is an ambiguity in the meaning of "bankrupt". If "bankrupt" means the legal process of bankruptcy, then Romney supported GM and Chrysler going bankrupt, and so did Obama (because, in fact, GM and Chrysler went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganizations). On the other hand, if "bankrupt" means the companies going out of business, then that's not what Romney called for. He wanted them to go through the legal process of bankruptcy without government bailouts, which doesn't necessarily mean the companies would have gone out of business (as Romney mentioned: 7-Eleven, Macy’s and Continental Airlines). Obama's point is that he doesn't believe GM and Chrysler could have stayed in business after the legal process of bankruptcy without government aid. That's a complicated empirical matter about which people can disagree. But, even if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business, they're not the whole auto industry, which runs contrary to what Obama says when he states that Romney wanted to "let Detroit go bankrupt".

***

OBAMA: Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector; that’s been his philosophy as governor; that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.

Comment: This is a caricature. In particular, it's the "silver bullet" caricature. Romney isn't proposing only one thing -- a "silver bullet" -- in order to fix the economy. He has a plan that involves tax reform, energy production, trade deals with foreign nations, etc. Obama may not think it's an effective plan -- that's something he needs to argue for -- but it's not acceptable for him to distort Romney as having only a one-dimensional plan.

***

OBAMA: That’s exactly the philosophy that we’ve seen in place for the last decade. That’s what’s been squeezing middle-class families. And we have fought back for four years to get out of that mess, and the last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there.

Comment: Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against Romney. But he offers very little in the way of proof that Romney's policies are the policies "that got us" into the economic "mess" that we're in. He needs to provide detail to this argument, something more than just cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

***

PHILIP TRICOLLA: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
…
OBAMA: We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional sources of energy; we’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we’ve doubled clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels. … I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States. So that’s going to help Jeremy get a job, it’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.

Comment: Obama doesn't answer the question about whether Chu is wrong to say that it's not the job of the Energy Department to lower gas prices (assuming Chu did say this). More, while Obama says that his policies are lowering gas prices (which is another arguable empirical matter), he doesn't address whether it is the job of the Energy Department to do so.

***

OBAMA: Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal. So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter.

Comment: What Romney has said isn't contradictory. As pointed out by PolitiFact, Romney was referring to one plant that had a history of problems. Romney wasn't saying all coal plants kill and that they should all be shut down. You can be an advocate for coal power while wanting some poorly run plants to be closed down, which is akin to what Obama himself calls for in the quote above. Similarly, you can be an advocate for car manufacturing while calling for some poorly operating cars to be discontinued through fuel efficiency standards, like the ones Obama has advocated. Obama is making a baseless accusation that Romney is flip-flopping. (PolitiFact ranks Obama's statement "True" despite the false implication that Romney was opposing all coal plants.)

***

ROMNEY: In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.
OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: So how much did you cut them by?
OBAMA: It’s not true.
ROMNEY: By how much did you cut them by, then?
OBAMA: Governor, we have actually produced more oil on --
ROMNEY: No, no, how much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal waters?

Comment: Obama didn't answer the question. He went on to talk about what he had done with companies with unused leases on public lands, but he didn't address whether such permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters had been cut in half (as Romney claimed and queried).

***

OBAMA: He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was 1.80, 1.86 [dollars]. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney is now promoting. So it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices, because with his policies we might be back in that same mess.

Comment: Again, Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against Romney.

***

MARY POLLANO: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the -- these various deductions -- the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the … The education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important for the middle class?
…
ROMNEY: I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That’s part -- that’s part one. Now, how about deductions? Because I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now. … Middle-income people are going to get a tax break. And so in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be to say everybody gets -- I’ll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits. And you can decide which ones to use, your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth. You can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down, and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason.

Comment: This seems like an evasion. Romney doesn't say clearly what his position is on the various deductions mentioned by Pollano (for instance, which of them he wants to get rid of or would refuse to get rid of). Instead, he suggests that putting a cap on how much you can claim in deductions is "one way" of changing things. He doesn't clearly say that's what he would do as opposed to eliminating deductions.

***

OBAMA: Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on “60 Minutes” just two weeks ago, and he was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 a year? And he said, yes, I think that’s fair. Not only that, he said, I think that’s what grows the economy.

Comment: The debate about who pays a lower tax rate than whom has been prone to apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is what is going on here. For instance, if you buy a sandwich, you pay a lower tax rate on it than I pay on my salary. That's because they're different taxes: sales tax for the sandwich, income tax for the salary. Something similar is going on here: the bus driver is paying income tax, someone making $20 million a year is paying taxes not on income but investments and capital gains. This need not undermine the broader debate about fairness -- maybe we should pay the same tax on apples as on oranges, so to speak -- but the discussion should be explicit about whether fairness demands that different taxes -- sales, income, property, capital gains, etc. -- should have different rates or all the same rates.

***

ROMNEY: I look at what’s happened in the last four years and say, this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don’t have to settle for how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now. There are 3 1/2 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office. We don’t have to live like this. We can get this economy going again.

Comment: Romney is essentially making the "failed policies" accusation against Obama.

***

ROMNEY: I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go. And they’re going now because of the policies of this administration.

Comment: Romney is making an appeal to authority. Fine, he's worked in the private sector, but he still has to justify why his ideas on job creation are better. Experts still have to provide sound arguments for their positions, just like everyone else.

***

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women.
ROMNEY: Thank you. And -- important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the -- the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

Comment: Romney didn't answer this question so far as ensuring pay equity for women. He spoke about what he had done in the past to hire women, and what he would do to spur the economy to hire more workers in general, but did not address whether or what he would do to ensure that women and men are paid the same for equal work.

***

OBAMA: When he talks about getting tough on China, keep in mind that Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in countries -- in -- in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That’s -- Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.
…
ROMNEY: Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in -- in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
…
OBAMA: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it -- it doesn’t take as long.
…
ROMNEY: You also investments in Chinese companies.
OBAMA: Yeah.
ROMNEY: You also have investments outside the United States.
OBAMA: Yeah.
ROMNEY: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
OBAMA: All right.
…
OBAMA: Now Governor Romney talked about China. As I already indicated, in the private sector, Governor Romney’s company invested in what were called pioneers of outsourcing. That’s not my phrase; that’s what reporters called it.

Comment: Obama's argument -- that Romney as president will outsource jobs just like he did when he worked in investment -- is not valid reasoning. It would be akin to arguing that, because Obama organized protests as a community organizer, therefore that's what he'll do as president. Obviously, that didn't happen. When people switch jobs, they frequently behave differently. Also, Obama also avoids Romney's question about the contents of his pension. Finally, Romney risks engaging in ad hominem reasoning (of the "you too" variety) by pointing out that Obama is doing the same as Romney is doing (i.e., investing in Chinese companies). He can't simply argue that what he's doing is OK because other people are doing it (even if the other people doing it are the same ones who are criticizing what he's doing). He has to make the case that what he's doing is OK regardless of whether his critics are also doing it.

***

OBAMA: So there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush, but they’re not on economic policy. In some ways, he’s gone to a more extreme place when it comes to social policy, and I think that’s a mistake. That’s not how we’re going to move our economy forward.

Comment: Obama is indulging in "extremism" rhetoric. Why not just say Romney is wrong and then explain why?

***

OBAMA: We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse.

Comment: As discussed earlier, this is an exaggeration at best. GM and Chrysler may have been on the brink of going out of business (which is an empirical question that's arguable), but they are not the whole of the US auto industry. It's far from clear that the US would have no auto industry if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business.

***

OBAMA: So the point is, the commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept. And those that I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying, and we’re going to get it done in a second term.

Comment: First, Obama is contradicting himself: he says he's kept his commitments, and then gives an excuse for why he hasn't kept some of his commitments. Second, it's not clear that "it's not for lack of trying" when it comes to the commitments he hasn't kept. For instance, he promised to introduce an immigration reform proposal, but he didn't. Congress may not have passed it, but they couldn't have stopped him from introducing it, which is what he promised. He didn't place restrictions on lobbyists serving in his administration as he said he would, he didn't create a commission to investigate whether some entitlements created work disincentives, he didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher-income earners, He also promised to recognize the Armenian genocide, which he could do without Congress, but hasn't done it.

***

ROMNEY: Now, when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation -- he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our -- our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn’t do it. He had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate, supermajority in both houses.

Comment: It's not true that Democrats had supermajorities in both houses of Congress. A "supermajority" in today's politics amounts to 60% representation, which Democrats had at best intermittently.

***

OBAMA: Governor Romney says he wasn’t referring to Arizona as a model for the nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it -- not E-Verify, the whole thing. That’s his policy, and it’s a bad policy.

Comment: This is guilt by association rhetoric. Just because the designer of the Arizona immigration law an adviser to Romney doesn't mean Romney accepts all of that adviser's positions. Does Obama accept all the policy positions of all his advisers?

***

OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don’t have bipartisan support -- I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done. We have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all. And it’s time for them to get serious on it. This used to be a bipartisan issue.

Comment: First, Obama frequently touts his immigration reform proposals as "comprehensive", though one man's "comprehensive legislation" is another man's "holding one thing hostage for another" legislation. Second, Obama is indulging in "unify the country" rhetoric by accusing others of turning immigration into a "divisive" issue. Third, Obama is indulging in "bipartisan" rhetoric. Bipartisan ideas aren't necessarily good ones, after all. Finally, what counts as being "serious" about immigration (or any other issue, for that matter)? What is the proof, for instance, that Obama has been serious about immigration?

***

KERRY LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
…
OBAMA: [A]s soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and -- and -- and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them. … And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.

Comment: Obama doesn't answer Ladka's question. Presumably, this is because the matter hasn't been investigated sufficiently to say who denied the enhanced security and why, but Obama doesn't say so.

***

OBAMA: Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

Comment: Obama is accusing Romney of "politicizing" the attack on the US consulate in Libya. What does it mean to "politicize" an issue, though, and why is it bad?

***

ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it’s referred to as a -- as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn’t previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation. That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s -- that’s gridlocked. We haven’t had -- we haven’t -- we haven’t -- we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.

Comment: Romney is essentially indulging in "bipartisan" rhetoric by pointing out that pro-gun and anti-gun groups collaborated on legislation. Why is that good? How does their collaboration guarantee that the content of the legislation was good?

Civility Watchdog: October 11th Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan in Danville, KY

Following are excerpts from the vice presidential debate [Washington Post Transcript, CNN Transcript, RCP Video] between Vice President Joe Biden (running mate of President Barack Obama) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) (running mate of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)) in Danville, KY, on October 11, 2012, hosted and moderated by Martha Raddatz of ABC News:

RADDATZ: "I just want to you about right in the middle of the crisis. Governor Romney, and you’re talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness; talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis?"
RYAN: "On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let’s recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo. So we had the same position, but we will -- it’s never too early to speak out for our values. We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights. And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we’re cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. They’re more brazen in their attacks, and are allies are less willing to -- "
BIDEN: "With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey."
RADDATZ: "And why is that so?"
BIDEN: "Because not a single thing he said is accurate."

Comment: Not a single thing? Biden may legitimately disagree with much of what Ryan said, but it's false -- an exaggeration -- to say none of it is accurate. For instance, the Obama administration did disavow the statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, so Ryan is correct about that, at least.

***

BIDEN: "[T]his is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do."

Comment: Again, another false statement, an exaggeration. Even just limited to the topics of foreign policy and defense, there are lots of things Obama promised to do that he has not done. He hasn't closed the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, or ended the use of military commissions to try terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, or reached an agreement with Russia to take more nuclear weapons off of "hair-trigger" alert, or gotten the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) ratified, or doubled the budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or formed an international working group to aid Iraqi refugees, or doubled the number of Peace Corps volunteers, or recognized the Armenian genocide, all of which he promised to do.

***

BIDEN: "Look, I -- I just -- I mean, these guys bet against America all the time."

Comment: This is derisive name-calling. The fact that Republicans like Ryan and Romney have been critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy doesn't mean they're "betting against America". Biden is demonizing Republicans, here, perhaps questioning their patriotism or suggesting that they're rooting for failure.

***

RYAN: "What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he’s a good guy and, in the next week, say he ought to go."

Comment: Did the Obama administration do this? Did they praise Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak one week and then call for his ouster the next? Or is this a false accusation of a flip-flop?

***

RADDATZ: "Last week, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, “could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.” Can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the American people how effective would a military strike be? Congressman Ryan?"

Comment: Ryan did not answer this question, he instead criticized the Obama administration's record on sanctions against Iran (which, for the sake of brevity, I didn't quote here).

***

BIDEN: "These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Period."

Comment: I'm not sure how to clearly measure which set of sanctions is more crippling, but Biden's definitive statement here seems exaggerated. What about the sanctions on Cuba, or on North Korea? Haven't they been roughly as bad as the ones on Iran?

***

RYAN: "They [the leaders of Iran] see President Obama in New York City the same day Bibi Netanyahu is and he, instead of meeting with him, goes on a -- on a daily talk show."

Comment: This is false. Obama and Netanyahu were not in New York City on the same day.

***

BIDEN: "Let’s all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated. … I don’t know what world this guy’s living in."

Comment: This is name-calling. Biden is suggesting that Ryan is mentally deficient, or divorced from reality. The issue of what to do in order to keep a country from developing nuclear weapons is very complicated, Ryan's worries may be incorrect -- Biden is free to make that argument -- but Ryan's concerns are surely not deranged.

***

BIDEN: "They’re -- they’re closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon."
RADDATZ: "You are acting a little bit like they don’t want one."
BIDEN: "Oh, I didn’t say -- no, I’m not saying that. But facts matter, Martha. You’re a foreign policy expert. Facts matter. All this loose talk about them, “All they have to do is get to enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon,” not true. Not true.They are more -- and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters. That matters."

Comment: Again, this is name-calling. Biden is suggesting that Ryan's concerns about Iran are based on the rejection of facts, but they're not. Rather, there's a legitimate disagreement here about what constitutes the "point of no return" in Iran's nuclear weapons program. At the risk of oversimplifying, Ryan is saying that once Iran has uranium enriched to 90%, their weapons program is impossible to turn back. Biden is saying that the point of no return is at a later stage, once the 90% enriched uranium has been crafted into an actual weapon. (Ryan, I assume, would object that weaponizing enriched uranium is technically much easier than producing enriched uranium.) This is a complicated technical argument, so it's a derisive caricature for Biden to portray the debate as one side (his own) believing that "facts matter" and the other side (Ryan's) saying that they don't.

***

BIDEN: "They’re pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. And they’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won’t pass -- we won’t continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wealthy. … They’re saying no. They’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy."

Comment: This is "hostage-taking" rhetoric. People describe compromises in different ways according to whether it's a compromise they like, and one man's "hostage-taking" is another man's "comprehensive legislation". When the Obama administration has offered compromises or suggested giving Republicans something they want in exchange for getting something Democrats want, is it fair to say they've been "holding it hostage"?

***

RYAN: "You know what the unemployment rate in Scranton is today?"
BIDEN: "I sure do."
RYAN: "It’s 10 percent."
BIDEN: "Yeah."
RYAN: "You know what it was the day you guys came in -- 8.5 percent."
BIDEN: "Yeah."
RYAN: "That’s how it’s going all around America."

Comment: This is false (as Biden went on to point out). The unemployment rate is down in many parts of the country.

***

RYAN: "Mitt Romney’s a good man. He cares about 100 percent of Americans in this country. And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way."
BIDEN: "But I always say what I mean. And so does Romney. … The idea -- if you heard that -- that little soliloquy on 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then I think you’re -- I -- I think -- I got a bridge to sell you."

Comment: Biden is saying that Mitt Romney's (paraphrasing) "47% of the people don't take personal responsibility" remark was not an accidental misstatement but an expression of what Romney really believes. If Romney "always says what he means" just like Biden does, then does that mean none of Biden's gaffes -- such as falsely claiming to have graduated with three degrees in the top half of his class -- are accidental misstatements? As is usually the case with gaffes in politics, you forgive the gaffes on your own side as just innocent tongue-twisting, while brandishing the gaffes of your opponents as evidence of their evil or stupidity.

***

BIDEN: "Look, I don’t doubt [Romney's] personal generosity. … I don’t doubt his personal commitment to individuals. But you know what? I know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. He just -- he said, let it go bankrupt, period. Let it drop out. … And I’ve never met two guys who’re more down on America across the board. We’re told everything’s going bad. … Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility."

Comment: Biden is demonizing Romney and Ryan, saying that their failure to support the bailout of GM and Chrysler shows that they don't care about people, and that their criticism of Obama's handling of the economy is the result of not liking America (i.e., "rooting for failure"?). This is unfair. Obama and Biden chose not to bail out many companies and industries, does that prove that they don't care about the people who worked in them? Or is it just that they thought that the money would better serve people by being used for something else? Couldn't we characterize Romney and Ryan's opposition to the GM-Chrysler bailouts the same way? And criticizing Obama's economic record doesn't amount to "being down on America" any more than Biden was "down on America" when he was criticizing President George W. Bush's record on the economy or on Iraq. Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan don't differ because the former care about people while the latter don't (though Biden might like to caricature the disagreement that way); they differ because they disagree about what policies are more effective at doing what's best for people.

***

RYAN: "And then they put this new Obamacare board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. This board, by the way, it’s 15 people, the president’s supposed to appoint them next year. And not one of them even has to have medical training. And Social Security? If we don’t shore up Social Security, when we run out of the IOUs, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors in the middle of their retirement. We’re going to stop that from happening. They haven’t put a credible solution on the table. He’ll tell you about vouchers. He’ll say all these things to try and scare people."

Comment: Ryan is accusing Obama and Biden of appealing to fear, which is unfair because it's only false appeals to fear that are unacceptable. Of course politicians are going to try to posit things that voters should be afraid of. In fact, that's exactly what Ryan does when he mentions the Medicare board that makes decisions about medical care for seniors and says that Social Security is in fiscal trouble: he's saying that there are things voters should fear, and that people should therefore vote for him and Romney in order to avoid those fearful things. Now, if Ryan believes he's positing genuine fears while Obama and Biden are positing spurious ones, then he should defend that claim. But he can't fault Biden for "trying to scare people" when all politicians -- including Ryan himself -- do so legitimately.

***

BIDEN: "You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems every vice presidential debate I hear this kind of stuff about panels."

Comment: First, Ryan didn't say anything about "death panels", he simply said that the Medicare board (that is, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, AKA IPAB) would "lead to denied care". So Biden is distorting Ryan's remarks. Second, Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) engaged in a vice presidential debate with Biden on October 2, 2008, months before she made her "death panels" comment on August 7, 2009.

***

RYAN: "Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other."

Comment: Ryan is correct that Biden interrupted him a lot, and laughed dismissively and derisively, as if what Ryan was saying were so unserious as to be worthy of nothing more than laughter. Though the "duress" part or Ryan's rebuke was unnecessary, he was right to chastise Biden.

***

RYAN: "This is a plan that’s bipartisan. It’s a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon."
BIDEN: "There’s not one Democrat who endorses it."

Comment: Ryan is indulging in "bipartisan" rhetoric, here, which poses several problems. First, though Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) did collaborate with Ryan to craft a plan for Medicare, Wyden doesn't support the current plan proposed by the Romney-Ryan ticket. Second, even if Wyden did support it, that's only one Democrat. Is that really sufficient to call it "bipartisan"? Third, who cares if a plan is bipartisan? Being bipartisan is no guarantee that something is a good idea.

***

RADDATZ: "Vice President Biden, let me ask you, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years, as Congressman Ryan suggests?"
BIDEN: "Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983. I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O’Neill negotiating with President Reagan. We all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody’s in the deal, everybody’s in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way. We made the system solvent to 2033. We will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating -- the voucher says, “Mom, when you’re -- when you’re 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. You’re out of Medicare.” You can buy back in if you want with this voucher, which will not keep pace -- will not keep pace with health care costs. Because if it did keep pace with health care costs, there would be no savings. That’s why they go the voucher. They -- we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of Social Security."

Comment: Biden doesn't really answer the question about raising Medicare eligibility. He just says he's OK with some compromise, without saying whether he'd be OK with a compromise involving an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility.

***

BIDEN: "[W]e are arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, $800 million -- billion of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 million. We see no justification in these economic times for those, and they’re patriotic Americans. They’re not asking for this continued tax cut."

Comment: This is "Americans want" rhetoric. How does Biden know that absolutely no high income people want this tax cut continued? And Biden suggests that it would be unpatriotic if they did ask for the tax cut to be continued. Is it fair to question the patriotism of someone who wants a tax cut?

***

RADDATZ: "You have refused -- and, again -- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut [proposed by Romney-Ryan]. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?"
RYAN: "Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. … look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is, here’s our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation … so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is, here’s the framework … We want to work with Congress -- we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this."

Comment: Ryan avoids answering the question. He indulges in "bipartisan" rhetoric, while laying out a framework for what his side wants done. But whether that framework can be accomplished depends on details -- for instance, which loopholes and deductions get eliminated. If he's not going to provide those details, he needs to give a good reason for not doing so.

***

RYAN: "Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, where 87 percent of the legislators he served, which were Democrats. He didn’t demonize them. He didn’t demagogue them. He met with those party leaders every week. He reached across the aisle. He didn’t compromise principles."

Comment: Ryan is making the point that -- contrary to Romney -- Obama and Democrats demonize and demagogue. But this is the "only my opponent does it" caricature. Romney has definitely demonized his opponents in this presidential campaign (as have Obama and Biden), and -- though I don't have any documented instances -- I would be surprised if he didn't do so as well during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007.

***

RADDATZ: "Mr. Vice President, what would you suggest -- what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy, that would substantially reduce the long-term deficit?"
BIDEN: "Just let the taxes expire like they’re supposed to on those millionaires. We don’t -- we can’t afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it, Martha. Those 120,000 families make $8 million a year."

Comment: Biden doesn't answer the question. He doesn't suggest anything "beyond raising taxes on the wealthy", he instead just reiterates that tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire.

***

RYAN: "The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme."

Comment: First, it's not clear that Biden sympathized with China's "one child" policy, though he certainly didn't take the opportunity to criticize it. That, arguably, is a failure to defy injustice. Second, this is "extremism" rhetoric. Rather than extreme, why can't Ryan just say Biden is wrong?

***

RADDATZ: "I recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. He told me, quote, “the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country.” What would you say to that American hero about this campaign? And at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? Vice President Biden?"
BIDEN: "I would say to him the same thing I say to my son who did serve a year in Iraq, that we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. That’s to equip those we send into harm’s way and care for those who come home. That’s the only sacred obligation we have. Everything else falls behind that. … I would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and occur in every campaign that I’m sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these -- these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves, who say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. It’s -- it’s an abomination. … But there are things that have been said in campaigns that I -- I find not very appealing."
…
RYAN: "First of all, I’d thank him to his service to our country. Second of all, I’d say we are not going to impose these devastating cuts on our military which compromises their mission and their safety. And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change, who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame. You see, if you don’t have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. That was what President Obama said in 2008. It’s what he’s doing right now. … And what do we have from the president? He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country’s biggest problems. And what I would tell him is we don’t have to settle for this."

Comment: Neither candidate makes any mention of standing up to the name-calling coming from their own party. Biden laments some misbehavior, but won't identify any specific instances. Ryan only criticizes the misbehavior of his opponents. Neither candidate is willing to criticize their own side, leaving us with the impression that it's mostly their opponents who are guilty. Raddatz, too, said little or nothing during the debate to rebuke the name-calling or unproductive rhetoric coming from Biden and Ryan.

Civility Watchdog: October 3rd Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Denver, CO

Following are excerpts from the presidential debate [White House Transcript, RCP Transcript, CNN Transcript] between President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) at the University of Denver on October 3, 2012, hosted and moderated by Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour:

ROMNEY: "I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."

Comment: Romney sounds like he's accusing Obama's campaign of engaging in the "big lie" tactic. (He also sounds like he's accusing his sons of using it, too!)

***

OBAMA: "If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for -- $7 trillion -- just to give you a sense, over 10 years, that’s more than our entire defense budget -- and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney’s plan may work for you. But I think math, common sense, and our history shows us that’s not a recipe for job growth. Look, we’ve tried this -- we’ve tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney is talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. And we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years. We ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Bill Clinton tried the approach that I’m talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well. So in some ways we’ve got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans."

Comment: This is very poor reasoning. In particular, it's faulty reasoning of the "false causation" variety. For Obama is stating that there was good job growth during the Clinton presidency (1993-2000) and poor job growth during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001-2008). Then Obama notes that different policies were enacted by Clinton and Bush, and concludes that the different rates of job growth occurred because of the different policies. But this argument is only valid if the only difference between these two time periods was the different economic policies. But, of course, there are lots of other things -- economic decisions and states of affairs overseas, for one thing -- that could have contributed to the different rates of job growth. (And, during the Clinton presidency, a Republican Congress influenced economic policy from 1995 onward.) Economics is a social science, and it's very complicated. Obama's argument (an argument that Clinton himself has made) is very simplistic. It's as if someone were to point out that Democrats were voted control of Congress in 2006, took office in 2007, and the economy went sour in 2008, and therefore conclude that Democrats therefore caused the downturn. To draw the sort of conclusion Obama wants to draw you really need experimental data, not historical data. And that's hard to come by in economics.

***

ROMNEY: "And we talk about evidence. Look at the evidence of the last four years. It’s absolutely extraordinary. We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country. It’s just -- we’ve got -- when the President took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today; economic growth this year slower than last year; and last year slower than the year before. Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today."

Comment: Romney is making the "failed policies" assertion against Obama. But he's using "false causation" reasoning -- the same sort of faulty, simplistic argument Obama is using to dismiss Romney's economic policies. Would a different set of policies have yielded better results than Obama's? Again, experimental data would resolve the issue, but that's the kind of data that's hard to get in economics.

***

OBAMA: "I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare, and then talk about Medicare because that’s the big driver of our deficits right now. My grandmother, some of you know, helped to raise me -- my grandparents did. My grandfather died a while back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected President. And she was fiercely independent. … And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. And that’s the perspective I bring when I think about what’s called entitlements. The name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother, and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this. So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term."

Comment: Obama speaks as if there's a disagreement about values rather than methods. Romney and Obama agree that their should be a government system that helps out the elderly. They differ on how it should work -- e.g., whether we should have a single-payer system that pays for health care for the elderly or a voucher / premium support system that helps them purchase health insurance. The question is an empirical one about what system works better at attaining something we value (i.e., health care for the elderly). But Obama seems to be implying that Romney doesn't share the value at all, an implication that amounts to derisive name-calling.

***

ROMNEY: "You put $90 billion into green jobs. And, look, I’m all in favor of green energy. Ninety billion -- that would have hired two million teachers. Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them -- of the ones that have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happen to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns."

Comment: Romney notes that green energy businesses that got government money were people who donated money to Obama's campaign. Romney doesn't say it, but the implication is that something illicit occurred, where Obama rewarded campaign donors with government investment money. If Romney has evidence that this is what happened, he should say so, rather than making an unsubstantiated accusation of wrongdoing (which amounts to demonizing).

***

LEHRER: "And so I want to ask, finally here -- and remember, we’ve got three minutes total time here. And the question is this: Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected, in your case -- if reelected, in your case -- what would you do about that? Governor?"
…
ROMNEY: "As President, I will sit down on day one -- actually, the day after I get elected, I'll sit down with leaders, the Democrat leaders as well as Republican leaders, as we did in my state -- we met every Monday for a couple of hours, talked about the issues and the challenges in our state, in that case. We have to work on a collaborative basis, not because we're going to compromise our principles, but because there's common ground. … And Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need to have leadership -- leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done, and could not care less if it's a Republican or a Democrat. I've done it before. I'll do it again."
…
OBAMA: "Well, first of all, I think Governor Romney is going to have a busy first day, because he's also going to repeal Obamacare, which will not be very popular among Democrats as you're sitting down with them. But, look, my philosophy has been I will take ideas from everybody -- Democrat or Republican -- as long as they're advancing the cause of making middle-class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. … And so part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you are for, but also being willing to say no to some things. And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party."

Comment: Romney offers "unify the country" rhetoric without giving much in the way of specifics about how he'd unify people. Obama makes a good point that, by repealing Obamacare, Romney would be upsetting the supporters of that health care reform and making it difficult for him to unify the country. (Though, the same could be said to Obama: how does he intend to unify the country by keeping Obamacare in place, given that it is unpopular with many Americans?) Obama also indulges in "extremism" rhetoric. Neither candidate says that he will refrain from calling his opponents names and will chastise his own supporters and members of his own party if they resort to name-calling.

Analysis: October 15th Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama in New York

Following are excerpts of the presidential debate [CNN Transcript, RCP Transcript, October 15, 2008] between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) at Hofstra University, hosted and moderated by by Bob Schieffer of CBS:

SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things. Senator Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs. I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?

Comment: McCain doesn't answer this question. He never makes any clear attempt to compare his own plan to Obama's. He only discusses the details of his own plan.

***

MCCAIN: You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around. The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around.

Comment: McCain is referring to a conversation Obama had with Ohio resident Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on October 11, 2008, regarding how Obama's tax plan would affect Wurzelbacher [YouTube: 'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate; LiveLeak: Complete 'Joe the Plumber' conversation without Fox News commentary]. In that conversation, Obama defended his plan to raise federal income taxes on those with incomes above $250,000 in order to pay for the lowering of taxes on those with lower incomes, saying:

I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

McCain doesn't spell out what he means when he describes Obama's tax policy as "class warfare", so it's difficult to evaluate his assertion. It's not clear whether McCain is caricaturing Obama's policy or exaggerating its consequences or engaging in name-calling or class-based identity politics, but the allusion to warfare is inappropriate.

There is a legitimate point of debate, here, regarding tax policy: should tax policy be more responsive to considerations of need -- that is, should tax rates be based on how much money people need to keep for themselves or receive from the government -- or should tax policy be more responsive to considerations of merit -- that is, should tax rates be based on how much people have worked, produced, and earned?

Obama and other Democrats often want to adjust taxes and spending programs on the basis of need, saying that more money or aid should be given to the poor, who are in need. This money and aid, they say, should come from the wealthy, who -- being rich -- have money and resources to spare.

McCain and other Republicans often want to adjust taxes and spending programs on the basis of merit, saying that taxes should be lowered so that people can keep more of the money they have earned by working. They also advocate that people work in order to gain more income, rather than receiving aid from the government for free.

In practice, our tax and spending policies are responsive to both need and merit to varying degrees. But there is an ongoing debate about whether (and in what way) they should be more responsive to need, or more responsive to merit. In other words, there is an ongoing debate as to whether need or merit should win out in thousands (or even millions) of aspects of our tax and spending policies.

McCain's "class warfare" accusation does nothing to help people understand this moral conflict in general, or to understand McCain's own stance on it and his appeal to merit. It only serves to make people think the worst about his opponents, to make them think that his opponents are inciting warfare between the classes.

(Obama does much the same thing with his frequent description of Republican tax and spending policies as "Social Darwinism" [AP: Obama Accuses Bush of 'Social Darwinism' (March 27, 2007); AFL-CIO National Convention (July 25, 2005); and Commencement Address: Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois (June 4, 2005). As with McCain, Obama's "Social Darwinism" accusation does nothing to help people understand this moral conflict in general, or to understand Obama's own stance on it and his appeal to need. It only serves to make people think the worst about his opponents, to make them think that his opponents are encouraging everyone to leave the needy for dead.)

***

OBAMA: Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.

Comment: Obama is using offering up a "silver bullet" caricature of McCain's position on spending. Yes, McCain has opposed earmarks, but he has never said that simply eliminating earmarks will be enough to reform the federal budget. Obama is distorting McCain's position by implying that McCain believes that eliminating earmarks is a "silver bullet" that will fix the budget.

***

MCCAIN: I have fought against spending. I have fought against special interests. I have fought for reform. You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.

Comment: In praising himself for fighting them, McCain is deriding special interests. But why are they bad? What's wrong with special interests? McCain needs to spell this out.

Similarly, McCain is criticizing Obama for not showing independence from his party, the Democrats. (McCain prides himself in occasionally standing against his own party, the Republicans.) But what is the value of being independent of your own party, of being a "maverick"? It's only good to be independent of your party when your party is wrong. If your party is right, then you should stick with it; if your party is wrong, you shouldn't. Before he can criticize Obama for not going against the Democrats, McCain must identify what issue Democrats are wrong on that it would make it worthwhile to be independent of them.

An additional point: given that being a maverick is only a good thing if you're supporting a worthy cause, those who oppose their party on a regular basis should ask themselves if they're in the right party to begin with.

That is, if you're frequently justified in being a maverick and in being independent of your party, doesn't that mean that your party is frequently wrong?

***

OBAMA: I've got a history of reaching across the aisle.

Comment: The same principles apply here as to McCain's insistence that he is a maverick. Being bipartisan is -- in and of itself -- no more good or bad than being a maverick. If being bipartisan achieves something good, that's good. If it doesn't, then that's not good. Obama must identify what issue Democrats and Republicans are right about that it would make it worthwhile to be bipartisan.

***

OBAMA: Now with respect to a couple of things Senator McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making. Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.

Comment: So, McCain has criticized Obama for voting for a tax increase, and Obama is trying to refute the criticism. And he is doing it by arguing that even some of his opponents -- FOX News, in this case -- dismiss the criticism McCain is making.

In other words, Obama is committing the "even my opponents agree" fallacy. Just because your opponent supports the same position you do doesn't somehow give that position extra credibility. Or -- to apply the principle to this particular circumstance -- just because FOX News agrees with Obama on a position doesn't make that position more believable.

To convince us that McCain's criticism is baseless, Obama needs to do more than just say that one of his opponents also believes that it's baseless. He needs to go into the substance of the criticism itself. He needs to give evidence that the claim is false, which he doesn't do.

***

OBAMA: Now, you've shown independence -- commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked. And I think the American people understand it hasn't worked. We need to move in a new direction.

Comment: There's a few things going on, here.

First, Obama is praising McCain for being independent of his party (that is, for being a maverick). However, (like McCain) he fails to explain why being a maverick is good.

Second, as he did in the September 26th debate and the October 7th debate, Obama is making the "failed policies" accusation against President George W. Bush and McCain (and, yet again, against Republicans more generally), but without going into the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation.

Lastly, Obama is making a claim on behalf of the American people, but without providing any evidence. He says the American people believe Bush's policies have failed: does that mean ALL the American people believe this, just SOME, or a MAJORITY? He doesn't specify which. If he is saying that all or the majority of the American people believe this, he needs to provide evidence.

***

MCCAIN: But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it. Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate. ... Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to the leadership of your party isn't very convincing.

Comment: Again, McCain praises his own independence from the Republican Party while deriding Obama for not being independent enough from the Democratic Party. But, once more, he doesn't explain why independence and being a maverick is necessarily a good thing.

***

SCHIEFFER: Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Senator McCain. Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists." Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

MCCAIN: ... I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different. And the fact is, it's gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable. One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate. So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.

OBAMA: ... Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that, if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people -- Bob, your network just did a poll, showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Senator McCain is running a negative campaign versus one-third of mine. And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.

Comment: McCain expresses the wish that the electoral debate had been conducted according to a higher standard on both sides, but he doesn't give a clear idea of what standard he is espousing, or why it is superior.

McCain also doesn't specify how his own campaign has failed to live up to that standard. But he DOES note a failure on the side of his opponent: a statement made October 11, 2008, by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA):

"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."
* Rep. John Lewis Responds to Increasing Hostility of McCain-Palin Campaign (October 11, 2008)
* AP: Congressman says McCain 'sowing seeds of hatred' (October 11, 2008)
* CNN: Rep. Lewis clarifies controversial remarks about McCain, Palin (October 12, 2008)

McCain is right to criticize Lewis for his remarks, and he is right to insist that it is the sort of thing that everyone -- Lewis' opponents and allies, including Obama -- should condemn. Lewis' accusation -- that McCain and his running mate -- Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) -- are inciting violence on a par with the incitements of Wallace -- is baseless. Both sides have sought to encourage us to believe the worst about their opponents.

McCain goes on to insist that he has "repudiated" every "out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican". This would be laudable if it were true, but it isn't true. During both the Republican primary and the general election, Republicans have made several unfair remarks about Democrats, and McCain hasn't even come close to repudiating all of them. In fact, many of the unfair remarks about Democrats have been made by McCain himself, and he has neither repudiated nor disowned them. So, while McCain is correct that setting a higher standard of political debate involves (among other things) repudiating the misbehavior of your allies as well as your opponents, he's wrong when he says that he's lived up to that standard.

After pledging to run an "honest campaign", McCain then goes on to accuse Obama of paying for political ads that engage in "negative politics". (McCain admits that he's doing the same thing, but insists that Obama is spending MORE money doing so.) But he doesn't specify precisely what is negative about Obama's ads (or about his own, for that matter). In the same way that he doesn't spell out what counts as setting a higher standard of debate, he also doesn't spell out what counts as going "negative".

For his part, Obama claims that McCain is going negative, but he ALSO doesn't specify what standard of "negative politics" he is employing.

Obama cites an opinion poll [NY Times: Poll Says McCain Is Hurting His Bid by Using Attacks (October 14, 2008); PDF of results] that says twice as many people believe McCain is running a negative campaign as believe that Obama is. But, as is so often the problem with opinion polls, the respondents aren't asked to justify their opinion, only to report it.

In what sense do the poll's respondents believe that McCain is "attacking" Obama? How do they justify the belief that those attacks are unfair, rather than being legitimate criticism? The poll questions -- and, therefore, the respondents -- don't go into any of those details.

So the poll Obama cites merely reports opinions without investigating how or whether those opinions are justified. As such, Obama can't use the poll to support the assertion that McCain is "going negative".

***

OBAMA: But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we're not talking about issues.

Comment: Obama is referring to the accusation -- made by Palin -- that he was "palling around with terrorists" by associating with Bill Ayers. (Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group active in the 1970s.) [CS Monitor: Palin: Obama “palling around with terrorists” (October 5, 2008); YouTube: Palin accuses Obama of "Palling Around With Terrorist"]

I take it that, with this statement, Obama is denying that there is any truth to the claim that he is friendly with terrorists. Unfortunately, his statement -- taken literally -- doesn't express that point.

Taken literally, it sounds like he's saying that whether a presidential candidate is friendly with terrorists is not a legitimate issue, which is, of course, false. If a presidential candidate were on friendly terms with a terrorist, most voters would justifiably want to take that into account.

This error, though, can be overlooked by giving Obama's statement a charitable interpretation, and assuming that he simply chose the wrong words to express himself.

***

MCCAIN: The point is that I have repudiated every time someone's been out of line, whether they've been part of my campaign or not, and I will continue to do that.

Comment: As I noted above, this is false. It's an admirable standard to uphold, but McCain has not lived up to it, despite saying that he has.

He himself has made several "out of line" comments: for instance, his July 22, 2008, assertion that "Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign" [The Civil Debate Page: McCain Says Obama Would "Rather Lose a War in Order To Win a Political Campaign"].

And he put up an inadequate protest when a woman attending one of his own campaign events on November 12, 2007, referred to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "the bitch". [The Civil Debate Page: 2007; YouTube: "How Do We Beat the Bitch" Extended Version; NY Times: Pointed Question Puts McCain in a Tight Spot (November 14, 2007)]

Again, while it's nice when people support this higher standard in the abstract, it would be better if they lived up to it in actual circumstances. McCain hasn't.

***

OBAMA: What I think is most important is that we recognize that to solve the key problems that we're facing, if we're going to solve two wars, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, if we can -- if we're going to focus on lifting wages that have declined over the last eight years and create jobs here in America, then Democrats, independents and Republicans, we're going to have to be able to work together. And what is important is making sure that we disagree without being disagreeable. And it means that we can have tough, vigorous debates around issues. What we can't do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad people. And that has been a culture in Washington that has been taking place for too long.

Comment: Obama makes a call to unify the country and be bipartisan, as well as to set a higher standard of political debate.

But he doesn't specify what kind of unity is achievable or desirable, as is typical of politicians who call for the country to be united.

Moreover, just like McCain, he supports setting a higher standard of debate in the abstract but has failed to live up to it in practice. For instance, he has repeatedly demonized and caricatured his opponents as "Social Darwinists".

And, like McCain, he has stood silent as his allies have been "disagreeable".

***

SCHIEFFER: So I'll begin by asking both of you this question, and I'll ask you to answer first, Senator Obama. Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?

Comment: Neither candidate actually compares the vice presidential nominees -- Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Palin -- as Schieffer's question demands. Instead, McCain and Obama just praise their own running mates, respectively, which is not sufficient in order to judge which running mate is better.

In other words, this is yet another question that neither candidate answers.

***

OBAMA: After eight years of failed policies, he and I both agree that what we're going to have to do is to reprioritize.

Comment: Obama again makes the "failed policies" accusation against McCain and President Bush. But, again, Obama does not provide the detail necessary to substantiate such an accusation.

***

SCHIEFFER: [Referring to McCain's running mate, Palin] Do you think she's qualified to be president?

OBAMA: You know, I think it's -- that's going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she's a capable politician who has, I think, excited the -- a base in the Republican Party.

Comment: Instead of answering the question, Obama employs the "not my decision" evasion.

To illustrate how Obama is avoiding the question, consider this: it's up to the American people to decide whether Obama or McCain's policies on Iraq, health care, taxes and everything else is better. Does that mean Obama can't (or won't) give his OWN opinion on any of that?

Of course not. Obama regularly gives his opinion on matters that the American people ultimately decide on, so there's no reason he can't also give his opinion on whether Palin is qualified to be president.

***

SCHIEFFER: Do you think Senator Biden is qualified?

MCCAIN: I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects.

Comment: It's not clear that McCain answers Schieffer's question regarding whether Biden is qualified to be president. Is McCain saying that Biden IS qualified to be president, and that there are many reasons he is? Or is he saying that Biden is qualified in some respects to be president, but not in others, and so is therefore NOT qualified overall?

McCain's statement is ambiguous. Unfortunately, he didn't clarify it, nor did Schieffer or Obama ask him to do so.

***

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about energy and climate control. Every president since Nixon has said what both of you ... climate change, yes -- has said what both of you have said, and, that is, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. When Nixon said it, we imported from 17 to 34 percent of our foreign oil. Now, we're importing more than 60 percent. Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?

Comment: Neither McCain nor Obama answers Sshieffer's question, which concerned how much oil imports could be reduced in ONE TERM (in other words, in four years).

McCain offers suggestions for ways to reduce oil imports, but some of them (for instance, building 45 nuclear plants) can't feasibly be accomplished in four years. And Obama chose to speak about reductions over a 10-year period.

So, both candidates evaded the question. And Schieffer didn't call them on it.

***

OBAMA: I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement.

Comment: This is a caricature. If Obama wants to say that Bush and McCain have supported trade deals that should not have been supported, then he should say so and defend his assertion. But to say that Bush and McCain have the attitude that "any trade agreement is a good trade agreement" is false. It is a distortion which serves to deride Bush and McCain.

***

MCCAIN: So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid. Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

Comment: First, McCain derides Obama as being ignorant when he says the trade agreement is a "no-brainer". Contrary to how McCain describes it, the right judgment on the trade deal ISN'T obvious.

As with most political issues, there are several different moral considerations that are in competition with one another. In this case, there are the potential economic benefits and harms that could result to the U.S. and Colombia that are involved in any trade deal. In addition, there are issues of whether the Colombian government is doing enough to protect labor leaders from violence: if not, then there is the further question of whether a trade deal with Colombia would make us implicitly supportive and complicit in that failure. It is NOT obvious how all these considerations add up. Contrary to McCain's assertion, there is certainly room for reasonable disagreement.

Second, McCain's admonition to Obama to "travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better" seems like a fallacious argument.

Is McCain arguing that, because he's been to Colombia and Obama hasn't, therefore he is right about the trade deal with Colombia and Obama is wrong? If so, then he is making an argument from authority, which is flawed reasoning. After all, there are people who, like McCain, have been to Colombia, but who oppose the trade agreement. Since both sides can't be right, the argument that "whoever went to Colombia is right about the trade deal" is clearly fallacious.

If McCain isn't making that argument, however, then it's not clear what point he IS trying to make.

***

SCHIEFFER: All right, let's go to a new topic, health care. Given the current economic situation, would either of you now favor controlling health care costs over expanding health care coverage?

Comment: Neither McCain nor Obama clearly answers the question.

Obama says "we've got to do both", but doesn't say which he would give priority to, which is what the question asked.

While McCain says "it really is the cost, the escalating costs of health care that are inflicting such pain on working families and people across this country", he doesn't clearly state whether he would choose to control costs over expanding health care coverage.

***

OBAMA: Very briefly. You all just heard my plan. If you've got an employer-based health care plan, you keep it. Now, under Senator McCain's plan there is a strong risk that people would lose their employer-based health care. That's the choice you'll have is having your employer no longer provide you health care. And don't take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which generally doesn't support a lot of Democrats, said that this plan could lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system.

Comment: Again, Obama uses the "even my opponents agree" fallacy, this time in attempting to criticize McCain's health care plan. Just because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which often opposes Obama -- agrees with Obama on health care doesn't mean that Obama must be correct on health care. It's not as if it would be impossible for both Obama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to be wrong about something.

***

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?

Comment: McCain and Obama each talked about how they wouldn't impose a "litmus test", but neither of them clearly stated whether they would nominate someone who disagreed with them on Roe v. Wade.

***

OBAMA: And I also have to disagree on Senator McCain's record when it comes to college accessibility and affordability. Recently his key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along. I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future.

Comment: Obama objects to the McCain campaign calling college students "interest groups", which I take to mean the same as "special interests". Obama does nothing to explain, however, what an "interest group" is, why they are bad, and why college students shouldn't be considered to be one.

Obama himself -- along with lots of other politicians, including McCain -- frequently criticizes special interest groups, but without defining what they are or defending his negative opinion of them. Without this information, on what basis are we to agree with Obama (and the McCain campaign) that special interests are bad? And how are we to assess Obama's claim that college students AREN'T a special interest group?

***

MCCAIN: I have a record of reform, and taking on my party, the other party, the special interests, whether it be an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights, or trying to clean up the campaign finance system in -- in this country, or whether it be establishment of a 9/11 Commission, I have a long record of it.

Comment: McCain praises his own defiance of special interests, but without explaining why that's a good thing.

Also, McCain again touts his status as a maverick, but without explaining why THAT'S a good thing, either.

***

OBAMA: The policies of the last eight years and -- and Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And that's why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.

Comment: Again, Obama accuses McCain and Bush of "failed policies", but does nothing to substantiate the accusation.