How McCain Blew it Big Time

After watching clips of last night's debate I walked away with the impression that there is so much that John McCain could have done to KO Obama but didn't. McCain's debate errors allowed Obama to go unchecked in both parts of the debate and actually lead to Obama winning the first part on economics. Here's what I saw that would have KO'd Obama and might have actually lead to a shift in the current momentum in the campaign in Obama's favor.

1. It's clear from in speeches and campaign documentation that Obama truly believes in Keynsian economics. Keynsian economics was the central economic strategy in this country for the better part of the 20th century. In Keynsian economics, the government uses fiscal policy (taxation) to shape social policy. At it's worst, it led to the tax code having too many tax brackets and also led to it's main premise, heavy taxation on the wealthy who could afford it, being undermined because the middle class actually ended up paying most of the taxes.

What McCain should have done is remind people that this was the key economic strategy in the Carter years. Then remind people that Obama was either in Indonesia or a stoned HS student living in Hawaii during those years (crude but effective to remind people that he was not paying attention and want's to relive what most believe was a total and complete failure). Next, remind Obama that the purpose of taxation is to fund the government not to create an elusive social equity. The payoff would be in reminding Obama Keynsian economics lead to the wealthy using their wealth to find tax loop holes to avoid taxation which lowers tax revenues and ends up causing the middle class, who cannot afford accountants and have few loopholes, to make up the lost revenue. Finally, remind Obama what happened in the transition from Carter to Reagan when taxes were cut and the code simplified - revenues to the government went up because there was no need to avoid or fear taxation. This was the policy of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and will be for McCain.

2. Obama loves to state after the fact facts when discussin both Iraq and Afghanistan. On Iraq, he forgets that Bush did not invade Iraq without the consent of Congress. In Congress, the vote was not a majority but closer to a Super Majority (2/3 vote) in favor. This then makes the discussion about intelligence and forces Obama to make wild, left wing Daily Kos/Move On.org claims about Dick Cheney's scheme to skew the intelligence in an effort to get Halliburton more government contracts even though he was long gone and divested. This is a better playing field then letting Obama appear that he has a knack for foreign policy and was somehow a visionary when in fact he's far from it.

On Afghanistan, Obama seems to think that the Taliban are back in force and have been allowed back because of some US inaction. Obama needs a history lesson on Afghanistan. For years, the effort there worked just fine. The Taliban were at bay and the country was on a path to move forward. Then two things happened. First, Nato forces arrived to assist in rebuilding the country. Then the tactics used in Iraq were being used by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The former was a problem because some of the Nato forces would not engage in combat (Germans I'm talking about you). That and the new Iraq tactics led to more success by the enemy and an emboldened enemy. Reminding Obama of these facts under cut his theory and put him into a box. He's not willing to act unilaterally. He also believes that other allies have the same level if interest in doing something that we do which is simply not the case. If he's disproven in Afghanistan then it makes his whole foreign policy strategy look Carterish which it is.

Fortunately, McCain has two more chances to make Obama's strengths his weakeness, which indeed they are. He also has the opportunity to do the same with ads but has yet to do so. Which is why McCain is trailing in national and electoral map polls and is looking to be a loser in November.