Lincoln Blog

October 08, 2008:

The big loser in last night's Presidential debate: free market economics.

John McCain popped the cork on a massive new social welfare program, proposing to spend $300 billion to buy up the mortgages of people who were irresponsible enough to take out loans they could not repay. Added to the recent Wall Street bail-out (yes, John, it is a bail-out and not a "rescue plan" as you tried to spin it), and the cost of dealing with the economic crisis will top a staggering $1 trillion.

Throughout the debates and on the campaign trail Senator McCain has attacked Barack Obama for participating in the reprehensible Congressional practice of earmarking - which is essentially grabbing as much pork as possible. McCain pegs the cost of the earmarking practice at $18 billion per year. He says that is too much money and taxpayers cannot afford it. He is right. But, then he turns around and proposes adding $300 billion in new spending.

The conservative base of the Republican Party has never fully trusted John McCain. His selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin reassured and energized conservatives, but McCain's performance during the economic crisis has caused a resurgence of alarm among the ranks of those who still believe in free market economics.

First, McCain should never have voted for the bail-out bill. It was a giant step down the road to turning America into an economically socialist nation. McCain did not put "country first," he put Wall Street first. As if that weren't bad enough, now he proposes a massive new social welfare program.

McCain needed to score big against Obama last night, and he failed. This despite the fact he had numerous opportunities to draw distinctions between himself and Barack Obama. Obama continues to assail free markets saying the Republican propensity for deregulation is responsible for the current economic crisis. The fact is there has been more, not less regulation from Washington - including Congressional micro-managing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and social engineering policies requiring banks to give mortgage loans to people who did not meet the traditional qualification standards for such loans. McCain never pointed that out, nor did he mount a defense of lessening regulation on American business.

And, on foreign affairs, McCain fumbled the ball. Here was a golden opportunity for McCain to point out that Obama was not ready to lead - and those words never escaped his lips. Rather, McCain stepped into a trap allowing Obama to ridicule him for his "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" aside in the primary.

The fact is, McCain never developed a theme, never drove home his key points, and meandered aimlessly around the set while Obama appear calm, cool and focused. All of which is an apt metaphor for the state of the campaign.

By abandoning his party's traditional conservative principles McCain is playing the entire game on Obama's home field. And as any sports fan will tell you, it is always harder to win an away game.

Give Us Your Feedback!