Wednesday’s presidential debate is going to be interesting, considering the fact that John McCain ranks lower in the polls and also that Barack Obama probably won the first two debates if only by a narrow margin.
Employing the same psychic powers I used for the vice presidential debate, I will now predict what will happen when Obama and McCain go at it at Hofstra University.
McCain is probably going to lose. I say this not because I am particularly against McCain. McCain has tackled some worthy causes I support. However, he has failed in two areas of the debates that will prove difficult for him to compete in during Wednesday’s debate. These two issues are foreign policy and the economy.
In the last three weeks of debate, the issue of whether to have talks without preconditions was resurrected. This issue, I believe, underscores the larger disagreements between McCain and Obama on foreign policy.
In both debates, which touched upon talks with Iran, McCain asserted his philosophy to the effect of: “Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be preconditions. Those preconditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize … a person like Ahmadinejad.”
Obama’s message seems a little more diplomatic.
“I reserve the right, as president of the United States, to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe,” Obama said in the second debate.
I fear that if the United States keeps driving down the same road paved by George W. Bush and a number of conservatives concerning relations with Iran, panic and fear will ensue in both countries, and we will potentially enter another devastating war that could be the death of America diplomatically and economically.
I don’t understand why McCain places so much importance on preconditions. When this issue comes up, I think of Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter, who went out of his way to broker a deal between Egypt and Israel in 1978 with the Camp David Accords. At times, the only things that kept Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the negotiations at Camp David were personal appeals from then-U.S. President Carter. It was one of the most successful achievements of Carter’s presidential tenure, but such a feat probably would have been impossible for someone like McCain or Bush.
In fact, Carter recently joined other advocates to urge Bush to lift the negotiations precondition that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program.
McCain’s fiery views on foreign policy are tied to the economy. As I said in my last article, the Iraq war alone costs around $3 trillion, according to professors Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz.
Furthermore, McCain has yet to offer a very concrete, distinguished economic plan. He jumped all over the place on this issue during the second debate, while Obama held a trump card with his promise not to raise taxes for 95 percent of Americans. While Obama’s plans are not perfect, at least he has some. McCain pretends he is going to promote free markets and deregulate the economy, even though, like Obama, he voted for the bailout of Wall Street.
In closing, I realize my critique of the debates are biased and based on my own political opinions. That’s how I decide the winners and losers of debates. Unlike CNN analysts, I don’t care about who looked the best or employed the most savvy debate strategies.
Matt Watson is the opinion editor of The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected].