Instead, good debate questions ought to be clear, concise, and on predictable topics. They ought to be designed to point out differences, especially subtle differences, between the candidates; any question in which both candidates merely answer “yes” is a bad question. At the same time, if a candidate claims a difference that is much greater than reality (”I supported X and my opponent did not”), the moderator ought to make sure that his opponent is given a chance to clarify. A moderator should not let the viewers leave believing that there is agreement when there is actually disagreement (or vice versa), nor should the moderator allow a candidate to bring up a topic without giving their opponent time to respond to that topic. A moderator’s job can be extremely difficult, but also extremely important.

Thus far in the general election season, we’ve had two debates (one presidential and one vice presidential) and two different moderators. In the first debate, Jim Lehrer took a hands-off approach to moderating. Lehrer asked only eight questions the entire night: Three questions on the financial crisis, and then “discuss” questions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and the likelihood of another 9/11-type terrorist attack. He was assisted by two candidates who wanted to engage with each other on those particular issues. And yet, Lehrer did a very good job. The questions themselves were succinct. Lehrer managed the time aspect well, despite a lot of back-and-forth between the candidates. The topics were both predictable and extremely relevant. And most importantly, a voter could have walked away from that debate with a good understanding of how the candidates differed in their approach to the economy, and in their approach to the most important foreign policy issues of the day.

Lehrer didn’t do perfectly. There were a few points brought up by one candidate or another that I would have liked to see him push on, especially missile defense. (McCain claimed that Reagan’s embrace of the SDI helped end the Cold War, which is a massive misrepresentation–especially given that the space-based lazers pushed under Reagan was abandoned as technologically impossible during the latest missile defense rounds. It’s another example of the Cult of St. Reagan run amok.) I was also a bit annoyed at Lehrer’s insistence that the candidates address each other directly. Nobody cares whether a point is addressed at Obama or whether it is addressed at the moderator or at the American people. We only care about what they actually say.

In the Vice Presidential debate, Gwen Ifill took a much different tact. Instead of asking broad questions on a few topics, she asked specific questions on many different topics: twenty questions, to Lehrer’s eight. By itself that isn’t a bad thing; after all, she has to cram into one debate the topics that the presidential moderators can cover in three. The problem is how the questions were phrased. For instance, when asking about the bailout plan, Mr. Lehrer started by asking simply “Do you favor the plan?” Ms. Ifill asked “As these things happen on Capital Hill… was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?”

In both cases, the candidates spent their time going back and forth over the financial crisis, particularly who was to blame and who handled themselves better last week. That was to be expected. But Mr. Lehrer’s question took the direct way there; Ms. Ifill’s required the candidates (or at least Senator Biden) to comment both on the crisis and on “Washington’s” handling of the crisis in general. Both questions required follow-ups to try to discern how the crisis will affect the campaigns, but Mr. Lehrer started from a better position initially.

Ms. Ifill also made a mistake in asking different questions of the two candidates. The worst instance of this came when talking about taxes:

“Senator Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let’s talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Governor Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn’t taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Senator Biden.”

That question left the audience confused about what was just asked, and it left the candidates in an awkward position of having two topics to talk about at the same time. They ended up going back and forth first on Obama’s tax plan, and then on McCain’s health plan; the resulting debate was reasonable, but that debate happened despite the question not because of it.

The third mistake Ms. Ifill made was her inability to reign in Governor Palin. To be fair, Palin made this a lot tougher on Ifill than anything that Lehrer saw during the presidential debate. Palin felt no compunction about ignoring questions or bringing up topics completely off-topic. She was asked about nuclear proliferation and talked about Afghanistan; she was asked about the financial bailout and instead attacked Obama’s energy plan; she was asked about how a Palin administration would differ from a McCain administration and she talked about education policy. It was a baffling display, and Ms. Ifill had her hands full. Yet, Ms. Ifill made no attempt to reign her in, and even moved on without giving Biden even a brief chance to respond on education policy. As a result, it was Governor Palin, not Ms. Ifill, who all too often dictated the topic of debate; and that led to a debate that was somewhat awkward and stilted. It also meant that, at times Biden was tasked with responding to two different topics that Palin and brought up, plus a completely different question that Ms. Ifill had asked, and he was usually given no help at all in juggling that task. As the moderator, it was Ms. Ifill’s job to referee that discussion, and she did nothing to make a bad situation better.

Going forward, we have two moderated debates remaining. (There has been some talk about scheduling another Biden-Palin debate; I hope it happens, but I can’t honestly believe that the McCain camp will let it. Palin beat the pathetic expectations that many had for her, and as a result she didn’t look too badly; the bar would be set substantially higher the next time around.) I hope that the moderators of those debates pay attention here, and learn the right lessons about what questions to ask, what questions not to ask, and how to give voters the most information about the candidates. After all, a good debate can be invaluable for those voters who are interesting in quickly discerning the important differences between candidates. I hope that the moderators don’t waste those opportunities.

Most next-day debate wrap-ups tend to focus on who “won” or “lost” the debate, who did the most good or harm to their ticket, and interviewing party hacks from both sides about why they think their candidate is God’s gift to American politics. Personally, I think it is much more useful to walk through an actual transcript of the debate and see what the candidates actually said.

First Question: Was last week an example of the best of Washington or the worst of Washington?
Biden: Neither, but it was an example of the bad job President Bush has done at managing the economy, meanwhile Barack Obama handled himself quite well amidst the crisis.
Palin: When I talk to Soccer moms, they are uneasy about the economy, and John McCain is a reformer.

That right there, ladies and gentlemen, is a microcosm of how the entire debate went. Biden would make a head-fake towards answering the question, before moving onto praise Obama’s judgment or to link McCain to Bush. Meanwhile Palin all too often ignored the questions altogether, tried to emphasize how she understands real Americans, and spoke in vague terms about McCain and herself being “reformers” and “mavericks”–without really saying what they’ll reform, or in what way they’ll act as mavericks.

Second Question: As Vice President, how will you work towards bringing both sides together?
Biden: I’ve always worked with people from both parties to pass important legislation, and I will continue to do that. Oh, and McCain can’t be a real economic reformer, because he can’t even recognize a crisis as its about to happen.
Palin: McCain didn’t really mean that the economy was strong, he meant that American workers are cool people. Obama is too partisan to work with the other side; McCain is a maverick.

Personally, I wished that either one of them would have actually answered the question. I’m especially curious to know how a maverick–one who goes it alone, by definition–will bring people together.

Third Question: Who caused the mortgage crisis?
Palin: Predatory lenders conned America into living beyond their means, and we need to stand up and say that it will never happen again.
Biden: Obama saw this coming and tried to warn us, while McCain was preaching the deregulation that got us into this mess. Now the middle class needs tax relief.
Palin: We need tax relief, but Obama has voted 94 times for tax increases.
Biden: By that logic, McCain has voted 477 times to increase taxes.
Palin: As Mayor and Governor I cut taxes. I’m going to talk to the American people, not tell you or the moderator what you want to hear. And McCain wanted to regulate the tobacco industry and reform campaign finance.

That was one of my two favorite lines of the debate. Republicans like to count up every procedural vote in which a Democrat ever voted for a bill that would have raised any individual tax any amount, and lump them together into an absurd figure like “Obama voted to increase taxes 94 times”. It warmed my heart for Biden to call her on it. Palin seemed to be thrown off by the line, responding with one of the most nonsensical answers of the night.

Fourth Question (Part 1): Why is raising taxes on the rich not class warfare?
Biden: It’s only fair that those doing well should help the Middle Class, when the middle class is the economic engine of the country.
Palin: “I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you.” Obama will raise taxes on millions of small businesses. It’s patriotic to want small government.

Please, Governor Palin, the English language is your friend. Don’t fight it. Palin’s tendency when she gets flustered is to string together semi-related phrases and transition between them with the word “that”. For a wonderful parody of that, watch Tina Fey’s SNL skit last week.

Fourth Question (Part 2): Why is McCain’s health care bill, that many say will increase the number of uninsured, not attacking the poor?
Palin: McCain wants to give a $5000 tax credit for families to buy health coverage. Obama wants health care run by “the feds”.
Biden: Where I’m from, we think it’s only fair for big companies to pay for the Middle Class and not vice versa. Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t increase any small business owner’s taxes one cent if they make less than $250,000. McCain wants to pay for his $5000 tax credit by eliminating tax breaks on employers who give coverage, and that will cost most Americans more than it will benefit them.

It always strikes me as odd when your opponent seems to know more about your plan than you do. This wasn’t the only time that Palin just seemed out of her league when it came to debating policy details–which is probably why she spent most of the debate trying desperately not to debate policy details.

Fifth Question: Given the Economic Crisis, which of your proposals won’t happen?
Biden: We’ll have to “slow-down” our commitment to double foreign aid, and we’ll make doubly sure we end the latest Bush tax-cuts. We will still prioritize economic stimulus, education, and health care reform, and we’ll cut wasteful spending.
Palin: McCain doesn’t say one thing to one group and another thing to another group. Obama voted for the ‘05 energy plan that cut taxes for oil companies, and I fought oil companies in Alaska. I haven’t promised anything except to fight for the American people, so I don’t need to go back on any promises.
Biden: Obama voted for the total bill because of the alternative energy funding, but when the tax breaks came up for a separate vote he opposed them. Palin supported a windfall tax for oil companies in Alaska, I wish she would convince McCain to support the same thing now.

Once again, Biden barely answered the question, while Palin decided to just go and talk about her own thing. It also annoyed me greatly that Palin actually thought it was a good thing that she hasn’t talked about any policy specifics on the campaign trail.

Sixth Question: Last year’s bankruptcy reform: why did you (or your boss) vote for/against it?
Palin: I’m for it, like McCain. McCain warned about Fannie and Freddie. McCain led a bipartisan effort. We have an economic crisis.
Biden: I voted for it, Barack voted against it, but we both had things we liked and didn’t like about the bill. Barack was right about sub-prime mortgages; McCain failed to recognize the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We want to further reform bankruptcy courts: I believe McCain and Bush oppose that reform.
Palin: We don’t oppose that. We need energy independence.

Palin really started to fall apart here. Seriously, go read the transcript; I am doing my best to summarize her, but she wanders so much you have to wonder if she even knew what she was saying. I also hope that someone follows up with the McCain campaign on the bankruptcy reform that Biden brought up; somehow I seriously doubt that Palin even understood the proposal much less that she would be allowed to set candidate policy on a particular reform.

Seventh Question: Where does Climate Change come from?
Palin: Man has some responsibility, as do natural weather patterns. We need to fight climate change and clean up the planet; we have an “all of the above” approach, and we need to rely less on other countries.
Biden: It’s clearly man-made, and if you don’t know the cause, how can you know the solution? We consume too much oil; McCain has opposed alternative energy solutions for a long time. We need to invest in clean coal and safe nuclear technologies, and export those technologies to China; McCain’s desire to drill isn’t the answer.
Palin: We need to tap domestic energy resources. You even used to support drilling, while you didn’t used to support clean coal.
Biden: I’ve always supported clean coal. We shouldn’t drill because you can’t fight global warming without reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons. If McCain is for everything, why has he voted 20 times against alternative energy?

This was the part of the debate that had me upset at everybody involved. First of all, there is no such thing as “clean coal technology”; all of them are wrong on that one. Yes, some coal is cleaner than others, and if China is going to use coal anyway we might as well encourage them to use it as wisely as possible. But by definition coal produces carbon emissions, and as Biden asked about oil: how can we reduce global warming if we are still reliant on energy sources that produce carbon emissions?

Eighth Question: Do you support granting benefits to same-sex couples?
Biden: Yes, gay couples should have the same constitutional and legal rights as straight couples.
Palin: I don’t support anything that might look like marriage, but gay couples ought to have many of the same rights.
Biden: We don’t support gay marriage; marriage ought to be defined by religious authorities. I’m glad that Palin thinks there are no civil rights distinctions between gay and straight couples; if that’s the case we agree.
Palin: I don’t support gay marriage.

I thought Biden did a masterful job here of minimizing the differences between the candidates. Gay marriage is an issue that Republicans like to use to motivate their base, but that Democrats hate because their base is quite divided on the issue. But if there isn’t a difference, then the issue goes away. Moreover, by playing up Palin’s moderation on the issue, he potentially deepens the mistrust that religious conservatives have for McCain.

Ninth Question: How do we get out of Iraq?
Palin: The surge, which they opposed, worked. Obama voted against troop funding. We have a plan for withdrawal, but we don’t need early withdrawal. We can’t afford to lose or quit in Iraq.
Biden: We have a plan to get out in 16 months, a similar plan to the one that Maliki and Bush are negotiating right now. Only McCain thinks we need to stay in Iraq longer than that. We need to shift responsibility to the Iraqi’s, and we’ll end this war.
Palin: You’re plan is surrender. You and Obama opposed the surge and the surge worked. You used to like McCain’s Iraq strategies, and Obama voted to cut funding for the troops.
Biden: McCain voted against my bill to get armor to our troops. McCain agreed with Cheney five years ago how the war would progress; he was wrong and Obama was right.

Palin was repeating the line that McCain has used for a long time that withdrawal from Iraq would be tantamount to surrender. Bush used to use that line to, although not since Maliki asked for a timetable for withdrawal. It’s a bad line, that makes no sense. How is turning Iraqi security over to Iraqi security forces, for better or worse, tantamount to surrendering to terrorists? Does that mean Maliki is a terrorist… or is McCain saying that the Maliki government stands zero chance of holding out against the terrorists… in which case why does he claim that the surge worked? Something doesn’t add up there. Also notice that Palin never did say what McCain’s Iraq plan was, not even in gross generalities.

Tenth Question: Which is the greater threat: an unstable Pakistan or a nuclear Iran?
Biden: Pakistan. Pakistan has deployed nuclear weapons and missiles that can hit Israel; Iran has yet to deploy either of those weapons. The central front of the war on terror is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and we need to do what we can to attack that area while building up a democratic Pakistan.
Palin: Both are dangerous. Petraeus and al Qaeda both think Iraq is the central front of the war on terror, so it must be true. Iran can’t be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, which would put Israel in jeopardy, and Obama is reckless for wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad and other rogue dictators.

Gotten love “proof by enemy assertion”: two people who hate each other both agree on X, therefore X must be true. Problem is, enemies often share similar priorities; after all, if Petraeus didn’t believe that the war in Iraq were key, he probably wouldn’t have been selected to head that mission, and if al Qaeda members in Iraq didn’t believe that Iraq was important then they wouldn’t be in Iraq. But saying it doesn’t make it so. After all, the Shiites and Sunnis fighting over control of Iraq basically all believe that Christians are inherently misguided and that Mohammed was a true prophet of God: does the fact that those mortal enemies agree on something make it true? As a Christian, I certainly hope not…

Eleventh Question: Five secretaries of state have said we need to engage our enemies diplomatically. Do you disagree?
Palin: No I don’t. But these leaders hate America, and we can’t afford to sit down with them. Diplomacy is serious work that requires having your allies support you and sanctions in place before you can meet with them.
Biden: Ahmadinejad doesn’t control the security apparatus in Iran: the theocrats do. Our friends and allies want us to engage with our enemies, as does the secretaries of state; even President Bush has engaged them diplomatically recently. McCain said he wouldn’t even sit down with our ally, Spain.

The comment about Spain isn’t quite true, although McCain has said we should exert some diplomatic punishment on them for pulling out of Iraq. The line about Ahmadinejad is my other favorite line of the debate: it’s absolutely true, and I’m glad that he called Palin out for demonizing a man who is about to be term-limited.

Twelfth Question: What has the Bush Administration done right or wrong in Israel, and do you support a two-state solution?
Palin: A two-state solution is the solution. We need to meet with leaders from both sides to ensure peace. We will protect and support Israel, and Israel has a track-record of forging peace-agreements.
Biden: I love Israel, as does Obama. Bush’s policy of pushing for premature elections in Palestine and Lebanon was a disaster that we predicted would legitimize the terrorists. We will put the emphasis back on diplomacy.
Palin: Bush hasn’t been that bad on Israel, I’m glad you love Israel, and we need to not focus so much on what Bush has done and focus on reform.
Biden: I haven’t heard anything about how McCain is going to be any different from Bush.

Thirteenth Question: When should nukes ever be used?
Palin: Our enemies shouldn’t be allowed to acquire nukes, and we should used nukes “as a deterrent”. We will implement the surge principals in Afghanistan and that’s a difference with Bush. Obama just thinks we’re their attacking schools, and that’s not true.
Biden: Our Afghanistan commander said that the Iraqi surge wouldn’t work in Afghanistan: we need more troops there, and better governance. McCain has opposed building an international nuclear non-proliferation regime, Obama has worked hard to do so from his first days in the Senate.
Palin: He didn’t say that the surge wouldn’t work in Afghanistan.
Biden: Yes he did, and McCain two years ago thought we had already won in Afghanistan while Obama was pushing then for more troops.

Newsflash for any potential president: Commanders in the field aren’t always the best judges of what strategies will and won’t work. Presidents, not commanders, get final say… and that’s for good reason. Quoting Petreaus or McKiernan (Not McClellan. Note to Palin: when you cite an expert, it helps if you get his name right.) In other words, this was the most inane section of the debate.

Fourteenth Question: Biden, you’ve pushed for involvement in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Pakistan, and Darfur. Will the American people support American troops sent to Darfur?
Biden: Yes, if we succeed like in Bosnia, which I worked on. I voted to give Bush the power to go to war but said then it would be a mistake if we went without our allies. In Darfur need a stronger stance from NATO, a no-fly zone, and troop transport for OAS peacekeepers.
Palin: You voted for the war, you supported McCain until the election started, and you rightly attacked Obama for cutting off funding for the troops. I agree with you on Darfur.
Biden: Obama and I both warned people at the time about the dangers of Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq, and the dangers of a drawn-out conflict. McCain agreed with Cheney.
Palin: No you didn’t. McCain knows how to fix the errors in Iraq and how to win.

I LOVE that the candidates both just agreed to take an extremely active role in Darfur. I hope they follow through with that once in office.

Fifteenth Question: If you do become president, how will your administration differ from your current boss?
Biden: I agree with all Obama’s major policy initiatives and would carry them all out.
Palin: We disagree on ANWR and I would push that if I were president. I know Main St., and we need lower taxes and less regulation (I’m being insanely generous here, by the way).
Biden: Where I come from people know they’ve gotten the short-end of the stick, and the don’t know how McCain will be any different from Bush.
Palin: We need less focus on the past and more on the future. We need more focus on education, higher teacher pay, and reform to No Child Left Behind.

Biden dodged the question here, which is sad because it was a good one. Palin noted her desire to drill in ANWR. And once again, Palin pulled a topic out of thin air; sometimes you could just see her thinking “I prepared this bit on education, I should say that now!”

Sixteenth Question: What will you actually do as Vice President?
Palin:I want to be involved with the Senate. McCain has asked me to lead the charge on energy independence and special needs children.
Biden: I hope we get back to No Child so I can talk about why it failed. As VP I will be the point-man on all legislation, and involved in all high-level decision making.

The best question of the night, and the most interesting answer.

Seventeeth Question: Do you agree with Cheney that the VP is a part of the legislative branch?
Palin: Yes. And I have lots of executive experience.
Biden: Absolutely not.

Another good question. I don’t think Palin fully appreciated the mantle she shouldered when she agreed with Cheney… or maybe she did, which is even scarier.

Eighteenth Question: What is your Achilles heal?
Palin: I’ve been an executive, and a mom, and I love America.
Biden: Lack of discipline and excessive passion are two of many faults. I’ll put my record up against anyone, and I’ve been a good dad and understand real people’s problems.
Palin: John McCain is a maverick
Biden: McCain hasn’t been a maverick on the really important issues.

Palin should be ashamed of her answer here: it reminds me too much of Bush’s “I’ve never made a mistake” moment in the 2004 election. I appreciate Biden’s finally going after McCain’s maverick reputation: he should have done that a long time ago.

Nineteenth Question: Give an example where you’ve changed your mind.
Biden: On the importance of judicial philosophy and the Senate’s role in confirming judges.
Palin: Sometimes I didn’t cut taxes as much as I wanted because of a lack of legislative support.

Another awful answer by Palin. She really does remind me of a young Bush: a refusal to admit mistakes, an arrogance about understanding the American people without having to actually talk to them, an emphasis on sounding like “one of the people” instead of sounding educated, an insistence that she’s worked well with the other side (even while having a reputation for attacking any and all political opponents with unmitigated ferocity)…

Twentieth Question: How do you change the tone in Washington?
Biden: You question people’s judgment, but never their motives.
Palin: You appoint people from both parties to work for you. On Nov 4, people can choose to lower taxes and help the economy or raise taxes and kill the economy.

If Palin hadn’t tacked on that bit at the end, they both would have given great answers. That bit at the end was just incongruous: I’m going to work with people on both sides of the aisle, although if you follow their ideas we’re all doomed!

Twenty First Question: Closing Statements.
Palin: I know the middle class, I’m going to fight for the middle class, and for freedom.
Biden: We want to fight for a country where people who work hard and play by the rules can improve their lives and the lives of their children.

2) Both candidates acquitted themselves well. At times Biden got a bit verbose. At times Palin looked like she was speaking from a memorized script. Biden sighed a few times, Palin looked uncomfortable a few times. But on the whole, neither embarrassed themselves or hurt their candidacy.

3) I wish I had counted the number of cutesy phrases Palin used (darn tootin’). I wonder if that’s the way she really talks, or if she deliberately was using them to promote her brand…

4) Palin had a number of answers where she seemed to ramble to tangential topics. For example, at one point when talking about Obama’s tax policy she digressed into a discussion of McCain’s record of regulating the tobacco industry.

5) Best line of the night was Biden’s “that’s a real bridge to nowhere”

6) Palin was artful in her treatment of the question on homosexual rights. Nicely pulled of dodging the question without seeming to have done so.

7) Biden gave a lot more specifics than Palin. Both in statistics, and in policy positions. Palin tended to give vague answers (e.g. “we promote freedom”) while Biden would give concrete policy (e.g. “the 4 things that Obama requires from the bailout plan are…”). Not sure which will play better to the general public.

How is McCain’s health plan budget neutral if he’s giving tax breaks for private insurance? I mean, its not government spending, but isn’t reducing income just as bad for the budget as actually spending money? I didn’t get that…

9) Palin mispronounced nuclear and Ahmadinejad.

10) I felt like Palin may not have fully understood some of the issues, because Biden opened up some opportunities for real killer rebuttals, and Palin didn’t take advantage. For example, when talking about foreclosures, Biden talked about having judges reduce not just interest rates but the principle that is owed. Palin could have jumped on this, but instead very quickly dodged the topic and switched to talking about energy. (Where she confused energy independence with the desire for higher emission standards for foreign countries that derailed the Kyoto protocol).

11) What did the general in charge of Afghanistan really say? Lots of disagreement there, and I couldn’t find it in a 30 second search. I have to say, lots of half truths on both sides. Biden’s claim that McCain wouldn’t meet with the president of Spain was a whopper - I heard that interview and McCain said no such thing, he merely didn’t specifically say that he WOULD meet with the president of Spain (despite being specifically asked) which some people take as a sign that he wouldn’t…

12) Biden needs to learn to stop looking at the podium and start looking at the camera. Palin has this down. It makes a big difference…

So it isn’t surprising that the McCain campaign is attacking Gwen Ifill’s objectivity on the eve of her moderation of the Vice Presidential debate. After all, she’s writing a book about Obama, she must be biased in favor of the man! But the devil is in the details, and in this case the details make the implications of that accusation out to be a little bit disturbing.

In reality, Ms. Ifill’s book is about African American politicians who grew up after the Civil Rights movement. Obama’s name appears in the title… but that isn’t surprising, given that Obama has already achieved more than any other black politician (of any era). Ifill has yet to write the section on Obama, and has given a number of speeches on that topic focusing more on other black politicians–and in general on comparing the younger generation of black politicians with the civil rights leaders that came before them.

So why do Republicans think that this book makes Ifill naturally predisposed to like Obama? I have no clue… but my guess is that it’s because they are both black, and therefore she must have written a book favorable to the man.

Maybe I’m wrong. But at least to my ears, this accusation smacks of racial prejudice. Either the McCain camp needs to explain their accusation in greater detail–prove to me that there is something besides the race of the moderator at the heart of this accusation–or they need to find something else to complain about.

John McCain just attacked the Senate bailout bill for containing wasteful earmarks.

John McCain voted for that bill. Why? According to his campaign the earmarks were “regrettable”, but that this bill is necessary to jump-start the economy.

McCain’s straight talk says that he’ll veto any bill that contains earmarks; McCain’s judgment says that you vote for or against bills based on whether the bill is necessary and useful, not whether you like every part of every bill.

Thankfully, McCain’s judgment wins out. I just wished he would temper his rhetoric to match.

Look, we have invaded Iraq twice now. The whole reason that their infrastructure needs to be rebuilt is because we blew it up. Maybe they had it coming (in 1991 they probably did) and maybe they didn’t (as both I and Obama would argue about the 2003 war). But that is little consolation to the people who can’t get to work or lost their homes or lost their stores because of American bombs and United Nations sanctions that America championed. We wanted to punish the Iraqi government, but at the end of the day the people who pay the biggest cost are the citizens who had very little to do with Iraqi government policy. And so it is reasonable for us to try to undo the damage that we did to their lives, however well intentioned we were at the time.

Moreover, it is in our own best interests to help them. Every Iraqi whose lives we make better is an Iraqi who is less likely to believe in the anti-American propaganda spouted by American enemies (be they terrorists, Iranian, or whoever). We are much more likely to prevent the next 9/11 because the young men who would have committed those acts never signed up with al Qaeda, than we are by taking our shoes off at the airport.

Obama knows all that; I’ve heard him say similar things before. So why is he begrudging American tax dollars going to Iraqi reconstruction? Because it’s a good applause line to use on the campaign trail. But applause lines make for bad foreign policy, and I’d like to see a candidate who didn’t use bad foreign policy to generate applause lines.

The other frequent Obama applause line that I wish he’d stop using is his continual bashing of special interests. Obama isn’t alone in attacking special interests; all politicians do it. That truly is politics as usual. The problem is that special interests aren’t the real problem at all.

A special interest group is simply a group of like-minded citizens concerned about particular policies who pool their resources to fight for the causes that they hold most dear. Special interests are at the heart of democratic politics: people come together to push for governmental change.

The problem only comes when other people whose interests are less well financed or less well organized don’t get heard. Ultimately, of course, the people with the deepest pockets will always find a way to make that money work for them. That’s the price we pay for living in a free, capitalist society. But we don’t really want a president who ignores special interest groups. Instead, I want a president who will listen to all opinions on an issue, and consider an issue from all angles. In other words, I don’t want a president who tunes out special interest groups: I want a president who will listen to all special interest groups, and then make up his own mind.

For instance, the problem with the Bush Administration hasn’t been that too many special interest groups have had too much influence. The problem is that too few special interest groups have had too much influence. I want a president who listens to oil companies, pro-life preachers, neo-conservative hawks, and massive engineering firms (like Halliburton). But I also want a president who will listen to the Sierra Club and wind-power companies, to pro-life feminists and abortion moderates, to conservative isolationists and liberal multilateralists, to small engineering firms and government procurement reformers.

Candidates will take all the applause lines they can get, and Obama isn’t likely to give up these two. But he would make a better president if he did.

The thing is, all of those things only apply to the highest offices in the land. There are strong reasons to Democratically elect presidents, congressmen, governors, etc. But when it comes to lower level offices, and most especially particular acts of policy, those decisions are better off left with people who actually have some chance of knowing what they are doing. Leaving those decisions up to the people is unnecessarily playing dice with important decisions.

This means that the people have no business electing judges, insurance commissioners, railroad commissioners, and the numerous other offices that get put on ballots every couple of years. More to the point for the moment, however, it means that states ought to get rid of these dangerous citizen propositions and ballot measures that pop up all over the place.

This fall, for instance, Massachusetts will vote on a proposal to phase out the state income tax over the next two years, cutting state revenue by something like 45%. There is no proposed replacement for this income, nor does the proposition propose specific budget cuts that would make this a revenue neutral proposition. It’s just supposed to cut the income tax. And according to polls, somewhere between 35% and 45% of Massachusetts voters are planning on voting for the deal. (By the way, for those of you who believe that Massachusetts has an insanely high tax burden, in fact we rank pretty much in the middle in terms of state and local taxes. Massachusetts has a relatively high state income tax, but very low local property and sales taxes, and the state uses the income tax in part to kick money back to local communities to keep the property and sales taxes low.) Eliminating the income tax is a moronic suggestion that would devastate the local economy, local infrastructure, and cause irreparable harm to the poor and elderly who rely on state-provided social services to survive. But it would save a bunch of people 5% of their incomes, and so it’ll come close to passing. If this weren’t a presidential election year, it might even stand a chance–and that’s just sad.

My favorite citizen proposition stories, however, come from California. In California, the state has perpetual financial difficulties because the state legislator is periodically ordered to perform certain tasks by the people of California… but the legislator cannot raise taxes without the permission of a super-majority of the people of California (who almost never give it). It’s an absurdly stupid system.

One year in San Diego, a proposition was on the ballot that would have made it even more difficult to raise taxes in San Diego County–by requiring that the voters had to approve all tax increases by a 75% majority. Getting 75% of the people to agree on anything is virtually impossible; that proposition would have meant that San Diego could never have raised any tax ever again, no matter what happened. The mayor and city council decided to counteract that proposal by putting a measure on the ballot that, if it passed, would require that all future propositions that will require super majorities in the future be passed by that super majority. In particular, a ballot measure that would require a 75% super majority to raise taxes would itself have to be passed by a 75% super majority. And yes, it was written to apply to the election in which it itself was proposed. Both measures received well over 50% of the vote (but less than 75%), which meant that the tax provision actually failed (because it suddenly required 75% to pass instead of 50%). The absurd thing, however, is that a significant number of San Diego voters voted for both of them–despite the fact that the one was explicitly designed (there was nothing subtle about it) to prevent the other from passing.

Voters need to elect leaders, but they have no business passing laws.

I’m less than thrilled about the $700 billion bailout of the entire mortgage industry. I hate how it’s being sold (”Do this or the American economy is doomed!”), I hate the size of it (the entire 2007 non-defense discretionary budget is less than $500 billion), I hate that it’s moving too fast for the public to really process what exactly is in the proposal, and I hate that it saddles the government with a fundamentally bad asset–that is, the government would purchase a boatload of failed mortgages, which it then has to do something with.

More than anything, I hate how predictable this whole thing should have been. The best financial advisers always tell you to be aware of what you’re really investing in. Let’s say that I’m thinking of buying shares in the Coke. Yes, you need to look at the history of the stock, the earnings statements of the company, and all of the important ratios. But you also need to realize, at the end of the day, that you’re betting real money that people will continue to purchase and consume soft drinks–because that’s how Coke makes money. So you have to ask yourself, is that a good bet?

Now think back to the tech bubble. When the tech bubble was growing, people stopped asking themselves that question. They failed to distinguish those companies that were providing a useful service from those that weren’t. At the end of the day, people were willing to buy books online because they knew that the online bookseller would always have in stock a book that they might have to search a dozen local bookstores to find. On the other hand, people were less willing to purchase pet products online when their local pet store sold the exact same products without the hassle of dealing with UPS. And that’s pretty much why Amazon.com succeeded where Pets.com failed, despite the fact that the latter had a better name (I don’t know about you, but when I first typed in “www.amazon.com” I half expected a porn site to pop up), a better advertising campaign, and just as much start-up money. It wasn’t hard to predict that the former had a lot better chance to succeed than the latter… and yet enough investors got hit by the disintegration of Pets.com (and the many others like it) to put a sizable dent in the United States economy.

This whole mortgage crisis was pretty much the same thing. It didn’t take a genius to realize that there were a whole lot of people taking out a whole lot of really dumb mortgages. You could have figured that out from the fact that the average home-owner in California couldn’t afford to buy the average house; from the fact that banks had drastically reduced their standards for who could or could not qualify for a mortgage; from the fact that home ownership was booming at the same time that consumer debt was booming and personal savings rates were plummeting. So at the end of the day, all of those companies who were betting on the continuation of the mortgage boom were betting that all of those extremely risky home loans made to people who couldn’t really afford them would get paid off. Unsurprisingly, a lot of those bad mortgages led pretty directly to an awful lot of bankruptcies and therefore they didn’t get paid off–and many of them never will. And so for the last six months, those losses have been trickling through the economy, until they have finally brought down some of the biggest companies in the industry, and all the pundits look around and wonder “what happened?”

So now the government wants to spend $700 billion dollars to purchase all of those bad mortgages, not to mention making sure all of the middle-men get their cut? Maybe it’s necessary to do something to prevent massive economic damage to the country… but I’m not thrilled. This should have been predictable. Heck, if we had a president with any kind of foresight whatsoever, we would have done something years ago to encourage personal savings and reign in the excesses of the mortgage industry. (Instead, that president’s party has spent the last eight years trumpeting the benefits of an home ownership and imploring the Congress and Federal Reserve to encourage consumer spending in order to stimulate the economy.)

But I also recognize that politically, Congress and the President have to look like they are doing something. I recognize that once the President proposed the bailout that it, or something like it, will get passed. I recognize that maybe once the government owns all those bad mortgages it can do something to help those home owners avoid economic tragedy… and maybe even recoup a significant percentage of its investment by getting those home owners to repay their loans. I recognize that maybe it will take something that awfully drastic and boneheaded to spur real reform in the mortgage and financial industries, to help prevent something like this from happening again.

I recognize all that. But I still don’t like it.

For one thing, it’s patently wrong as a governing philosophy. It is dangerous for any man, or even any president, to put the needs of the country above all else. After all, sometimes the country needs to do what’s best for humanity. Sometimes the president needs to send troops somewhere to stop genocide or to ensure that food convoys are getting to those who need them. That’s spending American money and risking American lives to help others; a noble thing that all presidents ought to consider, but decidedly NOT putting “Country First”. Heck, McCain himself has argued similar things in the past… so does that make him a hypocrite, a liar, or a flip-flopper on putting “Country First”?

And that’s not the only such issue of McCain’s “misplaced” (at least according to his own political slogan) priorities. Most recently, is the pick of McCain’s Vice President. Sarah Palin seems to have been a fine choice politically speaking, but no one can credibly argue that she is the best person for the job of Vice President of the United States. That was a “McCain Political Fortune First” move, not a “Country First” move.

Then there are other equally important questions. If McCain was putting “Country First” when he pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, how can he still be putting “Country First” now that he wants to hold off “until we secure the border”? Has the situation fundamentally changed in the last eighteen months? Has the country changed? Or has merely the political needs of Senator McCain changed?

All of which means that “Country First” is a hypocritical slogan. If McCain truly wanted to put “Country First”, then he would start by being honest with us about his priorities… which very plainly (and by McCain’s own admission) are not “Country First”.