[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Payndar Circusdorf

McCain himself will outright pummel Obama as a tax-and-spend Dukakis-style liberal.

I don't think McCain will have such an easy time with it - a fair number of people on the Republican side have admitted as much that taxes will go up regardless, it's just the "who" and how much.

Generally, I think you'll find that people are more likely to accept higher taxes if they are for the right reason - i.e. Healthcare, Infrastructure, etc.

Obama has at least managed to avoid looking like a Kerry-style flip-flopper on most issues besides Wright, but he hasn't had to defend the weaknesses of his liberal stances in any debates. When he's arguing with Hillary over their health-care plan, the two of them agree on certain underlying things that McCain is going to make him defend.

Well, can you enlighten us as to the strengths of the McCain health plan? I'm on his website, and I see this:

Originally Posted by McCain

While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will also have the option of receiving a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts

Sounds to me a lot like financial aid for colleges - where tuition costs go up just so that they can max out the financial aid they receive from the government. How is this supposed to keep costs down, if insurance companies are getting government handouts? Of course, this only applies if you can get health insurance. Which leads us to:

Originally Posted by McCain

As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level

So, in order to make sure everyone gets covered - he'll make a corporation (non-profit) that gets no-contest bids for every health insurance company that operates in that state. Essentially, he's setting up another insurance company, yet still involves people paying out of pocket for their healthcare.

He's comparing private insurance versus state run insurance, except in this case, the state government healthcare already vastly outperforms private corporations on almost every measure.

Maybe you can enlighten me on how this is supposed to magically force insurance companies to stop colluding and start working towards lowering costs?

McCain is going to argue that he was right all along on corn-based ethanol

Short memory span, eh?

Originally Posted by McCain 2003

Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it... Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."

Originally Posted by McCain 2006

I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.

Originally Posted by McCain 2007

The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

Quite the flip-flop there. Shows excellent political judgement.

On the other-hand, Obama does indeed support Ethanol subsidies - but as a means to creating a sustainable bio-fuels industry, with corn-ethanol as the gateway into market viability, as shown here:

"Those family farmers and local ethanol producers have set an example for how to embrace new technologies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and they've in turn strengthened the rural economy," Senator Obama said. "I've listened to local producers and heard first-hand how the dive in ethanol prices is having real, day to day effects on their livelihood. We need to ensure that Washington is giving them a fair shot to compete against the big oil companies that have dominated this industry, kept us dependent on foreign oil, and compromised our environment. We are at a critical time in the history of our renewable fuels industry, and we need to fix the imbalance in the market that's working against locally owned plants. If we are serious about creating clean, renewable sources of energy, we need to support the creation of a domestic biofuels industry that will take us from corn ethanol to cellulosic ethanol. It won't happen if these ethanol plants go out of business because ethanol prices continue to fall and Washington insiders continue to block much-needed reforms. I thank Senator Harkin for his longstanding leadership on this issue."

Growing pains, if you will. Which is a smart move, as everyone generally accepts that cellulosic ethanol is the best solution for both cheap energy, reducing foreign dependency on oil, and keeping our air clean.

and that he was right all along on How To Win In Iraq and he's going to have evidence to back up both of those claims.

Well, I thought we already "won" the Iraq War... Mission Accomplished! What, exactly, are the criteria for winning? And how have we "won" it again?

He's going to demand any evidence from Obama whatsoever that Barack took a post-partisan stance on ANY difficult issue while in the Senate, while pointing to his own leadership in the Gang of 14.

Nevermind that Obama's first junior sponsored bill was with McCain, or that McCain and Obama have co-sponsored several bills in the past.

Those are real issues that all play to McCain's strengths among independents and assault the core weaknesses of Obama.

Sounds nice, has no substance.