In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Richard Nixon promised to end the war, with what a reporter described as a secret plan to end the war. This promise was effective because it neutralized arguments that he would perpetuate the war. Of course it turned out to be a total lie.

What fascinates me is that having watched John McCain in both debates and in many other forums, I’ve seen him claim that he has secret plans to address all of the problems America faces. He asserts that he knows how to win the war in Iraq, how to win in Afghanistan, how to find Osama bin Laden, how to fix the economy, and that he will take care of veterans. But he refuses to explain how he will accomplish any of these things.

If he has these solutions to these monumental problems, shouldn’t he be broadcasting them in every forum available? These problems are bigger than any one man’s ambitions.

Update: Fred Kaplan makes the same point.

OK, debate fans. We’re back at it tonight.

Here’s a link to the popup window. I’ll start the live blog roughly 30 minutes before the debate kicks off at 9pm Eastern.

The big question for tonight is whether we’ll see the openly angry McCain or the barely hiding his anger McCain.

Andrew Sullivan makes a really good point in this blog post. It’s about politics, but it applies to, well, everything:

Of course, without Margaret Thatcher (or her equivalent, Rudy Giuliani), there would be no Bloomberg. The “small c” conservative point here, it seems to me, is that policy should reflect changing times. People forget that Reagan’s attack on government was premised on a particular time and place: America 1980. Ditto Thatcher in Britain 1979.

I think most Obama supporters in America would have been horrified at the extent of state power and trade union abuse in Britain in the 1970s. But today, there are different challenges that require different solutions. I’m a free market conservative, but I cannot defend the speculation and recklessness of the financial markets in the past decade. I’m a fiscal conservative, but I cannot defend the GOP in the 21st century. I’m for low taxes, but realistically there’s no way to get back to fiscal sanity without someone paying higher taxes at some point.

Just as it often makes little sense to criticize the policies of the past without putting them in the proper context, so too does it make little sense to advocate mindlessly adhering to past ideas when the conditions that justified them are no longer present.

Just a brief post to get in a few things I didn’t have time to type up during the debate last night. First, Sarah Palin prepared by memorizing a bunch of answers and reciting them back by rote. Anyone who’s ever debated will tell you that the key is having a command of the facts sufficient to craft arguments to challenge and refute your opponent. She wasn’t there. Because of that, she didn’t actually listen to the questions or answers, beyond the point necessary to figure out which memorized answer she was going to give.

From the transcript, here’s the best example (clipping some extra stuff). In the middle of an answer about whether Americans have the stomach for an interventionist foreign policy, Biden says:

With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to — I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.

And here’s Palin’s response:

Oh, yeah, it’s so obvious I’m a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You’re one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.

Almost the entire debate was like this. No evidence whatsoever that she was engaging with Biden.

And just because it deserves to be reprinted, an answer from Palin that should scare every American:

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

Guess which one of these candidates has read the Constitution:

PALIN: Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

BIDEN: The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress.

There’s enough debate reaction everywhere else, so I’ll stop.