We must have missed it first time around in that brief moment of involuntary blinking.

In Wednesday’s presidential debate (transcript), Bob Schieffer asked both candidates to cite an example of breaking with their party.

Obama: Well, there’s a lot of stuff that was put out there, so let me try to address it. First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn’t very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party. I support…

McCain: An overwhelming vote.

The legislation Senator Obama is referring to is the Class Action Fairness Act, which passed the U.S. Senate on February 10th, 2005, with a vote of 72-26. (Roll Call vote here.) The NAM strongly backed the legislation, which 18 Democrats voted to support.

Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute has written on Senator Obama’s record on legal reform issues  here and here.

The roll call vote on H.R. 1424, which, as amended, is the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, plus the tax extenders. The measure passed 74-25.

For more, see documents on the Senate Banking Committee website. Division A (pp.2-113) of the draft legislation is referred to as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Division B (pp. 113-261) is referred to as the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and Division C (pp. 261-451) is referred to as the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.

A good Washington Post editorial, “America’s Second Chance.” We appreciate the fact the Post went to the substance of the legislation; the “you’ll be sorry” argument only carries one so far.

The case for the plan, known formally as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), does not hinge on its perfection. As we have said, it is possible to imagine alternatives, some of which, such as a direct federal purchase of bank equity, might prove more effective at a lower cost to taxpayers. Or they might not. The point is that TARP is the only plan on the table that has both a reasonable chance of political success and a reasonable chance of economic success. Under the circumstances, which at the moment include a mounting worldwide financial collapse, we do not have time to run a legislative seminar on the theory and practice of financial rescue.

Furthermore, TARP, as modified by Congress after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. initially unveiled it, is a plausible proposal. The Treasury would purchase currently unmarketable assets from the financial sector, clearing out the accumulated junk paper that is destroying confidence and the flow of credit. Though TARP seeks $700 billion in ultimate authority to buy assets, the likelihood is that the Treasury will pay less than that, because (a) its purchases might jump-start a private market and (b) the government might be able to resell securities for more than it paid. There would be significant oversight and an option for the government to take equity in the firms it aids.

Finally, a protest of political pique. May we please be spared lectures about Wall Street and fat-cat tycoons and the like from members of Congress whose support for Fannie Mae helped block more rigorous regulation of the GSEs? If we have to be lectured to, we’d prefer instruction from observers of financial regulation who had it right all along. If they were right then, good chance they’re right now. Hence, from AEI:

“[Peter] Wallison and Charles W. Calomiris argue in the September Financial Services Outlook that a repeat of the Fannie and Freddie disaster could be prevented by eliminating the government-sponsored enterprise model. “

Had the pleasure of attending a lecture last evening at the American Enterprise Institute by Charles Murray, author of “Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.” From the NAM’s perspective, this is “truth” that bears attention:

Too many people are going to college. Almost everyone should get training beyond high school, but the number of students who want, need, or can profit from four years of residential education at the college level is a fraction of the number of young people who are struggling to get a degree. We have set up a standard known as the BA, stripped it of its traditional content, and made it an artificial job qualification. Then we stigmatize everyone who doesn’t get one. For most of America’s young people, today’s college system is a punishing anachronism.

Murray’s prescriptions for change include a system of certifications, i.e., rigorous apprenticeships and tests that reflect knowledge and ability in areas where students will make their livelihoods. Use the CPA Exams as a model. These arguments are very close to what the Manufacturing Institute and the NAM say about effective education for succeeding in the modern, global economy. (Murray’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal summarizes this portion of his lecture.)

Always before when making this case, we’ve talked in economic or financial terms: “You can make more money as a skilled manufacturing worker through community college courses and on-the-job training than spending all that money on a four-year degree.” That’s true. But as arguments go, it’s intellectual, calculating and not very satisfying.

Murray also argues on the basis of the good, i.e., of the personal satisfaction gained in achieving one’s best. Yes, for a student with a certain set of abilities — small motor skills, spatial reasoning — becoming an electrician rather than a midlevel white-collar manager means not just a higher income. But becoming a top-notch electrician instead of a mediocre manager also means more personal fulfillment.  Testing your personal limits in areas where you do well is satisfying.

Afterward, we asked Murray about this point and he said that the importance of income is overrated. You often hear, he said, of the titan of Wall Street or some other high-flying success left dissatisfied, frustrated, asking, “Is that all there is?”

Which leads into Murray’s discussion of virtue and the good, and which made us wish we had done the assigned reading of Aristotle back in college.

P.S. Audio and video from Murray’s presentation has been posted here.