
| « August 2008 | The Blog home page | October 2008 » |
|
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
|
| Quote of the Day |
|
- Barack Obama, acknowledging he doesn't know how to do bipartisanship and that his whole post-partisan gestalt is about as fact-based as the Easter Bunny. But he does know hope and change! ![]()
|
| McCain and Obama to Return to DC for Bailout Vote |
|
Politico's Crypt blog reports both Obama and McCain will be back in D.C. for a vote on the bailout. This is the plan according to a Senate GOP aide:
|
| Liberal Scandal-Mongering Over Palin Hits Stupidest Level Yet |
|
If we can't trust her to tell the truth about her lip liner, what can we trust her on? H/t Allahpundit, whom I am sparing the musical stylings of Hinder by not adding a "Lips of an Angel" YouTube to this post.
|
| RE: McCain Ad Hits Obama and Democrats on Fannie/Freddie |
|
Regardless of whether a bailout passes, this is a message that has to get out, not just for McCain's sake, but for the sake of capitalism in our country. In the clip used in this ad, Clinton was asked if the Democrats weren't being just a bit disingenuous by saying it was "unbridled capitalism" that caused the crisis instead of acknowledging their part in propping up Fannie and Freddie. Clinton was honest in saying that they do bear some responsibility for the conundrum we're in now. The message of Republicans (+ Bill Clinton) and Democrats on what got us here are diametrically opposed. Democrats want to evade responsibility and are brazen enough to blame the markets for their own meddling, thereby justifyingâsurprise!âloads of government intervention even beyond a possible bailout. Republicans have somewhat tepidly offered the notion that it was not the market, but government intervention in the market, that caused the problem. They are right, but conservative blogs, commentators, and honest reporters have done a lot of the heavy lifting in this department, as Republicans on the Hill tried to play bipartisan softball (and got hit with a series of partisan pitches for their efforts). McCain has not helped by following the Democrat model of blaming Wall Street greed for all of our problems. I understand his need to sound a populist note, but what would also be rather populist is to explain how liberal elites in Washington had crashed the credit markets you and I depend upon as part of another failed social engineering experiment, which by the way yielded their party millions in campaign donations. They repeatedly ignored warnings of a crisis and, in many cases, worked against greater regulation of Fannie and Freddie only to claim it was John McCain's (yes, the McCain of McCain-Feingold) strict adherence to deregulation that got us here. The unfortunate part of the messaging has been that until this ad from McCain, Bill Clinton (ostensibly a Democrat and Obama supporter) had been one of the best political figures at articulating the truth about Fannie, Freddie and culpability of Dems. I watched floor speeches yesterday by Republicans for and against the bailout, and saw little of it. McCain pointedly missed the opportunity to wallop Obama on the issue in the first half of the debate Friday. When Obama trumpeted his own alleged calls for reform and blamed the crisis on deregulation, McCain demurred, only saying, "I supported reform also." Even with markets holding strong today (and let's hope things stay that way), we may be on the brink of a huge, depressing, but necessary intervention in the markets. I strain against the idea, and hope it won't be necessary in its gargantuan form, but many conservatives I trust (Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, The Heritage Foundation), have conceded that something probably must be done. McCain and Republicans cannot allow the lesson taken from this to be that if it hadn't been for those dastardly markets granted all that pesky freedom, everything would have been fine. McCain making that argument will get more coverage than anything out of the mouths of conservative House or Senate members. I'm glad to see him going there, both on a philosophical and political level.
|
| Obama: Fundamentals of the Economy Are Strong |
|
The McCain campaign has a new "web ad" out that mocks Barack Obama for a comment he made yesterday. After weeks of mocking John McCain for his claim that the fundamentals of the American economy are strong, Obama said yesterday: "After this immediate problem, we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows." It's not surprising that he would say this. Although his political advisers have urged him to use McCain's words on the campaign trail, his economic advisers have been saying, in effect, that McCain was right. And sometimes they say it in public. Last week, Obama economic adviser Jason Furman told the Washington Post: "This is a major fiscal problem in the short run, but it doesn't alter the long-term fiscal picture." Sounds a lot like "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Here's the ad script:
I'm eager to read the lengthy, front-page story in tomorrow's New York Times on the mixed messages from the Obama campaign and how such poor communications reflects a campaign in disarray. ![]()
|
| McCain Ad Hits Obama and Democrats on Fannie/Freddie |
|
With an assist from Bill Clinton:
|
| McCain Remarks on the Economy |
|
On MSNBC this morning, John McCain said: âI think Americans have yet to fully understand this [bailout] is not in the interests of Wall Street or Washington insiders." During his remarks today in Des Moines, McCain provided a couple examples of how the credit crunch affects ordinary voters: keeping businesses and students from getting loans. Policy wise, McCain said the Treasury should exercise its recently granted authority to purchase mortgages and use the Exchange Stabilization Fund as "creatively as possible to provide backstop for accounts across our financial system to maintain confidence on the part of savers and investors." He also endorsed raising the FDIC deposit insurance cap to $250,000. Full remarks here:
|
| Lefties Learning to Love a Depression |
|
From Ezra Kleinâs blog comes this lovelyâlet them eat cakeâ gem from Robert Borosage, co-Director of the lefty activist group Campaign for Americaâs Future:
Ah yes â the many wonderful âsalutary effectsâ of a depression. I especially love the really macho stuff about the âweakest getting purged.â At the risk of providing Mr. Borosage with a clue, the âweakestâ arenât the guys at Lehman who were pulling down eight figures a year until a couple of weeks ago and whose comeuppance so obviously thrills Mr. Borosage. The weakest among us are those on the economic margins. While a depression might not âpurgeâ them, it will surely hit them hardest. Theyâll be the ones without jobs and without the means to heat their homes. Actually, those who are truly the weakest wonât have homes to heat. But as Mr. Borosage would probably argue, you canât make a delicious omelet of government hyperactivity without breaking a few eggs. Itâs funny. Organizations like Campaign for Americaâs Future are supposed to care about the weakest among us. Perhaps they do. But obviously they care a whole lot more about their political agenda and ambitions.
|
| Biden Still Nimble and Flawless on Campaign Trail |
|
If he manages to get through Thursday's debate without saying something insane, I will be floored:
His press secretary later said he misheard the question. Here's to his mishearing a few things on Thursday.
|
| A Kinder, Gentler, Happier Cultural Revolution |
|
Via Drudge, children are taught to sing praises of The One: Creepy.
|
| The Political Windfall of Inaction |
|
There's an astounding admission buried in this NYT account of the failed bailout vote yesterday: Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure. But where Mr. McCain had accused Mr. Obama of taking a hands-off approach to the financial crisis, Democratic advisers said they believed that Mr. McCain now had a role in the legislationâs failure. Really? The man who was ostensibly working the phones such that he was confident enough to predict the passage of the bill in prepared remarks sent to reporters yesterday, in fact, made no phone calls to assure the passage of said bill. The man whose party has no particular philosophical aversion to government interference in the markets and is in control of Congress. The man who's been assuring voters of his very serious weighing in by phone from the campaign trail...didn't actually pick up a phone. This is the real Obama. He is a leader of crowds, not crises. This won't be a story, but it should be, and Republicans and McCain should point it out. The argument against Dems is the utter lack of competent leadership by Obama and Pelosi, not whining about a Pelosi speech. Pelosi lost more than 12 of her fellow California Democrats, close friends and allies, and Committee chairs in this vote. Obama failed to take a public position on the vote or to convince any teetering Democrats with promises of a trip to their Districts or other help from the Messiah himself, losing Dems from the Chicago area and much of the Congressional Black Caucus with whom he could have had sway. And yet, the guy who got his hands dirty, tried to make a few things happen, and didn't quite get the ball across the goal line is the one who takes the political heat for this. Which is why, as Bill Kristol and Dean Barnett have suggested, McCain may as well go all-out on the leadership front. It's where he's comfortable working, and where Obama will never dare to walk ahead of him. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi willfully ignored the impending crisis for years before they suddenly saw the light and were able to blame a politically palatable entity for itâRepublican embrace of "unbridled" capitalism and deregulation. They too seem to have reaped the benefits of inaction, succeeding in pinning the blame on the markets they meddled with, letting their vulnerable members oppose an unpopular bill, and possibly getting a second run at a bailout bill filled with the pork they cut out the first time around. In Washington, sometimes "leadership" ain't all its cracked up to be. But isn't the political windfall of inactionâconveniently kvetching without responsibilityâusually a privilege reserved for the minority party? Pelosi and Co. seem to be enjoying it no matter the circumstances. Maybe that's the "change" Obama's been talking about bringing to Washington.
|
| Beware the Curse of Shrum |
Shrum is famously 0 for 8 in the presidential elections with which he's been associated. Luckily for Obama, Shrum has stayed on the sidelines this year. The Obama machine - one of the most effective and efficient campaigns in recent memory - is run by Chicago operative David Axelrod and longtime Gephardt hand David Plouffe. This may be the year the curse of Shrum is broken.
|
| Coupling |
|
The rise of new powers in recent years has led to the theory of economic decoupling. The theory says that, as places like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and to a lesser extent Vietnam and other southeast Asian countries rise, they are less dependent on the American economy. Problems in the American economy therefore matter less to these new powers, as they can always trade with one another. They don't require American capital or even confidence in American economic power and leadership. They've "decoupled." Interesting theory. Except recent events have exposed it to be, what's the word, totally false.
|
| How Will Undecided Voters Make Up Their Minds? |
|
The presidential race remains highly volatile. A recent Diageo/Hotline poll found 23 percent of voters are undecided and another 9 percent saying they still might change their minds. Now, that doesnât mean over a third of the electorate are truly swing voters. Partisans in this crowd will probably vote for the party they have supported in the past. But even half that number could swing the race from nail-biter to landslide depending on how these voters break. Second, we probably wonât know much about these voters for several more weeks. Research indicates a high percentage of self-identified independents, often one-fourth or more, wonât decide until the last two weeks before the election or even Election Day. Finally, undecided voters harbor very different questions about the two candidates. Mark Blumenthal posted this interesting nugget yesterday:
In the end, these swing voters will have to pick which of these two questions--âwho is better to leadâ vs. âwho understands people like meâ--matters more. That choice will decide the next president.
|
| Liberty and Death |
|
First, some bad news: TWS contributing editor P.J. O'Rourke has been diagnosed with cancer. The good news: The cancer is highly curable, and O'Rourke has written a very funny and thoughtful LA Times op-ed in light of his diagnosis. Get well soon. (Hat tip: Mark Hemingway)
|
| Debate Prep School |
|
Drop what you're doing and read Republican consultant Mike Murphy's extremely entertaining column in this week's Time magazine. It's about the strange rituals associated with prepping candidates for debates. Here's a taste:
Classic.
|
| Raising the FDIC Cap |
|
Marc Ambinder notes that both Obama and McCain now favor raisng the FDIC cap from $100,000 to $250,000.
|
| New RNC Ad Says Big-Spender Obama Would Worsen Economy |
|
Jonathan Martin reports the RNC will spend $5 million airing the ad in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana.
|
| Congress's Folly |
|
Wise words from Megan McArdle on Nancy Pelosi's failure of leadership yesterday on the bailout vote:
As Karl Rove said on the radio yesterday, there were a number of Democrats Pelosi should have been able to win over had she tried: I think criticism of Pelosi would have gained a lot more traction had House Republicans simply voted against the bill out of principle. But the Republicans trotted out a petulant argument that some members voted against the bill because Pelosi gave a partisan speech prior to the vote. And their folly rather than Pelosi's failure of leadership understandably became the center of attention. (Hat tip: Johnny Dollar's Place; Hot Air.)
|
|
Monday, September 29, 2008
|
| State of Play |
|
So hereâs the state of play as the Great Depression redux edges ominously closer. The Paulson Plan failed today, with a solid majority of Republicans voting against it. The opposition Republicans fall into two camps:
Hereâs whatâs been lost in the debate while people on both the right and left have offered ignorant jeremiads about âbailing out Wall Street.â If the economy tilts into a deep recession or even a depression, itâs not the wealthy or even Barack Obamaâs cherished middle class who will pay the deepest price. In any such circumstance, itâs the people on the economic margins who get hurt the most. The ones without a nest-egg and without a 401(k) are the ones who have no safety net when they lose their jobs and health insurance. If unemployment goes from 6% to 10%, it wonât be the investment bankers who start heating their homes at 56 degrees in January. Populist rhetoric is almost always misguided. That has never been more the case than over the past week. In case youâre looking for political ramifications, the news is not good if youâre of the Republican persuasion. As much as I would like to lay all of our forthcoming problems at the feet of the House members whose feelings Nancy Pelosi so easily bruised, theyâre a bit player in this drama. A Republican occupies the White House, and the buck stops with him. Itâs a Republican economy, and itâs a law of political physics that we will pay the price for its shortcomings. In case youâre looking for ways forward, there are plenty out there. A few days ago, Bill Kristol linked to a provocative piece by Harvard professor Lucian Bebchuk that suggested the best way to recapitalize our faltering financial institutions would be via rights offerings backstopped by the federal government. Translated into English, this plan would address the financial systemâs most urgent need â recapitalizing the financial institutions that need it â directly. Whatâs more, the recapitalization would come from shareholders, not taxpayers. It likely wouldnât cost Joe Sixpack a red cent. It would also keep the federal government out of the banking business, a matter rightly near and dear to the hearts of libertarian leaning Republicans. And yet they never considered this plan, such is the state of their current non-constructive pose. The Paulson Plan only addresses (or should I say addressed) the need for recapitalization indirectly, by providing the funds necessary by gobbling up presently undesirable mortgage backed securities. The Republicans could have spent the past two vital weeks coming behind a plan like Professor Bebchukâs (or another one) assuming Paulsonâs plan was unacceptable. Instead, they dithered. Some in the GOP obviously would rather have a Great Depression redux instead of taking the necessary steps to prevent it. Call it a twisted matter of principle. My point here isnât to lobby for the Bebchuk Plan. My point is to show that there are potential solutions out there that the political class hasnât seriously (or even frivolously) addressed. Thereâs an opportunity here for the McCain campaign. Of course, thereâs also an opportunity for the Obama campaign. Answers are needed, and lord knows the two senators have a big enough platform to provide them. But as far as Obama is concerned, his âprudenceâ by now is a known quantity. We wonât see any game changing propositions emanate from this preternaturally cautious politician. Obama lags events - he doesnât lead them. That leaves it up to McCain. Frankly, whether he can politically overcome a millstone the size of this economic crisis is questionable. Letâs face it â the financial meltdown is the equivalent of Mark Foleyâs salacious instant messages on stilts. But there remains the matter of duty. House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House have all been unable to move the ball forward. Collectively, theyâve spent the past ten days squabbling over a badly flawed bill that even if passed may still not have saved us from a very deep recession or worse. The only guy out there with the political juice to offer something new and get it seriously considered is John McCain. Even if he got a good bill passed, it might not be enough for him to win the election. But it would be his finest hour.
|
| Kristol: McCain's Moment (Updated) |
|
No one wants to take ownership of the task of rescuing the economy right now. The Bush-Paulson plan has failed. The administration, House Democrats, and House Republicans (above all) have all proved unable to deliver. But there is someone who might be able to save the economy--and incidentally the Republican party: John McCain. UPDATE: The following statement from the McCain campaign is fair enough, as far as it goes. But surely its logic is this: if this is really âa national economic crisis,â and others have failed to lead, then McCain should leadâby re-suspending his campaign (fine, let observers mock him when he announces this), and leading his party and the Congress towards a solution. They wonât mock if he can pull this off:
UPDATE II: John McCain is having a âSmall Business Roundtable Discussionâ in Des Moines, Iowa tomorrow morning. Should be an upbeat discussion! McCain can explain why his fellow Republicans defeated legislation that McCain had basically endorsed, apparently because Nancy Pelosi was mean to them. Is the McCain campaign sure he wouldnât be better off coming back to D.C. and trying to help solve the problem?
|
| Republicans Blame Pelosi's Failure to Lead and Listen |
|
Reps. Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor just held a press conference, during which each of them blamed the loss of at least 12 Republican votes on Pelosi's floor speech, which struck a partisan tone that made teetering Republicans set their teeth and vote against her. Republicans largely pulled their punches during the floor debate today, avoiding blaming the Democrats who deserve some blame for this crisis. They clearly felt the delicate bipartisan nature of the project was betrayed by Pelosi's fire-breathing, and they called her on it, Cantor holding up her speech in his hands as the "reason this did not pass today." Democrats have been blaming Republicans for sinking the effort, but 97 Democrats voted against the bill. Cantor placed the blame, not only on Pelosi's inability to listen to Republican members, but her inability to lead her own party, claiming Republicans brought important bills to the floor when they were in the majority only when they were ready to deliver votes. "We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south." I'm looking for text of Pelosi's speech. Update: Very rough transcript below the fold. Update: I think the House Republicans handicapped themselves by not making the central thrust of their argument against Pelosi about her inability to lead her own party. The criticism of Pelosi's speech is an easy one to parry for House Dems, who will say, "Really, one little speech is all that was required for you to endanger your country?" Even if the speech did matter, and it was undoubtedly a petty, impolitic move, it's hard to make that argument too loud without looking like they're whining. Pelosi's inability to lead her own party and, indeed, her inability to even read themâ she evidently believed she had the votes to make it happenâ is closer to a political winner as an argument for Republicans. She is just an utter hot mess of a leader, and the opinion polls on Congress show it. Pelosi has 235 members. She needed 218. She could spare 17 members and still pass the bill. Regardless, we're going to be covering this bickering for another week or so, and who knows where the markets will go. Where are McCain and Obama right now?
|
| The House is Voting, Bill Fails |
|
The tally with just a few seconds remaining in the original voting time is 213 Nays and 192 Yeas with only 26 votes remaining. Update: In the words of President Bush, "this sucker's going down." 228 against, 205 for, with one not voting. There would have to be some serious arm-twisting in the next few minutes to get this passed. Now, what do they do? Update: 227-206 was the final vote, with one abstention. The Dow was down 700 at its lowest point today. It's now down 550.
|
| Obama, ACORN, and the Current Crisis |
|
The extent to which Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama himself are avoiding blame for this crisis despite symbiotic relationships with those who caused it is truly amazing. The nerve with which they hold forth about "unbridled capitalism" and "deregulation" while conveniently forgetting their culpability in government interference in the market, which first pressured banks (via Community Reinvestment Act) and then incentivized banks (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to make risky loans to people with troubled credit history. Obama has been heavily involved with a certain group of community organizers that encouraged such behavior since the very beginning of his careerâ ACORN. I'm going to pull out a little bit of Stanley Kurtz's piece on this connection, but read the whole thing. The details are devastating, even if you know the basic outline already: [Prominent Chicago ACORN activist Madeline] Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." As for Frank and Co., watch them deny, deny, deny the crisis in 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten up Fannie/Freddie oversight, so they could keep the gravy train moving. Republicans are not blameless in this by any means, as they still had a majority when reforms were suggested, but the brazenness with which Democrats are blaming today's crisis on the market they manipulated for their own gain should not be overlooked. Spread this video.
|
| Another Salman Rushdie? |
|
The Sunday Times reports that over the weekend book publisher Martin Rynja had his London home firebombed by three Muslims who found one of the books his firm is publishing to be blasphemous:
It would have been perfectly reasonable for Random House to spike this book if it had a general policy against publishing smut or religiously insensitive material. But how shameful is it that a major American book publisher openly admits it decided not to publish a book simply because it feared the violent reactions of radical Muslims? How shameful is it that an American author has to travel overseas to exercise her First Amendment rights?
|
| How to Read a Post-Debate Poll |
|
Post-debate âsnapâ surveys aimed at determining a âwinnerâ are in vogue given the proliferation of polling by media outlets this election cycle. But what do the results really mean for the November election? Pollster.com summarizes the five post-debate polls (and a focus group) from last Friday night and provides several points to consider in interpreting these numbers. Read the full analysis here. Two of the five surveys, Gallup/USA Today and CNN, gave the edge to Obama on the question of âwho did a better job.â Two others, Los Angeles Times and Zogby reported much closer results in their surveys. The CBS/Knowledge Networks poll was a little unique, focusing only on âuncommittedâ voters in its sample. It also gave the advantage to Obama on the âwho performed betterâ question. (Democrat Stan Greenberg conducted a focus group with âundecidedâ voters in Missouri, and his results are also discussed in the Pollster.com post). The first question anyone should ask when reading these results: Does âwho did a better jobâ contain any real electoral consequences? Mark Blumenthal sums it up well:
Post-debate polls often just reflect partisan predispositions and donât mean the candidates changed a lot of minds. Blumenthal points out the configuration of the underlying survey samples shapes the results. A couple of the polls noted more self-identified Democrats than Republicans watched the debates, another likely producing a pro-Obama tilt. CNN notes this, for example, about its survey:
No doubt the media will report at least this many polls picking the âwinnerâ of Thursday nightâs vice presidential debate (and the two remaining presidential debates). Blumenthal raises some important caveats about how we interpret these results, especially when it comes to their ultimate electoral implications.
|
| Palin-Bashing, Euro-style |
|
If you think itâs just the mainstream American media that are strongly biased against Governor Sarah Palin you need to take a look at Palin's press coverage on the other side of the Atlantic. Journalists and commentators in Europe have now gone completely negative on John McCainâs female running mate. Germanyâs influential Der Spiegel provided two examples of the anti-Palin sentiment gripping the press. The first Spiegel Online piece, titled âPalin chit-chats herself into world politicsâ--the difficult-to-translate German title âPalin plauscht sich in die Weltpolitikâ is even more condescending--mocks Sarah Palinâs recent trip to the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. In essence, Der Spiegel argues that Palinâs âcrash course in foreign policyâ left her completely clueless, forcing the Alaska Governor âto chit-chat with Afghan President Hamid Karzai about the meaning of the name of his son Mirwaisâ (which, as we learn, translates to âLight of the Houseâ). While the German magazine admits at least that the press was only privy to the first 29 seconds of the Palin-Karzai bilateral, it should be a no-brainer that there is nothing wrong in opening a first-time meeting with a visiting foreign dignitary from an allied country with some âget-to-know-youâ conversation. The correspondent unfairly casts judgment on Sarah Palin Palin after 29 seconds into her meeting with President Karzai. Then, to top the day off, Spiegel Online also posted a photo album titled âAmericaâs Power Women: Wise Letters and Dead Caribousâ covering 13 U.S. female political leaders ranging from, inter alia, Abigail Smith Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin. The article portrays all the women very favorably, with the exception of Sarah Palin.
|
| Press' Obama Love Goes Harlequin |
|
Ahem, this is not a parody entitled "The Seduction of the Swing States" (emphasis mine): The rain pouring down, his jacket off, his white dress-shirt clinging to his body, Barack Obama played to a crowd in a state that hasnât elected a Democrat since 1964. At this rate, how long before press accounts of Obama aren't even safe for work anymore? After you shake that image out of your head, move onto this delightfully Freudian passage about a possible Biden slip: As the rain began to pour harder, Obama noticed his running mateâs stool close to the edge of the slippery stage. Yes, no one would want that, would they, Barack? "Nice gaffe-prone vice presidential nominee you got here...Shame if anything should happen to him."
|
| No Funds for Squirrely ACORN |
|
Given that the bailout bill is largely agreed upon as a necessary "crap sandwich" that "sucks," it is worth noting that conservative outrage did succeed in stripping the most egregious pork from the billâ funds in an "affordable housing trust fund" that could have gone to Democrat-allied and often nefarious advocacy groups like ACORN. All possible proceeds from the sale of these toxic assets will now go toward the national debt, not to affordable housing groups that pressure politicians to pressure banks to offer risky loans to low-income families, so those families can get into mortgages they can't afford. Hmmm, doesn't that sound familiar? Unhappy with the revocation of another round of gorging at the government teat, ACORN is releasing angry press releases, which is at least one reason to smile: âMembers of Congress worked tirelessly over the weekend to rid Wall Street of its toxic assets, which are responsible for the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Unfortunately, families who fell victim to Wall Streetâs toxic lending practices and now risk losing their homes were largely left out. ACORN members are extremely disappointed that the bailout package does little to assist these homeowners, such as providing them relief through the bankruptcy courts. ACORN will undoubtedly mobilize all of the dead people, cartoon characters, pets, historical figures, and illegal immigrants it has registered to vote in order to achieve this goal.
|
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008
|
| Some of House GOP to Grudgingly Go Along |
|
A 110-page bailout bill, negotiated by Congress under the glare of global investors and an election-year spotlight, will come up for a vote in the House Monday. A week into wrestling over how to save the financial sector from a meltdown while simultaneously shielding themselves from the political fallout of an unpopular bill, negotiators settled on plan they claim includes increased oversight, limited CEO pay for participating companies, an insurance option as an alternative to buying toxic assets, and less pork than previously considered versions. Democrats patted themselves and each other on the backs generously Sunday as they announced the accord in a press conference about as charismatic and crowd-pleasing as open-mic night at the morgue. It's leadership like this that leads a party to nominate the junior senator from Illinois for President. At least some House Republicans, particularly conservatives, who had been the hold-outs on a deal until Sunday, sounded poised to cast their votes for the bill. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) reportedly called the bill a "crap sandwich" twice during a final meeting of House Republicans on the subject, but said he'd vote for it on the floor. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a prominent opponent of the bill made a similar argument in the same meeting: Other former opponents said to be backing the new version of the bill are Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Rep. Eric Cantor, (R-Va.) The former negotiated on behalf of the House GOP and the latter was a lead proponent of the insurance option central to the GOP's alternative plan, which was eventually included in the final bill language. But the bill language seems only to require the establishment of the insurance program, which Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson and participating companies would then have the option to employ or not. Though on the surface it seems a good development that the House GOP's insurance option was included, it's unclear to me why Paulson would choose to use it when he's publicly expressed doubts about its efficacy or why companies would opt into it instead of just getting bought out by Paulson. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert on the insurance plan or the bill language, but that's what I gathered from my read-through.) âIf we donât pass it, we shouldnât be in Congress,â snapped Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the lead negotiator for Senate Republicans. John McCain and Barack Obama are still undecided about whether they'll be back in the Capitol to vote for the bill when it comes to the Senate on Wednesday, but urged the bill's passage by the House. Obama somewhat mischaracterized the conflict as one between Congress and the White House (about a week past that, Barry!), no doubt in an effort to meet his personal goal of fitting either the word "administration" or "Bush" into every single campaign statement of the year: âThe breakthrough between Congress and the administration is the culmination of a sorry period in our history, in which reckless speculation and greed on Wall Street and lax oversight from Washington led to a meltdown of our financial markets,â Obama said. âBut regardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security.â On ABC's "This Week," McCain used an economy of words with which his opponent is unfamiliar to express an appropriate combination of disgust and necessity: âThis is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with.â Both candidates were on the phone with lead negotiators during the Saturday-night sessions, along with leading economists and market experts such as Warren Buffet, said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) Bush called the compromise a "very good bill" that does what's necessary to "protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown." Critics from the left held a meeting of the "Skeptics' Caucus" today, during which Rep. Dennis Kucinich claimed there were not enough votes for the bill to pass, and expressed uncharacteristic solidarity with conservative House Republicans: âThere is an attempt to create a fake partisan dichotomy here. This is not about Democrat versus Republican. This is about Main Street or Wall Street,â said Kucinich.Support among Democrats will not be unanimous, it seems, no matter how Nancy uses those famed leadership skills. Update: Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) remains staunchly against the bill: Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.
|
| The Deal, in Writing (In Theory) |
|
Nancy Pelosi announced today at a Democratic press conference long on self-aggrandizement and short on self-awareness, that the deal is done, and the text is online. Predictably, the government we're counting on to rescue world markets with a plan crafted in one week has not been able to craft a website that can handle such an announcement. Nonetheless, keep refreshing if you want to eventually see what these guys will be voting on.
|
| Deal is Reached. Is ACORN Out? |
|
Well, this would be welcome news. Talks also focused on a new issue: how to cover the cost of the program so taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill. As to the "Wall Street tax," which might be implemented five years into this deal if the $700 billion isn't recovered: Paulson and some Republican lawmakers were said to be cool to the idea, though House Republicans also have expressed serious concerns about the cost of the program and have suggested other ideas for limiting taxpayer exposure. But whether it was finally incorporated or not, it did not seem to cramp negotiations: "While we do believe the Congress needs to act to avert this crisis, we also believe we should not be bailing out Wall Street on the backs of American taxpayers," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. Secretary Paulson's statement, delivered alongside Pelosi, Frank, Blunt, and others; Madame Speaker, Mr. Leader, let me add to what you have said, and we begin with a very important task, a task to stabilize the markets, to protect all Americans. and do it in a way in which it protects the taxpayers to the maximum length possible. And so we've been working very hard on this, and we've made great progress toward a deal which will work and will be effective in the marketplace, and, you know, effective for all Americans. So, again, I -- you know, I thank the speaker, I thank the leader, I thank, you know, all of the leaders in the Senate and the House, and we've been working on this for a long time. want we've still got more to do to finalize it. but i think we're there, and our staffs will be working all night, and, again, so far, so good. They're reportedly in the pen-to-paper stage right now and will work through the night. They expect they may have a written deal tomorrow, and vote Sunday or Monday, although Roy Blunt sounds slightly less sanguine than others: Well, as you all know, House Republicans were very concerned this week we do everything we could to bring free-market principles and protections for the taxpayers to the table, and other people in these negotiations wanted to do many of those same things. We need to look and see where we are on paper tomorrow, but through the day and the evening today with...others, we were talking about how we could make these things work in a way that our conference could together. We'll be looking at the final wording of this tomorrow, talking to my colleagues, and really I'm grateful -- we're where we are. I think we are going to be able to have an announcement tomorrow, but these are difficult issues, and everybody showed lots of patience. I've been involved in the last few years in a lot of these conferences that could be pretty tense and pretty complicated. and people really showed patience in this one that got us to where we are tonight. and I'm grateful for that. and look forward to what we're going to see on paper tomorrow, and presenting these ideas to my colleagues and getting the reaction from them that we'll have in the morning and during the day tomorrow. Update: Wow, will the new taxpayer protections be enough to change this dismal 24-percent support number? If anyone can convince the public, it's the lowest-rated Congress in history, right? Although, if the bailout plan has minimal taxpayer protection and manages to help the market, most will likely be forgiven.
|
| Let's Make a Deal |
|
Reports are coming in that a deal is on the horizon, due to a marathon negotiating session that went through much of Saturday evening and into Sunday morning: House and Senate negotiators have reached tentative agreement on a financial rescue plan after a marathon Capitol negotiating session that started Saturday afternoon and stretched into early Sunday morning. In case you're wondering what Congressional negotiators eat at a time of economic crisis, it's Cosi, which was delivered around 8 p.m. Fairly reflective of the economic hard times, though it's a step above Subway. To help win the support of House Republicans, the deal also likely includes an option under which Paulson and future Treasury secretaries could choose to sell companies government-backed insurance to cover securities â thereby improving their value â rather than buy the assets as initially proposed. Earlier today, Pelosi was pushing a new "Wall Street tax" that would be implemented if taxpayers got hosed on the $700 billion: "If after five years ... the CBO decides that the American taxpayer has lost money in this, then there would be a fee on financial institutions," Pelosi said, adding that she hoped the provision could be part of a final bailout deal. And, the insurance idea was apparently gaining momentum at some point during the earlier negotiating today: The idea of charging large financial firms fees to set up an industry-funded rescue insurance fund was gaining momentum as key House and Senate negotiators continued to meet Saturday evening to iron out the final details of a $700 billion rescue package for Wall Street. McCain was on the phone with various negotiators today, but not on the Hill. Mr. McCain remained in his condominium in Arlington, Va., until 12:30 p.m. Saturday, when he emerged and made a one-minute trip in his motorcade to his campaign headquarters around the corner. I confess to being confused once again by McCain's strategy, which makes it harder for him to argue that he was taking the crisis more seriously than Obama who was doubtless working the phones today as well, but from the campaign trail. I do think he deserves credit for getting House Republicans in on this deal, bringing them to the table, and some credit for any insurance deal included, given that that was central to House GOP concerns, but it's going to be hard to claim it against the inevitable media coverage.
|
|
Saturday, September 27, 2008
|
| The Media Catches McCain in a Lie! |
|
And it's a whopper! Jules Crittenden provides the report:
|
| Kristol: A Genuine and Immediate Crisis |
|
I've received phone calls in the last hour from two economists I respect, one of them Larry Lindsey, the other in a position where he'd prefer not to be named. Both have government experience, neither is alarmist by nature, and they say this: The huge European bank Fortis is apparently about to fail. The ripple effect on the American banking system could be disastrous, with bank runs, liquidity crises, and stock sell offs possible Monday. Wachovia may well fail next week. As Larry put it, this really will be 1933 soon if we don't move rapidly to stabilize the banking system. And here's the bad news: the current bailout bill, whatever its merits and likelihood of passage, does nothing to address this. Congress should pass by Monday simple legislation doing two things: 1. Giving the FDIC authority to provide unlimited deposit insurance through the FDIC for transaction accounts in banks. 2. Authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide unlimited protection of principal in money market funds through the Treasury's exchange stabilization fund. Maybe my acquaintances (and I) are too worried; maybe this legislation wouldn't quite be the right solution. But I wanted to sound what may be, unfortunately, a needed alarm.
|
| About Last Night: No Laughing Matter |
|
Far be it from me to differ with the punditocracyâs mainstream, but I happen to feel that last nightâs debate was a pretty big win for John McCain. Iâm aware that most observers have called it a draw, agreeing that both men performed rather ably. Iâm also aware that the polls show a majority of watchers thought Obama âwon.â But still, it was a big night for McCain. Or more precisely, it was a bad night for Obama. Judging these things like a high school debate is a foolâs (or CNNâs) errand. Who cares who âwonâ the debate? Weâre not electing a debater-in-chief. A more probative inquiry is who won more votes. Or to ask a related question, who lost fewer votes. I agree with the multitudes of analysts who say that both men performed ably. The strength of Obamaâs performance, especially in the debateâs first half, came as something of a surprise. He must have cut his normal quotient of âumsâ and âahsâ by at least 50%, and he put himself across in a relatively forceful manner. At the other end of the stage, McCainâs competence in this kind of forum came as no surprise to people familiar with John McCainâs skills. (As a Romney supporter during the primaries, McCainâs supple mind and command of details constantly provided frustration.) But again, you donât determine the winner of these things by calculating who most skillfully evaded taking a position on the Paulson Plan. We might as well skip ahead to the real goal which isnât winning a debate but rather winning votes. Like I said, McCain came across well as he always does at these things. Low end news gatherers who were expecting a doddering old warmonger got a surprise. McCain looked and sounded presidential. McCainâs running attack on Obama did serious damage, especially given the way Obamaâs behavior played right into the attackâs theme. Throughout the evening, McCain said that Obama âdidnât understandâ things. The message was as subtle as a Howard Dean scream â on one part of the stage you had the old Warhorse who has been around the track; on the other end of the stage, according to McCain, you had a neophyte. McCain was making a frontal assault on Obamaâs maturity and judgment. The assault only directly drew blood in a couple of instances. Obama looked silly when he couldnât distinguish between âtacticsâ and âstrategy,â and his endless parsing on preconditions and preparations came across as patently disingenuous. But the real damage came with the debateâs optics. Having his maturity frontally challenged, Obama by his own creative antics often came across as childish, petulant and a little odd. Let us count the ways:
Goreâs antics were completely unprecedented. Up until that time, every other presidential candidate had managed to comport himself in a reasonably mature fashion while doing a televised debate. And yet in 2004, George W. Bush took the Gore tactics out for a test drive during his first debate with John Kerry, scowling virtually every time Kerry spoke. Bushâs lead in the polls quickly evaporated. The voters expect a certain level of decorum from their candidates. Obama didnât demonstrate that decorum last night. While he debated more effectively than he has in the past, he came across poorly.
|
| Obama Adviser: McCain Language "Insulting," We'll Use it Too |
|
John McCain said several times during last night's debate that Barack Obama simply doesn't understand many of the subjects at the heart of the presidential race. It was quite clear that McCain was trying to paint Obama as naive and risky and he hammered that theme -- Obama "doesn't understand" -- again and again through the 90-minute affair. After the debate, Linda Douglass took great offense on Obama's behalf, calling the language "insulting." Then she used it to describe McCain. Here is the exchange with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow: âWeâve heard a phrase repeated ad nauseum tonight from Senator McCain â Senator Obama didnât understand, that he didnât grasp the issues. Whatâs the rejoinder to that from the Obama side?â Got that? The Obama campaign can say that John McCain "doesn't get it" but McCain's language is "insulting" when he says that Obama doesn't understand. Douglass will not find herself in any trouble with her boss on these kinds of attacks because he said the same thing in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. "It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it." Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign would be better off accusing McCain of plagiarizing their rhetoric. Then again, maybe not.
|
| Scoring the Debate |
|
In the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, the two men who would lead America for the next four years, one of the main points of contention was the worldview of a man who shaped U.S. foreign and national security policy three decades ago. And Henry Kissinger is not happy. Obama claimed that Kissinger approved of his view that an American president should meet with adversaries without preconditions. John McCain disagreed. And Kissinger, who is advising McCainâs presidential campaign, not surprisingly thinks that McCain is right. âSenator McCain is right,â said Kissinger. âI would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.â Indeed, in a recent appearance at George Washington University, Kissinger said that while he is âin favor of negotiating with Iran,â he âpreferred doing it at the secretary of state level.â The dispute over Kissinger was one of several points of sharp contention in the debate, which lasted a little more than 90 minutes. Although the debate was supposed to focus on national security and foreign policy, moderator Jim Lehrer used the first 40 minutes to ask the candidates questions about the increasingly fragile economy. Given the events of the past two weeks, Lehrer had little choice but to focus on the economy at the outset. The changes to the format undoubtedly worked to Obamaâs advantage, allowing him to get comfortable on stage before turning to the issues on which McCain is far better informed. Despite this, I thought each candidate performed better in those areas where he was not expected to excel. So McCain outperformed expectations on the economy and Obama did better than many anticipated he would do on foreign policy. Still, Obama had several moments where he was either at a loss for words or seemed to have forgotten what he was supposed to say. One particularly bad exchange for Obama came when Lehrer asked what programs Obama would cut in light of the tight budgets that will almost certainly result from the current economic crisis. At first, Obama said nothing. Then he brought up energy, but initially just said that he wanted to be sure the U.S. is still investing in energy. Finally, he seemed to remember the question and said that while heâs committed to investing in energy some of those investments might have to wait. Awkward. In the very next sentence, he referred to McCain as âTomâ--saying âTom called me wildly liberal.â He said this in reference to McCainâs claim that Obama was the Senateâs most liberal member and explained that he probably just seemed liberal because he was opposing George W. Bush. (Weak.) Obama followed that by citing his bipartisan work with Tom Coburn, a conservative senator from Oklahoma. Itâs fair to wonder whether he jumbled them a bit. McCain, for his part, sometimes seemed to get lost in his own answers--after making his point with his first couple of sentences, he was uncertain what to say next. I thought McCainâs worst answer came, ironically, when Lehrer asked him about the lessons he takes away from the Iraq war. Rather than immediately using the question to attack Obama for his opposition to the surge--even after the surge had succeeded--McCain said that the central lesson of Iraq was that itâs important not to have a failed strategy that almost loses the war. Well, thanks. McCain later came back to the surge and knocked Obama for his opposition to it, but his attack was convoluted and, making matters worse, he made a mistake in doing so. Immediately after McCain pointed viewers toward Obamaâs recent comment that he the surge succeeded beyond his wild expectations, McCain claimed that Obama had never admitted the surge worked. Confusing. As one smart conservative put it: "McCain needs to say, âIf Senator Obama had been president two years ago, America would have lost the war and been forced to come home in defeat.â He needs to be clear on danger posed by Obama, and needs to attack Obama's judgment.â McCain did level those attacks, but they were muddled and not precise. Overall, John McCain did fine, and Barack Obama did well. Each candidate did what he needed to do in this first debate. McCainâs strong performance during the economic section of the debate may help him get beyond a very difficult two weeks. Barack Obama seemed like he belonged on stage with McCain and came across as a plausible president. For that reason, he probably walks away from the first debate a winner.
|
| Kristol: Childish Liberalism Alert! |
|
Jim Lehrer asks the candidates what spending programs, if any, they might limit or cut in light of the $700 billion bailout and other budget constraints. John McCain suggests a partial budget freeze. Barack Obama responds: âThe problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under-funded. I want to increase early childhood education....â Weâre in a major financial crisis, and Barack Obama wants to increase spending in an area where thereâs notoriously little evidence that spending has paid off, an area that in any case isnât a primary responsibility of the federal government (or perhaps of any level of government). Obamaâs ritualistic invocation of early childhood education as deserving ever more funding is a reminder, one might say, of the deep childishness of contemporary liberalism.
|
| Fight Night! |
|
Round 1: Where do you stand on the Paulson bailout plan? McCain says that he is going to vote for the bailout and then talks about how important it is to hold people accountable for their actions. This is a close one since neither guy conveys any deep understanding of the situation or insight into the solution. As the exchange goes on it becomes clear that these guys like each other about as much as Ali and Foreman did.
|
|
Friday, September 26, 2008
|
| What's the Name on My Bracelet? |
|
Here's the video of an awful moment for Obama. I'm surprised more haven't mentioned it in post-debate coverage, but it's something that likely hit some viewers on a gut level and could easily go viral. His answer was flippant and his gesture embarrassing.
|
| TWS Exclusive: Kissinger Unhappy About Obama |
|
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
|
| Was a Tie Enough for Follow-the-Leader Obama Tonight? |
|
In post-debate wrap-up, I'm getting a couple things from most commentators. One, all three networks have mentioned the fact that Obama repeated, "John is right," throughout the debate. The McCain campaign has already released an ad to capitalize. I noticed several sound bites that stood out, but most commentators say none struck them. In the absence of others, "John is right," will be the one that defines this night, and it will be largely because the campaign competently noticed and packaged itâbut quick. Most commentators say McCain performed well and Obama fairly, but that a virtual tie benefits Obama. However, even liberal commentators conceded that Obama had some problems. McCain got under his skin. Paul Begala said that, during the discussion on Iraq, Obama "sounded like the man of yesterday," like he was "stuck in the past," noting the irony of the fact that Obama's image is about the future. It seems to me that if Obama's camp and allies are saying all he needed was a tie and he almost got it, it was not a good night for him. More striking to me was the fact that the economic debate, which should have been Obama's strong suit by a mile, was steered to earmarks, taxes, and spending almost to the exclusion of all else by John McCain. Obama and Lehrer followed McCain's lead by talking on his turf for at least 10 minutes. If Obama can't direct a debate with John McCain toward his self-interest, how could we possibly expect him to stand up for America's interests across the table from Ahmadinejad (which is where he wants to be sitting)? He's far too apt to follow the leader. He may respond eloquently when he does, but he's not directing the conversation. I think McCain missed an opportunity to explain why he was in Washington and exactly what he was fighting for, but the direction the conversation went certainly didn't hurt him. Last question. The conventional wisdom is that the guy who's ahead in polls need only tie to "win" a debate. Obama committed no major flubs tonight (with the possible exception of 'Jim, I have a bracelet, too," which required that he check the name on the bracelet before he got misty.) But Obama's central vulnerability in this election is on foreign policy. Was a tie enough to assure voters that he's not the risk McCain implies he is, or did he need to pull off a more solid win? My favorite moment of the night (which admittedly may only appeal to conservatives like myself) was when McCain scolded Obama over his agreement to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama, of course, attempted once again to rewrite his answer, and McCain headed him off at the pass: "Let me get this straight. We sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says, 'We're gonna wipe Israel off the face of the Earth' and we say, 'No, you're not?' Please."
|
| Meeting A'Jad without Preconditions |
|
McCain hammered Obama on Obama's pledge to meet the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba without precondition; Obama responded that Kissinger supports this policy. Goldfarb points out that Kissinger actually said: "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" McCain was very strong on this point, though I wish he would have shot back that Obama's own running mate thinks this policy is "naive."
|
| Did Obama Flip Flop on Missile Defense Funding? |
|
I didn't catch exactly what Obama said, but I thought he said he favors funding missile defense. That seems to contradict this pledge he made during the primaries.
Update: The McCain Report points out that in 2001 Obama said in a TV interview: "I, for example, don't agree with a missile defense system."
|
| Refrains of the Night |
|
From Obama: "John is right." From McCain: "What I don't think Obama understands is..." One lends itself to an ad better than the other one, no?
|
| Biden Flashback: Obama AWOL on Afghanistan Hearings |
|
There's been a bit of back and forth between McCain and Obama on Obama's failure to hold any hearings on NATO or Afghanistan in the foreign relations committee. Obama pointed out that he's merely the subcommittee chairman; Joe Biden is the chairman. But Biden slammed Obama during the primaries for his failure to attend committee hearings on Afghanistan:
|
| 'Jim, I've Got a Bracelet, Too.' |
|
Wow, that is not how Obama should have followed up on John McCain's poignant and personal story about a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who asked McCain not to let her son's death be "in vain." I've got to believe that sound bite did not sit well with many people listeningâ pro-mission families who've lost loved ones in Iraq, many soldiers currently in the region, or Vietnam vets who identify with McCain's regrets about defeatism in that conflict and don't desire to repeat it. It characterized most of the discussion about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which had McCain sounding like a smart statesman and Obama sounding rather petulant and stuck in the past. He has repeatedly seemed the teacher to Obama's student by talking about Iraq's impact on the rest of the region, claiming the success of the surge and the fact that it is now the same strategy (that Obama once opposed) that will work in Afghanistan. The discussion of Pakistan came with a direct scold about Obama's position on carrying out attacks within Pakistan: "George Schultz once said that if you put a gun to man's head, you better be ready to pull the trigger. I'm not ready to cut off funding to Pakistan, so I'm not ready to threaten them, as Barack Obama is."
|
| Contrasts Galore |
|
I was glad to see McCain make some of these contrasts so successfully. McCain: I have fought against earmarks for my entire career, and he's asked for $932 million. McCain: Lowering business taxes is necessary because if a business can get an 11 percent tax in Ireland, and must endure 35 percent here, that business will leave the U.S. We must prevent that by giving American businesses a chance to give plenty of people jobs and opportunity. McCain: I will lower spending in the aftermath of this bailout plan by putting a spending freeze on everything but military spending, vets' programs, and entitlements. Obama's best moment of the debate is when he tied McCain to Bush, much less ham-handedly than usual, by saying it was "hard to swallow" that he's standing up for spending cuts now when he voted for Bush's budgets.
|
| How Did This Become an Earmark Discussion? |
|
What was meant to start as a discussion of the serious financial crisis turned into a 10-minute discussion of John McCain's fiscal strong suitâ earmarks. He has been able to tout his anti-pork record, while Obama has had to try to change the subject, and endured his $932 million-dollar figure being pounded into the audience's conscience. This should be Obama's part of the game, and he's following McCain's lead to a remarkable extent. On the other hand, I know McCain was trying to be bipartisan and fairly nice to start off the debate, but he missed an opportunity to lay out the fact that he had, in concrete ways, sought to change Fannie and Freddie regulations while Obama remained silent. He could have made that point politely, but made it nonetheless. Instead, his first punch was landed on earmarks: "Obama didn't happen to see that light (on earmarks) until after he started running for President." He seems to have gotten under Obama's skin several times, from the get-go, which is a good omen for McCain's night.
|
| The McCain Report... |
|
will be live-blogging the debate.
|
| The Magical, Mythical Deal That Wasn't |
|
The media is finally amending reporting from yesterday that claimed there was a deal on the bailout package yesterday, the evidence for which was that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said there was a deal and the media believed them. ABC's Jake Tapper, one of the good ones, says "Sen. John McCain's role in the current dealings on Capitol Hill should not be overstated positively or negatively." Democrats are blaming McCain, R-Ariz., for the disastrous meeting yesterday. Fox's Carl Cameron is reporting the same, backed up by Democratic sources. I wonder if that information will wind its way to Jim Lehrer before he asks a question premised upon the early reports. Speaking of Lehrer, here are some of his greatest debate hits. "Sen. Kerry, what colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?â
|
| Biden is for Clean Coal Again |
|
Whew, just in time to pander in Pa.: Campaigning in Pennsylvania coal country on Thursday, the Democratic vice presidential nominee said the government should steer more money to clean coal â a term used to describe a variety of emerging technologies that burn coal for electricity without producing as much pollution.
|
| New Day, Real Deal? |
|
The House GOP is still pitching alternatives, the most prominent of which is Eric Cantor's, R-Va., insurance plan. After meeting today, the GOP emerged with a new negotiator who claimed support from McCain on the House Republicans' new tack: GOP leader John A. Boehner, whose members gave him a standing ovation during the session, told the assembled lawmakers that Minority Whip Roy Blunt would be their lead negotiator before fielding concerns about the overarching Treasury plan, according to people in the room. Rich Lowry has serious questions about the GOP alternative. Blunt declared McCain "with us," but I just saw Cantor on CNN, and he studiously avoided saying McCain was backing their proposal. Rather, he said McCain understands the need for a deal, but is also interested in taxpayer protection measures. Sounds like Blunt may have exaggerated McCain's definite support. Now, we will find out exactly how much Pelosi's political cover is worth to her. She could pass the bill without broad bipartisan support, but that saddles the Dems with the political fallout of passing a bailout plan opposed by up to 55 percent of Americans, according to polls. If, indeed, McCain is behind the taxpayer-protecting principles of the GOP's alternative plan, are there not some of them he could pitch to the public tonight? If he can get enough normal Americans behind some elements of the conservative proposal (and they seem inclined that way), phones might stop ringing off the hook at the Capitol with angry constituents, and both Democrat and Republican representatives could feel better about voting for the package. This is one of those moments where McCain has the opportunity, as he has been wont to do during this campaign, to go straight to the American people with a message without much filter from the media. The campaign has used such situations to its advantage in the past. What will he do with it tonight? How far would Pelosi be willing to go to shield her party's precious hindquarters from a public that is extremely unhappy at the moment? If nothing passes, Republicans will surely get the blame even though Nancy could have acted without them, but it seems the stakes are high enough and the field ripe for some more compromise on this measure. Even pressing them to get the ACORN-related and other such pork out of this thing would be a small victory. Pelosi is on CNN right now signaling willingness to consider "all proposals," but not the capital-gains tax relief Republicans have suggested (which is kind of the opposite of "all," but I digress). She seemed to say that all of the other conservative proposals could be under consideration. At the very least, it sounds like Pelosi and Co. are talking to House GOP members now, who were pointedly not involved in the mythical, magical "deal" of yesterday, which is why there was actually no deal at all.
|
| Begora! |
|
Ben Smith reports that Seamus Boyle, president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, has sent John McCain an angry letter in response to the senator's telling of an Irish joke in Scranton:
Thanks for sullying our reputation as a "jovial" people with your grievance-mongering, Seamus. My ancestors were shanty Irish, and I approve this message: My only complaint for McCain is that I thought this joke was much funnier the first time me father told it to me with an affected Irish accent. Full joke after the jump.
|
| David Letterman More Egotistical With Less Reason Than Even Obama |
|
This is Day Two of his snit fit over McCain's "Late Show" cancellation. McCain, of course, decided that Wednesday night, in the face of an impending economic crisis, might not be a great time for him to be yukking it up with a late-night host. Letterman was peeved enough to bring noted McCain-basher Keith Olbermann on in McCain's place. This is what Letterman had to say last night: "Here's how it works: You don't come to see me? You don't come to see me? Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day," Letterman said. Letterman: The new crucible for Electoral College contenders. A McCain campaign spokesman was generous in her reaction, openly identifying Letterman's show as "comedy." McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace said the campaign "felt this wasn't a night for comedy."
|
| Bill Clinton's Effective Surrogacy Continues |
|
Name the talking point, he's on it. Yesterday, he laid at least some of the blame for the subprime mess on Congressional Democrats mess: CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation? Also speaking with Cuomo, Clinton tagged McCain's trip to Washington as a "good-faith" effort instead of a political stunt: "We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
|
| Obama's Ads are Dishonest, Says the NYT? |
|
Speaking of arguing against interest...This article shall be there defense against cries of bias from now until Election Day. "Bias? Remember that one time we wrote about Barack Obama's ads critically? Now, leave me alone while I investigate Sarah Palin's aunt's citation for hunting out of season." Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obamaâs presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, âI just have a different philosophy, Iâm going to respond with the truth,â adding, âIâm not going to start making up lies about John McCain.â It touches on the egregious Spanish-language ad about immigration and the dishonest ad about Social Security, each about a week too late, but credit where credit is due. I have a feeling the timing may have had more to do with the McCain campaign's blasting of the NYT as an openly partisan, pro-Obama organization just days ago. In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCainâs positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this yearâs untruthful spots (âPants on Fire,â the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obamaâs advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; âFalse!â FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.) Democrats quoted in the story profess to be pleased to see Obama fighting back in "eye-for-an-eye" fashion because, after all, who ever really bought that "new politics" stuff anyway? I wonder if the reporters on this story, Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman, get to sit at the cool-kids table in the Sulzberger lunch room anymore?
|
| All-In in Oxford |
|
Well, I confess I didn't think John McCain would debate tonight. The deal seemed too far off this morning to plausibly claim that it was close enough for him to fly down to Mississippi. It undercuts his original argument about the paramount importance of coming to an accord on a bailout that he's now meeting up with Obama to argue about Ukraine's NATO inclusion. Lindsey Graham was lowering the bar for success this morning, saying all they would require is an "outline or proposal that will protect the taxpayer" instead of a true agreement. Before that news broke, former Clinton adviser Hank Sheinkopf argued on Fox & Friends, against interest and conventional wisdom, that Obama standing on that stage alone tonight would have looked like a self-indulgent boob and McCain would have looked like a hero. "And, voters are looking for a hero," he added. Now that that point is moot, what pray tell, are they going to talk about? And, what must McCain say to come out on top, here? Pundits can throw out all those "5 keys to a McCain win" columns they wrote Monday. McCain has suffered, fairly or not, a bad week of press, with the MSM buying the Dems' argument that there was a magical, mythical deal until McCain got to Washington, "injected presidential politics," and blew everything up leaving Hank Paulson to suffer the indignity of kneeling at the feet of Nancy Pelosi. There was, of course, a deal only in the sense that there was an agreement between everyone on the Hill except for the very people Pelosi and Dems need to back the billâ House Republicans. The press, which always viewed McCain's suspension as purely political, will hammer him again for suddenly deciding the deal could wait until after the debate. (And, why must they debate tonight? Doesn't it feel as if we're indulging a MSM/Obama temper tantrum in the face of economic doom?) But there's still work to be done, and McCain can still position himself as a leader in a mighty unorthodox way, from the debate stage. He reportedly met with a bunch of GOP leaders this morning. The debate will necessarily touch upon the economy and the bailout, probably as the first topic, so why not use the debate as a platform for introducing a new formulation of the bailout, including taxpayer protection and some conservative concessions, to the 50 million viewers? Message: "While Barack was at the gym today, I and some of my colleagues came up with a plan we think will work better for you, the American taxpayer, and I'd like to tell you a little bit about it." One of the principal problems with the original Paulson package is that no one even attempted to sell it to the American people. The reason it has gone down in flames is because citizens are mad about that, making calls, and forcing Pelosi and Co. to seek the broad support of Congressional Republicans even though they could pass it without them. It would seem to me that Oxford, Miss. might not be a bad launching pad for Bill Kristol's Option No. 3â a new, improved plan that would place McCain at the center of the solution, make voters happier, and get taxpayers at least partially off the hook. It's risky, but no one is happy with the current plan, and there's no reason a new one couldn't gain significant support if the American people were substantially happier with it than the Paulson plan. Obama, although cool under pressure, has been anything but influential in this debate. He's still in danger of looking impotent if McCain actually delivers something. It just feels like that's about the only way to gain by stepping on that stage tonight after having staked so much on the argument that the debate in Washington was what mattered. The McCain camp has spent the summer living by a modified mantra of tournament play: "surprise and advance." Surprise us again, Maverick.
|
| Debate Is On Tonight |
|
McCain will fly to Memphis this afternoon for the debate. The campaign's statement after the jump.
|
| Pew: Most Unpredictable Election in Decades? |
|
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center argues 2008 is the most unpredictable election in decades. âIn every recent election the public has accurately picked the winner by this time in the cycle,â he wrote yesterday. And as the chart below demonstrates, since 1992, by pretty healthy margins: ![]() Not so this year. When Pew asked voters two weeks ago to put aside their own preference and just crystal ball the winner, 39 percent picked Obama and 39 percent predicted McCain. Why all the uncertainty? Kohut writes this:
Both of Kohutâs explanations suggest unease with the candidates. But I also believe most undecided voters also like both Obama and McCain, which leads to additional fluidity in public opinion. Voter uncertainty about the outcome is validated by yesterdayâs Gallup poll finding the race back to a 46 percent to 46 percent tie. Read the full Pew report here.
|
| George Bush Ruins Everything (cont.) |
|
I've always maintained that if we wait long enough, eventually we'll see George W. Bush blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the world, ever. Exhibit #5,246 is this: magician/mentalist/oddball David Blaine blames Bush for the failure of "Dive of Death" stunt on Wednesday night.
|
| Kristol: McCain's Choice |
|
The McCain campaign is now trying to broker a deal between House Republicans, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and the Democrats. This will be tough--but itâs worth a shot. If it works, fine. If it fails, McCain will have, I think, three alternative paths: 1. Support Bush/Paulson/the Democrats. The rationale would be that the emergency is grave, the markets require action, and this is the only legislation that can pass. This is where most observers expect McCain to end up, it may well be where he has to end up, and it may be the right place to end up--IF the emergency is so grave and IF this is the only alternative that can pass. McCain could still stipulate heâll improve the plan when he becomes president, that Bush and the Democrats messed this up, etc., etc. This outcome becomes likely if the markets start to meltdown today. Itâs not particularly attractive substantively or politically, but.... 2. Support House Republicans. Very dicey, obviously. For one thing, Iâm not sure that their plan of letting banks buy insurance on mortgages theyâve written makes sense--isnât that in effect a buy back at par? But itâs also politically risky: If the bailout legislation passes over McCainâs (and House Republicansâ) opposition, and the markets (in the short term at least) like it, McCain hasnât been part of the solution. If nothing passes, McCain can be blamed--which isnât necessarily so bad if the markets donât melt down, but if they do.... 3. Improve on both Paulson and House Republicans with a new offer. This, based on my admittedly imperfect understanding of all this (but McCain has access to people with really good understanding), might be a combination of Larry Lindseyâs refinance-home-owners proposal and Lucian Bebchukâs (and othersâ) proposal for direct bank recapitalization through Treasury security purchases and right offerings to shareholders. Introducing a new alternative at the eleventh hour might seem pretty bold and risky, but a) itâs probably better policy than whatâs on the table now, b) whoâs to say it couldnât get a lot of support quickly, and c) thereâs something attractive about opposing Henry Paulson and Barney Frank at once (sort of like opposing both Donald Rumsfeld and Harry Reid on Iraq a couple of years ago), and proposing a better course. It might be worth at least trying this alternative today, rather than focusing exclusively on trying to broker a deal between warring parties both of whose ideas arenât great, or having to default to options 1 or 2.
|
| Barnes: The Pretentious Commission on Presidential Debates |
|
There arenât many outfits as arrogant, self-important, and aggrandizing as the unelected Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), sponsor of tonightâs debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. When John McCain said Wednesday the debate might have to be delayed so he could work on the financial bailout, the commission responded, in effect, âSorry, John, the debate must go on, whether or not financial markets collapse. The debate is more important.â That was just the latest example of high-handedness by the commission, which has hijacked the debates from the candidates, the campaigns, and the news media. The commission picked the sites for the debates (three presidential, one vice presidential) and charged the colleges involved $1.5 million for the honor. Then CPD announced the moderators for each debate without consulting with Obama or McCain campaigns or even informing them ahead of time. The moderators are all nice people: Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, Bob Schieffer. But all four of them are liberals, more or less, of the mainstream media variety. Plus, the commission picked no one from cable news, where millions of people who follow campaigns and elections most closely go for their political news. The McCain and Obama campaigns had little trouble working out their own differences on debate format. Their negotiations were amicable. When the commission stepped in, the talks became less friendly. Getting the commission to go along with the format agreed upon by the candidates was a problem. In fact, the McCain campaign was so upset by the commissionâs overbearing attitude that it briefly considered dumping the commission and finding another vehicle for the debates. But the Obama campaign wasnât interested and the McCain folks dropped the idea. The commission had its own plans for the format. The CPB honchos--Republican Frank Fahrenkopf, Democrat Paul Kirk, and who-knows-what Janet Brown--wanted Obama and McCain to be seated for tonightâs debate. The campaigns wanted them to stand, and prevailed on this point. Representatives of Obama and McCain also forced the commission to allow the first debate to be on foreign policy, not domestic issues. And they insisted, against the commissionâs wishes, to have more questions asked at the town hall presidential debate. But those changes came about only after a struggle. The commission was set on imposing its own preferences. After all, the commission regards the presidential debates as its property now and forever. The CPB took over the debates in 1987 after the League of Women Voters was sacked as the sponsor. The league had often irritated the campaigns, especially the campaign of President Carter in 1980. Carter aides privately mocked the league as âthe plague of women votersâ and âthe league of women vultures.â The commission ran the show in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. One of the biggest complaints this year was the selection of sites in Mississippi, Tennessee, and New York--not battleground states. The vice presidential debate is scheduled for next Thursday in St. Louis, Missouri.
|
|
Thursday, September 25, 2008
|
| Does Harry Reid Have the Temperament to be Majority Leader? |
|
Harry Reid on Tuesday:
Reid on Wednesday:
Reid on Thursday afternoon:
Reid on Thursday afternoon
Reid on Thursday night:
Is it just me or is Harry Reid cynically trying to score points against John McCain in a time of national crisis? But there really isn't much of a record of Harry Reid placing partisan politics above the national interest, right? So maybe it's not about politics. Maybe it's just about Reid's petty personal dislike for McCain. As Reid said on August 21: "[Sen. Lieberman] has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does. ... I can't stand John McCain." That statement sheds a little more light on the classiness of Reid's reference on Wednesday to his "friend John McCain." I can't stand Harry Reid.
|
| Not on Their Watch? |
|
Watch the Fox News report John posted on how we got into this mess, and then chuckle at Obama's quote to the AP: "Keep in mind House Democrats and Senate Democrats and me and the leadership are all pretty burned up about this thing," Obama said at a news conference after the TV interviews. "This wasn't happening on our watch. We weren't preventing some of the regulatory reforms that might have prevented us from getting here." Audacity indeed. Meanwhile Frank and Dodd are finding out what happens when you come to an "agreement" without talking to the very people who have objections. After today's contentious White House meeting, many fear any deal is breaking down: Paulson walked into the room where Democrats were caucusing after today's meeting at the White House and pleaded with them, "Please don't blow this up." Never fear, though, as Frank will gladly pin his own failures on McCain as the Hill goes into an all-nighter to try to get this solved. Predictably, there are already attempts to lard up the bill with plenty of handouts to those who helped get us here in the first place. The markets will not like this news in the morning. While Obama himself is refraining from knocking McCain, his campaign certainly isn't: So make no mistake: John McCain did not âsuspendâ his campaign. He just turned a national crisis into an occasion to promote his campaign. Itâs become just another political stunt, aimed more at shoring up the Senatorâs political fortunes than the nationâs economy. And it does nothing to help advance this critical legislation to protect the American people during this time of economic crisis. There's some indication that McCain backs something along the lines of the House GOP's plan: [A] key Republican lawmaker stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants to explore new ideas, like loaning money to financial institutions or insuring the companies, rather than buying their toxic debt⊠1. Government should be providing mortgage insurance instead of buying up toxic debt
|
| Barney Frank Slams McCain |
|
Politico's Patrick O'Connor reports that Democratic House financial services committee chairman Barney Frank slammed John McCain for engaging in the bailout negotiations:
Why does Barney Frank think he's in a position to say McCain is unqualified to be at the negotiating table? Check out this Fox News report, via Ace, focusing on Frank's role in thwarting efforts to avert this crisis:
|
| Depends on the Meaning of "Close" |
|
Yesterday afternoon, I went to CNN to talk about bailout politics. When I arrived, I was surprised to learn from the other two panelists -- CNN's Gloria Borger and the Washington Post's Dana Milbank -- that a deal on an amended version of the Treasury Department's $700 billion bailout plan was close. I was surprised because I had been hearing the opposite -- that House Republicans were increasingly opposed to a deal and that such a deal seemed less likely yesterday than it was when the plan was originally proposed. But others, including the Associated Press, were reporting that a deal was imminent. Then, earlier today, the AP reported that such a deal had, in fact, been reached. The Washington Post soon followed, in an article that strongly suggested McCain was irrelevant to the process and reported that he had arrived after a deal had been struck.
The Obama campaign gleefully sent the Post story out to reporters at 4:22 and affixed its own headline: "'Straight Talk Air' lands after deal was announced." So what happened? I'm not sure anyone knows the full story, but here is my take. When John McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, Democrats moved quickly to portray the decision as strictly political. (Senator Chuck Schumer said as much in an interview on CNN.) An important element of their case was convincing reporters that a deal was close and McCain presence was (a) unnecessary, (b) potentially detrimental, or (c) both. But that's a hard case for them to make for two reasons. First, Harry Reid. On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had explicitly called for McCain to use his influence as party leader to bring House Republicans along. "We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us," Reid said. "We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do." Reid explained that McCain was crucial to any deal because his approval of a deal would give congressional Republicans political cover necessary to sign on to a bipartisan agreement. The second reason: House Republicans were never on board. Earlier this week, they gave Vice President Dick Cheney an earful about their opposition to the deal. Yesterday morning, a group of about 50 conservative House Republicans got together and when one speaker asked for a show of hands from those who support the bailout, less than a handful said they were likely to support it. One staffer for a Republican in House leadership said: âUnderstand one thing. House Republicans were never on board.â By this morning, Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank -- the two lead congressional Democrats on this issue -- were telling reporters that a deal was close. But according to House sources, those claims were nonsense. "This was a smart political move by Senator McCain -- working in a bipartisan fashion to try to get something done," says a senior House Republican aide. "It's something he's done in the past." Democrats, this Republican says, immediately began plotting to deny McCain credit for a deal if one was reached and to blame him if a deal was not reached. At least temporarily, we are seeing an interesting partnership between House Republicans and John McCain. When I asked one GOP Hill staffer whether McCain was serving as a proxy for House Republicans, I was told that such a claim would be too strong but that McCain is, at the very least, trying to give voice to House Republicans skeptical of the bailout. And if that's true, McCain will have an opportunity to bring them along -- or some of them -- to get a deal. The real question, in the face of increasingly intense media hostility, is whether heâll actually get credit for doing so.
|
| Lawyers, Guns, and the Media |
|
The Obama campaign's legal counsel has demanded that radio and TV stations ban anti-Obama ads produced by the NRA.
|
| Bush Meets With Obama and McCain, Details of Possible Deal Emerge |
|
Bush says he hopes everyone will reach an agreement "very shortly." He spoke briefly to reporters at the beginning of the meeting with the presidential candidates and Congressional leaders. The tentative accord would give the Bush administration just a fraction of the $700 billion it had requested up front, with half the money subject to a congressional veto, congressional aides said. Under the plan, the Treasury secretary would get $250 billion immediately and could have an additional $100 billion if he certified it was needed. The last $350 billion could be blocked by a vote of Congress under the arrangement, designed to give lawmakers a stronger hand in controlling the unprecedented rescue. Meanwhile Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has followed on the heels of Rep. John Boehner with his own statement saying, "Nope, no deal yet." âMembers from all sides of the aisle continue to talk. There was constructive progress among some members of the Banking Committee and we will review these and other ideas with the Congressional Leadership, the Secretary of the Treasury, the President and the two Presidential candidates.â Press coverage is quick to paint the tentative agreement on principles as a sewn-up situation, thereby depriving McCain of any possible political credit for delivering a deal, but the folks whom McCain might try to sway are still circulating other ideas with less government involvement: A group of GOP lawmakers circulated a less government-focused alternative. Their proposal would have the government provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than have the government purchase the assets. Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the idea would be to remove the burden of the bailout from taxpayers and place it, over time, on Wall Street instead. The statements of Boehner and McConnell seem to suggest it's not just stalwart conservative fighters who aren't yet falling into line. Barney Frank's boasting about his newfound status as the "biggest mortgage holder in town" surely didn't inspire their confidence: Under the bailout bill, which will let the government buy huge amounts of toxic mortgage-related assets, "we're now the biggest mortgage holder in town, and we can do serious foreclosure avoidance," Frank said. Here's the gang at the big table. Bush: Who's lame now, huh?
|
| Little Shop of Moolah |
|
If youâve been reading the Arts section of any newspaper, youâve probably read about Damien Hirstâs auction at Sothebyâs, (in)famous for bypassing galleries and dealers and for racking in so many poundsâ111.5 million, to be exact. Hirst named the show âBeautiful Inside My Head Forever,â but Lee Rosenbaum had it right when she called it âBeautiful Inside My Wallet Forever.â Even if you think Hirstâs work is subpar, you have to admire him for his gall and genius when it comes to getting people to pay so much money for his work. And now, to rake in even more money and build his name even further, Hirst is opening a shop in London right next to Sothebyâs where the big auction happened. The shop will be run by Other Criteria, Hirstâs publishing and merchandising company, and open on October 6. If you canât make it to London and are just dying to break your piggy bank to smithereens, you can buy a silkscreen of âFor the Love of Godâ (the diamond-encrusted skull) for 10,000 pounds, or an 18-carat gold charm bracelet jingling with casts of pills for 25,000 pounds. But, alas, in an age when our American piggybanks are going on a major diet, it looks like the 15 pound postcard set is a bit easier to stomach--if you want to support Hirst, that is.
|
| State of the Race: An Electoral College Tie? |
|
Mark Blumenthal updates his battleground state poll of polls this morning. Like Real Clear Politics, he loads new surveys in his modeling every day to produce a new âaverageâ result by state. According to Blumenthal, 12 states now fall into the âtoss-upâ category: Four show a statistically insignificant Obama lead: Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania. And in the remaining eight, McCain holds a statistically insignificant lead: Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and West Virginia. ![]() Mike Allen writes that over the past week Obama has opened up a lead in the presidential horserace. But as the McCain campaign argued yesterday, averaging a number of polls â like Blumenthal does â gives a more accurate picture of the race. And hereâs something to think about. Just for fun, I plugged Blumenthalâs winner for each of the 50 states into The American Research Groupâs electoral calculator, allocating toss-ups based on the albeit âstatistically insignificantâ leads. Using Blumenthalâs estimates, and comparing them to 2004 results, it looks like Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa switch from Republican to Democrat. New Hampshire is the only state that moves from Democrat to Republican. The result: a 269-269 Electoral College tie.
|
| Boehner to Dodd and Co.: 'Um, No Deal Yet' |
|
In the wrestling match for credit, Dodd and Barney Frank got out in front this morning, declaring a deal on basic principles for a bailout before McCain's and Obama's meeting with President Bush, and overselling the extent of the agreement somewhat in the process: House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he was happy to attend this afternoonâs White House meeting, which is expected to include presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), but he said there was little need for it now. John Boehner hastened to remind them about House conservatives, at whom McCain will have to be aiming a bunch of his negotiating power. Pelosi had hinted that she would not have her Democrats backing the Administration's bailout plan without Republican support. McCain met with Boehner this morning and is set to meet with Bush and Obama today at 4 p.m. âAs I told our Conference this morning, there is no bipartisan deal at this time,â House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. âThere may be a deal among some Democrats, but House Republicans are not a part of it.â Meanwhile, Harry Reid, who can nearly always be counted upon to make the wrong political move just when you need him to, is doing anything but putting country first in the tussle on the Hill. He has vowed not to schedule any votes for Friday so that John McCain has "no excuse" for missing the debate Friday. This move assumes wrongly that McCain's main purpose in coming to the Hill was simply to vote when his purpose has been to help lead a coalition to an acceptable deal and also makes the scheduling of votes at a very critical time contingent upon a purely political consideration for the Democrats. He's also reportedly trying to tack an extension of the ban on oil shale development on to the CR appropriations bill despite Dems having previously relented on extending such bans. Nice priorities, huh?
|
| 'Fundamental Agreement' Reached on Bailout? |
|
Politico's Martin Kady II reports that top negotiators in the Senate, Republican Robert Bennett and Democrat Chris Dodd, have reached an agreement
|
| Al Franken's SNL Years |
|
A few weeks ago I suggested to my blog friend Kathy Nelson that she read the excellent SNL oral history, Live From New York, as it contains some revealing bits about Al Franken. I had read the book years ago, however, and had forgotten how damning some of the stuff in it was. Kathy has the goods. Here are a couple choice excerpts which seem to point to defining character traits of Franken's:
And then there's this:
Leave aside the cocaine and the unpleasant image of a 23-year-old employee running around confronting people who are guests of his employer. What's striking is Franken's casual disregard for the truth. He didn't just use drugs, he also admits to lying about not using them. (But it was a funny lie?) Then Franken accuses Agnew of saying something that he didn't say. Agnew calls him on it. Yet when Franken later realizes his mistake he revels in having made the false accusation anyway.
|
| Fit to Fill the Crossword Grid? |
|
So in this election year, cannot even the crossword puzzle escape bias? As Americans across the country take their pencils to the daily puzzle, they are more likely to find themselves filling the grid with the name of the senator from Illinois for its "wonderfully convenient alternating series of commonly used vowels and consonants." McCain is simply not "crossword friendly" according to Diane McNulty of the New York Times. It is of course difficult to say how many times puzzle constructors at the Times and others have tried to make McCain's name fit. The science of the crossword is tricky and delicate, and it certainly is no one's fault that the Republican nominee's name is so ill-fitted for the grid. If only he had those evenly spaced consonants and vowels... I don't suppose "Maverick" would fit either.
|
| Kristol: Can McCain Thread the Needle? |
|
Hereâs the situation we McCain-sympathizing/Paulson-plan-skeptics/populist-inclined/but weâve-got-to-be-responsible-in-a-crisis types face:
McCain will throw his weight behind it and help get it through. But he will also makes clear that, as president--while of course standing behind all obligations incurred and transactions committed to under the Paulson regime--heâs going to take a fresh look. Heâs going to convene the best people, heâll take a look at all the best ideas that have been put forward (ranging from Hillary Clintonâs to Newt Gingrichâs, from direct aid to housing to rights offerings by banks to changing accounting rules, etc.), and he will then plan on modifying/improving/adding to the Paulson plan going forward. This is delicate: McCain needs to reassure markets about the current commitments as well as promise further and better reforms. But this is the right position substantively and, I think, politically. It combines the best of McCainâs impulses, and the twin requirements of presidential leadership: taking responsibility for what has to be done now, and committing to energetic and bold reform in the near future.
|
| Dispatches from Palin World |
|
Jim Treacher has a fall-over-funny, Onion-esque item:
There's more!
|
| Clinton on McCain's Move: Country First |
|
Via Byron York, Bill Clinton was asked by ABC about McCain's decision to postpone the debate and said:
|
| Bias In the NYT News Pages? |
|
| Biden Flubs the Bush Doctrine |
|
From the "If Sarah Palin had said it" files: Fox News's Aaron Burns reports that during a speech in which Biden accused McCain of being "dangerously wrong" on foreign policy, the Delaware senator's gaffes "included saying that President Bush sent a US envoy to Iran, and that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said we were losing the war in Iraq (he actually said we were losing in Afghanistan)."
Of course, Biden meant to say Pyongyang rather than Tehran. He must not know the Bush Doctrine 6.0 dictates that we fecklessly negotiate with one rogue regime at a time--not to be confused with the "naive" Obama Doctrine of meeting with all of our worst enemies without precondition in the span of a year.
|
| Paulson to McCain: It's 3 a.m. |
|
Bob Schieffer reports:
|
| Bush Administration on North Korea -- Beyond Parody |
|
File this in the ever-growing "it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-so-serious" that characterizes the Bush administration's second-term foreign policy. After North Korea publicly promised earlier this week to restore its nuclear facilities "to their original state," senior US negotiator Chris Hill characterized the move as North Korea striking a "very tough negotiating position." The Agence France Presse headline notes: "US bewildered, disappointed over North Korean nuclear defiance." How is it that anyone could possible find themselves "bewildered" by North Korean nuclear defiance? And yet that is where Condoleezza Rice and the White House find themselves these days. "The North Korean actions are very disappointing and run counter to the expectations of the members of the six party talks and the international community," said a White House spokesman earlier this week. If the North Korean actions "run counter to the expectations" of the Bush administration and others facilitating the appeasement, they were utterly predictable to anyone who has read the newspaper regularly for the past decade. Here's a three-sentence summary of just the past two years: In October 2006, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon and earned the condemnation of the world and stern warnings from the Bush administration. Then, last spring, after promising better behavior, North Korea was caught proliferating nuclear technology to Syria, the world's second-leading state sponsor of terror, and the Bush administration, after keeping this information secret for months in order to protect its diplomatic efforts with Kim Jong Il, once again thundered warnings against further nuclear development and proliferation. Then, in a triumph of the diplomacy of dreams, the Bush administration proposed even more concessions -- offering to lift key economic sanctions on North Korea and remove the rogue regime from the list of state sponsors of terror. And now, to the surprise of few outside the State Department, North Korea has refused to honor its obligations under the six-party talks and seems as determined as ever to continue its nuclear program. So how long until the State Department offers new concessions?
|
| Defending Biden Being Biden |
|
It's Joe Biden spokesman David Wade's thankless job to defend his garrulous gaffe-master of a boss. Here's Wade in action:
Obviously, Mr. Wade gets paid by the mixed metaphor. Shouldn't Biden slug it out in the late rounds rather than the late innings? And don't closers pitch rather than slug? Ow - my head hurts. And my heart goes out to poor David Wade, the most underpaid man in America regardless of whatever financial remuneration he receives.
|
| Smart Skepticism on the Bailout |
|
Radley Balko argues that our current mess isn't due to the failures of capitalism, but to a "corporatist socialism" abetted by the fiscal irresponsibility of the same elected officials who now want to "solve" the mess with more government.
He continues: When you, Joe Citizen, spend frivolously and default on your loans, the bank takes your house. When the government spends your tax dollars frivolously, it simply cooks the books to cover its excesses. When the books are left in ashes, the government just takes more of your money, or it prints more money, leaving the money it hasn't already taken from you devalued. Over the last few weeks, we've learned that you now face the prospect of an additional indignity: When your neighbor's bank spends frivolously and defaults on its loans, the government's going to take your money then too, to keep the bank in business.
|
| Kristol: A Presidential McCain |
|
There's a reason voters in presidential races tend to shy away from electing senators. The primary skills of a legislator--talking, compromising, "representing"--are different from those of an executive--deciding, choosing, "executing." There are individuals who have the ability both to deliberate patiently and act energetically--but it's a rare combination. The best legislators tend not to be great executives, and vice-versa. This year, for the first time in U.S. history, both major party nominees for president are sitting senators. The winner may be the one who can convince some portion of the electorate that he's less "senatorial," and more "presidential," than the other. That's why McCain's action Wednesday--announcing he would come back to Washington to try to broker a deal to save our financial system--could prove so important. The rescue package that was so poorly crafted and defended by the Bush administration seemed to be sliding toward defeat. The presidential candidates were on the sidelines, carping and opining and commenting. But one of them, John McCain, intervened suddenly and boldly, taking a risk in order to change the situation, and to rearrange the landscape. Of course his motives were partly election-related. But "the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." If candidate McCain, for whatever mixed motives, ends up acting in a way that results in a deal that is viewed as better than the original proposal, and that seems to stabilize the markets and avert a meltdown--he'll benefit politically, and he deserves to. For McCain will have acted presidentially in the campaign--which some voters, quite reasonably, will think speaks to his qualifications to be president. As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama! Or he can take a break from the meetings, fly down at the last minute himself, and turn a boring foreign policy debate, in which he and Obama would repeat well-rehearsed arguments, into a discussion about leadership and decisiveness. And if the negotiations are clearly on a path to success, then McCain can say he can now afford to leave D.C., fly down, and the debate would become a victory lap for McCain. So the action of these few days becomes more important than the talk of that hour and a half Friday night. One could even say the contrast between the two men in action becomes the true debate over who should be president. The media, being talkers and debaters, love debates, overestimate their importance, and are underestimating the possible effect of McCain's dramatic action. In the debate itself, McCain should mock the media's greater concern for gabbing than solving our economic problems, and should associate Obama with such a talk-heavy media-type approach to politics. If the race is between an energetic executive and an indecisive talker, the energetic executive should win.
|
|
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
|
| Is McCain Flailing? |
|
John Podhoretz takes on the already congealing conventional wisdom that McCain suspended his campaign in response to a couple of bad polls.
|
| Ahmadinejad Strongly Hints He Would Prefer a President Obama to a President McCain |
|
| Al Qaeda's 'Warrior Poet'-in-Chief |
|
Recordings of bin Laden reciting his penwork were found on some of the 1,500 cassettes discovered in Kandahar, Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. Flagg Miller, an assistant professor at University of California, Davis, has been studying them and will publish his findings next week in the October issue of Language and Communication. Yale is currently cleaning and digitizing the cassettes. Miller affords us the insight that âBin Laden is an entertainer with an agendaâ and âuses poetry to tap into the cultural orientation, the history and the ethics of Islam,â while BBC gushes a bit, saying ââŠSaudi-born Bin Laden [is] a skilled poet who weaves mystical references as well as jihadist imagery into his verse, reciting 1,400-year-old poetry alongside more current mujahideen-era work.â He weaves? If so, there are more than a few unseemly strands in the fabric. Check out his work below:
An unnamed Arabic specialist quoted in the Times says that the poems are a âadolescent and brutal,â âa disgrace,â and donât merit publishing. You can say that again.
|
| McCain's Move |
|
Sen. Joe Lieberman on Hannity: I think this is a great act of leadership by John McCain, this is the guy I've come to know and love for 20 years here in the Senate, over and over again when there's a problem not being solved he gets in the middle of it. And I'll tell you that this thing will not be solved, and there won't be an agreement, without John McCain and Barack Obama here. Maybe McCain can do it on his own--it'd be unfortunate. I repeat what I think I said earlier. Today John McCain showed what it meant to put country first. Gov. Arnold Shwarzenegger: There is nothing more important to Californians and the American people right now than the state of our economy. This is about the jobs, paychecks, and retirement plans of my constituents. This crisis will not be solved with finger pointing, political posturing, or campaign slogans. This is a time for unity and leadership, not politics and partisanship. I commend Senator McCain for suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to help Congress take the quick and decisive action needed to put America's financial sector back on track. âI think it's the longest Hail Mary in the history of football or Marys.â Sen. Mitch McConnell: âThatâs really an outstanding idea. The threats to Americans and their homes, savings and retirements are really not a partisan problem, and it won't be fixed with a partisan approach.â
|
| Who's Playing Politics with the Economic Crisis? (Updated) |
|
Today, after John McCain announced that he's suspending his campaign and returning to D.C. to focus on passing legislation to address the economic crisis, Harry Reid said that it wouldn't be helpful to have the presidential candidates at the negotiating table: âit would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nationâs economy. ⊠We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.â But yesterday, Reid demanded that the White House made sure the legislation had John McCain's backing, and Reid floated this bogus piece of news clearly intended to force McCain's hand: "I got some good news in the last hour or so ⊠it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this." McCain flatly denied that he had endorsed the plan. So Harry Reid says that it's essential that John McCain backs legislation designed to avert the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And when McCain says the legislation, in its current form, is not good enough, Reid tells McCain to stay away from Capitol Hill. Who's playing politics with the economic crisis? Update: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points out that Reid also said yesterday: "We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do." Rogers says in a statement: âUnfortunately, Senator Reid is putting partisan politics ahead of the business of the American people. But there should be no mistake: 24 hours ago Reid and his Democratic colleagues on the Hill couldn't have been more desperate for Senator McCain's help in resolving this crisis. Now they've got it.â
|
| Classic McCain |
|
Well, John McCain has thrown his "country first" curveball, suspending his campaign, taking his ads down, and saying the debate should be delayed if necessary. At first I thought Obama's only decision was between looking like a superficial spoilsport by continuing the campaign as planned or coming to Washington as a follower to John McCain once again (just as he was on the Russia/Georgia situation, and similar to the way he followed by laying out principles for the bail-out). But Obama, feeling he is on a roll no doubt, is saying the debate is on: "We can walk and chew gum at the same time," is the message. McCain's political director Mike Duhaime: âQuite frankly, I think you could ask Sen. Obama if heâs going to do what he thinks is right. I mean, he has never -- I believe -- never once made a decision that is an unpopular decision or went against the orthodoxy of his party, and was one that was one that was a tough decision to make. . . . Sen. McCain has done that throughout his entire career, his entire life -- not just in politics, but his life.â This is where John McCain feels comfortable. He's taking a big risk and making an unconventional move for what he feels is right, and banking on the fact that his leadership in Washington, which has brought sides together in the past, will help again. But classic McCain moves can come with classic McCain complications. Yes, John McCain is a leader, and yes, he can bring people together, but to what end? The turn on the bail-out bill, which looked like it would be grudgingly passed just a day ago, suggests Congress is getting a lot of calls instructing them that they'd better not pass any such thing. Policy aside, however, this is McCain's ballgame. Though I have not often agreed with the ends for which he has brought together both sides of the aisle in the past, if there's one person who can form a coalition to pass something acceptable, he's the guy. The picture of McCain at work on the Hill on a truly tough problem in a truly bipartisan way will likely put independents in mind of the McCain they like. The McCain who is the man Obama claims to be, in practice instead of just in theory. Once again, he is putting his political neck on the line to achieve a tough, complex Congressional consensus because he believes it's right for the country. In doing so, he has a chance to once again convincingly take on the leadership mantle which has slipped from his shoulders during the last week. The question unasked by the press corps: "Mr. Obama, the debate topic for Friday was changed last week, at your behest, from the economy to foreign policy. If you argue the debate should go forward so Americans can hear from their leaders about this crisis, would you agree to change the topic back to the economy?"
|
| Dem Congressman: Palin Doesn't Care Too Much About 'Jews and Blacks' |
|
This is what playing the race card looks like:
|
| McCain Calls for Pushing Back Debate to Focus on Solving Economic Crisis |
|
John McCain is suspending his campaign and wants to delay the first debate (now scheduled for Friday night) in order to focus on the financial crisis. Here are McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery in New York City today:
Update: An announcement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
Update II: Obama's campaign says the debate is on.
|
| New McCain Ad Hits Obama-Biden on Coal |
|
In response to Joe Biden's statement that he and Barack Obama are not supporting clean coal because it's "killing" Americans, the McCain campaign produced this ad: Very nicely done.
|
| Bill Clinton on the 'Cracker Vote' |
|
Via Ben Smith, Bill Clinton tells CNN's Larry King in an interview about his plans to help Obama win Florida:
Is Clinton intentionally trying to stir up racial resentment by saying that "they" (presumably the Obama campaign) want him to "hustle up ... the 'cracker vote'"? According to a search in Nexis, Clinton has never publicly used the phrase "cracker vote" before now. Lawton Chiles did use the word "cracker" in a non-pejorative manner, once during a campaign event with Clinton in 1996 according to a Hearst newspapers story:
There's been a lot of paranoid speculation in this election that certain people are trying to play the race card. Clinton's usage is the latest evidence that it's the Democrats who are the race-obsessed party in this cycle.
|
| Accessorize Your Right to Vote |
|
Rather than simply donate money to a campaign, you can purchase an accessory from a company that gives part of the proceeds to your candidate or political party. Designer BYLU created chunky, colored enamel bracelets stamped with gold graffiti-style âObama â08.â The bracelets cost $100 each and $50 from each purchase will be donated to the Obama campaign. While the red, white, and blue bangles are chic and patriotic, a large accessory emblazoned with your political candidate wonât be too stylish after November 4, no matter who wins. ![]()
![]() H/T Refinery 29 and The Cut
|
| Is Obama Pulling Away in the Polls? |
|
McCain-Palin campaign lead pollster, Bill McInturff, and Director of Strategy, Sarah Simmons, conducted a conference call this morning in response to the ABC News/Washington Post poll released today showing Barack Obama opening up a 52 percent to 43 percent lead over John McCain. McInturff sees the national numbers very differently, arguing the race overall and in the battleground states is relatively stable--particularly when many polls are averaged. Even looking at just the last week, an average of the public polling suggests the campaign is within the margin of error, and has basically been that way for the month of September. McInturff believes the ABC News/Washington Post poll is clearly an outlier. He reminded listeners that survey samples are within the margin of error 95 percent of the time; 5 percent of polls are just out of whack. This is one of those, he said. McInturff argues the 16-point Democratic party ID advantage in the poll is the root of the problem. There is no evidence of a party ID shift that would justify that much of a Democratic edge. He said this survey reminded him of a Los Angeles Times survey conducted in June that similarly overestimated the percent of Democrats in the electorate. This poll is also out of line with additional polls McInturff says his company (Public Opinion Strategies) conducts every night for other political campaign clients. A couple other points:
|
| Will the Debates Move the Polls? |
|
This Friday night John McCain and Barack Obama meet in the first presidential general election debate in Oxford, Mississippi. The subject: national security. The stakes are high for both camps--or are they? Political scientist Tom Holbrook argues that despite all the emphasis on the debates, these events move the numbers less than many might think. Analyzing movement in national polls following debates in the past five presidential elections (1988-2004), he writes:
However, Holbrook also notes the âcumulativeâ effect of all three debates might produce more movement in the polls. Focusing on single debate bumps may be obscuring a more general, cumulative effect of debates. The last column in the table
Bottom line according to Holbrook:
I donât care; Iâm still watching! Read Holbrookâs entire post here.
|
| Irony Alert |
|
Please donât construe what follows as an endorsement of the richly flawed Paulson Plan, but⊠Over the years, weâve all gotten accustomed to Democrats referring to every single spending boondoggle as âan investment.â You know the drill â we need to invest in infrastructure or we must invest in midnight basketball. Of course, such things were never investments but rather expenditures. Perhaps they were good expenditures and perhaps not, but they certainly didnât qualify as âinvestmentsâ unless you wanted to torture the definition of a well known term. It thus comes as no small irony that the Paulson Plan which actually calls for literal investments is instead routinely referred to and calculated as pure expenditures in the media. Perhaps decades of John Kerry-types endlessly braying about âinvestmentsâ in education or whatever other spending plan caught their fancy has hopelessly corrupted the language. Or perhaps some purportedly wise people really donât understand the difference between investing and spending.
|
| Biden Hearts Trial Lawyers |
|
ABC's Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe report that Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving:
Who are the barbarians at the gate? And how have trial lawyers and union bosses stopped them?
|
| How Did We Get Into This Financial Mess? |
|
Via Hot Air, Fox News's Jim Angle reports:
|
| Quote of the Day |
|
"Our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications."
|
| Debunking the Latest Sarah Palin Smear |
|
A Democratic legislator in Alaska who sponsored a bill to require the state to pay for the cost of examining the victims of rapes and collecting evidence has told the press that Wasilla, the town where Sarah Palin was mayor, resisted this measure:
CNN cites a report that Wasilla's police chief said he wanted to charge the rapists rather than the taxpayers for these bills. But Jim Geraghty reports there appears to be no evidence that victims were actually billed. He writes: "in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged." Also:
There is no indication that Sarah Palin was aware that these costs weren't already covered by the government by law, but if CNN and USA Today want to write this kind of story, perhaps these news outlets should cover reports that in 2004 there were cases in Barack Obama's Illinois of caseworkers "reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams."
|
| Game On - On Friday |
|
Mark Steyn has some rather pointed observations regarding John McCainâs political maneuvers during the economic crisis:
The nine-point lead Steyn references is in regards to a new ABC poll that shows McCain trailing Obama by â you guessed it â nine points. Like Steyn, I also âdonât knowâ about the nine-point lead that ABC finds. With the reliable Rasmussen and more volatile Gallup tracking polls both showing a tightening race over the past week, the ABC effort seems like an outlier. But that surmise shouldnât obscure what a dismal week itâs been for the McCain campaign. For reasons of space, I wonât document all of the Maverickâs pratfalls since the Lehman bankruptcy, but I will observe that McCain sure has shoved a lot of campaigning clumsiness into ten short days. Itâs hard to believe a candidate not named Biden could produce twin whoppers along the lines of Chris Cox being the economyâs grand villain and Andrew Cuomo being its savior in such a brief span of time. So what has happened politically in the week and a half that weâve danced along the cusp of financial calamity? The past fortnight has been the equivalent of the Olympics â no one has paid any attention to the presidential candidates or their increasingly tiresome race. Low end news gatherers (i.e. normal people) will only tackle so much news at one time. Obamaâs equivocations and McCainâs serial stumbles happily havenât made the cut with the Great Depression redux looming. Thatâs why weâve seen the race revert back to its historic mean of Obama holding a very slight lead. But the game will likely resume on Friday with the first presidential debate. If Warren Buffetâs show of support combined with the looming passage of some governmental plan settles the markets by the end of the week â admittedly a big âifâ - Obama and McCain will have the stage to themselves when they tangle on Friday. Even though the debate is supposed to focus on foreign policy, I have a feeling the economy will come up. Obama will doubtlessly offer up some palaver about Main Street and Wall Street â I love it when he talks about those two places since he understands neither. As for McCain, who knows what heâll say? We can only hope and expect that heâll improve on his efforts of the past ten days.
|
| Offshore Drilling Ban to Expire on Oct. 1 |
|
Politico's Ryan Grim reports:
|
|
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
|
| Quibbling Over Not-So-Small Details |
|
In blog post on Barack Obama's (very misleading) ad attacking John McCain on stem cell research, Ben Smith writes: "Though Palin and the largely irrelevant Republican platform are staunch opponents of stem cell research, McCain has historically supported the research -- the source of the McCain camp's complaints." Smith does not mention that Palin and most pro-life politicians are staunch proponents of stem-cell research that does not require the destruction of human embryos. As a matter of science, embryonic stem-cell research is largely irrelevant due to breakthroughs in research that does not require the killing of human embryos. Though as a matter of politics, stem cell research may remain a relevant wedge issue for Democrats--at least as long as the country's most respected reporters ignore the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic research.
|
| Obama Adviser: Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Strong |
|
Jason Furman, a senior economic adviser to Barack Obama, didn't use those exact words. But how else to interpret this comment about the current financial mess that he gave the Washington Post? "This is a major fiscal problem in the short run, but it doesn't alter the long-term fiscal picture."
|
| Biden Flashback: Obama's Pledge to Meet Ahmadinejad et al "Naive" |
|
Following the July 2007 Democratic debate during which Barack Obama said that as president he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition, Joe Biden told National Review's Byron York that Obama's statement was "naive":
The last 24 hours have amounted to Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day for Joe Biden, so I doubt anybody in the press corps would be so cruel as to ask Biden if he still stands by his words. But hopefully John McCain will remind everyone of Biden's assessment of Obama's "naive" foreign policy during Friday night's debate.
|
| Obama Flip Flops on Ahmadinejad's Right to Speak at the UN |
|
In response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN, Barack Obama says in a statement released by his campaign that he's disappointed Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak (emphasis mine):
But Obama supported Ahmadinejad's right to speak at the UN in September 2007:
Asked by a reporter why he wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, Obama said: "Because he has other forums in which to speak. He's here for the United Nations meeting. He's going to get ample publicity." You can watch the September 2007 press conference here: What exactly has changed that led to Obama to shift his position--besides the fact that he is now running in the general election instead of the Democratic primary? Update: The McCain-Palin campaign responds:
|
| All Animals Are Equal, But... |
|
...wolves are more equal than caribou, says the Humane Society in its endorsement of Barack Obama. The Humane Society Legislative Fund's president writes that the group has never before endorsed a presidential candidate, but Sarah Palin simply poses too great of a threat to animals:
As noted earlier on the blog, the program Palin supported killed 124 wolves and saved an estimated 1,500 moose and 3,000 caribou. Granted, the program's intent was to provide more caribou and moose to be hunted by Alaskans, but I'm guessing that not all of those 4,500 moose and caribou not killed by wolves were shot by hunters. Accompanying the endorsement are these Obama and Palin photos:
Given the Humane Society's decision to veer off into PETA territory, I wonder what the group thinks of Obama's admission than he's gone spearfishing.
|
| The Great Bail-Out on the Hill: A Day in Quotes |
![]() AP "I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way." âFed Chairman Ben Bernanke "Nobody is happy." â House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right." â Rep. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee "What he is saying here is, this program that they think is very important, we need it to get the economy out of the doldrums, but if it is going to nick them of a couple of million of the millions that they already have, they are going to boycott it." â House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank on Paulson's objections to restrictions on CEO pay-outs "Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "You worry about taxpayers being on the hook?" he replied at one point. "Guess what - they're already on the hook." â Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson âIf we get consensus and everybody is popping champagne, then Iâll probably go back to campaign with folks who are having a tough time in Ohio and Michigan,â Mr. Obama said. âIf this ends up being a close vote or a vote where the outcome is at all in question, then obviously this is a top priority.â â Sen. Barack Obama âWhether calling for a bipartisan oversight board or prohibitions on golden parachutes, Barack Obama is simply following in John McCainâs footsteps while trying to respond to this financial crisis, as he followed in John McCainâs footsteps when he attempted to respond to the recent crisis in Georgia.â â Tucker Bounds, spokesman for the McCain campaign "The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal." â Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "The party is over for this compensation for CEOs who take the golden parachute as they drive their companies into the ground. ... The party is over for financial institutions taking risks [and] at the same time privatizing any gain they may have while they nationalize the risk, asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab." â House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American." â Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. "I think you should think of that as unthinkable." â Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, when asked what would happen if the bail-out didn't pass "They are saying this is failure of the free markets of capitalism when, in fact, this is a failure because government injected itself into the free market, created this easy credit, these guaranteed loans, and these loans are what have turned into the bad paper that are bringing all these financial institutions down." â Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "Nobody wants to do this. Nobody wants to be involved in this. Nobody wants to take the chance, but I would argue... if we do nothing, we are jeopardizing our economy, jobs and people's retirement security." â Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio "What troubles me most is that we have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well spend $700 billion and not resolve the crisis." â Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
|
| Not a Parody? |
|
Blogger "Angry Bear" has received an explosive communiqué:
|
| Whatever Happened to the Stork? |
|
In light of the decision in the UK to provide preliminary sex education for six-year old schoolchildren, the Times Online asks five children where babies come from and gets some priceless answers.
|
| More on Killer Coal |
|
In Southwest Virginia on Sunday, Joe Biden told the United Mine Workers:
But Biden was singing quite a different tune while talking to an environmentalist in Ohio last week. Biden contradicted the Obama campaign's pledge to develop more clean coal plants, telling the activist that he and Barack Obama are "not supporting 'clean coal.' ... No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there [in China] make 'em clean because they're killing you." During a speech in Ohio today, John McCain dinged the Democratic ticket on Biden's opposition to clean coal. The Obama-Biden campaign responded that McCain's remarks were âanother ham-handed lying attack from the McCain campaign.â Biden spokesman David Wade added: âThis is yet another false attack from a dishonorable campaign.â The Obama-Biden campaign's hysterical (and false) reaction that McCain is "lying" shows that they're afraid that Biden's remarks could do some significant damage. This Department of Energy map shows that coal is found in a lot of swing states: ![]() Obama's poll numbers have been hurt badly because of his opposition to offshore drilling: Over the summer, polls showed a 22-point swing in McCain's favor on the question of which candidate can reduce gas prices. Biden's remarks can only help drag the Democratic ticket down further in a broader energy debate. The Department of Energy reports:
Does Joe Biden want the cost of electricity to soar like the price of gas? An ad asking that question is waiting to be made.
|
| Prof. Biden Bungles Depression History |
|
Via Ben Smith, another brilliant Biden quote from his interview with Katie Couric:
Can you imagine the commentariat's reaction if Sarah Palin had made this gaffe?
|
| A Light at the End of the Foreclosure Tunnel? |
|
No one knows how long it will take the real estate bubble to fully deflate. But it will happen. It is happening. Here's a very hopeful data point from Washington D.C.'s outer suburbs. In Prince William County, the number of residential sales in June, July and August was roughly double the comparable months in the summer of 2007. You can see the numbers here as well as comeuppance for an astonishingly inept bit of reporting in the Washington Post. The sales are up because prices have collapsed, which is actually a sign of health for the housing market and a prelude to recovery. The median price for those 1,000 August sales in Prince William and the city of Manassas was $205,600, down 43 percent from the year-earlier median of $362,500 and a level not seen since 2003. See the complete data set here at the extremely informative Northern Virginia Housing Bubble Fallout blog.
|
| Laughable Partisan Finger-pointing |
|
David Frum does an excellent job puncturing Josh Marshall's hilarious contention that the Paulson plan is aimed at bailing out the "GOP's Wall Street Friends." Hardy-har-har. For an even more laughable bit of partisan finger-pointing, see Jim Cramer's otherwise entertaining New York Magazine piece, "The Great Shakout." Writes Cramer:
What's Barney Frank--chopped liver? Not to mention those famously Democratic hotbeds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. See the comments that follow Cramer's piece for well-deserved hoots of ridicule.
|
| Biden vs. Obama...Again |
|
In addition to contradicting Obama's platform on clean coal and backtracking on the computer ad, Biden was publicly Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day. Hey, everyone said the VP candidate was going to need weeks of briefings and monitoring just to get up to speed on basic policy positions and campaign messages. They were just wrong about which veep it would be.
|
| State of the Race |
|
Pollster Steve Lombardo makes some noteworthy points about the presidential race in a post yesterday at Pollster.com. First, he argues the contest is âon the verge of becoming a single-issue election.â Lombardo cites the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll showing âeconomy and jobsâ (48%) trumps terrorism and national security (14%), gas prices and energy policy (10%), healthcare (10%) and the war in Iraq (8%) as the most important issue to voters. While this issue matrix would seem to benefit Obama, itâs unclear that it does. Lombardo writes:
He also references some comparable Gallup data from this point in September 2000 and 2004 that underscores the closeness of the 2008 race and how it could still significantly shift.
Lombardo observes, "In 2000 the debates and intervening campaign events turned the tide; in 2004 they did not. McCain needs to do well in the debates or it will be very difficult to buck the current environment." Finally, he points to the pivotal nature of Colorado:
I disagree with Lombardo on one point. He believes McCain canât win without Colorado, and thinks the election might come down to Virginia. Yes, Colorado is important and is truly a toss-up in this election. But it is no more important than Ohio, Virginia or Florida. Given the recent historical presidential voter pattern, if this state moves into Obama's column it will mean an electoral blowout for the Illinois senator. Virginia is more likely to be the state that settles this race. I see a McCain path to victory even if he loses Colorado, but that makes Virginia a must-win. Read Lombardoâs full post here.
|
| Re: Biden Sent to Re-Education Camp Over Computer Ad |
|
Joe Biden issued a pretty muddled statement walking back his remarks that this Obama campaign ad mocking John McCain's inability to send an email was "terrible":
So does Biden think that mocking McCain's inability to email--something that is difficult for McCain because of his war injuries--isn't terrible? Or just that it's fair game because the McCain campaign has supposedly distorted Obama's votes? Patrick Healy of the Actually, that's Obama campaign spin. The text of the sex-ed bill Obama supported reads: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." But it's probably not fair to blame the Times for ignoring the text of the bill. Really, we should blame the McCain campaign for the media's decision to lap up Obama's talking points.
|
| I Can't Help But Agree With Markos |
|
"If something stupid can be said, you can believe someone on Daily Kos has said it." â Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos.com The founder of the biggest liberal blog on the 'Net, often a breeding ground for smears, conspiracy theories and alleged astroturfing, admitted what many blogosphere observers have been saying for years. The quote came from Moulitsas via IM in response to a Talking Points Memo item about a McCain fundraising e-mail, which accused "Obama-Biden Democrats" of attacking Palin and her family. In their defense of the charge, the McCain campaign offered to TPM, among other things, the recent Daily Kos conspiracy-mongering about Trig, Sarah Palin's 5-month-old baby. Several Daily Kos bloggers alleged Sarah Palin had actually faked her pregnancy to cover for her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. The theory was based on news reports and pictures of the governor looking fairly trim throughout her pregnancy. The Palin family later announced the very real pregnancy of Bristol Palin, who is set to marry her boyfriend and father of the baby, to head off such rumors. The McCain campaign also mentioned Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan's perpetuation of the rumor and Howard Gutman's questioning of Palin's parenting ability as justifications for the e-mail's charge. Markos responded to the McCain campaign by saying "stupid" things show up on all community sites, including the conservative Free Republic. The last sentence of his retort will live on just like his famous 2004 denunciation of Blackwater "mercenaries" killed in Fallujah in 2004 ("Screw 'em.") and is further evidence that folks on the right are fortunate this guy's political instincts are a force within the Democratic Party.
|
| Worst Presidential Campaign Ad Ever |
|
| Joe Biden Contradicts Obama Campaign Pledge: No More Coal Clean Plants |
|
Barack Obama pledges on his website that his administration will:
But in Ohio, Biden was asked by a voter: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden replied: "We're not supporting 'clean coal.' Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die. ... China is burning three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it's going to ruin your lungs and there's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there make 'em clean because they're killing you." Watch it: Hat tip: Huffington Post
|
| Biden Sent to Re-Education Camp Over Computer Ad |
|
There he learned very quickly about the eminent reasonableness of all Obama ads, including the one that derided McCain for his alleged technological ineptitude, an ad which Biden declared "terrible" just yesterday: I was asked about an ad Iâd never seen, reacting merely to press reports. As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Senator McCainâs views which look backwards not forwards and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCainâs ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barackâs votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators. Is it just me, or does it seem that both Biden gaffes and clarifications thereof redound to McCain's benefit?
|
| Obama and Bill Ayers Worked to Get ACORN Teaching Schoolchildren in Chicago |
|
How's that for a red-meat headline? It has the virtue of being true, according to the research of Stanley Kurtz into Ayers' foundation, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, chaired by Barack Obama: One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval. So, to whom did CAC's money go? CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn). The records also indicate grants went to Obama's community organizing alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, where CAC's goal was to turn parents into activists, because the family that agitates for socialism together, stays together. And, the results for Chicago schoolchildren? CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement. The Obama campaign has tried repeatedly throughout the campaign to downplay his relationship with Ayers, and has cried foul over ads like those from American Issues Project, that connect the two for voters. But his only executive experience to date has come at the CAC, which makes close inspection necessary. And, associations with unrepentant domestic terrorists aside, the fact that his only executive experience came at the head of an organization whose mission was to radicalize schoolchildren is relevant. Maybe women votersâconsidered a battleground demographicâ would be interested in what the Hope 'n' Change ticket might wish to do with their children's education, and should have information about his past efforts in this vein.
|
| Blogosphere Intermediation |
|
Why take the trouble to invest my own time looking for stories on the financial meltdown, when Greg Mankiw has already provided a handy list this morning? Also, see any number of good things posted by Arnold Kling at EconLog, especially the entry, "Delusions on Both Sides" ("Financial institutions thought that they were getting rid of risk, but instead they were just passing it around, as in the card game Old Maid") and the post on "systemic risk," to which it links.
|
| A Phrase You Will Be Hearing for a Long, Long Time |
|
In a discussion of panicked investors pulling money out of 401(k) accounts, and subjecting themselves to the 10 percent penalty attendant on such early withdrawals, the Wall Street Journal this morning quotes Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who would like to see Congress eliminate this penalty:
It used to be the case that ambitious politicians prefaced every argument with the phrase, "If we can put a man on the moon . . . " For years--perhaps decades--to come, they will use some variation on the formula above: "If we can bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion . . . " Trust me, you're going to be hearing this a lot.
|
| Good News: Biden Keeps Talking About His Special Kind of 'Patriotism' |
|
From a lengthy profile of "Regular Joe" on the trail in Ohio, in the LAT: Here in the union hall, where CBS anchor Katie Couric has shown up in another sign of the fading Palin mystique, he repeats a remark that caused a stir days before: that wealthier Americans should be "patriotic" and pay more taxes to give those earning less a break. Among other revelations, Biden is an "exquisitely tailored" "close talker" who wants to take many Republicans "to the schoolyard, you know what I mean?" Update: On the Counterproductive Talking Point Perpetuation Watch, I found reporters calling swing states and rural regions "bitter" in two stories. Good doing guys: More than is sometimes acknowledged, residents say, this is a region wrestling with bitterness and backwardness, the kind that Aunie Frisch, who has Chinese ancestry, sometimes finds maddening. The LAT on Obama's strategic redeployment from North Dakota, Georgia, Idaho, and Alaska: Exactly 44 years after Lyndon B. Johnson became the last Democrat to capture the state of North Dakota in a presidential election, it looks like Barack Obama won't be the next.
|
| Bill Clinton Travels Country Praising McCain's Decency, Palin's Instincts, and Barack...Did I Mention McCain and Palin? |
|
Isn't it great to have one of the "greatest political minds and talents of our time" working on behalf of John McCain? He is working for him, right? Here's Bubba on "The View" yesterday, leaving the gals in a state of slightly confused swoon as he finds no end of ways in which to praise John McCain while Barack Obama becomes little more than a parenthetical. Elsewhere, Clinton commented on Palin's "hotness:" "I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well." ... And, why say anything good about Obama? Um, ever? On Letterman later that night, Clinton praised Biden, but skipped over Obama again. Here he is, responding to a question about the Palin pick: McCain, one of the things that I like about him, and I think Americans like about him, is that he is an intuitive politician. and I think he instinctively thought that she would help him, No. 1, excite the people who were potentially his voters. and number two, demonstrate that he could be a change candidate... So he needed to somehow get people's attention. and I think he thought this would do it. and so and it certainly has been interesting. It's been interesting because it generated more enthusiasm on the part of Republicans and being active in politicsâmore had been giving to Sen. Obama, the enthusiasm gap closed and the only kind of potentially negative thing is you know, when you get a lot of emotion in a campaign it tends to generate more heat than light. And, right now we all need to be thinking here. The press has a couple courses of action, here, given that Clinton seems to be actively working against their goal, which is to elect Barack Obama. Do they do their best to ignore him entirely? That would certainly turn Clinton more vengeful than even the primary turned him, and let's face it, a former president named Bill Clinton could find a spotlight in the Marianas Trench. They could stop asking him questions about the Hillary pass-over, the Palin pick, and anything about John McCain. But that just leaves them with the option of asking about Barack Obama, and Lord knows what the man will say if you give him an excuse to spout off. For that matter, Lord knows what he'd studiously avoid saying such that it would become a news story regardless. His talking points seem to be about the general admirability of John McCain and the political gifts of Sarah Palin, and he's not veering. Welcome to the team, Bill! Update: Celebs turn on the Clintons, who now represent the tragically un-hip, media-bashed, old-and-busted brand of the Democratic Party to Obama's new hotness. They're the Republicans of the Democratic Party, bless their hearts. Chris Rock, appearing after Bill Clinton on Letterman last night, took the former president to task, reminding him that Hillary lost, while the Clinton team doubtless cringed and fumed backstage. Warning: The clip is from network TV, so it's safe, but observe a general Chris Rock warning of basic saltiness in content.
|
|
Monday, September 22, 2008
|
| Joe Biden: Anti-McCain Computer Ad Was 'Terrible' |
|
Joe Biden has already joined the Hillary 2012 team, apparently, judging by the way he keeps undercutting his own campaign.
|
| A Time for Grown-ups |
|
Patrick Ruffini and I were colleagues at Townhall.com; heâs one of the smartest young conservatives on the web. Thus, I found the following blog post he authored utterly dismaying. Here it is in full:
If you watched Fox News Sunday yesterday, you may have noticed that Republican John Kyl and Chuck Schumer were practically holding hands and belting out a few choruses of âKumbaya,â such was the spirit of bipartisanship that dominated the morning. Little wonder. The threat of a Great Depression redux has a way of focusing the mind of even the most eager partisan like New Yorkâs other senator. I assume the senators had spent the previous few days much as I had. They probably spoke to a bunch of people on Wall Street. They realized that the economy was teetering on the brink of calamity. They knew that if promised government action didnât soothe Wall Streetâs panic, then partisan concerns would look very small. Moreover, the senators likely knew that if Wall Street perceived the way out of the financial crisis had become a political football, the panic could easily resume. That fact still stands today. Thatâs why youâre seeing unusual things like John Conyers and Bill Kristol agreeing on some matters of import. And itâs why youâre seeing our congress members behaving in an unusually responsible fashion. No one wants to be responsible for creating 21st century Hoovervilles (although even in the event of a new Depression, Hoovervilles are unlikely. Besides, we could call them Obamavilles which would have a certain ring.) But hereâs the fly in our presently delightful bipartisan ointment â the Paulson Plan has a sufficient number of flaws that unless it rockets through congress, it will eventually (and deservedly) crumble under its own weight. Think of it as a parallel situation to the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill from Spring â07. The authors of that bill knew that if it got carefully considered by either the public or congress, it would die a slow and painful death. So they tried to shove it down the body politicâs throat. Their plan failed. Similarly, the Paulson Plan because of its many well-documented weaknesses canât pass as is and will likely enter the political system. But hereâs the problem â congress simply canât punt on the matter like it did on immigration reform. Regardless of what awaits the Paulson Plan, Congress must act quickly to head off potential disaster. If the rescuing of our financial system becomes part of the workaday partisan wrangling, the odds of a decent plan emerging diminish. More disturbingly, the odds of no plan emerging increases dramatically. All of the preceding is what makes Ruffiniâs essay so disquieting. Just as there are Republicans crassly calculating how they can leverage the current situation to their political advantage, there are obviously Democrats doing the same (although Iâm not aware of any who have been so silly as to say so publicly). Fortunately, the grown-ups in both parties have controlled the situation. If the grown-ups decide this situation has become a political opportunity rather than a legitimate national emergency, weâll all have a problem - âproblemâ here being a mild euphemism for an economic disaster. None of the foregoing means there arenât legitimate areas of difference that members of congress (and those of us who write about them) should hash out in the coming days. But anyone who comes to the party without a first priority of staving off panic and saving the credit markets should be turned away at the door.
|
| Gunning for the Bitter Bloc |
|
The NRA has released four new ads attacking Obama. This one takes aim at Obama's remarks about folks bitterly clinging to their guns and religion: Hat tip: Hot Air
|
| Al Qaeda Increases Pressure on Mauritania |
|
Justifying their coup against an elected president last month, Mauritania's top generals underscored not only what they claimed was creeping corruption and blatant incompetence but a soft approach to the al Qaeda franchise in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [west]. One hundred percent Muslim, Mauritania is, more so than the other North African countries where AQIM's presence and terrorist activities have been on the rise, an example of why bin-Ladenism and its offshoots represent a threat to Muslim countries as much as to the West, if not more so. After all, Algeria and Morocco, for example, are Mediterranean nations whose economies are intertwined with Europe's (and ours). By contrast Mauritania is still comparatively isolated. At best, the jihadists can justify war against Mauritania because it has diplomatic relations with Israel and receives U.S. help as part of the Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism program. The simpler explanation is that the terrorists are seeking to destabilize regimes throughout the region and they think ambushing platoons of young recruits and leaving them on desert roads with their throats slit, as they are reported to have done on two occasions in the past fortnight, will advance this goal.
|
| Is the Obama Campaign Behind Anti-Palin Online Smears? |
|
At The Jawa Report blog Rusty Shackleford reports that a professional PR firm appears to be spreading false attacks against Sarah Palin on the Internet. A YouTube video that appears to have been produced by the PR firm Winner & Associates falsely claims Sarah Palin is a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. Shackleford has evidence that Jared Liu-Klein, an Associate at Winner & Associates, posted this video on website DemocraticUnderground.com more than a week after reports of Sarah Palin's membership in the party had been debunked. I just spoke with Liu-Klein on the phone and asked him about the matter, but he said that he would have to get back to me later. I gave him my email address and asked if he could give me a simple yes or no answer if he had ever posted a video on the Internet about Sarah Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party. Liu-Klein replied: "I'll have to get back to you as soon as I can." Then he hung up the phone. I'll post Liu-Klein's response if and when I get it. As Shackleford notes, "the million dollar question is who, if any one, paid Winner & Associates to produce this ad?" Schackleford observes that the voice used in official Obama-Biden ads as well as ads produced by chief Obama strategist David Axelrod's company sounds like it was also used in the anti-Palin Alaskan Independence ad. Here is a YouTube video comparing the Alaskan Independence ad with an official Obama-Biden ad: The voice in both ads sounds quite similar, but it's certainly possible that Winner & Associates could have hired a narrator who had done work for Axelrod's company and the Obama-Biden campaign. Whatever the case, it appears that Winner & Associates--a professional PR firm with extensive connections to the Democratic party--is behind false attacks on Sarah Palin.
|
| Tracking the Palin Hacker: Update |
|
The FBI reportedly arrived at the suspect David Kernell's Tennessee apartment at around midnight Saturday while a party was in progress. They took pictures of the apartment, took down names of the party-goers (though some reports say many of them high-tailed it out of there as soon as they arrived), and subpoenaed Kernell's three roommmates, according to witnesses. As mentioned above, the hacker could still be prosecuted under the CFAA, though likely for a misdemeanor, not a felony, since there was no actual loss that resulted from the hack. More specifically, he'd be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C), accessing a protected computer without authorization to obtain information.
|
| Best Economic News of the Day |
|
Oil prices soairng! Yes, in light of other event this really is good news. The Wall Street Journal reports:
|
| Required Reading: Looking Back in Anger |
|
From Bloomberg, âHow the Democrats Created the Financial Crisisâ by Kevin Hassett This being a time of crisis, it is no time for finger pointing. Then again, why not? In this searing and much-discussed piece, Hassett explores who is responsible for enabling the twin ticking time bombs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to endanger the entire economy. Hint: One of the presidential candidates is a culprit. Additional hint: Heâs not the one who served in Vietnam:
Perhaps the senatorsâ credulity regarding Fannie and Freddieâs propaganda and the behemothsâ campaign contributions are merely an inconvenient coincidence. Then again, perhaps not. Youâll want to read the whole thing.
|
| Andrew Cuomo? Seriously? |
|
John McCain said last night on 60 Minutes that he would consider nominating Clinton Administration HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to chair the Security and Exchange Commission in a McCain administration. This may be the dumbest single thing John McCain has said during the course of the 2008 presidential campaign and suggests he simply wasn't paying attention during Cuomo's corrupt tenure at HUD. Cuomo's tenure was marked by shady business associations, the deeply politicized use of taxpayer dollars that John McCain criticizes in his stump speech, and, worst of all, the kinds of high-risk loans schemes that have characterized the current housing and economic crisis. Cuomo, who announced his run to be governor of New York just nine days after he left HUD, used the federal housing bureaucracy as his de facto campaign headquarters. HUD pumped out slick, high-dollar brochures that touted his "accomplishments" in areas that had nothing to do with housing. The photos for some of those taxpayer-financed brochures ended up on Cuomo's campaign website. As it happens, I looked carefully at Cuomo's HUD tenure back in the spring of 2001. As HUD secretary, he paid lavish attention to New York. He showered his home stateâparticularly the electorally important upstate regionâwith federal dollars, and essentially used HUD as his gubernatorial campaign headquarters. Cuomo frequently criticized New York Governor George Pataki for using taxpayer funds for his campaign. On the surface, it was political hypocrisy at its worst. But it was smart. By leveling those charges against his opponent -- and doing so first -- Cuomo inoculated himself from the same claims. Still, when I asked him about a congressional report detailing his misdealings, he first disputed its findings and then explained them. "That was incorrect. That was incorrect," he said, of the congressional report. "First of all, I represented everyâthe airplane is different. The airplane is, look at the specifics. You say one thing, and you do another. Thatâs what the airplane is. You say one thing and do another. The advertising, you say one thing and do another. Vieques, you say one thing you do another. And thatâs troubling. I donât care what you believe, but believe something and then be consistent. And I can disagree with you, but at least stand in front of me and be honest. This is the exchange McCain had with Scott Pelley last night. Scott Pelley: I'm curious. If you wanna fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC, who would you replace him with? A good job? Now that is bad judgment.
|
| Obama Has Experience...Hosing Taxpayers on Bad Real-Estate Deals |
|
From Dave Freddoso, noted "right-wing smear merchant" and the expert on all of Obama's misadventures in Chicago: Last week, Sen. Barack Obama compared the Savings and Loan bailout of the late 1980s to the situation of the mortgage-securities markets today: Read more for the details on the slums, which are pretty horrific: backed-up sewage, un-heated apartments in the dead of Chicago's winter. The McCain campaign is going after Obama's unsavory associations today in an add called "Chicago Machine" (can a Wright ad be far off?): I'd like it better, I think, if they went after Rezko specifically instead of lumping him in with others, and symbolically tied Obama's actions, as Dave has, to the irresponsible behavior that got us into the mortgage/financial crisis of today.
|
| Obama Getting Less News Coverage |
|
Remember that sneaking suspicion the media was swooning over Barack Obama this summer? Time magazine covers, coverage of Obama with Germans rediscovering their love for mass rallies, etc. Turns out, based on media mentions, the Democratic nominee did get a lot more attention. The chart below developed by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist Tom Holbrook provides some nice visual confirmation. Looks like things evened out during the Republican convention and look a lot more balanced in September. Holbrook reminds us his data do not evaluate the content or tone of the media coverage (positive or negative), just the amount. ![]() Read Holbrookâs full post here.
|
| Palin on Iran |
|
Sarah Palin was supposed to attend an anti-Ahmadinejad rally today in New York, but after Hillary Clinton backed out of the rally, Palin was disinvited. The New York Sun has printed the speech that Sarah Palin would have given. It's a good, strong speech (and not very long, but I'll highlight a few excerpts). On Ahmadinejad:
On Iraq and the nuclear threat:
On Iran's oppression of women:
On how to stop Iran:
|
| Required Reading: A Blank Check for Hank? |
|
1) From the New York Times, âA Fine Messâ by William Kristol 2) From the American Scene, âWelcome to Historyâ by Jim Manzi Is it a sign that we truly are approaching the End Times that the Boss and John Conyers agree on something of vital importance? Both find the administrationâs plan to give Henry Paulson a $700 billion blank check to buy up all the countryâs bad mortgage debt in all of its many guises profoundly disturbing. Kristol writes:
The Wall Street Journal finds Conyers concurring:
One must ask precisely what the administration is up to here. Was the initial deal sheet that granted Paulson such sweeping powers a mere âjumping off pointâ from which the administration could begin wrangling with Congress? Or did the administration sense Congressâ collective terror and figure individual Congressmen would just go along with whatever Treasury proposed? After all, Barack Obama hasnât exactly led from the front on this matter (heâs still trying to decide what he thinks about last weekâs AIG bailout), and John McCainâs clumsy efforts to offer anything substantive last week were disastrous. The typical, cautious senator has probably decided itâs in his best interest just to stay out of the way of this particular locomotive and rejoin the fray once the blame game has commenced. So what tweaks does the Paulson âplanâ cry out for? The always insightful Jim Manzi puts it plainly and simply:
Add proper oversight to make sure Treasury is disposing of its responsibilities in a capable manner, and weâve got ourselves a plan. Everyone understands the need for prompt and serious action to make sure the American financial system doesnât go belly-up. Well, almost everyone â you can find the stray Ron Paul-types out there who would rather see a Great Depression redux than have their libertarian principles compromised. While most of us find the thought of a massive bailout unpalatable, the thought of the American credit markets seizing up sucks far more. But thinking people should still ask whether granting a $700 billion blank check to Hank Paulson is the proper antidote. The many individuals Iâve spoken with who have a serious understanding of financial markets have universally expressed their minimal to middling regard for Secretary Paulsonâs job performance. Whatâs more, since Paulson is a banker and not a trader, he doesnât seem like the guy you would give $700 billion to and say, âGo have some fun in the worldâs most complex securities market.â Certainly not without proper statutory and congressional supervision. In the spirit of coming together at a time of crisis, I suggest we all applaud Treasuryâs aggressive approach to staving off a true financial catastrophe. But that doesnât men we have to suspend common sense and prudence as we look for the best way forward.
|
|
Sunday, September 21, 2008
|
| Change We Hope No One Asks Us a Question About |
And this week the Obama campaign modified his position on a sensitive issue: Social Security. Compare the current "Seniors & Social Security" page with the previous version. Now, tell me why, oh why, would the Obama campaign decide to delete the following sentence: "[Obama] does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age." Is he trying to stoke anxiety about his position on Social Security? I think this warrants a nice little McCain web ad wondering aloud about whether Obama might want to raise the retirement age for Social Security. It'd certainly be truer than Obama's widely denounced ad on Social Security this week, which Fact Check goes so far as to call a "whopper." So great is his deception that colloquialisms must needs be unleashed to describe it.
|
| Albright and Powell: 'We May Go to War With Russia!' |
|
Five former secretaries of state took the stage on CNN last night to discuss the challenges facing the next president. So nuanced were their pronouncements and noncomittal their advice that I'm now anxiously awaiting the day they form the wacky cast of a cornpone sketch-comedy show about world conflicts, tentatively titled "Hem Haw."
AMANPOUR: Now you've got Russia invading Georgia. Is the advice to the next president of the United States therefore, you have to go to war against Russia in order to protect your NATO allies? Amanpour then tossed the question to Colin Powell, saying, "if Russia is (the aggressor) and you have to, you know, keep your NATO allies' security, aren't you then committed?" POWELL: Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is the NATO Treaty, when one member of the alliance is attacked from abroad -- meaning outside the NATO geographic limits -- then all members of NATO treat that as an attack... Oddly enough, I can find no blaring headlines this morning claiming Albright and Powell want to "go to war with Russia." Nothing along the lines of what we saw after Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin produced essentially the same answer from the vice presidential candidate. You'll see "Hem Haw" hit primetime before you see anyone in the media point this out.
|
|
Saturday, September 20, 2008
|
| Weekend Reading |
|
Factcheck.org: "An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports 'cutting benefits in half' for Social Security recipients. False!" Obama continued his campaign to scare the elderly by telling another "Social Security Whopper" during a speech in Florida today. Jay Cost looks at the polls over the past three months and sees "remarkable stability" in the presidential race. Obama and McCain issue statements on the bombing in Pakistan. Nate Silver runs through the problems with a new poll that suggests support for Obama would be as much as six points higher if it weren't for racism of white voters. Joe Biden warns Barack Obama: I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands.
|
|
Friday, September 19, 2008
|
| Tap the Rockies |
|
Stu Rothenberg has dubbed Colorado THE state to win this election. I've become convinced that my initial list of five states probably can be boiled down to just one -- one state that is most likely to determine who will be the next occupant of the White House. And that state is Colorado. So, what's going on in Colorado? Gary Hart gave his manifesto on how to win the West to Obama's campaign but never heard back. Good news for those of you looking to do some chad-counting tourism in the Rockies: The Colorado ballot has a whopping 18 initiatives and referenda on it in addition to state, national, and local races, making it the longest ballot in the country and the longest in Colorado since 1912. Let's hear it for potential catastrophic confusion! Obama has a 2.5-point lead in the RCP poll average right now, and has maintained a lead in the state throughout most of the year except for one week in mid-August. This week's polls have been widely divergent, with the Insider Advantage poll showing Obama up 10 while the Rasmussen poll had McCain up 2 points (a five-point swing for him, but the poll was published Sept. 14 before a rough week for McCain). Obama stopped in Colorado twice on Monday and once on Tuesday. McCain was not in Colorado this week.
|
| Let's Make a Deal |
|
At the McCain Report, McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb says the campaign is willing to make an interesting deal with the Washington Post:
|
| Tony Blair on The Daily Show |
|
Via Hot Air, Tony Blair delivers a very effective defense of the Iraq war, beginning about 3 minutes and 30 seconds into the second clip, but watch the whole thing if you have time, especially if you could use a good laugh or two:
|
| McCain Camp Says Jeremiah Wright Now Fair Game? |
|
The Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler reports:
|
| Lies in Obama's New Infanticide Ad |
|
In response to this ad on Obama's votes against a bill to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts, the Obama campaign has cut an ad that says "accusing Obama of letting infants die" is "a despicable lie." But as an Illinois state senator Obama acknowledged that these infants who had survived abortions were displaying "movement or some indication that, in fact, theyâre not just coming out limp and dead.â Yuval Levin points out Obama also said while debating the bill:
It's also a very misleading to say that McCain is "running on a platform to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest." The Republican platform is silent on the legality of abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and McCain believes that in those cases abortion should be legal. It's pretty clear that Obama's strategy is to lie about his born-alive votes--as he has done in the past--and get the press to shift the debate to those hard cases, where Obama wins even if McCain shares his position.
|
| Progress on Missile Defense |
|
Today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops who will operate a radar system in the Czech Republic.
|
| McCain Ad on Obama and Hugo Chavez |
|
Do we have to wait until October to get the Ahmadinejad version of this?
|
| Irish Blues |
|
Last week, the Irish foreign minister presented the details of an opinion poll analyzing the reasons behind the islandâs âNoâ vote on the EUâs Lisbon Treaty on June 12. Three months ago, the latest EU attempt to streamline the 27-nation blocâs institutional structures and decision-making procedures was rejected by a 53-43 percent margin. The poll was conducted in late July and involved more than 2000 Irish eligible voters. I have summarized some of the reportâs key findings below:
In the meantime, reports have surfaced indicating that the pro-EU government in Dublin will agree to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in the Fall of 2009, most likely after having extracted concessions on keeping its only EU commissioner as well as sensitive issues such as abortion, taxation, and military neutrality.
|
| North Korea: "We neither wish nor expect to be delisted as a 'state sponsor of terrorism'" |
|
Max Boot points out this New York Times report:
Boot writes: "Itâs a shame that the 'deal' with North Korea is unravelingâbut hardly unexpected. The only surprise is that the administration was so willing to abandon its first-term principles in order to pursue an accord that was widely seen as doomed. Presumably this will free up Secretary Riceâs time for another quixotic undertakingâtrying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, more than sixty years in the making, by the end of this year." In the cover story of June 2 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD (In the Driver's Seat: Condoleezza Rice and the jettisoning of the Bush Doctrine.), Steve Hayes reported how the administration changed its North Korea policy and abandoned its first-term principles.
|
| The Case Against Barack Obama |
|
The Economist has a glowing review of David Freddoso's book The Case Against Barack Obama:
|
| Biden: 'I told the folks in Ohio that we'd kick Ohio State's ass!' |
|
From ABC:
I'm sure the good people of Ohio will take this as some good-natured trash-talk coming from an underdog. Had Biden made the same statement about Ohio State's biggest rival, the Michigan Wolverines--or even the Penn State "Nittaly Lions"*--well, I think it would have been time for Obama to abandon the Buckeye state entirely. Biden just better hope that Delaware doesn't pull off an upset, which would severely wound the pride of Ohio State fans. *Yes, I know McCain accidentally referred to the SEC as the FEC today.
|
| Time: The McCain Campaign Is Racist! |
|
Time's Karen Tumuly writes that "McCain Plays the Race Card" in an ad featuring former disgraced Fannie Mae executive Franklin Raines:
A few points: 1. The McCain campaign released a new ad on Jim Johnson this morning. The ad released yesterday was about who advises Obama, not who advised him. Johnson resigned from the Obama campaign on June 12. The Washington Post reported on July 17 that Raines "has been consulting with the campaign on housing issues." A Post editorial on August 28 said that Raines was a member of "Obama's political circle." The Obama campaign never disputed these reports until yesterday. Had the ad included a man who had resigned among Obama's current advisers, there's no doubt that Time would be wailing about McCain's Lies! Lies! Lies! 2. As for Tumulty's argument about the ad's inclusion of "Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman", could she tell the McCain campaign what color, age, and sex is permissible for disappointed voters featured in negative ads? 3. Confronted with the facts, Tumulty stands by her racist accusation, telling the McCain campaign: "I grew up in Texas. I know what this stuff looks like." Why did Tumulty have nothing to say about Obama's ad that slandered Rush Limbaugh as an anti-Mexican bigot and suggested that McCain secretly coddles such bigots?
|
| Has Britain "Adopted Islamic Law"? |
|
A sensationalistic Fox News report declares: âBritain Adopts Islamic Law.â This story is referencing a new report, in the Times of London, that the UK now has its first official sharia courts. From the Times:
|









