There are "leaks" coming out, supposedly from McCain campaign aides helping Sarah prepare for the debate, saying that it is just awful and frantic about what to do.
I wonder if we're being set up? Sarah Palin's performance in interviews has been so pathetic, and expectations for her debate performance are so low, that we may be surprised. She may exceed those expectations, and then the news cycle will be all about her "surprising success."
The Obama camp seems to be concerned also. They're putting out the word that she really is a skilled debater and have sent out tapes of her debate performances in the Alaska governor's race, where she is said to have done very well against more experienced opponents.
Of course, debating foreign policy with Joe Biden, and trying to even talk sensibly about the economic crisis are very different matters from debating local issues in Alaska (even if you can see Russia.) And her interview with Katie Couric really is pathetic, and I don't believe she was faking it.
But we should never 'misunderestimate' the right-wing press and the public in judging debate performances, or in their ability to sell black as white.
Ralph
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Debate: early reaction
There are several ways to judge a debate: on substantive points, on demeanor/tone/how presidential, on whether expectations were met, on how it played with the audience.
As a passionate Obama supporter, I would give him the edge in all categories. But neither candidate hurt himself; no major gaffes; no soaring phrase that will echo around the internet.
Regarding expectations: McCain didn't have a meltdown or senior moment; he didn't sound as erratic as he has seemed recently; and he did display his knowledge of the world. He needed not to mess up, and he didn't (oh, sure some minor things). But about all he did was not hurt himself on the topic that's supposed to be his strong point.
On the other hand, Obama needed to prove that he is presidential, that he can hold his own on foreign affairs and national security, and to give crisp, succinct, forceful answers. He did all that admirably. And he was forceful in correcting McCain's frequent distortions of his record. He looked presidential. And, remember, the tallness factor? The taller one usually wins. Pretty obvious when they're standing on stage together.
I think a McCain supporter would be reassured that he didn't mess up. I think an Obama supporter would feel very proud of his superior performance.
A group of 500 uncommitted voters were instant-polled by CBSNews: 40% said Obama won the debate; 22% gave it to McCain, with 38% calling it a tie. In addition, 46% said their opinion of Obama had improved, while only 7% said it was worse.
My take-away memories: Obama saying to McCain: "You pretend like the Iraq war started in 2007" (with the surge). "You were wrong on the war. I know it. You know it. Everybody in American knows it except John McCain. He was wrong, and that's not the judgment we need."
And McCain? If he had said one more time that "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand . . . " (he said it 6 times; I counted), then one fine TV set would have had a shoe aimed squarely at the old man's image.
Ralph
As a passionate Obama supporter, I would give him the edge in all categories. But neither candidate hurt himself; no major gaffes; no soaring phrase that will echo around the internet.
Regarding expectations: McCain didn't have a meltdown or senior moment; he didn't sound as erratic as he has seemed recently; and he did display his knowledge of the world. He needed not to mess up, and he didn't (oh, sure some minor things). But about all he did was not hurt himself on the topic that's supposed to be his strong point.
On the other hand, Obama needed to prove that he is presidential, that he can hold his own on foreign affairs and national security, and to give crisp, succinct, forceful answers. He did all that admirably. And he was forceful in correcting McCain's frequent distortions of his record. He looked presidential. And, remember, the tallness factor? The taller one usually wins. Pretty obvious when they're standing on stage together.
I think a McCain supporter would be reassured that he didn't mess up. I think an Obama supporter would feel very proud of his superior performance.
A group of 500 uncommitted voters were instant-polled by CBSNews: 40% said Obama won the debate; 22% gave it to McCain, with 38% calling it a tie. In addition, 46% said their opinion of Obama had improved, while only 7% said it was worse.
My take-away memories: Obama saying to McCain: "You pretend like the Iraq war started in 2007" (with the surge). "You were wrong on the war. I know it. You know it. Everybody in American knows it except John McCain. He was wrong, and that's not the judgment we need."
And McCain? If he had said one more time that "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand . . . " (he said it 6 times; I counted), then one fine TV set would have had a shoe aimed squarely at the old man's image.
Ralph
The Lone Ranger Rides to the Rescue
Here's the scenario as I see it: McCain's campaign is in big trouble. He creates a sideshow stunt by rushing to Washington to save the day. Let's just overlook his 24 hours delay while he did TV interviews and took care of political business.
It's obvious the bipartisan leaders don't need his help and wish he would stay away. But he has convinced Bush to play along with this completely unnecessary White House photo op meeting. At least that's what we thought.
But no. They have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so they can create a situation that "needs" McCain's help and he can play the selfless hero. Maybe he should put on a cowboy outfit.
So he meets with Boehmer before the WH meeting. It's true, many Republicans aren't happy with the plan, but might have gone along with Boehmer's encouragement. Remember, before McCain entered the picture, Boehmer seemed to be hopeful of a bipartisan deal. Instead, to help McCain, they are encouraged to balk, to offer some crazy plan of their own.
This gums up the works. This gives McCain something to do. Because as their presidential candidate he probably does have some clout at this point with the Republicans in Congress; after all they want to win the presidency.
At the White House photo op, he sits silently while he lets John Boehner spills the beans: no deal. McCain remains non-committal, saying he still hopes this can be worked out so he can debate tonight.
His campaign is now putting out the info that he spent the night on the phone with Republicans trying to broker an agreement.
Eureka. Some time this afternoon they will announce success, which will probably be the deal that was in place before he mucked it up, maybe with just enough tweaks to claim he did something.
Then he waltzes in to the debate tonight as the hero who saved the nation from bankruptcy.
And it's all a bunch of political stunt grandstanding.
Please, Barak. Do not get sucked in to trying to "help" with a solution. Leave it to the congressional leaders as you have been doing. The only way for you to win in this situation is to point out McCain's stunt, that it was not only unnecessary but actually slowed the process.
Ralph
It's obvious the bipartisan leaders don't need his help and wish he would stay away. But he has convinced Bush to play along with this completely unnecessary White House photo op meeting. At least that's what we thought.
But no. They have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so they can create a situation that "needs" McCain's help and he can play the selfless hero. Maybe he should put on a cowboy outfit.
So he meets with Boehmer before the WH meeting. It's true, many Republicans aren't happy with the plan, but might have gone along with Boehmer's encouragement. Remember, before McCain entered the picture, Boehmer seemed to be hopeful of a bipartisan deal. Instead, to help McCain, they are encouraged to balk, to offer some crazy plan of their own.
This gums up the works. This gives McCain something to do. Because as their presidential candidate he probably does have some clout at this point with the Republicans in Congress; after all they want to win the presidency.
At the White House photo op, he sits silently while he lets John Boehner spills the beans: no deal. McCain remains non-committal, saying he still hopes this can be worked out so he can debate tonight.
His campaign is now putting out the info that he spent the night on the phone with Republicans trying to broker an agreement.
Eureka. Some time this afternoon they will announce success, which will probably be the deal that was in place before he mucked it up, maybe with just enough tweaks to claim he did something.
Then he waltzes in to the debate tonight as the hero who saved the nation from bankruptcy.
And it's all a bunch of political stunt grandstanding.
Please, Barak. Do not get sucked in to trying to "help" with a solution. Leave it to the congressional leaders as you have been doing. The only way for you to win in this situation is to point out McCain's stunt, that it was not only unnecessary but actually slowed the process.
Ralph
McCain Scorches the Earth - To Rescue Palin?
No reasonable person can any longer deny that McCain's visit to DC yesterday was a contrivance to bolster a flagging campaign. What was shocking, though, is that he essentially said nothing during this entire meeting - that it was soooo important he attend - until the end when he referenced an alternative plan formulated by House Republicans. This 'alternative' plan the House Repubs hadn't bothered to mention to anyone prior to this, until, at the White House, they came up with one page of bulleted notes. This was McCain's accomplishment. He was the conduit who ushered in the destruction of the hard work everyone had put in all week on this bailout plan. The highlight of which seemed to be
* Suspend the Capital Gains tax for two years - a move sure to help the wealthy more than the middle class
* Give Big Businesses more tax breaks to buy up debt, so even more money will be shovelled to large corporations
- and don't talk to me about trickle down
Not a lot of concern for Main Street there, but this alternative plan will certianly help those at the top of the economic food chain.
That's leadership.
Since last Friday, in a rare display of bipartisanship, Congress had been working, with Paulson and Bernanke, on a plan without the hostile finger-pointing that has characterized partisan politics recently. Obama had been daily monitoring the plan, talking to Paulson and senators on both sides of the aisle, since last weekend, without trumpeting that to the press.
Then Wed. McCain, who hadn't even read the 2.5 page proposal, grandstands, flies into Washington, and does what? Emboldens the House Republicans(whether he encouraged their revolt is uncertain) to turn the White House meeting into a shouting match and 'carpet-bomb' an entire week's worth of work done by Paulson, Bernake, and Senate Dems and Republicans.
That'ss leadership
Increasingly, people are questioning whether this is simply a ploy for McCain to get out of the debate. Many believe there will be a miraculous agreement tonight, just about the time the debate is due to start, so the TV coverage will focus on the deal, and not the debate. Others hypothesize that McCain will make a last minute flight to the debate, the beset hero trying to do his duty for his country and take care of everyone's needs.
I have a different take. I watched the Palin-Couric interviews. I reread the transcripts. As a woman friend said, If I were Sarah Palin I would be ashamed to show my face in public. It wasn't even funny. It was painful. Palin, on her own, was worse than anything Tina Fey could come up with on Saturday Night Live.
Palin made Dan Quayle look like William F. Buckley. I've never seen a candidate for VP show, not so little, but absolutely no grasp of any basic issues. Her knowledge base isn't thin, it's non-existent. She has a vocabulary of about 100 words - all slogans, most culled from Bush(I know the good guys. I know the bad guys. I know who the good guys - sure Sarah, maybe it's the floating Putin head invading yoru air space). She seemed incapable of putting together two grammatically correct sentences in a row. She didn't show a grasp of any concepts or policies, or the ability to talk specifically. About anything.
Even all the conservatives - Morning Joe, Pat Buchanon - said today, McCain has to hide her. He can't let her show up in public. She's a talking disaster.
McCain's ultimate endgame in his political grandstanding is, in the long term, yes, to try to salvage his campaign, but in the short term to deep-six the VP debate. Because despite the couple of stupid pronouncements Biden has made recently, he does have a grasp of concepts and issues, and he can speak to the specifics of a situation. Palin may be clever, and you can teach her key words a couple of key phrases, but you can't cram her full of wisdom and knowledge in one week. Or one month. Or one year.
She is exactly what she says she is - a 44-year-old hockey mom.
A pit bull with lipstick.
There's nothing wrong with that. But she is eminently unqualified to be president.
* Suspend the Capital Gains tax for two years - a move sure to help the wealthy more than the middle class
* Give Big Businesses more tax breaks to buy up debt, so even more money will be shovelled to large corporations
- and don't talk to me about trickle down
Not a lot of concern for Main Street there, but this alternative plan will certianly help those at the top of the economic food chain.
That's leadership.
Since last Friday, in a rare display of bipartisanship, Congress had been working, with Paulson and Bernanke, on a plan without the hostile finger-pointing that has characterized partisan politics recently. Obama had been daily monitoring the plan, talking to Paulson and senators on both sides of the aisle, since last weekend, without trumpeting that to the press.
Then Wed. McCain, who hadn't even read the 2.5 page proposal, grandstands, flies into Washington, and does what? Emboldens the House Republicans(whether he encouraged their revolt is uncertain) to turn the White House meeting into a shouting match and 'carpet-bomb' an entire week's worth of work done by Paulson, Bernake, and Senate Dems and Republicans.
That'ss leadership
Increasingly, people are questioning whether this is simply a ploy for McCain to get out of the debate. Many believe there will be a miraculous agreement tonight, just about the time the debate is due to start, so the TV coverage will focus on the deal, and not the debate. Others hypothesize that McCain will make a last minute flight to the debate, the beset hero trying to do his duty for his country and take care of everyone's needs.
I have a different take. I watched the Palin-Couric interviews. I reread the transcripts. As a woman friend said, If I were Sarah Palin I would be ashamed to show my face in public. It wasn't even funny. It was painful. Palin, on her own, was worse than anything Tina Fey could come up with on Saturday Night Live.
Palin made Dan Quayle look like William F. Buckley. I've never seen a candidate for VP show, not so little, but absolutely no grasp of any basic issues. Her knowledge base isn't thin, it's non-existent. She has a vocabulary of about 100 words - all slogans, most culled from Bush(I know the good guys. I know the bad guys. I know who the good guys - sure Sarah, maybe it's the floating Putin head invading yoru air space). She seemed incapable of putting together two grammatically correct sentences in a row. She didn't show a grasp of any concepts or policies, or the ability to talk specifically. About anything.
Even all the conservatives - Morning Joe, Pat Buchanon - said today, McCain has to hide her. He can't let her show up in public. She's a talking disaster.
McCain's ultimate endgame in his political grandstanding is, in the long term, yes, to try to salvage his campaign, but in the short term to deep-six the VP debate. Because despite the couple of stupid pronouncements Biden has made recently, he does have a grasp of concepts and issues, and he can speak to the specifics of a situation. Palin may be clever, and you can teach her key words a couple of key phrases, but you can't cram her full of wisdom and knowledge in one week. Or one month. Or one year.
She is exactly what she says she is - a 44-year-old hockey mom.
A pit bull with lipstick.
There's nothing wrong with that. But she is eminently unqualified to be president.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain creates mess so he can pretend to fix it
I knew the Paulson plan was outrageous in its giveaway to Wall Street. The modifications as worked out by Congress are a huge improvement. On the other hand I recoil instinctively at the thought of having taxpayers bail out private corporations. Yet experts are telling us the whole economy could suffer big time if we don't, and then the taxpayers would be hurt even worse.
At this point, I'm undecided, but I tend to trust Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, even if I don't trust the Republicans.
But it's looking like, here at 9:30pm on Thursday that John McCain may have succeeded in scuttling the deal that seemed close to passing. Yes, I know that a number of Republican House members have been close to revolt. But how many, and what clout? Nancy Pelosi had said she had the votes to pass it.
So, Aviator McCain zooms into town (after a 24 hour detour since he "suspended" his campaign in order to rush to DC to rescue it). He meets privately with House Minority Leader Boehner. They then both go to Bush's White House meeting, at which Boehner says the Republican votes are not there to pass this "bipartisan" bill.
Dodd and Frank are furious with McCain, seeing their hard nonstop work for 6 days go down the tubes to try to save McCain's political life. With George Bush as enabler.
Are we seeing a political fix (or rather un-fix)? Is McCain trying to scuttle the Dodd-Frank deal so he can then pretend to fix it?. After some negotiations with Republicans, maybe a few modifications, will he then claim credit for breaking the "logjam" that didn't exist before he began mucking about?
No, I can't prove any of this. But this sequence of meetings did take place according to multiple news sources today. Am I full of cynicism toward this man whom I used to have some respect for? Sure, and I think he has earned my cynicism and scorn. And this is no way for a president to behave.
Ralph
At this point, I'm undecided, but I tend to trust Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, even if I don't trust the Republicans.
But it's looking like, here at 9:30pm on Thursday that John McCain may have succeeded in scuttling the deal that seemed close to passing. Yes, I know that a number of Republican House members have been close to revolt. But how many, and what clout? Nancy Pelosi had said she had the votes to pass it.
So, Aviator McCain zooms into town (after a 24 hour detour since he "suspended" his campaign in order to rush to DC to rescue it). He meets privately with House Minority Leader Boehner. They then both go to Bush's White House meeting, at which Boehner says the Republican votes are not there to pass this "bipartisan" bill.
Dodd and Frank are furious with McCain, seeing their hard nonstop work for 6 days go down the tubes to try to save McCain's political life. With George Bush as enabler.
Are we seeing a political fix (or rather un-fix)? Is McCain trying to scuttle the Dodd-Frank deal so he can then pretend to fix it?. After some negotiations with Republicans, maybe a few modifications, will he then claim credit for breaking the "logjam" that didn't exist before he began mucking about?
No, I can't prove any of this. But this sequence of meetings did take place according to multiple news sources today. Am I full of cynicism toward this man whom I used to have some respect for? Sure, and I think he has earned my cynicism and scorn. And this is no way for a president to behave.
Ralph
Palin's exact words
Okay, read these exact words from Palin and tell me again, how can anyone think she is capable of being VP.
OURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
OURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.
John 'Backstab' McCain Proves he is Unfit to Lead
The way McCain has handled this fake stage show clearly shows he is unfit to serve as President. When somebody calls you and asks you to work together on an issue of mutual importance, and you agree, and then, while you are in the middle of negotiations, you turn around and stab that person in the back by going public with a proposal clearly designed to put yourself in a better political light and make your opponent look worse - that's not statesmanship. It's demagoguery.
A true statesman would never scuttle negotiations merely for their own political advantage. This back-stab approach is indicative of how McCain would negotiate sensitive treaties with foreign leaders. This is precisely what he should be judged on, the way he puts personal political gain above the common good. Pretend to negotiate, then secretly bail out and go public in an attempt to bolster your political stock and embarrass the person with whom you're negotiating.
Put that together with Sarah 'I Want to be the Female Huey Long' Palin's long, sordid history of using people then destroying them when they are no longer convenient for her - we have quite a pair here, don't we?
No reasonable person seriously believes that at 9pm on Friday night there will be anybody in DC working on the bailout bill. Sure, McCain will hide the whiskey and stage a photo-op for the media so he can pretend he was too busy doing the country's work to go to Mississippi to debate. But it will be just one more falsehood in a campaign that is beginning to look even more deceitful than the last two Bush campaigns.
A true statesman would never scuttle negotiations merely for their own political advantage. This back-stab approach is indicative of how McCain would negotiate sensitive treaties with foreign leaders. This is precisely what he should be judged on, the way he puts personal political gain above the common good. Pretend to negotiate, then secretly bail out and go public in an attempt to bolster your political stock and embarrass the person with whom you're negotiating.
Put that together with Sarah 'I Want to be the Female Huey Long' Palin's long, sordid history of using people then destroying them when they are no longer convenient for her - we have quite a pair here, don't we?
No reasonable person seriously believes that at 9pm on Friday night there will be anybody in DC working on the bailout bill. Sure, McCain will hide the whiskey and stage a photo-op for the media so he can pretend he was too busy doing the country's work to go to Mississippi to debate. But it will be just one more falsehood in a campaign that is beginning to look even more deceitful than the last two Bush campaigns.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chicken Little not needed after all
Rep. Barney Frank is reporting tonight (on Reuters) that the Democrats have a deal that they will present to the Republicans tomorrow. It will include maybe less than the $700B as an initial package, impose tough congressional oversight, put some limits on CEO compensation, provide bankruptcy protection for people losing their homes, and give the government (taxpayers) some return on investment from companies that prosper from the help.
Apparently Bush and Paulson are reluctantly agreeing, although they really really really hated to give in on CEO compensation. Remains to be seen how the Republicans who didn't want government bailing out private companies will respond.
Frank also got in a dig at McCain, saying that now that the deal is almost complete, he drops in to help us complete it. In fact, he said, the "photo op" at the White House tomorrow is likely to slow things down.
Now that McCain has played Chicken Little and they didn't need him to keep the sky from falling, it'll be interesting to see how he crawls back onto the campaign trail and shows up to debate after all.
Ralph
Apparently Bush and Paulson are reluctantly agreeing, although they really really really hated to give in on CEO compensation. Remains to be seen how the Republicans who didn't want government bailing out private companies will respond.
Frank also got in a dig at McCain, saying that now that the deal is almost complete, he drops in to help us complete it. In fact, he said, the "photo op" at the White House tomorrow is likely to slow things down.
Now that McCain has played Chicken Little and they didn't need him to keep the sky from falling, it'll be interesting to see how he crawls back onto the campaign trail and shows up to debate after all.
Ralph
McCain suspends politics, politically
Here's the way I understand it all came down. At 8:30 this morning, Obama placed a call to McCain suggesting that they issue a joint statement about the principles they felt should be considered in the bailout plan. McCain did not return his call until 2:30pm.
Meanwhile, he had time to meet with Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who is endorsing McCain. I think it's fair to assume that this was not to get her economic advice but to reward and solidify her political support. Nevertheless, the explanation for why he hadn't returned Obama's call was that he was in meetings with economic advisers. So much for rising above politics.
After finally returning Obama's call at 2:30, McCain then rushed into release in a 2:56 email his statement that he was suspending his campaign -- obviously trying to preempt any announcement from Obama about a joint statement. Not to be completely outdone, Obama then at 3:09 released an email saying that he had called McCain at 8:30, that he had returned it at 2:30, and that they were working on a joint statement.
McCain says it's time to suspend politics, but he does it in the most political way, by trying to gain advantage in looking like the strong leader who puts country first, in contrast to his opponent who puts politics first.
But Obama chose not to do that. He could just as well have released an announcement at 2:25 saying he had called McCain 6 hours earlier to make a joint statement, and that he was still waiting for McCain to return his call.
So who is playing politics with this urgent crisis?
McCain's plan to go to Washington to convene a meeting and force a negotiated settlement is patently absurd. What could he possibly add to an intelligent plan that his advisers couldn't do 100 times better, leaving him to do the debate? Having two presidential candidates descend into the midst of this crisis could only turn it into a media circus.
To my mind, it only adds to the image of McCain as desperate, erratic, impulsive, incompetent -- and scared. In short, this elaborate gesture of suspending his political campaign, in order to "rise above politics," is itself a political stunt. Obama is right not to play along.
Ralph
Meanwhile, he had time to meet with Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who is endorsing McCain. I think it's fair to assume that this was not to get her economic advice but to reward and solidify her political support. Nevertheless, the explanation for why he hadn't returned Obama's call was that he was in meetings with economic advisers. So much for rising above politics.
After finally returning Obama's call at 2:30, McCain then rushed into release in a 2:56 email his statement that he was suspending his campaign -- obviously trying to preempt any announcement from Obama about a joint statement. Not to be completely outdone, Obama then at 3:09 released an email saying that he had called McCain at 8:30, that he had returned it at 2:30, and that they were working on a joint statement.
McCain says it's time to suspend politics, but he does it in the most political way, by trying to gain advantage in looking like the strong leader who puts country first, in contrast to his opponent who puts politics first.
But Obama chose not to do that. He could just as well have released an announcement at 2:25 saying he had called McCain 6 hours earlier to make a joint statement, and that he was still waiting for McCain to return his call.
So who is playing politics with this urgent crisis?
McCain's plan to go to Washington to convene a meeting and force a negotiated settlement is patently absurd. What could he possibly add to an intelligent plan that his advisers couldn't do 100 times better, leaving him to do the debate? Having two presidential candidates descend into the midst of this crisis could only turn it into a media circus.
To my mind, it only adds to the image of McCain as desperate, erratic, impulsive, incompetent -- and scared. In short, this elaborate gesture of suspending his political campaign, in order to "rise above politics," is itself a political stunt. Obama is right not to play along.
Ralph
McCain suspends Campaign - How Convenient
Boy, it sure is convenient for McCain to suspend his campaign just when his support is nosediving in the polls and he and Palin both have debates coming up which, if they show poorly, could effectively end their election chances.
Sure, it makes sense strategically. Obama called McCain in the morning and asked for the two of them to make a joint statement.
Six hours later McCain played, I'll match and raise.
Obama knew it was a sucker bet and called McCain's bluff.
At which point McCain had no choice but to pretend he is a statesman, hoping Obama's continued campaigning will be seen as 'political' while McCain's calculated political action will be seen as selfless. The truth is, they don't need either one in the Senate. Their presence will take attention away from the economic issues, and McCain knows it. Which is why he wants to do it. It buys him time. He gets photo-ops without the messiness of questions about his policy, and, hopefully, everyone will be so focused on Mr. McCain goes to Washington that they will overlook the way Palin is trying to derail the investigation into her obvious malfeasance in Alaska.
As they say in the South, though - this dog won't hunt. Except for the most rabid right wingers, everyone will see this for what it is - a slick ploy.
Sure, it makes sense strategically. Obama called McCain in the morning and asked for the two of them to make a joint statement.
Six hours later McCain played, I'll match and raise.
Obama knew it was a sucker bet and called McCain's bluff.
At which point McCain had no choice but to pretend he is a statesman, hoping Obama's continued campaigning will be seen as 'political' while McCain's calculated political action will be seen as selfless. The truth is, they don't need either one in the Senate. Their presence will take attention away from the economic issues, and McCain knows it. Which is why he wants to do it. It buys him time. He gets photo-ops without the messiness of questions about his policy, and, hopefully, everyone will be so focused on Mr. McCain goes to Washington that they will overlook the way Palin is trying to derail the investigation into her obvious malfeasance in Alaska.
As they say in the South, though - this dog won't hunt. Except for the most rabid right wingers, everyone will see this for what it is - a slick ploy.
Foxes and henhouses
It seems to be a consensus in Washington that Hank Paulson is a very smart, knowledgeable and sincere man. But he comes to the job of Treasury Secretary as a hugely successful Wall Street CEO, and it is only natural that his instincts and experience lead him to see this crisis from that perspective. We need that expertise, but it must be tempered by wise judgment that puts it into a larger context than Wall Street.
In my opinion, one of the best editorial writers around is our own local Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman, who writes today about two of the plan's aspects: the lack of oversight and the refusal to reign in excess CEO compensation. He says:
"In other words, to cure a situation worsened or caused by a failure to exercise oversight, the Bush administration proposed a solution in which oversight would be abandoned altogether."
With regard to limiting exeucitve compensation, Paulson warned that "If we design it so it's punitive and so institutions aren't going to participate, this won't work the way we need it to work." Bookman writes:
"If you think about it, that's a pretty incredible statement. The Treasury secretary -- himself the former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs -- is admitting that to preserve their exorbitant pay packages, corporate CEOs might bar their companies from participating in the bailout, even if doing so would endanger their companies continued existence and the nation as a whole."
And then Bookman concludes: "However, if companies are healthy enough to decide not to participate, they didn't really need the bailout in the first place."
Now that's some clear thinking. We need expert advice such as Paulson's, but the inevitable bias and special interest inherent in becoming an expert in a technical field must be tempered by wise judgment that considers a larger field than Wall Street.
This whole debacle and its antecedent stampedes toward bad laws in times of crisis show the importance of a strong, wise President who can take advice from his experts but ultimately is capable of making hard decisions that have one over-riding principle: what is best for the country in the long run. That should be the job of the president. Unfortunately George W. Bush is not that kind of president.
Instead, we have a weak president who gives way to Cheney's power-mad grabs and paranoid secrecy, and Rummy's do-or-die, my-way aggressiveness, and now to Paulson's understandable bias toward the executives on Wall Street. We need an adult minding the store who is capable of saying no to the individual interests of his experts.
Too idealistic? Of course, but we should aim for it anyway. And I do believe that Barak Obama is that type of leader.
Ralph
In my opinion, one of the best editorial writers around is our own local Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman, who writes today about two of the plan's aspects: the lack of oversight and the refusal to reign in excess CEO compensation. He says:
"In other words, to cure a situation worsened or caused by a failure to exercise oversight, the Bush administration proposed a solution in which oversight would be abandoned altogether."
With regard to limiting exeucitve compensation, Paulson warned that "If we design it so it's punitive and so institutions aren't going to participate, this won't work the way we need it to work." Bookman writes:
"If you think about it, that's a pretty incredible statement. The Treasury secretary -- himself the former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs -- is admitting that to preserve their exorbitant pay packages, corporate CEOs might bar their companies from participating in the bailout, even if doing so would endanger their companies continued existence and the nation as a whole."
And then Bookman concludes: "However, if companies are healthy enough to decide not to participate, they didn't really need the bailout in the first place."
Now that's some clear thinking. We need expert advice such as Paulson's, but the inevitable bias and special interest inherent in becoming an expert in a technical field must be tempered by wise judgment that considers a larger field than Wall Street.
This whole debacle and its antecedent stampedes toward bad laws in times of crisis show the importance of a strong, wise President who can take advice from his experts but ultimately is capable of making hard decisions that have one over-riding principle: what is best for the country in the long run. That should be the job of the president. Unfortunately George W. Bush is not that kind of president.
Instead, we have a weak president who gives way to Cheney's power-mad grabs and paranoid secrecy, and Rummy's do-or-die, my-way aggressiveness, and now to Paulson's understandable bias toward the executives on Wall Street. We need an adult minding the store who is capable of saying no to the individual interests of his experts.
Too idealistic? Of course, but we should aim for it anyway. And I do believe that Barak Obama is that type of leader.
Ralph
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
US Bailout = Nigerian Scam
This is making the rounds of the internet, comparing Treasury Secretary Paulson's plea to that Nigerian scam we've all received in our email boxes... It's a riot. And kind of chillingly accurate.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
DEAR AMERICAN:
I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY
HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF
800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT
WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY
REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU
MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION
MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE
FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS
IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER
SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A
RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE
FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND
ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO
WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION
FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND
WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO
PROTECT THE FUNDS.
YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
the scam unfolds
Hidden in an article in The Hill about Cheney going to the Capitol Hill to pressure passage of the bailout bill is an important admission by Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto:
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but but he said this should be enough." http://www.rollcall.com/news/28599-1.html?type=printer_friendly
This smells like a scam to me. If they thought they needed this contingency plan, why didn't they do something to prevent it all instead of waiting until it was late enough to roll out this "contingency plan" which -- this being the Bush administration -- was probably largely written by the Wall Street hot shots who will benefit from it's bailout, free pass, no oversight, no accountability, no loss of CEO megabonuses terms.
And how much worse did it get while they dithered with the crafting of this contingency plan? And what else do we not know yet about this? What does Paulson stand to gain personally out of this? Important Democrats seem to respect him, but nobody should be entrusted with that much money, without oversight or review, and without even any strict operating guidelines.
He made megamillions himself as an investment banker and deal maker. Surely he didn't sever all those connections. And he will probably go back there when Bush leaves office and his replacement is picked.
Two important sources for this idea: http://1boringoldman.com and http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/09/23/bush-mouthpiece-admits-theyve-been-sitting-on-this-plan/
Ralph
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but but he said this should be enough." http://www.rollcall.com/news/28599-1.html?type=printer_friendly
This smells like a scam to me. If they thought they needed this contingency plan, why didn't they do something to prevent it all instead of waiting until it was late enough to roll out this "contingency plan" which -- this being the Bush administration -- was probably largely written by the Wall Street hot shots who will benefit from it's bailout, free pass, no oversight, no accountability, no loss of CEO megabonuses terms.
And how much worse did it get while they dithered with the crafting of this contingency plan? And what else do we not know yet about this? What does Paulson stand to gain personally out of this? Important Democrats seem to respect him, but nobody should be entrusted with that much money, without oversight or review, and without even any strict operating guidelines.
He made megamillions himself as an investment banker and deal maker. Surely he didn't sever all those connections. And he will probably go back there when Bush leaves office and his replacement is picked.
Two important sources for this idea: http://1boringoldman.com and http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/09/23/bush-mouthpiece-admits-theyve-been-sitting-on-this-plan/
Ralph
Press turns on McPalin
More good news! Back in the days of unlimited access on the "Straight Talk Express," and backyard barbecues for the press at the Sonoma ranch, McCain had built such good rapport with the press that he once referred to them as "my base." And they gave him a lot of deference in their coverage.
No more. Now his campaign managers have built a fire wall around Johnny and Sarah. No press conferences for weeks; no questions for Sarah. The last straw was today at the UN. The campaign allowed a photo-op of the staged meet and greet between Sarah and world leaders (Karzai, Kissinger) at the UN today. But nothing more. No reporters. No questions.
Some of the networks revolted, saying: if you won't talk to us, then you get no pictures on TV either. Sam Stein reports relations between McCain and the press corps have fully deteriorated. After an appearance in Strongsville, Ohio, he ignored questions about the bailout plan, prompting one journalist to scream out: "Has your bus become the No Talk Express?" McCain offered a smirk but kept on walking.
Meanwhile, Obama gave a press conference in which he discussed at length his ideas about the bailout and having to modify his realistic plans: sticking with the middle class tax cuts but delaying some of his proposed spending programs.
Again, who looks presidential; and who looks like an old clown?
Ralph
No more. Now his campaign managers have built a fire wall around Johnny and Sarah. No press conferences for weeks; no questions for Sarah. The last straw was today at the UN. The campaign allowed a photo-op of the staged meet and greet between Sarah and world leaders (Karzai, Kissinger) at the UN today. But nothing more. No reporters. No questions.
Some of the networks revolted, saying: if you won't talk to us, then you get no pictures on TV either. Sam Stein reports relations between McCain and the press corps have fully deteriorated. After an appearance in Strongsville, Ohio, he ignored questions about the bailout plan, prompting one journalist to scream out: "Has your bus become the No Talk Express?" McCain offered a smirk but kept on walking.
Meanwhile, Obama gave a press conference in which he discussed at length his ideas about the bailout and having to modify his realistic plans: sticking with the middle class tax cuts but delaying some of his proposed spending programs.
Again, who looks presidential; and who looks like an old clown?
Ralph
Now that's more like it
At the Senate Banking Committee hearings today, Senator Dodd finally shined the light on the most disturbing aspect of a very disturbing bailout proposal: "Dodd squarely aimed a shot at Section 8 of the proposal, which stipulates that, under the plan, the Secretary's actions would be 'non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.'"
"After reading this proposal," said Dodd, "I can only conclude it is not just our economy that is at risk but our Constitution as well."
New York Times busines writer Andrew Ross Sorkin says "it is both the biggest rescue and the most amazing power grab in the history of the American economy." And someone else said it would grant powers to the Secretary that even the President doesn't have.
And they haven't even tried to make a case for that power. Everyone seemed to assume that it was necessary to keep pesky questions from slowing down the need to act quickly. History proves over and over again that laws made in response to crises usually prove to be bad laws.
Ralph
Not Orwell but Carroll
People frequently refer to Big Government and its excesses and intrusiveness as reflecting George Orwell's predictions of Big Brother. But this current mess brings to mind a different British satirist: Lewis Carroll. We're more in Alice's Wonderland than in 1984. In Orwell, it may be diabolic but there is some sense behind it; in Carroll, nothing makes sense, things are topsy turvy, whims become law.
It's not even clear anymore who wants big government. It's a Republican administration that is panic-pushing the biggest governmental assistance program in history, while insisting that there be no oversight or control or reform. Just a blank check, thank you, for $700 Billion to be used at the discretion of one unelected man, who could be replaced in that post in January by Phil Gramm -- the chief living architect of the current mess -- if we are crazy enough to elect John McCain.
And none other than conservative pundit George Will headlines his column today: "McCain Loses His Head," as in the Queen of Heart's favorite verdict, "Off with his head." That's a reference to McCain's rash calling for the head of Chris Cox, head of SEC. Will goes on to characterize McCain's response as "unpresidential" (as had a Wall Street Journal editorial) in his "fact-free slander" of Cox, and says he "substitutes vehemence for coherence."
He concludes: "It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
Here's the real question that makes this race Carrollian rather than Orwellian: A majority of The People agree with the Democrats on the war issue and on most domestic issues; the most reliable factor in winning Presidential elections is the state of the economy and which party holds the White House and for how long. Many Republicans don't like McCain and/or think he isn't all there. Those factors all favor Obama; he should be winning by a huge margin. And yet he holds a slim lead in the polls that shifts by the week. It makes no sense.
It's a crazy "Through the Looking Glass" world we're in.
Ralph
It's not even clear anymore who wants big government. It's a Republican administration that is panic-pushing the biggest governmental assistance program in history, while insisting that there be no oversight or control or reform. Just a blank check, thank you, for $700 Billion to be used at the discretion of one unelected man, who could be replaced in that post in January by Phil Gramm -- the chief living architect of the current mess -- if we are crazy enough to elect John McCain.
And none other than conservative pundit George Will headlines his column today: "McCain Loses His Head," as in the Queen of Heart's favorite verdict, "Off with his head." That's a reference to McCain's rash calling for the head of Chris Cox, head of SEC. Will goes on to characterize McCain's response as "unpresidential" (as had a Wall Street Journal editorial) in his "fact-free slander" of Cox, and says he "substitutes vehemence for coherence."
He concludes: "It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
Here's the real question that makes this race Carrollian rather than Orwellian: A majority of The People agree with the Democrats on the war issue and on most domestic issues; the most reliable factor in winning Presidential elections is the state of the economy and which party holds the White House and for how long. Many Republicans don't like McCain and/or think he isn't all there. Those factors all favor Obama; he should be winning by a huge margin. And yet he holds a slim lead in the polls that shifts by the week. It makes no sense.
It's a crazy "Through the Looking Glass" world we're in.
Ralph
Bill Clinton Throws the Democratic Party Under the Bus
Well, it was inevitable the Clintons would show their true stripes in yet another attempt to derail Obama as he appears to be gaining strength and has a real chance to win the presidency.
In speaking to reporters yesterday he said Democrats should be nice to Palin and stop attacking her. He said, and this is a partial paraphrase,
"Why ever say anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and just say she was a good choice?"
Umm - why didn't you give that advice to Hillary when she was attacking Obama?
As one of the bloggers posted in response to this, This is clearly the opening of the Hillary 2012 campaign.
In speaking to reporters yesterday he said Democrats should be nice to Palin and stop attacking her. He said, and this is a partial paraphrase,
"Why ever say anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and just say she was a good choice?"
Umm - why didn't you give that advice to Hillary when she was attacking Obama?
As one of the bloggers posted in response to this, This is clearly the opening of the Hillary 2012 campaign.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Dow down, polls up
The past week's economic crisis has shown a flip in the polls, with Obama re-emerging on top. The numbers in the electoral votes are even more impressive than the popular vote (+4%). The very useful electoral tracking site, FiveThirtyEight.com has the electoral split today as 311.5 to 226.5. Just a few days ago, McCain actually was ahead.
This reflects Nevada, Ohio and Virginia moving into the "leaning Democratic" column, Michigan and Colorado leaning more strongly Democratic than before, and Florida moving from solidly Republican to "leaning Republican."
Looking good !!
Ralph
This reflects Nevada, Ohio and Virginia moving into the "leaning Democratic" column, Michigan and Colorado leaning more strongly Democratic than before, and Florida moving from solidly Republican to "leaning Republican."
Looking good !!
Ralph
Economics for Dummies Like Me
Like everyone I'm struggling to figure out what this financial crisis means. Although I must say I predicted to a friend, last Saturday, that stocks would tumble on Monday when people saw what the Bush plan was - i.e. no oversight, no accountability.
Two of the easiest articles to follow are posted on the BBC website.
Here are easy things for US citizens to look for
What price does the US government pay for the debt it's taking on?
If it buys at book value we consumers are getting screwed and the banks are being protected.
If it buys at 'distressed' value, taxpayers at least have the possibility of making some money back if some of the mortgage debt recovers its value.
Basically though, investment banks are now being permitted to take on retail accounts. This was not allowed in the past, to protect the little guy from having to pay when corporations made bad financial decisions.
Now, it looks to me like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley can use retail accounts to cover losses from bad investments - so we get screwed again. And business gets protected.
A bigger issue is how do we get out of this? It sounds like no European or Asian country is going to take on US debt, which will only worsen our financial situation. Because no one has confidence in the US anymore.
If for no other reason than to attempt to change the way the US is perceived in the world, Obama is the only candidate who might make sense.
But no matter who gets in, you can kiss tax cuts and health care reform goodbye. There is no more money for that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7626071.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/09/bye_bye_bulgebracket.html
Two of the easiest articles to follow are posted on the BBC website.
Here are easy things for US citizens to look for
What price does the US government pay for the debt it's taking on?
If it buys at book value we consumers are getting screwed and the banks are being protected.
If it buys at 'distressed' value, taxpayers at least have the possibility of making some money back if some of the mortgage debt recovers its value.
Basically though, investment banks are now being permitted to take on retail accounts. This was not allowed in the past, to protect the little guy from having to pay when corporations made bad financial decisions.
Now, it looks to me like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley can use retail accounts to cover losses from bad investments - so we get screwed again. And business gets protected.
A bigger issue is how do we get out of this? It sounds like no European or Asian country is going to take on US debt, which will only worsen our financial situation. Because no one has confidence in the US anymore.
If for no other reason than to attempt to change the way the US is perceived in the world, Obama is the only candidate who might make sense.
But no matter who gets in, you can kiss tax cuts and health care reform goodbye. There is no more money for that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7626071.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/09/bye_bye_bulgebracket.html
Debate advice for Obama
If you can tear yourself away from the fascinating economy for 5 minutes, this post is extremely worth reading. It's by my colleague at Emory, Drew Westen, professor of psychology and author of the highly influential book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-day-the-momentum-chan_b_128227.html
Here's a sample of his debate advice to Obama:
1. Think of your answers as sandwiches, with emotionally evocative and values-driven language at the beginning and end and with the "meat" in the middle. Emotionally evocative opening and closing statements serve three functions: they draw voters' attention (one of the major function of emotions from an evolutionary standpoint), they signal voters what you are passionate about, and they provide the sound bites that will be replayed over and over on television. The emotional "bread and butter" at the beginning and end can elicit or address voters' anger, hope, concerns, sense of patriotism, faith, or whatever informs your position and moves voters, or it can be a story from your own life or the lives you've encountered on the campaign trail. That is the bread and butter of what voters will remember. Follow it with the "meat": first, how we got here (indicting the GOP for what it has done and making the causal link to the pain people are experiencing and our moral standing in the world), and second, a very brief bulleted description of what you plan to do (no more than three points, which is the most voters will remember). For example, on health care, start with something like, "I believe in a family doctor for every family. Right now, 50 million working Americans and their families can't take their kids to the doctor, and the rest of us are watching our co-pays shoot through the roof and our security disappear as insurance companies are raking in record profits." Then compare McCain's "you're on your own, pal" plan that would knock 150 million people off their employer-provided insurance (which would scare the hell out of most voters if they only knew about it -- and for good reason) with your own, emphasizing the most central points of your plan: if you're happy with your doctor or health plan, you will be able to stay with what you have; if you're not, you'll have choices, including not only an array of private plans that will have to compete for your dollar but the same plan members of Congress get. End with something that again inspires emotion, "If that plan is good enough for people like me in the Senate, it's good enough for the people who pay my salary -- the American taxpayer."
Ralph
Here's a sample of his debate advice to Obama:
1. Think of your answers as sandwiches, with emotionally evocative and values-driven language at the beginning and end and with the "meat" in the middle. Emotionally evocative opening and closing statements serve three functions: they draw voters' attention (one of the major function of emotions from an evolutionary standpoint), they signal voters what you are passionate about, and they provide the sound bites that will be replayed over and over on television. The emotional "bread and butter" at the beginning and end can elicit or address voters' anger, hope, concerns, sense of patriotism, faith, or whatever informs your position and moves voters, or it can be a story from your own life or the lives you've encountered on the campaign trail. That is the bread and butter of what voters will remember. Follow it with the "meat": first, how we got here (indicting the GOP for what it has done and making the causal link to the pain people are experiencing and our moral standing in the world), and second, a very brief bulleted description of what you plan to do (no more than three points, which is the most voters will remember). For example, on health care, start with something like, "I believe in a family doctor for every family. Right now, 50 million working Americans and their families can't take their kids to the doctor, and the rest of us are watching our co-pays shoot through the roof and our security disappear as insurance companies are raking in record profits." Then compare McCain's "you're on your own, pal" plan that would knock 150 million people off their employer-provided insurance (which would scare the hell out of most voters if they only knew about it -- and for good reason) with your own, emphasizing the most central points of your plan: if you're happy with your doctor or health plan, you will be able to stay with what you have; if you're not, you'll have choices, including not only an array of private plans that will have to compete for your dollar but the same plan members of Congress get. End with something that again inspires emotion, "If that plan is good enough for people like me in the Senate, it's good enough for the people who pay my salary -- the American taxpayer."
Ralph
House of cards economy
I was going to try to condense the Economics 101 I've been scrambling to learn this past week, but I can do no better than suggest you read my friend Mickie Nardo's post this morning, "the virtual economy" on his blog, http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2008/09/22/the-virtual-economy/
Here's an excerpt: "So why would lending institutions want to make bad loans? That makes almost no sense. It’s because it gives them something that looks like it has value. With deregulation, mortgages became a commodity - something of presumed value to trade. Disconnected from the actual loaning institution and property, they have been traded like baseball cards - having a value disconnected from their origin [bubble gum]. But they’re supposed to have value, so they’re insured. But then the loan insurance becomes a commodity disconnected from the loans and the liability, and the insurance is traded. All of this trading generates a lot of money for the traders. So long as these loans have value, and their insurors have assets, things are fine in a rising market. But when the bad loans default and the insurors have no assets to cover the defaulting loans, and the banks have hidden their liabilities in something called "debt transfers," the house of cards collapses."
Mickie goes on to fault the mania for deregulation brought in by the Reagen Revolution and championed by Phil Gramm more than anyone else in Congress. Phil Gramm = McCain's chief mentor/champion in finance policy and a possible Secretary of Treasury in a McCain administration. He would then inherit the role of tzar in this bailout plan they're stampeding through, empowered to buy and sell huge amounts of assets, selectively, without oversight or regulation, making it possible to reward friends and punish enemies -- BIG TIME. Gramm also happens to be VP and chief lobbyist of one of the international banks that wants in on the pie.
So, folks, this is the result of deregulation. It allowed our economy to become a house of cards: fine as long as nothing shakes it but vulnerable to collapse when things go bad. And now they want the taxpayers to provide the stable foundation so they can keep on doing the same thing.
The two main immediate steps that need to be taken to stabilize the crisis, it seems are: (1) restore investors' confidence so they don't pull all their captial investments out of the system, and (2) provide a basis to keep the credit lines open so businesses can borrow operating money and prevent further collapses.
But let's remember that Paulson was a hugely successful investment banker and deal maker before he came to Treasury. He knows how to work within the system. But that needs to be tempered by someone who stands back and looks at the system and says: we need to change the system, not just prop it up; and we must require that they accept oversight and regulation.
That's what I think, here on Monday morning.
Ralph
Here's an excerpt: "So why would lending institutions want to make bad loans? That makes almost no sense. It’s because it gives them something that looks like it has value. With deregulation, mortgages became a commodity - something of presumed value to trade. Disconnected from the actual loaning institution and property, they have been traded like baseball cards - having a value disconnected from their origin [bubble gum]. But they’re supposed to have value, so they’re insured. But then the loan insurance becomes a commodity disconnected from the loans and the liability, and the insurance is traded. All of this trading generates a lot of money for the traders. So long as these loans have value, and their insurors have assets, things are fine in a rising market. But when the bad loans default and the insurors have no assets to cover the defaulting loans, and the banks have hidden their liabilities in something called "debt transfers," the house of cards collapses."
Mickie goes on to fault the mania for deregulation brought in by the Reagen Revolution and championed by Phil Gramm more than anyone else in Congress. Phil Gramm = McCain's chief mentor/champion in finance policy and a possible Secretary of Treasury in a McCain administration. He would then inherit the role of tzar in this bailout plan they're stampeding through, empowered to buy and sell huge amounts of assets, selectively, without oversight or regulation, making it possible to reward friends and punish enemies -- BIG TIME. Gramm also happens to be VP and chief lobbyist of one of the international banks that wants in on the pie.
So, folks, this is the result of deregulation. It allowed our economy to become a house of cards: fine as long as nothing shakes it but vulnerable to collapse when things go bad. And now they want the taxpayers to provide the stable foundation so they can keep on doing the same thing.
The two main immediate steps that need to be taken to stabilize the crisis, it seems are: (1) restore investors' confidence so they don't pull all their captial investments out of the system, and (2) provide a basis to keep the credit lines open so businesses can borrow operating money and prevent further collapses.
But let's remember that Paulson was a hugely successful investment banker and deal maker before he came to Treasury. He knows how to work within the system. But that needs to be tempered by someone who stands back and looks at the system and says: we need to change the system, not just prop it up; and we must require that they accept oversight and regulation.
That's what I think, here on Monday morning.
Ralph
VP debate rules - Dumbing Down for Sarah?
Did you see the new rules the McCain camp has insisted on for the VP debate?
Shorter question-answer periods than for the Obama/McCain debate.
Less opportunity for Biden and Palin to address/question each other.
The McCain camp is afraid Sarah would be at a disadvantage if she actually had to fill any time? If she actually had to answer a question without resorting to memorized sound bites. (I wonder how many time she'll use these words - reform, change, shake things up, maverick.)
The McCain camp is worried Sarah wouldn't actually be able to respond to Biden's direct questions?
They are worried that she would not be able to respond if put in the position of having to think and explain what she thought?
they are worried that, as Gertrude Stein once said, "There's no there there."
A woman friend said to me this morning, "That's demeaning to women. It's saying we have to make things simpler for the woman on the ticket. How can she talk to world leaders if she can't even follow the same rules as men in a debate?"
Would Hillary be afraid to debate under the same format at Obama/McCain? Absolutely not.
How about other Republican women? Condeleeza Rice? Or even Elizabeth Dole? Of course not, you may not agree politcally with these women, but they certainly have the intelligence to discuss issues at length with anyone.
But for Sarah, we have to dumb it down. Maybe we should let her have flash cards? Hey here's an idea, let's make it a multiple-choice debate!
It IS demeaning to women. You can't say Palin is ready to be president, then insist she be held to a lesser standard because it's too hard for her to compete with the guys. What is revealed here is the true Republican attitude towards women. It's disgraceful.
Shorter question-answer periods than for the Obama/McCain debate.
Less opportunity for Biden and Palin to address/question each other.
The McCain camp is afraid Sarah would be at a disadvantage if she actually had to fill any time? If she actually had to answer a question without resorting to memorized sound bites. (I wonder how many time she'll use these words - reform, change, shake things up, maverick.)
The McCain camp is worried Sarah wouldn't actually be able to respond to Biden's direct questions?
They are worried that she would not be able to respond if put in the position of having to think and explain what she thought?
they are worried that, as Gertrude Stein once said, "There's no there there."
A woman friend said to me this morning, "That's demeaning to women. It's saying we have to make things simpler for the woman on the ticket. How can she talk to world leaders if she can't even follow the same rules as men in a debate?"
Would Hillary be afraid to debate under the same format at Obama/McCain? Absolutely not.
How about other Republican women? Condeleeza Rice? Or even Elizabeth Dole? Of course not, you may not agree politcally with these women, but they certainly have the intelligence to discuss issues at length with anyone.
But for Sarah, we have to dumb it down. Maybe we should let her have flash cards? Hey here's an idea, let's make it a multiple-choice debate!
It IS demeaning to women. You can't say Palin is ready to be president, then insist she be held to a lesser standard because it's too hard for her to compete with the guys. What is revealed here is the true Republican attitude towards women. It's disgraceful.
When is a duck not a duck? When it's a pig.
Anyone following this election should be reading the blog at the Anchorage Daily News, so they can see how people in Alaska are really reacting to the Palin presidential run.
http://community.adn.com/adn/blog/24417
Palin/McCain keep mouthing the words 'transparent' and 'open' but it's sort of like Reagan calling an offensive missle system the 'Peacekeeper'. As the writers at the ADN point out, the McCain campaign is overseeing the release of all information about Palin's years as Mayor
McCain staffers have even been assigned to answer calls for Palin's family members, who have been instructed not to talk
National politics have absolutely hijacked the state government, it's really disturbing to see from the governor," said Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau.
And let's not forget these acts of 'transparency'
http://community.adn.com/adn/blog/24417
Palin/McCain keep mouthing the words 'transparent' and 'open' but it's sort of like Reagan calling an offensive missle system the 'Peacekeeper'. As the writers at the ADN point out, the McCain campaign is overseeing the release of all information about Palin's years as Mayor
McCain staffers have even been assigned to answer calls for Palin's family members, who have been instructed not to talk
National politics have absolutely hijacked the state government, it's really disturbing to see from the governor," said Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau.
And let's not forget these acts of 'transparency'
• Todd Palin, the governor’s husband: Served with subpoena but hasn’t given statement and didn’t appear before the committee as ordered Friday to testify.
• Randy Ruaro, Palin’s deputy chief of staff: Served with subpoena but hasn’t given statement and didn’t appear before the committee as ordered Friday to testify.
• Ivy Frye, a Palin special assistant: Served with subpoena but hasn’t given statement and didn’t appear before the committee as ordered Friday to testify.
I wish I could ignore a subpoena.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Why not make them pay?
Admittedly, I might even know less about the economy than McCain(but probably nto Palin), but it seems to me there are some simple things we could include in any bailout. These probalby wouldn't raise a lot of money, but there are some steps we can take that will at least make it look like we're trying to be fair to the taxpayers. This may be simplistic and naive, but I can live with that.
We could eliminate all bonuses for management of the companies receiving federal money, and return that money as part of the loan payback.
Send all stock dividends to the government as payback, instead of the stockholders.
Attach the paychecks of upper level management and withdraw 10% of their salary as part of the payback. If they switch jobs, 10% of their new salaries. If they stop working, 10% of all income from stocks, etc.
Forget cars, lunch expenses. Let everyone at every firm that gets money buy their own cars, lunch, air fare -a ll those usual expenses that are tax deductable.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to force the CEOs to turn over the deeds to their houses as collateral until the loans are paid back.
Send a message that if you screw up and need to take tax money to get you out of trouble, there will be consequences.
We could eliminate all bonuses for management of the companies receiving federal money, and return that money as part of the loan payback.
Send all stock dividends to the government as payback, instead of the stockholders.
Attach the paychecks of upper level management and withdraw 10% of their salary as part of the payback. If they switch jobs, 10% of their new salaries. If they stop working, 10% of all income from stocks, etc.
Forget cars, lunch expenses. Let everyone at every firm that gets money buy their own cars, lunch, air fare -a ll those usual expenses that are tax deductable.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to force the CEOs to turn over the deeds to their houses as collateral until the loans are paid back.
Send a message that if you screw up and need to take tax money to get you out of trouble, there will be consequences.
Prez Palin is looking More Possible
With McCain's increasingly erratic behavior, moments of being out of touch, signs of petty anger, I think you'd have to be an ostrich not to consider the possibility that if elected there is a good chance he won't last out his first term. Which means there is a distinct possibility that Palin would have to assume the presidency. Which means, this candidate has to be scrutinized for policy and character for more intensively than she has been so far.
If you think about her basic way of operating, as related by people who support her - she doesnn't like to study details or ideas, she values loyalty over all else, she gets rid of people who diagree with her, she is rigid and narrow-minded in her beliefs and thinks generlaly there is only one way, her way, to address a situation, she has shown a complete unwillingness to compromise, or work with those who have different philosophies from her.
Well, where else have we seen that type of mindset?
A friend forwarded an email to me that explains it this way
"When it comes to faith and politicis, the values of McCain's 'handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts.' 'What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.'"
If you think about her basic way of operating, as related by people who support her - she doesnn't like to study details or ideas, she values loyalty over all else, she gets rid of people who diagree with her, she is rigid and narrow-minded in her beliefs and thinks generlaly there is only one way, her way, to address a situation, she has shown a complete unwillingness to compromise, or work with those who have different philosophies from her.
Well, where else have we seen that type of mindset?
A friend forwarded an email to me that explains it this way
"When it comes to faith and politicis, the values of McCain's 'handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts.' 'What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.'"
The Bailout: Good Idea?
In no way am I an economics expert, and it seems that a quick consensus formed among the economic elite that the crisis is enormous and urgent and that Treasury Secretary Paulson's plan is a good idea -- perhaps with some modifications by the Democrats to make it more of a "Main Street, not just Wall Street" bailout.
But I have some serious questions, mostly prompted by my friend Mickie Nardo in his blog at www.1boringoldman.com and by Glenn Greenwald's analysis at www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald.
Paulson's plan calls for three things: (1) The Treasury Secretary is authorized to buy up to $700 billion dollars worth of mortgage assets at a price determined by him; (2) It raises the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion to accommodate this debt; and (3) The Secretary's decisions are not reviewable by any court or administrative agency.
I understand that the situation is dire and that something must be done to prevent the collapse of our whole economic system. But what we essentially have is what Glenn Greenwald calls "high-reward/no-risk capitalism," where they reap millions while their schemes pay off and then shift the loss to the taxpayers when the schemes collapse.
So here are my worrisome questions:
(1) Please tell us how this is going to solve the problem beyond stabilizing the system in crisis. Are we doing anything other than bailing out the investors at the expense of taxpayers? Unless it's in the fine print, there is nothing in this authorization to put back into place regulations that will prevent something similar from happening again, or to hold anyone accountable for preventing it.
(2) What is this huge increase in the national debt, itself, going to do to our economy? Aren't we just once again borrowing more money, which essentially is what got us into this mess: too many people borrowing what they can't afford, too much government spending (including a little war we seem to be forgetting) paid for with borrowed funds; too little accountability?
(3) What about the total free hand, without oversight or review, placed in the hands of one government official? This sounds an awful lot like the blank check Congress gave Bush to go to war.
What I fear is that once again we are being stampeded by a crisis to take action we will later regret. In Viet Nam, the fear was a domino fall of that part of the world to Communism, and a phoney Gulf of Tonkin bombing was used to stoke the fear and push the vote.
We went into Iraq because of fear of Islamic terrorists taking over the world, and manufactured 'evidence' of phoney WMD was used to manipulate public opinion and cow Congress into giving GWBush a blank check.
Now we're being asked to give the Treasury Secretary a blank check to prevent the collapse of the backbone of our economic system. Shouldn't we at least have a debate in Congress about this before we sign that blank check?
And, as my friend Mickie Nardo points out: "I smell a rat! A month away from the election, we have a crisis over something that’s been brewing for years, and we’re supposed to do something before Bush leaves Office? with no Oversight? that costs a trillion dollars? that benefits banks and stock brokers but not "the people?" Looks to me like they've realized that Johnny Mack is probably going down and they've decided to throw him to the wind and bail out their buddies while they still can . . ." (www.1boringoldman.com)
That is a chilling thought.
Ralph
But I have some serious questions, mostly prompted by my friend Mickie Nardo in his blog at www.1boringoldman.com and by Glenn Greenwald's analysis at www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald.
Paulson's plan calls for three things: (1) The Treasury Secretary is authorized to buy up to $700 billion dollars worth of mortgage assets at a price determined by him; (2) It raises the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion to accommodate this debt; and (3) The Secretary's decisions are not reviewable by any court or administrative agency.
I understand that the situation is dire and that something must be done to prevent the collapse of our whole economic system. But what we essentially have is what Glenn Greenwald calls "high-reward/no-risk capitalism," where they reap millions while their schemes pay off and then shift the loss to the taxpayers when the schemes collapse.
So here are my worrisome questions:
(1) Please tell us how this is going to solve the problem beyond stabilizing the system in crisis. Are we doing anything other than bailing out the investors at the expense of taxpayers? Unless it's in the fine print, there is nothing in this authorization to put back into place regulations that will prevent something similar from happening again, or to hold anyone accountable for preventing it.
(2) What is this huge increase in the national debt, itself, going to do to our economy? Aren't we just once again borrowing more money, which essentially is what got us into this mess: too many people borrowing what they can't afford, too much government spending (including a little war we seem to be forgetting) paid for with borrowed funds; too little accountability?
(3) What about the total free hand, without oversight or review, placed in the hands of one government official? This sounds an awful lot like the blank check Congress gave Bush to go to war.
What I fear is that once again we are being stampeded by a crisis to take action we will later regret. In Viet Nam, the fear was a domino fall of that part of the world to Communism, and a phoney Gulf of Tonkin bombing was used to stoke the fear and push the vote.
We went into Iraq because of fear of Islamic terrorists taking over the world, and manufactured 'evidence' of phoney WMD was used to manipulate public opinion and cow Congress into giving GWBush a blank check.
Now we're being asked to give the Treasury Secretary a blank check to prevent the collapse of the backbone of our economic system. Shouldn't we at least have a debate in Congress about this before we sign that blank check?
And, as my friend Mickie Nardo points out: "I smell a rat! A month away from the election, we have a crisis over something that’s been brewing for years, and we’re supposed to do something before Bush leaves Office? with no Oversight? that costs a trillion dollars? that benefits banks and stock brokers but not "the people?" Looks to me like they've realized that Johnny Mack is probably going down and they've decided to throw him to the wind and bail out their buddies while they still can . . ." (www.1boringoldman.com)
That is a chilling thought.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
