- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, September 27, 2008
McCain Mis-cited Ike
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 10:09PM
John McCain drastically mis-told a story about Dwight Eisenhower during last night's debate. Referring to the famous note Ike wrote as the D-Day invasion was starting in which he took responsibility for failure if it did not succeed, McCain said that Ike had offered to resign if it failed. Wrong. Dead wrong. Yes, Ike took responsibility. But no, he did not offer to resign. Here is the text of the note: "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
McCain used his story about Ike's (nonexistent) offer to resign to defend his asinine call last week for SEC Chairman Chris Cox to be fired. His point was that whomever is in charge of a terrible failure should be man enough to take the fall for it. It is a good point -- but a point badly applied. Chris Cox was no more "in charge" of the credit markets (especially Fannie and Feddie) than Ike was in charge of, say, the Iwo Jima landing (if Iwo Jima had gone badly instead of well). But Ike WAS in charge, directly in charge, and clearly the man ultimately responsible for, the D-Day landing in France. Yet even Ike, in his admirable note taking the blame for a potential failure that (thank goodness) did not happen, did not go so far as to resign or offer to do so. How, then, should Cox, whose oversight powers for the credit markets are purely voluntary (voluntary not by him but by the institutions to be overseen) and circumscribed, and whose oversight on Fannie and Freddie was nil, be fired? The parallel would not even have worked even if Ike HAD offered to resign. But the fact that Ike did NOT make such an offer actuallya rgues against McCain's intended point -- and shows McCain to have been reckless in desperately searching for a scapegoat.
Pelosi is Despicable
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 7:20PM
Ignoring the fact that House Republicans didn't so much boycott earlier meetings as that they were EXCLUDED from earlier meetings on the bailout, Nancy Pelosi had the gall a little while ago to go before cameras and say that they boycotted meetings in the week and that their non-participation made them, yes, quote "unpatriotic." If Boehner had said that about Pelosi, every establishment media outlet in the country would be having conniption fits for about a week and said that it blew up the negotiations and showed that Boehner and Republicans are McCarthyite, etc. But I bet you don't hear a peep out of them against Pelosi. So let me be the first to say it: Pelosi is a rank damagogue, a despicable human being, a person who wants the United States to lose in Iraq, a bad-faith bargainer, and the worst excuse for a speaker of the House in history.
Polls Say Obama
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 7:16PM
I just don't get what everybody is saying about McCain putting Obama on the defensive. Obama never blinked, and he seemed a more decent person while McCain seemed nasty. The polls agree with me: Obama won in the NBC random poll, he won in the CNN random poll, and he won in Frank Luntz' focus group on Fox. People need to stop looking at this from a conservative viewpoint and start looking at it from a basically apolitical, independent standpoint. They are looking for tone and apparent reasonableness. From that standpoint, Obama won.
Obama: 'McCain Is Absolutely Right'
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 12:35PM
A rapid-response ad from the McCain campaign:
McCain Lite, Cont'd
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 12:02PM
Daniel Larison says he's not sure why I think it's at all remarkable that Obama debated most foreign-policy issues on Republican terms last night. Perhaps I gave too much peronal credit to McCain, but I do think there is a very clear pattern that was evident in last night's debate: Republicans "me too" Democrats on domestic policy because they think they have to politically; Democrats feel the same need to seem like watered-down Republicans on national security.
Now, it's true that this predates the Obama-McCain race. Although the Democratic brand on foreign policy is George McGovern, the actual Democratic foreign policy establishment is more Joe Biden -- softly neoconservative with some partisan bluster about doing a better job and bringing more friends. But the Democratic critique of the GOP on foreign policy began to harden with Howard Dean and hardened considerably by the 2006 elections (though the contrast even then was much clearer on Iraq than on Iran, Russia, China, etc.). Democrats have mostly resumed the defensive crouch since being in power. The Democrats never developed a clear response to Republican arguments that the surge was an unambiguous success, they never crafted a coherent alternative in dealing with Iran, and they don't even have a language to talk about anti-terrorism efforts besides shouting "Afghanistan," which was relevant in 2001-03 but is much less so now. The biograpical differences between Obama and McCain, and McCain's insistence on pressing them, gave this added emphasis last night.
On economic policy, John McCain is running as Barack Obama without the tax increases, earmarks, and universal health coverage. On foreign policy, Barack Obama wants to be John McCain without making anybody mad. It is very difficult to win a debate entirely on your opponent's terms.
Who Won? I Did, But It Was Close
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 11:20AM
I wonder if people in the rest of the country realize just how hard it is to avoid presidential debates in Washington, D.C.? Last night, I went to taco night at the National Press Club and the largely libertarian crowd split into two pieces after: one that was staying at the club and watching the debates, another that was headed to Reason HQ to... watch the debates. Went with a ladyfriend to a local bar just off of Chinatown to avoid all that. That fine establishment piped the debate over the loudspeakers. So we got the check, grabbed a cab, and you'll never guess what was playing on the car radio. And, no, the cabbie didn't want to change the station.
The Virtues of Not Being Bush
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 9:03AM
Wlady and Jim Antle seem to think John McCain won. Quin thinks he lost.
I think Republicans won because they have a candidate who actually has the ability to knock the other guy around a bit. My George W. PTSD is slowly receding.
Strange Bedfellows
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 2:32AM
A friend in New York City, who was pretty liberal as I recall, emailed me the following:
"Thought your boy put obama to bed tonight, at least in the last hour. i actually felt republican for a few minutes again there."
Huh. Weird.
McCain won; Obama comes in second!
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 2:27AM
McCain just had to show that his experience mattered. He was successful in doing so. Going into this debate, undecideds likely wondered: Is Obama's experience an issue? Is McCain too old? Who will have a sensible foreign policy? What about domestic policy/economics?
First question, yes, it was, especially now that Kissinger basically stated the Obama has mischaracterized his views.
Second question, McCain seemed deft, quick-thinking, and wise. You know, like how we should probably look at older people. He turned age into an asset tonight.
Third question, McCain by a wash -- Obama suggested an aggressive-ish foreign policy and echoed McCain on a surprising number of issues. But, rhetorically speaking, it's hard for anyone to argue with someone who thinks anything short of victory is defeat. You have to come up with a number of thoughtful arguments that convinces that the optimal case is a pullout. Obama's "We'll save money, though!" point fell completely flat.
Fourth question, Obama and McCain neck and neck. In this area I'm probably alone to suggest that I think McCain was very strong here. With a nervous start, he suddenly sprung to life and started hitting Obama on his own record. Obama said he rescinded his earmarks. McCain said, "Only when he started his presidential campaign did he do that." Somebody. Did. His. Homework.
As for whether the Wall Street rant didn't go over well. Who knows how it went over? Whatever he addressed, he seemed to do so with authority, particularly on tax cuts, business tax cuts, etc. I only wish that when Obama said, "You're giving corporation billions," etc., McCain would have responded, "When you tax companies, they cut jobs. If you allow them to keep their money, they do more with it. How does economics work in Chicago?"
Speaking to other DC-right-wingers, many looked a little upset about how McCain had thrown the most-productive under the bus. I just don't think doing so hurt him.
McCain Won
Posted by on 9.27.08 @ 12:56AM
Overall, Obama didn't embarrass himself -- though he had better hope that bracelet gaffe isn't the takeaway, because that is much worse than John Kerry's global test. If I were an Obama partisan, I would be happy with the way my candidate acquitted himself on issues that aren't his strength and that he looked non-scary and presidential.
That said, I thought this was John McCain's night. I say this as someone who thinks McCain is wrong on most of the major foreign policy issues of our time, including Iraq. McCain simply pinned Obama's ears back during the foreign policy and military exchanges. I don't agree that his nonsensical campaign suspension and bailout participation aided this in any significant way. But I haven't seen an old Washington hand mop up the floor with a smarmy, inexperienced but glib pol like this since Cheney kicked Edwards's posterior in the 2004 vice presidential debate. Obama was on the defensive most of the time, and his "not true" interruptions were mostly ineffectual.
The weak spots for Team McCain were as follows: He was absolutely pathetic on the domestic portion of the debate (thus my contention that the bailout business hasn't helped him in the least) and if I were part of his campaign I'd be very worried about an economic debate. Earmarks and a spending freeze that excludes most federal spending -- it reminds me of Poppy Bush's "flexible" freeze in 1988; who would skate on a flexibily frozen river? -- just aren't going to cut it. Neither will the Obama Lite Wall Street greed mewlings.
McCain's lecturing of Obama on Pakistan was also a gaffe. First, it isn't as if McCain really opposes snatch-and-grab operations in Pakistan. (If he does, that makes him more dovish vis-a-vis al Qaeda than Ron Paul.) Second, did he not see the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" reference coming? Finally, some of his geeky laughter during Obama's responses might come across like Al Gore's sighs.
But this is all just quibbling past the graveyard. McCain was dominant throughout the portion of the debate that concerned Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief, a key hurdle for the Democrat to clear. And McCain forced Obama to debate Russia, Iran, and post-2007 Iraq almost entirely on Republican terms, something that would have been unthinkable as recently as the last election. I'd say McCain did what he needed to do tonight and needs to hit the briefing books on domestic policy before their next encounter.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Won
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 11:25PM
Two caveats: First, because of some incredibly bad transportation luck, I missed the first 17 minutes of the debate, so if there were knock-out blows during those 17 minutes, I missed them. Second, I cheated: I watched very closely the CNN response dial. The dial clearly showed that Obama won. And the dial matched my impressions. Obama stood toe to toe with McCain on foreign policy -- McCain was right, and Obama was wrong, but I always put myself in the role of Rip Van Winkle who knows nothng of the past 20 years and thus is totally open to being convinced, and I thought Obama was at LEAST as convincing to the unknowledgeable -- and not only stood toe to toe, but seemed far more likeable, far more gracious, and far more forward-looking. McCain showed deep knowledge, but it was all backwards looking. Obama sounded almost as knowledgeable, and far more reasonable in outlook and temperament. McCain missed numerous chances to explain that IF he had been listened to in 2003, we would ALREADY have won in Iraq, and would be thus able to have moved on. Instead, he briefly mentioned that he was right in 2003, but then dropped it, and then kept repeating the same things again and again about the surge.
This last was important. Both men did well on the CNN viewer dials almost throughout. McCain consistently scored probably about a 5.8 or a 6 on a 10-point scale. Obama consistently scored about 6.5 or so (these precise numbers are my visual judgments from watching TV; obviously, they are falsely precise: I don't have the actual stats.). But toward the end, when McCain changed the subject to RETURN, unbidden, to Iraq and the surge, it was the only time all night where either candidate received EXTENDED response below the midline (5 out of 10). He sounded cranky, off topic, and so repetitive that it had become tiresome.
Obama actually won style points by repeatedly noting topics on which he agreed with McCain or credited him. This is a year when the public is absolutely sick of nastiness and wants evidence that somebody can lower the volume of discord. McCain might have the record of reaching across the aisle, but Obama has the style -- and got that point across tonight brilliantly, just by his attitude. Conversely, McCain did well once or twice to say that Obama "just doesn't understand." But when he did it a sixth or seventh time, it sounded mean and condescending.
Frankly, I was surprised. Just in the last 12 hours I had begun grudgingly crediting McCain because I thought that his gambit of sticking his nose into the bailout negotiations had actually turned out to be surprisingly helpful, in that it got the House conservatives a hearing at the table in a way they would not have had. I predicted at about 6:30 to a colleague that McCain would find a way to rattle Obama tonight; I had one of my "gut feelings," like the one I had before the Ryder Cup (correctly in the case of the Cup), that McCain would have a trap for Obama or would goad him into a sound-bite mistake. I was wrong. Overall, despite my criticisms, McCain did okay tonight; I think most AMericans would be at least semi-comfortable with him as president. But McCain did NOT knock Obama off stride and Obama was more likeble and quite sufficiently competent-seeming. Obama started the night ahead in the polls, and I think he extended his advantage in the debate.
Re: Once It Actually Started...
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 11:05PM
The remarkable thing about tonight is how spry McCain was. Clearly his suspending his campaign and getting directly involved in the bailout was a political winner for him, given how he didn't miss a step, and, apart from how he reinforced his foreign policy superiority, he can now resume his bailout work in which so far he's come across offering something for everyone. A real piece of work he is.
Debate Reaction
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:58PM
I really think Obama's brandishing of his bracelet was the perfect symbol for this debate -- once it got to foreign policy, McCain was knowledgeable and comfortable and sincere, while Obama was pretending. On issue after issue -- Iran, Russia, and Iraq -- McCain demonstrated expertise and conviction and historical understanding. McCain kept saying Obama was naive and didn't understand, and Obama kept saying "he's right" without adding anything interesting to the conversation. Also, the body language reinforced this. When Obama spoke, he looked at McCain and McCain ignored him and looked at Jim Lehrer as if Obama were too insignificant to look at, while Obama watched McCain as he was speaking as if he were listening to a lecture.
Once It Actually Started On Foreign Policy...
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:49PM
McCain dominated. More evidence that Mac never should have put the debate in jeopardy. Would Lehrer have opened with three economy questions if not for McCain's antics this week? Maybe not, though it's of course impossible to know.
More Debate Debating
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:43PM
I'll be on the Jim Bohannon Show talking about tonight's proceedings.
UPDATE: I am, in fact, on right now.
Game, Set, and Debate
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:43PM
Talk about turning the tables -- McCain links Obama to Bush White House stubbornness and infelixibility over Obama's refusal to acknowledge success of the Surge. For once, Obama had no excuse to offer, however lame.
Obama and Osama
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:39PM
Why is Obama still fighting John Kerry's war in reducing the War on Terror to finding Osama bin Laden?
Obama Energized
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:30PM
Obama doesn't have enough to say about Russia, so he starts talking about energy.
McBama, Part II
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:29PM
See what I mean? Obama is afraid to differ with McCain on Russia in any meaningful sense, just as McCain won't differ meaningfully from Obama on Wall Street.
We Are Obama
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:29PM
What's with his frequent use of "we" when he means "I." More of what we've been waiting for?
Russia II
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:27PM
McCain won't let Obama off so easy -- he reminds viewers of Obama's initial reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia. And he trumps him by praising the leaders of democracies in the region for flying to Tbilisi to show solidarity with the beleaguered country.
I Don't Believe We're Going Back to the Cold War
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:26PM
But I also believe the Russian government is essentially the KGB.
Russia
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:24PM
Obama's best answer, till he mentions "we can't return to cold war posture toward Russia." Blame America first!
Obama's Worst Exchange So Far
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:23PM
The crowd is now laughing with McCain. I don't agree with McCain's Iran position, but he basically KO'd Obama during that exchange.
Obama is Lying
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:22PM
He said tonight he supported meetings with Iran at "a time and
place of my choosing," even though he said it would meet within the
first year of his administration.
Barking Seal
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:19PM
"I don't even have a seal yet." The first real McCain zinger of the night.
Preconditional Warfare
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:18PM
Obama was performing well in this exchange, until he started parsing the difference between preconditions and preparation.
Turn Out the Lite
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:16PM
McCain is Obama Lite on domestic policy and Obama is McCain Lite on foreign policy. I would love to turn out both of those Lites.
Revolutionary Guardedness
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:14PM
"Engage in tough, direct diplomacy." Ahmadinejad will not sleep soundly tonight.
Obama's Bracelet
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:09PM
"I have a bracelet too," uh, uh, uh, who was that dude again? A really bad stumble for Obama. McCain came across as sincere, while Obama sounded like he was using it as a political gimmick.
Losing It
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:08PM
After calling him "John" all night, Obama is now calling him "Senator McCain."
Reagan Sighting
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:05PM
More classic McCain -- now he's mentioned Ronald Reagan as the man he admires most. Has Obama paid tribute to anyone tonight (he did mention Tom Coburn, but only to pretend he can be bipartisan).
Numbers
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:05PM
McCain is much more fluent with numbers when it comes to military matters.
Now he is trying to make his foreign policy record look more nuanced than Obama's portrayal.
Who Is Musharaff?
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:03PM
Complaining about "coddling Musharaff" won't win Obama Ohio or Pennsylvania.
Pakistan
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:01PM
With his discussion of Pakistan, including the bombing in Islamabad, McCain is starting to widen his lead.
Sad Sack
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:58PM
Obama needs some more basic training before he'll ever match McCain on military matters.
On to Iraq
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:56PM
1. McCain is obviously more comfortable and effective in the foreign-policy discussion.
2. Here the roles reverse. McCain is confident his positions are popular as he articulates them. Obama is timid and conventional in his criticisms of the Bush foreign policy much like McCain's critique of the Democratic economic policy.
3. They are both hitting each other on their erroneous Iraq predictions. They are both right.
4. Obama is focusing on the decision to invade while McCain is focusing on the war post-surge, for obvious reasons.
Unconvincing Statement of The Week Award
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:55PM
"I absolutely understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy."
--Barack Obama
Eye Contact
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:55PM
Obama alternates between looking at Lehrer for help, and chewing at McCain. McCain wisely doesn't give him the eye of day at such moments, leaving Obama to look like a bully.
Good Line
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:53PM
"I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a strategy and a tactic."
Defeatism
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:53PM
Obama simply can't accept the turn for the better in Iraq since 2007. He's digging himself into an ever deeper foxhole.
Bankruptcy Balderdash
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:50PM
Megan McArdle explains why Obama is full of it on health care costs and bankruptcy.
Iraq Winners and Losers
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:50PM
Is the other "I" country enough f.p. for you, J.P.? McCain can claim victory in Iraq. Obama insists on claiming defeat. Politically defeatism equals McGovernism equals political defeat at the polls. Here's McCain's huge advantage.
Gone Nuclear
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:43PM
Classic McCain -- who else dares to talk to openly about the need for nuclear power? Yet ties it to fight against global warming -- which gives him a chance to be the first to mention Senator Clinton. Which reminds me of his opening tribute to hospitalized "Lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy. Obama said nothing about Kennedy. He finds it hard to be warm about others.
This is a pretty amazing foreign policy debate
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:37PM
I mean, John McCain *did* just mention Ireland, right?
Not Corny
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:36PM
There goes the farm belt -- McCain would eliminate the ethanol subsidies! Bravo.
H-h-h-hope, Ch-ch-change
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:34PM
Man, does Obama stutter a lot until he can get to his talking points. And I guess he doesn't plan to give up any of his priorities as a result of the bailout. We've "gotta" increase spending everywhere.
Walking the Walk
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:31PM
Good parry on the energy bill, but McCain is letting a lot of Obama's anti-market rhetoric go unrebutted.
Obama's Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:30PM
McCain deserves credit for pointing out the inconsistency between Obama's new spending and his promise to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers. Obama is also defending high corporate tax rates. If McCain pointed out that Obama's tax cuts are actually in most cases a wealth transfer, he would get somewhere.
McPainful
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:27PM
McCain's lack of interest in economics and monomanical focus on earmarks is putting him at a real disadvantage. He cannot rebut Obama's statist arguments by offering a mushier, less coherent version of the same.
McBama
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:22PM
Right now there is practically no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain -- they want to bring the parties together, they want more regulation, they both hate Wall Street.
The Real Obama
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:20PM
Obama is starting to stutter. Saved by Lehrer's intervention.
Main Street
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:15PM
No one lives there any more. They live on cul-de-sacs and in subdivisions.
Lehrer on Foreign Policy
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:13PM
"By definition," it includes the economy. Riiiiiiight.
Intro
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:08PM
Always a highlight to hear Jim Lehrer refer to himself as "Jim Lehra."
Debate Blogging
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 8:43PM
Live blogging will be light, because I want to be able to play close attention, but expect to have an overall account up shortly after the conclusion of the debate.
Re: The debate is on
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 7:29PM
This is supposed to be a foreign policy debate, but the odds are the focus will drift, and McCain will have to explain why showing up when there's no deal isn't a complete flip-flop.
On Message...Sadly
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 1:56PM
Just got an email from the Brain Trust over at Keystone Progress:
Our theme for tonight:
BUSH = McCain, WE CAN'T AFFORD MORE OF THE SAME
Please make signs and banners that use that theme.
This is the degree of guidance Obama supporters need on sign-making? BUSH=McCain? What were they afraid people would show up with? Signs that read, Make Bad Bad Lady Stop or That Ain't No MILF? Considering Keystone Progress' lack of trust in their followers to craft a brilliant Bush=McCain-esque slogan, I'm only surprised there isn't an accompanying note warning the hordes not to eat the worn down crayons when they're done--no matter how tasty they may look or how much fun seeing rainbows in the bathroom floor sink would be tomorrow morning. Obama may need you to draw him another word picture against the bad lady again later, lovelies! Save your ammo!
It's always a treat to see the kind of drivel the We only lose elections because our brilliant ideas don't fit on bumper stickers! crowd consistently brews and flaunts--and nothing sells me on a slogan quite like a proud lack of irony.
Re: The Debate Is On
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 12:56PM
Well, that was certainly an eventful 48 hours, wasn't it? The debate is off, the bailout is on; the debate is on, the bailout is off. If Maverick's going to lose this thing, at least he's making it exciting to watch.
"Anything that gets the adrenalin moving like a 440 volt blast in a copper bathtub is good for the reflexes and keeps the veins free of cholesterol ... but too many adrenalin rushes in any given time-span has the same bad effect on the nervous system as too many electro-shock treatments are said to have on the brain: after a while you start burning out the circuits."
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72
The Debate Is On
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 11:49AM
Here's the McCain campaign statement:
In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.
Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure. There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress -- especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.
The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 10:48AM
A
Palin is very corny (Boston.com)
Apple history repeats itself as open Gphone threatens (Slate)
GE CEO makes the pitch for trading nuclear energy technology with
Now is the time to move away from outdated alternatives in dealing with
Real market actors for the bailout mechanism (Freakonomics)
Today, 48 years ago, TV debates took center stage (Wired)
To McCain: Roll the dice! (Politico)
How would the new
Why is McCain a Republican? He should come up with some good reasons (WSJ)
Paulson and Obama
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 9:49AM
When Sen. Barack Obama was given the floor to speak during White House negotiations, according to White House aides, he did so raising concerns about a House Republican alternative to the Paulson/Bernanke $700 billion bailout. But those concerns weren't necessarily his, as he was not aware of the GOP plan before reviewing notes provided him by Paulson loyalists in Treasury prior to entering the meeting.
According to an Obama campaign source, the notes were passed to Obama via senior aides traveling with him, who had been emailed the document via a current Goldman Sachs employee and Wall Street fundraiser for the Obama campaign. "It was made clear that the memo was from 'friends' and was reliable," says the campaign source.
The memo allowed Obama and his fellow Democrats to box in Republican attendees and essentially took what President Bush had billed as a negotiating meeting off the rails.
"Paulson and his team have not acted in good faith for this President or the administration for which they serve," says a House Republican leader who was not present at the White House meeting, but who instead is part of the team hammering out the House GOP alternative. "We keep hearing about how Secretary Paulson is working with Democrats on this or that, yet he never seems to consider working with the party that essentially hired him. Perhaps he's auditioning for a Democratic administration job. Our proposal didn't just spring forth fully formed; we've been working on this for several days, and Treasury staff has known about it."
Levin Rips O'Reilly
Posted by on 9.26.08 @ 5:35AM
Mark Levin uncorks a classic rant against "Ted Baxter":
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain Campaign Says No Deal Yet
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 9:44PM
From the McCain campaign:
Despite today's news reports, there never existed a "deal," but merely a proposal offered by a small, select group of Members of Congress. As of right now, there exists only a series of principles, including greater oversight and measures to address CEO pay. However, these principles do not enjoy a consensus in Congress.
At today's cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers.
However, the Democrats allowed Senator Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution.
At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the Administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect that taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street.
The bottom line is that as of tonight, there are not enough Republican or Democrat votes for the current plan. However, we are still optimistic that a bipartisan solution will be found. Republicans and Democrats want a deal that will protect the taxpayers.
Tomorrow, John McCain will return to
Capitol Hill where he will work with all sides to build a
bipartisan solution that protects taxpayers and keeps Americans in
their homes.
Let Palin Be Palin
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 8:01PM
I just watched the second installment of the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric, and I detect a major difference between how she comes across when she's trying to be something she's not, and when she's just being herself.
For instance, I absolutely cringed during the part when Palin tried to explain why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her relevant foreign policy experience. But she did quite well explaining that she never got a passport before last year because she didn't come from a background that afforded her the oppourtunity to backpack around Europe after college, and spent most of her life working. Then at the end of the interview, Couric kept pressing Palin on why she said America shouldn't second guess Israel were it to bomb Iran. At first, it looked like Palin was a bit rattled, but then she put it to Couric quite simply and forcefully, not in packaged statements, but in her own words:
To be clear, this doesn't change my earlier assessment that, in my view, Palin is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What I am saying is that Palin is in a situation in which she has to field questions on a lot of subjects that she doesn't know a lot about. Rather than try to spit out rehearsed lines over and over again, she would be better off, as much as possible, to speak in her own words, rooted in her own values, and sense of right and wrong.
Re: Measuring the Media
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 6:59PM
That's a good point, John. Many of the stories actually focus on the bailout plan, and the "gamble" is not whether he can get out of the debate, but whether Obama would also participate. That's a success. I'm trying to read these things with eyes not born of the beltway -- if I were your average Joe, or an independent, would I buy that this is a cheap trick?
Talking to Jim earlier, he convinced me that it might be possible that Obama's "you have to do more than one thing at once" would go over well. But the news in these stories is that Obama's continuing his campaign, and McCain's running off to go work on the legislation. Most of these stories don't show as much of the cynicism they might have. But that's the thing. The stories are asking whether Obama's going to make a political calculation about the debates. Next week, that could probably be a problem for him.
Look, I'm not trying to be optimistic. As I said, the neutral headlines had McCain leading the news cycle, and the rest ones were about McCain pretty much winning it. It might be temporary, but I'm still not convinced it wasn't a good idea.
UCC Won't Dine With Ahmadinejad
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 5:27PM
United Church of Christ President John Thomas has issued a statement this afternoon declining to attend the dinner being sponsored by various religious leaders in New York this evening. In words that were quite clear, the UCC president emphatically rejected the idea as not "appropriate to encouraging state to state diplomacy."
He also reveals that the World Council of Churches did not inform its U.S. members prior to the decision to host the event. This decision follows the posting of today's "Dining With Evil" article.
The Thomas statement can be found here at the UCC website.
Gone Nuts, Pot O' Gold
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 5:26PM
The McCain camp needs to fire that pink unicorn. (Delegate the deed to Palin, she seems to be immersed in a long blood feud with all cute and innocent creatures, anyway.) You go to leprechauns in a financial crisis, not unicorns. That's leadership 101, people. Even with McCain's admitted lack of economic knowledge, he must know where pots o' gold come from, no? Somebody put Darby O'Gill on his team of economic advisors, pronto.
Re: Measuring the Media
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 5:07PM
JP: I think you may be confusing driving the news cycle with winning the news cycle. If McCain announced that he'd been communing nightly with a talking pink unicorn, it would certainly be the top story of the day, but the narrative of the story would be "McCain has gone nuts." What's the narrative here? I could be wrong, but I think it's less "McCain shows bold leadership" and more "McCain tries to get out of debating." The Obama talking point that's quoted in most of those stories, about how a president needs to be able to do more than one thing at once, strikes me as devastatingly effective.
This is a Panic
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 4:56PM
Rich Lowry just reported at the Corner that a major conservative economist has told him that there really is a chance for this to turn into a major depression a la 1933. If so, it's mostly psychology. Ninety-three percent of home loans are still good. There's an incredible amount of cash floating around the world. It's just that everybody is afraid to lend what they have. A government bailout will only exacerbate the bad psychology by undermining confidence in the markets' ability to muddle through on their own -- or at least without MAJOR government action. Yes, government can and ought to do some things right now to stabilize and re-start the markets. But all of this business of buying up non-performing assets is counterproductive. Conservatives like Hensarling and McCotter are right to press for alternatives, and right to vote against the package as it has been described.
Kutting Kudlow
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 4:20PM
Conservatives who want to back this bailout should think twice, lest they earn the wrath of my fearsome new colleague Matthew "The Scalpel" Vadum. He gives it to Larry Kudlow good, concluding, "The late Italian dictator Benito Mussolini would be proud that decades after his former subjects hung his lifeless body upside down on meat hooks at an Esso gasoline station in Milan's Piazzale Loreto that his once-discredited ideas had become so popular in America's corridors of power."
Re: Bailout Fallout
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 4:09PM
Quin, I agree with most of your analysis here but I'm not sure about the Obama vote. I suspect this is a lot like "comprehensive" immigration reform: either they will all jump together or the left-right coalition behind it will fly apart. Obama likes to vote for things that pass overwhelmingly and if Obama votes against the bailout I would think that's a sign it is cooked. I think conservatives starting to peel off would also make it harder for the deal to pass.
Fallout From the Bailout
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 3:53PM
I predict that if this bailout plan passes as expected, the relief will only be temporary, and that a new crisis will emerge when even more capital flees the US markets because the dollar isn't strong enough to make the investments worthwhile. If John McCain had any sense, what he would do is endorse one of the conservative plans (McCotter, Gingrich, Hensarling) and bend Paulson and company to HIS will. Because here's what's gonna happen if he doesn't: Obama will find some reason to vote against it (a Clintonesque hairs-splitting sort of reason, making clear that he likes the overall concept but that it just doesn't "protect" some important victim group or other). The plan will pass anyway, and if it works, he's actually no worse off, because his vote didn't make a difference -- but if something else goes wrong, he can point to his vote against it as a sign of wise forethought and willingness to think for himself.
This is not a good plan. It should not be adopted. And conservatives hungry for leadership from McCain will again be disappointed -- unless, in a surprise, he actually does do something dramatic to re-emphasize free-market principles.
Bailing Out the Bailout
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 3:41PM
At least one concern I raised in my Culture11 piece this morning doesn't seem to have panned out: John McCain's decision to try and play a leadership role in getting the bailout passed doesn't appear to have stalled negotiations. If the early reports are to be believed, and one never knows about such things, it may have even made an agreement more likely. If so, I suspect this is true for two reasons: First, many Democratic leaders were hurrying to hammer out a deal before McCain could arrive as the conquering hero. Second, most of my analysis was contingent on Barack Obama's non-cooperation. Obama joining in the negotiations gives the Democrats cover and allows the two presidential candidates to share credit/blame for whatever comes next. I'd feel better about this if I were actually for the bailout, but it may be a victory of sorts for McCain.
UPDATE: Perhaps I spoke too soon.
Fritz Hollings Still Gives Good Quote
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 3:16PM
That's what I discovered when I attended an economics conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday put on by the New America Foundation. The Guardian write-up is here.
WSJ: Bailout Agreement Reached
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 2:03PM
The basic structure:
Palin Ends Press Drought
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:59PM
She took questions from a "small pool of reporters" today in New York.
Bunny Bailout?
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:56PM
Clearly, the economy has reached a genuine crisis when Hugh Hefner may be forced to cut back on bunnies.
"Mr. Paulson? Hugh Hefner on line one . . ."
Though this be madness, maybe there's method in it
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:18PM
The just released Gallup daily tracking poll has the presidential race back to a dead heat at 46-46, with McCain gaining two points and Obama dropping a point. Also remember that Obama was up 6 on Saturday, so there's been a clear shift toward McCain this week.
According to the report:
Measuring the Media
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:16PM
I said earlier that McCain's move was a good way to win the cycle. Indeed, even Bush's speech was slightly marginalized by McCain's push. I took a look at a number of major newspaper front pages. The publication name links to the "Today's Paper" section of the newspaper's website, and what follows will be links to the articles I'm referring to.
USAToday:
Two articles, one on the bailout (Bailout Worries Affect Market),
the other some analysis on McCain's move (Seeking a boost, McCain changes the
game again).
Chicago Tribune: "Debate or Wait?" is
the main headline, everything else is much smaller.
Washington Post: "First Debate's Fate Unclear as Obama
Resists McCain's Call to Postpone" and "Selfless or Reckless: McCain Gambles
onVoters' Verdict."
Wall Street Journal: The subhed to the lead item: "Obama Rebuffs McCain's Request to
Postpone Debate; Voters Divided Over Bailout." The next item is
sort of neutral, but the linkage to McCain might actually help him: "Bailout Pact Gains Momentum Amid Push for Tough Controls
L.A. Times: Obama seems
more of a winner here, as an on-the-fold headline shows:
"Economic woes give Obama a slight
edge." The subhed to the lead item:
"On a day of dizzying one-upmanship,
Obama rejects McCain's call to postpone their debate."
Boston Globe: Contrary to
a concern of their native son, Jim Antle, they use the word "pause"
rather than "suspend," in a shocking appreciation of the right word: Bush Urges Bailout Unity;
McCain Pauses Campaign
New York Times: A foreign
policy article in the lead left item is an unpleasant reminder of other issues
in the world, and the main item shows: "Bush to Hold Meeting on Bailout;
First Debate Up in Air." Both subheds favor
McCain (well, in that one is neutral, and the other states "McCain for delay; Republican to step
off trail for now to work on a deal."
None of these pieces seem to reflect a faltering campaign or the possibility that McCain calculated his move based on dropping polls. McCain's move clearly defined the news of the day, overshadowing Bush's own big speech, and Obama's ledes only reflect his responses. If there's someone who comes off as a leader in these headlines it's McCain. And of course, there's always the possibility that this will blow up in his face -- but so far, it's not looking bad.
Question
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:22PM
If McCain is elected president, will he respond to every crisis -- from market turmoil to hurricanes --by cancelling things? If so, will he also cancel some government programs? Somebody bail me out here.
UPDATE: I suppose McCain technically calls for postponing things. So he wouldn't necessarily have to cancel any government programs. He could just postpone paying for them until the next administration is in office.
Fearless Predictions: Taxpayers Make a Killing
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:14PM
John Berlau suggests that mark-to-market accounting is partly responsible for the current financial meltdown because it forced banks to write down their assets even if they really weren't worth any less if held to maturity.
Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke believe that another Resolution Trust Corporation, armed with a $700 billion line of credit from the U.S. taxpayer, could resolve this crisis using market principles -- reverse auctions for distressed assets, most likely.
Now Hank Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs, knows full well that the beauty of the market is that if you see an opportunity, you can make a profit. If mortgage-backed securities are currently undervalued due to some arcane accounting rule, you can bet that Paulson and Co. are all too ready to pounce. Taxpayers, get ready to profit.
Paulson's plan is to buy those assets at 10 cents on the dollar and use all the credibility of the U.S. Government to strong-arm the economy back into functionality. It's very likely that a year from now the RTC will be ready to sell back those assets to the market a year from now at, say, 50 cents on the dollar, factoring in default costs.
Let's say that the new RTC spends only $500 billion in the next few months on assets sold to them by distressed banks. The RTC reaps a cool $2.5 trillion windfall in under a year. This is in addition to the enormous profits it's already making off of Fannie, Freddie, and AIG. The Federal debt is sliced by 25% and President Obama generously extends his tax cuts to 99% of the people. Instead of FDR's New Deal, we'll be talking about Paulson's Sweet Deal.
Scary Times
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 11:27AM
I knew we were in odd times when the two opposing presidential candidates released a joint statement and agreed to meet with the president they're both running against. But things got odder this morning when, within a few minutes of each other, I received an email from legendary conservative activist Richard Viguerie and the Progessive Democrats of America protesting the bailout.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 10:43AM
How to win the crucial first debate (WSJ)
Who is the forgotten man in the financial crisis of today? (NRO)
A response that supply siders won't hate (Marginal Revolution)
McCain's gambles will catch up to him sooner or later (Culture11)
Banned books in DC? (Washington Times)
Ahmadinejad's messianic rhetoric (Christian Science Monitor)
Kim Jong Il's continued absence means famine for his people and dilemmas for the
Finally: the Green Bible. No more NIV for Al Gore. (American Papist)
Media: Biased Or Stupid Or Both?
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 10:18AM
If you're in the news business, how do you stay in business and ignore the news?
Crying Foul
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 9:42AM
Andrew Sullivan thinks it a betrayal that McCain campaign official Michael Goldfarb passed along emails Sullivan had sent inquiring about the Trig Palin rumors:
But for the McCain campaign to go to these lengths, violating core confidentiality of private good-faith questions, is something that has never happened to me before in journalism. I am also amazed that a fellow journalist would publish such emails in full. But since this is now all in the open, you deserve to know what your blogger has been trying to do in private for three weeks: just get a factual answer to a factual question on the record.
Respectfully disagree. If you want to smear someone, you don't go to Howard Kurtz, who then emails you and allows you to explain yourself. I don't know why Mr. Sullivan is intent on the Trig Palin story, though I've read a few of the relevant posts. He certainly knows more about it than I do.
But I also feel uneasy about the idea that emails should be assumed to be off the record. If a campaign official ever sent an email in which he doesn't specify something as off the record, any reporter worth his salt is going to quote it. It's fair game when it works the other way.
It also plays into the McCain camp to have Obama supporters continue asking about Trig Palin rather than letting it drop. Look, this may appeal to liberal bloggers, but it's likely a big turnoff for independents to even hear about this. When independents see Trig, they don't see the political football the bloggers do. In other words, Goldfarb doesn't "dignify the question with a response" because it forces you to keep asking it. I bet Goldfarb's assumption is that McCain wins the more you do.
Suspending Disbelief
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 9:25AM
A thoughtful symposium presented on Culture11 features one AmSpec columnist (W. James Antle Forsyth Lauenbach Worthington XIV) and two regular contributors (Sonny Bunch, James Poulos). Have a read -- it's a good party mix of thoughts on the matter.
Pass the Prozac
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:48AM
On the relaunched Organization Watch podcast, I chat with CRC colleagues James Dellinger and Matthew Vadum about the vice presidents, clueless Democrats, and why I probably need Prozac -- just as soon as that new health insurance kicks in.
Re: Palin's Silence
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 1:04AM
You are correct that Palin was "off message and irresponsible," Phil, but after all she was being asked to defend John McCain's record.
Besides, Couric was clearly asking one of those when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions. Couric began by attempting to eliminate McCain's calls for increased oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from consideration as evidence of his reformist zeal.
Palin rightly replied that, in doing that much, McCain had done "more than a heck of a lot" of others in Washington. Yet Couric then says McCain "has almost always sided with less regulation, not more." She returns again and again, pushing for "concrete examples" of McCain "pushing for more regulation."
Well, I can't think of any examples, and for all I know there aren't any. But I fail to see how Couric's winning at "stump the band" demonstrates that Palin is less ready for the presidency than Joe Biden or Barack Obama -- or John McCain, for that matter. Palin did at least as well with Couric as McCain did on "The View."
Re: Shorter President Bush
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:46AM
All right, I didn't mean to evoke your inner libertarians, guys. I was merely saying that the dramatic -- one might say, hysterical -- tone of the president's speech seemed a bit much to me.
The threatened "collapse" would not return the U.S. economy to 1929 levels. Financial institutions are currently holding assets that are not worth what they paid for them, but the assets are not worth zero. But these institutions don't want to fire-sale those assets in a market beset by a liquidity crunch, because then they'd lose a crapload of money and might go bankrupt.
Well, OK, some major financial institutions go belly-up. And several less-than-major financial institutions follow. And one can picture a scenario where other businesses heavily dependent on credit -- especially the auto giants -- follow in this row of toppling dominoes.
Yet there is a genuine economic floor somewhere underneath all this artificially pumped-up, credit-fueled superstructure. Even in the doomsday "collapse" scenario, the ordinary supply-and-demand mechanism remains in place, and the reset point is not zero. Real people would lose real money, unemployment would increase, but these would be relatively short-term phenomena, and the economy would eventually -- in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months -- absorb the losses and then begin to grow again.
What Paulson and Bush seem to be advocating is risk-free, pain-free capitalism -- except that taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for it all. Some Republicans are slinging the term "purist" at free-market opponents of the Paulson plan, but I'm sorry: A $700 billion lump-sum corporate welfare payment doesn't remotely resemble the conservative movement I signed up for.
Palin's Silence
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:35AM
On second thought, maybe it's a good thing that the McCain campaign is shielding Palin from the media. Her interview with Katie Couric was absolutely painful to watch. She clearly stumbled twice -- when asked how McCain has fought to reform Wall Street and about Rick Davis's ties to Freddie Mac. Her answer that not supporting a bailout could mean a Great Depression was off message and irresponsible. For the rest of the interview, it was just lots of tired cliches, and random jargon that made it seem as if she was reading off of mental index cards. I know a lot of conservatives like Sarah Palin and always rush to her defense. But it's absolutely not meant as an insult to say that she simply is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Just chew on this:
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
Re: Shorter President Bush
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:14AM
Yes, but at least he picked the best Supreme Court justices. When he was forced to. The Republican legacy is preserved. I mean, if the justices rule EVERYTHING IN THE PAST 8 YEARS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Re: Shorter President Bush
Posted by on 9.25.08 @ 12:06AM
It is amazing to behold the anti-government radicalism of this president. Except for Medicare Part D. And No Child Left Behind. And earmarks. And all discretionary spending in general. And the $700 billion socialization, uh, bailout program. And the plan to create a democratic Middle East. And the burden on means-tested government programs imposed by amnesty. And regulations. Well, at least we'll have tax cuts for a couple more years. Tax cuts neither of our major presidential candidates voted for. Woo-hah!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Shorter President Bush
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 10:25PM
"Give me $700 billion, or you'll all be selling apples on the sidewalk and living in Hoovervilles a week from Tuesday."
Money for Motor City Too
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 8:36PM
At $25 billion, a bailout for the auto industry would be cheaper than what's in store for Wall Street. It would also be even less justified.
Re: It's a smart move
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:45PM
The murmurs came from shockingly not-insider type people. For example, they were certain Obama would join up -- which sounds like McCain was making a gamble (again) that everyone loves "honor" and "doing something!" just as much as he does.
I'm just looking at it from a media cycle standpoint. The Bush speech tonight at 9 pm may not actually influence much. And this is a good chance for McCain to emphasize the differences between himself and the president. Lord knows the Obama campaign is already figuring out how to tie McCain into all this.
Speaking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if some oppo research found its way into the laps of David Kirkpatrick and Jackie Calmes (that's not intended to be catty). They express shock and dismay that McCain has an adviser who took money up till recently from Freddie Mac in their front page article (Obama's campaign has similar, ah, conflicts of interest). The difference is that McCain lied, or at least misrepresented. Not quite Watergate, but hey, outrage is in this cycle. except that story won't get any play because of the suspension.
Look, here's the trick. McCain's campaign is looking to plug the holes in his resume, just as Obama's campaign is. Barack Obama went to Europe to show that he could talk to foreign people. John McCain is going to Washington to show that he can draw a guns and butter chart. Hopefully he can draw the butter half as well as he can draw the guns.
MSM Spin Preview
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:32PM
Joe Klein sneers at the Maverick move as a gimmick and a Hail Mary. Such, I suspect, will be the Conventional Wisdom in the elite media. If the McCain campaign expects the media to give them any points for high-mindedness, they can think again.
Re: Ban Of Mice and Men
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:32PM
That reminds me of the most unfortunate casualty of the Palin/Incest skit on Saturday Night Live this past weekend: a brilliant "alternate ending" sketch for Of Mice and Men.
Re: Crazy, That's How It Goes
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:32PM
Stacy, my choice of songs and John McCain's prospects have certainly improved since the last time I made an 1980s rock reference to his campaign: "Final Countdown."
Re: It's a smart move
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:23PM
J.P.: Is your take on the rationale for this move influenced by the "murmurs"? Which is to say, are these the arguments that GOP insiders are making?
And Phil, it's too soon to tell who's "winning this one." The news cycle hasn't played out and, like everything else right now, what really counts is how this plays with independents and "Hillary Democrats."
Now that I've had time to think about it and get over the initial shock, I'm thinking there must have been some kind of polling or focus group response that set them thinking in this direction. The stakes are way too high for them to make a move this drastic without some sort of data input about how it would play. But it's like Joshua Green and the Hillary campaign post-mortem: We won't know the real reason until after the election is over.
Re: It's A Smart Move
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:14PM
Maybe the politics will work out as you say, though I'm skeptical. But it seems to me that the idea of Obama and McCain trying to hammer out a deal on this sounds more like a bad joke than something to be encouraged: "So a socialist and an economic illiterate walk into a bar..."
Obama Presser
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:08PM
I thought he came off pretty calm, forceful, and presidential with his attitude that the debate must go on, and his line that "presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time." Right now, I think Obama's winning this one.
It's a smart move
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 5:04PM
McCain says, "This goes further than politics." He reaches out to Obama. Media attention suddenly forgets about his absurd thirst for Chris Cox's blood. Now, the media is talking about how McCain initiated a rise above campaign smears. So long to that line about "McCain Is Running A Filthy Lying Campaign." Symbolically speaking, McCain wins the news cycle today. Any possible campaign stops he'd have over the next few days wouldn't have yielded the kind of press he's going to get for doing this.
Here's a question: Will Obama and McCain be able to broker some kind of an agreement? I think probably not, at least not without some painful compromises. This might be an opportunity for the McCain pundits, though, to point out that in a crisis like this, Obama has no experience playing quarterback on legislation. Dems wouldn't be able to respond. They'd have to argue that any experience McCain has doing this is somehow bad. But generally speaking, those times when McCain has been the man behind a piece of legislation, it has only benefitted Democrats. So they wouldn't have anything to knock.
Dems would probably do well to put their economic advisers on the airwaves without mentioning the campaign. Show off the team, the people surrounding Obama. They won't get anywhere preaching on Obama's experience on economic matters, so show that he has good judgment in who he listens to. Maybe they can play up his "work" in fighting poverty, but that could potentially backfire.
Re: Crazy, That's How It Goes
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:58PM
Jim, the only explanation I've heard that makes any sense at all is that this is another Maverick move to disrupt Obama's "OODA Loop." The argument is that Team Obama is not good at improvisation, and that this move will throw them off message.
Enjoyed your classic '80s metal reference, BTW, although I'm trying to block the mental image of you in spandex pants.
Obama: Debate Now 'More Important Than Ever'
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:54PM
At a press conference now, Barack Obama just said that this is exactly the time that Americans need to hear from the two candidates, one of whom will soon be in charge of this mess. In fact, he said, having a a debate is "more important than ever."
MORE: Obama says that while he is willing and ready to go to Washington if it will be helpful, he won't go if it means injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations.
He also said, regarding suspending the campaign, "Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time."
Even if they are in Washington, he said they could fly to Mississippi pretty quicly for the debate.
Debating the Debate
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:45PM
I think that the show should go on, but they should change the topic from foreign policy to the economy.
And From the McCain Campaign
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:24PM
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers passes on the following:
Will Obama Join McCain
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:22PM
NBC's First Read reports:
At 2:35 p.m., McCain called back and mentioned whether they should meet at the White House and delay the debate. Asked whether they should delay the debate, Gibbs said that this is a global financial crisis -- and there would be no better way to shed light this crisis than to debate it. Gibbs says they have not decided whether or not it would be better to postpone the debate -- but want to talk to the sponsors (the debate commission) first.
Crazy, That's How It Goes
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 4:05PM
This move would make more sense if Obama had agreed to do the same thing or seemed likely to feel pressure to do so. I understand McCain wants to be the country-first problem-solver here. But being out there by himself asking for the debate to be delayed and attracting headlines that say "McCain Suspends Campaign" just doesn't seem helpful.
Re: Bizarre McCain
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:56PM
It seems that McCain is aiming for two things: 1) to emphasize his theme of putting "country first," before partisan politics and 2) avoiding the "out of touch" label that sunk the elder President Bush in 1992.
But in reality, I think the move comes across as panicy at a time when he needs to exude calmness. The Sept. 11 reference, in this context, is more likely to make people more worried about the financial crisis than optimistic that everything will turn out alright. And using the word "suspend" makes him look weak, because it's normally associated with somebody dropping out of the campaign.
McCain's Statement
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:42PM
Here it is:
Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns. This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward. I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.
It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.
Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.
'Latest Bizarre Move'?
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:33PM
Phil, let's not mince words. It's just plain crazy, is what it is. I can't think of any way to justify this move. Can anyone else?
Re: McCain to Suspend Campaigning for Financial...
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:23PM
Ahhh, so that's what those murmurs were about. Well, I don't think I could take credit for much but it's good to know those sources are solid. Thanks guys!
Re: Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:21PM
Quin, as much as I share your disdain for the establishment media, the problem is that they're still there and they still have a powerful influence. The audience for Fox News is still a fraction of the audience that watches the ABC/NBC/CBS nightly news broadcasts, and the GOP cannot afford to write off the entire press corps. At some point, complaining about media bias becomes a crutch, an excuse for failure.
Ronald Reagan said, "I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing." I would argue that Republicans who take a defeatist attitude toward media bias are failing to embody Reagan's can-do optimism. Surely, the New York Times is an adversary less formidable than the Soviet Union.
McCain to Suspend Campaigning for Financial Crisis
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:16PM
The AP is reporting that John McCain is suspending his campaign tomorrow due to the financial crisis, and wants to delay the first presidential debate on national security, planned for Friday. This is the latest bizarre move in a really erratic week and a half for the Republican nominee.
Re: Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:12PM
Ditto to all you said, Philip. I covered Hillary on the trail three times (Greensburg and Harrisburg, Pa., and Shepherdstown, W.Va.) and she held press conferences two of those three times. I've now covered John McCain on the trail three times (Wilkes-Barre and York, Pa., and Lebanon, Ohio) and ZERO press conferences.
As anti-Republican as the political press corps may be, they could scarcely outdo their bias against Hillary, especially at that West Virginia event after she'd lost the North Carolina primary the night before. A CBS reporter asked a question that could be fairly summarized as, "Why don't you quit, you pathetic loser, and stop hurting the Democratic Party?" It was completely hostile.
GOP candidates routinely entrust their press operations to people who've never been reporters and who don't like reporters, and then blame all their problems on media bias. There's no need to name names here, Philip, but you've accurately described "campaign staffers ordering journalists around, telling them where to go and when." I don't think the people who contribute money to Republican campaigns understand that they're paying the salaries of "media relations" people who seem to go out of their way to alienate the media, or else the contributors would be demanding refunds.
Re: Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 3:08PM
As the resident skeptic about Palin's political helpfulness between now and November, it behooves me to come to her defense by saying that it might not be unreasonable for her to have avoided press conferences so far. Why not? Well, unless I missed something.... when was the last time Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama held a press conference? Yeah, one where he actually took a bunch of questions at random. Why doesn't the establishment media moan about their lack of serious access to him? I mean, this is the guy who begged off at one pathetic little press conference by whining that he "already has taken, like, eight questions!" Obama is the guy running for president, but he has had less investigative scrutiny in the past four years than Palin has endured in the past four weeks. The establishment media is, collectively, a flagrantly unethical and dishonest institution.....
Re: Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 2:39PM
You also have to think about it from the perspective of a member of the traveling press corps who gets herded around everyday only to hear the exact same speech at each stop. It's very regimented and tiresome, with campaign staffers ordering journalists around, telling them where to go and when, as reporters have to scramble to come up with something original to report on. The access to the candidates is really the only thing that makes it all worthwhile, and in fact, whenever I've traveled along with the press, the primary topic of conversation becomes whether or not the candidate is holding any press avails. If he or she isn't, then pretty soon reporters air their frustrations and that becomes the story. I've always felt that it would be so easy for campaigns to buy off reporters by providing them with more access, and in fact McCain should know this better than anybody, because it's a big reason why for a long time, he was a media darling. If you deny reporters access, it's just going to make them view your overall campaign more negatively, because they are only human, and it will affect coverage.
As far as Palin specifically, it worries me. Obviously, the campaign is aware of the backlash stemming from her refusal to hold a press conference in the nearly four weeks since being selected. So the campaign's calculation must be that taking the hit from denying reporters the oppourtunity to ask questions is better than having her take questions and mess something up. That suggests to me that Palin is seriously unprepared, and the campaign knows it. Either that, or it's all part of an elaborate strategy to lower expectations ahead of the debate.
In Obama We Trust
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 2:09PM
Obama fans can't wait until he gets elected or accomplishes something as president, so they're already producing coinage with his face.
Re: Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 2:08PM
Jim, I've been critical of Republican Party press strategy for a long time. Media relations is about relationships, and the Republican habit of treating reporters as the enemy is ultimately counterproductive.
The press corps requires a steady diet of information, and if all they're given is speeches and talking points and conference calls with advisers, a backlash is inevitable. What often happens -- and this is essentially what happened to George Allen in 2006 -- is that if the GOP won't give the media access to their candidate, the press will start relying on Democratic sources, so that the Democratic message about the Republican candidate becomes the dominant narrative.
Republican campaign operatives don't understand this, because none of those operatives has ever been a reporter with a daily deadline.
One Final, FINAL Note on McCain/Cox
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 12:58PM
John McCain really ought to worry when the WSJ and the WashPost edit boards both agree that he is wrong. From the WashPost editorial today: "Mr. McCain's call for the head of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox was precipitous and unwarranted." Meanwhile, without reference to Cox or McCain, Post financial writer has some great advice in general that President Bush ought to have taken long ago and that McCain should take now with regard to Cox/Cuomo: Apologize. Admit error. The American people hunger for a leader who can admit error and show that he can learn from it and correct it.
Strange Buzz
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 12:48PM
I have now heard from two different people with their own sources that it's possible McCain and Obama might come together and make a statement in favor of the bailout plan.
I feel like I'm at the bad end of a game of telephone, but, there you go. I don't see what the advantage is for either. As Philip has noted, Obama's doing pretty well on the economic polling.
Silent Sarah
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 12:26PM
I'm not sure what is to be gained from this apparent strategy of shielding Sarah Palin from the press, except for occasional details about her family's Oreo Overload consumption habits. It reinforces the critique of her as unprepared. It is almost certainly unnecessary, given her ability to handle press conferences and such as governor of Alaska. And even if she ends up making gaffes, it is hard to imagine that she can top Joe Biden in sheer buffoonery. This must be another area where Andrew Cuomo is advising the campaign.
Live and In Person
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 11:46AM
For those in the DC area, I'll be appearing on a panel on political blogging being held tonight at George Washington University, along with nine other bloggers, including former AmSpecBlog contributor Jennifer Rubin. The full lineup, and further details, here. It starts at 7 p.m. at The Jack Morton Auditorium at the GWU School of Media and Public Affairs Building, 805 21st St.
McCain Pollster Calls Post/ABC Poll an 'Outlier'
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 10:58AM
McCain Campaign pollster Bill McInturff, speaking on a conference call, said that the Washington Post/ABC poll showing Obama with a 9-point lead was "an unusual outlier that does not represent where the campaign is."
McInturff, who has done media polling for the NBC/WSJ, said that the consensus of polls both nationally and within swing states have shown remarkable stability, with the race going back and forth, but remaining within the margin of error. He said that this Post/ABC poll had a +16 number for Democratic Party identification, when the real range is more likely 4-8 percent, with McCain typically running ahead of party ID because of his appeal to independents.
Obama Leaps Ahead on Economic News
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 10:38AM
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll gives Obama a 52-43 lead over McCain, which represents an 11-point swing from a poll taken after the Republican convention, in which McCain lead 49-47. The big difference has been the financial crisis. According to the poll, only 9 percent of Americans said the economy was "good" or "excellent," -- which is the first time since just before the 1992 election that the number has been in the single digits. Also, the Post notes that neither Gore or Kerry broke 50 percent in one of its pre-election polls.
What's remarkable is that in the wake of the financial crisis, Obama didn't say or do much of anything to distinguish himself and there're weren't any memorable "I feel your pain" moments. He was mainly able to step aside and watch McCain stumble, knowing that reflexively more Americans would blame Republicans for this mess.
McCain is in a very tough spot right now.
UPDATE: McCain's pollster calls the poll an "outlier."
In Palin's Words
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 10:16AM
Sarah Palin was disinvited from delivering a speech in New York protesting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit. So our frequent contributor Jay Homnick did the next best thing: he obtained the text of the speech and had his young daughter Ruth deliver it. You can watch and listen to her lovely presentation on YouTube here.
Pull the Plug
Posted by on 9.24.08 @ 9:20AM
Woke up this morning and said to myself, "What the heck?" I believe in capitalism, which means I believe in profits and losses. This bailout plan is about the feds trying to pretend there are no losses from the housing bubble. As Sen. Richard Shelby says, there's not even any guarantee that the bailout will fix the problem -- we might pay $700 billion for nothing.
So, forget it -- I'm against the bailout. Get the government out of the way and let the market fix itself. It always does. That would mean short-term economic hardship for a lot of people (your 401K is going to go south for a while), but in the long run, the preservation of free enterprise is more important that the immediate pain of the correction.
UPDATE: "Chickens coming home to roost"?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama Campaign Snubs Evangelicals?
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 8:13PM
Evangelical Christian activists were puzzled and angry today when a representative of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign at the last minute canceled a scheduled appearance at a Capitol Hill event.
The Rev. E. Terri LaVelle, a Baptist minister and senior advisor on religious affairs to the Obama campaign, had been confirmed as a speaker at the third annual Reese Roundtable luncheon sponsored by two major Washington evangelical organizations, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital and the International Reapers Foundation.
At the request of the Obama campaign, luncheon organizers had reserved a table of 10 for the Illinois Democrat's supporters. Yet sources say that, less than an hour before the luncheon, LaVelle sent a text message to a roundtable organizer, announcing that she would be unable to attend.
Officials were reportedly "pretty upset" by the late and unexplained cancellation, and the table reserved for the Obama delegation sat conspicuously empty during the luncheon. The luncheon also featured Robert Heckman, an advisor to Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign.
Re: Bailout Resistance
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 7:47PM
I think you'll see more resistance from House Republicans -- who are powerless to block anything but can vote against the bailout package -- than in the Senate, where resistance could actually take the form of delaying or even preventing the bailout. But generally I think it's true that even conservative politicians don't like to be seen standing athwart problem-solving yelling stop.
Re: Bailout Resistance
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 5:56PM
I could be wrong, but the sense I got from the hearing is that the bailout is a foregone conclusion, and at this point its just a matter of working out the details. Congress doesn't have the guts to do nothing, because they don't understand what's going on and they don't want to be blamed for a depression if the doomsday warnings of Paulson and Bernanke prove accurate. They also know that they'll have a lot of constituents who will be mad as hell about the idea of aiding big banks that made poor investments. So, by grilling Paulson and putting on a show for the cameras and making him work for the money, they'll be able to say that they didn't simply fork over the $700 billion, no questions asked. And Democrats will fight for concessions -- oversight, executive compensation restrictions, homeowner relief -- that they can use to justify their vote for the plan. But the language the Senators used in their questioning gave off the general impression that everybody is assuming some sort of bailout package will be happening within the next week.
Credit Cards and the Bailout
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 5:38PM
Another thing I should have mentioned about Paulson's testimony is that he left the door open for the possibility that in addition to mortgage securities, the bailout could include credit cards, student loans, and auto loans. (U.S. consumer debt -- excluding mortgages -- is $2.6 trillion.) While he wouldn't say so directly, he kept emphasizing that though troubled mortgage assets were the main problem, he'd want the flexibility to also purchase investments in other asset classes as part of the overall plan to restore liquidity to the market. This raises serious questions about the potential for mission creep that he didn't have a clear answer for today.
GOP Resistance to the Bailout? Don't Count On It
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 4:33PM
This afternoon I stopped by the Heritage Foundation for the weekly Conservative Blogger's Briefing. Rep. Jeff Flake was there to talk about the new Pork Parade website, but most of the questions were about the Paulson bailout plan. Flake is against it, and I asked him how much opposition there is on the right. He said everyone at this morning's conference meeting was unhappy, but wouldn't venture an estimate as to how many would actually vote against the bailout.
While some in the room were comforted by this, my between-the-lines reading is that there will be a lot of Republicans who grumble about the plan and then vote for it anyway. Later I ran into a couple of reporter friends who'd just come from Capitol Hill, both of them working on bailout-related stories, and they generally concurred with my assessment. Apparently, only ten out of twenty Representatives who were at a Republican Study Committee press conference today to complain about the bailout are actually voting against it.
Patrick Ruffini thinks that Republicans should oppose the plan en masse. Unless the Democrats add something to it that's really egregious, I wouldn't count on it. There's a (perhaps not entirely wrong) consensus that something has to be done, and politicians are generally terrified of looking like they're doing nothing.
Re: Petty Score-Settling
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 4:01PM
Stacy, please forgive me for my misinterpretation. I should have
known better, my friend!
I do find it bizarre that McCain would be so politically inept, in
addition to being wrong on substance, as to throw away this chance
to really take the fight to the libs. The opportunity was there to
really draw a distinction between his early advocacy of reform of
Fannie and Feddie vs. the huge payouts for Johnson, Raines and
Gorelick and the stubborn opposition of Barney Frank to serious
reform of those institutions. Instead, he turned against a
conservative, and one of the most honorable conservatives in
Washington at that. It's like a nervous tic with McCain: Any time
there is a rough patch, he immediately starts firing shots at
conservatives, almost indiscriminantly, so much so that his
response seems pathological. It's a serious character defect, and
it is ugly.
Republicans Against the Paulson Plan
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 3:04PM
Joining Sen. Jim DeMint, Ron Paul has a piece up on CNN's website arguing against the bailout. If this Chuck Baldwin voter isn't sufficiently Republican for you, Newt Gingrich has also come out swinging against it.
Re: Petty Score-Settling
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 2:40PM
Jim Antle has the correct interpretation of my earlier comment: Yes, I meant that in reference to the Cox vs. Holtz-Eakin feud, and not to the George Will column.
UPDATE: The misinterpretation, however, gives an indication of how things go in Washington when folks start to feuding. That I should be accused of endorsing McCain-Feingold -- perish the thought! Also, for the record, I'm all in favor dynamic scoring and just yesterday declared Crazy Cousin John's idea of appointing Andrew Cuomo at SEC to be "admissible as evidence of a Republican candidate's insanity."
No Indictment in Palin Hacking
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 2:37PM
A federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tenn., reportedly adjourned today without delivering an indictment in the hacking of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account.
The grand jury heard testimony this morning from three friends of University of Tennessee student David Kernell, according to the Chattanooga Times-Free Press, but ended its session around noon without returning an indictment.
"Three young college-age people . . . two males and a female [who] are apparently friends" of Kernell, testified before the grand jury, the Chattanoogan reported earlier. The FBI had reportedly served a search warrant early Sunday morning at Kernell's apartment near the UT campus in Knoxville.
Suspicion centered on Kernell, son of a Tennessee state lawmaker Mike Kernell (D-Memphis), after contents of Palin's Yahoo e-mail account were posted on an Internet bulletin board under the nickname "rubico10." One of Kernell's friends told WBIR-TV that the 20-year-old economics student -- who described himself an "Obamacrat" on his Facebook page -- often used the alias "Rubico" in online political discussions.
The Knoxville News-Sentinel reported that Kernell has retained the services of attorney Wade Davies, who issued a statement saying, "We are confident that the truth will emerge as we go through the process. David is a decent and intelligent young man, and I look forward to assisting him during this difficult period."
Petty Score-Settling
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 2:15PM
I may be misreading him, in which case he's free to correct me, but I think Stacy is talking about McCain and Douglas Holtz-Eakin settling a score with Chris Cox.
John Fund Also Defends Cox
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 2:13PM
My fellow senior editor John Fund also comes to Chris Cox's defense and blasts McCain for his Cuomo idea. Methinks McCain needs to find a dignified way to retreat from his ledge....
The Paulson and Bernanke Show
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 1:53PM
Watching it now, the thing that scares me most is that Paulson is asking for $700 billion, but a lot of the most important details will be determined down the road. We don't know how the purchasing mechanism will work, how much risk taxpayers will be taking on, or how the government will price these securities -- after all, a large part of the problem is that we don't know what they're worth. Bernanke said that we should purchase assets at their value if held to maturity, rather than the fire sale prices they are currently valued at given depressed housing prices. But, as I noted earlier, its scandalous Paulson speaks of "illiquid mortgage assets" that are cloging the system, when in reality government is stepping in to give banks a better deal.
Also, the Democrats keep asking about getting equity stakes for taxpayers in exchange for purchasing these troubled assets. Paulson insists that doing so would reduce company participation. But, as much as I shudder at the idea of government ownership of private companies, it's sickening to think that taxpayers will bear all of this risk, and then if a few years down the road the market recovers and banking profits are soaring, taxpayers don't get compensated beyond recouping the initial cost of the bailout, if we're lucky.
One thing I will say is that, based on the questioning, it seems there's a lot of bipartisan skepticism.
Re: George Will vs. McCain
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:59PM
By that logic, then, any negative column is suspect. If you want to call a dislike of the limitations on freedom of speech imposed by McCain-Feingold a personal grudge, then fine. Consider me begrudging.
Petty score-settling?
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:56PM
Stacy, what George Will did wasn't petty score settling. It was a slam-down of an out-of-control bully who had lost his temper, his judgment, and whatever principles he claimed to have. John McCain had spent all week fulminating (fulmination being something he's good at) against greed and corruption, and then he recommended to head the SEC a guy whose own policies at HUD greased the path for all the shenanigans McCain called "greed and corruption," and who also used HUD corruptly himself to try to bolster his race for governor by giving grants to New York. Then again, McCain doesn't care about consistency, or about political philosophy, or about treating decent people decently; he just wants a scapegoat and a demagogic applause line. He doesn't know the facts or even care to know them, he offers no logic, and he gives evidence of everything BUT a calm head in a crisis. As Will said, aptly, McCain substitutes vehemence for coherence. In doing so, he sacrifices his vaunted honor as well.
The Politics of Coal
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:50PM
It appears that Joe Biden was for coal before he was against it. The McCain campaign just announced a conference call, and the press release includes this:
John McCain's support for clean coal technology is in sharp contrast to that of his opponents. Joe Biden visited Virginia on Saturday, saying that he was a "hard-coal miner" and that it was "nice to be back in coal country" while Obama supporter, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) said "Senator Obama's a friend of coal." But just two days later in Ohio, Senator Biden said he wants "no coal plants here in America" and that he and Senator Obama are "not supporting clean coal." (Emphasis added.)Hey, by the way, Joe, did you know that Pennsylvania's a swing state? Just thought I'd point that out.
Uncle Paulson to the Rescue
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:14PM
On the main site, I try to take a big picture look at the financial crisis and bailout plan, but just wanted to add a few things.
I don't think that conservatives who are supporting the plan have fully considered how it means the end of capitalism, and the beginning of European-style socialism in the U.S. I don't think I'm exaggerating.
As a result of the Fannie and Freddie bailout, the government already has fingerprints on most of the nation's mortgage debt; as a result of the AIG bailout, it now controls 80 percent of what was once the world's largest insurer. In both cases, the government has assumed the power to fire and hire top management. In reaction to the Paulson plan, Democrats in Congress are moving to restrict executive compensation of companies seeking taxpayer help, as well as give the government shares in the companies. And within the logic of the bailout, can you blame them? If Paulson wants to socialize the risk that financial institutions have taken, than how could anybody argue that the resulting profits shouldn't be shared by all? The result, however, would be the government having an ownership stake in every major financial institution, as well as a say on who gets paid how much.
And that is just the direct result of the Paulson plan itself, without taking into account the regulatory battle that will take place in the next Congress. Paulson's plan will make it more difficult for conservatives to prevent a regulatory overreaction along the lines of Sarbanes-Oxley, which drove business overseas. The Democratic Congress (and quite possibly, president) will simply not dole out $700 billion to Wall Street in the fall, and come next spring, show restraint when it comes to imposing a new regulatory regime on the financial sector. Investors have no loyalty to America, and will quite happily put their money elsewhere if American regulation becomes too burdensome.
As for those "illiquid mortage assets" that Hank Paulson says
need to be removed from the system, Roger Lowenstein (who wrote the
definitive account of the collapse of the hedge fund Long Term
Capital Management as well as the best bio of Warren Buffett on the
market) makes this illuminating point:
Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs banker, whose stock when he cashed out in 2006 was worth half billion dollars, is sure to argue that the appropriations are necessary because the market is illiquid. Yet a market for mortgage paper still exists. "Sellers just don't like the bids," a hedge fund manager told me. A manager with a big money management company confirmed that if Citigroup, Goldman, and the rest want to unload their securities, his firm has money to spend. "We just can't spend as much as Paulson," he noted.
That is really scandalous. The prospect of Paulson opening a giant $700 billion checkbook, in other words, is preventing the markets from working the problems out by themselves.Re: George Will vs. McCain
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:11PM
Quin, this kind of petty score-settling is all too common in Washington. The first time I met you, I might have shared the story of how, on the day I arrived in D.C., I got some advice from a reporter named Michael Rust, who'd been in town long enough to learn the ropes. Rust told me, "Welcome to Washington, a town where people advance" -- and here, he made a hand gesture as if climbing a ladder -- "on the knives stuck in the backs of their former friends."
Well, I laughed then, but after a few years -- and more than a few knives in my back -- it started to hurt when I laughed. What I slowly learned is that most disputes among conservatives, though they may appear on the surface to be ideological in origin, are in fact usually fueled by personal grudges and career ambitions.
As If The Two Jokers We Have Aren't Bad Enough...
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 11:56AM
...now I have to worry about President Pelosi?!
Bill Clinton: I Like Them Both
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 10:59AM
Bill Clinton dutifully makes the case for an Obama victory, but his heart doesn't seem to be in it.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 10:56AM
American military: Smart, patriotic (Freakonomics)
Palin's speech against Ahmadinejad she never gave (Haaretz)
Ron Paul, still in the running (Culture11)
Blame GSEs, not deregulationa (WSJ)
Atheists deserve to be treated like any other believers (NRO)
Japan's new PM Taro Aso: Conservative, Catholic, manga-lovin' (Time)
Obama's tax plan isn't Keynesian, it's Marxist (Washington Times)
A Little (Bleak) Joke
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 10:37AM
What's the difference between Iraq and Wall Street?
Obama vs. Biden
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 10:13AM
I guess somebody will have to tell these guys that they're actually on the same ticket.
There's this:
The Democrat attacked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for initially opposing the federal government's intervention to save insurance giant AIG.
"I think what has been clear during this entire past 10 days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Obama said.
But Lauer pointed out that Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), had initially said the same thing -- on "Today," no less.
"I think that in that situation, I think Joe should have waited, as well," Obama said.
George Will vs. McCain
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 9:58AM
If words had knife edges, what George Will does this morning to John McCain would be unlawful under the Helskinki Accords. Will is justly furious at McCain's attack on Chris Cox and his suggestion that Andrew Cuomo take over the SEC. Please do read the whole column linked above; it is one of the best-written pieces I have seen in years. Nothing I could write here and no excerpt that I could give could do justice to Will's creative invective. That said, almost as a sidelight, it is worth noting that Will fleshes out a reference I made in a blog post last week to a personal grudge that McCain's economic brains (for what they are worth), otherwise known as Douglas Holtz-Eakin, holds against Cox. I quote from Will:
"Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Congressman Cox, who as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for 'dynamic scoring' that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts."
But as I say, that is the least of Will's arguments. Read the whole thing. It's brilliant.
Hook, Line, and Cheney
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 1:19AM
In the Washington Times today, I review that new book about Dick Cheney's oversized vice presidency.
Re: Ron Paul Endorsement
Posted by on 9.23.08 @ 12:34AM
I agree with you on every point but one: it isn't just Paul himself who is focused on a man, not a movement. Many of his supporters feel the same way, perhaps to a much greater degree. Also, I think Paul preferred Baldwin all along and Barr's reaction to the National Press Club event -- which was part sensible and part petulant -- pushed him to state his preference rather than treat them both as equally good choices. Unfortunately, the endorsement was timed to be minimally helpful to Baldwin and maximally hurtful to Barr, the candidate who could best move the Paul juggernaut forward. Not the best judgment politically, but an understandable if unwise human reaction.
UPDATE: Over at The American Conservative, Daniel McCarthy lays the blame squarely at Barr's door -- or more precisely, that of Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, remembered by Buchananites for heading up the anti-Buchanan "wrecking crew" in the Reform Party during the 2000 presidential race.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Hillary '12 Campaign Continues
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 11:38PM
Tuesday morning, Hillary Clinton will appear on the CBS Early Show, CNN's American Morning, NBC's Today Show, and MSNBC's Morning Joe. Topic: The Economic Crisis.
Doesn't take much cynicism to see that this is about offering Democrats a little dose of buyer's remorse. Hillary goes on, takes softball questions, looks like an economic genius -- unlike what's-his-name, the guy who got the nomination. Expect her to suggest plans that differ in some important way from whatever plans what's-his-name is pushing, and to give seemingly well-intentioned advice to what's-his-name. She's there to undermine him, but she can't afford to be too obvious about it.
Re: Ron Paul Endorsement
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 11:12PM
James, it's pretty obvious to me, if to no one else, that Ron Paul allowed his ego to cloud his judgment. As one of Paul's supporters (who's now backing Bob Barr) explained to me months ago, "The Ron Paul movement wasn't about Ron Paul, it was about a movement." The one person who apparently never understood that was Ron Paul.
As I just wrote at my own blog: "If Paul had endorsed Barr in May, when the media was all over the Libertarian threat, it would have made all the difference in the world. Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin in late September -- when the media is fully absorbed in the Obama-McCain battle -- is barely a pebble in a pond."
So the Paulistas staged their anti-neocon protest at the GOP convention and what will they have to show for it in the end? Nada. Chumps.
The Ron Paul Endorsement Saga Continues
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 6:42PM
Via Dave Weigel, I see that Ron Paul, clearly miffed by Bob Barr's reaction to his "endorse everybody but McCain and Obama" press conference, has finally endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. The endorsement makes a great deal more sense than consorting with Cynthia McKinney -- Baldwin is an antiwar conservative whose positions are of longer standing than Barr's -- but obviously Baldwin is the less viable of the two candidates. Well, until now. This endorsement is sure to hurt Barr and help Baldwin. I covered Baldwin's nomination fight with Alan Keyes on the main site.
Stephen Hayes Takes Down Cuomo and McCain
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 4:52PM
Over at the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes does a brilliant take-down of Andrew Cuomo, and writes that John McCain's suggestion that Cuomo should run the SEC "may be the dumbest single thing John McCain has said during the course of the 2008 campaign." Read the whole thing for yourself.
Hitchens Goes There
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 4:29PM
The lowest blow imaginable against any Democrat:
The Dukakis comparison is, of course, a cruel one, but it raises a couple more questions that must be faced. . . .Worthy reading, in case you missed it. (Tank ride, anyone?)
John McCain's Favorite Senator
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 3:30PM
Rasmussen has a new poll out on the race for U.S. Senate in South Carolina. Incumbent Republican Lindsey Graham leads his Democratic challenger Bob Conley by 50 percent to 41 percent -- tighter than expected but not close enough to indicate that Graham is in serious danger of losing his seat. I wrote about Conley's unconventional conservative challenge to Graham earlier this year.
More Thought, Less Talk
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 2:38PM
Are you tired of reading angst-ridden and clueless articles about the economy and how John McRaisingCain or Barry O'Bama can fix the economy? I've been getting an education at OpenMarket.org from Hans Bader and John Berlau, both of whom have been writing about the looming economic problems for some time. I can't recommend it enough, and if I were to start quoting the material, the entire blog would be riddled with blockquotes excerpting entire posts from their blog. If you need a sample, read Berlau's defense of short-sellers here.
I'm sure they wouldn't mind, but I still think it's an infringement on intellectual property rights. Just go and read their stuff here. They're like the Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid of the wild bailout west.
AP Breaks Embargo on Palin Hack
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 1:36PM
Associated Press bulletin 12:57 p.m. ET:
WASHINGTON (AP) Law enforcement officials say the FBI has searched the home of the son of a top Democratic state lawmaker in Tennessee as part of its investigation into the hacking of Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account. The officials say agents searched David Kernell's Knoxville home over the weekend.
This is the first national MSM coverage of the Kernell investigation, which has previously been left to Tennessee media and bloggers. The LA Times had sneered at bloggers for conducting an online "lynching."
UPDATE 1:50 p.m.: Now the full AP story:
The FBI searched the residence of the son of a Democratic state lawmaker in Tennessee over the weekend looking for evidence linking the young man to the hacking of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, two law enforcement officials told The Associated Press on Monday. . . .
Experts said the hacker apparently left an easy trail for investigators.
"He might as well have taken a picture of his house and uploaded it," said Ken Pfeil, an Internet security expert. "He should have just set up a big beacon that said, 'Here's my house,' or confessed. If they can't catch this guy based on all the information posted on the Web then all bets are off."
It really wasn't that hard to figure out.
UPDATE: Computer World reports that the Georgia-based proxy service provider Ctunnel helped lead the FBI to the Knoxville apartment by identifying the hacker's ISP. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment on that report.
Even Worse on Cuomo
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 1:21PM
Phil is right, below, to question McCain's hiring criteria in general. Now, with regard to the specific choice of Andrew Cuomo, not only is Cuomo a liberal Democratic showboat a la Eliot Spitzer, but he also bears a large part of the blame for the policies that got us into this mess. It's as if McCain is just so ignorant that he doesn't even realize that he is directly contradicting himself. It was Cuomo who encouraged Fannie and Freddie to run wild. Now McCain is angry that Fannie and Feddie ran wild -- so he wants Cuomo to be the guardian over a market suffering from the "wilding" ways of Fannie and Freddie. Like sending Baker to Israel, it makes no sense. About the only thing it does is extend a prominent middle finger in the direction of conservatives, just for the fun of doing so.
Nothing to Fear But Complacency Itself
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 1:07PM
In my inbox this morning, I found an e-mail from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright care of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Commitee. She warned that only one thing stood in the way of a Democratic victory this November: "Complacency." The solution? Give the Democrats some money.
Defending the Shorts
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 12:57PM
I've actually been meaning to write a defense of short selling and was planning to mention legendary short James Chanos who uncovered fraud at Enron when nobody was paying attention. I'm glad to see he took to the pages of the WSJ to make the case for himself.
Given that shorts are gambling money on a stock going down, there will always be bad actors who spread false information that causes problems for healthy companies. But overall, I think markets could benefit from healthy doses of skepticism. Short-sellers are often the only force keeping markets sane when people are consumed by irrational exuberance, and if investors actually heeded short sellers' warnings when times were good, our markets would be a lot more honest and stable.
I remember covering the Tyco collapse as a financial reporter and the only people who turned out to be reliable in the end were the short sellers. When the stock began tanking in early 2002, I'd call up analysts at the major brokerage firms, and almost all of them would tell me that there's nothing wrong with the company, it's just nervous markets and rumors being spread by shorts. Those analysts ended up looking like fools (and as the scandal unfolded, it came out that one of the most enthusiastic analysts had been exchanging gifts with convicted Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski).The short-sellers were vindicated. The same thing was true for the housing bubble.
McCain's Hiring Practices
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 12:27PM
As Quin mentioned below, after saying he wanted to fire Chris Cox as SEC Chairman, McCain said he wanted to appoint Andrew Cuomo to replace him. There isn't much rationale behind either choice beyond McCain wanting to show, in the case of Cox, that unlike Bush, he holds people accountable, and in the case of Cuomo, that he would be a bipartisan leader willing to appoint a liberal Democrat who disagrees with him on almost every issue to a key position. But it really does raise questions about what type of people McCain would appoint as president, which seems to be dictated by odd whim, rather than thinking about who would be best at implementing policies that he publicly supports.
I remember back in January, I asked McCain on a conference call how he could reconcile his strong support for Israel, with a statement he made that he would consider sending James Baker over to the region as a mediator. Baker is a long time critic of Israel who believes the nation should be forced into making deep concessions, who claimed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was an obstacle to stability in Iraq and argued that Israel should give land to Syria to pacify Baghdad, and who believes in talking with Iran. Now, you can agree or disagree with Baker, but one thing we know -- McCain has the opposite view on all of those fronts, at least based on his voting record and public statements. Thus, it really made no sense to me why McCain would want to tap Baker for such a position. But when I tried to get an answer from McCain, he was mostly defensive, because he took my question as if I were questioning his own support for Israel. The only thing he said about Baker was that he had "great respect" for him. (Interestingly, the word "respect" came up when he mentioned Cuomo.)
Even the VP decision seems to have been a bit quirky. Most reports suggested that McCain really wanted to pick Joe Lieberman -- somebody with vast foreign policy experience who would be unacceptable to conservatives. But when he realized that he couldn't do that, he seemed to go for the polar opposite selection -- somebody who has no foreign policy experience, but who energizes conservatives.
Regardless of what his policy proposals are, at the end of the day, McCain's appointments will be what matter, because those are the people who will actually implemenent policy. But the signals he has given us during the campaign are so idiosyncratic, that we really have no idea what to expect from his administration.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 11:37AM
Don't sell short selling short (WSJ)
Obama needs someone regulating his real estate transactions(NRO)
Good economists worried about this long ago (Cafe Hayek)
Obama's gloves definitely are off (Washington Post)
Maybe Franken should spend more time on his campaign and less on SNL (Politico)
Someone should have the courage to downgrade US government debt (Bloomberg)
Globalization strikes again: non-standard lederhosen at Oktoberfest (Der Spiegel)
For those wondering what the heck AIG actually does... (Culture11)
News? What News?
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 11:24AM
Thursday, it was reported that David Kernell, the son of a Democratic state legislator in Tennessee, is at the center of an investigation into the hacking of Sarah Palin's e-mail account. Yesterday, it was reported that the FBI served a search warrant at Kernell's apartment in Knoxville.
Big news, right? So why is nobody in the major media following up? Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN -- all missing in action on this story.
UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney, who was able to confim that "investigatory activity took place in Knoxville over the weekend."
In keeping with policy of not commenting on active investigations, Ms. Sweeney said she "can't be more specific than that." However, she did say that the Department has had several media inquiries. "It's a pretty big news story," she said. No further official Department comment is to be expected unless and until someone is charged in the case.
Cuomo for SEC???
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 10:53AM
John McCain has now officially jumped the shark, the whale, the ocean, and the intergalactic space creature, all at once. He is recommending naming Andrew Cuomo to be chairman of the SEC. That's like giving Ted Kennedy prosecutorial power against pharmaceutical companies, or like asking Putin to head a U.N. investigation of Georgia's Saakashvili. It's absolutely friggin' nuts. Next thing you know, he'll recommend pulling Dickie Scruggs out of prison to give him oversight of payouts for mass asbestosis claims.....
New Ad: 'Chicago Machine'
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 10:33AM
Notice that this Team Maverick ad doesn't play the Wright card. That's their hole card.
Re: Obama's Astroturf Smear
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 9:55AM
On a much more amateur level, a friend up on Bainbridge Island, Wash., received this idiotic, subversive email urging her fellow islanders (about 120 of them) to paint Gov. Palin in a bad light:
Make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. When you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card stating the donation was made in her honor. (Not that I'm into avian homicide, but this is like killing two birds w/ one stone: it financially supports beleaguered PP and protests the threat to female rights by one of our own.)
Please consider forwarding this to others, and urge them to do the same.
My friend was sent the email with the mistaken assumption that she is a pro-choice liberal, but she's absolutely the opposite. Just another example of the hatred and desperation out there over Palin.
Retire DeNiro! Bring Back The Flesh Eaters!
Posted by on 9.22.08 @ 9:51AM
Boy, did I ever love this Michael Antman piece on the terrible new DeNiro/Pacino flick Righteous Kill (the true twist ending now would be no twist--ask David Mamet), the unadulterated joy of experiencing the 1964 schlock-fest The Flesh Eaters as a boy and the relative joylessness of modern cinema:
When I was in college, I worked nights as a typesetter for a publisher that distributed television programming guides, and part of my job was to type in the descriptions of old movies. In the off hours, usually around three or four in the morning, I would count the movies I had already seen, and even then my list was more than a thousand movies long. I can only imagine how long it would be today, if I had the time to count.
But lately, I'm starting to fall behind in my movie-going. The predominance of CGI, the utter falsity of emotion on display in most Hollywood product, and the joyless, stultifying sameness of scripts (thanks to those screenplay consultants that tell you every movie "has" to have three acts, and must have a precipitating event on page 17) have taken most of the pleasure out of the movies, as have the soulless multiplexes where they're shown. If I were a nine-year-old kid today, I wouldn't even bother flicking Ju Jubees at the necks of the automatons in front of me, watching Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson play-acting their way through whatever detestable nonsense they're getting paid millions for; I doubt they'd feel a thing.
I personally think there is plenty of great filmmaking going on today if you seek it out. (It might be a matter of taste. I did pen an appreciation of "torture porn," after all.) Still, Lord, in a general sense, all I can say when I see someone attacking CGI--no, I haven't seen The Dark Night or Iron Man, I prefer other Christian Bale vehicles and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath--and formulaic soullessness is Amen!