John McCain released an ad today denigrating Barack Obama's patriotism, accusing him of "voting to cut off funds for our troops." Aside from the logical implications of that accusation which I've covered in more detail on numerous prior occasions, I would like to point out that John McCain is the last person with any right to Barack Obama on this point.
You see, back in the '90's we had a little mini-conflict with Somalia, and it didn't go well. In this case, you may remember, the war eventually ended because the Republicans passed an amendment to cut off funds. Guess who introduced that amendment?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
that was REAL?!
I didn't realize that Tina Fey's nonsensical bailout answer was a pretty close parody of a real answer Palin gave.
Holy God. And Howard Kurtz is now claiming that CBS has two more segments to show, and they're both going to be embarrassing as well. Kudos to Katie Couric: say what you will about her job anchoring CBS News so far (and believe me, I have), she has exposed Sarah Palin in a way that no other interviewer has, and her ABC competitor Charles Gibson got the first crack. This interview may save Couric's career at Palin's expense.
Against my better judgment not to try to lower expectations for Palin, I can't help but get a little more excited about the upcoming VP debate. This woman is an absolutely trainwreck of a candidate.
The cautious approach would be for Biden to give her a pretty wide berth, referring to her merely as "Governor" (when he addresses her at all) and avoiding any appearance of bullying, denying her an opportunity to win any pity points. She's clearly a "just give her enough rope to hang herself" kind of candidate. That's how you win the independents, and it's almost certainly what Biden's going to do.
There's also a part of me, however, that says you don't go easy on a clearly uncomfortable novice and give them the chance to gain their footing; you pressure them and knock them off balance and make them make a mistake. It's a risk because Biden comes off looking like the bad guy if she doesn't crack under pressure, but it also dramatically increases the chances of her making a serious mistake on national TV. Biden can always deflect some of the heat he would take for not going easy on her by turning the GOP's own anti-Obama and -Clinton argument on her: "This shows how irresponsible John McCain is in picking such an unqualified running mate. If she can't handle me, how on earth could she handle Putin?" (just stay away the old "politics ain't beanbag" aphorism, since the complete statement is, in fact, a sexist dismissal of women in politics). The image of Palin as hopelessly unprepared for the job is already congealing in the public mind; with the right strategy and execution, Biden could sink not only the McCain campaign, but her political career.
Holy God. And Howard Kurtz is now claiming that CBS has two more segments to show, and they're both going to be embarrassing as well. Kudos to Katie Couric: say what you will about her job anchoring CBS News so far (and believe me, I have), she has exposed Sarah Palin in a way that no other interviewer has, and her ABC competitor Charles Gibson got the first crack. This interview may save Couric's career at Palin's expense.
Against my better judgment not to try to lower expectations for Palin, I can't help but get a little more excited about the upcoming VP debate. This woman is an absolutely trainwreck of a candidate.
The cautious approach would be for Biden to give her a pretty wide berth, referring to her merely as "Governor" (when he addresses her at all) and avoiding any appearance of bullying, denying her an opportunity to win any pity points. She's clearly a "just give her enough rope to hang herself" kind of candidate. That's how you win the independents, and it's almost certainly what Biden's going to do.
There's also a part of me, however, that says you don't go easy on a clearly uncomfortable novice and give them the chance to gain their footing; you pressure them and knock them off balance and make them make a mistake. It's a risk because Biden comes off looking like the bad guy if she doesn't crack under pressure, but it also dramatically increases the chances of her making a serious mistake on national TV. Biden can always deflect some of the heat he would take for not going easy on her by turning the GOP's own anti-Obama and -Clinton argument on her: "This shows how irresponsible John McCain is in picking such an unqualified running mate. If she can't handle me, how on earth could she handle Putin?" (just stay away the old "politics ain't beanbag" aphorism, since the complete statement is, in fact, a sexist dismissal of women in politics). The image of Palin as hopelessly unprepared for the job is already congealing in the public mind; with the right strategy and execution, Biden could sink not only the McCain campaign, but her political career.
debate consensus: Obama won
The initial polls show Obama looking more likable, in touch, and presidential in the first debate. This one was supposed to be John McCain's best one. James Fallows highlights a difference in strategy between the two candidates that gave Obama the upper hand, specifically that Obama actually had one while McCain's only focusing on the short term.
Of course, it doesn't help when you can't even maintain composure enough to refrain from saying "horseshit" in the middle of a nationally televised debate:
Perhaps not coincidentally, this weekend Barack broke 50% in three of the big five national polls (including Gallup) for the first time.
Of course, it doesn't help when you can't even maintain composure enough to refrain from saying "horseshit" in the middle of a nationally televised debate:
Perhaps not coincidentally, this weekend Barack broke 50% in three of the big five national polls (including Gallup) for the first time.
the Couric interview makes SNL
That can't be good for the McCain campaign.
On Saturday, Sarah Palin also became the latest public figure to agree with Obama's position on attacking terrorist camps in Pakistan. Woopsy!
Friday, September 26, 2008
new website showing 50 years of campaign commercials
Fascinating. www.livingroomcandidate.org allows you to view presidential campaign commercials going all the way back to Eisenhower.
I looked at some of the 1992 Clinton/Gore commercials, and one thing has become abundantly clear: we are a more liberal country than we were back then. Bill Clinton '92 would have been the most conservative candidate in the entire Democratic primary this year, and probably the most of any of the '04 crowd as well. Most of his commercials are geared toward cutting taxes, punishing criminals (prominently noting that he supports the death penalty), and "ending welfare as we know it."
16 years later, Barack Obama can openly attack his Republican opponent for not supporting "a woman's right to choose," and both candidates are trying to out-green each other, with frakin' T. Boone Pickens trying to outdo both of them!
Then again...
I looked at some of the 1992 Clinton/Gore commercials, and one thing has become abundantly clear: we are a more liberal country than we were back then. Bill Clinton '92 would have been the most conservative candidate in the entire Democratic primary this year, and probably the most of any of the '04 crowd as well. Most of his commercials are geared toward cutting taxes, punishing criminals (prominently noting that he supports the death penalty), and "ending welfare as we know it."
16 years later, Barack Obama can openly attack his Republican opponent for not supporting "a woman's right to choose," and both candidates are trying to out-green each other, with frakin' T. Boone Pickens trying to outdo both of them!
Then again...
more bailout substance: the best so far
Here is Brad DeLong explaining the financial crisis in an understandable yet comprehensive way, and it actually does make me feel a little better about the bailout. I'm still not sure why that money can't go to homeowners, but it at least doesn't look like a total boondoggle anymore.
the rollercoaster never ends
McCain's coming off a terrible week where his weakest issue became priority no. 1 for the press (the economy), his running mate got humiliated at the hands of Katie Couric, his desperate political stunt failed miserably and is being lambasted by the media, and Barack Obama has retaken and doubled his lead in a week. Furthermore, he now has to face a well-prepared Obama at a debate that, by all accounts, McCain didn't spend any time preparing for. The stage is set for McCain to underperform and for Obama to hamstring him and finally start pulling away in the polls.
Which is why I have every confidence that McCain will do fine, the media will call it a win for him, and the polls will tighten yet again, dragging on this damn race. I'm going to have ulcers by the time we decide this thing.
Which is why I have every confidence that McCain will do fine, the media will call it a win for him, and the polls will tighten yet again, dragging on this damn race. I'm going to have ulcers by the time we decide this thing.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
drama and gamesmanship: McCain makes his play
And there it is:
10-gallon tip to Grimsaburger for finding it. Katie Couric interviewed Sarah Palin on CBS News last night and it, uh, could have gone better.
She's scheduled to debate Joe Biden one week from today. Honestly, what would you do if you were John McCain?
Sarah Palin is the real reason for McCain's antics. As she botches each scrupulously chaperoned interview and as the VP debate looms larger, it's become clear that Palin just isn't "ready for prime time." She doesn't know anything about, well, anything, and the Crazy Train's completely unjustified insistence that she's some sort of expert on energy policy is likely to be exposed for the fraud that it is when she goes toe to toe with Biden. Young candidates new to the national stage have not typically done well in the VP debate (think Edwards vs. Cheney and Quayle vs. Bentson), and she has even less experience in national politics than the other guys did. They essentially have to hope that Biden puts his foot in his mouth, because that's the only way she's going to come out of that debate looking like she has any business on a national ticket.
And then there's the minor issue of this week's cover of the National Enquirer, in grocery store checkout lanes across the nation. Normally that wouldn't be that big a deal for the candidates, but people are suddenly paying the Enquirer more attention since it was so publicly vindicated in its reporting of Edwards' affair.
I wonder if McCain is starting to regret his VP decision yet. He will by the time this is over, mark my words.
McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
10-gallon tip to Grimsaburger for finding it. Katie Couric interviewed Sarah Palin on CBS News last night and it, uh, could have gone better.
She's scheduled to debate Joe Biden one week from today. Honestly, what would you do if you were John McCain?
Sarah Palin is the real reason for McCain's antics. As she botches each scrupulously chaperoned interview and as the VP debate looms larger, it's become clear that Palin just isn't "ready for prime time." She doesn't know anything about, well, anything, and the Crazy Train's completely unjustified insistence that she's some sort of expert on energy policy is likely to be exposed for the fraud that it is when she goes toe to toe with Biden. Young candidates new to the national stage have not typically done well in the VP debate (think Edwards vs. Cheney and Quayle vs. Bentson), and she has even less experience in national politics than the other guys did. They essentially have to hope that Biden puts his foot in his mouth, because that's the only way she's going to come out of that debate looking like she has any business on a national ticket.
And then there's the minor issue of this week's cover of the National Enquirer, in grocery store checkout lanes across the nation. Normally that wouldn't be that big a deal for the candidates, but people are suddenly paying the Enquirer more attention since it was so publicly vindicated in its reporting of Edwards' affair.
I wonder if McCain is starting to regret his VP decision yet. He will by the time this is over, mark my words.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
the National Enquirer and its suddenly sterling reputation
When the Enquirer, and only the Enquirer, was reporting Edwards' affair, right wingers suddenly started talking about how the publication actually vets their stories pretty scrupulously. "They win lawsuits," said Jonah Goldberg.
And now liberals are saying the same thing, as the Enquirer's new story is:
As I've said several times before (and generally been correct), I do not believe that God loves us this much. The McCain campaign threatened to sue several weeks ago, but my inner hopemonger points out that the Enquirer has chosen to publish the story anyway, implying that they believe they really have the goods.
No. It can't be. I do not believe God loves us this much.
And now liberals are saying the same thing, as the Enquirer's new story is:
In a world exclusive The NATIONAL ENQUIRER names GOP VP Candidate Sarah Palin's secret lover!
No less than three members of the man’s family including one by sworn affidavit have claimed that Sarah Palin engaged in an extramarital affair with husband Todd’s former business partner, Brad Hanson.
These sources have named Hanson as Palin’s secret love, and say their affair nearly wrecked both their marriages.
Hanson owned a snowmobile dealership with Palin’s husband Todd, who immediately dissolved the partnership after he heard stories about the affair, which occurred around 1996, according to the sources. At the time, Palin was mayor of Wasilla.
As I've said several times before (and generally been correct), I do not believe that God loves us this much. The McCain campaign threatened to sue several weeks ago, but my inner hopemonger points out that the Enquirer has chosen to publish the story anyway, implying that they believe they really have the goods.
No. It can't be. I do not believe God loves us this much.
drama and gamesmanship
A statement from the Obama campaign:
John McCain, not to be outdone, takes this idea and runs it off a cliff:
I'm sorry, but what "action" will McCain be taking at 9pm on Friday night that necessitates canceling the debate? Furthermore, what action will he be taking at all, considering the full senate doesn't touch this matter until the Banking Committee decides on a bill to send to the floor, and neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are on said committee?
And I wonder, is this going to be an excuse to dump the VP debate?
A politically motivated overreaction that's totally lacking in perspective. That's leadership, John McCain style.
At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if
he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared
principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress
and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a
proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator
Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The
two campaigns are currently working together on the details.
John McCain, not to be outdone, takes this idea and runs it off a cliff:
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'm sorry, but what "action" will McCain be taking at 9pm on Friday night that necessitates canceling the debate? Furthermore, what action will he be taking at all, considering the full senate doesn't touch this matter until the Banking Committee decides on a bill to send to the floor, and neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are on said committee?
And I wonder, is this going to be an excuse to dump the VP debate?
A politically motivated overreaction that's totally lacking in perspective. That's leadership, John McCain style.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bernanke's boondoggle
Matt Yglesias:
I thought this was about saving the banks from imminent mass bankruptcy; why would they possibly consider "not participating?" If saying "no thanks" and holding onto Big Shitpile is a legitimate alternative for the banks, what are we bailing them out of?
Consider also this article from the Wall Street Journal (c/o TPM):
A deal killer? Since when was this a deal? We're giving free money to banks, supposedly to save them from annihilation, and they're giving us conditions on which they'll accept the money?
I'm becoming more convinced by the day that we may be going about this all wrong, and that these 2former investment bankers running the Fed and Treasury are looking at this crisis with a banker's priorities in mind. If all these write-downs at the end of the day, all the mortgage-backed securities and credit-default swaps and whatnot, are caused by mortgages that are going unpaid, shouldn't we maybe consider taking that $700 billion and using it to help people pay their mortgages? I mean, if the choice is between those who made stupid buying decisions and helping those who willfully conned them into taking on debt they couldn't handle, who would you help? Or perhaps, alternatively, setting up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in those banks rather than just a handout, thus entitling us to dividends if the banks start making money with that new capital?
And why $700 billion? How can Paulson be so sure when he's been so abjectly unprepared and unable to see this crisis coming? Why should we have any confidence whatsoever in his judgment?
UPDATE: I discovered after I wrote this that Bernanke comes from academia rather than Wall Street. For some reason I thought they were both from Goldman Sachs.
I just heard Ben Bernanke saying that there should be no “punitive measures” for companies that participate in a bailout because that might discourage firms from participating. But that would be the point, right? That if some measure of bailing out is truly necessary then the money will be provided, but it shouldn’t just become handouts for bankers. Punitive measures mean that only firms that genuinely have no alternative will enter into the program, and their corrupt or inept managers will be duly punished. Firms that would merely prefer free money to no free money will, by contrast, stay out of the program and avoid punishment but suffer some financial loss. What’s the problem with that?
I thought this was about saving the banks from imminent mass bankruptcy; why would they possibly consider "not participating?" If saying "no thanks" and holding onto Big Shitpile is a legitimate alternative for the banks, what are we bailing them out of?
Consider also this article from the Wall Street Journal (c/o TPM):
"We're opposed to adding provisions that will affect [or] undermine the deal substantively," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation's largest banks, securities firms and insurers.
A deal killer for the group: a proposal that would grant bankruptcy judges new powers to lower the principal, interest rate or both on a mortgage as part of a bankruptcy proceeding.
A deal killer? Since when was this a deal? We're giving free money to banks, supposedly to save them from annihilation, and they're giving us conditions on which they'll accept the money?
I'm becoming more convinced by the day that we may be going about this all wrong, and that these 2
And why $700 billion? How can Paulson be so sure when he's been so abjectly unprepared and unable to see this crisis coming? Why should we have any confidence whatsoever in his judgment?
UPDATE: I discovered after I wrote this that Bernanke comes from academia rather than Wall Street. For some reason I thought they were both from Goldman Sachs.
where to from here?
Here's a good post on dKos on the problems and decisions now facing the Fed, the Treasury, and the government.
Monday, September 22, 2008
a little substance
Here's a decently meaty primer on the Wall Street meltdown, courtesy of TIME. Another very good, if perhaps a bit tinfoil-hatty, retrospective here.
And another one, short and sweet, c/o Princeton econ professor Paul Krugman.
And another one, short and sweet, c/o Princeton econ professor Paul Krugman.
the banking bailout, brought to you by The Office
Think of Dwight as Secretary Paulson and Michael as Congress, and just about everyone else, and "Emergency Disaster Mode" as the current bailout legislation.
As happens many times when the Bush Administration starts yelling, "DO IT. DO IT NOW. 3, 2, 1...5, 4, 3, 2, 1...DO IT. NOW. SHAKE MY HAND...," a voice in the back of my head keeps whispering that things never seem to work out as planned when they do this, and we spend the next 6 months finding all the little hidden gems they buried in the legislation (see USAPATRIOT Act). If the bailout is not going to deal with the structural problems that led to this meltdown, not going to rain hellfire down on those responsible, and yet is going to be enormously expensive, why should it pass?
good question
One reader writes in to TPM:
Zing!
Considering as how the proposed Wall Street bailout will be one of the most intensely lobbied efforts in American history, will there be anyone left to manage John McCain's campaign?
Zing!
the PAC-1
So what's all this I hear about the PAC-10 being one of the two elite conferences in football? After they went 0 and 4 against the Mountain West Conference last week, including losses for top-tier teams UCLA, Arizona St., and Cal, Oregon hands Boise St. their first road win against a BCS team. Ever.
the Emmys
Apparently it has Tina Fey on the brain. It also, apparently, looked at the nominees in each category, found the one show I've never seen, and gave it the award. How can I blast the show for dissing my shows if I haven't seen the winners?
In all seriousness though, or at least some seriousness, I think I still have room to complain about Jeremy Piven winning the Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series for the third time in a row over Neil Patrick Harris and Rainn Wilson (not to mention, ahem, Justin Kirk and Kevin Nealon for Weeds). Also, Dexter and The Wire walking away empty-handed? Are you kidding me?
In all seriousness though, or at least some seriousness, I think I still have room to complain about Jeremy Piven winning the Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series for the third time in a row over Neil Patrick Harris and Rainn Wilson (not to mention, ahem, Justin Kirk and Kevin Nealon for Weeds). Also, Dexter and The Wire walking away empty-handed? Are you kidding me?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Palin: more disgusting by the day
Hekebolos at dKos puts 2 and 2 together to figure out why Sarah Palin made victims pay for their own rape kits as mayor of Wasilla: rape kits include emergency contraception.
Matthews has had it
Matthews slaps around McCain surrogate and soulless spinster Eric Cantor (R-VA) on Republicans running on change:
Wow. Where has that Matthews been these last 8 years?
Wow. Where has that Matthews been these last 8 years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)