Sunday, September 28, 2008
DON'T TELL ANYONE. PLEASE!
Posted from today's New Republic blog - The Plank
Obama is Winning, But Don't Tell Anyone!
Obama is Winning, But Don't Tell Anyone!
Nate Silver will surely have a more comprehensive (and intelligent) take on all of today's polls soon enough, but for now here is where we stand:
As we have seen all year, the daily tracking polls tend to operate within a narrower range than a number of the newspaper/network surveys that only come out periodically. Another way of putting this would be to say that unless something noteable happens very soon, polls next week will begin to show Obama with a double digit lead nationally (The Washington Posta nine-point spread last week). Meanwhile, Gallup has released a separate poll that shows voters judged Obama the winner of last week's debate with John McCain. and ABC News had
The question, then, is this: When will the media stop referring to the candidates, in the wordsNew York Times, as "locked in a tight battle"? The question is a pertinent one because after an unscientific (if not altogether cursory) sampling of friends and family members over a lovely weekend (all of whom, gaspingly, are Obama supporters), the only available, reasonable conclusion is that most Democrats seem to be under the following two impressions: of today's
1. The race could not be any closer.
2. The Palin pick, while irresponsible and reckless, has given the GOP a huge boost.
Now, this may have something to do with a certain inherent liberal pessimism, or with experiences undergone over the past two election cycles, or with fatalism about the idea that the country is finally "ready" to elect a black president. But it also might have something to do with the media's fervent desire to see the race as a nailbiter (which, of course, it very well may turn out to be). But if the election were held today, the national vote (if not the electoral college tally) would look a lot closer to Bush-Dukakis than most people seem willing to concede.
There might be a certain utility in not getting overcofident, especially where it concerns one's heart (be pessimistic!!--it makes losing much, much easier), but the truth of the matter is that right now, Obama is comfortably ahead. In the name of fairness alone, that should be reported on.
--Isaac Chotiner
POLL CLIMBER
Today's Polls, 9/28
Here's the long and short of it for John McCain: Barack Obama has as large a lead in the election as he's held all year. But there is much less time left on the clock than there was during other Obama periods of strength, such as in February, mid-June or immediately following the Democratic convention. This is a very difficult combination of circumstances for him.On the strength of a set of national tracking polls that each show Obama at or near his high-water mark all year, our model projects that he would win an election hold today by 4.2 points. It discounts this lead slightly to a projected margin of 3.3 points on November 4, as most races tend to tighten as we approach election day.
This lead might not sound like that much, but it's fairly significant: we've been through two conventions and one debate, voters have dug their heels in, and Obama's position in the Electoral College is extremely robust. Trimming away a 4-5 point lead isn't that difficult over the summer months -- in fact, McCain accomplished exactly that in July and August -- but it's a steeper hill to climb after Labor Day. And if anything, our projection may be lowballing Obama slightly, as the aforementioned national tracking data (which incorporates one day of post-debate interviewing) has Obama's lead in the range of 5-8 points; the model will need Obama to hold those numbers for another day or two before it catches up to them.
Democrats have no reason to be complacent. Although the situation looks dramatically better for them than it did two weeks ago, so too have the stakes of the election increased. The next president will face perhaps the most challenging set of circumstances of any since Franklin Roosevelt, and could potentially have nearly as much impact on the future direction of the country. Obama could very easily lose, and even if he wins, odds are that there will be at least one more swing back toward McCain in the intervening 37 days. Nevertheless, as Isaac Chotiner suggests, I believe that the national punditry is understanding the difficulty of the position that McCain finds himself in.
This article posted by Mark from today's Fivethirtyeight.com
COMMENT
DEFLECT AND DEFLATE
by Mark Drucker
Mississippi
by Mark Drucker
NEWMAN'S OWN POLITICS
From The Nation: Posted by Mark
Actors do not usually turn in performances that gain the notice of presidents.
But when Paul Newman decided to take the role of anti-war activist in the early days of the Vietnam imbroglio, he performed so ably – as an early and essential campaigner for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and prominent supporter of George McGovern – that he ranked high on then-President Richard Nixon's "enemies list."
Newman's name was on the original list of enemies produced by Nixon aide Charles Colson in 1971.
Colson's notes on the memorandum with regard to the actor read: "Paul Newman, California: Radic-lib causes. Heavy McCarthy involvement '68. Used effectively in nationwide T.V. commercials. '72 involvement certain."
The official purpose, according to internal memos that circulated in the Nixon White House prior to the 1972 election was to "screw" liberal politicians, labor leaders, business titans, academics, activists and an actor who might be threats to the president's reelection.
"This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies," wrote White House counsel John Dean.
Newman, who died Friday at age 83, survived and thrived.
He won acting's top honors and even became one of the nation's most successful entrepreneurs, marketing his own exceptionally successful "Newman's Own" brand of salad dressings and organic food. ("It's all been a bad joke that just ran out of control," Newman said of the food business, which allowed him donate more generously than just about anyone in Hollywood or on Wall Street to charity.)
Newman remained political -- dedicated to civil rights, women's rights and gay rights, committed to ending the nuclear arms race and determined to elect opponents of war and militarism.
Newman supported, and even wrote for, The Nation.
And he was a steady campaigner for and contributor to progressive causes and candidates – mostly Democrats but also anti-war Republican Pete McCloskey when he challenged Nixon in the Republican primaries of 1972 and to Green Ralph Nader in 2000. In 2006, the actor helped Connecticut's Ned Lamont mount a successful Democratic primary challenge to U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. (Newman got so into the Lamont campaign that he even volunteered to do calls for the campaign -- and wrote his own script.)
This year, Newman was a maxed-out contributor to the campaign of Barack Obama for president.
The actor finished his life with more friends and fewer enemies than just about anyone in his chosen profession. And Newman's extensive philanthropy earned him little but praise in his final years.
Yet, Paul Newman was particularly proud to have been an "enemy."
Indeed, he said to the end of his days that the place he held on Nixon's list was "the highest single honor I've ever received."
QUOTE OF THE DAY
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed column in today's New York Times.
"...Who would have dreamed that when socialism finally came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans
but Wall Street bankers in Gucci loafers?"
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans
but Wall Street bankers in Gucci loafers?"
Saturday, September 27, 2008
BACK ON THE TRAIL
'He had a lot to say about me. But he had nothing to say about you,' the Democrat tells a North Carolina crowd.
Posted from the Los Angeles Times
Posted from the Los Angeles Times
A Fillibuster-proof Senate is Conceivable
GO, CHUCK!!!!
The current projection for the Senate is 58 Democrats and 42 Republicans. Currently Democrats are poised to pick up Republican seats in Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia. Could the Democrats actually win 60 seats in the Senate? A year ago that was unthinkable. With the current state of play, they need only two more. The candidate states are Minnesota, where Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) is in a close battle with Al Franken (D) and Mississippi-B*, where appointed senator Roger Wicker (R) is fighting former governor Ronnie Musgrove (D). While it is unlikely that the Democrats can get 60 seats, it is now at least conceivable, a huge change from a year ago. Before the 2006 election, the Democrats had 45 seats and were looking despondent. Now 60 is within their grasp. Much of the change has been due to a singularly effective DSCC chairman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and a pair of singularly ineffective NRSC chairs, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) last time and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) this time.
| |
McCain Overstretches his Support of Veterans and Troopsby: Brian McGoughSpotted on vetvoice.com and sent to us for posting by Edward KidderSat Sep 27, 2008 at 00:05:21 AM EDT |
| In tonight's debate John McCain said "I know the veterans, I know them well, and I know that they know that I'll take care of them, and I have been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans, and I love them, and I'll take care of them, and they know that I'll take care of them." Truth be told, this is not the case. McCain has a lackluster voting record when it comes to veterans' issues, and America's veterans know it. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have given McCain a grade of "D" when it comes to voting in their interest. The Disabled American Veterans have given McCain a 20 percent rating when it comes to voting in the interest of disabled veterans. More after the fold. . . . |
| Brian McGough :: McCain Overstretches his Support of Veterans and Troops |
| McCain has voted 29 times against veterans' medical benefits. In April 2006, McCain joined only 13 other senators in voting against an amendment that would increase funding for the VA to provide outpatient care and treatment. Earlier that year, McCain voted against increasing funding for military and veterans' hospitals. This was money that could have been used to fix the problems at Walter Reed before it became a national disgrace. McCain was a staunch opponent of the bipartisan Webb/Hagel GI Bill. This bill would have provided better educational opportunities to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. McCain called this bill "too generous" and tried to introduce his own watered down bill. McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote for the bill. After it passed the two staunchest opponents of the GI Bill, President Bush and John McCain, tried to take credit for its passage. McCain has an equally bad record when it comes to supporting our active duty soldiers. McCain opposed the Webb/Hagel Dwell time amendment. This amendment would have ensured that for every day troops were deployed, they would spend one day at home. This time would have allowed troops to decompress from combat stress and to focus on maintaining the equipment necessary to fight a war. Our troops and equipment are now dangerously overstretched. McCain opposed the Bayh amendment that would have provided $360 million for the procurement of up-armored humvees at a time when roadside bombs were killing American troops. McCain voted to kill the Reed Amendment. This amendment would have begun to increase the size of the active army in 2003 and focused on stability operations. McCain voted against the Dodd amendment that would provide an additional $320 million in protective gear for our troops in harms way. McCain also voted against a Landrieu amendment that would have given our National Guard and Reserve troops the equipment they needed to survive on the battlefield. There is a distinct pattern in these votes, and that pattern shows that John McCain is no friend to veterans on Capitol Hill. He may say all he wants that he is, but that doesn't change the fact that he votes time and time again against the needs of veterans and active duty soldiers. |
LEGENDARY FILM STAR PAUL NEWMAN DIES AT 83
| The stunningly handsome actor maintained his superstar status through nearly 100 Broadway, television and movie roles, evolving into Hollywood's elder statesman. He was 83 and had been diagnosed with cancer. | |
OBAMA SOLIDIFIES THE LEAD; FOR THE FIRST TIME, PICKS UP VIRGINIA IN THE LATEST POLLS
This no toss up map appears in todays realclearpolitics.com
If the election were held today, the current map - a net net reflection of the most recent polls - shows Obama picking up Virginia and widening his electoral college margin.
If the election were held today, the current map - a net net reflection of the most recent polls - shows Obama picking up Virginia and widening his electoral college margin.
Obama/Biden 286 McCain/Palin 252
(Click on State or Table Below for Latest Polls and to Change Status)
Why Voters Thought Obama Won
This article appears in today's fivethirtyeight.com
Looks like McCain posted that victory ad way too soon!
TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.
Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.
Something as simple as Obama mentioning that he’ll cut taxes for “95 percent of working families” is worth, I would guess, a point or so in the national polls. Obama had not been speaking enough about his middle class tax cut; there was some untapped potential there, and Obama may have gotten the message to sink in tonight
By contrast, I don’t think McCain’s pressing Obama on earmarks was time well spent for him. One, it simply is not something that voters care all that much about, given the other pressures the economy faces. But also, it is not something that voters particularly associate with Obama, as the McCain campaign had not really pressed this line of attack. If you’re going to introduce a new line of attack late in a campaign, it has better be a more effective one that earmarks. And then there was McCain's technocratic line about the virtues of lowering corporate taxes, one which might represent perfectly valid economic policy, but which was exactly the sort of patrician argument that lost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992.
Meanwhile, voters thought that Obama “seemed to be the stronger leader” by a 49-43 margin, reversing a traditional area of McCain strength. And voters thought that the candidates were equally likely to be able to handle the job of president if elected.
These internals are worse for McCain than the topline results, because they suggest not only that McCain missed one of his few remaining opportunities to close the gap with Barack Obama, but also that he has few places to go. The only category in which McCain rated significantly higher than Obama was on “spent more time attacking his opponent”. McCain won that one by 37 points.
My other annoyance with the punditry is that they seem to weight all segments of the debate equally. There were eight segments in this debate: bailout, economy, spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, terrorism. The pundit consensus seems to be that Obama won the segments on the bailout, the economy, and Iraq, drew the segment on Afghanistan, and lost the other four. So, McCain wins 4-3, right? Except that, voters don’t weight these issues anywhere near evenly. In Peter Hart’s recent poll for NBC, 43 percent of voters listed the economy or the financial crisis as their top priority, 12 percent Iraq, and 13 percent terrorism or other foreign policy issues. What happens if we give Obama two out of three economic voters (corresponding to the fact that he won two out of the three segments on the economy), and the Iraq voters, but give McCain all the “other foreign policy” voters?
Issue Priority Obama McCain
Economy 43 --> 29 14
Iraq 12 --> 12 0
Foreign Policy 13 --> 0 13
==========================================
Total 41 27By this measure, Obama “won” by 14 points, which almost exactly his margin in the CNN poll.
McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience -- is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.
Friday, September 26, 2008
We Now Know Who the Next President Will Be
By Robert Shrum of the Huffington Post.
My friend Tim Russert, who didn't pull his words, famously said on the night of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries: "I think we now know who the Democratic nominee will be." Tonight I think we know who the next President will be.
The debate was a crossroads. For two weeks, John McCain has lurched down a dead-end road on the economy, lurch from happy talk about "sound fundamentals" to gloom about economic crisis; alternately out of touch, confused and self-contradictory; then desperately reaching for another stunt with his blundering, transparently opportunistic intrusion into the financial rescue negotiations which crimped his debate prep. He clearly could have used more.
Barack Obama was crisp, reassuring and strong -- in short, presidential, as he has been throughout the financial storm of the past two weeks. McCain was not as bad as he has been recently; but much of this debate was fought on what was supposed to be his high ground. As the encounter ended, Obama not only controlled the commanding heights of the economic issue -- and he not only held his own on national security -- but clearly passed the threshold as a credible commander-in-chief. McCain kept repeating that Obama doesn't "understand." But he clearly did. McCain made up no ground. That's similar to what happened in 1960 when Nixon ran on the slogan "Experience Counts" but found it didn't count that much when voters decided JFK was up to the job after the side by side comparison they saw in the first debate.
So what does McCain have left? Behind on the economy, no longer able to slip into the White House on the now disproven claim that only he can handle national security, he has two more debates but no big offer to the country. And then there's the VP debate -- which is likely to be seen as the peril of Palin. (Can't they give her a basic briefing, maybe in a spiral notebook -- or is it too much to read and too hard to remember?)
McCain has nowhere to go but stunts, warmed over stump lines, and lying ads -- which pollute his brand more than they hurt Obama, and the ugly hope that backlash may save his feckless campaign. The press will mostly miss the point: Obama met and surpassed the test.
WHO WINS?
How to Score the Foreign-Policy Debate | |
 | |
Has your attention been tied up sorting out the numbers on that $700 billion bailout package? Ilan Goldenberg walks you through tonight's debate. | |
| |
September 26, 2008 | web only | |
| |
 | |
 | |
| |
A year ago, with Gen. Petraeus having just testified in Washington and the Iraq War still at the center of the political universe, it would have been hard to imagine national security playing second fiddle in the presidential election. But with the events of the past two weeks, it has become clear that barring a major foreign-policy crisis, the economy will dominate the remainder of the campaign. The subject of this Friday's presidential debate -- national security -- seems distant and removed. A little blip in what is otherwise an economic tsunami.
Nonetheless, if the Bush presidency has taught us anything, it has taught us that understanding a candidate's philosophy on the matters of war and peace matters. The stakes for the candidates tonight may not be as high as one would have expected a few months ago, but they are still high.
John McCain's candidacy is premised on his experience and national-security prowess. In poll after poll he holds a substantial point lead on the question of who is better prepared to be commander in chief -- leading by 21 points in the NY Times/CBS News poll released just yesterday. Ironically, this means there is more pressure on McCain tonight. He cannot simply hold his own with Obama. He must show his mastery of the issues justifies the advantage the American public attributes to him.
Obama's task is easier, but no less crucial. National security has become a threshold question for Obama. He doesn't necessarily have to outperform McCain. Instead, Obama's task is to reassure Americans that he is in fact ready to lead on the critical issue of security.
With these criteria in mind here are four things to watch during the debate:
Watch the Gaffes
In a perfect world we wouldn't care about trivial gaffes and would focus instead on the real substance of the debate. In the real world, gaffes act as the clearest proxy for a candidate's understanding and knowledge of the issues. An error by Sen. Obama would confirm in some voters' minds that he is not ready. A major factual error on the part of Sen. McCain could be devastating -- undermining the argument that he has the best knowledge and experience to keep America safe.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, his campaign has been full of foreign policy gaffes. In March, while travelling in the Middle East, he confused Sunni and Shi'a claiming that Sunni al-Qaeda operatives were being trained by Iran before returning to Iraq. In July, he butchered the history of the Anbar Awakening in an interview with Katie Couric, arguing that it was caused by the surge even though it started months before the increase in troops was even announced. He has on numerous occasions referred to Czechoslovakia -- a country that hasn't existed for 15 years. Last week he gave an interview to the Florida affiliate of Spain's Union radio where he appeared confused about who Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain was, seemingly assuming he was a Latin American leader. Thus far the press has given McCain the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy precisely because of his experience. But he is unlikely to get that type of sympathy under the spotlight of the debate. One glaring mistake could be devastating, especially considering that two days ago McCain was calling for the debate's postponement.
McSame
One of the imperatives of Senator McCain's campaign has been to demonstrate that he is not George W. Bush. In no area has he been more associated with the president than on foreign policy. McCain will point to differences on torture and global warming. He will claim that he opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy for Iraq (even though he was an outspoken supporter of going in with low troop levels in advance of the war).
Moreover, it will be difficult for McCain to escape the fact that he agrees with the president on the fundamental issues: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and terrorism. McCain was one of the main spokespeople for the war in Iraq -- calling for toppling Saddam Hussein in the weeks after September 11, and just like the president, dramatically underestimating the difficulty and costs of the war. While Obama was an early opponent of the Iraq War and argued it would distract us from dealing with al-Qaeda, McCain waited until July 15 of this year to enunciate any kind of an Afghanistan policy. In fact, Afghanistan barely even came up during the Republican national convention. On Iran, McCain has promoted tougher sanctions and no direct diplomatic engagement -- a policy that the Bush administration has tried for years with no success as Iran has moved further along on its uranium enrichment program and a bipartisan consensus for direct talks has emerged. It's hard to imagine how McCain can convince the country that he is the change candidate when he agrees with the president on all these issues.
It's the Economy Stupid
The economy isn't the central issue of this debate, but it is the issue most on voters' minds, which will certainly not escape the notice of moderator Jim Lehrer. Watch how the candidates link foreign policy to the economy and how they respond to questions about the financial crisis. Voters may have less appetite for John McCain's more aggressive military-focused approach than they had only two weeks ago. This is not to say that the American public is ready to return to isolationism. But given the current environment, spending $10 billion per month in Iraq or growing the military by 150,000 troops, as Sen. McCain has suggested, becomes much less appealing. The economic crisis of the past two weeks may cause voters to reject a foreign policy that in anyway resembles the costly adventurism of George W. Bush, and that could spell trouble for Sen. McCain.
Meanwhile, Sen. Obama has an opportunity to employ his firmer and surer response to the financial crisis to bolster his commander-in-chief credentials. Tying the leadership he has shown in the past two weeks to his response during a foreign-policy crisis could go a long way toward assuaging voter concerns.
Temper, Temper
Both candidates will have to demonstrate that they have the temperament to lead in crisis. For McCain, the question is a sensitive one. He has a past reputation for a hot temper among his Senate colleagues -- a temper that has not been on display during the campaign. One blow up could be quite damaging. But even without a visible burst of anger there is still the question of McCain's judgment. Throughout his career he has shown a tendency to lurch from crisis to crisis. In the aftermath of 9-11 he called for expanding beyond Afghanistan and considering military action against Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In the run up to the Iraq War he called our European allies "vacuous and posturing" referring to them as our "adversaries." Last year he joked about bombing Iran. And when fighting broke out this summer between Russia and Georgia, he immediately lurched toward a hard-line position instead of taking a more cautious initial approach -- the approach taken by President Bush, Sen. Obama, and other world leaders.
In the end, the debate is an imperfect metric for measuring what each candidate's foreign policy may actually be as president. After all, in 2000 George Bush warned against arrogance and promised a humble foreign policy. But what the debate will give us is another indication of whether or not each candidate has the knowledge and judgment to be commander-in-chief and whether or not they can bring real change to Washington and manage America's foreign policy in a time of economic crisis.
ART HOPE
POSTER BOY FOR ‘HOPE’: L.A.-based artist Shepard Fairey created the now-ubiquitous graphic of Obama, who wrote to him, “Your images have a profound effect on people.”" height="300" width="500">Jay L. Clendenin, Los Angeles Times
POSTER BOY FOR ‘HOPE’: L.A.-based artist Shepard Fairey created the now-ubiquitous graphic of Obama, who wrote to him, “Your images have a profound effect on people.”
Artists including Shepard Fairey and Ray Noland head to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, home of MoveOn.org's Manifest Hope Gallery Contest.
ON A brick wall in downtown Atlanta that usually is splattered with graffiti tag names, a spray-paint portrait of Barack Obama now gazes over the streetscape.In Chicago, an abandoned warehouse on the city's South Side displays a life-size silhouette of the Illinois senator, microphone in hand.
And all over Los Angeles -- on stop signs, underpasses, buildings and billboards -- hundreds of posters and stickers of Obama, emblazoned with the word "Hope," have been slapped up, guerrilla-style.
FRENCH POLITICANS WANT COUTURE FASHION
SO CHIC
Mr Sarkozy and Carla Bruni go smart/casual in Egypt
The couture houses of Paris have grown accustomed to requests from film stars to borrow their latest designer dresses, but now they are being inundated with requests from a new quarter - France's female politicians.
Eager to look their best in the court of Nicholas Sarkozy, where appearance is often as important as performance, French ministers are beating a path to the doors of Dior, Chanel and Yves Saint-Laurent.
Posted by Mark; from today's Washingtonnote.com
President of Paraguay Turns Down Meeting with Sarah Palin
I'm not kidding.
He met this head of state. . .and that head of state. . .and so on. . .
. . .but then the room went silent and then broke into subdued laughter when he confided that he was approached about meeting with GOP Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
President Lugo turned the meeting down.
With all due respect to
But note to world leaders, PLEASE start meeting with her.
Otherwise, she'll never get any credible international experience.
-- Steve Clemons, Washingtonnote.com
Posted by Mark; from today's Huffingtonpost.com. I GUESS HE SHOULD START GETTING HIS TRANSITION TEAM GOING. OR, WAS IT THAT HE ALREADY DID THAT AFTER HIS CONVENTION?
FROM NO-SHOW
FROM NO-SHOW
TO SELF-DECLARED VICTOR
PREMATURE MCCAIN AD DECLARES HE WON DEBATE. YES INDEED, HE'S THE PERFECT ASSHOLE.
HIDING IN MURRAY HILL
John McCain yesterday tried to invoke his maverick magic to address the economic crisis, while George Bush attempted to explain the current crisis without blaming Wall Street. The financial titans of the past would have been pleased. | |
| |
September 25, 2008 | web only | |
| Posted by Mark from The American Prospect...prospect.org | |
| |
| |
 | |
| |
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) | |
McCain Channels Morgan
Let's consider where John McCain was when he and his staff concocted their scheme to call off Friday's debate, fly down to Washington, and resolve the nation's economic crisis through sheer force of McCain's character.
They were in the Morgan Library, on East 36th Street in Midtown Manhattan, prepping for the debate.
It was there, 101 years ago, that J.P. Morgan -- in part through the sheer force of his own character, not to mention his intellect and his economic clout -- summoned New York's other major bankers, locked the doors, and did not let them go until they sifted through the balance sheets of failing banks, decided which to bail out and which to let die, and put up the money to make it all happen. (It was 4:45 a.m. on the night in question when his fellow bankers succumbed to his pressure and Morgan finally unlocked the doors.) Thus was the Panic of 1907 abated.
For a brief time thereafter, Morgan, generally excoriated in Progressive-era America for wielding more economic power than any one man should possess, was uncharacteristically celebrated. He was the man who'd saved the economy from a depression (and having spent most of the 1890s in a depression, America did not want to go there again). But soon thereafter, the idea that one man controlled the credit flows by which the nation's economy lived or died struck Americans with renewed force, and a campaign began to establish a national central bank, under at least some governmental control, to supplant private citizen Morgan. In 1913, Morgan died, and a few months thereafter, Congress established the Federal Reserve.
Fast-forward 101 years. McCain's advisers have long argued that this election was about character, not great issues of state. It was about McCain demonstrating he was decisive and could deal across partisan divides. When the public turned its attention to the economy over the past 10 days, however, McCain began to tank in the polls. What better way to return America's wandering focus to his own leadership qualities than to become a latter-day Morgan? So he summoned the nation's political leaders to a meeting, from which they doubtless would not emerge unless they embraced the McCain Plan, whatever that might be. And woe betide Barack Obama if he declined to sign on.
McCain, it's become clear over the course of the campaign, personalizes everything. Who needs Congress, or a central bank, or a debate between the presidential candidates, when by his swooping decisiveness, his steely nerve, John McCain can ride to the economy's rescue? The only thing more Napoleonic than John McCain is John McCain imbued with the spirit of J.P. Morgan. Win or lose, he should never be allowed inside the Morgan Library again.
DOES JOHN MCCAIN HAVE BIPOLAR DISORDER?
Posted by Mark...and also thought of
What Is Bipolar Disorder?
Bipolar disorder, formerly called manic-depressive illness, is a condition that affects more than two million Americans. People who have this illness tend to experience extreme mood swings, along with other specific symptoms and behaviors. These mood swings or "episodes" can take three forms: manic episodes, depressive episodes, or "mixed" episodes. The symptoms of a manic episode often include elevated mood (feeling extremely happy), being extremely irritable and anxious, talking too fast and too much, and having an unusual increase in energy and a reduced need for sleep. It's also very common for someone to act impulsively during a manic episode, and engage in behaviors that are risky or that they later regret, like spending sprees. And in over half of all manic episodes, people are troubled by delusions or hallucinations. For example, they may think they have a relationship with someone famous, claim to be an expert in an area they really know nothing about, feel paranoid (unusually fearful), or hear voices that are not there.
The symptoms of a depressive episode often include an overwhelming feeling of emptiness or sadness, a lack of energy, a loss of interest in things, trouble concentrating, changes in normal sleep or appetite, and/or thoughts of dying or suicide.
A mixed episode includes symptoms that are both manic and depressive.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
RUSSIAN DRESSING
Another cringe-inducing performance by Sarah Palin in part II of her interview with Katie Couric.
In the segment below, Couric presses Palin to explain why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Palin doesn't seem to have improved her answer since she was asked the same question by Charlie Gibson.
Here's the transcript:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.
BUSH NEEDS A PHOTO-OP; WE NEED A PRESIDENT
Posted by Mark
From The Nation
Herbert Hoover did not have the option of making a televised speech to the nation as the Great Depression unfolded.
That was, undoubtedly, a good thing--for Hoover and the nation.
Hoover was spared the responsibility of what George Bush took on Wednesday night--that of trying to explain a dramatic economic downtown without taking responsibility for the definitional role that his wrongheaded policies had in causing the crisis.
And the country was spared the painful image of scared president clutching a White House podium so tightly that his tension was audible.
"We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis," began Bush, who proceeded to tell America what it already knows: banks aren't making loans, credit markets are freezing up, businesses and families can no longer afford to borrow essential funds.
Grasp. Grasp. Rumble.
"The market is not functioning properly. There is a widespread loss of confidence," the lamest of lame ducks continued. "America could slip into a widespread financial panic."
Grab. Rattle. Grab.
"Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen," Bush went on.
Clutch. Clutch.
"Many Americans are asking: How would a rescues plan work?"
Squeak. Claw.
"The final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?"
Grasp. Grab. Clutch. Claw.
Nothing that Bush said was in an address that lasted barely ten minutes was sufficient to inspire confidence, which explained why he has invited the two men who are competing for the unenviable task of succeeding him to join him on Thursday to pitch for passage ofthe most sweeping economic intervention scheme since the New Deal was applied to the Great Depression.
Democrat Barack Obama has already accepted the invite.
Republican John McCain, who on Wednesday announced a scheme to suspend campaigning in order to focus on addressing the mess, will have to show up.
And the presidential race will become fully linked with the advancement of Bush's recovery plan.
If Obama is smart, he will take another listen to Bush's speech – not to the words but to the sound of a desperate man trying to claw his way out of a corner. And he will recognize it as the same sound that Americans would have heard if a clueless Herbert Hoover had addressed the United States in 1929 – or in the last stages of the 1932 campaign.
The question Obama must ask himself is this: If Hoover had tried to get Franklin Roosevelt to help him advance a flawed plan to bail out the bankers who made the mess, would Roosevelt have rushed to Washington for a show of unity. Or would the Democrat who gave us that New Deal have said: "Let the Republicans appear with Hoover. I'm going to keep talking about taking the nation in a completely different direction."
There is no mystery as to why Bush and McCain want Obama to join them in the Rose Garden. They want him to be a part of their process--as opposed to an alternative to it.
Of course, appearing with Bush and McCain Thursday may help Obama to appear presidential.
But, after eight years of George Bush, America does not need the appearance of a president.
America needs a president. Bush's agonizing address reminded a nation that long ago lost faith in his leadership that he is not up to the task. McCain's deer-in-the-headlights dodge of trying to freeze the campaign and avoid the debates confirms that he has nothing more to offer than Bush.
Of course, they want Barack Obama to stand with them on Thursday.
Herbert Hoover would have loved to have Franklin Roosevelt at his side, instead of proposing sounder solutions.
Bush is Hoover. McCain is Hoover on steroids.
Obama, at this critical moment, should not lower himself to their level. He should be Roosevelt.
AM Trackers Suggest Poor Reaction to McCain Announcement
We'll have polling data rolling in all day, of course, but the very early returns suggest that the public may not have responded in the way John McCain might have liked to his announcement yesterday that he was "suspending" his campaign to attend to the financial crisis.
Two polls have been released so far that were conducting work in the field yesterday. The Research 2000 poll has Obama jumping from +4 to +6, on the strength of a +7 in the daily sample conducted yesterday. And Rasmussen Tracking has him moving from a +2 to a +3, his largest lead over McCain since 9/6.
Gallup, Hotline, et. al. may well turn turn out to show McCain gains, so we'll see how these numbers look in a few hours. It should be a fun day for poll-watchers.
IF I WERE JOHN MCCAIN, I'D SUPSEND MY CAMPAIGN TOO!
SARAH PALIN LOVER REVEALED!
In a WORLD EXCLUSIVE The NATIONAL ENQUIRER names GOP VP Candidate Sarah Palin's secret lover!
READ MORE >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
