Dingo Nation

Arnold Stumps for the Big Mac

If you didn’t catch Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent appearance at the Ohio McCain rally, here he is. Some good lines in this speech.

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ohio rally

McCain Interview on Letterman

Here’s the full McCain interview on Letterman last night:

Technorati Tags: Comedy, Late Show, Letterman

Obama at the Alfred E. Smith Roast

Obama came on just after McCain (make sure you see McCain’s intro of Obama in my previous post). Funny too, but McCain is clearly the one you want roasting you at your charity dinner (unless you’re Barack Obama - his smile appeared rather forced at times during McCain’s shtick, and no wonder).

Part 1:

Part 2:

Technorati Tags: Alfred E. Smith, Roast

McCain Roasts Obama, Press at Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner

Move over Tina Fey! McCain at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner roasts Obama, the Clintons, & the media. A nice dose of hilarity, especially in the last weeks of the campaign.

McCain’s complete speech is separated, unfortunately. Watch both - they’re worth it.

From the top:

and through to the end:

Technorati Tags: Alfred E. Smith, Funny, Roast

Economic Crisis, Act II

McCain & Obama’s differing attitudes toward tackling the economic crisis has kept the country, already reeling from the financial saga, focused on the presidential race. Act II of this saga: McCain’s risky, indeed maverick, move to delay the first debate is considered by liberal MSM & polled voters as a mistake, while conservative proponents view his decision to focus on the economy as presidential and verification that McCain does indeed put “Country First.” Obama remains focused on his campaign (easily able to handle both debate & legislation to save the economy), quick to voice caution, and reluctant to return to Washington (though he did come back for a meeting today at the behest of the current President).

Right now, the Presidential Debate Commission says the Friday debate is still on, and whether it’ll turn into an Obama stump speech is definitely possibility. Is this crisis really important enough for either Obama or McCain to postpone their campaigns, or does the crisis merit more discussion (i.e. debate) from the candidates for voters to better determine how they would act as President?

Brookings published simple explanation of the crisis in “A Brief Guide to Fixing Finance”

1. The bubble in home prices, fueled by the ready availability of credit, resulted in an underestimate of the risks of residential real estate;
2. The peaking of residential home prices in 2006, combined with lax lending standards were followed by a very high rate of delinquencies on subprime mortgages in 2007 and a rising rate of delinquencies on prime mortgages;
3. Losses thereafter on the complex “Collateralized Debt Obligations” (CDOs) that were backed by these mortgages;
4. Increased liabilities by the many financial institutions (banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds) that issued “credit default swaps” contracts (CDS) that insured the CDOs;
5. Losses suffered by financial institutions that held CDOs and/or that issued CDS’s;
6. Cutbacks in credit extended by highly leveraged lenders that suffered these losses.

McCain characterized the consequences of these actions in his address yesterday (my bolding),

We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted.

Many have called for the debate to go on and believe that is political suicide for McCain to suspend his campaign. Perhaps so. McCain has made clear, political stratagem or no, that he is going to live up to his pay grade and develop an appropriate solution and build congressional consensus behind economic legislation.

Obama’s statement on the economy urged congress to focus on the “broad principles” that he & McCain put forth (my bolding).

There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above and — politics, and do what’s right for the country.

So, in my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we …try to describe where we want to take the country and where we want to take the economy, as well as dealing with some of the issues of foreign policy that were initially the subject of the debate.

Indeed, in this statement, Obama highlights just how much he speaks,

I have been in constant contact with leadership in Congress. I have talked to Secretary Paulson just about every day. I spoke to him twice today…

I have spoken to congressional leaders every day this week. I have spoken to Secretary Paulson every day this week.

But, keep in mind, again, I’m talking to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the congressional leadership, Hank Paulson, I’m talking to them every single day.

We have an economic crisis with the potential to financially cripple millions of lives - the absence of liquidity in the markets has serious ripple effects that must be addressed. Congress must submit a timely, appropriate solution signaling confidence in the market system to prevent companies from artificial or premature collapse (from investor panic and liquidity calls).

The difference between the two candidates is starkingly clear. McCain is a man of action & risk (indeed as a military officer, he had to quickly assess the situation and act - or else face death). Obama feels the need to “describe” the issue to convince voters of how he would act - a step shy of acting himself. Voters need to decide if the saying, “actions speak louder than words,” really has merit after all.

To be continued in Act III.

Technorati Tags: Economy, McCain, Obama, Presidential Debate

Economic Crisis and Upward Mobility

No response to the financial market turmoil has provided a quick and easy answer to quell the general apprehension out on the street. Obama and McCain stuck to their brands, with varying and questionable success.

Obama, ever cautious, deliberated — preferring to address the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” as a bench warmer. Obama’s nuanced views apparently rendered him incapable of providing his supporters with the “common sense, practical leadership, & economic stewardship” that they needed. His criticism of McCain & the Bush Administration - doing “nothing as the crisis hits” - would be leveled at Obama’s own reaction by conservative critics.

And McCain? His maverick persona may have gotten the better of him this past week. McCain certainly was no shrinking violet. And supporter or no, rightly or wrongly, McCain puts his position out there for voters to sink their teeth into - as many in the media did this past week.

As we all know, the financial crisis isn’t a band-aid fix, and taxpayers will bear the brunt of any solution passed. Therefore, it is especially vital to consider economic and tax policies of both candidates with the inevitable burden of the financial market bailout. NBC did a brief rundown earlier this year:

Obama’s fairness doctrine, which Biden famously muddied with patriotic language, is income redistribution and welfare advancement on a scale we haven’t seen in decades. But it’s nothing new - America has taken this pony ride before. Stephen Moore’s article looking at income mobility in America points out our past:

Q. Are high tax rates on the rich a good way to redistribute income?
A. No. History teaches us that high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and the middle class. I recently reviewed IRS tax return data by income group going back to 1972. The results are jaw-dropping. In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 17 percent of the income tax burden. Today, with a top income tax rate of 35 percent and capital gains at 15 percent, they pay 39 percent. With higher income tax rates the rich shelter more of their income through tax carve-outs, they invest less in the United States and more abroad, and they work less. The Robin Hood strategy has almost always failed because it means less income, not more, to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Contrary to what Obama (and some Democrats) would have us believe, the “poor” are not stuck in poverty, and the “middle class” are not on the verge of collapse. Quality of life and consumption standards have improved across all economic strata.

Q. Have the income gains by the rich come at the expense of the middle class and the poor?
A. Since 1983, every income group has seen an advance in after-tax income (see graph 1). Yes, the gains of the very rich have increased the fastest. But that is in part because of a statistical illusion. When poor people earn more over time, they move into the middle class or the upper class and are no longer  classified as poor. Consider someone who was earning $20,000 a year and saw her income move to, say, $50,000 as she moved up the career ladder. That 150 percent gain in income isn’t apparent, because we no longer categorize her as poor. But every penny of income gain by a rich person is counted, because there is no higher income class she can move into.

Another problem with comparing the distribution of income from one point in time with another is that up to 1.5 million new immigrants enter the United States every year. A fairly high percentage of these immigrants start at the bottom of the income ladder, replenishing the people who are at the bottom rungs. This creates the impression that poor people do not make significant progress in the American labor force.

Q. Is there really a ‘war against the middle class’ in America as claimed by people such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs?
A. Well, if the middle class is fighting a war, they’ve been winning. Graph 2 shows the income range needed to be considered in the middle class in the United States (between the 40th and 60th percentiles in income for families). In 1967 the average middle-class pre-tax income was about $40,000; in 2005 it was about $60,000. And this does not include the increased generosity of non-wage and non-salary benefits such as healthcare, pensions, flexible workweeks, and more family leave, vacation, and holidays.

Most economists agree that when these income numbers are adjusted by a more accurate inflation measure—one that takes full account of the improved quality of the products we now have access to, such as cell phones, laptop computers, and new medical technologies, for example—the purchasing power of the American middle-class family is about one-third higher today than in the 1970s.

The Census Bureau family income data indicate that in 1967 one in 20 families had an income of $100,000 or more (in today’s dollars). In 2005 one in six families did. There are three times as many families earning more than $75,000 a year today than there were in 1967.

The challenge for the future administration is to provide real economic growth. The tax burden of the financial bailout cannot be alleviated through mere tax increases. In this fragile economic period and highly sensitive consumer confidence, the economy cannot afford to withstand the sophist’s “fair” and “patriotic” tax policy totally devoid of historical perspective.

Technorati Tags: class warfare, Economy, McCain, Obama, tax policy

Democrats Alter Attack on Palin

Maybe Democrats finally realized attacking Sarah Palin on experience is a horrible idea. Bringing up a running mate’s lack of experience is a huge mistake when your top candidate has experience issues. Regardless whether you believe Obama is ready to lead or not, experience is not something Obama’s folks should be talking about.

1. Let’s be honest, Obama’s experience IS pretty thin for a President. An inexperienced VP who might be President if John McCain dies and dies soon is simply not a good counterweight.
2. Obama has defined his entire campaign on CHANGE. Why in the world he want to start talking about experience? Experience is not his strength and it’s not his core message.

So Democrats have dropped experience and gone after McCain’s lack of vetting. This is a much better line of attack. Unfortunately, this approach has a couple problems.

1. How many times did McCain talk to Palin and did the FBI do a thorough enough background check are a little too “inside baseball” to really affect the average voter.
2. Sarah Palin can completely obliterate the experience argument by having a fantastic speech at the Republican National Convention tonight.

Palin has a heavy burden today. Well see how she responds. If she performs well, Democrats will have to move on.

Technorati Tags: Election, McCain, Obama, palin

Fred Thompson’s RNC Speech on Video

Fred Thompson’s speech at the Republican National Convention underscores why Democrats should avoid bringing up McCain’s military record like the plague. McCain’s service in Vietnam is simply too potent, too real, and too moving.

Here’s the video from the convention:

Technorati Tags: Election, fred thompson rnc speech, McCain

McCain/Palin - Obama/Biden Chess Game Continues

The latest set of moves in the Palin v. Biden chess match.

D: Palin doesn’t have enough experience to be President.

R: She has executive experience which counts more than senate experience.

D: McCain doesn’t have any executive experience.

R: John McCain was a commander in the Navy.

Point camp McCain. Any road that leads to discussing McCain’s military service is one democrats should avoid. The 2004 Democrat strategy was to heavily push Kerry’s Vietnam experience. That backfired. McCain doesn’t have to bring up his military experience. They’ve made movies about it.

Technorati Tags: mc, McCain, Vietnam

Why Sarah Palin is a Genius Pick for McCain

Sarah Palin is a genius VP pick for John McCain. To paraphrase Denzel Washington in Training Day - politics is chess, not checkers. Friday, John McCain made a strong move. So strong was the play, that McCain got at least 80% of the news coverage on the day after the most historic political speech in US history.

Sarah Palin balances McCain and at the same time reinforces and reinvigorates his image. Trying to attack her from the view of the Obama camp presents a conundrum.

The first move the Obama camp has made is to attack Sarah Palin on experience:

Obama camp: Palin is too unknown and inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency with a 72 year-old John McCain at the helm.

McCain camp: As a three term mayor and currently the most popular governor of the largest land mass state in the nation, Sarah Palin has more leadership experience than Obama.

Experience is not a fight the Obama camp wants to wage. The Obama campaign and several surrogates have been shouting that the Palin pick nullifies McCain’s argument about experience. If camp Obama keeps this up, they lose. Saying that your #2 is just as unqualified as our #1 is just not a winning argument.

Palin helps McCain in the VP heads-up match. When Obama picked Biden, I thought this was a good choice because Biden has decades of experience and would prove an effective attack dog on the stump and in the VP debates. Sarah Palin nullifies this. VP candidate Romney, Pawlenty or Giuliani get destroyed by Biden in a debate. Unfortunately, Biden has one gear and it’s full throttle. This can go very badly in a debate. If Biden hits her too hard, he comes off as a old-school Washington bully. If he’s too soft, which is unnatural for him, he comes off as patronizing and demeaning. Biden will have to have a pitch perfect performance just to not come off as an ass. It’s hard to score political points under those conditions.

Palin helps McCain on the abortion issue. Since McCain has always been pro-life, I’ve long wondered why conservatives give him a hard time on this topic. Palin helps to inoculate McCain with the social conservatives. However, that’s not the real power of Palin vis-a-vis the abortion debate. Imagine this dialog at a VP debate.

Biden: This election is important. We have to preserve a woman’s right to choose.

Palin: Well senator, I have made a choice and my newborn son is alive because of that choice.

This is no-win for team Obama. In a normal election, you’ve got a bunch of men talking about women’s choice versus preserving life as if women are “others”, because, well, they are. Having a woman as a candidate, who has made a very real, very heart wrenching, very recent choice of this kind simply does not present an attackable surface for Obama-Biden.

On energy, Palin helps again. Palin is more pro-drilling than McCain, so this should be a soft spot.

Biden: We can’t destroy our native wilderness that must be protected for all Americans to enjoy by drilling in Anwr.

Palin: Senator, unlike Washington lobbyist talking about Anwr, I’m from Alaska. I’ve been to Anwr. I’m here to tell you, the people that live in Anwr want this drilling. The people in Alaska want this drilling. And senator, America, now more than ever, needs this drilling.

While it’s hard to really persuade people on this issue, I just don’t see team Obama gaining ground here while they risk losing a couple of points by even bringing it up.

The Obama strategy has been to paint McCain as Bush III. Well, if McCain’s own record doesn’t belie this, Palin strikes another blow.

Biden: We can’t afford more of the same.

Palin: You’re right. That’s why I fought corruption in Alaska. I took on corrupt Republicans and defeated the Republican incumbent governor in the primary. Then I defeated the Democrat, who was a former governor, in the general election. The first thing I did as governor was to kill that stupid Bridge to Nowhere which was concocted by the corrupt Republican Ted Stevens. And that’s what I’ll do in Washington. I’ll work to root out corruption endemic in ensconced, Washington insiders.

Mr. Biden, you have one minute to respond. Yikes.

On top of all of this, Palin is a “hockey mom”, a working mother, a hunter, and has a folksy accent. I can’t be the only person who thought of Fargo while she was giving her speech. Her husband is a union man who goes out to fish during the season (who didn’t think “Deadliest Catch”) and who works the oil fields in the off season.

The only weakness that has come out so far is that she abused the governor’s office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his state job. Almost immediately it emerged that the brother-in-law is generally regarded as a jackass and is alleged to have tasered his own stepson and threatened the life of Palin’s father. Even if true, many will regard this “abuse” as justifiable.

Team Obama will have to settle on some line of attack. The choices are just not looking too appealing right now.

Technorati Tags: abortion, Election, McCain, Obama, palin, vice president