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”
- The bubble in home prices, fueled by the ready availability of credit, resulted in an underestimate of the risks of residential real estate;
- 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;
- Losses thereafter on the complex “Collateralized Debt Obligations” (CDOs) that were backed by these mortgages;
- 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;
- Losses suffered by financial institutions that held CDOs and/or that issued CDS’s;
- 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
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
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is using legalese to throw out both Obama and McCain from the Texas ballot because both parties missed the state deadline to register presidential & vice-presidential names to appear on the ballot. The Dallas Morning News reports,
The Libertarians are contending that the Democratic and Republican nominees are disqualified from appearing on the ballot because they missed the state’s Aug. 26 deadline to certify candidates. During the national conventions, Mr. Obama was not voted as the nominee until Aug. 27 and Mr. McCain claimed the GOP nomination on Sept. 3.
No one can legally certify something that has not yet happened, Mr. Barr argued. In addition, Sarah Palin was not named to the GOP ticket until Aug. 29 and so it would be impossible to certify her name by the deadline.
The Libertarians claim that both major parties knew of the late conventions and did not go to either the Legislature or the courts to seek a remedy.
Sounds like the legal tactics Obama pulled when he applied for his first State Senate seat, right? Apparently Libertarians are dishing out similar litigation they (and other third party candidates) have received over the years from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ultimately at issue is the validity of the two-party system. Currently, Libertarians are fighting to get on the November ballot in Maine, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma. The Constitution Party is litigating in Pennsylvania courts to get on the Ballot. The Green Party is fighting in Alaska. Expect to see multiple third party Presidential candidates on your ballot from the Libertarians “Barr/Root”, Constitution Party “Baldwin/Castle”, Independent (sometime called Nader’s Party) “Nader/Gonzalez”, and Green Party “McKinney(yes, that’s CYNTHIA)/Clemente.”
Considering the late date of both Republican & Democratic Conventions this year, the late registration isn’t surprising. Both campaigns should have been aware of the state requirements. At the minimum, Barr has as valid a point as Obama did in his first state campaign (where Obama invalidated thousands of signatures because they were printed, not in cursive). It’s a little surprising that among Obama’s vast army of attorney’s, this technicality slipped by - perhaps they were all busy running for cover from caribou in Alaska.
Despite this ballot kerfuffle, Texas voters will likely see Obama & McCain on the ballot come November. Both Democrat & Republican parties have an advocate in the attorney general and the final decision lies with the Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade, who has “discretion on the ballot and its appearance.”
Technorati Tags: Bob Barr, Libertarian Party, Obama, Texas ballot
Obama is getting plenty of practice from the bully pulpit. He’s not arguing for freedom or democracy, however. Instead, Obama’s campaign threatens heckling cries of “Unpatriotic!” if you don’t give more money to the government and “Racist!” if you vote for John McCain. With swarms of MSM helping Obama spread his word, it’s easy to feel like fodder amongst thousands of ants.
ACORN makes Code Pink look like tea-time
What many voters don’t fully understand because MSM doggedly glosses over is that Obama has basically grown up in an ant farm that acts in relentless concert to propel radical goals. ACORN, an activist group acting under the non-partisan guise of voter registration, has schooled Obama in radical anti-capitalism, re-distributionist philosophy and militant political tactics. See Stern or Malanga to understand how ACORN operates.
ACORN uses intimidation to terrorize its targets. From Kurtz’s article on ACORN*:
“Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protesters in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protesters against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.”
Stern notes ACORN’s pride in its bullying tactics, as ACORN leaders
“point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result.”
Mr. Obama goes to school
Two accomplishments that Obama most often cites from community service days are cleaning up asbestos at an apartment complex and starting a voter registration initiative. It was inevitable that Obama would develop a relationship with ACORN. Between ACORN and the Chicago political modus operandi, Obama’s formative years embraced intimidation tactics and political machination.
A rundown:
- Madeline Talbot, leader at Chicago ACORN, enlists Obama (between college & law school) to train her staff.
- ACORN requests Obama as legal representation in “motor voter” case.
- Obama (post law school) in partnership with ACORN organizes “Project Vote.”
- Obama enlists ACORN volunteers for State Senate, (failed) Congress, US Senate campaigns.
- Obama hires Daley-team to run State Senate election, kicks other 4 contenders (including incumbent) off the ballot, and wins by running unopposed (How did Obama’s legal team invalidate thousands of signatures? See article & video for more).
- Obama directs millions in grants to ACORN.
Presidential race - an ACORN practicum
Despite flowery rhetoric over past months, clearly Obama is succumbing to his own charges against McCain; these days, “more of the same” intimidation, “more of the same” blackmail, “more of the same” political mudslinging the core of Obama’s message. His rearing at ACORN has taught Obama well.
Obama has repeatedly waged phone-jamming campaigns to stop discussions about his relationship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and ACORN. Most recently, his “Obama Action Wire” has rallied thousands of phone-jammers against writers David Freddoso & Stanley Kurtz’s appearances on WGN radio. These are ACORN tactics at their most typical. Perhaps more interesting is that Obama introduced legislation against phone-jamming tactics a couple years ago. Obama waging political warfare is like drawing up the Geneva Conventions, then flouting them at the first opportunity.
Biden hasn’t managed to get much press amongst the political contenders, but this week his threat to Americans was steeped in ACORN-based philosophy. That Americans should subscribe to mass re-distribution of wealth is patently UNpatriotic. The American Dream is chucked to the wayside as ACORN anti-capitalism and mass welfare abound in the Obama presidential platform. Biden hopes that intimidating Americans with patriotism will fill government coffers to distribute as Obama sees fit.
Now, Obama has his political soldiers and MSM liberals blackmailing voters by crying racism & threatening riots if Obama doesn’t win. A vote for Republicans is a racist vote - and America will be asking for trouble if McCain wins in November.
This obviously begs the question, was it racist of Democrats to deny Jesse Jackson (arguably, a real community organizer) the nomination on multiple occasions? Were liberals racist when they excoriated Clarence Thomas? What about the liberal racism that undermined Michael Steele’s bid for Maryland governor? Please.
It is absolutely dishonest to cry racism when the philosophical & experiential differences between Obama & McCain are so obvious. The total lack of integrity when threatening race riots in an effort to extort Democratic votes certainly gives a more nuanced, sinister interpretation to this “empty suit.”
Obama’s history up to now could be characterized as that of a “Unifier,” as long as we remember that, in his world, there really has been only one agenda. Obama successfully worked his way into Chicago political ranks, not as an agent of change, but as a minion of Mayor Daley. During his time in the US Senate, Obama has maintained a one party mentality (that he cites a widely-accepted, politically insignificant nuclear non-proliferation treaty as reaching across party lines is laughable), rarely straying from the liberal position.
The most powerful son of ACORN has done them proud. Obama is taking his honed bullying & blackmail tactics to the ultimate national stage. ACORN is planting their teams in cities across the US to intimidate voters. Voters better watch out - lipstick on a pig may not be pretty, but lipstick on an “empty suit” is uglier still.
Technorati Tags: ACORN, Biden, Obama, Racism, Welfare
Politicians may not agree with or understand many of their voters’ tastes or opinions. Obama’s gaffe about religion & guns is a case in point. Palin’s pro-life stance angers many self-proclaimed feminists. Too often, politicians and average political devotees hiss and boo blindly, with little or no regard for the object of their derision. To hear Sarah Palin described as “trailer-trash” only reflects the naysayer’s inability to recognize that a large contingent of voters (women, faith-foward, hunter, small-town & suburban, blue-collar) might identify with her accomplishments. Moreover, the politically astute consistenly fail to connect with these large voting blocs. However much democrats (secretly?) despise “trailer-trash” voters, to win this election, Obama will need these some of these blocs behind him.
Polls may indicate where the wind blows, but years of analyzing polls apparently can’t teach democrats how to best their frenemies.
A great article from Financial Times describes the democrats’ problem with learning to respect thy voter quite well. See the article here.
Technorati Tags: Democrats, Obama, palin
Some Democrats and their surrogates are charging that the Sarah Palin choice is affirmative action. Most of the time it’s brought up in the form of a question to a Republican. The Democrat asking the question uses a sarcastic tone. Doing so is bad politics.
- The sarcastic tone is meant to mock the Republican, but it makes it harder to separate the negative connotations from the Democrat asking the question.
- Democrats strongly believe in affirmative action, so they should be thrilled.
- Does anyone believe that a white man, who had Barack Obama’s identical message, resume and oratory skill, would have beaten Hillary in the primary?
I suppose the thinking is that hard core Republicans will view this “affirmative action” with disdain and sit out the election. If Hillary voters aren’t going to fall for the “Palin ploy”, is affirmative action baiting likely to work on Republicans? It might shave off a few votes, but Palin more than compensates by exciting the social conservative base.
Attacking Palin on experience is a loser and so is trying to charge McCain with affirmative action. Some Democrats are throwing out worse comments.
Shouldn’t she be with her daughter at a time like this?
Shouldn’t she be at home taking care of her infant son?
Yikes! Talk about sexism.
- The woman is governor of a state. I don’t think going back to her day job is going to give her more time at home.
- Call me crazy, but being VP might be easier than being a governor. As VP, you’re basically a figurehead at state functions, rarely vote in the Senate, and if, and only if, the President wants your opinion, you give it. You can be more activist as a VP, but you don’t have the responsibility the President (or a governor) does. The buck keeps going past you.
- I’m no expert and I base this on absolutely nothing, but is having an infant with downs syndrome terribly different than having an infant in general?
- I’m pretty sure the Palin’s are going to have help with their children whether she’s VP or “just” governor of Alaska.
- Palin’s husband can deal with the kids. Why are people acting like she’s a single mom?
- Barack Obama has young girls, why shouldn’t he be home nurturing them?
- Michelle Obama works, is that wrong as well?
Coming from Democrats, these arguments are horrendous. This would be like Republicans going after a Democrat for starting their own company and selling it for millions of dollars. It just doesn’t make any sense.
More importantly, how are these arguments going to win over independent women and disaffected Hillary voters? If Sarah Palin has a strong showing with her speech at the RNC tonight, Democrats will be scrambling for another argument.
Technorati Tags: Affirmative Action, Election, Obama, palin, Politics
Democrats are using the argument that Sarah Palin is not the most qualified candidate for Vice President. Going down this line of reasoning leads us to examine all the candidates. Namely, is Barack Obama the “best candidate”. Yes, that was a voters choice and not a candidate’s choice, however, the question still comes up. Democrats, deep down, know that Obama-Biden is not the “best” ticket they could have put forward.
Late last year, I made predictions for the election (predicting: making unsubstantiated pronouncements and hoping one of them works out so you can claim you’re a genius). My analysis was this:
- Hillary/X vs. Republican/X - Republican wins by less than 1%. If I had been smart enough to guess the nominee was going to be McCain (who at the time was broke and flying commercial by himself), I would have thought McCain by 2%+. Hillary is destroyed by the Bush->Clinton->Bush->Clinton argument. This is a year for change and Dynasty is off the air.
- Obama/X vs. Republican/X - Obama wins by 1%. Romney, Giuliani, or McCain get edged by Obama. Huckabee gets smoked.
Now 1% isn’t a lot and either race could have flip flopped on the strength of one strange occurrence. But the Democrat uber ticket all along was Hillary/Obama.
- Hillary has the baggage of dynasty. Obama inoculates against this.
- What a historical ticket!
- Obama gains much needed on the job training.
- Democrats can look forward to 16 years in the White House.
There’s no way around the fact that Hillary/Obama was the best ticket for Democrats. Obama’s ego simply would not allow him to wait. He wasn’t running for VP. Obama wants all the marbles.
Obama/Hillary could never work even though Hillary is a “better” choice than Biden.
Saying Sarah Palin is not the best choice for Republicans brings up the issue of whether or not Barack Obama is the best choice for Democrats. We all know that’s not true, no matter how much we hope it would be.
Technorati Tags: Election, hillary, Obama, palin, Politics
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
HIllary’s best hope of being President at this point is to win in 2012. A President Obama would be a severe roadblock to this goal. How can Hillary help to defeat Obama, while simultaneously be seen as 100% supportive of the first African-American presidential nominee?
Dick Morris’ answer is familiar: she’ll use Bill. Bill Clinton can charm, and guffaw, and oops I didn’t mean that, and aw shucks like no one else on the planet. Bill can drop bombs and slip away clean better than any stealth bomber. He got caught a bit in the primary. He will try again.
Fortunately, for Hillary, she’s already planted the seeds. In the primary, Hillary said that McCain was more fit to be President than Obama. She can say nothing now and chalk everything up to tough primary campaigning and exalt Barack as the superior candidate. The doubts are out there. The Republicans are already using these quotes and Hillary can sit back and pretend this bothers her.
Hillary (and Biden) on video telling an audience that McCain is a better choice than Obama is campaign commercial gold. Expect to see them in late October.
The Clintons really make a beautiful political spectacle.
Technorati Tags: bill clinton, election 2012, hillary, Obama, president
Obama snubbed Hillary. Many people are confused as to why.
Dick Morris, former Bill Clinton adviser, nailed the way the VP selection process would play out. If you’re not on his email list, go to his site and sign up today. Morris’analysis was perfect.
Obama could not pick Hillary. While Obama-Hillary would seem the perfect Demoratic ticket, it’s a nightmare for President Obama.
You spend way too much time answering questions about Bill and his scandals and speaking fees, etc. Obama still needs to define himself and as a change candidate, talking about the good old days of the roaring ’90s is more than a little awkward.
Bill Clinton stumping for you is a double edge sword. Bill Clinton is a fantastic orator. His speech on Wednesday night, was better delivered than Obama’s acceptance speech despite Obama’s speech being more important historically. Clinton has a level of comfort and ease with a crowd that is masterful. This is all fine with Clinton speaking as “a democrat”. Add the possibility of “Bill back in the White House” and you’ve got a huge problem. Bill Clinton can steal the limelight without trying. He would be trying.
If you managed to get elected, it’s going to be extraordinarily annoying watching the spouse of your VP getting more press time than you. And when your VP and her spouse move together, forget about it. This is unacceptable to any President.
So drop Hillary. You can still make history by picking another woman. Wrong.
Picking another woman would be a huge slap in the face to Hillary. Is it ego? Yes. Is it misguided? Maybe. Does any of that matter. No. Obama could not pick a female running mate.
Since Obama could not pick a female running mate, McCain should. And lo, as told by Morris, he did.
So the Obama supporters are attacking McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin saying “he only picked this woman because Hillary isn’t on the ticket”.
Ok, you may be “right”, but that is a horrible, horrible argument to proffer to women who have just had their candidate denied the opportunity of a historic campaign. It’s demeaning to Palin as a woman. She’s not some pretty secretary grabbed from some city planners office. She is governor of Alaska. She has been in executive government positions for over a decade.
Remember, McCain doesn’t have to beat Obama with women. Obama should be destroying McCain amongst women. Obama was running below historical averages for the traditional Democrat lead amongst women in polls before the Palin announcement. If McCain just holds ground, Obama has real problems.
Technorati Tags: bill clinton, Feminism, hillary, Obama, vice president
