I'm with you there, Bitt.

Well, if you give credence to the arrogant opinion of Senator McCain, a President of the US (or even one of his high level sycophants) is so incredibly important, is such an overwhelming role model, that anybody he even lays his eyes on, much less deigns to actually speak with, will gain such instant credence worldwide that everybody will suddenly realize that his opinions are not only valid, but have the unmistakable ring of truth to them because they have been vouchsafed by [insert hushed tones of abject reverence here] THE PRESIDENT.

After the last four disgraceful years of George W, I find it difficult to believe that anybody could believe that that man or even his office could influence opinion at all.

tanstaafl.

The precondition may not be related to what will be discussed, or it may be used as a starting point for the discussion. "We will only start negotiations with Country X if the precondition of a cease-fire is met". In this case, a cease-fire would be a sign of faith that Country X is willing to agree to start working towards a solution to end hostilities.

Or think of it in other non political terms. A precondition to a company agreeing to interview me would be to submit a resume to them first on their web site.

Thinking about this point more, I have an answer using another theoretical situation. Lets say a rogue branch of the military takes over Country X, and says their leader is Bob. Now if the president only meets with Bob, it could help to validate his claim as leader. And in this case, this is where a precondition could be important. The president decides to agree to talks, only with the precondition that both Bob, and the actual leader of Country X are both willing to sit down at the same table. This doesn't give Bob a position of strength above the existing leader of the country, as the president is only willing to meet with both to negotiate. And it also doesn't give the message that the president is automatically agreeing with the existing leader.

The Office of the President of The United States is a very important position based on it's power, even if it is currently occupied by someone that the majority of Americans do not agree with. If the president simply flies to some country, it can have widespread impact on many areas, from financial, to political stability of an area.

I agree with *everyone* on this point

Actually, I was just thinking of similar scenarios -- Would we want to talk to the new illegitimate junta that assassinated the democratically elected president, say? Like Chile? Oh, we do talk to them

But seriously, I could see *not* talking to somebody in a circumstance like this. Or imposing preconditions.

But I think the whole notion of "preconditions" has mutated from a means of diplomatic communication and maneuver to a weapon of political advantage and that the most common, current use (regarding Iran) is simply crass "appeasement" demagoguery.

Yeah, but we're talking about countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, which have had stable governments for twenty, forty, and fifty years, respectively, and are internationally recognized.

A couple semi-organized campaign thoughts, some in response to points made here.

If you grade on a curve, using the "expectations game" as your correction factor, McCain won the first Presidential debate. By pulling his "going to Washington to fix the crisis stunt" he lowered expectations to "will not show up" and then did show up, and was quite lucid and on-message, though way too dismissive and contemptuous of his opponent (he wouldn't even *look* at the guy.) However, the polls have shown that Obama has gained at least 5-6 points in the national polls, and more than that in many of the state-level polls.

Which is a roundabout way of saying "please, pundits, stop talking about who beat expectations, and start talking about who actually performed better in the debate."

Regarding meeting with/without preconditions, Obama's position has been misrepresented as saying that he would personally sit down with any world leader at any time, and in the debate, McCain used Ahmadinejad as a straw-man, saying that Obama would sit down with him with no preconditions. First off, Ahmadinejad isn't the real power broker in Iran, and wouldn't be able to give the US anything concrete in a diplomatic setting. Furthermore, Obama's said consistently that any such talks would start with low-level contacts, where the preconditions would be worked out. That's how *any* high-level meeting of world leaders starts. Mahmoud doesnt't just pick up the phone, dial the White House switchboard, and schedule a meeting with the POTUS. The point is, when they do reach out, we need to be listening to at least know what we're going to say no to. The current gang of idiots simply stopped answering the phone.

Getting back to Palin (since the VP debate is tomorrow) I think anyone who wants to see the difference between the two VP candidates distilled to its essence, in video form, provided by the two candidates themselves should take a few minutes to watch this short clip from CBS news' interview of Biden and Palin tonight. In the video, you see Biden give clear, consistent, thoughtful answers to questions about Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions. Then, responding to the same kinds of questions, Palin states that there's a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution, going against the very bedrock of legal argument against Roe, and is unable to name ONE other Supreme Court case.

It's remarkable that someone who's supposedly been in a bunker being prepped for these interviews can screw them up so poorly, which makes me wonder a bit if this is all a Rove-inspired (or directed) plot to make her look as stupid as possible in order to turn out the moron vote on Nov. 4. It sounds far-fetched, and it doesn't appear to be working based on poll data, but how else can someone be this unbelievably dim?

For god's sake! She couldn't even come up with something as noncontroversial and high-school civics-y as Dred Scott?!?

Watched the debate. Thought Palin came off much better than I thought she would, but still thought Biden did better. Can't stand the people who say she's delivering "straight-talk." It might be straight, but that doesn't mean it's always accurate.

Whatever, I'm tired of this already and there's still a month left. I just have one question for the people who watched the CNN HD program (did anyone else?). Not that I think those scores are at all meaningful (and I found the premise of the graph at the bottom offensive), but I want to ask about Ed Rollins. Now I'm not complaining about his score (which was nuts), but I was wondering if anyone knew why he ran it up 10 points in about five seconds. That just confused me.

She'll make the red states a bit redder, but I don't know if it will help her among the "swing state independents" they desperately want.



I noticed that too. The answer is, quite simply, "because he's a Republican hack." Occam's razor and all. He obviously felt the point she was making (I forget what it was) was worth 10 points. I assume one of the lefties (Hilary Rosen, Paul Begala) could have done the same thing, or chalked up 50 points for Biden or whatever. Giving six panelists little scoreboards to play around with is more distracting than it is informative, but I'm sure there are people who need to be told who's winning, and I guess the next logical step after using sports metaphors in politics was to actually add scoreboards.

The insta-polls say Biden won. Not a shocking result.

Yeah, I also watched on CNN-HD and found the "pundit points" on the margins pointless and distracting. I did like the running graph on the bottom. Once the debate got going the lines almost always spiked up when Biden spoke, while for Palin the lines were all over the place.

I want to formally extend my thanks to Sarah Palin and John McCain.

I think I have some reasonable hope that there are not enough idiots in my country of birth to make her the next vice president.

But only the candidacy of somebody so absurd could have created an opening so broad for Tina Fey. Tina wasn't even on my radar 2 months ago, but it is now pretty evident that I need to marry her. Tina you must marry me!

And Sarah provides more fodder for more familiar geniuses:

http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Harry_Shearer/Music_Videos/PalinBridgeToNowhere_934.aspx

Yo! Sarah!

You lose. Tina got married IIRC last year.

Try seven years ago.

Annulments in the Boston Archdiocese go for as little as $1200.

I would find the money.

Have you seen this one? Talk about nailing it!

tanstaafl.

Precisely what spurred my post. And Latifah-as-Ifill dun good;

"and available for pre-order on amazon.com...were she simply to do an adequate job tonight, and no point cry, faint, run out of the building or vomit, you should consider the debate a tie..."

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

I would say the gloves are officially off. If Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko are fair game, surely Charles Keating wants an invite to the mudslinging party.

"I see your 'casual contact with a 60s-era radical' and raise you a 'close friend who bought you off as a Senator during the S&L collapse!'"

The current economic collapse was not precipitated by anything to do with the national debt. It's making the national debt larger, yeah, but, this all has to do with banks being owed money by people and, more importantly, other banks. Not money owed to the federal government.

Clearly I was wrong about the sky falling, but the national debt has nothing to do with it.

Ah. I'd been waiting for the "I told you so".

I actually looked at Doug's earlier post last evening and was tempted to ask "Aren't you going to say 'I told you so!'?" Not much pleasure in being right in this case, I expect.

I was hesitant to predict the magnitude of what we might see, but nothing that has unfolded surprises me. And for over a year I kept hearing "Seattle is different" from folks who somehow imagined the local housing market immunized us. Dreamers. I agree, Doug, anybody should have been able to see this coming.

And it is going to be very interesting to see whether the Euro can be held together. I feel like that could almost make the first wave of this tsunami seem small.

So governments around the world are now nationalizing, printing money to buy assets that are pretty impossible to assign value to. The only people who have any say on what these insane derivatives might be worth are the madmen who dreamed them up.

I'm the FDR bio I have been reading I have now reached his inauguration in March 1933. FDR breaks with protocol on inauguration day and makes a visit to the retired, ailing Oliver Wendell Holmes. Leaving, FDR asks Holmes if had any advice and Holmes said "Mr. President you are in a war. Form your battalions and fight." When Roosevelt came out on the street, hundreds of citizens cheered and clapped. "Gosh it sounds good to hear that again" whispered the head of the Secret Service detail who had served 4 years under Hoover.

It's an inspiring biography, mostly thanks to a lot of small, personal details. And it is more fun to read it than to watch the 2nd debate.

I listen to the news coverage of "people on the street" opinions of what Obama should do, and what he's said he might do, and none of it sounds like the New Deal to me. Things like completely middle-of-the-road health care plans. So, assuming Obama wins, it will be interesting to see if any bolder president emerges or will he simply become a Depression-era punching bag and the Right's next hoped-for Jimmy Carter.

With respect to fraudulent securities and toxic assets, I think this day has been coming since like 1980. The rich got richer. I'm not sure I have much hope that a new regulatory landscape will take form to save us from "next time". FDR did what he could. And we blew it.

Yup. By repealing all his banking regulations.

Um, you do realise that GDP ($13T) is quoted per annum, whereas the national debt ($10T) is quoted as an absolute figure? As long as you plan to stay around for more than one year, you get several goes at using part of the GDP to pay off the national debt. So 70% is a small percentage. That's like having a mortgage whose principal (not repayment) is 70% of your annual income (or, strictly, turnover): in other words, not something to worry about. I'm afraid it's your comparison with Ford's (annual) revenue and (annual) loss which is a non-sequitur.

But that wasn't Bitt's point. (I don't think.) He meant that it doesn't matter if the debt is historically large in absolute terms, because that might just be due to inflation. To get a better idea of whether it's worrying, one should compare it to some other indicator of the state of the economy: for instance, GDP. Again, to use a mortgage metaphor, if you're only told someone's monthly mortgage payment, you can't work out from that whether they're in financial trouble or not. You need to know their monthly income too.

Now, if the annual increase in the national debt, known as the "budget deficit", got anywhere near the GDP, that would be cause for alarm. But this year's US budget deficit (says Wikipedia) will be about $0.4T, or about 3% of GDP.

Peter

There have been a lot of comparsions between now and the Great D. Things are much different now though- maybe not in good ways either. Government aren't going to let banks fail (even if they should fail) and apparently they will even try to keep stock markets from going down (see: the SEC ban on short-selling). So now it seems either the governments will eventually stablize everything but kill growth (ala Japan) or the governments will print so much money inflation will kill the economy.