Or will Palin withdraw or be withdrawn?

I don't think that she'll drop out or be pulled. That would be a total meltdown of McCain's campaign. I don't think they could recover from that. It would royally piss off the christian right and the rest of the party would just lose what little enthusiasm they now have. Who would he then pick? Romney is already ticked off and Lieberman is a no go as far as the right wing is concerned.

Sure would like to she her drop off the ticket though!

edit:

Just came across this...

Intrade odds on Palin

She is a ridiculous candidate to be sure but no way they are withdrawing here. Too much at stake for them now they are committed. And it looks like Gustav has basically ruined the GOP convention. This is getting good, can't wait to see what else they find out about her.

Well, now that the holiday weekend is over, reporters have made their way to AK. Here is a report from Time magazine,

TIME - Mayor Palin: A Rough Record

Among other things, she, as mayor, requested to have certain books removed from the town library. Contending that language in these books offended certain residents.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. Usually the VP choice garners news for a day or two then settles down, until the VP debate. That debate gets scant attention and then the presidential debates take center stage, and the VP choice is again forgotten.

Bush was able to recover just fine withdrawing Harriet Myers as a Supreme Court nominee. In theory, McCain could similarly bring out a "blockbuster" nominee to replace Palin.

In the end, I don't think it would change much. Democratic partisans would harsh on him either way. Republican partisans would love him, either way. Independents (arguably) don't care about these kinds of little details, but may be nudged by Democratic arguments about whether McCain will continue to do this sort of thing in the future.

True, but a Supreme court nomination garners no where near the mass media coverage that a general election does. If you asked 100 US citizens who was on the supreme court, much less who was nominated I'd be surprised(shocked) if you got above the 30% correct mark. I'd say if you could get even half of the people to name more than two of the justices I'd be surprised.

Not only that but Bush needed to garner support in the Congress for his choice, far from a nation wide popularity contest.

I agree normally the VP is no big deal to people. But if people start to see her as a joke it will definetly sway independents much more the Democrats way.

I think of the McCain campaign driving down a dark, curvey highway in winter when:

1) They realize they have hit a long patch of black ice and
2) Their campaign bus is pointed in the general direction of a huge tree

I think that the natural initial reaction is to let adrenaline go to work but to try to finess the steering to get past that tree. But as the tree gets closer I think there is a major urge to try more desperate maneuvers.

McCain in late September: "I have full faith in Sarah Palin and in discussions this week I implored her to reconsider, but Governor Palin's highest calling is to ensure the well-being of her hockey team...errrr,... FAMILY. I am grateful for Governor X's willingness to step in and answer the call of his John McCain...errr...COUNTRY!"

I think the "family first" aspect of Palin's withdrawal (she'll be the one to take the decision at least for our consumption) will still play great with the evangelicals and McCain will still have some residual bonus point for naming her. Now he just needs to identify his not-too-pro-choice alternate.

(edit: I realized that I have *been* to Wasilla. Filled up there.)

No, she's there for the long haul.

There is more substance to Ms. Palin than most people realize. She really did take on the old-boys network and won the Alaskan governership without any help from the Republican party. She does not deserve all the credit for this feat. The incumbent Governor, Frank Murkowski, pretty much defeated his own re-election bid through incredible arrogance if not downright malfeasance. Alaska is a small state population-wise, and I know people who not only know Sarah Palin, but consider themselves to be good friends. The image that she instills, among both friends and the general public, in a word is integrity, something rarely found in politicians above the village level.

That said, McCain has pretty much destroyed his own strongest argument against Obama. The claim that Obama lacks experience is disingenuous when McCain proposes a vice-presidential candidate with a whole two years of experience, a candidate more likely to succeed to the Presidency due to McCain's age than any VP candidate in the last 50 years. Actually, more likely than any VP candidate ever. But wait, I do Ms. Palin a disservice. Two years? No, that's discounting her time as mayor of Wasilla -- a town in Alaska so small it didn't even have a police department when she took office. Yeah, that'll have those Hamas hard-liners trembling in their boots.

Overall, though, it was probably a good move for McCain. It gave him a huge publicity boost, and then when the excitement dies down (which it shortly will) people will realize that even though Ms. Palin has few qualifications, they are voting for a President in the coming election, and that who is on the ticket for VP is pretty much irrelevant.

If I had anything to say about how the Obama campaign was run, I would want him to stress (1) that four more years of McBush will absolutely destroy what is left of the country [He'd be lying -- it is already too late, but lies are how people get elected]; and (2) if experience is so important, why did McCain pick the Mayor of Wasilla to be his potential successor? That tells me unequivocally that he is more interested in winning the election by any means than in what might be best for the country.

In the end, I won't be surprised if the Democrats manage to shoot themselves in the foot once again and give away yet another election. Long term (that is, any time frame more than four years) there will be no winners here. Whichever candidate and associates garner the most electoral votes month after next will be ending their political careers. The ship of state has already struck the iceberg, and now the participants are fighting to see who will be Captain of the Titanic.

tanstaafl.

I figure that there is probably a 50 percent chance that you are right. My "bus and black ice" argument may not fly, but on the other hand I think that the argument that "it would mean a total meltdown" for McCain campaign may not hold if they have a meltdown anyway.

The Republican loyalists interviewed by CNN certainly put on a shiny, hapy face over this, but I have to think there are some delegates in Minneapolis still wondering what the heck McCain was thinking.

Aside from the near-complete lack of experience, I think it is the trailer-trash aspects of this drama -- hubby DUI, teen pregnancy -- that amaze me. I have this feeling that *one* more unvetted trailer park revelation will do Palin in. But I am probably a snob and maybe put more weight on those factors than the republican base. New Reality Show? Blair House Granny?

Yes, strange that McCain neuters his own "experience" tactic.

HuffPost is now like Sarah Palin Central.

Of many articles, this seemed choice:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-laughs-as-opponent_n_122776.html

So, Alaska, maybe the political dialogue is just a bit....different.

Perhaps Palin could run for Governor of Texas and have a few laughs signing execution warrants. True Believers.

Really? My understanding of the race is that the GOP bench wasn't very deep, and when the Murkowski thing happened, Palin was at the right place at the right time, and said all the right things about honest government and cleaning up corruption. In reality, though, other than not being old and not being a boy, she's definitely part of the network itself. She ran Ted Stevens' 527 group, and her widely-publicized stance against earmarks and the "bridge to nowhere" itself are politically expedident fabrications.

Where exactly did she earn this reputation as an honest reformer?



I'm sorry, but this sounds a lot like "he's the kind of President I'd want to have a beer with." The "image she instills" clearly seems to be at odds with her deeds as Governor.



It would be irrelevant if McCain were not 72 and didn't have a history of health problems. But he is, and he does, so it's VERY relevant. If Joe Biden (a decade younger than McCain) kicks the bucket, Obama picks another VP. If McCain throws a seven, we've got a hockey mom (soon to be hockey grandmom, I guess) running the show.



They've certainly shown a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but this is the closest thing to a "gimmie" I can imagine. Current polling shows Obama in a landslide, and with the very significant anti-Palin response among the electorate, the RNC being scaled back due to Gustav, and the simple fact that McCain is an unexciting pick for the GOP base, I think the planets are aligned for an easy Obama win. In order to lose now, he'd basically have to "get caught with a live boy or a dead girl."



Er, uh, what? The country has been through much worse times. Eight years of Bush have definitely set us back, but I see no reason why things can't begin to turn around in the next four years. Reagan earned a second term based on the (in my opinion mistaken) belief that he rescued the country after the Carter years. Why can't Obama do the same in his first term?

But she's currently actively embroiled in a scandal about getting her former brother-in-law fired from his job. She's replaced the entire roster of a committee because it made a decision she didn't like. Those are just a couple of things I can point to off the top of my head. What about those is integritous integral integratularitous upright?

Announcing before the convention was supposed to steal attention from the Democrats.

Except it seems to have only given the media the time it needed, to dig into her background and generate their own talking points.

Which is taking air time away from what McCain's troops would have preferred.

$12 x 10^12 indebtedness for a start. That works out to be about $160,000 for a typical family of four. How will the government pay that off? Can you say inflation? In five years (or less) someone earning $60,000 a year will be saying "Would you like fries with that?", and that $60K won't buy any more than the $15K he is earning now.

The collapse of the housing market is just the first domino to fall. Whoever gets elected will end up taking the blame for the consequences of eight years of Bush malfeasance.

tanstaafl.

What makes you think that they have to? Yeah, the public debt is high right now, but as a percentage of GDP, it's less than it was when Eisenhower took office, and it was high then because of a financial recession and a war, too.

The public debt as an absolute number has seldom gone down in recent history. But the absolute number isn't that big a deal. The debt as expressed as a percentage of GDP is much more revealing.

And, actually, paying off the debt results in deflation, not inflation, due to removal of money from the economy. Either one can be bad, of course, but neither is as a matter of course.

Don't get me wrong, our economy isn't in a good state; but the sky isn't falling, either.

On the other hand, one thing in particular does worry me about the public debt, which is the amount of it owned by the Chinese coupled with the artificially low value of the yuan.

"Yuan fries with that?"
LOL

Sorry- incurable punster.

Ooh. Someone has a list of books that Palin, as mayor, had banned from the local library. And threatened to fire the librarian for noncompliance.

My favorite: the always controversial Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

Interesting list, I'd like to see detailed confirmation from a source other than "some blogger".

Just playing devil's advocate here. It certainly doesn't surprise me that a right-winger would ban books, and those books are definitely the ones that usually get banned.

You know, I wonder what these people think their kids, who have supposedly never heard any "filth" in their lives, are going to do when they get out into the real world and someone says "fuck" in front of them? Ask politely what it means?

Good call. The list seems to exactly match this list. In fact, some of the books on the list weren't even published when the banning was supposed to have occurred.

If you guys want to know what conservatives *really* think about the pick, behold, the power of the open microphone!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php

Nice sleuthing. I saw you called them out on it in the comment thread.

This pregnancy decision map relating to Palin's last delivery is hilarious.. and horrifying.

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin and a pit bull?

A: The pit bull stands some chance of finding Nagorno-Karabakh on a map!

I give value to this statement coming from a former Alaska resident.


Since Obama will get elected, there is no doubt, I'm sure he'll take this blame with charisma. At least the American people* will actually support their president as Rome burns.


*well, at least 51% of them, that is.

Do you have a time machine that has allowed you to actually visit the future or is this some sort of crystal ball devise? Perhaps this is a feature of the new iPhone?

Please let me know, I really would like to see into the future as well.

If I had any faith in the American populace, I would agree with you. However, daily tracking polls suggest that McCain is receiving a significant bounce from the GOP convention, and with a complacent, obsequious media and a base that seems incapable of noticing when they're being pandered to, he just may be able to pull this heist off.

As but one example of the lengths they are going to mislead the public, Sarah Palin has been holed up in Alaska this weekend, being prepped by McCain's campaign staff. She hasn't faced the media at all since she was chosen as McCain's running mate, and will not do so until the middle of this week, when she will sit down with ABC's Charlie Gibson for "multiple interviews." What this means in practice is that the McCain campaign can dictate the terms of the interviews, what kind of questions will be allowed, etc., and if the questions go off the script, the remaining sessions will be canceled.

This is a complete farce, and any media outlet with any dignity and self-respect would call the McCain campaign out for being afraid to talk to the American people without a script. Since there are no such media outlets, McCain gets to carefully craft the message, and the tough questions go unanswered (and unasked.)

This trend will continue until November, so the debates may be the only chance Democrats have to force the GOP to talk about the issues, and even that depends on having competent debate moderators. November 4th could arrive with the American public having no idea how dangerous McCain/Palin would be to the country.

In other words, the Democrats will *not* be able to sleepwalk through this election, no matter how awful a ticket McCain/Palin is. They will need historic turnout in the swing states. They will need to steal a couple of red states from '04. And, quite possibly, they will need an army of lawyers to fight election fraud. Landslides are hard to come by these days, and I don't expect one.

There are so many things that get reported in local news that people either don't know about or don't pay attention to because it doesn't directly affect them. Obama saying he was going to delay Constellation to pay for education, then when talking to Florida saying he was going to accelerate Constellation. McCain preaching straight talk and being against lobbying, then it was found out that several of his top aides were lobbyists for EADS (parent company of Airbus, who McCain actively helped win the Air Force tanker contract by getting the requirements rewritten).

The general population just doesn't care about how the candidates define themselves by their actions or promises. They are more concerned about whatever *gate thing comes out next (and that is the most ignorant fracking names given ever - I bet the dumbasses don't even realize why the Nixon scandal was called Watergate).

Politics and politicians piss me off.

I stayed there once. Great pillows, and you have a good view of the other rooms

I hear that there's problems with the doors not staying locked, though.

Yes, I heard that. I think they upgrades since the original incident. There were about 5 locks on the door if I recall.

But really, all kidding aside, the roundness of the building with the center courtyard does provide a good viewing of the other rooms. You’d think they would have been a little more careful.

It was fun staying there. The feather pillows were marvelous. I would have never known a pillow could be such a joy, I know sounds weird, but try a good one some time and you’ll be convinced.

Sadly the time machine app on the iPhone store was pulled down pretty quickly. Turns out it was causing quite the disruption on the AT&T 4G networks that will go live in another 6 years. It was also a bit limited, because once you went far enough in either direction, the phone would lose cell signal due to the towers not existing, and strand people.

I have to say, I thought choosing Palin was absurd at first, but I've come to see it as an inspired stroke of genius.

Forget about what the candidates actually do and who they actually are for the moment (the truth is they are probably much more similar than different on 95% of the "issues"). But let's set this aside and look at it from the drama of the election.

By choosing Palin, McCain seeks to take away the "change" message from Obama. As a first-term Senator, Obama doesn't have much of a record yet, so being a "change" candidate and "outsider" and a "historical candidate" is pretty much all he's got to run on. That and some good oratory skills. John Kerry had the whole country saying "anyone but W" and he lost. The "we're not Republicans" platform will only get 45% of the vote. So the change message is vital.

Seen that way, this is very much like the Kennedy / Nixon race of 1960. Establishment vs. new blood.

So McCain tries to blunt that strategy by picking (whatever else she may be) a charismatic Washington outsider and a historic candidate of his own. The subtle point is that it doesn't need to be 100% effective. All they need to do is establish parity on the "change issue", and McCain will win because he's the father figure. Americans traditionally love a tough-talking, hard-ass father figure for a president, especially in times of "war".

Seen purely as a strategic move, I think it's high risk, but potentially election winning for McCain.

Mmm.. that didn't quite pan out for the first Bush, though.

I agree with almost all of this. But seriously, do you think it's ANY different for the Democrats? None of them will do an interview they don't control. As far as obsequious media, why isn't Biden's plagiarism history being reported as much as the Palin bastard grandkid? They all suck, folks, and they're all in it primarily for their own aggrandizement.

It's a complete farce, certainly. But the atrocities are embedded in the system. You can't say they're the sole province of the candidate you dislike. The side you support is just as sleazy.

What made Frodo Baggins the right choice for ring bearer is that he DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. Frodo for president, I say.

No war.

Because Biden isn't a hot 17yo?
I'll take 'Sex Sells' for $500, Alex.

I think he tried. He saw how his popularity surged during Just Cause (Panama 1989) and again during Operation Desert Storm (1991, but Desert Shield started late 1990). I believe Operation Restore Hope (1992-1993) was an attempt at capitalizing on that surge in popularity that occurs during a successful operation. The operation started a month late and didn't factor into the polls, though (it started 03 DEC 1992).

This is the mantra of the low-information independent voter, and in this election, it's completely divorced from reality. I can probably name a dozen major issues off the top of my head where McCain and Obama are *diametrically* opposed. For starters: withdrawal from Iraq, direct diplomacy with Iran, taxes, abortion, capital punishment, gun control, and universal healthcare. Those are all areas where there is almost no overlap in their positions. Other issues with major differences, but some overlap, are education policy, free trade, energy policy, and gay marriage/civil unions. Even on those issues, however, I don't think a case can be made that they are more similar than different. The only issues I can think of that they agree more than 50% on (at least in terms of McCain's *current* positions) are federal funding for stem cell research, social security (McCain's very vague on this one) and climate change.

Please list any other issues McCain and Obama mostly agree on that I may have forgotten.


Right, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Nevermind that peoples' lives and livelihood hang in the balance.

Obama regularly takes questions from the press after nearly every one of his prepared speeches. He has a pool of reporters that follow him from event to event. He goes on the Sunday talk shows. McCain does all of these things as well. This is basic stuff for any politician who's been on the national stage.

Palin, the GOP nominee for the Vice Presidency, hasn't done any interviews or taken any questions at all since being picked. I can't think of another time when this has ever happened. Usually, it is advantageous to get your VP pick out there, to show people that you made a good choice, and to get voters excited about them. The campaign's reluctance to do so shows that she wasn't picked for her abilities, she was picked for her biography. They can't even trust her to answer questions from a press that rarely asks tough questions to begin with!


Every profile I saw of Biden when he was announced as the VP pick mentioned his plagiarism. However, it happened in 1987, and it was a big national story that forced him to end his Presidential campaign in 1988. It's old news. The various Palin controversies are all current events, and are being covered as such. And, yes, there's a tabloid aspect to the pregnancy story that keeps it on the front page as well.


"A pox on both their houses" is only valid if you have a binary definition of pox. The folks that reinvented sleazy politics with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney at the helm are to be given a pass because Joe Biden didn't credit a British Labor leader in a political speech? Really?

Well, that's sort of my point. You're extremely biased toward one party in this nonsense. Where were these great Democrats of conscience when we needed people to oppose the Patriot Act or giving essentially a blank check to the President? Almost every single one of them voted the politically expedient way and supported that unconstitutional crap. That makes them EVERY BIT as much to blame as the executive branch, IMHO.

You happen to agree with a consistent side all of those policy differences. Many people, including non-Republicans like myself, consider some of them to be wrong headed, immoral or extremely naive, such as the immediate withdrawal from Iraq (immoral) and direct negotiations with Iran (naive). I also think that National (socialized) Healthcare is an abomination (wrong headed). It's fine if you agree with all of that, but to a non-party affiliated voter, they will both require holding your nose when you cast your vote.

I'm not sure why you're going into our policy differences when the section you're quoting me on has to do with how the candidates interact with the media, not who is right about Iraq or healthcare. I went into policy stuff in my response to your other post, but in that post, I didn't say anything about which side was right or wrong.

You originally asked me "do you think it's ANY different for the Democrats?" and said "none of them will do an interview they don't control." I pointed out that, in fact, Obama and Biden have been available to the press many times for unscripted questions, and Palin has not. Those statements have nothing to do with policy, and the fact that my policy positions line up much more closely to Obama than McCain have nothing to do with who's manipulating the media more.

Hey, it's cool if you think both sides are equally sleazy, I was just hoping for more evidence than you gave. I do recognize both sides try to work the refs and use the media to their advantage. But your "both sides do it" statement simply does not apply to the case of Palin ducking the media for a couple weeks while the McCain camp trains her. This is unprecedented, cowardly, and shows that she's not capable of speaking until she's told what to say.

Adding: You aren't going to see me defending Obama's unconscionable FISA vote, or the actions of other Democrats (before Obama was in the Senate) in the run-up to the war. Just because I think Obama is correct on many more issues than McCain is doesn't mean I like everything he's done, and just because I support him for President doesn't mean I support everything that every Democrat in Congress has done. (That being said, a lot more would have been done in the 110th Congress if Republicans hadn't shattered the record for filibusters.)

That's me.

Can anyone recommend resources to learn about both candidates? Thanks.

My state may always be blue, but I still want to make an informed choice. (why can't the electoral college have more swing voters)

OnTheIssues.org is a pretty comprehensive "just the facts, ma'am" resource for the Presidential candidates as well as state races. You'll basically get info from their voting records and some public statements they make. For one-stop shopping, that's as good as I've found. The devil is always in the details, but for simple high-level views of where the candidates stand, you can start with the candidate grid by topics or the frontrunner grid, and then drill down to the specific votes or statements which led to that assessment.

There are also a bunch of "answer a bunch of questions and we'll pick your ideal candidate(s)" sites, but I think they're bogus, and in some cases, bankrolled by certain political interests.

If you want to wade deeper into the muck, political blogs can round out your knowledge, but the signal-to-noise ratio can get a bit low at times.

It's important to point out, at least for President, that you're not just just voting for one person. You're voting for the head of the entire executive branch. The President populates all the top offices with political appointees, who then implement the president's policies. Unsurprisingly, most of these appointees are people who tend to share common politics with the president.

For some political appointees, they actually just bump up the top career bureaucrat or get somebody with a clue. In other cases, they pay off political favors. The biggest example of how to do this, both right and wrong, is the head of FEMA. No question about it, Brown didn't do a heck of a job. Clinton appointed somebody for that office with a serious clue. And, now, Bush similarly has a clueful person in the office.

So, for all of this talk about the "issues", when you're voting for president also consider that they really drive the bureaucracy. The question you have to answer, and the question to which you'll never get straight answers from either side, is exactly how they're going to do this. Instead, you're forced to look at weird proxy issues, like whether you think their economic advisors or vice presidential candidates seem to be clueful. Or, you get even further removed and start asking questions like whether you think McCain will keep all of Bush's people around or whether he'll clean house. Needless to say, I doubt you'll find a straight answer on that question.

No doubt, though, that electing a different candidate would result in a rather straight answer there.

The closer we get to November, the more I may agree with you.


Even as an historical "LII" low-information independent, I don't think I'd agree re: 95 percent. But stuff like Obama's sucking up on "faith" and travesties like FISA vote do not inspire confidence. I think the stated positions follow their polling. "Yikes, look at the numbers in Minnesota! Gotta talk more about the 2nd amendment!"


It's pretty good BS, the whole "maverick" and "change" shtick coming from McCain. Interesting choice to surrender their "inexperience" bludgeon, though (when he picked Palin).


I don't see it. McCain has the same anger problems and disagreeability as Nixon, but Palin doesn't look at all like Henry Cabot Lodge


Ah, so you are saying it looked like Nixon-Kennedy *before* palin, I think. OK

Not with this electorate, it doesn't.


I think the Republican strategy is simply to do everything they can to keep Sarah Palin away from reporters until November 5th (save for highly controlled "deals" such as with ABC. Blech.)

So I think she is going to appear on the ballot and the percentage of voters willing to vote McCain/Palin will just be a handy indicator of how brain dead we have become.

I want to print a bumper sticker: "You deserve John McCain!"


(edit: I picked Minnesota at random. No offense intended)

Maybe I could be more optimistic if I lived in Toronto!

Can't find much fault in this guy's "we're going to lose...":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html

Sarah Palin will talk to reporters occasionally on the bus or the plane just so long as they don't report anything that she says. It's that or no bus ride.

No press left.

Yes, but you don't really know exactly who they'll appoint. Ultimately, the best predictor of what policies will come from the executive branch is the stated policy platform of the candidate himself, along with his voting record. It's a pretty good bet that whoever he appoints to the cabinet and adviser positions will line up with his overall ideology on the issues.

That being said, it's pretty clear to me that an Obama Presidency wouldn't keep people like Michael Mukasey, Robert Gates, Condi Rice, or Michael Chertoff around. He might keep one or two of the more moderate folks around, or he might not, but as Mark alluded to, he's much less likely to go with the status quo than McCain is simply due to the fact that McCain's policies line up much more closely with Bush's than Obama's.

I'm curious to know if Obama's people are talking with Andrew Bacevich.

I think it's abundantly clear that Obama would clean house. It's a deeply interesting question whether McCain would do the same.

re: Bacevich

[color: orange]He also goes on to mention that "For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion."[/color]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

tanstaafl.

I caught almost all of his appearance on Bill Moyers (video available) in August and was really impressed. So then I was in Boston last week and tried to get his most recent book but it was backordered thanks to all the Moyers watchers.

Finally my unloved alma mater hired somebody interesting. In the age of fake Rovian "lipstick" controversies, it is interesting to find atypical conservatives (and perhaps lapsed conservatives) who have a clear head and who are eloquent.

Gag.. she's like another Dubya, except slightly smarter (not a difficult achievement, that).

Given that the USA elected and then *reelected* Dubya, there's more than a fair chance we'll see her and McCain in office this winter.

Ugh.

Please, don't make me more depressed than I already am...

Just the fact that this election is as close as it is, is scary enough. The interview wasn't as much as a fluff piece as I feared it would be, but that only reinforced that she is a W clone. How can you combat ignorance (in the voter) in a short pre-election campaign?

Yup electoral-vote.com has McCain ahead now. The American people just don't get it, they only care about personalities not issues. The only good news is that the Democrats will probably cement their lead in the Senate, oh and their will probably be another Great Depression coming, that will be good for the next presidential candidate.

It's close enough still though that it's easy to go either way, especially since all these maps and predictions are based off known unreliable random polling. Clicking "This day in the 2004 cycle" on that site shows Kerry winning. 2000 should have taught us that the election isn't over even hours after people have voted. Though 2000 should have also taught us major reform in the process was needed since basically the Supreme Court decided who won, and not the electoral college or voters.

I am no economist, but the magnitude of this most recent bubble -- the zero-down, sub-prime, ARM, flip-my-house, mortgage-derivatives bubble -- seems pretty staggering to me.

I am much more inclined to share Doug's pessimism.

It is remarkable. The administration that was so contemptuous of government and that might have briefly been seen as a beacon of hope by "big L" libertarians is now printing money faster than Palin can gut a moose and shoveling it to the AIGs of this debacle. Apparently we, as taxpayers, will be taking an interest in AIG; an ownership stake. Not exactly what the Libertarians had in mind.

It's almost comical to hear McCain talk about how more regulation would be a bad thing. But in the vein of "Just how different are the Democrats from the Republicans" and after listening to some of the recent Obama campaign rhetoric, I have to ask: which Democrats did *anything* to put a spotlight on this huge iceberg and steer hard to port (or starboard)? Barney Frank is a smart guy and talks a lot, but I just didn't see any effectual effort from the Dems.

I don't see it. I am a complete dumbass when it comes to higher-order economics, but the inevitable end of a greedy flip-my-house bubble with get-rich-quick funny-money derivatives seemed pretty obvious. Some greedy people got rich. Not us.

TonyC, you may be in the most observant position to point out what the Dems did (at great risk to themselves and their careers, and in a fashion that distinguished the Dems from the Republicans) to try to save us from this mess. Why did *I* see it coming and not the professionals?

Greed. I don't know for a fact that Hell is around the corner. I just feel like we surely haven't seen the end of this yet.

Non sequitur: it was interesting to see this Sarah Palin thread slowly drop down the Off-Topic Forum. BBS art imitates life?

Maybe not on paper, but in reality, privatized profits and socialized risk is basically the underpinning of free market ideology. Let the markets decide, until the magical market forces cause the economic system to collapse, at which point regulation is okay, if "regulation" means pumping taxpayer money into the same entities that fucked things up in the first place, then spinning off those entities when they become profitable again.


None of the Democratic efforts pass your "at great risk to themselves and their careers" test. These are politicians, after all. But they did try to do something. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 as originally written was a pretty good bill, but as with many bills, it had to be watered down to pass Republican (and conservative Democratic) opposition the house, and by that time, it was such a disaster, the Senate wouldn't touch it.

I do not give Congressional Democrats a pass for rolling over and capitulating on these important issues, but I do recongize that what Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the house leadership is dealing with is a congress where there's a Democratic majority, but a progressive minority. This is due to two Democratic caucuses within Congress: The Blue Dog Coalition (47 House members) and the New Democrat Coalition (44 House members). While members of these caucuses are unlikely to blindly vote with Republcans, they are pro-business (especially big business) just like the GOP, often socially conservative, and generally not dependable when it comes to voting for progressive legislation.

Then, in the Senate, the Democrats have had to deal with a record number of GOP filibusters, so any time a good bill somehow makes its way out of the House, you can bet the GOP senators will kill it. Throw Joe Lieberman into the mix, and true, honest-to-goodness Democrats are a minority in both houses.

Again, do not interpret this as me absolving the Democrats for their sins... I just tend to weigh sins of commission a bit more than sins of omission. I will continue to vote for the shitty party that tries to do good but lacks the balls to make it happen over the shitty party that is actively working to undermine democracy, economic regulation, civil rights, etc. There is a good amount of daylight between the two, both on paper and in practice, and even though the end result is still not to my liking, I believe we can get there.

My notion of "Big L" Rand-ish Libertarianism limits the government to providing:

1) A miltary to defend the nation
2) Police agencies to protect citizens and
3) A court system to adjudicate criminal cases and property disputes.

Now many of the state Lib parties don't like to be so hard core because they figure it will turn people off. Duh!

So we just *nationalized* AIG. That's something they do in Bolivia or Russia or Venezuela, right? I agree with your characterization of the behaviour (privatize when we can make a buck, nationalize when we want the public to pick up the tab). It is just so far away from the strident ideology of the Necon and Lib right.

BUSH NATIONALIZES AIG!

Next the tin mines and oil fields!

Amazing.!



Yeah, I just kind of threw that "great risk to themselves" thing in there to mock their general spinelessness.

Sure the issue of predatory lending was/is a big issue, but I didn't see anybody getting out ahead of it. Nor any effort at the SEC-type level with respect to insane securitization and mortgage-backed securities.



I am a little more harsh in my judgement. All Pelosi had to do was say "Impeachment is off the table" and I became convinced that she needed to be impeached, too. Where are the guts, the principles? The Wexlers, Leahys, and Wellstones are the sad exceptions.



Up to a point, I try hard to admire the the ability to be optimistic. Stiff upper lip and all that!

But, as you can imagine, i wish that there were a *lot* more daylight between them. Just imagine a Democratic Party that didn't curry favor with health insurers and pharmas. Imagine a Democratic candidate who might actually not *need* or accept $1.5 Million collected by Lehman Brothers.

I think special interests still rule and that the light between these parties is not as bright as you would guess.

I haven't re-read it, but I always think back to Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democracy when I consider whether I am being fair with respect to the Democrat-Republican difference. I wonder if Phillips publishes a 2nd edition that covers 1990-2010 what will he say?

Edit: I picked that link to Moyers' interview with Phillips as a contemporary link to publication of _Wealth and Democracy_. Fascinating, though, to see his ambivalent judgement (as an independent in 2004) of McCain as the "one possible lifeline". No mas.

I totally disagree. Neocons have never been opposed to corporate welfare. I'd argue that neoconservatism has much more in common with national socialism than it does with libertarianism. (This is not an intentional call to Godwin's law. I really think that the policy comparison is legitimate.) The only reason that the Bush administration has given lip-service to libertarian tenets is to hang onto the votes of the oldsters.

I think I agree with you. Surely hard-core Libertarianism would scorn nationalization, but I would say that the Neocons maybe only oppose that notion rhetorically, but are ready to act flexibly/opportunistically to snatch or divest as circumstances dictate (like when we pull the rug out from under state-owned businesses in Iraq and send in Halliburton or GE). The whole nationalization thing just seems so far from the speechifying that "small government" Bush leagues spouted 2000-2001.

The strategy of the Bush-supporting Norquists in 2000+ seemed like an admitted desire to starve federal programs until they withered away. I guess that just didn't extend to preemptive wars or bank bailouts. It is still just astounding to me. On a bet the "small government" Republicans just printed an extra $85 billion to nationalize a finance/insurance company.

I would like to think that if I was really a principled Republican, and not a "whatever makes me some dough" not-so-free-neo-marketeer, I would be pretty embarrassed.

But this is all liquidity under the bridge. I guess my main concern is "what next"?

Actually, a "Big L" Libertarian does not see the role of police as protection. Police are there to enforce the law, not to proactively stop people from breaking the law; personal (self-) protection is the responsibility of the free moral agent.

It's an important distinction because if you see the role of the police and government as "protection" or "prevention", then it opens the door to all of the nonsense we have today, from smoking bans to the war on drugs.

This is exactly what I was getting at (and didn't find the time to respond to Tony) that, to me, both parties are 95% in agreement. Both parties believe in big government interference in the lives of individuals and organizations -- they only differ in exactly how and why to interfere. Nobody, with the exception of Ron Paul I guess, is talking about the validity of this basic premise. There is *nothing* libertarian about either major party.

I also find it amusing that those on the Democratic side complain about "neocon" bailouts of banks, but generally tend to support nationalization of the health care system. That is the *exact* same position, merely applied to different areas. That's why I feel the two are 95% identical. Whether you nationalize banks or health care is a stupid point. Whether or not to allow free moral agents to participate in choice (whether in banking or health care) and keep the fruits of their labor is a much more important debate. Unfortunately, it's a point that both parties agree upon -- they agree we are too stupid to be entrusted with such decisions.

The whole problem with the banks now has to do with allowing massively leveraged positions. If you're going to lend someone money, you should be required to assume the risk of a default. It's not OK to lend money and take the interest, but then have us all foot the bill if the loan goes into default. Regulation can decrease allowed leverage multipliers, but it won't restore prudence, because prudence only exists in a world of self-responsibility.

The sinister thing about government taking care of everyone, whether that's national health care, smoking laws, war on drugs, or propping up big banks is that it deprives people of the opportunity to become a self-responsible, autonomous human being. Why learn self-discipline, prudence and autonomy when Big Brother is going to take care of you? Being a free man means being free to make some big mistakes and being held accountable for the results.

I'm not a "Big L" libertarian because I believe that we need to address systemic bias of opportunity for people. I also have been persuaded that the "Invisible Hand" does not act benevolently; market participants do not have an incentive to protect the market mechanism itself -- that requires regulation. But I do agree that we should be guided the principle that more freedom tends to be the answer.

That's like saying you and I are 95% in agreement because neither of us is a racist. There's more than one axis to political theory.


No, it's not. Most liberals are dejected by the bailout because there should have been more control over the companies to begin with to prevent this situation from occurring. We generally agree that at some level at least some of these companies have to be bailed out in order to protect the country's economy.


Clearly "we" are, as evidenced by the fact that huge numbers of huge companies are going bankrupt and affecting the entire economy.


That's all well and good until these companies start affecting the livelihoods of people who have no direct connection with them at all. Are we to allow all of those innocent people to bear the brunt of their default? I know, we are now. But since what's really happening is that the Federal Reserve System is backing their defaulted loans, and not actually expending money on their behalf, the effects are far less than what would happen if the company simply went out of business.


Unless you also plan to outlaw corporations, that sort of self-responsibility is already gone. The people making these decisions are so far removed from anyone who's actually going to be affected by the ramifications that that notion is nearly irrelevant to them.


Okay, let's take your examples one-by-one:

You got cancer and can't pay for all the treatments? Gosh, you should have been more responsible and not gotten cancer.

Yeah, because smoking affects no one but the person smoking. Everyone should have to deal with smoke-choked grocery stores. After all, if you get cancer, you'll be taken care of. Oh, wait.

Agreed.

I already covered this one.

Basically, all your arguments assume that each individual is an island that affects no one that doesn't initiate specific contact. And that's simply not true.


The two major axes of political thought are those of civil liberties and economic liberties. They are, of course, related, but they can still be viewed independently. By and large, one ends up talking about them as individual liberties and corporate/business liberties, respectively. At least I do.

Big-L Libertarians believe in both strong civil and economic liberties. Which means that they think there should be no restrictions on what a company can do or what a person can do. My argument is that this is an untenable situation. A small number of entities will gain more and more power until there are no liberties left for the rest of the people.

The current Bush administration, call its ideology what you will, seems to believe in reduced personal liberties (PATRIOT Act, for example) and increased corporate liberties (retroactive immunity from wiretapping prosecution, for example), but also with increased corporate welfare and decreased personal welfare. Which is totally absurd.

Liberals tend towards increased personal liberties and decreased corporate liberties. Obviously, we're talking about a large collection of people with varied opinions, but that tends to be the case. It is certainly the case for me.

Personally, I find the notion of giving rights to non-sentient entities repugnant. Companies should have no rights beyond those conveyed to them by their human constituents.

Your argument is that because "liberals" want the government to support individuals at the cost of companies and "neocons" want to support companies at the cost of individuals they are the same because they both support governmental intervention. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, that is absurd.

I've just got time for one, then I need to run off. I'll get back to the rest later.



We see the world quite differently. I believe I should be allowed to open a business catering to people who smoke. My business, which I create using my own capital and labor on my own property should be allowed to serve whomever I wish. I ought to be able to open a restaurant to cater to people who smoke, as long as I am honest in representing that fact to potential customers. You, as a free person, should be allowed to not eat in my restaurant if smoke and smokers bother you. You could even open a restaurant to serve people who share your preferences.

What is not OK, in my moral framework, is for the majority (non-smokers) to band together and say that nobody should be allowed to smoke in ANY restaurant because we find it distasteful.

This avoids the issue of whether "second hand smoke" is dangerous to others, because ideologically it's not relevant because nobody is forcing you to patronize restaurants that allow smoking. The danger of second hand smoke, incidentally, is not proven.

My position on health care is not that you should have avoided getting cancer somehow, which is silly, but that you should have provided for your (inevitable) declining health if that was a priority for you. And before you mention children, parents should provide for the needs of their kids, and that requirement should be a factor in deciding whether to have kids. Where do you draw the line? Financially irresponsible parents "can't afford" clothes for their kids, so the People provide them?

A free market in health care services (and complete revocation of drug prohibition, including prescribed drugs) would drop costs significantly. The 3rd party payer model breeds corruption. Most importantly, it would place the burden of deciding which treatments were economically justified squarely on the person who both pays and potentially benefits form the treatment.

Yes, rich people will get better health care. This happens in countries with socialized medicine also. It's a fact of life. It's better to be wealthy than poor, which is a motivation to become wealthy by engaging in the process of providing someting of value to society. Removing bureaucracy and corruption of health care will lower the price for everyone.

We do not have a "health care crisis" in America. If we did, you would see people walking down the street with untreated diseases or dying from broken bones or cholera or any of the nonsense you see in the third world where there really is a health care crisis. We have a situation in America where nobody wants to pay for their own health care because it is expensive. Part of the reason it's so expensive is because consumers aren't careful buyers of services when they aren't paying for them. In America, the people who are legitimately hard up get treated; nobody dies in our gutters except by accident. Hospitals do not turn sick people away just because they can't pay for treatment.

In my view of the world, nobody has the "right" to get all of the latest, most advanced, and most expensive treatments available in the world. If that's a priority for you, you ought to be willing to pay for it.

So in your world, there would be a separate business for each dichotomous choice out there. So I'd need to go to the non-smoking, sanitary, fire-marshal approved, treat-employees-well businesses. Four things: you'd need sixteen different stores to service all the options. I know, you claim that the marketplace would weed those other places out, but people are willing to sell out almost anything for a widget that's 3¢ cheaper. (See: Wal-Mart.) And the ramifications of an unsanitary building that's likely to burn down while playing their employees shit extends well beyond the people who choose to do business there. Contagious disease, spread of fire to adjacent buildings or farm- or woodland, economic stagnation.


Imagine the totally feasible scenario of someone losing their job due to, let's say, bankruptcy of their employer, who loses their health insurance. Before he can find a new job, he falls seriously ill. At this point, no insurer will touch him. He has done nothing irresponsible, yet is in the lurch. He can't pay to get better without a job, and he can't get a job until he gets better.

Right now, that problem is solved by the government requiring that healthcare providers provide health care without questioning the patient's ability to pay. That ignores medications, though, which would likely be unaffordable to that person.

So in your no-government-regulation scenario, what happens? He dies?


So what happens when the parents fail to take care of their kids? No irresponsible people in your utopia? Or does the government regulate what they're required to do? What about when that unlucky bastard above dies? The kids die, too? I guess they were just unlucky, too.


In your world, I guess, they just go naked.


Bull. Shit.

Here's the scenario: Patient: "I'm dying of cancer, but your medicine will help me. Give me some." Pharma: "Okay, that will be $100,000, please." Patient: "But that's all the money I have in the world." Pharma: "Too bad. Buy the medicine or die."


And you think that's going to come about from deregulation? A company's sole goal is to make money. It will do everything in its power to maximize profits. This almost inevitably means pricing out a good 20% of the market.


People walk down the street with untreated diseases every day. They cannot afford their medications. Hell, my family pays several hundred dollars each month for medication that is covered by a pharmaceutical plan. That's just copays. I'm fortunate to have a well-paying job, but not everyone is so fortunate.

Yeah, people seldom die from simple trauma in the US, but that's because of government regulation requiring hospitals to treat them regardless of the likelihood of getting paid. People declare bankruptcy all the time due to medical bills. In your world, more people would die from broken bones because the hospital would have no reason to treat someone who isn't going to pay them.


Due to the exorbitant cost of healthcare in this country and the contingent lowering of general health, people are not able to contribute to society because they're spending all of their resources on being sick all the time.

Which brings me to another point. The world you're describing is not society. It is small ragtag groups all out for themselves. There's no common good that is the hallmark of society. You're describing some sort of plutocratic neo-feudalism.

The thing that strikes me the most about your arguments is that almost every one has a "aren't allowed to do that" or "won't do that" element to them. But the only way you be assured that that is the case is by regulating those things.


Your view of the world is bleak, my friend.

It is a priority for me that everybody has the right to the best healthcare possible, and I am willing to pay for it. No one likes to pay taxes, but they are what make societies possible.

I gladly accept this correction as, you are right, it does seem an important one. I am glad that, in the main though, that my notion of "Big L" is not totally off track even if am not precisely correct (is the Big L manifesto written up anywhere? I looked on Wikipedia but there were 28 flavors.)

Now I have to say that your correction does nothing to diminish my sense of Libertarian weirdness and it bring to mind the Onion's Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department.

I appreciate the correction, though.

I find that a very strange position.

On the one hand, bailing out a bank is essentially handing out money to a private business, whose business model failed (and failed because of unscrupulous, greedy practices). IMHO, they deserve to fail.


On the other hand, this is exactly what nationalization of the health care system is trying to do -- addressing a systematic bias of opportunity for people.

Those two aims are, as far as I can see, nowhere close to deserving a "95% identical" sticker.

Yes they do. It happened to my wife, after she was in a car accident. I took her to the nearest hospital (which, incidentally had only one person sitting in the waiting room), and was told that they didn't accept her insurance, and she'd have to go somewhere else. We ended up driving another 20 minutes to the next hospital, which did take her insurance (and had >20 people waiting for care).

All systems of health care have their up-sides and down-sides, but having lived with (and used) both the US and Canadian systems, I'd much rather have the Canadian system.

If that was the emergency room, I'm pretty sure that was blatantly illegal.

They probably didn't say she "had to" go somewhere else they probably said "she should". That's my bet anyways- then it's not illegal. And actually I think only certain hospitals in the US have to take everyone no matter there insured status.

Semi non sequitur:

Kevin Phliips tonight on Bill Moyers Journal.

Phillips rambles quite a bit in print, but I enjoy his analyses.

It was a few years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but that's probably correct. Either way, it was a rankling experience.

This article does an excellent job explaining how deregulation caused this current economic calamity. In particular, it points out that the potential unregulated insurance payouts were, in all likelihood, more than the combined GDP of the entire world. It's not that these companies decided to jump ship. It's that it was mathematically impossible for them to pay.

As a terrified but disinterested foreigner I found this article by Sam Harris in Newsweek to be rather chilling and yet very plausible.

A potential US president who probably has a literal belief in the rapture. <shudder>

Welcome to the idiocy of the American populace. It's not ours exclusively, but we do have an interesting flavor of it.

Now McCain wants to delay the first of the debates. This is quite the political play he's worked here. Obama has to accept this or he'll seem "petty". Palin has yet to field questions from the press in a open forum. They also tinkered with the VP debate to only allow time for a short answer period, to appease the GOP who seem deathly afraid to letting Palin speak her mind.

Even by American standards this election is a sham. McCain says he wants to "set politics aside". Isn't "politics" the whole point here? To have differing ideas debated and discussed in an open forum?

At this point, the Obama camp has said it plans to go forward with the debate.

I don't buy that he'll seem petty. At this point, there's nothing useful either of them can do but vote on proposed bills.

Perhaps Obama can pull this on off. The talking point on this one seems to be "We can walk and chew gum at the same time". Interesting stand-off. McCain also canceled his Letterman appearance today. Olberman is the replacement!

Someone please send John McCain a book on walking and chewing gum at the same time.

What happens if he becomes President and there's a financial crisis at the same time as a foreign policy crisis? "Excuse me, Mr. Ahmadinejad, could you please call of your attacks? We're trying to bail out Wall Street right now."

Ridiculous. What a transparently desperate move from a desperate man.

"Well, after my heroic dash to Washington DC and my herculean efforts, I think we are close enough to an agreement that I can meet Senator Obama on the field of combat in Oxford."

I have to believe he'll spout something like this and show up at LSU. If he doesn't he can probably kiss Mississippi goodbye -- maybe more of the Gulf.

My very low opinion of Katie Couric just came up by one-tenth of a percent. Listening to Palin's imbecilic responses to Couric's press on "Alaska is close to Russia!" was enjoyable.

But then I reflect that other people will enjoy this exchange for different reasons: "Yeah! That's telling her Sarah! Alaska *is* close to Russia!! You go girl!!!"

My respect for Couric went up more than that. She actually pressed Palin for answers to questions she was avoiding, which is more than can be said for any other journalist in the US that I'm aware of.

Palin-related laugh of the day:

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/putinrearshishead.jpg

I shouldn't be so hard on Katie. Not exactly Owen Bennett-Jones, but I am certainly pleased that she pressed Palin.

The cynic in me says that making Palin look like an airhead is like shooting fish in a barrel (once you get her tied to the chair and bar the exits). And there's now some blood in the water. News organizations that 3 weeks ago were marveling at the Palin phenomenon will now have to get in on the kill or they'll look stupid...er.

So maybe a little easier to "get tough" now?

So, who won tonight?

I don't think either one of them scored any kind of overwhelming victory.

Given his untenable position (he and his ilk are pretty much responsible for the trouble we're in today) McCain did a creditable job of not going down in flames, so from that point of view he was as much a winner as anybody. But I still maintain we're not electing a president, we're electing a scapegoat.

tanstaafl.

So I am told. I had a dinner date, so I am relying on 2nd-hand reports and pundits.


Sounds like it. Although a couple of people told me that Obama polled much better afterwards among independents.


I thought it was an apropos time to read another FDR biography when I spotted a new one (by Jean Edward Smith) at the university bookstore. I don't have any feeling that Obama has the connections, wit and nerve to pull an FDR, nor does he have the possibility of 3-4 terms. I would like to think that he doesn't have the prospect of WWIII to elevate his role to savior-in-chief but that remains to be seen.

So I wouldn't disagree re: scapegoat. Bush makes Hoover look like a bright, popular guy.

I finished Bacevich's book. He doesn't spare Obama or anyone who thinks a simple, orderly regime change will make a significant difference. But the book was more critique than prescription.

I am told that Rudy Giuliani and his wife flew with McCain to Mississippi. I *am* looking forward to watching the VP debate on October 2nd and to seeing Palin in St. Louis. I hope I won't be disappointed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7638435.stm seems to have good coverage of the debates, with a streaming feed still available, along with scorecards from various places and fact checking on some of the things that came up during the debate.

I don't understand this whole preconditions nonsense. Since when will you agree to talk to someone only when they agree to agree with you beforehand? And what is the possible negative outcome of simply talking with someone?

He might get a peek at the Big Board!!!

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.