Friday, October 31, 2008
Another Halloween Treat
TW: The latest nugget of brilliance from the Fembot:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
From Tumulty at Time:
"In an email, my friend Steve Twomey deconstructs that Sarah Palin sentence for the rest of us:
'Sarah Palin believes it violates her First Amendment rights if you criticize her for criticizing Obama.' "
TW: Here is to hoping that person is never put into a position of any authority relative to our Constitution
Dissecting Media Bias: A Look at Drudge
TW: Following up on the media bias theme addressed yesterday, I post an article on Drudge. The focus is on the age old issue of whether the media tail is wagging the public's dog or vice versa. Ultimately they support my position that media is primarily chasing its primary bias, profits.
From the Financial Times:
"The Ashley Todd affair [the hoax in PA] was the latest in a series of failures by Mr Drudge to recapture the magic of the past, when the Drudge Report had an unrivalled grip on the media agenda. He has spent the past month blatantly cherry-picking poll results that favour John McCain, to the loud derision of Obama-supporting blogs...
The decline of Drudge is part of a broader shift in the US media, both old and new, towards the Democratic party. Unlike in the last two elections, when Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s strategist, expertly exploited the media’s short attention span and love of sensation, the Republican candidate has lost their affection and respect...
In fact, I think they are correct that the media currently tilt leftward in the US, but not for the obvious reason. It says less about the bias of “liberal elite” journalists and more about a breakdown of the established media order, from The New York Times to Mr Drudge.
Mr Drudge’s dominance has been undermined by competition. His sensibility infuriated so many people that left-leaning sites such as the Daily Kos sprung up to challenge him. Lately, his thunder has been stolen by the Huffington Post, an unlikely blend of leftwing blogging, reporting and aggregation founded by Arianna Huffington, the media gadfly...
The centre is no longer holding. “Having many voices is the natural state of the media. There was just a three-decade long exception in the US when city papers and networks dominated,” says Jeff Jarvis, a blogger and lecturer in journalism at City University of New York.
Just as Fleet Street swings left and right politically, depending on where it sees its commercial advantage, the US media have shifted left for a time, to mimic what they judge to be the country’s mood. When that mood swings back, so will the media."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e6628f2-a5ef-11dd-9d26-000077b07658.html
From the Financial Times:
"The Ashley Todd affair [the hoax in PA] was the latest in a series of failures by Mr Drudge to recapture the magic of the past, when the Drudge Report had an unrivalled grip on the media agenda. He has spent the past month blatantly cherry-picking poll results that favour John McCain, to the loud derision of Obama-supporting blogs...
The decline of Drudge is part of a broader shift in the US media, both old and new, towards the Democratic party. Unlike in the last two elections, when Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s strategist, expertly exploited the media’s short attention span and love of sensation, the Republican candidate has lost their affection and respect...
In fact, I think they are correct that the media currently tilt leftward in the US, but not for the obvious reason. It says less about the bias of “liberal elite” journalists and more about a breakdown of the established media order, from The New York Times to Mr Drudge.
Mr Drudge’s dominance has been undermined by competition. His sensibility infuriated so many people that left-leaning sites such as the Daily Kos sprung up to challenge him. Lately, his thunder has been stolen by the Huffington Post, an unlikely blend of leftwing blogging, reporting and aggregation founded by Arianna Huffington, the media gadfly...
The centre is no longer holding. “Having many voices is the natural state of the media. There was just a three-decade long exception in the US when city papers and networks dominated,” says Jeff Jarvis, a blogger and lecturer in journalism at City University of New York.
Just as Fleet Street swings left and right politically, depending on where it sees its commercial advantage, the US media have shifted left for a time, to mimic what they judge to be the country’s mood. When that mood swings back, so will the media."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e6628f2-a5ef-11dd-9d26-000077b07658.html
In Defense of Palin
TW: I know not my style...but if there is one thing more annoying than Palin it is the unambiguous irresponsibility of McCain putting her on the ticket. And now as things appear dire, his surrogates are out backstabbing their own nominee. Much of what they say may in fact be true (e.g. not the brightest bulb, "whack job" etc.), but they subjected the American people to her!
From Politico:
"...who chose to put this “whack job” on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision? And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn’t you expect that your running mate’s fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn’t you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)...In truth, Palin’s real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15073.html
From Politico:
"...who chose to put this “whack job” on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision? And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn’t you expect that your running mate’s fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn’t you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)...In truth, Palin’s real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15073.html
Et Tu Bill O'?
TW: Update to my earlier post on biased/delusional media, I checked Bill O'Reilly's electoral projection this morning. He certainly had an epiphany overnight (or more likely once he was called out in the blogosphere he caved like the lame bully wannabe he is). He now shows Obama with 286 to McCain's 163 and 89 toss-ups. Those numbers are defensible unlike yesterday's 189 to 183 estimate in favor of McCain.
Poll Fretters (cont.)
From David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo:
"It's a Sickness
There should be a support group for all those beleaguered progressives who over the years anxiously awaited elections in the futile hope that the polls showing their candidate behind would turn out to be wrong -- but who this year are fretting just as much that the polls showing their candidate ahead are wrong.
[Ed. Note: I self-diagnosed the disease.] "
"It's a Sickness
There should be a support group for all those beleaguered progressives who over the years anxiously awaited elections in the futile hope that the polls showing their candidate behind would turn out to be wrong -- but who this year are fretting just as much that the polls showing their candidate ahead are wrong.
[Ed. Note: I self-diagnosed the disease.] "
The Debate: Stewart v. Kristol
TW: Stewart does good job of honing in on how and why the Republicans attack Obama as "radical" then when pressed say he is really not. Then why do they claim he is asks Stewart, he never says Kristolmeth merely segues to a new topic.
Some Halloween Candy From Pat Buchanan
TW: I actually like Pat Buchanan sometimes, when he is being blunt as opposed to a polemic. But in the referenced piece he stoops to fear-mongering polemics. Save the piece and cross check it in a couple of years, I doubt his dire forecasts will hold much water.
From the Economist:
"Mr Buchanan got a head start lamenting the Obama administration yesterday. Some of his predictions (proliferation of "special protections for homosexuals", "a virtual open border" with Mexico, the "rigorous" enforcement of affirmative action, etc) sound like nostalgia for past grievances. Others are sound, if a bit confusing. For example
— A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.
— The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.
You have to admire the Buchanan brass after deploring it. Irresponsible aid to local governments before inauguration day? That would be arrogant of the president-elect. A trillion-dollar deficit in the first year? That's a near certainty, given that the new president would be operating under the final Bush budget, bailout and all, for his first three quarters. Here's another prediction: Should current polls prove out and Mr Obama become the next president, Mr Buchanan will recycle more prophecies from 1993."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/buchanan_looks_forward.cfm
From the Economist:
"Mr Buchanan got a head start lamenting the Obama administration yesterday. Some of his predictions (proliferation of "special protections for homosexuals", "a virtual open border" with Mexico, the "rigorous" enforcement of affirmative action, etc) sound like nostalgia for past grievances. Others are sound, if a bit confusing. For example
— A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.
— The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.
You have to admire the Buchanan brass after deploring it. Irresponsible aid to local governments before inauguration day? That would be arrogant of the president-elect. A trillion-dollar deficit in the first year? That's a near certainty, given that the new president would be operating under the final Bush budget, bailout and all, for his first three quarters. Here's another prediction: Should current polls prove out and Mr Obama become the next president, Mr Buchanan will recycle more prophecies from 1993."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/buchanan_looks_forward.cfm
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Khalidi My Perspective
TW: My take on the Khalidi LA Times thing. One, why is it so viscerally problematic for Americans to associate with respected Arab professors unless they are completely vanilla in their backgrounds (i.e. amongst others, one could put up video after video of McCain associating with right wing dictators, Pinochet etc., responsible for the deaths of thousands but somehow we can absorb that without palpitations). Two, this is all about cultural porn. The Rev. Wright videos were classic porn, they were titillating but eventually the impact dissipated. The Republicans would love to throw some fresh porn into the MSM for the weekend. The LA Times wrote a lengthy story months ago about the substance of the tapes, this effort is all about the form.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
The Economist posts on the topic as well:
"Mr Obama seems to be admitting gently that he has "biases" towards Israel that a Palestinian critic made clear to him. Once again, we see someone able to see both sides of an issue. The 100%-pro-Israel-or-nothing usual suspects will see this as proof that Mr Obama is suspicious. But as we have often said, an understanding of Palestinian grievances—and support for an eventual founding of a Palestinian state—do more for Israel than blind support ever could. You know who else has ties to the PLO? Ask George Bush, the first president to call for a Palestinian state. Ask Yitzhak Rabin, the war hero who gave his life to an assassin's bullet for talking with the Palestinians. Ask Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, who almost reached an agreement with Yasir Arafat at Taba. A majority in Israel favours a Palestinian state. Khalidigate—or the fact that Mr McCain seems to think it would damage Mr Obama—just proves how toxic the Israel-Palestine issue is in America, like abortion, but in foreign affairs, poisoning rational discussion to death"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/khalidigate.cfm
And this from CNN:
Joe Klein's critique of above:
"Here we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism--a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic--or any other epithet--should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
The Economist posts on the topic as well:
"Mr Obama seems to be admitting gently that he has "biases" towards Israel that a Palestinian critic made clear to him. Once again, we see someone able to see both sides of an issue. The 100%-pro-Israel-or-nothing usual suspects will see this as proof that Mr Obama is suspicious. But as we have often said, an understanding of Palestinian grievances—and support for an eventual founding of a Palestinian state—do more for Israel than blind support ever could. You know who else has ties to the PLO? Ask George Bush, the first president to call for a Palestinian state. Ask Yitzhak Rabin, the war hero who gave his life to an assassin's bullet for talking with the Palestinians. Ask Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, who almost reached an agreement with Yasir Arafat at Taba. A majority in Israel favours a Palestinian state. Khalidigate—or the fact that Mr McCain seems to think it would damage Mr Obama—just proves how toxic the Israel-Palestine issue is in America, like abortion, but in foreign affairs, poisoning rational discussion to death"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/khalidigate.cfm
And this from CNN:
Joe Klein's critique of above:
"Here we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism--a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic--or any other epithet--should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN."
The World Votes
TW: On-line voters world-wide are casting their ballots...
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/
The Economist Endorsement: Was There Any Doubt!!
TW: Readers of the blog know I heart me some Economist. They are libertarian in a good way and being off-shore bring a relatively unbiased perspective not only politically but culturally. They also write above the 5th grade level generally without pictures even. So one can imagine my pleasure in reading their full-throated POTUS endorsement an endorsement btw they have been stingy with in past elections.
From Economist:
"IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
[Economist] would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper...Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors.
From Economist:
"IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
[Economist] would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper...Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting...on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision...The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness...
the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying...
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1
Parallel Universes and Snark
TW: If you want a perspective on biased media shut yourself off from all other media for a day and just read Redstate.com and DailyKos.com. Then you will understand the parallel universes in which many Americans live and what true media bias actually looks like (understanding neither profess to be non-biased unlike say Fox). You will also gain an appreciation for how tedious uninhibited snark can become.
I think you will gain as well an appreciation for how relatively unbiased MSM is. To repeat an earlier comment, MSM is highly biased but mainly in the interest of making money (Fox and Drudge have their right wing revenue models, MSNBC and Huffington have their left wing models, CNN/CBS/ABC /Politico etc. try to meander around the middle).
For amusement and evidence of the above I went to the No Spin Zone (ha!) of the inimitable Bill O'...chk out his electoral projections...he has McCain ahead 189 to 183 with 166 too close to call (inc. those current cliffhangers OR, MI, IA, MN, WI, NH etc). He also has one of those "you decide" polls, this one on who provides the best political analysis...your choices are Gingrich, Dennis Miller, Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris or Karl Rove...talk about a fair and balanced selection of analysts...
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/winning-the-electoral-college/
I think you will gain as well an appreciation for how relatively unbiased MSM is. To repeat an earlier comment, MSM is highly biased but mainly in the interest of making money (Fox and Drudge have their right wing revenue models, MSNBC and Huffington have their left wing models, CNN/CBS/ABC /Politico etc. try to meander around the middle).
For amusement and evidence of the above I went to the No Spin Zone (ha!) of the inimitable Bill O'...chk out his electoral projections...he has McCain ahead 189 to 183 with 166 too close to call (inc. those current cliffhangers OR, MI, IA, MN, WI, NH etc). He also has one of those "you decide" polls, this one on who provides the best political analysis...your choices are Gingrich, Dennis Miller, Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris or Karl Rove...talk about a fair and balanced selection of analysts...
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/winning-the-electoral-college/
Early Voting Hype
TW: My gratuitous take on all of the talk about early voting surges and its presumed impact in favor of Obama is that it is largely hype. The blogospheres on the left and even the right are going crazy about it. Wed's headline in the Chicago Tribune trumpeted the "just incredible" early turnout.
I do not doubt that more folks are voting early but I believe it is a secular shift to more people voting early in general rather than some indication of a profound shift in turnout in favor of Obama. The local election boards are pushing the concept. We received a letter from our election board yesterday urging us to vote since our precinct went from 500 to 1,300 registrants (why I do not know as we have zero close elections in our district, our Congressman gets about 90% for instance, Obama will win IL by about 30%). What about increasing capacity on election day instead?
No doubt Obama's turn out the vote effort is strong including epic turnout for African-Americans. But I am skeptical that the double digit leads some are trumpeting are reflective of underlying trends.
I do not doubt that more folks are voting early but I believe it is a secular shift to more people voting early in general rather than some indication of a profound shift in turnout in favor of Obama. The local election boards are pushing the concept. We received a letter from our election board yesterday urging us to vote since our precinct went from 500 to 1,300 registrants (why I do not know as we have zero close elections in our district, our Congressman gets about 90% for instance, Obama will win IL by about 30%). What about increasing capacity on election day instead?
No doubt Obama's turn out the vote effort is strong including epic turnout for African-Americans. But I am skeptical that the double digit leads some are trumpeting are reflective of underlying trends.
The Poll Results and Poll Fretting
TW: First the results of the poll were:
5 said Hillary would be doing better than Barack, 7 said the opposite, interestingly no one said they would be doing the same...so I guess everyone was pretty confident either way the good guys would be winning...
We have a new poll up and on Sunday will ask for electoral college predictions, I like making predictions once any weekend surprises are out of the way...
Poll fretting, I and certainly my wife and many of my friends tend to fret at the slightest sign of weakness in the polls for our guy. I refer any fretters to the MAN when it comes to polling, Mr. Nate Silver (link on the right). He covers it thoroughly and regularly. And anyone who relies on Drudge headlines for polling info deserves any angst they experience.
5 said Hillary would be doing better than Barack, 7 said the opposite, interestingly no one said they would be doing the same...so I guess everyone was pretty confident either way the good guys would be winning...
We have a new poll up and on Sunday will ask for electoral college predictions, I like making predictions once any weekend surprises are out of the way...
Poll fretting, I and certainly my wife and many of my friends tend to fret at the slightest sign of weakness in the polls for our guy. I refer any fretters to the MAN when it comes to polling, Mr. Nate Silver (link on the right). He covers it thoroughly and regularly. And anyone who relies on Drudge headlines for polling info deserves any angst they experience.
How To Stimulate the Economy?
TW: There is much discussion of how to best address the economic crisis that is rapidly evolving from a primarly finanical market problem to a "real" economy consumer driven deep recession. The attached chart from Moody's speaks to how various policy options most effectively stimulate the economy. The Republicans love to talk up tax cuts but Keynesian spending appear to have a more effective result.
The problem comes reconciling any policy changes with the realities of politics. Ideally any stimulus should be temporary, the reality is if a tax is "cut" then to reverse the "cut" one must "increase" taxes leaving the increasing party (the Dems) vulnerable to the Republicans crying socialism etc. Correspondingly if fiscal stimulus is applied (e.g. more spending) the Dems will weep and moan when the spending is pulled back in. The answer would be responsible political leadership, a challenging goal.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Bing Appeals For Calm
TW: I have read Stanley Bing's column in Fortune for years. His stuff recently seems to have become less interesting but his latest column appeals for some cheery thinking amidst the pervasive market gloom so why not?
From Bing/Fortune:
"And the land was overrun by prophets of doom, and with them came four horses, and on those horses were four riders, and the names of those riders were Fear and Anger and Gloom and Panic.
And these gloomy, mostly pudgy and balding prophets shouted from the rooftops, predicting the end of happiness, the end of the dollar, the onset of starvation, the collapse of markets globally, and the hegemony of China. And those who prophesied the worst got the most airtime...
And before them was a choice: to live with those who waited for the end in terror, or to strike out for the future alongside those who were brave enough, or simply too uninformed, to have relinquished all hope.
And they chose life. And it was a lot better than the alternative.
And these hardy souls went out among the miserable shopkeepers with whatever coins they could spare and spread them around the marketplace. They sowed. They reaped. They responded to advertising. And when they beheld the prophets of doom dispensing negative messages based on dank scenarios of their own creation and heavy doses of useless hindsight, they raised their voices against them, saying, "Enough already! If you knew so much, why did you not predict this disaster or do anything to stop it?...
And it was the evening and the morning of the first day of the rest of our lives. May it come soon!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/stanleybing/bing_apocalypse.fortune/index.htm
From Bing/Fortune:
"And the land was overrun by prophets of doom, and with them came four horses, and on those horses were four riders, and the names of those riders were Fear and Anger and Gloom and Panic.
And these gloomy, mostly pudgy and balding prophets shouted from the rooftops, predicting the end of happiness, the end of the dollar, the onset of starvation, the collapse of markets globally, and the hegemony of China. And those who prophesied the worst got the most airtime...
And before them was a choice: to live with those who waited for the end in terror, or to strike out for the future alongside those who were brave enough, or simply too uninformed, to have relinquished all hope.
And they chose life. And it was a lot better than the alternative.
And these hardy souls went out among the miserable shopkeepers with whatever coins they could spare and spread them around the marketplace. They sowed. They reaped. They responded to advertising. And when they beheld the prophets of doom dispensing negative messages based on dank scenarios of their own creation and heavy doses of useless hindsight, they raised their voices against them, saying, "Enough already! If you knew so much, why did you not predict this disaster or do anything to stop it?...
And it was the evening and the morning of the first day of the rest of our lives. May it come soon!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/stanleybing/bing_apocalypse.fortune/index.htm
Makes Our Blog Seem Kinda Tame....
TW: I concur with Andrew Sullivan from whom I poached the link that these ladies A) are pretty cool for having a blog and B) do not like the Fembot.
http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/
http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/
In Defense Of Elitism
TW: Tucker Carlson has bounced around, I always liked him relatively speaking but he never has seemed to find a niche (conservative but not quite enough for the conservatives). I think he could do a middle of the road show effectively but the market for those is limited. Regardless he takes on the anti-elitism theme, albeit in his usual cynical manner, that has emerged in spades this cycle.
From Carlson/Daily Beast:
"...it would be nice if we stopped pretending that anyone can run the government. Anyone can't, as successive administrations have learned the hard way...Clinton and his brilliant young reformers had stepped in it. Just four months into his first term, Clinton acknowledged defeat and hired—of all people—David Gergen, who was not simply a longtime advisor to the other party, but the living embodiment of inside-the-Beltway thinking, a man whose every word is 200-proof distilled Georgetown cocktail party conversation. True believers attacked the hire as cynical and desperate. Washingtonians recognized it as the moment Clinton started to become politically effective.
Bush, unfortunately, was slower to catch on...Bush and the group of mediocre Texans around him had alienated virtually everyone in Washington,including potential friends...
A wise president would break the cycle, soliciting help on day one from seasoned Beltway hacks, influence peddlers and various other corrupt local fixtures who pollute this temple of democracy—in other words, from people who actually know how the system works. In order to do this, however, you'd have to admit that governing requires more than good will and authenticity. Good luck with that...Elitism may be annoying, but the mob is dangerous."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-28/in-defense-of-elitism/
From Carlson/Daily Beast:
"...it would be nice if we stopped pretending that anyone can run the government. Anyone can't, as successive administrations have learned the hard way...Clinton and his brilliant young reformers had stepped in it. Just four months into his first term, Clinton acknowledged defeat and hired—of all people—David Gergen, who was not simply a longtime advisor to the other party, but the living embodiment of inside-the-Beltway thinking, a man whose every word is 200-proof distilled Georgetown cocktail party conversation. True believers attacked the hire as cynical and desperate. Washingtonians recognized it as the moment Clinton started to become politically effective.
Bush, unfortunately, was slower to catch on...Bush and the group of mediocre Texans around him had alienated virtually everyone in Washington,including potential friends...
A wise president would break the cycle, soliciting help on day one from seasoned Beltway hacks, influence peddlers and various other corrupt local fixtures who pollute this temple of democracy—in other words, from people who actually know how the system works. In order to do this, however, you'd have to admit that governing requires more than good will and authenticity. Good luck with that...Elitism may be annoying, but the mob is dangerous."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-28/in-defense-of-elitism/
The Hard Work Is Coming...
TW: I like Al Hunt alot. He writes on the looming challenges the POTUS-elect will face. Much of the limited specifics provided by either candidate will be tossed due to the evolving realities facing the US and the world. What becomes important will be the judgment, management capabilities and charisma of the new leader.
From Hunt/Bloomberg:
"...A sobering reality will hit: This new president inherits the most troubled country, in domestic and foreign policy, of any new leader since Franklin Roosevelt.
...Obama, when asked what policy changes this new environment requires or what sacrifices are necessary, talks vaguely about the need to ``start thinking'' about energy conservation and the like. He refuses to cite any significant spending cuts he would make in light of the new fiscal situation.
He suggests the country can have universal health-care coverage, make a huge downpayment on energy independence and fund expensive alternative-energy sources, enact a variety of new domestic initiatives and cut taxes for 80 percent of Americans. All in his first term.
That is good politics in the fall of 2008; it will make for difficult governance in 2009.
The impracticality of McCain's programs is more serious. His pledge to balance the budget in four years -- repeated earlier this month, well after the impact of the fiscal crisis hit -- is a travesty, neither desirable nor achievable...Asked how he would get there, he first trots out the old, and now tired, saw of ending earmarked funds for special projects, which is insignificant fiscally.
He espouses a freeze in discretionary spending, which is also bad policy. A few small examples: Would a President McCain cut, in real terms, spending for the National Institutes of Health and research efforts to find cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's? His running mate, Sarah Palin, says the McCain-Palin administration would increase funding for the NIH, a scientific agency. In Florida, McCain talked about funding for the space program. What else will be unfrozen?
There are only two ways to even start down the road to a balanced budget: cut back on the growth in entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, and scale back the $4.2 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years that the Arizona Republican has promised. On these, McCain is silent; he has asked no sacrifice of wealthier Americans.
Winning in Iraq?
On foreign policy, there will also be a sobriety check shortly after Nov. 4...And it's a good bet the next president, at some stage, will be confronted with the reality that the greatest foreign policy issue facing America, economically and strategically, during the next generation will be China.
China has been absent from the agenda on the campaign trail. In the debates, it was mentioned only in passing, chiefly by both McCain and Obama noting that the U.S. is a half-trillion dollars in debt to the Chinese...
Moreover, as Goodwin notes, some of the greatest presidents displayed similar gaps before getting to the White House. Abraham Lincoln was criticized for not speaking out more forcefully as the Union was dissolving before he assumed office. In 1932, Roosevelt, while calling for the bold experimentation he would undertake, also campaigned on a balanced budget.
There have been grand moments in this campaign, which, like other epic political contests -- 1932, 1960 and 1980 -- will be the stuff of conversation among our grandchildren. In 40 years of covering presidential races, never have I seen more eloquence or enthusiasm.
If, as most everyone expects, Obama wins, the crucial turning point would have been mid-September when the financial crisis really began to be felt. This was a momentous event, and he chose not to pander to the passions of the bloviators and soundbite merchants. He was calm, confident, measured, thoughtful. It was what a scared electorate wanted.
Toss in a dollop of inspiration, and he will need all of this in the times ahead.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_1KWTpDnKhw
From Hunt/Bloomberg:
"...A sobering reality will hit: This new president inherits the most troubled country, in domestic and foreign policy, of any new leader since Franklin Roosevelt.
...Obama, when asked what policy changes this new environment requires or what sacrifices are necessary, talks vaguely about the need to ``start thinking'' about energy conservation and the like. He refuses to cite any significant spending cuts he would make in light of the new fiscal situation.
He suggests the country can have universal health-care coverage, make a huge downpayment on energy independence and fund expensive alternative-energy sources, enact a variety of new domestic initiatives and cut taxes for 80 percent of Americans. All in his first term.
That is good politics in the fall of 2008; it will make for difficult governance in 2009.
The impracticality of McCain's programs is more serious. His pledge to balance the budget in four years -- repeated earlier this month, well after the impact of the fiscal crisis hit -- is a travesty, neither desirable nor achievable...Asked how he would get there, he first trots out the old, and now tired, saw of ending earmarked funds for special projects, which is insignificant fiscally.
He espouses a freeze in discretionary spending, which is also bad policy. A few small examples: Would a President McCain cut, in real terms, spending for the National Institutes of Health and research efforts to find cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's? His running mate, Sarah Palin, says the McCain-Palin administration would increase funding for the NIH, a scientific agency. In Florida, McCain talked about funding for the space program. What else will be unfrozen?
There are only two ways to even start down the road to a balanced budget: cut back on the growth in entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, and scale back the $4.2 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years that the Arizona Republican has promised. On these, McCain is silent; he has asked no sacrifice of wealthier Americans.
Winning in Iraq?
On foreign policy, there will also be a sobriety check shortly after Nov. 4...And it's a good bet the next president, at some stage, will be confronted with the reality that the greatest foreign policy issue facing America, economically and strategically, during the next generation will be China.
China has been absent from the agenda on the campaign trail. In the debates, it was mentioned only in passing, chiefly by both McCain and Obama noting that the U.S. is a half-trillion dollars in debt to the Chinese...
Moreover, as Goodwin notes, some of the greatest presidents displayed similar gaps before getting to the White House. Abraham Lincoln was criticized for not speaking out more forcefully as the Union was dissolving before he assumed office. In 1932, Roosevelt, while calling for the bold experimentation he would undertake, also campaigned on a balanced budget.
There have been grand moments in this campaign, which, like other epic political contests -- 1932, 1960 and 1980 -- will be the stuff of conversation among our grandchildren. In 40 years of covering presidential races, never have I seen more eloquence or enthusiasm.
If, as most everyone expects, Obama wins, the crucial turning point would have been mid-September when the financial crisis really began to be felt. This was a momentous event, and he chose not to pander to the passions of the bloviators and soundbite merchants. He was calm, confident, measured, thoughtful. It was what a scared electorate wanted.
Toss in a dollop of inspiration, and he will need all of this in the times ahead.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_1KWTpDnKhw
The Chase For 60 Senate Seats (Update #2)
TW: Have posted on the Dem's chase for 60 Senate seats a couple of times before (see attached below). The pursuit continues and the Dems' chances are growing but by no means better than 50%. The conviction of Ted Stevens (Republican Alaska) certainly makes the Dems' road easier. At this point the races stand as follows with the Dems needing nine seats to attain cloture:
The likely pick-ups would get the Dems to 56:
Mark Warner is heavily favored for John Warner's open seat in VA
Tom Udall is heavily favored for Pete Domenieci''s open seat in NM
Mark Udall (Tom's cousin) is favored for Wayne Allard's open seat in CO
Jeanne Sheehan leads incumbent John Sununu in NH
Mark Begich is now favored over convicted felon incumbent Ted Stevens in AK
The Dems are in tight races in 3 more to get to 59:
MN with Al Franken v. incumbent Norm Coleman
OR with Jeff Merkley v. incumbent Gordon Smith
NC with Kay Hagan v. incumbent Elizabeth Dole
If this is a wave election those 3 would most likely be Dem pick-ups, leaving the Dems in search of one more seat to get to 60 (and again putting f'ing Joe Lieberman in the position he loves as swing vote)
There are 3 possibilities:
GA with Jim Martin v. incumbent Saxby Chambliss (note in GA if no candidate gets 50% then a run-off will be held, there is a 3rd party polling at material levels so this is a real possibility)
KY with Bruce Hubbard v. incumbent Mitch McConnell
MS with Roger Musgrave v. incumbent Roger Wicker
GA and KY are two of the first states to close polling so if u see either of the incumbents in serious trouble in either of those states expect both a big Obama win and a Dem "wave" election.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-dems-get-to-60-seats-in-senate.html
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/race-to-60-senate-seats-update.html
The likely pick-ups would get the Dems to 56:
Mark Warner is heavily favored for John Warner's open seat in VA
Tom Udall is heavily favored for Pete Domenieci''s open seat in NM
Mark Udall (Tom's cousin) is favored for Wayne Allard's open seat in CO
Jeanne Sheehan leads incumbent John Sununu in NH
Mark Begich is now favored over convicted felon incumbent Ted Stevens in AK
The Dems are in tight races in 3 more to get to 59:
MN with Al Franken v. incumbent Norm Coleman
OR with Jeff Merkley v. incumbent Gordon Smith
NC with Kay Hagan v. incumbent Elizabeth Dole
If this is a wave election those 3 would most likely be Dem pick-ups, leaving the Dems in search of one more seat to get to 60 (and again putting f'ing Joe Lieberman in the position he loves as swing vote)
There are 3 possibilities:
GA with Jim Martin v. incumbent Saxby Chambliss (note in GA if no candidate gets 50% then a run-off will be held, there is a 3rd party polling at material levels so this is a real possibility)
KY with Bruce Hubbard v. incumbent Mitch McConnell
MS with Roger Musgrave v. incumbent Roger Wicker
GA and KY are two of the first states to close polling so if u see either of the incumbents in serious trouble in either of those states expect both a big Obama win and a Dem "wave" election.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-dems-get-to-60-seats-in-senate.html
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/race-to-60-senate-seats-update.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
In Defense Of the Fruit Fly
TW: I have really been trying to limit the Fembot posts under a stop beating a dead bot theory. But Christopher Hitchens is so eloquent in his depiction of the Fembot I felt like it deserved one more slug (btw he twisted off after hearing her sneer about fruit fly research, will let those interested drill into the article).
From Hitch:
"[Nominating Palin] is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity."
http://slate.com/id/2203120
From Hitch:
"[Nominating Palin] is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity."
http://slate.com/id/2203120
Good For Shepard Smith
TW: Joe the Plumber stepped in it today while campaigning for McPalin. His remarks today demonstrate the very tenuous facts upon which he bases his outspoken opinions but then many low information voters do the same. The difference here is that he is being thrust into a primary role as an alleged everyman. I do not care for Fox News obviously but Shepard Smith is a bright light amidst some dim bulbs (his Katrina coverage being a highlight). He pushed the Plumb fairly hard. What is especially disappointing ultimately is the McPalin campaign embracing the dubious statements espoused by the Plumb.
Surowiecki Nails Palin Future
From Jim Surowiecki at the New Yorker:
"...if McCain lost, Palin’s future would not be in electoral politics, but rather in television, doing something similar to what Sean Hannity does. In the wake of the Katie Couric interview, and Palin’s myriad other tongue-tied appearances, that seemed improbable to me. But Palin’s S.N.L. appearance, short as it was, made me see what my friend had been talking about. I thought she was very good on the show, very winning, and above all remarkably comfortable on the set. Combine that with her apparent appeal to male viewers, the edge of meanness she’s displayed in many of her speeches, and her willingness to remain relentlessly on the attack, and it seems like you have the makings of a conservative television star."
"...if McCain lost, Palin’s future would not be in electoral politics, but rather in television, doing something similar to what Sean Hannity does. In the wake of the Katie Couric interview, and Palin’s myriad other tongue-tied appearances, that seemed improbable to me. But Palin’s S.N.L. appearance, short as it was, made me see what my friend had been talking about. I thought she was very good on the show, very winning, and above all remarkably comfortable on the set. Combine that with her apparent appeal to male viewers, the edge of meanness she’s displayed in many of her speeches, and her willingness to remain relentlessly on the attack, and it seems like you have the makings of a conservative television star."
The Republicans Bring Out Their Heavy Hitters
TW: They will stop at nothing to stop Al Franken! They have enlisted the support of several...ahem..."celebs"...
TW: One of them is apparently no fan of Obama either
From Victoria Jackson's blog via Politico:
"I don't want a political label, but Obama bears traits that resemble the anti- Christ and I'm scared to death that un- educated people will ignorantly vote him into office. You see, what bothers me most, besides being a Communist, and a racist..."
TW: One of them is apparently no fan of Obama either
From Victoria Jackson's blog via Politico:
"I don't want a political label, but Obama bears traits that resemble the anti- Christ and I'm scared to death that un- educated people will ignorantly vote him into office. You see, what bothers me most, besides being a Communist, and a racist..."
Campbell Brown and Stewart
TW: Brown is trying to create a middle of the road prime time show on CNN, time will tell if it works in the age of partisan echo chambers. But the interview is fairly interesting in its discussion of the concept within the context of today's media environment.
2004 v. 2008 A Different World This Time
2008
2004
From Votemaster: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html
2004
From Votemaster: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html
Calabresi: An Intellectually Dishonest Professor
TW: I have posted previously on this Calabresi guy(http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/profile-in-stupidity-exhibit-steve.html). I find him so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous as to be funny. Politico has a forum, The Arena, where they invite alleged elite thinkers to comment on various topics. Most of the comments are the typical polemics of the left and right. But I go watch the Arena mainly to see what ridiculous gem Calabresi will provide, he rarely disappoints. His endorsement of McCain was very brief if predictable, listing no affirmative case for McCain, but blaming without basis the financial market crash on Obama and dismissing Obama's middle class tax cuts as welfare, nothing more nothing less.
But today he has really chafed my derriere. He pops up on the WSJ with a really scurrilous piece. WSJ featuring such drivel speaks to the vacuity of its editorial page. Calabresi starts the piece lamenting the passing of the good old days of Reagan federal judge appointments- folks like Scalia, Bork and Ken Starr (TW: I do not miss those days but that is just me). Then he veers off into gaga land.
I posted yesterday with Joe Klein's rebuttal of the Republican effort to baldly twist Obama's 2001 quote re the constitution and "income re-distribution" (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-distributing-wealth.html). Obama's quote had nothing to do with supporting income re-distribution. Yet Calabresi grabs the quote again and twists it irresponsibly. This is a law professor who must know better but knowingly commits an intellectually dishonest act.
Then he degenerates into extrapolating to ridiculous extremes where Obama's judicial policies would take the U.S. Obama for some reason has not campaigned on the spurious extrapolations, no one during the primaries or general election has pressed him on the topics (not even Fox) but Calabresi with his omniscience sees them coming (but then Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate).
I comment on Calabresi to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of the WSJ and the hollowness of many (not all by any means) on the right who without sufficient affirmative reasons for supporting their nominees are now merely making stuff up.
From Calabresi/WSJ:
"...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?...
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
TW: I have added another post by Cass Sunstein (guy whose Obama endorsement I posted yesterday, he is also an attorney), addressing in further detail the Obama 2001 interview.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx
But today he has really chafed my derriere. He pops up on the WSJ with a really scurrilous piece. WSJ featuring such drivel speaks to the vacuity of its editorial page. Calabresi starts the piece lamenting the passing of the good old days of Reagan federal judge appointments- folks like Scalia, Bork and Ken Starr (TW: I do not miss those days but that is just me). Then he veers off into gaga land.
I posted yesterday with Joe Klein's rebuttal of the Republican effort to baldly twist Obama's 2001 quote re the constitution and "income re-distribution" (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-distributing-wealth.html). Obama's quote had nothing to do with supporting income re-distribution. Yet Calabresi grabs the quote again and twists it irresponsibly. This is a law professor who must know better but knowingly commits an intellectually dishonest act.
Then he degenerates into extrapolating to ridiculous extremes where Obama's judicial policies would take the U.S. Obama for some reason has not campaigned on the spurious extrapolations, no one during the primaries or general election has pressed him on the topics (not even Fox) but Calabresi with his omniscience sees them coming (but then Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate).
I comment on Calabresi to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of the WSJ and the hollowness of many (not all by any means) on the right who without sufficient affirmative reasons for supporting their nominees are now merely making stuff up.
From Calabresi/WSJ:
"...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?...
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
TW: I have added another post by Cass Sunstein (guy whose Obama endorsement I posted yesterday, he is also an attorney), addressing in further detail the Obama 2001 interview.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx
Arthur Laffer Wrong In the 80's Wrong Now
TW: Have blogged about Larry Kudlow before as in do not pay any attention to him (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/greatest-hits-larry-kudlow.html). One of his favorite guests is Arthur Laffer, of Laffer curve fame the one that purports to show that if u cut taxes total government receipts will go up. The Economist finds his latest diatribe similarly vacuous.
From the Economist:
"Mr Laffer has written a new book entitled The End of Prosperity. His co-authors on the book are Peter Tanous, and Stephen Moore. The latter, notably, published a book in 2004 called Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger. As best I can tell, it was not written as parody.
The theme of Mr Laffer's column is that the Bush administration and the current Congress are equally culpable in dooming the American economy. They will be remembered, he writes, as new Herbert Hoovers. Why? Because they have acted excessively to intervene during this crisis. Their actions, he notes, are reducing expectations of long-run corporate profits and that—not global recession and a vicious cycle of deleveraging—is what's causing equity markets to sink.
What they should have done (to avoid being labled new Hoovers, recall) was allow those who made bad bets to take their lumps—to "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate...purge the rottenness out of the system", in a manner of speaking. That, and emulate the "sound money" policies of Paul Volcker.
I have to tip my hat to Mr Laffer. I'm not sure I could author something this wonderfully, artistically wrong, were I to labour at the effort for months. Bravo."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/10/the_wrong_get_wronger.cfm
From the Economist:
"Mr Laffer has written a new book entitled The End of Prosperity. His co-authors on the book are Peter Tanous, and Stephen Moore. The latter, notably, published a book in 2004 called Bullish On Bush: How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger. As best I can tell, it was not written as parody.
The theme of Mr Laffer's column is that the Bush administration and the current Congress are equally culpable in dooming the American economy. They will be remembered, he writes, as new Herbert Hoovers. Why? Because they have acted excessively to intervene during this crisis. Their actions, he notes, are reducing expectations of long-run corporate profits and that—not global recession and a vicious cycle of deleveraging—is what's causing equity markets to sink.
What they should have done (to avoid being labled new Hoovers, recall) was allow those who made bad bets to take their lumps—to "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate...purge the rottenness out of the system", in a manner of speaking. That, and emulate the "sound money" policies of Paul Volcker.
I have to tip my hat to Mr Laffer. I'm not sure I could author something this wonderfully, artistically wrong, were I to labour at the effort for months. Bravo."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/10/the_wrong_get_wronger.cfm
Doug Kass On the Need For a New Sheriff/POTUS
TW: Doug Kass is a notorious stock market bear. His prognostications have unfortunately been spot on this year. He wrote at the beginning of the year in his annual forecast that the election of a Democrat would be bad for the market. He has shifted his position. I will concur with his prediction and state affirmatively that if Obama wins next week the market will be up (barring material exogenous variables) significantly by end of week trading on Nov 7th.
From Kass at the Street.Com:
"The conventional view is that an Obama win next Tuesday will have a negative impact on U.S. equities, as the Democratic party is seen as the party of higher taxes for the wealthy, trade protectionism, etc. It was my view, as well, up until recently; I now disagree, however, as circumstances have changed and so has my investment conclusion...the severity of our financial crisis has been greeted by the Republican campaign with trivia and with a singular lack of understanding of the economy, while the Democratic campaign has responded with gravitas. While I am being overly simplistic, Senator McCain's campaign has been highlighted by continued clumsy and disorganized responses to our financial woes
While Senator McCain focuses on earmarks and pork barrel spending (a relatively trivial factor compared to the scope of the world's financial crisis) and Governor Palin talks hockey moms and pit bulls, the Obama/Biden campaign (which in its infancy was full of vague uplifting rhetoric) has morphed into pragmatic and solution-oriented mode (e.g., the recent caucus with seasoned financial types such as Buffett, Rubin, Buckley, Summers and Volcker) in an attempt to put needed flesh on financial policy and much needed reform...
Most seem to agree that it is now time to approach unconventional problems and risks with unconventional solutions and policy. Based on the polls, to many voters (and investors) today, the Democratic party seems far better suited to tackle the enormity of the risks...
I look toward a different (and more salutary) market outcome than is generally expected following a Democratic win. In essence, there could now be such broad-based dissatisfaction with the current lack of leadership and poor decisions by the Bush Administration that investors could greet a Democratic win as setting a new stage of leadership capable of reversing the current view that U.S. economic and political preeminence is on the decline. Decisive, creative and coherent moves by a newly elected Democratic Administration could further engage investors in 2009"
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10444338/2/kass-obama-the-street-cleaner-we-need.html
From Kass at the Street.Com:
"The conventional view is that an Obama win next Tuesday will have a negative impact on U.S. equities, as the Democratic party is seen as the party of higher taxes for the wealthy, trade protectionism, etc. It was my view, as well, up until recently; I now disagree, however, as circumstances have changed and so has my investment conclusion...the severity of our financial crisis has been greeted by the Republican campaign with trivia and with a singular lack of understanding of the economy, while the Democratic campaign has responded with gravitas. While I am being overly simplistic, Senator McCain's campaign has been highlighted by continued clumsy and disorganized responses to our financial woes
While Senator McCain focuses on earmarks and pork barrel spending (a relatively trivial factor compared to the scope of the world's financial crisis) and Governor Palin talks hockey moms and pit bulls, the Obama/Biden campaign (which in its infancy was full of vague uplifting rhetoric) has morphed into pragmatic and solution-oriented mode (e.g., the recent caucus with seasoned financial types such as Buffett, Rubin, Buckley, Summers and Volcker) in an attempt to put needed flesh on financial policy and much needed reform...
Most seem to agree that it is now time to approach unconventional problems and risks with unconventional solutions and policy. Based on the polls, to many voters (and investors) today, the Democratic party seems far better suited to tackle the enormity of the risks...
I look toward a different (and more salutary) market outcome than is generally expected following a Democratic win. In essence, there could now be such broad-based dissatisfaction with the current lack of leadership and poor decisions by the Bush Administration that investors could greet a Democratic win as setting a new stage of leadership capable of reversing the current view that U.S. economic and political preeminence is on the decline. Decisive, creative and coherent moves by a newly elected Democratic Administration could further engage investors in 2009"
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10444338/2/kass-obama-the-street-cleaner-we-need.html
Monday, October 27, 2008
Re-distributing Wealth
TW: I want to be clear here. This BS about Obama and re-distributing wealth is just that. Drudge and many on the right are being intellectually dishonest claiming they have found a smoking gun with an old Obama radio interview where he discusses courts and taxation. Klein below dissects it well. Furthermore, why reversing W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy is somehow socialist is beyond me. What was re-distributive was initiating the tax cuts in the first place. As someone who has benefited from the lower rates, I accepted them with glee if not with reason. Republicans love grousing about federal income tax rates while quietly acquiesing to payroll taxes, user fees, sales taxes, state income taxes etc. all of the taxes which are more regressive in nature. This is intellectual dishonesty.
From Klein at Time:
"Today's edition of scrofulous mudslinging--aided and abetted by a banner headline from the Drudge Scourge--involves a wildly inaccurate reading of remarks that Barack Obama made in a 2001 radio interview. It turns out that he wasn't criticizing the Supreme Court for its failure to "redistribute" wealth. He was saying the exact opposite: that the Supreme Court wasn't the way to go. He was saying that political power was the only real way to make decisions about the distribution of taxation. Obama's sentiment is, of course, a wildly radical notion--or, at least it was, before the American Revolution.
To state the obvious, once again: We have had a redistribution of wealth, upward, during the Reagan era. Taxes on work, a.k.a. payroll taxes, have increased. Taxes on wealth, the upper margins of the income tax plus capital gains plus estate taxes, have decreased. To call Obama a socialist because he wants to redress this imbalance is as accurate as calling McCain an oligarch because he doesn't."
From Klein at Time:
"Today's edition of scrofulous mudslinging--aided and abetted by a banner headline from the Drudge Scourge--involves a wildly inaccurate reading of remarks that Barack Obama made in a 2001 radio interview. It turns out that he wasn't criticizing the Supreme Court for its failure to "redistribute" wealth. He was saying the exact opposite: that the Supreme Court wasn't the way to go. He was saying that political power was the only real way to make decisions about the distribution of taxation. Obama's sentiment is, of course, a wildly radical notion--or, at least it was, before the American Revolution.
To state the obvious, once again: We have had a redistribution of wealth, upward, during the Reagan era. Taxes on work, a.k.a. payroll taxes, have increased. Taxes on wealth, the upper margins of the income tax plus capital gains plus estate taxes, have decreased. To call Obama a socialist because he wants to redress this imbalance is as accurate as calling McCain an oligarch because he doesn't."
The Best Pro Obama Case I Have Come Across
TW: I had not heard of Prof. Sunstein but he knows Obama well. He has written an endorsment which encapsulates best why I believe Obama has a chance to be not merely an improvment over the feckless Bush but a great POTUS.
From Sunstein via Politico:
"...This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. He took the law exceedingly seriously, and he wanted to get the statutory and constitutional provisions right. This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.
The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike.
He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.
Obama speaks enthusiastically about Doris Kearns Goodwin's description of Lincoln's "Team of Rivals." His enthusiasm for such a team is entirely characteristic. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them"
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Cass_R__Sunstein_BDDDA786-0C3A-44E4-B22C-6FA964EB6199.html
From Sunstein via Politico:
"...This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. He took the law exceedingly seriously, and he wanted to get the statutory and constitutional provisions right. This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.
The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike.
He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.
Obama speaks enthusiastically about Doris Kearns Goodwin's description of Lincoln's "Team of Rivals." His enthusiasm for such a team is entirely characteristic. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them"
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Cass_R__Sunstein_BDDDA786-0C3A-44E4-B22C-6FA964EB6199.html
The Commies Are Coming, The Commies Are Coming!!
TW: The Fembot lives, despite apparently some computer glitches when it disregarded some of it handlers instructions (re. clothesgate etc.), but it is back on message- Obama is Socialist, Obama is a Marxist, Obama is a Commie...But of course if it actually knew what the current administration had been doing for the past 8 years its circuits would start smoking.
From Harpers:
"Does Sarah mean a state:
That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?
That destroys the careers of professional military men because they got promotions under a prior regime and therefore considers them disloyal?
That believes it can detain and hold its enemies forever without any charges or any evidence against them, denying them access to courts to prove their innocence?
That constantly manipulates the population’s fear whenever its public popularity slips and elections begin to approach?
That believes that it can make no errors, and that those who point to its errors are traitors?
That systematically spies on millions of its citizens in direct violation of a criminal statute which forbids such surveillance?
That signs new laws with its fingers crossed in the form of signing statements, so that no one knows whether the laws—or any part of them—will actually be enforced?
That lies to its people about threats from abroad in an effort to build popular support for a series of wars and then cites the existence of those wars as a reason to suppress dissent?
That nationalizes the debt of predatory capitalists so they suffer no punishment for their misconduct and then nationalizes major financial institutions, converting the nation’s free market system into a socialism in which crony capitalists are a privileged elite?
Sarah, you have no need to fear the future."
How Would You Want Obama To Govern
TW: The Economist examines how Obama should govern. They reference a mediocre Noonan WSJ piece warning him of the obvious which is that Obama would not have a mandate to push the county to the far left (but then the only ones afraid of that are fear mongering right-wing nuts). We will only find out if he wins but everything I perceive in Obama is that he is ultimately a centrist. The interesting part is that we are at a historical inflection point given the financial crisis overlaid with the transition of power from the West to the South and East. Perhaps bolder action not necessarily easily categorized as "left or right" is in the offing. I agree with the Economist, I do not believe this election would represent a material shift left for the US electorate even if the Dems do particularly well but more on that later.
From Economist:"Ms Noonan and other Republicans might be aiming to prevent a Democratic tax-and-spend fest. But Barack Obama should be egging these conservative pundits on. Arguably the biggest challenge Mr Obama will face if he is elected will be a jubilantly powerful Democratic Congress, ready to do all the things they ever wanted to—from pumping money into urban areas to eliminating secret ballots in union elections. Things that a lot of Americans won’t like. Though it seems a tad unfair to expect Mr Obama to hew to the centre when George Bush ran right after squeaky-close elections, look how well that ended up, ultimately, for Mr Bush and the GOP. The centre is where Mr Obama should want to be.
The obvious counter-argument, of course, is that 2008 is an earth-shaking election, jumbling up the electoral map we have all become used to and reflecting an American public that is now more centre-left than centre-right. Perhaps. But a lot of that has to do with the coincidental implosion of the Republican Party and the financial crisis, rather than a drastic ideological shift from where the country was only four years ago."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/the_postelection_season_begins.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122479936986464521.htmlWe May Have a New POTUS on Nov 5th Instead of Jan '09
TW: Given the unusually intense crisis atmosphere we face and an utterly lameduck (not to mention discredited) current POTUS, we may have the POTUS-elect wielding real albeit indirect power pre-inaugeration in late January. This will be very interesting especially if it is Obama trying to share power with W.
From Bloomberg:
"Whoever wins will come under intense, immediate pressure -- unmatched since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 -- to begin participating in policy making over which he'll have no formal control for 2 1/2 months. Within days, the winner's economic advisers may be heading to the U.S. Treasury to help tackle the nation's worst financial crisis in more than seven decades...Treasury officials are encouraging the candidates to waste no time getting a grasp of the $700 billion financial-rescue effort, even saying their aides can work out of the department, according to people who have spoken with the department.
That unparalleled level of cooperation reflects a sense of urgency that the handoff by Bush be as smooth and fast as possible...One awkward moment may come just 11 days after the election, when Bush convenes a summit of world leaders in Washington to discuss the crisis. The presence of the president- elect may cause some confusion.
...One act of reassurance for investors and consumers would be for the winner to quickly select someone to replace Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson...[Sen. Dodd said]Bush should even consider nominating his successor's choice for Treasury secretary.
...Whichever candidate wins will face a balancing act: While he must convey a sense of engagement and readiness to confront the challenge, he has to avoid the perception of being too eager to take the reins of power -- or of becoming too tied to policies set by his predecessor.
.
``There's only one president at a time,'' says John P. Burke, a University of Vermont professor who has written two books about presidential transitions. ``But maybe we've got to think about an exception here.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFyM0BoK72AM&refer=home
From Bloomberg:
"Whoever wins will come under intense, immediate pressure -- unmatched since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 -- to begin participating in policy making over which he'll have no formal control for 2 1/2 months. Within days, the winner's economic advisers may be heading to the U.S. Treasury to help tackle the nation's worst financial crisis in more than seven decades...Treasury officials are encouraging the candidates to waste no time getting a grasp of the $700 billion financial-rescue effort, even saying their aides can work out of the department, according to people who have spoken with the department.
That unparalleled level of cooperation reflects a sense of urgency that the handoff by Bush be as smooth and fast as possible...One awkward moment may come just 11 days after the election, when Bush convenes a summit of world leaders in Washington to discuss the crisis. The presence of the president- elect may cause some confusion.
...One act of reassurance for investors and consumers would be for the winner to quickly select someone to replace Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson...[Sen. Dodd said]Bush should even consider nominating his successor's choice for Treasury secretary.
...Whichever candidate wins will face a balancing act: While he must convey a sense of engagement and readiness to confront the challenge, he has to avoid the perception of being too eager to take the reins of power -- or of becoming too tied to policies set by his predecessor.
.
``There's only one president at a time,'' says John P. Burke, a University of Vermont professor who has written two books about presidential transitions. ``But maybe we've got to think about an exception here.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFyM0BoK72AM&refer=home
Re-Branding the U.S.
TW: The attitude mentioned early in this piece was the same we encountered a couple of weeks ago in London, it is condescending but real. But this election represents one of those inflection points which do not come along every day or decade. The world is in crisis and looking for leadership, there is one nation best positioned to provide it - if we grasp the mantle and understand the election of one person is only the first step. Re-gaining economic credibility and changing our culture of debt will be a couple of the additional steps.
From Kristof at NYT:
"The other day I had a conversation with a Beijing friend and I mentioned that Barack Obama was leading in the presidential race:
She: Obama? But he’s the black man, isn’t he?
Me: Yes, exactly.
She: But surely a black man couldn’t become president of the United States?
Me: It looks as if he’ll be elected.
She: But president? That’s such an important job! In America, I thought blacks were janitors and laborers.
Me: No, blacks have all kinds of jobs.
She: What do white people think about that, about getting a black president? Are they upset? Are they angry?
Me: No, of course not! If Obama is elected, it’ll be because white people voted for him.
She: Really? Unbelievable! What an amazing country!
We’re beginning to get a sense of how Barack Obama’s political success could change global perceptions of the United States, redefining the American “brand” to be less about Guantánamo and more about equality. This change in perceptions would help rebuild American political capital in the way that the Marshall Plan did in the 1950s or that John Kennedy’s presidency did in the early 1960s. In his endorsement of Mr. Obama, Colin Powell noted that “the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.”
...many Muslims voiced astonishment at Mr. Obama’s rise because it was so much at odds with their assumptions about the United States. Remember that the one thing countless millions of people around the world “know” about the United States is that it is controlled by a cabal of white bankers and Jews who use police with fire hoses to repress blacks. To them, Mr. Obama’s rise triggers severe cognitive dissonance.
...Europeans like to mock the vapidity of American politics, but they also acknowledge that it would be difficult to imagine a brown or black person leading France or Germany.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton and McCain Match-up: What If?
TW: I put up a poll asking where you think Hillary Clinton would be relative to McCain at this point. Conventional wisdom was that Hillary would have won the Presidency with more ease than Obama. Clinton was the "safer" pick given the Clintonian reputation for moderation and the perception that she was a known quantity for better or worse. In addition she would have blazed new trails as the first female POTUS nominee which would have created tremendous excitement.
However, upon reflection I now believe Obama is doing better than she would have done. There have been two fundamental inflection points in this general election race- the selection of Palin as McCain's VP nominee and the implosion of our financial markets. Both inflection points would have evolved much differently with Clinton as the nominee.
Palin was selected as VP nominee in an effort to solidify the Republican base but also to take a stab at disaffected Clinton voters. There is no way Palin would have been nominated if Clinton had been the Dem nominee, Palin is over her head but a head to head comp with Clinton would have seemed utterly ridiculous. McCain would have picked someone else. He apparently wanted Lieberman but that would have been tantamount to declaring war on his own base. Mitt Romney or if he had been lucky Rob Portman would have been other likely picks.
So imagine we then move ahead to mid-September, the economy tanks. But instead of a neophyte who adds no value to addressing the economic crisis, McCain has a wing man (Portman or Romney) with real economic credentials flying cover. Moreover, instead of the Republicans taking almost full blame for the crisis, Clinton would have been drawn into a tussle over who screwed up worse, Bush and the Republicans of the past 8 years or her husband's Administration in the late '90's.
Net net, the McCain bump coming out of his convention might have been lower but the McCain dump in the polls starting in mid-Sept might not have happened or at least not nearly as severely. I still believe Clinton would have beaten McCain but not in the way that Obama sitting a week before the election may be able to pull off. Obama in late October appears (knock on wood) on the verge of a transformational candidacy. Clinton while herself an inherently transformational candidate, might have been in a much closer battle and one that might not have had as strong a chance to pull in many new Democratic congressional seats.
However, upon reflection I now believe Obama is doing better than she would have done. There have been two fundamental inflection points in this general election race- the selection of Palin as McCain's VP nominee and the implosion of our financial markets. Both inflection points would have evolved much differently with Clinton as the nominee.
Palin was selected as VP nominee in an effort to solidify the Republican base but also to take a stab at disaffected Clinton voters. There is no way Palin would have been nominated if Clinton had been the Dem nominee, Palin is over her head but a head to head comp with Clinton would have seemed utterly ridiculous. McCain would have picked someone else. He apparently wanted Lieberman but that would have been tantamount to declaring war on his own base. Mitt Romney or if he had been lucky Rob Portman would have been other likely picks.
So imagine we then move ahead to mid-September, the economy tanks. But instead of a neophyte who adds no value to addressing the economic crisis, McCain has a wing man (Portman or Romney) with real economic credentials flying cover. Moreover, instead of the Republicans taking almost full blame for the crisis, Clinton would have been drawn into a tussle over who screwed up worse, Bush and the Republicans of the past 8 years or her husband's Administration in the late '90's.
Net net, the McCain bump coming out of his convention might have been lower but the McCain dump in the polls starting in mid-Sept might not have happened or at least not nearly as severely. I still believe Clinton would have beaten McCain but not in the way that Obama sitting a week before the election may be able to pull off. Obama in late October appears (knock on wood) on the verge of a transformational candidacy. Clinton while herself an inherently transformational candidate, might have been in a much closer battle and one that might not have had as strong a chance to pull in many new Democratic congressional seats.
Euro Arrogance And Amero Incompetance
TW: Continuing a theme about which I have blogged several times and will blog repeatedy once Obama's election is confirmed, 0ur international friends have had a near free fire zone relative to griping about US foreign policy over the past eight years. With new leadership the US has an opportunity to re-shape and re-construct institutions and policies that have grown out-dated and tired not only over the past several years but the past decades. But it will require the international partners to step up as well rather than bathe in their alleged but generally fruitless intellectual superiority.
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"Zapatero [Spanish Prime Minister] is a wry, polished, suave politician, a socialist with that European socialist habit of being amused by almost everything and committed to almost nothing. It's fair to say his view of the United States is cool, colored by a relationship with President Bush that started badly and never got better...I relate all this because the unhappy saga of U.S.-Spanish relations reflects bungled American foreign policy. It's one thing to have a disagreement between friends, another to have discord fester through spite. Bush's vengeful streak is worthy of the schoolyard.
The United States is weakened when it's feuding with its allies. The so-called coalition in Iraq has emptied that word of meaning.
Barack Obama gets this. A weakened United States, militarily stretched and economically snared, cannot be cavalier about its alliances. McCain, to judge by his refusal to say he would meet Zapatero, is still in muscle-flexing mode. That's the last thing we need.
My second reason for relating this is that Zapatero is the kind of guy who reminds me of the need for smart American leadership. In fact, he reminds me of why, raised in Europe, I chose to become an American.
Despite Spain's dictatorial past under Franco, Zapatero seemed to me mealy-mouthed about totalitarianism and tyranny. Moral relativism oozed from his lawyerly repartee.
Zapatero is also wrong about the United States. He said it is a "diverse, creative, dynamic" country, but "it does not need to have a mission."
But America was born as an idea and cannot be itself unless it carries that idea forward. That's the tragedy of the Bush years: the undermining of American ideals. The United States is inseparable from the hope it has given Emma Lazarus' "huddled masses yearning to be free;" it is bound to the struggle to ensure that, as Lincoln put it, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.' "
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/08/opinion/edcohen.php
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"Zapatero [Spanish Prime Minister] is a wry, polished, suave politician, a socialist with that European socialist habit of being amused by almost everything and committed to almost nothing. It's fair to say his view of the United States is cool, colored by a relationship with President Bush that started badly and never got better...I relate all this because the unhappy saga of U.S.-Spanish relations reflects bungled American foreign policy. It's one thing to have a disagreement between friends, another to have discord fester through spite. Bush's vengeful streak is worthy of the schoolyard.
The United States is weakened when it's feuding with its allies. The so-called coalition in Iraq has emptied that word of meaning.
Barack Obama gets this. A weakened United States, militarily stretched and economically snared, cannot be cavalier about its alliances. McCain, to judge by his refusal to say he would meet Zapatero, is still in muscle-flexing mode. That's the last thing we need.
My second reason for relating this is that Zapatero is the kind of guy who reminds me of the need for smart American leadership. In fact, he reminds me of why, raised in Europe, I chose to become an American.
Despite Spain's dictatorial past under Franco, Zapatero seemed to me mealy-mouthed about totalitarianism and tyranny. Moral relativism oozed from his lawyerly repartee.
Zapatero is also wrong about the United States. He said it is a "diverse, creative, dynamic" country, but "it does not need to have a mission."
But America was born as an idea and cannot be itself unless it carries that idea forward. That's the tragedy of the Bush years: the undermining of American ideals. The United States is inseparable from the hope it has given Emma Lazarus' "huddled masses yearning to be free;" it is bound to the struggle to ensure that, as Lincoln put it, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.' "
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/08/opinion/edcohen.php
Sewage Is Sewage Regardless Of the Source
TW: If Obama wins this election, one should not forget the right-wing nut filth through which he was able to wade. The right-wing nuts do not hold a monopoly on filth but I truly believe they take things to new lows and as the piece states, it will only get uglier after the election.
From the New Yorker:
"A roundup (via Andrew Sullivan) of conservative anti-Obama blogging during the election. Much of it has appeared on popular right-wing Web sites, including National Review Online, disclosing the “news” that Bill Ayers wrote “Dreams from My Father,” Obama was involved in domestic terrorism during the South Africa divestment campaign of the early 1980s, Michelle Obama used the word “whitey” in recorded conversation with Louis Farrakhan, Obama has had a female lover as well as a gay lover with a criminal record, he was fed answers during the first debate via a clear plastic device in his ear, and his birth certificate was forged, casting doubt on his citizenship (which is why he’s now in Hawaii—to preserve the cover-up, not to visit his very ill grandmother).
Wading for a few minutes through the sewage of these Web sites reminds me uncannily of the time I’ve spent having political discussions in certain living rooms and coffee shops in Baghdad. The mental atmosphere is exactly the same—the wild fantasies presented as obvious truth, the patterns seen by those few with the courage and wisdom to see, the amused pity for anyone weak-minded enough to be skeptical, the logic that turns counter-evidence into evidence and every random piece of information into a worldwide conspiracy. Above all, the seething resentment, the mix of arrogance and impotent rage that burns at the heart of the paranoid style in politics.
The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid. I heard an Iraqi engineer claim that American soldiers allowed Kuwaitis to steal hundreds of Iraqi cars as revenge for the first Gulf War. I heard a Shiite cleric argue that the Kerry campaign was behind suicide bombings. Bloggers like Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who peddled the Ayers theory, and Ann Althouse, a law professor who pushed the plastic-device story, hold diametrically opposed views to those of Islamists and Arab nationalists. But their habits of mind are just the same.
It will only get worse if Obama wins."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/end-of-an-era-4.html
From the New Yorker:
"A roundup (via Andrew Sullivan) of conservative anti-Obama blogging during the election. Much of it has appeared on popular right-wing Web sites, including National Review Online, disclosing the “news” that Bill Ayers wrote “Dreams from My Father,” Obama was involved in domestic terrorism during the South Africa divestment campaign of the early 1980s, Michelle Obama used the word “whitey” in recorded conversation with Louis Farrakhan, Obama has had a female lover as well as a gay lover with a criminal record, he was fed answers during the first debate via a clear plastic device in his ear, and his birth certificate was forged, casting doubt on his citizenship (which is why he’s now in Hawaii—to preserve the cover-up, not to visit his very ill grandmother).
Wading for a few minutes through the sewage of these Web sites reminds me uncannily of the time I’ve spent having political discussions in certain living rooms and coffee shops in Baghdad. The mental atmosphere is exactly the same—the wild fantasies presented as obvious truth, the patterns seen by those few with the courage and wisdom to see, the amused pity for anyone weak-minded enough to be skeptical, the logic that turns counter-evidence into evidence and every random piece of information into a worldwide conspiracy. Above all, the seething resentment, the mix of arrogance and impotent rage that burns at the heart of the paranoid style in politics.
The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid. I heard an Iraqi engineer claim that American soldiers allowed Kuwaitis to steal hundreds of Iraqi cars as revenge for the first Gulf War. I heard a Shiite cleric argue that the Kerry campaign was behind suicide bombings. Bloggers like Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who peddled the Ayers theory, and Ann Althouse, a law professor who pushed the plastic-device story, hold diametrically opposed views to those of Islamists and Arab nationalists. But their habits of mind are just the same.
It will only get worse if Obama wins."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/end-of-an-era-4.html
Populism As Rot
TW: The Economist is not fond of populism. I agree...strongly. One of the brilliant aspects of American democracy is the set of firebreaks to filter pure populist sentiment from overwhelming our actual governance.
From the Economist:
"...It is politicians' use of populism that is often dismissive, condescending and derogatory. As an example, take Sarah Palin's mythology that simplicity and virtue are the undeniable products of rural living and wage work. I have done plenty of both and consider the allegation of simplicity slanderous. The assumption of virtue is, frankly, too tempting.
...populism calls for the government to intermediate in favour of one class at the expense of another...Nowadays, populism generally involves protecting the income of certain producers from the free choices of their neighbours. It is axiomatic among economists that the collective costs to the neighbours from protectionist laws are unacceptably large compared to the benefits enjoyed by the protected.
On the campaign trail, populist rhetoric serves as a distraction. Consider Barack Obama's ads alleging that John McCain supports moving American jobs overseas, or John McCain's recent certainty that predatory lenders as opposed to optimistic (or fraudulent) borrowers are responsible for the failure of so many mortgages. The truth is that whoever is president, American workers are likely to lose (via trade or bankruptcy) any and all jobs that can be more productively done elsewhere. Likewise, American homeowners will lose any homes they can't pay for. Populist rhetoric merely enables while pretending to empower.
Government at its best can create the conditions for general prosperity. Populism argues that government should instead interrupt those conditions to award prosperity specifically and temporarily. Hence, my use of the term "rot"."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/whats_the_matter_with_populism.cfm
From the Economist:
"...It is politicians' use of populism that is often dismissive, condescending and derogatory. As an example, take Sarah Palin's mythology that simplicity and virtue are the undeniable products of rural living and wage work. I have done plenty of both and consider the allegation of simplicity slanderous. The assumption of virtue is, frankly, too tempting.
...populism calls for the government to intermediate in favour of one class at the expense of another...Nowadays, populism generally involves protecting the income of certain producers from the free choices of their neighbours. It is axiomatic among economists that the collective costs to the neighbours from protectionist laws are unacceptably large compared to the benefits enjoyed by the protected.
On the campaign trail, populist rhetoric serves as a distraction. Consider Barack Obama's ads alleging that John McCain supports moving American jobs overseas, or John McCain's recent certainty that predatory lenders as opposed to optimistic (or fraudulent) borrowers are responsible for the failure of so many mortgages. The truth is that whoever is president, American workers are likely to lose (via trade or bankruptcy) any and all jobs that can be more productively done elsewhere. Likewise, American homeowners will lose any homes they can't pay for. Populist rhetoric merely enables while pretending to empower.
Government at its best can create the conditions for general prosperity. Populism argues that government should instead interrupt those conditions to award prosperity specifically and temporarily. Hence, my use of the term "rot"."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/whats_the_matter_with_populism.cfm
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Institutional Corruption and Group Think
TW: Hindsight is such a great view. Folks can see the quotes below and ask how could such things possibly happen. I assure you such things have been happening for a long time (think Enron, Internet bubble, S&L crisis etc.). Do you think the officials mentioned below only shared such thoughts amidst themselves and not say their buddies at the club or the bar or wherever. This stuff is in front of us all the time which is why our society must officially and otherwise question authority, push back on the status quos and never assume anything. Investing ultimately is merely the continuation of a perpetual battle between fear and greed. In hindsight the unbridled greed seems obvious, perhaps unmitgated fear is upon us now.
In a hearing...before the House Oversight Committee, the credit rating agencies are being portrayed as profit-hungry institutions that would give any deal their blessing for the right price.Case in point: this instant message exchange between two unidentified Standard & Poor's officials about a mortgage-backed security deal on 4/5/2007:
Official #1: Btw (by the way) that deal is ridiculous.
Official #2: I know right...model def (definitely) does not capture half the risk.
Official #1: We should not be rating it.
Official #2: We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.
Obama's Closing Ad
TW: This is the 2 minute ad Obama will apparently run hard the final week of the campaign
Lets Talk 2012
TW: With Obama pulling away in the polls, the punditry is rushing to write pre-mortems on the McCain campaign and start speculation for '12 because, well, actually writing about governing for at least a few months would be so tedious. You will see NO pre-mortems on this blog as we will not count our eggs before they hatch even if Obama goes up by 20%. I will do my best to avoid posting on what will inevitably be a bloody, ferocious internal Republican fight over the soul of their party (e.g. social conservative firebrands v. anti-tax firebrands v. small government/pro-business) until after the election and even then not too much. But the piece below speaks to the growing speculation on the future of the Fembot. As you can imagine the only thing that makes me more nauseous than Palin as VP would be Palin as P.
From the Economist:
"...Palin thinks Mr McCain is undermining her campaign for the vice-presidency and is keeping her eye on 2012. The argument...is as follows: she spends the next four years learning about current events; re-emerges buoyed by a wave of enthusiasm and money from the conservative base; vastly exceeds the low expectations set by the media; and campaigns as a Washington outsider (but with general election experience), winning over voters who are sick of Barack's Big Government.
...Mark me down for this: she'll run but she won't get anywhere...think about the Republican primary. The heat of the election lends itself to an us-vs-them, you're-in-or-you're-out mentality. And there is surely a core of Palin true believers. But most of the primary voters are going to consider their options, and though Mrs Palin is a practiced attack dog, that won't work in a primary (it's not even working in the general election). The Republican party may be in disarray, but that doesn't mean they can't find half a dozen reasonable people to put on stage. Is she going to say that Mitt Romney is un-American? That Bobby Jindal is part of an old-boys club? Tim Pawlenty, elitist? She'd have to make an affirmative case for her candidacy instead of against anyone else's, and she's not getting much practice with that at the moment.
It seems that the candidate best positioned to prosper from Mrs Palin's turn this time out is actually Mike Huckabee. He built a huge base of grassroots support during his primary run, but his campaign was handicapped by the fact that it was never taken seriously. Republican voters were anxious to settle on a candidate so they could get started on fighting Hillary or Obama (this makes Mr McCain a bit like John Kerry in 2004). The media assumed that the candidate would have to be someone with more foreign-policy experience or expertise than an Arkansas governor. And the scuttlebutt was that Republican Party bigwigs didn't want Mr Huckabee, because he was an outsider. But if Mrs Palin is accepted as a credible candidate, then so is Mr Huckabee. Of course he isn't very sexy, so he's not going to be anyone's "heartthrob" or "honey". But he is more articulate and more gracious than Mrs Palin, and there isn't a hint of scandal or indiscretion about him. If the Republicans are casting around for a non-elitist Washington outsider who can speak credibly about economic issues and keep the base enthused, and the international-affairs component isn't a dealbreaker, then Mr Huckabee is a better candidate."
From the Economist:
"...Palin thinks Mr McCain is undermining her campaign for the vice-presidency and is keeping her eye on 2012. The argument...is as follows: she spends the next four years learning about current events; re-emerges buoyed by a wave of enthusiasm and money from the conservative base; vastly exceeds the low expectations set by the media; and campaigns as a Washington outsider (but with general election experience), winning over voters who are sick of Barack's Big Government.
...Mark me down for this: she'll run but she won't get anywhere...think about the Republican primary. The heat of the election lends itself to an us-vs-them, you're-in-or-you're-out mentality. And there is surely a core of Palin true believers. But most of the primary voters are going to consider their options, and though Mrs Palin is a practiced attack dog, that won't work in a primary (it's not even working in the general election). The Republican party may be in disarray, but that doesn't mean they can't find half a dozen reasonable people to put on stage. Is she going to say that Mitt Romney is un-American? That Bobby Jindal is part of an old-boys club? Tim Pawlenty, elitist? She'd have to make an affirmative case for her candidacy instead of against anyone else's, and she's not getting much practice with that at the moment.
It seems that the candidate best positioned to prosper from Mrs Palin's turn this time out is actually Mike Huckabee. He built a huge base of grassroots support during his primary run, but his campaign was handicapped by the fact that it was never taken seriously. Republican voters were anxious to settle on a candidate so they could get started on fighting Hillary or Obama (this makes Mr McCain a bit like John Kerry in 2004). The media assumed that the candidate would have to be someone with more foreign-policy experience or expertise than an Arkansas governor. And the scuttlebutt was that Republican Party bigwigs didn't want Mr Huckabee, because he was an outsider. But if Mrs Palin is accepted as a credible candidate, then so is Mr Huckabee. Of course he isn't very sexy, so he's not going to be anyone's "heartthrob" or "honey". But he is more articulate and more gracious than Mrs Palin, and there isn't a hint of scandal or indiscretion about him. If the Republicans are casting around for a non-elitist Washington outsider who can speak credibly about economic issues and keep the base enthused, and the international-affairs component isn't a dealbreaker, then Mr Huckabee is a better candidate."
TW: One thing to remember with Huckabee is that he both a social populist AND an economic populist he does not go over well with the anti-tax, really small government crowd. But all of this is ultimately worthless we are in 2008 we have at least say 12 months to go before the serious speculation emerges.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/palin_2012_revisited.cfm
TW: Newsweek is already polling '12...From Newsweek:
"If John McCain is not elected president, which one of the following three possible candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Mitt Romney 35%
Mike Huckabee 26%
Sarah Palin 20%"
Obama the Regular Joe...Picks His Football Team
TW: One of the many things I like about Obama is that every piece I have read about him behind the scenes indicates that he is a good guy to hang with.
From ESPN:
"I asked each candidate to be my running mate for one week in a fantasy league, just to see what kind of president he'd make—how he'd handle decisions under pressure and balance a budget. Still, you talk about bossy. I thought he'd let the professional sportswriter do most of the picking while the wonk occasionally looked up from some Pakistan brief and nodded. Yeah, not exactly. When I got on his campaign bus, all three flat screens were tuned to ESPN. Obama was sitting in a black leather swivel chair, reading the paper. "Hey, man, I'll be with you in a second," he said. "I'm poring over the latest economic news." It was the USA Today NFL stats page.
He is taller, grayer and quicker to laugh than I expected. Moves sort of like an athlete—cool and smooth. "Now, you're the expert," he began. "And I'll gladly be the junior partner in this, but I really think we should take Drew Brees. He could have a big week. Oakland's secondary is a wreck."
Ohhhh, so that's how it's going to be. "Well, I like Carson Palmer," I said. "He's due for a big week, plus he plays in Ohio and I figure that's a state you need, so …He looked at me like I'd stuck my elbow in his soup. "Man, this is more important than politics!" he insisted. "This is football!"
This is a man who could potentially audit me forever. We paid $7.3M for Brees.
He wanted Clinton Portis. I wanted Adrian Peterson. We took Portis ($6.6M). He wanted Brandon Marshall. I wanted Bernard Berrian. We took Marshall ($5.7M).
Doesn't work well with others. Check. Have to admit, though, he knows his stuff. Turns out, he played a little. He was a tight end in ninth grade until a coach told him to "trample" an opponent's back. He gave up football for hoops. In 2004, when Mike Ditka considered running against him for Senate, Obama—remembering how Ditka let William Perry score a Super Bowl TD instead of Walter Payton—said that "anybody who would give the ball to Refrigerator Perry instead of Sweetness doesn't have very good judgment." Ditka didn't run. "Too bad," Obama says. "We were hoping he would." Likes to bait Hall of Famers. Check.
It took us 30 minutes to pick nine slots. The man was into it. I said I'd need to talk to him the following week about how we did.
"Cool," he said. "How's Tuesday?"
"Sorry," I said. "Getting married Tuesday."
He looked stunned. "Who'd marry you?"
Wise guy. Check.
We wound up in a dark tunnel under Fifth Third Field in Dayton for a campaign event. He was telling me a story about throwing out a first pitch when suddenly I heard over the PA system, "… the next president of the United States, Barack Obama!" He looked at me, said "Gotta go!" and sprinted up some steps to a thunderclap of a roar.
Afterward, while signing books, he asked if I thought we'd win. "Win?" I said. "There's like a gazillion teams in this thing!" He glared a hole in me. "You think we're just messing around?"
Then Sunday came. Man, did he get lucky. The guys he made us choose—Brees and Portis—went nuts. The guys I wanted, not so much. We finished 32,190th for the week. But wait! That put us in the 81.2 percentile, which means we beat four out of five teams!
Of course, he already knew. Because, like so many Americans, he was checking the fantasy stats all day, even while he was supposed to be prepping for his final debate. He e-mailed to say he wished he had followed my advice on Berrian (who smoked Marshall), but he was "pumped up" about our numbers. And he congratulated the newlyweds.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3653401
From ESPN:
"I asked each candidate to be my running mate for one week in a fantasy league, just to see what kind of president he'd make—how he'd handle decisions under pressure and balance a budget. Still, you talk about bossy. I thought he'd let the professional sportswriter do most of the picking while the wonk occasionally looked up from some Pakistan brief and nodded. Yeah, not exactly. When I got on his campaign bus, all three flat screens were tuned to ESPN. Obama was sitting in a black leather swivel chair, reading the paper. "Hey, man, I'll be with you in a second," he said. "I'm poring over the latest economic news." It was the USA Today NFL stats page.
He is taller, grayer and quicker to laugh than I expected. Moves sort of like an athlete—cool and smooth. "Now, you're the expert," he began. "And I'll gladly be the junior partner in this, but I really think we should take Drew Brees. He could have a big week. Oakland's secondary is a wreck."
Ohhhh, so that's how it's going to be. "Well, I like Carson Palmer," I said. "He's due for a big week, plus he plays in Ohio and I figure that's a state you need, so …He looked at me like I'd stuck my elbow in his soup. "Man, this is more important than politics!" he insisted. "This is football!"
This is a man who could potentially audit me forever. We paid $7.3M for Brees.
He wanted Clinton Portis. I wanted Adrian Peterson. We took Portis ($6.6M). He wanted Brandon Marshall. I wanted Bernard Berrian. We took Marshall ($5.7M).
Doesn't work well with others. Check. Have to admit, though, he knows his stuff. Turns out, he played a little. He was a tight end in ninth grade until a coach told him to "trample" an opponent's back. He gave up football for hoops. In 2004, when Mike Ditka considered running against him for Senate, Obama—remembering how Ditka let William Perry score a Super Bowl TD instead of Walter Payton—said that "anybody who would give the ball to Refrigerator Perry instead of Sweetness doesn't have very good judgment." Ditka didn't run. "Too bad," Obama says. "We were hoping he would." Likes to bait Hall of Famers. Check.
It took us 30 minutes to pick nine slots. The man was into it. I said I'd need to talk to him the following week about how we did.
"Cool," he said. "How's Tuesday?"
"Sorry," I said. "Getting married Tuesday."
He looked stunned. "Who'd marry you?"
Wise guy. Check.
We wound up in a dark tunnel under Fifth Third Field in Dayton for a campaign event. He was telling me a story about throwing out a first pitch when suddenly I heard over the PA system, "… the next president of the United States, Barack Obama!" He looked at me, said "Gotta go!" and sprinted up some steps to a thunderclap of a roar.
Afterward, while signing books, he asked if I thought we'd win. "Win?" I said. "There's like a gazillion teams in this thing!" He glared a hole in me. "You think we're just messing around?"
Then Sunday came. Man, did he get lucky. The guys he made us choose—Brees and Portis—went nuts. The guys I wanted, not so much. We finished 32,190th for the week. But wait! That put us in the 81.2 percentile, which means we beat four out of five teams!
Of course, he already knew. Because, like so many Americans, he was checking the fantasy stats all day, even while he was supposed to be prepping for his final debate. He e-mailed to say he wished he had followed my advice on Berrian (who smoked Marshall), but he was "pumped up" about our numbers. And he congratulated the newlyweds.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3653401
Republicans and Hispanics
TW: From my view, the Republicans have a serious problem with Hispanics and not just for 2008. The Republicans must find a viable position on immigration and other issues important to the highly diverse Hispanic population, which is growing rapidly in importance. This year the Republicans tacked right to appease the Tom Tancredo/Pat Buchanan wing of the party. The Tancredo position of rabid aniomosity toward immigration is a long-term march toward oblivion for the Republicans. Younger more pragmatic Republicans I believe will ultimately prevail and bring the Republicans back to a more competitive stance.
From NYT:
"...Gallup polls show Mr. McCain running far behind Senator Barack Obama among Hispanic voters nationwide, only 26 percent of whom favor the Republican...Contrary to what non-Hispanic politicians often assume, immigration does not rank as high on the list of Hispanic concerns as the economy, education and health care.
Instead, surveys show that Latinos see immigration as a tool useful in identifying who is friend and who is foe. That may have complicated Mr. McCain’s task: despite his sponsorship of the immigration overhaul legislation, he is burdened by nativist elements within the Republican Party.
“The Republican brand has been tarnished as result of the immigration debate and the extreme rhetoric that came out of that debate,” said Janet MurguÃa, executive director of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group. “We think McCain remains an advocate of a comprehensive approach, but his standing has been undermined by those within his own party and the tough immigration plank in the 2008 Republican platform...Republicans “can talk all they want about abortion and same-sex marriage, but survey after survey tells us that even among socially conservative Hispanics, it’s the other issues that matter most,” said Christine M. Sierra, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23latino.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
From NYT:
"...Gallup polls show Mr. McCain running far behind Senator Barack Obama among Hispanic voters nationwide, only 26 percent of whom favor the Republican...Contrary to what non-Hispanic politicians often assume, immigration does not rank as high on the list of Hispanic concerns as the economy, education and health care.
Instead, surveys show that Latinos see immigration as a tool useful in identifying who is friend and who is foe. That may have complicated Mr. McCain’s task: despite his sponsorship of the immigration overhaul legislation, he is burdened by nativist elements within the Republican Party.
“The Republican brand has been tarnished as result of the immigration debate and the extreme rhetoric that came out of that debate,” said Janet MurguÃa, executive director of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group. “We think McCain remains an advocate of a comprehensive approach, but his standing has been undermined by those within his own party and the tough immigration plank in the 2008 Republican platform...Republicans “can talk all they want about abortion and same-sex marriage, but survey after survey tells us that even among socially conservative Hispanics, it’s the other issues that matter most,” said Christine M. Sierra, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23latino.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Friday, October 24, 2008
Greenspan and Ideology
TW: I regard our current financial mess as a bi-partisan fiasco. However, the Republicans (McCain less than others) were the ideologues who pushed incessently for de-regulation and worshiped blindly at the altar of free markets. Extremism never seems to work out so well. As a student of history, have been reading alot about the late 1920's and early 1930's recently. When massive dislocation such as the 9/11 attacks and the financial meltdown of '08 occur, massive political dislocation follows in lockstep. We screwed up the post 9/11 management lets hope we do better in 2009 and beyond.
From Floyd Norris at NYT and Packer at New Yorker:
Norris:
"According to his testimony today, he is in “a state of shocked disbelief” over the discovery that foolish bank lending and inflated asset values have damaged the financial system. Claude Rains said it better when he discovered there was gambling going on at Rick’s place.
Greenspan:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.
“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
Norris:
That makes his failure all the more appalling. If he knew that “dire consequences” were coming, why did the Fed not move to head them off? The answer is that the economic theory Mr. Greenspan subscribed to held that the central bank should react when prices of goods got out of control — we call that inflation — but should yield to the genius of markets when asset prices and credit markets do the same.
Mr. Greenspan is right on one thing. The “whole intellectual edifice” collapsed. But he is wrong to blame it solely on the wrong inputs. It is too bad that Mr. Greenspan never appreciated the work of Hyman Minsky, who understood that stability is destabilizing, and that there will come times when the very calmness of markets, and lack of apparent risk, causes investors to take ever greater and greater risks.
What was missing was a regulator who understood markets, rather than worshiped them."
From Floyd Norris at NYT and Packer at New Yorker:
Norris:
"According to his testimony today, he is in “a state of shocked disbelief” over the discovery that foolish bank lending and inflated asset values have damaged the financial system. Claude Rains said it better when he discovered there was gambling going on at Rick’s place.
Greenspan:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.
“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
Norris:
That makes his failure all the more appalling. If he knew that “dire consequences” were coming, why did the Fed not move to head them off? The answer is that the economic theory Mr. Greenspan subscribed to held that the central bank should react when prices of goods got out of control — we call that inflation — but should yield to the genius of markets when asset prices and credit markets do the same.
Mr. Greenspan is right on one thing. The “whole intellectual edifice” collapsed. But he is wrong to blame it solely on the wrong inputs. It is too bad that Mr. Greenspan never appreciated the work of Hyman Minsky, who understood that stability is destabilizing, and that there will come times when the very calmness of markets, and lack of apparent risk, causes investors to take ever greater and greater risks.
What was missing was a regulator who understood markets, rather than worshiped them."
Packer:"And Roger Catt, the retired Wisconsin farmer who told me [in an article Packer wrote for New Yorker on Appalachian politics] that “McCain is more of the same, and Obama is the end of life as we know it,” will be voting for the end of life as we know it...Helen (Babe) Walker, seventy-three years old, who lives in the Appalachian mining town of Glouster, Ohio (discussed at length here), writes: “I think that the residents here in Glouster are getting accustomed to the fact that we will be having a black president. They think it is not a bad idea.”
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-lament/
Oscar Rogers Knows What Needs To Be Done
TW: Back by popular demand. Go to the 2:10 minute mark to hear Oscar. Click on the White House banner above to go to newest posts. thx.
Smerconish on Obama
TW: Micheal Smerconish is a conservative radio talk show host from Philly. Not really one of my favorites although there are far worse on talk radio. But he had an eight minute exchange with Chris Matthews reviewing his endorsement of Obama (another conservative jumps ship), they also touched upon Limbaugh's continued bashing of Colin Powell. For once Matthews did not jump into his guest's speaking and their exchange was dignified.
The End Game Limiting the Damage
From Politico:
"The Republican establishment is beginning to express long-suppressed exasperation with the McCain pirate ship...one of the most senior Republican strategists in the land warns the McCain campaign after reading the WashTimes interview: 'Lashing out at past Republican congresses instead of Pelosi and Reid, and echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you’re not doing much to energize your supporters. The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish. I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign 1996, and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in electoral-college states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races. I think you’ll find these sentiments shared by MANY of my fellow Republican strategists.”
"The Republican establishment is beginning to express long-suppressed exasperation with the McCain pirate ship...one of the most senior Republican strategists in the land warns the McCain campaign after reading the WashTimes interview: 'Lashing out at past Republican congresses instead of Pelosi and Reid, and echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you’re not doing much to energize your supporters. The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish. I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign 1996, and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in electoral-college states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races. I think you’ll find these sentiments shared by MANY of my fellow Republican strategists.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)