123 posts tagged “2008 presidential bid”
Civilian Security Force? What is that? Like Homeland Security? FBI? CIA? National Guard? TSA? Local police?
Hey, what is one more government agency? (Maybe it is like Operation TIPS...)
Our next president? Can't wait...
The Wall Street Journal had this opinion piece today:
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
It is worry some that in the haste to get to the state of "change" we might be rushing into another era of government that previous generations of Americans eventually rejected.
Let's face facts. The truth is much more interesting than the simple propaganda that Washington politicians like to sling around their opponents.
Much is being said about deregulation of the banking industry that has led us to the current credit crunch and economic downfall. And it is clear that the Republicans had a hand in this. But before you dust off your Democratic Distinguished Eagle Scout medal on this one...
Robert Ecklend and Mark Thornton, scholars at Auburn University and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, have this to say:
...an insidious form of "market-based policy" is also a real culprit in the current mess. In 1999 a bill was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton that rescinded the Depression era's divorce of commercial banking activities from investment banking, called the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933. That opened a floodgate of "creative" financial instruments backed by notes and other commercial paper.
This bill was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999).
Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect on Glass-Stegall:
The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers. But Roosevelt's newly created SEC subjected securities markets to much tighter structures against self-dealing and insider conflicts of interest.
But to continue with Ecklend and Thornton and the Financial Services Modernization Act:
...this particular gift to financial institutions is what allowed the credit bubble to expand to such absurd proportions, because it allowed banks of all types to engage in increasingly risky transactions and to greatly expand the leverage of their balance sheets. As the crisis unfolds, credit continues to contract, the risk of bank failures increases, and the possibility of far more serious economic consequences become more apparent. The S&L crisis cost the taxpayers a few hundred billion, but this crisis has the potential of saddling the taxpayer with several trillion in bailouts.
In the interest of being fair, Ecklend and Thornton do point out other reasons why they think this crisis has come to a head (and they are not favorable to Republican policies). But I find the Financial Services Modernization Act interesting in that it gave direct power to these financial institutions so they could lead us down the path we are on now.
So if you look at the votes on the bill, after conference committee concessions between the House and Senate, this bill had overwhelming bipartisan support. And Bill Clinton signed it.
So who is to blame? Republicans? McCain? Because of his support of deregulation? As if he was an evil architect behind this? Well, the Republicans had a little help from the other side of the political aisle... And we should not forget that...
Rand Koler, a blogger at Northwestlaw's weblog, had this conclusion on the deregulation gotcha:
Historians will devote much attention to the similarities between the Bush administration and those of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover in the 1920’s. There was the same disregard for the oversight function of government and the same obeisance to business interests. For this crisis to occur all we needed was a captain asleep at the wheel during the late stages of the deregulation frenzy.
And that is how politics works. The volcano, with bipartisan roots, may have been gurgling for years and years, but who was at the helm during the eruption gets to live with the bad edge of the political sword. And in an election year, it's the economy, stupid...
Note: This is coming from Mike Gravel (D) (L). Mike Gravel.
Wow...
I couldn't help but laugh out loud at the left-wing radio hosts thinking they were going to get an interview with Gravel where there would be a lot of agreement and then get an interview like that!
Open mouth, insert foot.
Politically disabled? Huh... Is that equating her foreign policy experience? Her entire political package is earning her very high approval ratings in her home state. I would say that yes her foreign policy experience is lacking, but looking at the entire deal, she is not disabled.
Answer me this. How come if the Democrats are so politically superior to those stupid ass Republicans that they have to come across as sounding crazy in their comments? Why can't they just rely on the political issues and not sink to these ad hominem attacks? If their message was what America needs to hear, then why clutter it with personal jabs? Because that is what people remember...
Sure you can make the argument that Republicans do it too. So it is only fair that they respond in kind. But if this is the year, from a historical perspective, for a Democrat to take the White House, why screw it up?
They complain when Republicans don't think before they talk. Maybe Democrats need to think themselves before they open their mouth.
One thing is for sure... Woody Allen would be disappointed if Obama loses. As I am sure most Democrats would be as well.
I guess the answer in all of this is that the polls are so close in this election cycle. If it was a runaway right now for Obama, I am sure the Democrats out there would be taking the high road. But since it is a tight one, they are frustrated. They are scratching their heads on this one. And the result... sinking into the mud like most politicians do.
Watching the media and the left go nuts over Palin is actually helping McCain. Note to Democrats: When the equation (1) is y=a/x, when you increase x, you decrease y. The fact that they don't get that and continue to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't make me think they are politically savvy at all...
(1) "y" equals the probability of making your case on an issue. "x" equals the number of unnecessary comments. "a" equals the number of smart arguments.
Are we being attracted to the rocks? Is there a shipwreck ahead? I don't know.
I have always thought that for McCain to win he had to gamble. The allure of Palin is striking. Her buck the establishment mentality and her gender made me think she could win over independents.
Now that more information is coming out (her answers in interviews, etc.), does this mean I will taking a harder look? Yeah. I think it does. Does it mean I will not vote for McCain. Not necessarily. Foremost I am voting for President and I still think McCain is the best man for the job.
According to the NY Times, it could all be true. That the McCain campaign did not vet Palin enough and that her experience is severely lacking. And that this is a window into McCain's soul and his decision making ability.
This is a roll of the dice beyond even Bill Clinton’s imagination. “Often my haste is a mistake,” McCain conceded in his 2002 memoir, “but I live with the consequences without complaint.” Well, maybe it’s fine if he wants to live with the consequences, but what about his country? Should the unexamined Palin prove unfit to serve at the pinnacle of American power, it will be too late for the rest of us to complain.
So does this mean in the end that Palin is truly unfit to be Vice President? Only time will tell if the voters put them in office.
But one thing is for sure. Previous "experience" that other politicians had prior to serving in office has not stopped the media elite from criticism of mistakes those individuals made serving the people. If experience was the end all be all of political success -- then history must show us that career politicians just don't screw up? They must do everything right!?
Ask Richard Nixon or Harry Truman if their political experience prior to being President helped shield them from the objections they received over the mistakes they made? Or even George W. Bush?
As for McCain... How come when it is people like the Clintons, there is this awe from the media elite regarding their political prowess and instinct, yet with McCain it is this negativity about his political sixth sense? Oh yeah, it isn't about having instinct, it is about having instinct on the side of the political aisle you agree with... too bad that isn't something they will admit...
How about this for a political olfactory sensation? Hillary running in 2012.
Or how about this one... People like Obama because he represents fresh blood and a new generation in office. To me that says why they may like Palin as well and why this inexperience talk may just amount to why people want a fresh breeze in politics. Because, obviously, those career, experienced politicians in Washington are doing such a bang up job right now...
I wonder how the moderate left is going to sort through the legitimate questions voters will have about Palin when there is this mouth-foaming hatred of her and over-the-top rumors being espoused from the far left.
There will come a point (and I think that we have passed that point) where independents will not trust their criticism of her because it is drowned out in the slander that is being propagating in what seems to be hourly events. They will feel that the criticism is not just, but merely politically motivated.
This election is not going to be won by liberals voting for McCain/Palin or conservatives voting for Obama/Biden -- but folks in the middle who sway election to election. The independents will decide this election.
I keep hearing that the Palin pick was a sign of despair from the McCain camp and the pick was highly political. There is some truth to the pick being political to make his base happy. But the fit is good for McCain so I wouldn't call it a pick made to appease the base where McCain has to "put up" with the person for the next four years.
But one has to think that this endless barrage of everything (including the kitchen sink) the left is throwing (most highly inaccurate and misleading) in order to see if something sticks so they can sink S.S. Palin looks even more like a sign of desperation.
Update: Scio, Scio has a link to the rumor list.
Wow. Just wow.
Stunned.
I have no words.
A home run.
I think Biden is going to be the underdog in the VP debates.
The stops have been pulled. It is a fight now.
