70 posts tagged “election”

Maria Bartiromo:  Do you want to encourage him (Obama) to pull his spending plans?

Barney Frank:  Well, I think at this point, there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat.

So is he talking about another potential stimulus package for the economy or spending on Democratic minded programs?  I wonder if he is telegraphing the latter...  Because he sure didn't sound like he answered the question about pulling back on spending plans...

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 In 1999 a bill was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton that rescinded the Depression era's divorce of commercial banking activities from investment banking, called the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933.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.  

According to Newsweek anyway...

Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

Wow.  The reporting here is top notch!  Oh wait... there is fine print in the article...

*First, it's important to note that Palin's approval rating hasn't tanked. Far from it. And we should hold off on drawing any hard and fast conclusions until more polling comes out.*

So in the end, what was the purpose of this article again?  No hard facts, just speculation?  I guess they couldn't wait for a few more polls before writing this one?  Normally you need multiple points to conclude a trend...

It is like the media just can't wait for her to fall...

But if the minor swing in the polls for Palin means she has gone from the most favorable to the least, then one must assume that everybody (everybody running for office) has issues.

UPDATE:  I won't even come close to thinking that Palin's slip the other day is indicative of a long-term negative trend.  The current poll is showing a minor rebound.  Her unfavorable numbers are still lower than Obama's (35% vs. 40% unfav for Obama) and she is at 50% favorability on the 9-19-08.  But let us not get ahead of ourselves...  it is pretty obvious that the electorate is split (like 2000 and 2004) and we will see this bounce around within the margin of error from here to the election (unless something big happens).  

If you think this ethics probe slash "Troopergate" is a fair investigation into Sarah Palin... think again...

Adam Brickley:

I can't believe I missed this column yesterday, but Townhall's Amanda Carpenter has unearthed some very disturbing audio regarding the legislative "investigation" of the "Troopergate" non-scandal. The tape was made during a Spetember 12 hearing of the state legislature's Joint Judiciary Committee, in which the committee is discussing the investigation with Investigator Steve Branchflower. The bombshell information is dropped by Branchflower when he reveals that he does not have control of the subpoena list for his own investigation. Instead, he has to defer questions to the Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who is supervising the investigation. This is the same Hollis French who is one of Barack Obama's leading Alaskan supporters, started using the term "impeachment" before the investigation even began, and is now vocally threatening the McCain-Palin campaign with an "October surprise". Such a partisan hack has no business even participating in this investigation, let alone holding final control over who Steve Branchflower can or cannot talk to.

Absolutely unbelievable.

UPDATE:  I have a feeling this is going to hit the airwaves like a ton of bricks and is totally going to backfire on the Democrats.  I mean big time... 

Paul at Powerline on Palin.

Wow.  This is big.

Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush's shadow over the Republicans, revealing more of the Democrats' own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress. The key question is how much of this is temporary because of the tremendous bounce in support for the Republicans on many dimensions coming right off of their convention. The degree to which the Republican bounce is sustained, rather than dissipates, in the weeks ahead will determine whether the 2008 race for Congress could in fact be highly competitive, rather than a Democratic sweep.

Only time will tell I guess...

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.