If this is a debating society, you could make either John McCain or Barack Obama the winner of Friday night's first debate. Kind of a boxing match won on points with a split decision.
That doesn't help John McCain. The Arizona Republican needs to flip a reasonably large state and flip some Obama-leading voters to win in November, and without a decisive win, he won't do that.
(as I write this, BTW, a lot of talking heads, including those on left-leaning MSNBC, are giving the debate to McCain for technical debate reasons. I don't think we voters really care about debating technique.)
No question that McCain was on the offensive and Obama on the defensive all night. However, Obama did well on the defensive and McCain was looking like a nasty old man by the end of the debate. I thought the discussion of the current financial situation and bailouts was a wash.
McCain won decisively on Iraq. Obama brought up his old arguments about why we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, when the question was about what lesson we learned about the conflict. McCain came back and said the next president will have to worry about how to get us out responsibly, not about how we got in.
Obama then came right back and made perfect sense in how he would engage some of the world's brutal dictators and explain he didn't mean "preconditions" in the sense that his GOP opponent was casting it.
Other thoughts:
-- While debating the economy, Obama jumped on McCain for supporting corporate tax cuts and took a long time to get around to defending his position. He's right, we have to lower the tax burden on our economic engine. Instead, he started talking about companies in Ireland. Huh?
-- Obama plays into class warfare, a big issue now, by promising not to raise taxes to those making less than $250,000. The two problems, which the GOP campaign will have to bring out, is that's about what small business job creators make. You don't want to knock those people down. Secondly, while Obama might really believe that, the people who will come into his administration and Democrats in Congress want to siphon as much money out of anyone they can get it from.
-- While not as bad as George HW Bush checking his watch, Obama's appearance hurt him. He smirked too much at times and, when speaking, seemed stern and disengaged, which is not the style that made him the beloved Democratic candidate. And who did his makeup? This is a man who is half-black, but his appearance was one of a guy who is entirely black. I wonder if that's intentional or not.
-- Neither one looked presidential to me in the least. Both look, at best, like Secretaries of Whatever. Both are poor debators and managed only to avoid gaffes.
The subject matter of foreign policy and national security are McCain's strengths, and he needed a resounding victory in the debate to flip the voters he needed to. Obama, on the other hand, came across as a hawk. All his previous comments that made him appear soft had an explanation that sounded reasonable. He made you forget for an hour and a half the types of people who he'll be populating his administration with. Obama likely made many independents and moderate Democrats strongly considering McCain feel safe staying with their usual vote. That's critical for Obama and why he comes out ahead in round one.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Economy and Bailouts
The spectacle playing out this week and last regarding the U.S. financial system shows a continued wide gulf between the power brokers in Washington, D.C., and New York City and the rest of us here at home.
It's pretty clear that the big reason why we're here in the first place is that a bunch of Ivy League MBA-types with no values beyond making money have been using borrowed cash in a maniacal chase of the almighty dollar. Too often, that income was just listed on paper, too, and never became real income for anyone, and the house of cards eventually had to collapse. They were enabled by their sycophants on both sides of the aisle in the nation's capital.
That compares with normal people, who go to work every day and draw a paycheck every two weeks. Many of us, after paying for higher gas and food prices and astronomically skyrocketing insurance and medical payments, try to use a little left over to invest in stocks and mutual funds in hopes they'll increase in value faster than passbook savings accounts and remain ahead of inflation.
You also have a big difference in opinion regarding the bailouts. Rasmussen Reports says that just over a quarter of us support the current bailout plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That is in line with many previous polls that show support for bailouts in general is very much in the minority. People know that the high-flyers messed up, so make them pay for it instead of the taxpayers is the sentiment.
Yet, politicians, Wall Street and many talking heads are pushing for the bailout. The only criticisms by John McCain or Barack Obama are that too much power is in the hands of one man, Paulson, and that there's not enough independent oversight. That might be the least of my worries, actually. I would rather have one smart guy who can cut through the crap steer us out of this mess than to try to do it by committee. The problem with a mini-tyranny is that Paulson might try to enrich friends or favor firms in which he's familiar, but he's going to be under such a microscope that even if he did have such temptations, I doubt he'd act on them.
On the other hand, I worry a bit about the everyone's push for quick consideration of the plan. It reminds me a lot of McCain's immigration bill a couple of years back. He wanted immediate approval without scrutiny. When it was examined, it turned out to be a bad piece of legislation and was correctly dismissed. Maybe Paulson's plan is a bad one, also.
On bailouts, I find myself in the middle. I don't like them yet sometimes they're necessary. It's kind of like the death penalty -- I hate it but sometimes crimes are so utterly heinous that you need to have it available. If an individual company screws up big-time, like Lehman Brothers, then see ya! However, if you get an AIG, the collapse of which would have worldwide economic repercussions, then a bailout is necessary. Troubling, but necessary.
The big bailout when I was a teenager, of Chrysler by the Carter Administration, was unnecessary and might have prevented Ford and GM executives from taking a harsh look at their companies, which have struggled ever since.
I also, as a free-market capitalist, have no problems with new regulations being placed on financial markets. Our Ivy League-educated dumbshits -- these people are financially privileged but neither smart nor have traditional values -- continually lead us into trouble and need to be reigned in. Unless you've forgotten the Internet bubble or the S&L crisis.
I also have to say the timing of the sudden lack of confidence in our financial institutions is quite suspicious. Just as McCain is getting ready to run Obama out of town in the polls, big money gets yanked out of the financial markets. The Democrats are the party of big money these days. Sure, the companies involved were vulnerable and might have collapsed at some point, anyway, but the timing is questionable.
Obama has and will benefit somewhat by what's taken place in the last 10 days. The party not in power during an economic crisis always gets a boost and the party that appears to favor stronger regulation -- Democrats -- will also be helped. It won't be by much, though, as Obama, running mate Joe Biden and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd are all up to their ears in Wall Street money. It'll be like Enron again, where pro-business Republicans will take a lot of flak but Democrats will be unable to take substantial advantage because of their deep ties to the affected organizations.
---
A nod to Richard Gere and Julia Roberts.
Remember that rather sappy chick flick "Pretty Woman," where Gere plays a corporate raider and Roberts a high-class call girl? Roberts character keeps asking Gere's character what his business makes, and Gere keeps responding that he doesn't make anything, he just makes money.
When that movie first came out, it looked like typical unsophisticated Hollywood anti-business blather. Now it appears that producer Garry Marshall and writer J.F. Lawton were ahead of their time.
It's pretty clear that the big reason why we're here in the first place is that a bunch of Ivy League MBA-types with no values beyond making money have been using borrowed cash in a maniacal chase of the almighty dollar. Too often, that income was just listed on paper, too, and never became real income for anyone, and the house of cards eventually had to collapse. They were enabled by their sycophants on both sides of the aisle in the nation's capital.
That compares with normal people, who go to work every day and draw a paycheck every two weeks. Many of us, after paying for higher gas and food prices and astronomically skyrocketing insurance and medical payments, try to use a little left over to invest in stocks and mutual funds in hopes they'll increase in value faster than passbook savings accounts and remain ahead of inflation.
You also have a big difference in opinion regarding the bailouts. Rasmussen Reports says that just over a quarter of us support the current bailout plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That is in line with many previous polls that show support for bailouts in general is very much in the minority. People know that the high-flyers messed up, so make them pay for it instead of the taxpayers is the sentiment.
Yet, politicians, Wall Street and many talking heads are pushing for the bailout. The only criticisms by John McCain or Barack Obama are that too much power is in the hands of one man, Paulson, and that there's not enough independent oversight. That might be the least of my worries, actually. I would rather have one smart guy who can cut through the crap steer us out of this mess than to try to do it by committee. The problem with a mini-tyranny is that Paulson might try to enrich friends or favor firms in which he's familiar, but he's going to be under such a microscope that even if he did have such temptations, I doubt he'd act on them.
On the other hand, I worry a bit about the everyone's push for quick consideration of the plan. It reminds me a lot of McCain's immigration bill a couple of years back. He wanted immediate approval without scrutiny. When it was examined, it turned out to be a bad piece of legislation and was correctly dismissed. Maybe Paulson's plan is a bad one, also.
On bailouts, I find myself in the middle. I don't like them yet sometimes they're necessary. It's kind of like the death penalty -- I hate it but sometimes crimes are so utterly heinous that you need to have it available. If an individual company screws up big-time, like Lehman Brothers, then see ya! However, if you get an AIG, the collapse of which would have worldwide economic repercussions, then a bailout is necessary. Troubling, but necessary.
The big bailout when I was a teenager, of Chrysler by the Carter Administration, was unnecessary and might have prevented Ford and GM executives from taking a harsh look at their companies, which have struggled ever since.
I also, as a free-market capitalist, have no problems with new regulations being placed on financial markets. Our Ivy League-educated dumbshits -- these people are financially privileged but neither smart nor have traditional values -- continually lead us into trouble and need to be reigned in. Unless you've forgotten the Internet bubble or the S&L crisis.
I also have to say the timing of the sudden lack of confidence in our financial institutions is quite suspicious. Just as McCain is getting ready to run Obama out of town in the polls, big money gets yanked out of the financial markets. The Democrats are the party of big money these days. Sure, the companies involved were vulnerable and might have collapsed at some point, anyway, but the timing is questionable.
Obama has and will benefit somewhat by what's taken place in the last 10 days. The party not in power during an economic crisis always gets a boost and the party that appears to favor stronger regulation -- Democrats -- will also be helped. It won't be by much, though, as Obama, running mate Joe Biden and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd are all up to their ears in Wall Street money. It'll be like Enron again, where pro-business Republicans will take a lot of flak but Democrats will be unable to take substantial advantage because of their deep ties to the affected organizations.
---
A nod to Richard Gere and Julia Roberts.
Remember that rather sappy chick flick "Pretty Woman," where Gere plays a corporate raider and Roberts a high-class call girl? Roberts character keeps asking Gere's character what his business makes, and Gere keeps responding that he doesn't make anything, he just makes money.
When that movie first came out, it looked like typical unsophisticated Hollywood anti-business blather. Now it appears that producer Garry Marshall and writer J.F. Lawton were ahead of their time.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Campaigns Get Down to Hard Work
The hoopla of the conventions and poll bounces now over, the presidential campaigns now move into the hard work of the last two months of the campaign. With Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin running neck-and-neck, the candidates who are most able to outwork and outsmart the others will emerge victorious in November.
In a recent post, I cautioned to wait until the conventions were over to see where things stand between the candidates. Most national polling had Obama a couple of points ahead of McCain before the DNC. Now that the RNC is over and nearly a week has past since the GOP nominee made his acceptance speech, we're right back where we started, with McCain's bounce possibly fading some and the two candidates running in a statistical tie.
Now it's a matter of who can grind it out better than the other.
Here's a couple factors that could make a difference:
1. The two presidential debates and the vice-presidential debate might be the most-watched ever. Neither Obama nor McCain did well in formal debate settings in the primaries. McCain appears to do better in impromptu situations, which is why he wanted some informal town halls. Obama is marvelous in prepared situations. I suspect in the end it will be a wash, barring a major gaffe by other side.
2. Any world event that causes uncertainty is a plus for McCain, as his improvement of a couple points after Russia's invasion of Georgia demonstrates. Anything more like this could put the GOP nominee over the top. However, there's a real advantage for Obama in here. French President Sarkozy has had some mild success in his diplomatic efforts to settle the Russia-Georgia problem. If Sarkozy comes up with a dramatic breakthrough, Obama can point to it as proof that his strategy of diplomacy and engaging rivals is wiser than McCain's saber rattling.
3. Sarah Palin. Need we say more? Okay, just a little bit. Her speech at the RNC was a real kick and established her as a force in American politics. But can she grind? Will she still be funny day after day after day in taking on Democrats, or will she tire and appear shrewish? I think, especially in this election season, voters are willing to buy her as a vice president. The ultimate question, of course, is whether Americans can envision her as president. She'll be much closer to the White House than previous VPs because of McCain's age, despite his relatively good health.
4. The election will come down to battleground states, not the popular vote totals. Obama has most of the big electoral vote states in his camp, and the only traditional big Democrat state in question is Pennsylvania. McCain only has Texas as a big state, while big battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida and Virginia traditionally go for the GOP when Republicans win the presidency.
---
McCain, by selecting Palin as his running-mate, effectively snatched the "change" mantle from Obama and actually has a record on which to set it. Palin resonates with Americans because she's the anti-Hillary. She's a regular person, a mother who didn't like the way things were being run and set out to make changes. Hillary, and thousands of others like her from both parties in Washington, D.C. and state capitals nationwide, is and are what we want change from. No more scheming politicians and lawyers who place their own ambitions and ideologies above the good of the country.
McCain really did get the change message and showed it by selecting this woman. Obama, to his detriment, showed by selecting Joe Biden that the only change he wants is one to extreme liberalism. He had his chance and fumbled the ball away. His hope now is that the anti-Republican tide will hold sway for another two months.
Politics as usual is over. Dead. Gone. We at home get it. McCain got it. Obama, the Washington elite and the national media have not gotten it. It'll be interesting to see if they get the message in November.
---
I went to realclearpolitics.com and clicked around an interactive map for which direction I thought the various battleground states would go, and I ended up with a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives and, presumably, Obama.
In a recent post, I cautioned to wait until the conventions were over to see where things stand between the candidates. Most national polling had Obama a couple of points ahead of McCain before the DNC. Now that the RNC is over and nearly a week has past since the GOP nominee made his acceptance speech, we're right back where we started, with McCain's bounce possibly fading some and the two candidates running in a statistical tie.
Now it's a matter of who can grind it out better than the other.
Here's a couple factors that could make a difference:
1. The two presidential debates and the vice-presidential debate might be the most-watched ever. Neither Obama nor McCain did well in formal debate settings in the primaries. McCain appears to do better in impromptu situations, which is why he wanted some informal town halls. Obama is marvelous in prepared situations. I suspect in the end it will be a wash, barring a major gaffe by other side.
2. Any world event that causes uncertainty is a plus for McCain, as his improvement of a couple points after Russia's invasion of Georgia demonstrates. Anything more like this could put the GOP nominee over the top. However, there's a real advantage for Obama in here. French President Sarkozy has had some mild success in his diplomatic efforts to settle the Russia-Georgia problem. If Sarkozy comes up with a dramatic breakthrough, Obama can point to it as proof that his strategy of diplomacy and engaging rivals is wiser than McCain's saber rattling.
3. Sarah Palin. Need we say more? Okay, just a little bit. Her speech at the RNC was a real kick and established her as a force in American politics. But can she grind? Will she still be funny day after day after day in taking on Democrats, or will she tire and appear shrewish? I think, especially in this election season, voters are willing to buy her as a vice president. The ultimate question, of course, is whether Americans can envision her as president. She'll be much closer to the White House than previous VPs because of McCain's age, despite his relatively good health.
4. The election will come down to battleground states, not the popular vote totals. Obama has most of the big electoral vote states in his camp, and the only traditional big Democrat state in question is Pennsylvania. McCain only has Texas as a big state, while big battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida and Virginia traditionally go for the GOP when Republicans win the presidency.
---
McCain, by selecting Palin as his running-mate, effectively snatched the "change" mantle from Obama and actually has a record on which to set it. Palin resonates with Americans because she's the anti-Hillary. She's a regular person, a mother who didn't like the way things were being run and set out to make changes. Hillary, and thousands of others like her from both parties in Washington, D.C. and state capitals nationwide, is and are what we want change from. No more scheming politicians and lawyers who place their own ambitions and ideologies above the good of the country.
McCain really did get the change message and showed it by selecting this woman. Obama, to his detriment, showed by selecting Joe Biden that the only change he wants is one to extreme liberalism. He had his chance and fumbled the ball away. His hope now is that the anti-Republican tide will hold sway for another two months.
Politics as usual is over. Dead. Gone. We at home get it. McCain got it. Obama, the Washington elite and the national media have not gotten it. It'll be interesting to see if they get the message in November.
---
I went to realclearpolitics.com and clicked around an interactive map for which direction I thought the various battleground states would go, and I ended up with a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives and, presumably, Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)