Utter contempt for Democrats is nothing new from the conservative base. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican rank and file was more likely to mock Gore’s stiffness or make fun of Kerry with such sayings as “flip, flop, flip, flop” while waving flip flop sandals in the air. This year, 2008, the emotion on display is unadulterated anger and hatred. There is disbelief that Obama is ahead in the polls. “How could this be happening when Obama is a terrorist?” they ask, referring to the viral e-mails that have traveled around the Internet for over a year now.
On February 21, 2000, during the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, McCain said: "…I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it." He was speaking of the scurrilous attacks that were being made against him by Bush/Cheney/Rove.
After the second McCain-Obama debate this October, the polls rose in Obama’s favor causing the conservatives to run scared. Shouts of "terrorist" and "treason" aimed at Obama turned Republican rallies into alarming, hate-filled frenzies against the Democratic candidate. Then after letting things build up into a fury for several days, after the attacks began to spill into a very dangerous ugliness, McCain did an about face and urged his supporters to stop hurling abuse against Obama, saying he admired and respected his Democratic rival.
On Friday, at a Minnesota rally, McCain gave the microphone to an elderly woman who then told him that she was afraid of Obama because he was an “Arab,” McCain quickly took the microphone from her and said, “No ma’am.”
She asked, “He isn’t?”
“No,” McCain said, “He is a decent person, a family man, a citizen…”
A young man said that he was scared of Obama. McCain answered, “ I want to be president ... but I have to tell you that he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States."
Then a man stood up and said, “We want you to fight.”
McCain answered, “We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful.”
McCain was booed by the crowd.
He replied to the boos, “I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful and let's make sure we are, because that is the way that politics should be conducted in America.”
For a moment there, I caught a glimpse of the McCain I had once admired. What caused this sudden about face by McCain? The US Secret Service told McCain that it was investigating an alleged death threat from a Florida rally attendee. But I can neither forget nor forgive the horrid ugliness, the ignorance, the name-calling and abuse that I saw projected toward Obama at various McCain and Palin rallies during the last week. For McCain to decide to stop the hate and ugliness because one of his followers had made a threat on Obama’s life does not change my opinion of him.
To my disgust, McCain has proven to be quite a different man than the one I once admired. John McCain has been too willing to say and do anything – with zero regard for truth or decency – in order to win the job of President. I do not believe McCain chose to tone down the attacks, but instead was forced to do so, by the Secret Service. It is now being said that McCain will change his tactics, once again, and actually talk about the economy and its effects on the middle class. But during this past week, as far as I am concerned, he has lost all right to legitimate argument.
Let’s take a look at the past week:
Monday, October 6, at a rally in New Mexico, Senator McCain, while spewing toxic assaults against his Democratic opponent, asked the crowd, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" An audience member shouted back "He's a terrorist!" McCain did not correct the man, but instead, he grinned and went on with his speech.
At a Wednesday rally in Pennsylvania, McCain asked the same question. A woman yelled, "He's a damn liar! Get him! He's bad for our country!" Another shouted back, "he is a bomb."
On Thursday, “I’m mad; I’m really mad!” a Wisconsin voter bellowed at McCain. “And what’s going to surprise ya, is it’s not the economy — it’s the socialists taking over our country. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!”
In the same Wisconsin mob, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama’s associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling. “Obama, Osama!” one woman called out. The crowd took up the chant.
During the same week, the pit bull was unleashed and ran amok. Palin told those gathered at her rallies that Obama doesn't like American soldiers. "He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians,' " she said, drawing boos from a crowd while a crowd member screamed "treason!" ( The full context of the quote shows that Obama was NOT criticizing troops in any way, he was talking about how we need more troops in Afghanistan, to put in practice Petraeus' "clear and hold" tactic so that more civilians aren't killed there. Obama has long held this position, one that McCain has only recently come around to. But the McCain campaign twists the quote to make it sound unpatriotic.)
Palin linked Obama with a terrorist every time she gave a speech. "Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers, and, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she said as the crowd booed loudly. Never mind that she is deliberately misquoting the New York Times. Truth does not matter to them. ( Many uninformed voters seem to be unaware that the “relationship” between Ayers and Obama is from serving on the same education charity board in Chicago. These voters do not know that anyone who serves in any education position in Chicago will cross paths with Ayers, now an education professor at a state university. Ayers served with Obama and many others on a non-profit board that disbursed $50 million in grants dealing with school reform. Obama and Ayers were NOT friends, although Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama in his first run for state office. Yet Palin would like the Republican base to believe there was more to the relationship that just both men serving on the same board.)
During Palin’s incendiary rhetoric linking Obama to terrorism, a supporter yells "Kill him." This was clearly heard by Palin and others in the crowd. Did Sarah stop in her tracks and admonish the shouter? No.
"Kill him" apparently passed the test for what's allowed in crowd reactions at Republican rallies.
Then there were the speakers at McCain/Palin rallies who continued, unchecked by their leadership, to refer to "Barack Hussein Obama" - the emphasis on his middle name is to imply that Obama is Muslim when he is really a Christian. These speakers know that most people attending the McCain/Palin rallies are low-information voters who vote on non-factual emotion instead of knowledge, so they are inciting voters to draw the worst possible conclusion:
That in the post 9-11 world, a dark-skinned man with a middle name of Hussein is somehow a Muslim terrorist, a one-man sleeper cell, from Africa or the Middle East, who, when once elected president will somehow turn our country over to bin Laden.
This is unbelievable. They seem to just let the misinformation pour into their heads. Garbage in, garbage out.
Every time Sarah Palin talked about Barack Obama "palling around with terrorists," it added fuel to the absurd notion that he's a Muslim terrorist. Every time McCain railed on about tenuous character issues, it made it okay for his followers to base their votes on viral e-mails full of bigotry, lies, and hate that family members or friends forwarded, rather than on issues that matter:
http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/10/video-the-mccain-palin-mob-in-strongsville-ohio
“Obama is a terrorist,” they say, citing his name as proof of ties to Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us
There IS a limit to how far it is acceptable to go with negative campaigning, and the McCain Team has exceeded that limit. The current political environment does not excuse remaining silent when a candidate for president is referred to as a "terrorist" in their presence. A desire to win does not excuse remaining silent during a threat on the life of a U.S. Senator at one of their rallies. There are no excuses for evil such as this. John McCain and Sarah Palin, the GOP, and all who support them were one step short of inciting violence at their rallies. They were letting physical threats go unchallenged.
“… when the Republican campaign, mired in desperation, deliberately stokes the fires of hate and fear, using disgusting lies to argue that Obama is literally dangerous, no one should be surprised when the far-right Republican base becomes frenzied…. The responsible thing for McCain and Palin to do would be to turn down the temperature a bit and insist, in no uncertain terms, that they have no tolerance for the kind of ugliness Americans have been recently observing from the GOP.” Steve Benen, The Washington Monthly.
Sarah Palin said that from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough. Kind of rough? The McCain campaign seems to be counting on prejudice and racism. They are picking up where Hillary left off, but have gone much, much farther. They have been presiding over hate rallies where people feel free to yell out murderous threats as the candidates laugh it off and keep giving their speeches, essentially endorsing such mentality.
John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s constant incendiary attacks against Obama have been producing verbal responses from audiences that demonstrate the danger of such vicious grandstanding. McCain and Palin seem to be inciting extremists within our own country to follow a disturbing path. Once you’ve aroused a lynch mob, it’s hard to stay in charge. McCain may think that it’s the usual political fun and games, but McCain and his pit-bull gal may have unleashed emotions in their followers that they can’t control. Once people are shouting “Treason!” “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” it’s difficult to tell them to calm down. And if those emotions boil over into violence against America’s first black presidential nominee, the results will be a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Do McCain and Palin really want to be partly responsible for an assassination attempt?
For McCain, this is repugnant behavior, unworthy of respect, unworthy of being in the White House, unworthy of being the leader of the free world.
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Fourth Quarter
Elections in this country are more like emotional football games than what they should be. That is why you will hear chants like “USA, USA” and “drill, baby, drill” and “Saraccuda.” People will vote for their team even if it means voting against their own economic best interest. That is why negative campaigns, tearing down one’s opponent with slander, lies, and innuendoes, work so well in this country. “My team, no matter what” is the slogan of the base of both parties.
Think of the latest McCain Team strategy as the last few minutes of a basketball game. The team is down, so the fouling begins – on purpose. This trick is used to get the opposing team to the free throw line to stop the clock. Then the team using the dirty fouling tactics gets the ball back with a chance to score. It’s ugly, but for the losing team, it’s the only chance they have. With less than a month to go and his poll numbers down, McCain has said that since the economy is “fixed,” it is time to get down and dirty – take off the gloves. McCain’s position is to try to assassinate Obama’s character and dissipate the credibility that Obama has built up.
In the past, Democrats have been known to do the same thing when they were down, although in the past two decades they have tried to stay above such shenanigans. Instead of reaping the rewards for not playing dirty, Gore, and then Kerry, were considered weak by the voters and lost the election. The Obama Team knows this and therefore for every bit of dirt thrown by the McCain team, the Obama campaign will throw dirt right back at them, although they would prefer to just talk about the issues. Mud has already been thrown in both directions, causing the McCain campaign to scream “unfair” when the Obama Team dragged the Keating Scandal into the mix.
Many conservatives have very recently voiced an unease about this 4th quarter strategy, worrying that this time it will backfire on them. They are remembering 1992 when the economy took center stage. Many conservatives are now saying that the McCain Team, in trying to skirt around the economic issues, does not understand how the same political tactics that worked previously will not work this time because the economy is going to dominate the next five weeks.
How the 4th quarter fouls began:
The McCain Team knows how to manipulate the media in getting them to focus on the sleaze and away from substance.
On Saturday, after feeling empowered by not making a major gaffe during the debate, Sarah Palin went on the offensive, touting the “gloves are off” line and rolling out a sound bite they knew would get a lot of airtime:
“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
Palin started with the “guilt by association” – speaking of Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the violent 1960s era group the Weather Underground. Although they are not friends, they both serve on the same anti-poverty board in Chicago. Many organizations, such as FactCheck.org, have concluded that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was tenuous at best.
The challenge for Obama is to not allow the conversation to change. “They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time. So I want all of you to be clear, I’m going to keep on talking about the issues that matter, ” Obama told a crowd. But he is truly not being given a choice – if he wants to win, he will have to play dirty, too.
There is a very good chance McCain’s strategy will backfire:
Many people have been hit hard by the economy. Voters are thinking about the economy and not much else. They have watched their savings and retirement accounts drop like a rock. As McCain insists on turning the page on the economy and spending his time throwing mud at Obama, the world’s, not just the U.S., stock markets are crashing – which causes credit to become tighter and tighter. More banks are failing. More people are losing their homes. Farmers will not be able to get the credit needed to plant next year’s crops. These problems are not going away any time soon, regardless of the bail out passed by Congress.
There is something else the McCain team has not thought about: the shady characters that McCain, himself, has palled around with in the past. Palin’s husband has some shady doings of his own that could be dragged into the spotlight. The Obama Team has plenty to pick from in order to retaliate. Remember how the Bush Team swift-boated McCain in 2000? There is plenty of dirt to use against McCain. He should think twice about throwing mud. McCain’s swift-boating tactic could backfire; it could be like spitting into the wind.
Here’s why:
• McCain was one of the Keating Five. The core allegation of the Keating Five scandal is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences. Charles Keating, an Arizona businessman, went to prison during the aftermath. Here is a good article on the Keating Five scandal:
http://washingtonindependent.com/9039/did-mccain-learn-from-the-sl-crisis
• McCain has been voted as unethical by the United States Senate. In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found that McCain had exercised "poor judgment" for meeting with federal regulators on Keating's behalf. Others members of the Keating Five were found to have acted improperly. Many independent observers thought all five got off lightly, especially McCain, who had far closer ties to Keating than the others.
• McCain has a gambling addiction. He spends thousands of dollars at the craps table every month.
• McCain cheated on his wife with several women before settling on the very wealthy beer company heiress, Cindy. He then divorced his wife to marry Cindy.
• McCain has a shoot from the hip, think later, temper.
• McCain is said to have given the North Vietnamese way more information than name and serial number.
• The image of McCain as someone who fights against lobbyists is all smoke screen and mirrors. McCain has a cozy friendship with many, many lobbyists, who line his pocket and run his campaign. More than 20 top McCain advisers and fundraisers have lobbied for Big Oil. John McCain's coziness with Big Oil is in many respects just a replay of his old coziness with Charles Keating. In both cases, money and access bought influence.
• Troopergate could be the be all, end all, for Sarah’s political career if it is shown that she really did abuse her power as governor.
• Per diems are paid to Sarah, as governor, for staying in her own house. Even if it may be legal in Alaska, it’s not ethical.
• The director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, has verified that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 with the radical Alaskan Independence Party, a group that advocates Alaskan secession from the United States. Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter. The founder, Joe Volger, declared "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
http://www.akip.org/introduction.html
"Her damned institutions." Imagine if the remarks of Obama's preacher had been the guiding principal of an actual political organization. The question is, do we make Sarah guilty by association? It is her husband, after all, who was a member of this radical group.
There’s more:
• McCain wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq which has caused our attention to be deflected from the real battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
• His speeches, until the last two weeks, pushed deregulation even though lack of oversight of Wall Street is what caused the economic turmoil and credit crunch. He exclaimed that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” although most of us in the middle class knew otherwise (no, he did NOT mean the “workers” when he was saying it).
• He wants to deregulate health care in the same way that the financial section was deregulated.
• He has shown an indifference for the middle class and a preference to the wealthy and big business – just like the Bush/Cheney administration.
Perhaps McCain should think twice before opening up this Pandora’s box of mud slinging. Maybe he should stick to the issues, like the economy, and what he will actually do to help the middle class.
Think of the latest McCain Team strategy as the last few minutes of a basketball game. The team is down, so the fouling begins – on purpose. This trick is used to get the opposing team to the free throw line to stop the clock. Then the team using the dirty fouling tactics gets the ball back with a chance to score. It’s ugly, but for the losing team, it’s the only chance they have. With less than a month to go and his poll numbers down, McCain has said that since the economy is “fixed,” it is time to get down and dirty – take off the gloves. McCain’s position is to try to assassinate Obama’s character and dissipate the credibility that Obama has built up.
In the past, Democrats have been known to do the same thing when they were down, although in the past two decades they have tried to stay above such shenanigans. Instead of reaping the rewards for not playing dirty, Gore, and then Kerry, were considered weak by the voters and lost the election. The Obama Team knows this and therefore for every bit of dirt thrown by the McCain team, the Obama campaign will throw dirt right back at them, although they would prefer to just talk about the issues. Mud has already been thrown in both directions, causing the McCain campaign to scream “unfair” when the Obama Team dragged the Keating Scandal into the mix.
Many conservatives have very recently voiced an unease about this 4th quarter strategy, worrying that this time it will backfire on them. They are remembering 1992 when the economy took center stage. Many conservatives are now saying that the McCain Team, in trying to skirt around the economic issues, does not understand how the same political tactics that worked previously will not work this time because the economy is going to dominate the next five weeks.
How the 4th quarter fouls began:
The McCain Team knows how to manipulate the media in getting them to focus on the sleaze and away from substance.
On Saturday, after feeling empowered by not making a major gaffe during the debate, Sarah Palin went on the offensive, touting the “gloves are off” line and rolling out a sound bite they knew would get a lot of airtime:
“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
Palin started with the “guilt by association” – speaking of Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the violent 1960s era group the Weather Underground. Although they are not friends, they both serve on the same anti-poverty board in Chicago. Many organizations, such as FactCheck.org, have concluded that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was tenuous at best.
The challenge for Obama is to not allow the conversation to change. “They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time. So I want all of you to be clear, I’m going to keep on talking about the issues that matter, ” Obama told a crowd. But he is truly not being given a choice – if he wants to win, he will have to play dirty, too.
There is a very good chance McCain’s strategy will backfire:
Many people have been hit hard by the economy. Voters are thinking about the economy and not much else. They have watched their savings and retirement accounts drop like a rock. As McCain insists on turning the page on the economy and spending his time throwing mud at Obama, the world’s, not just the U.S., stock markets are crashing – which causes credit to become tighter and tighter. More banks are failing. More people are losing their homes. Farmers will not be able to get the credit needed to plant next year’s crops. These problems are not going away any time soon, regardless of the bail out passed by Congress.
There is something else the McCain team has not thought about: the shady characters that McCain, himself, has palled around with in the past. Palin’s husband has some shady doings of his own that could be dragged into the spotlight. The Obama Team has plenty to pick from in order to retaliate. Remember how the Bush Team swift-boated McCain in 2000? There is plenty of dirt to use against McCain. He should think twice about throwing mud. McCain’s swift-boating tactic could backfire; it could be like spitting into the wind.
Here’s why:
• McCain was one of the Keating Five. The core allegation of the Keating Five scandal is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences. Charles Keating, an Arizona businessman, went to prison during the aftermath. Here is a good article on the Keating Five scandal:
http://washingtonindependent.com/9039/did-mccain-learn-from-the-sl-crisis
• McCain has been voted as unethical by the United States Senate. In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found that McCain had exercised "poor judgment" for meeting with federal regulators on Keating's behalf. Others members of the Keating Five were found to have acted improperly. Many independent observers thought all five got off lightly, especially McCain, who had far closer ties to Keating than the others.
• McCain has a gambling addiction. He spends thousands of dollars at the craps table every month.
• McCain cheated on his wife with several women before settling on the very wealthy beer company heiress, Cindy. He then divorced his wife to marry Cindy.
• McCain has a shoot from the hip, think later, temper.
• McCain is said to have given the North Vietnamese way more information than name and serial number.
• The image of McCain as someone who fights against lobbyists is all smoke screen and mirrors. McCain has a cozy friendship with many, many lobbyists, who line his pocket and run his campaign. More than 20 top McCain advisers and fundraisers have lobbied for Big Oil. John McCain's coziness with Big Oil is in many respects just a replay of his old coziness with Charles Keating. In both cases, money and access bought influence.
• Troopergate could be the be all, end all, for Sarah’s political career if it is shown that she really did abuse her power as governor.
• Per diems are paid to Sarah, as governor, for staying in her own house. Even if it may be legal in Alaska, it’s not ethical.
• The director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, has verified that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 with the radical Alaskan Independence Party, a group that advocates Alaskan secession from the United States. Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter. The founder, Joe Volger, declared "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
http://www.akip.org/introduction.html
"Her damned institutions." Imagine if the remarks of Obama's preacher had been the guiding principal of an actual political organization. The question is, do we make Sarah guilty by association? It is her husband, after all, who was a member of this radical group.
There’s more:
• McCain wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq which has caused our attention to be deflected from the real battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
• His speeches, until the last two weeks, pushed deregulation even though lack of oversight of Wall Street is what caused the economic turmoil and credit crunch. He exclaimed that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” although most of us in the middle class knew otherwise (no, he did NOT mean the “workers” when he was saying it).
• He wants to deregulate health care in the same way that the financial section was deregulated.
• He has shown an indifference for the middle class and a preference to the wealthy and big business – just like the Bush/Cheney administration.
Perhaps McCain should think twice before opening up this Pandora’s box of mud slinging. Maybe he should stick to the issues, like the economy, and what he will actually do to help the middle class.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Worldwide Crash!
Today a worldwide major sell off of stocks and bonds was triggered due to fears of slower global economic growth – despite a $700 billion US bank bailout being passed by legislators and efforts by several European countries, including Germany and Denmark, to rescue their banks.
“In our country, the ‘Fundamentals are Sound’ group at Treasury, and the ‘Whip Inflation Now’ group at the Federal Reserve couldn't switch fast enough from ‘fighting inflation’ to ‘fighting recession,’ ” says Jim Cramer, economic guru, host of CNBC’s Mad Money and co-founder of TheStreet.com.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke studied the Depression, or so they say, and supposedly knew more about how to stop it than anyone. It appears he knew less than anyone as he and his minions presided over the deflationary destruction of worldwide finance.
• Starting in Asia, the sell off spread to Europe and Wall Street, where the Dow Jones fell by more than 6.7% to end below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004.
• The London stock market lost 7.85% – its biggest percentage fall since 1987. Germany's market lost 7.39% while France's Cac-40 index dropped 9.04% - its biggest one-day fall ever.
• Share trading was temporarily suspended in the markets of Brazil and Russia after prices plummeted by 10% and 15% respectively. Russia's market ended 19.1% down.
• Japan's market closed down 4.3%, or 465 points, at 10,473.1 – its lowest close since February 2004. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index slid 5%.
• Markets in India, China, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore also lost ground, while the Indonesian market lost 10% – the biggest one-day fall on record.
• Iceland suspended trading in shares of six major financial institutions bank shares and the government offered unlimited guarantees on savers' deposits. It had earlier agreed measures for the country's banks to sell off some foreign assets. The currency last week plummeted 20% against the dollar and the government was forced to bail out the country's third-largest bank.
• Sweden massively increased the level of protection it offered bank depositors while Denmark moved to offer full protection. Austria said it would also boost protection but did not decide on how much.
• In Italy, the board of banking announced a €3 billion emergency capital increase.
This is just the beginning! We will probably see the stock markets drop much more. Due to the extreme deregulation of the U.S. financial markets, which allowed them free reign to do whatever they wanted, we now have a severe recession in the making, possibly a Depression. The $700 billion bailout will take one to two years to work its way through our economy. In the meantime, we are going to hurt, from Wall Street to Retirement Pension Funds to Main Street to the farm (because farmers won’t be able to get loans to start next year’s crop due to very tight credit markets).
And McCain thinks the bailout means his campaign can turn the page on the economy! He does not understand how the economy works.
McCain does not understand!
“In our country, the ‘Fundamentals are Sound’ group at Treasury, and the ‘Whip Inflation Now’ group at the Federal Reserve couldn't switch fast enough from ‘fighting inflation’ to ‘fighting recession,’ ” says Jim Cramer, economic guru, host of CNBC’s Mad Money and co-founder of TheStreet.com.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke studied the Depression, or so they say, and supposedly knew more about how to stop it than anyone. It appears he knew less than anyone as he and his minions presided over the deflationary destruction of worldwide finance.
• Starting in Asia, the sell off spread to Europe and Wall Street, where the Dow Jones fell by more than 6.7% to end below 10,000 points for the first time since 2004.
• The London stock market lost 7.85% – its biggest percentage fall since 1987. Germany's market lost 7.39% while France's Cac-40 index dropped 9.04% - its biggest one-day fall ever.
• Share trading was temporarily suspended in the markets of Brazil and Russia after prices plummeted by 10% and 15% respectively. Russia's market ended 19.1% down.
• Japan's market closed down 4.3%, or 465 points, at 10,473.1 – its lowest close since February 2004. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index slid 5%.
• Markets in India, China, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore also lost ground, while the Indonesian market lost 10% – the biggest one-day fall on record.
• Iceland suspended trading in shares of six major financial institutions bank shares and the government offered unlimited guarantees on savers' deposits. It had earlier agreed measures for the country's banks to sell off some foreign assets. The currency last week plummeted 20% against the dollar and the government was forced to bail out the country's third-largest bank.
• Sweden massively increased the level of protection it offered bank depositors while Denmark moved to offer full protection. Austria said it would also boost protection but did not decide on how much.
• In Italy, the board of banking announced a €3 billion emergency capital increase.
This is just the beginning! We will probably see the stock markets drop much more. Due to the extreme deregulation of the U.S. financial markets, which allowed them free reign to do whatever they wanted, we now have a severe recession in the making, possibly a Depression. The $700 billion bailout will take one to two years to work its way through our economy. In the meantime, we are going to hurt, from Wall Street to Retirement Pension Funds to Main Street to the farm (because farmers won’t be able to get loans to start next year’s crop due to very tight credit markets).
And McCain thinks the bailout means his campaign can turn the page on the economy! He does not understand how the economy works.
McCain does not understand!
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Sent up a creek without a paddle
Each candidate has proposed a health care plan. Have you bothered to go to the candidates’ websites and read their proposals or are you just trusting their word? I have been to both websites – here’s my understanding of what I read:
Under McCain’s health care plan, if you get your health insurance through your employer, there will be an increase in your taxable income by the amount that your employer pays for your plan. If you think the tax credit McCain is offering will offset the tax, think again. The credit is only for those who have to buy an individual plan on the open market at an average cost of $12,000 a year. It is NOT for people who have employer-based insurance.
How would the McCain tax increase work? The average total premium for a family health care plan is $12,106 per year, with $8824 paid by the employer.
• A married couple with an annual taxable income of $63,701 to $128,500 would have a tax increase of $2406 (25% of $8824);
• and a couple earning from $15,651 to $63,700 would have a tax increase of $1323.60 (15% of $8824).
The more your employer pays for your insurance, the higher your tax bill!
But the scariest part of McCain’s plan is that your employer may decide to drop your insurance program because they would otherwise have to pay payroll taxes on that $8824, making an already expensive health care plan even more expensive. This would force you to buy health insurance as an individual on the open market. Any medical condition you might now have or once had would be "pre-existing" and insurance companies will refuse to cover you, or only partially cover you, excluding that condition. Do you have asthma? Do you have COPD? Have you had cancer that is now in remission? Have you had surgery of any kind? Have you had pre-cancers removed from your skin? Did you have mono at some point in your life? Have you had an ulcer caused by the ulcer bug? Do you have acid reflux (which has a very low chance of resulting in esophageal cancer)? Is your blood pressure above “normal?” Is your cholesterol up a little? You will likely be denied insurance. Then, McCain says, a pool of people who have been denied insurance will be cared for by a nonprofit corporation. Can you imagine how high the premiums would be?
What I see behind McCain’s plan is a desire on his part to completely destroy employer-based health care, forcing all Americans to purchase on the open market. It will cost thousands of dollars more than what we now pay, if you are lucky enough to quality. If you are over 50 years of age and have developed some health problems – good luck.
In contrast to the McCain plan, Obama's plan is simple and fair:
1) If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it. It will NOT be taxed.
2) If you want to buy health insurance on your own, he proposes reforming the insurance rules so you can't be turned down for prior medical conditions.
3) Obama’s plan will give everyone the opportunity to get a plan through a Health Insurance Cooperative (called an Exchange) that will offer, at a fair price, the kind of benefits McCain, Obama, and all of Congress, have.
4) All children will be covered, if not through their parent’s plan, then through SCHIPS, the government’s insurance for children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Anyone saying that we should not make sure all the children are covered has a cold heart in my book.
5) Medicare would be allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
The McCain Team will make accusations that Obama wants to socialize medicine; that he is proposing a big government takeover of health care. "That's malarkey," as Biden often says. The oldest trick in the Republican bag of tricks is to call something socialism.
Obama is NOT proposing a big government plan! His plan would rely on the same insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals we have today. He would require that preventive care be covered, that children be covered, that insurance companies not turn you down or cancel your insurance due to any condition you may have, and that employers kick in to pay their part. These ideas represent pretty much the way health care was until about ten years ago before drug prices and insurance started to skyrocket and many employers stop offering insurance benefits. These ideas are main street values.
So don't be fooled.
John McCain is the one who proposes to increase your taxes. His plan would not only overturn the employer-based health insurance that is so unique to America, his proposals could cause 20 million people to lose their employer-based insurance and be forced to buy insurance on their own. McCain proposes to give a $5000 tax credit to help out, but the tax credit he proposes covers less than half of the cost of the average health insurance plan. This plan shows that either McCain does not care about the average American, or he is completely out of touch because his own health care, through Congress, is so wonderful that it causes him to erroneously think that everyone else has the same wonderful health care.
My state legislature is already arguing over whether to reduce the already greatly reduced benefits of the health care plan for both active and retired teachers. We are part of the “underinsured” group because our insurance is inadequate. Presently, they refuse to pay for the drugs the doctor thinks would be best, and instead, forces her to prescribe from their list of accepted drugs, often with less than a desirable outcome. Five years ago, when my husband and I both had surgery, we ended up paying 33% of our medical expenses for that year because several of my tests and drugs were not covered. Through diligence, we save a certain percentage of our yearly income and, luckily, had savings that covered our part of the expenses. But what if we had not been able to save anything in the years prior to us both needing surgery?
I’ve done the math – my husband and I could not afford John McCain’s health care plan. His tax increase would take a big bite out of our monthly budget. And if it were to cause the state to stop providing insurance, I would be denied insurance on the open market due to my asthma and other chronic problems.
Under McCain, many more Americans would be up the proverbial creek without a health insurance paddle.
Under McCain’s health care plan, if you get your health insurance through your employer, there will be an increase in your taxable income by the amount that your employer pays for your plan. If you think the tax credit McCain is offering will offset the tax, think again. The credit is only for those who have to buy an individual plan on the open market at an average cost of $12,000 a year. It is NOT for people who have employer-based insurance.
How would the McCain tax increase work? The average total premium for a family health care plan is $12,106 per year, with $8824 paid by the employer.
• A married couple with an annual taxable income of $63,701 to $128,500 would have a tax increase of $2406 (25% of $8824);
• and a couple earning from $15,651 to $63,700 would have a tax increase of $1323.60 (15% of $8824).
The more your employer pays for your insurance, the higher your tax bill!
But the scariest part of McCain’s plan is that your employer may decide to drop your insurance program because they would otherwise have to pay payroll taxes on that $8824, making an already expensive health care plan even more expensive. This would force you to buy health insurance as an individual on the open market. Any medical condition you might now have or once had would be "pre-existing" and insurance companies will refuse to cover you, or only partially cover you, excluding that condition. Do you have asthma? Do you have COPD? Have you had cancer that is now in remission? Have you had surgery of any kind? Have you had pre-cancers removed from your skin? Did you have mono at some point in your life? Have you had an ulcer caused by the ulcer bug? Do you have acid reflux (which has a very low chance of resulting in esophageal cancer)? Is your blood pressure above “normal?” Is your cholesterol up a little? You will likely be denied insurance. Then, McCain says, a pool of people who have been denied insurance will be cared for by a nonprofit corporation. Can you imagine how high the premiums would be?
What I see behind McCain’s plan is a desire on his part to completely destroy employer-based health care, forcing all Americans to purchase on the open market. It will cost thousands of dollars more than what we now pay, if you are lucky enough to quality. If you are over 50 years of age and have developed some health problems – good luck.
In contrast to the McCain plan, Obama's plan is simple and fair:
1) If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it. It will NOT be taxed.
2) If you want to buy health insurance on your own, he proposes reforming the insurance rules so you can't be turned down for prior medical conditions.
3) Obama’s plan will give everyone the opportunity to get a plan through a Health Insurance Cooperative (called an Exchange) that will offer, at a fair price, the kind of benefits McCain, Obama, and all of Congress, have.
4) All children will be covered, if not through their parent’s plan, then through SCHIPS, the government’s insurance for children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Anyone saying that we should not make sure all the children are covered has a cold heart in my book.
5) Medicare would be allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
The McCain Team will make accusations that Obama wants to socialize medicine; that he is proposing a big government takeover of health care. "That's malarkey," as Biden often says. The oldest trick in the Republican bag of tricks is to call something socialism.
Obama is NOT proposing a big government plan! His plan would rely on the same insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals we have today. He would require that preventive care be covered, that children be covered, that insurance companies not turn you down or cancel your insurance due to any condition you may have, and that employers kick in to pay their part. These ideas represent pretty much the way health care was until about ten years ago before drug prices and insurance started to skyrocket and many employers stop offering insurance benefits. These ideas are main street values.
So don't be fooled.
John McCain is the one who proposes to increase your taxes. His plan would not only overturn the employer-based health insurance that is so unique to America, his proposals could cause 20 million people to lose their employer-based insurance and be forced to buy insurance on their own. McCain proposes to give a $5000 tax credit to help out, but the tax credit he proposes covers less than half of the cost of the average health insurance plan. This plan shows that either McCain does not care about the average American, or he is completely out of touch because his own health care, through Congress, is so wonderful that it causes him to erroneously think that everyone else has the same wonderful health care.
My state legislature is already arguing over whether to reduce the already greatly reduced benefits of the health care plan for both active and retired teachers. We are part of the “underinsured” group because our insurance is inadequate. Presently, they refuse to pay for the drugs the doctor thinks would be best, and instead, forces her to prescribe from their list of accepted drugs, often with less than a desirable outcome. Five years ago, when my husband and I both had surgery, we ended up paying 33% of our medical expenses for that year because several of my tests and drugs were not covered. Through diligence, we save a certain percentage of our yearly income and, luckily, had savings that covered our part of the expenses. But what if we had not been able to save anything in the years prior to us both needing surgery?
I’ve done the math – my husband and I could not afford John McCain’s health care plan. His tax increase would take a big bite out of our monthly budget. And if it were to cause the state to stop providing insurance, I would be denied insurance on the open market due to my asthma and other chronic problems.
Under McCain, many more Americans would be up the proverbial creek without a health insurance paddle.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Palin as President?
There remains a tremendous amount of support for Palin among the Republican base. She draws huge crowds and continues to raise large amounts of money for the McCain campaign. Yet, a growing number of Republicans, who were supporters of Sarah, are now expressing concern about her poor performance with the media and what it could mean.
• Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside for the good of her country. Parker, who is a conservative journalist, states "Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, agrees: "that’s not a crazy suggestion."
• Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says "You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water."
• Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. "…she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden, and definitely not Hillary Clinton."
• Rich Lowry, a writer for The National Review, says, "I thought Palin was dreadful. She obviously didn't have the reaction to the Charlie Gibson interview that I had hoped. She had better be better prepared for next week or she risks damaging her political brand forevermore."
So far, Palin has only given three interviews since being announced as McCain's VP. In these interviews, she has demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge regarding basic political fundamentals. This would explain why the McCain Team has not let her out much without being scripted.
Here are some of Palin’s difficult moments during interviews:
Speaking with Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off guard by a question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused of profiting from the companies just as recent as one month ago, despite his denials. She seemed genuinely stumped with Couric’s follow up question, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to memorized talking points about the "undue influence of lobbyists." When asked to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations – in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience – Palin spoke in incoherent circles.
"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
Asked about the $700 billion bailout package, Palin gave a nonsensical answer that strung together every economic talking point she could think of:
"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin gave an answer to a question about the Bush Doctrine that displayed an obvious ignorance as to what it is. When asked to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin said that her experience with Alaska’s energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues. When asked about the difficulties between Russia and Georgia (a democracy in western Asia that borders Russia), she declared it might be necessary to wage war on Russia, a suggestion that most average Americans know to be something we would not want to do.
In an interview with a much more friendly Sean Hannity, of Fox News, Palin responded with vague, wandering generalities to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout, and then definitively came out against it, while at the same time, McCain was indicating that he would help to negotiate the details and therefore support it.
Every time reporters have questioned Palin on foreign policy, she’s been confused. Some Republicans are now worried Palin could blow Thursday’s debate, based on her weak and unsteady interviews, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does. But she is probably in the process of internalizing the talking points so well that she will manage to get through it and perhaps even do well. According to George Stephanopoulos, a reporter with ABC News, Palin cannot continue those deer in the headlight moments where it seems like she doesn't know what to say. He continued with the statement that "a major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy." Does this mean that if she makes a major gaffe, she will very quickly "resign" from the team "to spend more time with her family?" Probably not, because it would shine a light on McCain's judgment, putting him on the defensive for the final five weeks.
But would Palin’s "winning" the debate really make her a good candidate for vice president or possibly for president?
Think about this: If you vote for McCain/Palin, according to the life insurance actuarial tables, you will be voting for a 33% chance for an unqualified Sarah Palin to become President. She is a charismatic politician who seems to have done some good things for Alaska, but it is so obvious that she has never spent a day thinking, much less studying or reading, about any important national or international issue. She is in over her head. Sarah Palin is not equipped to be vice-president, much less president. She doesn't know enough; she lacks the necessary understanding of our complex world.
A very conservative newspaper, The Stockton Record, which has not endorsed a Democrat for president in 72 years, questioned McCain for his surprise choice of Palin, "We worry he won't have four years," the editorial said. "If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president. And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment."
Are you sure you want Palin as President?
• Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside for the good of her country. Parker, who is a conservative journalist, states "Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, agrees: "that’s not a crazy suggestion."
• Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says "You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water."
• Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. "…she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden, and definitely not Hillary Clinton."
• Rich Lowry, a writer for The National Review, says, "I thought Palin was dreadful. She obviously didn't have the reaction to the Charlie Gibson interview that I had hoped. She had better be better prepared for next week or she risks damaging her political brand forevermore."
So far, Palin has only given three interviews since being announced as McCain's VP. In these interviews, she has demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge regarding basic political fundamentals. This would explain why the McCain Team has not let her out much without being scripted.
Here are some of Palin’s difficult moments during interviews:
Speaking with Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off guard by a question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused of profiting from the companies just as recent as one month ago, despite his denials. She seemed genuinely stumped with Couric’s follow up question, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to memorized talking points about the "undue influence of lobbyists." When asked to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations – in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience – Palin spoke in incoherent circles.
"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
Asked about the $700 billion bailout package, Palin gave a nonsensical answer that strung together every economic talking point she could think of:
"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin gave an answer to a question about the Bush Doctrine that displayed an obvious ignorance as to what it is. When asked to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin said that her experience with Alaska’s energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues. When asked about the difficulties between Russia and Georgia (a democracy in western Asia that borders Russia), she declared it might be necessary to wage war on Russia, a suggestion that most average Americans know to be something we would not want to do.
In an interview with a much more friendly Sean Hannity, of Fox News, Palin responded with vague, wandering generalities to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout, and then definitively came out against it, while at the same time, McCain was indicating that he would help to negotiate the details and therefore support it.
Every time reporters have questioned Palin on foreign policy, she’s been confused. Some Republicans are now worried Palin could blow Thursday’s debate, based on her weak and unsteady interviews, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does. But she is probably in the process of internalizing the talking points so well that she will manage to get through it and perhaps even do well. According to George Stephanopoulos, a reporter with ABC News, Palin cannot continue those deer in the headlight moments where it seems like she doesn't know what to say. He continued with the statement that "a major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy." Does this mean that if she makes a major gaffe, she will very quickly "resign" from the team "to spend more time with her family?" Probably not, because it would shine a light on McCain's judgment, putting him on the defensive for the final five weeks.
But would Palin’s "winning" the debate really make her a good candidate for vice president or possibly for president?
Think about this: If you vote for McCain/Palin, according to the life insurance actuarial tables, you will be voting for a 33% chance for an unqualified Sarah Palin to become President. She is a charismatic politician who seems to have done some good things for Alaska, but it is so obvious that she has never spent a day thinking, much less studying or reading, about any important national or international issue. She is in over her head. Sarah Palin is not equipped to be vice-president, much less president. She doesn't know enough; she lacks the necessary understanding of our complex world.
A very conservative newspaper, The Stockton Record, which has not endorsed a Democrat for president in 72 years, questioned McCain for his surprise choice of Palin, "We worry he won't have four years," the editorial said. "If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president. And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment."
Are you sure you want Palin as President?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Condescending Attitude
In the next few days, there will be volumes of very detailed, in-depth comments on the first Presidential debate by knowledgeable, experienced analysts. As an ordinary American, what struck me the most was the dishonorable, condescending, dismissive, contemptuous, patronizing, insulting, bullying verbal and non-verbal attitude (body language) displayed by Senator McCain towards his opponent, and colleague, Senator Obama. During an almost two hour debate, McCain did not look Obama in the eye even once. While I do not know what McCain’s reason was for such disrespectful behavior, I found it to be very offensive.
McCain said several times that he reaches across the aisle in Congress to negotiate with those of differing opinions, but during the debate Obama actually demonstrated that he could. Several times Obama agreed or gave credit to McCain, showing a stark comparison between the two men. At first I thought giving credit to McCain was the wrong thing to do. I knew that before the debate was over that the McCain camp would be releasing an ad showing Obama saying that he agrees with McCain and somehow turn that into a negative stance. Then I realized that Obama was denying McCain his maverick status and, instead, highlighting McCain’s character. Obama showed that he could actually reach across the aisle to work with McCain, the “I was not voted Miss Congeniality” hottest-tempered person in Congress. Obama was showing his leadership, his ability to negotiate, to reach out to those with differing opinions, to find common ground. McCain demonstrated, through his behavior, that he would bring even greater division between right and left political wings than what we have experienced during the past eight years.
Whether McCain’s insolence will have any effect on the polls, is an open question. And, while some of his Republican base may claim that McCain “won” the debate, in my opinion, he absolutely lost it in terms of manners, and civility. Is this how he will act toward the leaders of other countries?
McCain proved himself to be confrontational and unwilling to use diplomacy. This confrontational, warring attitude will not provide us with the excellent presidential leadership America needs.
McCain said several times that he reaches across the aisle in Congress to negotiate with those of differing opinions, but during the debate Obama actually demonstrated that he could. Several times Obama agreed or gave credit to McCain, showing a stark comparison between the two men. At first I thought giving credit to McCain was the wrong thing to do. I knew that before the debate was over that the McCain camp would be releasing an ad showing Obama saying that he agrees with McCain and somehow turn that into a negative stance. Then I realized that Obama was denying McCain his maverick status and, instead, highlighting McCain’s character. Obama showed that he could actually reach across the aisle to work with McCain, the “I was not voted Miss Congeniality” hottest-tempered person in Congress. Obama was showing his leadership, his ability to negotiate, to reach out to those with differing opinions, to find common ground. McCain demonstrated, through his behavior, that he would bring even greater division between right and left political wings than what we have experienced during the past eight years.
Whether McCain’s insolence will have any effect on the polls, is an open question. And, while some of his Republican base may claim that McCain “won” the debate, in my opinion, he absolutely lost it in terms of manners, and civility. Is this how he will act toward the leaders of other countries?
McCain proved himself to be confrontational and unwilling to use diplomacy. This confrontational, warring attitude will not provide us with the excellent presidential leadership America needs.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Untethered and impulsive
America's capabilities and standing in the world have been seriously damaged by the Bush administration. With America’s economy now further impaired, the prospects for real success by either presidential candidate in the next four years look greatly diminished. The next president’s tasks will be larger and more complex than for any President in decades.
McCain has looked more frantic than presidential during the last 10 days. McCain was in the middle of another week in which (1) Americans were concluding he was clueless about the economy, (2) very conservative columnists were raising serious questions about his running mate's ability to perform even the simplest chores of political leadership, and (3) his campaign manager was revealed as a beneficiary of the same financial institutions to which he claimed Obama had a connection.
Actions always speak louder than words, although for the past two weeks McCain’s words have been loudly schizophrenic. Finally settling on a direction, he decided that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. He suspended his campaign (but not really, since there have been many different campaign advisors on various talk shows), cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show (after which David Letterman thoroughly tore him apart), and attempted to cancel the debate for Friday night – all so he could immediately “rush back to Washington to solve the economic crisis.”
Once he announced to the nation that, as a patriot, he was suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington, McCain did nothing of the sort. Instead, he rushed to CBS to be interviewed by Katie Couric at the same time he was supposed to be taping the Letterman show. Then he stayed in New York so that he could attend Clinton’s Global Initiative the next morning.
In the debate, McCain will have to explain why he thinks Americans should not view him as a real Republican, and convince us that the next four more years would not be a continuation of the same policies that have run the country into the ground. He also should explain why he was unable to bring everyone to the table, negotiate a bipartisan plan, and solve the economic crisis as he said he would; and why his appearance in Washington seemed to actually cause the delicate negotiations to crumble. Obama cautioned that presidential politics should not be injected into the negotiations. Apparently, he was correct.
In an editorial entitled McCain’s Scapegoat, the very conservative Wall Street Journal used the word “untethered” to describe McCain:
“To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, I'll quote at length: ‘Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground. The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him.’
“Wow. Betrayed the public's trust. Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.”
Conservative columnist George F. Will picked up the idea and ran with it, calling McCain impulsive:
“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles. It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”
A potential president acting “untethered” and “impulsive” is frightening.
The pundits often describe Obama as “cerebral” (brainy, smart) and cool. Right now, cool-headed, even-tempered, and “cerebral” is sounding really good to me.
McCain has looked more frantic than presidential during the last 10 days. McCain was in the middle of another week in which (1) Americans were concluding he was clueless about the economy, (2) very conservative columnists were raising serious questions about his running mate's ability to perform even the simplest chores of political leadership, and (3) his campaign manager was revealed as a beneficiary of the same financial institutions to which he claimed Obama had a connection.
Actions always speak louder than words, although for the past two weeks McCain’s words have been loudly schizophrenic. Finally settling on a direction, he decided that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. He suspended his campaign (but not really, since there have been many different campaign advisors on various talk shows), cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show (after which David Letterman thoroughly tore him apart), and attempted to cancel the debate for Friday night – all so he could immediately “rush back to Washington to solve the economic crisis.”
Once he announced to the nation that, as a patriot, he was suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington, McCain did nothing of the sort. Instead, he rushed to CBS to be interviewed by Katie Couric at the same time he was supposed to be taping the Letterman show. Then he stayed in New York so that he could attend Clinton’s Global Initiative the next morning.
In the debate, McCain will have to explain why he thinks Americans should not view him as a real Republican, and convince us that the next four more years would not be a continuation of the same policies that have run the country into the ground. He also should explain why he was unable to bring everyone to the table, negotiate a bipartisan plan, and solve the economic crisis as he said he would; and why his appearance in Washington seemed to actually cause the delicate negotiations to crumble. Obama cautioned that presidential politics should not be injected into the negotiations. Apparently, he was correct.
In an editorial entitled McCain’s Scapegoat, the very conservative Wall Street Journal used the word “untethered” to describe McCain:
“To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, I'll quote at length: ‘Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground. The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him.’
“Wow. Betrayed the public's trust. Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.”
Conservative columnist George F. Will picked up the idea and ran with it, calling McCain impulsive:
“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles. It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”
A potential president acting “untethered” and “impulsive” is frightening.
The pundits often describe Obama as “cerebral” (brainy, smart) and cool. Right now, cool-headed, even-tempered, and “cerebral” is sounding really good to me.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Judgment Day
Republicans, including John McCain, believe regulation of the markets to be anathema. Deregulation goes hand in hand with the belief that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit everyone in the long run, because, they say, the wealthy are the ones who provide the jobs for this country (although it is said that small businesses drive much of the employment growth). They believe that it’s the wealthy who make the big investments in big business that benefit everyone. This is called “trickle down economics,” supply-side economics, or Reaganomics.
The first and foremost principle of Reaganomics that the current Bush administration and his Republican team have so loyally followed is blind faith in the market. The idea is that if the market is allowed to work, without oversight, the economy will naturally stay healthy. Trickle-down (also called supply-side) theorists believe that pumping money into the hands of the wealthy will cause them to invest in business, which will in turn cause the economy to grow, which will create jobs, which will eventually get money into the hands of the average working man. This theory is behind the Bush tax cut which greatly favored the wealthy and which John McCain has said he will make permanent.
Reality is quite different from the theory.
Deregulation caused greed and a high level of opportunism to come to the forefront. The economic market got out of control. During the credit boom between 2002 and 2006, both financial institutions and American households took on too much debt. Now many of those borrowers can't pay back the loans, which causes the credit market to not be able to make loans to anyone for any reason, which, in turn, chokes economic growth. This problem is exacerbated by the collapse in housing prices at a time when many Americans took out equity loans to finance a more extravagant lifestyle.
In his interview with PBS's News Hour on September 15, Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, said the root cause of the economic problem is that “in the last few years, the approach has been the one of laissez-faire [a phrase literally meaning allow to do)…a financial market without appropriate rules and regulations …gets crazy, [with] asset bubbles, credit bubbles…self-regulation means no regulation....” He was speaking of fully uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, a separation between government and economics, that has been promoted by the Republicans.
A Century Foundation report on the effects of Republican deregulation and tax policies that favor the rich reveals that:
• The supply-side economics theory makes the assumption that if you cut corporate tax rates, corporations are more willing to do things with their money. This is unlikely, for a host of reasons, starting with the fact that all a corporation is supposed to do is make money for expansion and for its shareholders. Additional savings incurred by a lessened tax burden does not mean corporations create more jobs. It does mean that these companies may have a better bottom line enabling them to pass out more money to shareholders and give CEOs ridiculously larger paychecks.
• Rich people did not get rich by sharing their money. When you give rich people more money, they don't necessarily provide someone a job with it. Instead, they may take a cruise or buy a new BMW or Mercedes. McCain, for example, apparently has 13 cars and seven houses.
• The current U.S. tax policy, begun by Reagan and continued by George W. Bush, has aggravated the growing gap between rich and poor, with tax cuts disproportionately rewarding those at the top while doing little for the middle class or the poor. The top 5 percent of income recipients in the United States have on average 5.5 times the income of the remaining 95 percent, but in terms of accumulated wealth, the top 5 percent have on average 23 times that of the remaining 95 percent. The average income on Wall Street last year was about $280,000, or nearly five times as high as the average of all other workers in the United States.
One of the best measures to demonstrate the failure of Reaganomics is to look at the growth of median household incomes. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $17,710. The U.S. Census shows the median income in 2005 was $46,326. When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of median American income for 2005 was only 85% of what it was in 1980. Even worse is that under George W. Bush, since 2006, the median income has actually been driven down while the cost of gas, groceries, utilities, and health care has drastically risen.
The current economic catastrophe has “trickled down” from Wall Street, tightening credit for consumers and businesses who have played by the rules. This is not just impacting the people who took out subprime mortgages to buy homes they could not really afford, but Jane and John Doe who has done everything correctly, by the book, paying their mortgage and other bills on time. The Hope Now Alliance, the lenders’ group put together at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, estimates the number of foreclosure proceedings that begin nationally in each month. The latest figures, for July, put the number at 197,000, the highest for any month since they started keeping track in July 2007. Of those that failed, 105,000 were normal mortgages, and 92,000 were subprime.
A word about the credit default swaps you have been hearing about: Credit default swaps, a kind of insurance, could be directly exchanged between banks. This supposedly spread out the risk, making it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. These credit default swaps turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street boom. No one ever had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded directly from bank to bank without being administered or regulated by any exchange. Credit default swaps, in allowing banks to share risks, caused them to compete with each other in an effort to chase higher profit through risky loans. This “insurance” made it possible for the down payment on homes to become as low as 0% - nada, nothing, zip. The illusion of "safety" that CDS derivatives provided allowed the sub-prime mortgage market to be possible.
Now the chickens have come home to roost: So far in 2008, 11 federally insured banks and thrifts have failed, compared with three last year. The country's largest thrift, Washington Mutual Inc., is faltering. The taxpayers are being asked to bail out the big banks and investment firms that were involved in the subprime mortgage game. The plan would enable the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions. The idea is that getting those debts off their books would ease one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis, making them more inclined to lend money to the average Joe. The most infuriating part of all this is that we taxpayers have no choice but to agree to the $700,000,000,000 (billions) rescue plan or risk what the Bush administration warns would be a financial crisis of the type that will wipe out savings of retirees, make mortgages or college loans impossible to get, and send the economy into a downward spiral causing very high unemployment. If we don’t bail out Wall Street, our entire economic structure will collapse – taking the world down with us.
They are throwing around the term “severe recession” on the news programs – translate that into “Depression” – like what was experienced in the 1930s.
It is clear that regulations will be needed to avoid allowing greed to dominate Wall Street which puts self-interest before the public good. It is time to reject the idea that we all gain from enabling the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very few. In his September 15 interview with PBS's News Hour, Roubini added, “Now we have to move towards appropriate rules, not excessive rules, but strong regulation, supervision of finance system. That’s what’s necessary.”
It is time to reject Reagan’s trickle-down theory. It just plain doesn’t work.
If you want a nice, simple explanation on the supply-side theory, how it only helps the wealthy, go here: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
The first and foremost principle of Reaganomics that the current Bush administration and his Republican team have so loyally followed is blind faith in the market. The idea is that if the market is allowed to work, without oversight, the economy will naturally stay healthy. Trickle-down (also called supply-side) theorists believe that pumping money into the hands of the wealthy will cause them to invest in business, which will in turn cause the economy to grow, which will create jobs, which will eventually get money into the hands of the average working man. This theory is behind the Bush tax cut which greatly favored the wealthy and which John McCain has said he will make permanent.
Reality is quite different from the theory.
Deregulation caused greed and a high level of opportunism to come to the forefront. The economic market got out of control. During the credit boom between 2002 and 2006, both financial institutions and American households took on too much debt. Now many of those borrowers can't pay back the loans, which causes the credit market to not be able to make loans to anyone for any reason, which, in turn, chokes economic growth. This problem is exacerbated by the collapse in housing prices at a time when many Americans took out equity loans to finance a more extravagant lifestyle.
In his interview with PBS's News Hour on September 15, Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, said the root cause of the economic problem is that “in the last few years, the approach has been the one of laissez-faire [a phrase literally meaning allow to do)…a financial market without appropriate rules and regulations …gets crazy, [with] asset bubbles, credit bubbles…self-regulation means no regulation....” He was speaking of fully uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, a separation between government and economics, that has been promoted by the Republicans.
A Century Foundation report on the effects of Republican deregulation and tax policies that favor the rich reveals that:
• The supply-side economics theory makes the assumption that if you cut corporate tax rates, corporations are more willing to do things with their money. This is unlikely, for a host of reasons, starting with the fact that all a corporation is supposed to do is make money for expansion and for its shareholders. Additional savings incurred by a lessened tax burden does not mean corporations create more jobs. It does mean that these companies may have a better bottom line enabling them to pass out more money to shareholders and give CEOs ridiculously larger paychecks.
• Rich people did not get rich by sharing their money. When you give rich people more money, they don't necessarily provide someone a job with it. Instead, they may take a cruise or buy a new BMW or Mercedes. McCain, for example, apparently has 13 cars and seven houses.
• The current U.S. tax policy, begun by Reagan and continued by George W. Bush, has aggravated the growing gap between rich and poor, with tax cuts disproportionately rewarding those at the top while doing little for the middle class or the poor. The top 5 percent of income recipients in the United States have on average 5.5 times the income of the remaining 95 percent, but in terms of accumulated wealth, the top 5 percent have on average 23 times that of the remaining 95 percent. The average income on Wall Street last year was about $280,000, or nearly five times as high as the average of all other workers in the United States.
One of the best measures to demonstrate the failure of Reaganomics is to look at the growth of median household incomes. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $17,710. The U.S. Census shows the median income in 2005 was $46,326. When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of median American income for 2005 was only 85% of what it was in 1980. Even worse is that under George W. Bush, since 2006, the median income has actually been driven down while the cost of gas, groceries, utilities, and health care has drastically risen.
The current economic catastrophe has “trickled down” from Wall Street, tightening credit for consumers and businesses who have played by the rules. This is not just impacting the people who took out subprime mortgages to buy homes they could not really afford, but Jane and John Doe who has done everything correctly, by the book, paying their mortgage and other bills on time. The Hope Now Alliance, the lenders’ group put together at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, estimates the number of foreclosure proceedings that begin nationally in each month. The latest figures, for July, put the number at 197,000, the highest for any month since they started keeping track in July 2007. Of those that failed, 105,000 were normal mortgages, and 92,000 were subprime.
A word about the credit default swaps you have been hearing about: Credit default swaps, a kind of insurance, could be directly exchanged between banks. This supposedly spread out the risk, making it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. These credit default swaps turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street boom. No one ever had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded directly from bank to bank without being administered or regulated by any exchange. Credit default swaps, in allowing banks to share risks, caused them to compete with each other in an effort to chase higher profit through risky loans. This “insurance” made it possible for the down payment on homes to become as low as 0% - nada, nothing, zip. The illusion of "safety" that CDS derivatives provided allowed the sub-prime mortgage market to be possible.
Now the chickens have come home to roost: So far in 2008, 11 federally insured banks and thrifts have failed, compared with three last year. The country's largest thrift, Washington Mutual Inc., is faltering. The taxpayers are being asked to bail out the big banks and investment firms that were involved in the subprime mortgage game. The plan would enable the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions. The idea is that getting those debts off their books would ease one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis, making them more inclined to lend money to the average Joe. The most infuriating part of all this is that we taxpayers have no choice but to agree to the $700,000,000,000 (billions) rescue plan or risk what the Bush administration warns would be a financial crisis of the type that will wipe out savings of retirees, make mortgages or college loans impossible to get, and send the economy into a downward spiral causing very high unemployment. If we don’t bail out Wall Street, our entire economic structure will collapse – taking the world down with us.
They are throwing around the term “severe recession” on the news programs – translate that into “Depression” – like what was experienced in the 1930s.
It is clear that regulations will be needed to avoid allowing greed to dominate Wall Street which puts self-interest before the public good. It is time to reject the idea that we all gain from enabling the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very few. In his September 15 interview with PBS's News Hour, Roubini added, “Now we have to move towards appropriate rules, not excessive rules, but strong regulation, supervision of finance system. That’s what’s necessary.”
It is time to reject Reagan’s trickle-down theory. It just plain doesn’t work.
If you want a nice, simple explanation on the supply-side theory, how it only helps the wealthy, go here: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I was for McCain before I was against him
In the 2000 presidential campaign, I was excited about McCain, who in my opinion was a conservative with a heart. But he got “swift-boated” by the Bush-Cheney-Rove machine during the South Carolina primary. There were allegations that McCain had fathered a black child (he and Cindy have an adopted daughter who is from Bangladesh) and that McCain had committed treason in Hanoi, or was crazed from his captivity and, as a result, has a dangerous temper. He was run out of South Carolina on a rail, virtually tarred and feathered. This time around, for the 2008 election, I had high hopes for John McCain, who was a man of honesty, integrity, and would not get down in the gutter while campaigning – or so I thought.
In the last several months I have become more and more disillusioned with the McCain campaign for using nasty, personal attacks full of outright lies that have nothing to do with public policy and should have no place in a presidential campaign. So, I am no longer for McCain. If he is going to use outright lies and slander to win the election on the emotions of the common voter, then I believe he will continue to lie to the country once he is in office.
There was nothing subtle about the first smear attempt in trying to depict Obama as “not one of us.” Obama was painted as a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not patriotic enough (as in no flag pin) and certainly not a “real” American. Since then, McCain has only upped the ante, sliming Obama every which way he can to see what might stick.
First came the reports about Obama secretly being Muslim and having attended a radical Islamic madrassa school in Indonesia. After careful research, I found this to be an outright lie, but I did not directly blame McCain for the rumors. He was still saying that he would run a clean campaign.
A few months ago, McCain, and some pundits, demanded that Obama visit Iraq and prove he could be presidential in the foreign arena. I, like many, was expecting Obama to stumble. When he conducted himself with foreign leaders flawlessly, visited with General Petraeus, talked easily with American troops who seemed to appreciate him, and proved his potential, the pundits reported that Obama was appearing “too presidential.” First they said that he is too young, inexperienced, and not presidential enough and then they said he is acting too presidential.
McCain's accusation that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany were reprehensible. You can tell McCain knows they were reprehensible because after he says it, he grins broadly, and then gives an uneasy semi-laugh. The charges are as uncivil as they can possibly be, close to calling Obama treasonous. Republicans saying that Obama did not visit troops in Landstuhl hospital because he could not take the media was proven to be an outright fabrication, as the McCain camp was finally forced to admit. What if Obama had appeared at the hospital? David Kiley reported in Business Week magazine how a Republican operative described plans to attack Obama for using wounded troops as campaign props if he had gone through with the visit.
The 200,000+ crowd who attended Obama’s speech in Berlin was less about his being a celebrity than about the disaster of the Bush-Cheney reign. Obama has become a symbol of hope for many people in the United States who want to see the return of the America they remember. So when Obama said that this was NOT about him, but instead he has become a symbol of the possibility of America, he was absolutely correct.
In the aftermath of Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe, it has become clear to many, including myself, that the root of the extreme dislike for Obama is based on him stepping out of his "place," beyond his station. Obama is being "uppity," the charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them. The code word for “uppity” is “arrogance” and vice versa. The arrogance theme itself, in my mind, is Republicans playing the race card. Yet, McCain feigned great anger, with his campaign manager literally throwing a hissy fit during one interview, accusing Obama of playing the “race card” when he said that he didn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills. This “arrogance” theme is a variation on the usual Karl Rove fare.
Using airhead female celebrities Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears in an ad against Obama was the usual Republican attempt to imply that the Democrat is only a celebrity and not tough enough to be president. The ad called “The One” was downright insulting to all good, educated Christians. Politicians using our religious figures in such a way is offensive and mocks our faith. These ads both tap into a conversation that has been building on Christian radio and political blogs and in widely circulated e-mail messages that accuse Obama of being the Antichrist. McCain said that “The One” was meant only as a joke – for fun. I’m not laughing.
The taxes ad claims that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes on folks earning more than $42,000 a year. The McCain team is lying through their teeth when they say Obama will raise everyone’s taxes. Many non-partisan economic groups have said that most of the population would get a tax cut under the Obama plan – much more of a tax cut than under McCain’s plan. Obama isn't proposing to raise taxes on people as the ad insinuates. He is proposing to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes back to where they were during Clinton years for those who make more than $250K per year. How many of us even come close to making $250,000 per year?
The Palin VP pick is an example of McCain’s cynicism, using the emotions of the common voter as a tool. Since Palin was put on the ticket, the McCain campaign keeps the spotlight on her; it's out with a new ad attacking the Dem ticket for attacking her (although the Obama team did not attack her). During the Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson, the woman showed herself as clueless. Yet the Republican base and some very conservative independents fall for her because she shoots guns, eats moose stew, and comes across as decisive (in her own words, “I never blinked”). Never mind that she also tells lies about her “success” as Governor of Alaska, even when it is directly pointed out to her that what she is saying is not true, only half true or less (i.e. She reports having said “thanks, but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. She said thanks to that same money anyway, to be used on whatever Alaska wanted.)
The McCain ad that lifted the “lipstick on a pig” phrase out of context and insisted that Obama was talking about Palin is such a boldfaced lie that I cannot believe anyone would fall for it, but many people have. I heard that Obama speech. He was speaking of McCain’s economic policies when he used the lipstick on a pig cliché. If McCain keeps running ads like this one, he richly deserves to lose.
Until this past week, with the recent economic debacle, everything with the McCain campaign was Palin, Palin, Palin. They didn't want the spotlight on McCain; but with the Wall Street failure, the spotlight is directly on him, where it should be.
McCain has portrayed Obama’s team as part of the Fannie and Freddie mortgage problem, another incorrect statement. At the same time, The New York Times reported that McCain's campaign manager was paid nearly $2 million for running a Washington outfit set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop stricter regulation of these two entities. McCain's right hand was one of the major players in the corrupt Washington machine. Yet McCain accuses Obama of being part of a corrupt system.
McCain's campaign statements and ads have been at best only half true with, at best, cherry-picked statements taken out of context, and at worse, outright lies. In the beginning, every time he was questioned about his ads, he signaled with a big smile and then an odd little half-laugh that he didn't really believe his own message. Now he has become bolder by refusing to admit the lies, by ignoring questions, giving statements that do not answer the questions, or denying that he has lied.
The real question is what all of this means for a McCain presidency. The list of troubling portents that undermine his integrity is growing long: repeated campaign staff upheavals reflecting poor management skills; reversals on big issues like tax cuts; flip-flops on how the economy is doing and once realizing the fundamentals were not strong, saying he would fire the SEC chairman which is not the President’s prerogative to do; shameless pandering on a gas-tax holiday that would put very little in the pocket of the middle class; confused ideas on how to handle Social Security; and false charges, such as saying Obama caused high gas prices and the Wall Street debacle.
McCain embraces the Bush agenda and would bring four more years of the same GOP policies that we have been suffering under:
• the war policies that have bankrupted us,
• the economic policies that have allowed the rich to become richer while the rest of us tread water and have allowed Wall Street to destroy the economy while lining their own pockets,
• and the environmental policies, or lack of, that have added to global warming.
For those who thought McCain would be a better sort of candidate, it was more than a disappointment when he showed his true colors. Let’s not have any more nonsense about McCain being the straight-talking Maverick. He is just a down and dirty politician trying to coast into office on his past glory as a POW. He flips, then flops, then flips again with wherever the wind blows on major issues. Worse of all, he wants to be President so badly, that he has sullied his character by selling his soul to the Rovian disciples whose methods he once preached against.
That doesn’t just turn me off, it makes me physically ill.
McCain no longer seems presidential to me.
In the last several months I have become more and more disillusioned with the McCain campaign for using nasty, personal attacks full of outright lies that have nothing to do with public policy and should have no place in a presidential campaign. So, I am no longer for McCain. If he is going to use outright lies and slander to win the election on the emotions of the common voter, then I believe he will continue to lie to the country once he is in office.
There was nothing subtle about the first smear attempt in trying to depict Obama as “not one of us.” Obama was painted as a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not patriotic enough (as in no flag pin) and certainly not a “real” American. Since then, McCain has only upped the ante, sliming Obama every which way he can to see what might stick.
First came the reports about Obama secretly being Muslim and having attended a radical Islamic madrassa school in Indonesia. After careful research, I found this to be an outright lie, but I did not directly blame McCain for the rumors. He was still saying that he would run a clean campaign.
A few months ago, McCain, and some pundits, demanded that Obama visit Iraq and prove he could be presidential in the foreign arena. I, like many, was expecting Obama to stumble. When he conducted himself with foreign leaders flawlessly, visited with General Petraeus, talked easily with American troops who seemed to appreciate him, and proved his potential, the pundits reported that Obama was appearing “too presidential.” First they said that he is too young, inexperienced, and not presidential enough and then they said he is acting too presidential.
McCain's accusation that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany were reprehensible. You can tell McCain knows they were reprehensible because after he says it, he grins broadly, and then gives an uneasy semi-laugh. The charges are as uncivil as they can possibly be, close to calling Obama treasonous. Republicans saying that Obama did not visit troops in Landstuhl hospital because he could not take the media was proven to be an outright fabrication, as the McCain camp was finally forced to admit. What if Obama had appeared at the hospital? David Kiley reported in Business Week magazine how a Republican operative described plans to attack Obama for using wounded troops as campaign props if he had gone through with the visit.
The 200,000+ crowd who attended Obama’s speech in Berlin was less about his being a celebrity than about the disaster of the Bush-Cheney reign. Obama has become a symbol of hope for many people in the United States who want to see the return of the America they remember. So when Obama said that this was NOT about him, but instead he has become a symbol of the possibility of America, he was absolutely correct.
In the aftermath of Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe, it has become clear to many, including myself, that the root of the extreme dislike for Obama is based on him stepping out of his "place," beyond his station. Obama is being "uppity," the charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them. The code word for “uppity” is “arrogance” and vice versa. The arrogance theme itself, in my mind, is Republicans playing the race card. Yet, McCain feigned great anger, with his campaign manager literally throwing a hissy fit during one interview, accusing Obama of playing the “race card” when he said that he didn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills. This “arrogance” theme is a variation on the usual Karl Rove fare.
Using airhead female celebrities Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears in an ad against Obama was the usual Republican attempt to imply that the Democrat is only a celebrity and not tough enough to be president. The ad called “The One” was downright insulting to all good, educated Christians. Politicians using our religious figures in such a way is offensive and mocks our faith. These ads both tap into a conversation that has been building on Christian radio and political blogs and in widely circulated e-mail messages that accuse Obama of being the Antichrist. McCain said that “The One” was meant only as a joke – for fun. I’m not laughing.
The taxes ad claims that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes on folks earning more than $42,000 a year. The McCain team is lying through their teeth when they say Obama will raise everyone’s taxes. Many non-partisan economic groups have said that most of the population would get a tax cut under the Obama plan – much more of a tax cut than under McCain’s plan. Obama isn't proposing to raise taxes on people as the ad insinuates. He is proposing to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes back to where they were during Clinton years for those who make more than $250K per year. How many of us even come close to making $250,000 per year?
The Palin VP pick is an example of McCain’s cynicism, using the emotions of the common voter as a tool. Since Palin was put on the ticket, the McCain campaign keeps the spotlight on her; it's out with a new ad attacking the Dem ticket for attacking her (although the Obama team did not attack her). During the Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson, the woman showed herself as clueless. Yet the Republican base and some very conservative independents fall for her because she shoots guns, eats moose stew, and comes across as decisive (in her own words, “I never blinked”). Never mind that she also tells lies about her “success” as Governor of Alaska, even when it is directly pointed out to her that what she is saying is not true, only half true or less (i.e. She reports having said “thanks, but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. She said thanks to that same money anyway, to be used on whatever Alaska wanted.)
The McCain ad that lifted the “lipstick on a pig” phrase out of context and insisted that Obama was talking about Palin is such a boldfaced lie that I cannot believe anyone would fall for it, but many people have. I heard that Obama speech. He was speaking of McCain’s economic policies when he used the lipstick on a pig cliché. If McCain keeps running ads like this one, he richly deserves to lose.
Until this past week, with the recent economic debacle, everything with the McCain campaign was Palin, Palin, Palin. They didn't want the spotlight on McCain; but with the Wall Street failure, the spotlight is directly on him, where it should be.
McCain has portrayed Obama’s team as part of the Fannie and Freddie mortgage problem, another incorrect statement. At the same time, The New York Times reported that McCain's campaign manager was paid nearly $2 million for running a Washington outfit set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop stricter regulation of these two entities. McCain's right hand was one of the major players in the corrupt Washington machine. Yet McCain accuses Obama of being part of a corrupt system.
McCain's campaign statements and ads have been at best only half true with, at best, cherry-picked statements taken out of context, and at worse, outright lies. In the beginning, every time he was questioned about his ads, he signaled with a big smile and then an odd little half-laugh that he didn't really believe his own message. Now he has become bolder by refusing to admit the lies, by ignoring questions, giving statements that do not answer the questions, or denying that he has lied.
The real question is what all of this means for a McCain presidency. The list of troubling portents that undermine his integrity is growing long: repeated campaign staff upheavals reflecting poor management skills; reversals on big issues like tax cuts; flip-flops on how the economy is doing and once realizing the fundamentals were not strong, saying he would fire the SEC chairman which is not the President’s prerogative to do; shameless pandering on a gas-tax holiday that would put very little in the pocket of the middle class; confused ideas on how to handle Social Security; and false charges, such as saying Obama caused high gas prices and the Wall Street debacle.
McCain embraces the Bush agenda and would bring four more years of the same GOP policies that we have been suffering under:
• the war policies that have bankrupted us,
• the economic policies that have allowed the rich to become richer while the rest of us tread water and have allowed Wall Street to destroy the economy while lining their own pockets,
• and the environmental policies, or lack of, that have added to global warming.
For those who thought McCain would be a better sort of candidate, it was more than a disappointment when he showed his true colors. Let’s not have any more nonsense about McCain being the straight-talking Maverick. He is just a down and dirty politician trying to coast into office on his past glory as a POW. He flips, then flops, then flips again with wherever the wind blows on major issues. Worse of all, he wants to be President so badly, that he has sullied his character by selling his soul to the Rovian disciples whose methods he once preached against.
That doesn’t just turn me off, it makes me physically ill.
McCain no longer seems presidential to me.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
I cannot abide a liar
I cannot abide a liar.
There’s a saying that the truth is the first casualty of war. Well, if that's true, then the presidential race must be World War III. I know many of you would never vote for a Democrat even if your life depended on it…BUT, I cannot abide a liar. Especially one who promised to run an honorable campaign.
McCain has been lying about so much that I cannot believe anything he says – I do not believe he will do anything that is good for this country or the average person. I have listened to both McCain and Palin tell a bushel full of lies. I have fact checked their statements and found most of them to be cherry-picked half truths and outright bald-faced lies, not only about their opponent but about their own records: i.e. McCain being against lobbyists and Palin turning down the “bridge to nowhere” are both outright lies. Palin did not sell the jet on Ebay – she sold it through a broker at a great loss to the state. She did take earmarks as governor -- $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008. Now the McCain/Palin team is obfuscating the troopergate investigation, refusing to honor subpoenas, when, before being nominated for VP, she once agreed to cooperate. This sounds too much like the Bush administration personnel refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Hang the rule of law.
The notion that there is any serious equivalence between the campaign sins of Obama and the massive moral sins of McCain is inane: “Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Obama's… McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He has outright lied about his opponent. He has misrepresented [to put it nicely] his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls [lies], he has denied and repeated them....” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign full of lies would go on to be an honest president? The only answer is NO.
He's a fantastic and shameless liar. In a heated campaign, some half truths will be told, but this is sickening. During an interview with the women of "The View" last week, McCain offered one lame excuse after another for his conduct: Obama's ads are “hard-hitting”, too… The tone wouldn't be so negative if Obama had agreed to the townhall debates… his own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care. McCain refused to admit that Obama had not been speaking of Palin in using that time-worn cliché.
Too many times, I have watched McCain directly questioned about his lies and listened to him deny that he is lying. The mark of a moral person is not their occasional failures, but their response to them. Does he correct and apologize? Does he ultimately care about the truth, about reality? Or does he refuse to acknowledge his lies and continue to repeat them, even after they have been proven beyond the slightest doubt?
Now the economy is so very bad that even McCain has to admit there is a problem. But, yesterday, when called on his statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, he sat there and lied once again, saying that he really meant that the workers were strong, that the “fundamentals” were the workers. He did not mean the workers when he made that statement over 20 times in the last several months. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
McCain has failed the most basic of ethical tests. He is morally and ethically unfit to be the president of the United States. The same is true of Palin.
I cannot abide a liar.
There’s a saying that the truth is the first casualty of war. Well, if that's true, then the presidential race must be World War III. I know many of you would never vote for a Democrat even if your life depended on it…BUT, I cannot abide a liar. Especially one who promised to run an honorable campaign.
McCain has been lying about so much that I cannot believe anything he says – I do not believe he will do anything that is good for this country or the average person. I have listened to both McCain and Palin tell a bushel full of lies. I have fact checked their statements and found most of them to be cherry-picked half truths and outright bald-faced lies, not only about their opponent but about their own records: i.e. McCain being against lobbyists and Palin turning down the “bridge to nowhere” are both outright lies. Palin did not sell the jet on Ebay – she sold it through a broker at a great loss to the state. She did take earmarks as governor -- $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008. Now the McCain/Palin team is obfuscating the troopergate investigation, refusing to honor subpoenas, when, before being nominated for VP, she once agreed to cooperate. This sounds too much like the Bush administration personnel refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Hang the rule of law.
The notion that there is any serious equivalence between the campaign sins of Obama and the massive moral sins of McCain is inane: “Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Obama's… McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He has outright lied about his opponent. He has misrepresented [to put it nicely] his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls [lies], he has denied and repeated them....” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign full of lies would go on to be an honest president? The only answer is NO.
He's a fantastic and shameless liar. In a heated campaign, some half truths will be told, but this is sickening. During an interview with the women of "The View" last week, McCain offered one lame excuse after another for his conduct: Obama's ads are “hard-hitting”, too… The tone wouldn't be so negative if Obama had agreed to the townhall debates… his own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care. McCain refused to admit that Obama had not been speaking of Palin in using that time-worn cliché.
Too many times, I have watched McCain directly questioned about his lies and listened to him deny that he is lying. The mark of a moral person is not their occasional failures, but their response to them. Does he correct and apologize? Does he ultimately care about the truth, about reality? Or does he refuse to acknowledge his lies and continue to repeat them, even after they have been proven beyond the slightest doubt?
Now the economy is so very bad that even McCain has to admit there is a problem. But, yesterday, when called on his statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, he sat there and lied once again, saying that he really meant that the workers were strong, that the “fundamentals” were the workers. He did not mean the workers when he made that statement over 20 times in the last several months. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
McCain has failed the most basic of ethical tests. He is morally and ethically unfit to be the president of the United States. The same is true of Palin.
I cannot abide a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)