« Black Hole of Switzerland | Main | Correction: It's Not As Bad As I Thought »

09/08/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Actually, bank deregulation is not precisely the problem that led to our situation today. The creation of the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the market distorting backing of those companies by the USG is what led to today's problems. That proud tradition dates back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That said, the USG's history of bailing out large companies perceived as "necessary" to the competitiveness and survival of the nation is a bipartisan evil. I won't blame the democrats for it. But if you think just having a Democrat president will fix the situation, that really is wishful thinking.

G-d, you don't know how I pray for less regulation on the banking industry. It would make my life a lot easier. But instead every year we get something new to deal with; the Patriot Act, Graham-Leach-Bliley, Red Flag, the list goes on and on. Trust me, the problem is not bank deregulation, the feds stop by at the minimum every 18 months, and you get quite the anal exam from them. Just the IT section of the exam is a 14 page questionnaire that leaves me creating binders of thousands of pages of documentation to satisfy their requests, along with a week of questioning. The loan side of the exam, even in a small, community bank, takes at least two weeks and involves 15 or more examiners.

That being said, I totally agree with James' point about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; government intervention in the marketplace never ends well, and now we're reaping the consequences. And all the government wants to do is step in and prop them up. Hopefully you can hear my eyes rolling even from this far away.

That being said, while I don't agree with most of the issues you raise, I agree with the spirit of it. McCain has thrown Obama completely off his game and totally owns his OODA loop right now. If Obama doesn't find a message and get on it, and quick, he's toast.

And as to the Palin phenomena you cited, welcome to our world. I've been talking to people from both parties for at least a year who say they're going to vote for Obama strictly because he is the first viable black candidate ever. No mention of policies, party, or anything substantive.

I would add one more thing to your list, too. Obama needs to remember that he's running against McCain, not Palin. Right now you have the top of the ticket on your side going head-to-head with our V.P. nominee. It elevates her standing and pulls Obama way down. And virtually eliminates Biden in everyone's mind.

Personally, I am loving this race.

I am taking off (or at least trying to) my partisan glasses and putting on my objective ones.

The one thing I would be concerned about if I were an Obama supporter is his lack of experience in a tough, slug-it-out, dirty campaign. Jack Ryan was eliminated from his Senate debate due his freaky wierd divorce issues.

But however, if Obama keeps this up, he might be able to rebound and get back to even keel.

Palin's bio is "compelling," Obama said.

The crowd booed. "No, it's an interesting story." More boos. "No, no, it is. I mean that sincerely. Mother, governor, moose shooter."

The crowd broke out in laughter. "That's cool. That's cool. That's cool stuff," Obama said.

I chuckled at that. It's good stuff.

Senate 'campaign,' not 'debate.' Damn $10 Reisling.

BTW, my previous point notwithstanding, I think you're correct on what Obama must do to win the election.

good stuff, tom. if they can chuckle at obama's being a community servant, we should be rolling down on the floor laughing hysterically at her resume.

but, you've got a really good point about positioning this race as being btwn him and mccain vs. him and palin. i think america's facinated with her and given the mav is so damn old, consider her being pres too.

Damn $10 Reisling....


Dammit Lee.....Shhhhh.....you know how Tom gets when you bring up cheap wine!

"Obama needs to explain his tax proposal this way: for twenty years conservative shave been cutting taxes on rich people, so the wealthy now pay a lower portion of their income in taxes than the middle class. It's time to fix that, and that means taxes on the middle class have to go down and taxes on rich people have to go up. "

Why do dems continue to trot out this tired line? The top 1% pay almost 40% of total taxes according to the IRS. The top 10% pay over 70%, the bottom 50%? Pay 3%. Tell me again how the rich aren't paying their "fair" share? That is simply a tired liberal fallacy.

we should be rolling down on the floor laughing hysterically at her resume

Seriously? Laughing hysterically at a governor? I don't know what kind of circles you run in, but around mine, a governor is generally acknowledged as having achieved something. It's not some down-ballot dog-catcher position picking up votes because of their party affiliation. It's at least on par with a senator. Maybe better, since a state gets two senators. Or are you laughing at the commercial fishing operation? The PTA? The mayor?

Seriously, I don't understand the thrust.

I watched last night and I thought many of the same things. I think Obama should talk about how McCain has sold out over and over and over.

I watched MSNBC for the first time in a long time. It has become the anti-Fox.

One thing Olbermann missed (and Maddow afterward) is REFORM. I really think "reform" resonates with votoer, is a winning theme for McCain, and is bolstered by adding Palin to the ticket. The left is missing the point by focusing on the culture war ignited by Palin. Obama needs to discredit Palin's record of reform, and based on the available information, that won't be hard to achieve.

Right now Palin looks like the hockey mom who took on the man and won. That has so much appeal, and Obama is completely missing it.

I'd have a different list, and not as long. Here goes:

1. Stop being a socialist and crypto-Marxist;
2. Ditch the race-based politics and all that go with them;
3. Lie less;
4. Completely disavow his former associations and repudiate everything those people stand for;
5. Get a race-change operation.

If he did all this, he'd be a shoo-in!

BTW, Tom, your point five is factually wrong. Because of lower tax rates, the wealthy are paying taxes at 40-year historic highs.

Yes, accuse McCain of being pro-torture and continue to attack his VP selection. That's the ticket. Please, please, please, please do that. . . .

Where can I send money to the 527 that's going to run those ads?

One of the reasons McCain has been able to steal the change issue so easily is that he has been willing, however lightly, to criticize his own party. Look at your list above. The only time you go after democrats is when you view them as not being tough enough on the Republicans.

Have they done nothing wrong? Let look at the record. Bank deregulation, (I won't argue your incorrect point about its causal effect on today's crisis here) was a bipartisan exercise done during Clinton's administration and push by his treasury sec Bob Rubin. The Wall Street Journal and half of the financial industry has been screaming about these two for at least a decade. Barry Frank, great defender of the people, has been their greatest protector, although this too was a bi-partisan failure. Even now, Barney is already laying the ground work to keep these two alive.

If O'Bama wants to win, he has got to be willing to go after the full system, not just Republicans. Clearly this task is too much for you, but Barack must be bigger. This is all the more important since he came from the most bipartisanly corrupt political system in the country and yet never found one instance of corruption that he needed to go after.

Incidentally, I consider all five of my points as having equal potential for fruition.

Also, let's remember that Obama's tax policy is the basic punitive liberal policy that punishes the wealthy for being successful. Of course, it also borrows heavily from Uncle Karl's class struggle rhetoric, hence the crypto-Marxist label.

Oh, and while McCain may be an impulsive dunderhead, do you really think that his carefully-vetted and skillfully deployed choice of VP is "whimisical"? The Palin lovefest phenomenon is responsible for McCain's 5-10 percentage point surge in the polls. It doesn't matter that the choice is designed to stick it to the one group McCain sticks it to the most, i.e., conservatives; it's still a brilliant move.

Unfortunately, the example of Sarah Palin shows the utter falseness of the feminist dream of "having it all." If it were possible for a woman to be successful in raising a family and having a career simultaneously, then Bristol wouldn't be pregnant. (And don't throw any double standard garbage my way, either; Phyllis Schlafly, the mother of modern conservatism, raised her family then had a career.)

I don't know what kind of circles you run in, but around mine, a governor is generally acknowledged as having achieved something.

she has bachelor's in uh, communications/journalism for the University of Potatoes (after attending junior/community college), a few semesters of poli sci and that's it. She's been a mayor (6 years, pop 7k)/governor (1 year 11 mos) of an area more populated by reindeer than voters. is that on par with a US senator? particularly one who went to columbia and was the president of the harvard law review?

she was miss wasilla pageant and miss congeniality (woo hoo! if that doesn't say rocket scientist and world leader, i don't know what does). sports reporter and "helper" of her husband's fishing family business. rudy gets a chuckle out of obama being a community leader but miss congeniality doesn't? ha!

yes, let's sign up this wacko to lead the United States of America, one of the most powerful countries in the world. i'm sure this expansive resume of hers and her intimate knowledge of economics and expansive experience in foreign policy will win the world's respect!

now, she's going to be an advocate for families with children suffering from disabilities? this from someone who has a record of cutting funding for them and teenage moms? anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest? anti-stem cell research? yes, give her a mom of the year award or somethin but f*ckin' VP? and next in line for prez? i don't think so....

squidley, youre a sexist pig. she's shitty mother not because she's a working mother but because she's a shitty mother, that's all. she knows her daughter so well that she taught her abstinence when she should have been talking to her about the birds and the bees (as well as the BCPs).

Typically I don't respond to commenter personally other than to point out where I differ with them on policy. I believe that most of the people on here are fundamentally good people that I happen to disagree with. I'm going to make an exception in Michelle's case.

Michelle, you spout your DKOS talking points like a pro. The problem is that most of what you are claiming about Palin has already been shown to be false. And making fun of where she attended college is the first clue as to your view about most of the people in this country. You show yourself to be an elitist snob, looking down your nose at her because she actually went to school and earned a degree. Something a large number of people in this country have never done. But it's always so much easier to throw around the "hillbilly" and "redneck" jokes than to actually deal with her policies, isn't it?

Speaking of her policies, she never cut funding for the programs you are citing, she actually increased funding, she's never pushed for any anti-abortion legislation, and you didn't bring it up but I'll also point out that she signed a law extending benefits to same sex couples.

As to foreign policy experience, she already has more experience than Barack just by the nature of having to deal with Canada on the pipeline issue. Just how many times has Barack been involved in negotiating with a foreign government on anything other than where he should hold a campaign rally?

My last point is that you have given us a textbook example of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with women and minorities. Women can do anything, as long as they're liberals. Minorities can do anything, as long as they're liberals. But let someone work hard, raise themselves up by their bootstraps and actually make something of themselves and be conservative, and people like you immediately make complete asses of yourselves rushing out to show your faux outrage at her bad parenting skills. The truth is that you haven't got a fucking clue whether or not she's a good mother, but because she has a differing political ideology than you, you feel you have the right to attack her character.

I have a simple response to that; fuck you, Michelle.

Do you have kids Michelle? How about teenagers? Has your impeccable parenting style kept them from ever making a mistake? Because I would love to hear your secret.

I worked with teenagers for a lot of years, and the one universal truth is that it doesn't matter how wonderful the family is they came from, some of them are going to do the stupidest things you can imagine. In this case, and I know this comes to a shock to a liberal, because liberals are so steadfast in the belief that no teen is ever going to have sex, but hey, teenagers date, do stupid things and even sometimes they have sex. You, however, have no fucking clue what kind of sex education Bristol received, but since you saw it posted somewhere that Palin prefers abstinence only education (Here's another clue for you, she didn't. That's yet another distortion of her record) you open your mouth and make a complete ass of yourself yet again.

So please, please, please, keep sharing your vast knowledge and experience with us, because I think we can all learn a thing or two from us. Like what a clueless fuckwit you really are.

Frank, you actually read that diatribe? I gave up after a few sentences because she is too inconsiderate (or ignorant) to follow the basic conventions of capitalization.

I did see my moniker at the end, however, and glanced at what was around it. My, what a piece of sophisticated writing! In addition to being ignorant of the basic writing conventions of English, she also seems to be ignorant of the rhetorical invalidity of the ad hominem attack. Then again, it's the leftists' favorite tool, so I'm hardly surprised.

I love the personal name calling. You guys right wing nuts rock!

Juvenile. But then again, it's what passes for "politics" these days, idn't it?

The comments to this entry are closed.