Since I admittedly don’t know what I’m talking about, here are some other folks on the issue. Any words in green are a link to another site.
Atrios shares my worry over what Obie will do. And he has a PhD! That’s at least three more letters of education than I have.
Sebastian Mallaby has a few thoughts.
Josh Marshall is no economist, but he is a wise man.
Brad DeLong is an economist.
Paul Krugman is also an economist. Imagine that. Apparently he is also a columnist at the NYT. Does anyone know definitively whether it’s pronounced “kroog” or “krug”? I really hope it’s “kroog”. You can also check him out on Maher.
Ezra Klein doesn’t think Obama’s stance matters all that much, and isn’t liking what he’s seeing from the people that do matter.
If you want Nouriel Roubini’s take on all this, I can email it to you, or you can sign up for free to his site.
Breaking Update: No word yet on a financial fix, but it is “kroogman“.
September 22nd, 2008
I know as much about the economy as Sam Cooke knows about history, but there seems to be a remarkable consensus among economists that that the bailout, as currently proposed by Paulson, is a bad idea. Congress needs to attach at least three things to any huge financial commitment such as this: significant safeguards to allow the government to recoup its investment, stricter regulations on how these institutions operate in the future, and additional stimulus and economic relief for the people about to lose their homes and/or jobs.
Obviously, the devil is in the details, and opinions vary on how to structure each provision, and whether there should be other goodies included, like a CEO salary cap. This bailout could very likely hamstring the domestic agenda of the next administration, so Dems need to make it worth the public’s while. The two keys are explaining to the public why just throwing money at the problem won’t solve it, and keeping skiddish Dems in Congress from letting the urgency of the situation scare them into signing some few-strings attached bailout that contains only token provisions of regulation and investment guarantees.
While there are factors that could screw things up for Obie, I think the election is his to lose at this point. Obviously, there is a real temptation to just go with the flow on this bailout (some people see his opposition to the Paulson plan as weak, some see it as “yay Obama!”). But this is a critical issue that will have repercussions for a long time to come. Now is the time to demonstrate real leadership.
There are some aspects of the Obama campaign that I really admire. I think their organizational muscle has been impressive. David Plouffe is a badass. A lot of Obama’s responses to the McCain attacks have been excellent. But sometimes I have doubts about the leadership issue.
But it seems entirely possible that Obama will win this election much in the way that McCain won the primary; by being the last man standing after everyone else proves themselves irredeemably flawed. If you give Steve Schmidt a more charismatic and effective candidate, I think Obama loses this election. Hell, if you give Schmidt the McCain of 2000, Obama probably loses this election.
And that is despite all of Obama’s charisma, character, and massive appeal to younger generations. You can blame some of the closeness of the race on fears about color and “otherness”, and ignorance, and all the rest. But I also question the decision to stop talking about foreign policy simply because McCain said, “I see your opposition to this disastrous war and raise you a measly surge.” Or being afraid to discuss climate change because “drill, baby, drill” was the biggest applause line at the RNC.
So in sum, I’m doubtful that Obama and Congress are up to the bailout challenge. I think the most likely outcome is a quick “carte blanche for Hank” type bill, and I actually expect Pelosi to mount tougher opposition to such a bill than Obama. But if he proves me wrong, what a wonderful presidency this would be.
September 22nd, 2008
Deepak Chopra does Windows commercials? Classy, Chop. Reeeeeal classy.
Rachel Maddow is getting giant ratings on MSNBC. Well, giant ratings for MSNBC. I’m sure they would be giant on a network people watched. Her show is exposing the cable-viewing public to a variety of great guests. A few more shows like this, and I won’t be able to bitch about the media anymore. Still think she shouldn’t be quite as sarcastic or Olbermannesque, though.
The experts have weighed in (here and here), and they say it all comes down to Colorado. Except for Jerome, who is always a God Damn contrarian. Anyway, because of Colorado’s demographics — the mixture of Californian ex-pats, lots of Hispanics, eco-friendly westerners for the Dems, and die-hard social conservatives for the Right — it will probably be the deciding state. Which is to say, if Obama barely wins, Colorado will be the state that put him over the top. If he wins by a lot, it won’t be without winning Colorado. And if he loses, you might want to cancel any vacation plans to Iran. Or Russia. Or Spain.
Also, we own 80 percent of AIG now.
September 19th, 2008
Most cable news programming is less informative than your average episode of the Daily Show, so it is refreshing to see MSNBC premiering a much more promising vehicle for news, tonight at 9. Rachel Maddow. Tell your friends. We will also be hosting a guest blogger here at FTP. I don’t want to give it away, but his first name rhymes with “snark”.
Update: Steve Benen, formerly of Obsidian Wings and now blogging for Washington Monthly (both links here at FTP) was one of her first guests. Good sign. Can’t say the show is wowing me so far, though. I like her way better than Olbermann, but stylistically she is still aping him too much.
September 8th, 2008
Watching the tribute video now. Clearly, someone goofed, because this is a video for John Wayne. Or Jesus, I can’t tell.
The Green Screen is back!
Haha, they cut away to some kid yawning in the crowd. This is ridiculous.
As folks are already starting to say — and some have been saying for months — this isn’t really an Obama vs. McCain election. Sarah Palin helped us think that for a short while, but even she mentioned Obama more than McCain in her speech. This is Obama vs. Not The Bama. Democrats are united behind a platform with several ambitious goals, whereas Republicans are most adamant about the things they don’t want. It’s a reverse of 2004, and it’s likely to lead to the same result.
September 4th, 2008
Well, Palin absolutely killed. I think she’s unprepared to be VP — just like Rudy is, for that matter — and I also thinks she’s full of shit. But people just judging her on her speech tonight will like her. She’s certainly way more disrespectful of Obama than he or anyone in his campaign have been of her or McCain, but I guess that is a dumb thing to complain about. Another thing I didn’t realize: “community organizer” is apparently not a title to be proud of.
To be clear, I don’t think this is an appropriate speech, or a substantive speech, but somehow she still killed.
David Brooks just called her speech “wonky”. I think I might throw up. Good night, folks.
September 3rd, 2008
Someone tell Mitt Romney that you need to wait more than an introductory paragraph before you can launch into call and response. Just not enough time to rile up the troops. Can’t say using him as an attack dog was a complete surprise. Punch line! One liner! Zinger! Librul! Two liner! Awkward delivery! What a speech. It’s a sad day for the Republican Party when Fred Thompson is their most engaging speaker. I wonder how the Sox are doing.
“Just like you, there’s never been a day when I wasn’t proud to be an American.” Nice, subtle jab at Michelle. You stay classy, Mitt.
The Huckster is probably the most likable GOPer. He should hold a public speaking clinic for his RNC buddies. Anti-abortion lines sure get big ovations. I’m also glad they keep chanting “USA”, because some of the speeches have been achieving Canadian levels of banality. A brother gets confused.
Giuliani just said Obama has never led anything. Technically, he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but I doubt Obie will be rushing to point that out. Rudy is a lot livelier than I’d thought he’d be.
Now they’re chanting “drill baby, drill.” I would suggest the slightly longer and less catchy, “Negligible price reduction at the pump in 15 years after we drill baby, drill!” What do y’all think?
September 3rd, 2008
Clearly, I was completely wrong about the Palin pick. I guess that means my political savvy and 35 bucks will get you parking at a Red Sox game.
It seems that when the McCain campaign said they “vetted†her, they meant they googled her name. Evidently, Google didn’t turn up her initial support for the Bridge To Nowhere, her chumminess with Ted Stevens, the inappropriate and illegal sacking of her ex brother-in-law and the person who refused to sack him, and her lack of experience or interest in all things not Alaskan.
There are more women in this country than men, and yet women have made it on to the ticket of each major party just once, both times in the supporting role. I still think picking a woman was a great idea, he just should have picked Condi Rice, Olympia Snowe, Christine Todd Whitman or Kay Bailey Hutchison. You know, someone qualified. Or Liddy Dole, if he needed a pro-lifer.
I love the new Republican talking point that because Palin was the mayor of a small town, and America is made up of a lot of small towns, she is more than qualified for VP. I was vice president of my grade school, so maybe I could be VP in real life, too.
September 3rd, 2008
Quick thoughts on the RNC:
The tribute videos are way more overdone than the DNC montages; the speeches are hammier as well. But they do stay on message. They do talk more about the candidate specifically (usually personal anecdotes or characteristics, policy not so much), and they do stay on message. Yes, I said that twice. Did you realize that John McCain was a POW? Must have happened pretty recently, because it is all they talk about. Certainly something to be proud of, though.
Forgot to link to this clip of McCain fans from the DNC.
“A president and vice president who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking.” - Wankiest line from Fred Thompson’s wanky speech. This is as specific as he got the entire time! There is speaking plainly, and then there is acting like you are talking to a bunch of three year-olds.
The Republicans talk of John McCain’s sacrifices in a way that borders on victimization, which I think undercuts the impressive and compelling nature of his biography: “Due to injuries sustained while single-handedly saving this nation, John McCain can’t raise his arms to salute the flag. So in partnership with the Make a Wish Foundation, we’re trying to fulfill his dream of becoming president.”
September 2nd, 2008
To me, this is by far the most surprising development of the campaign. Palin is younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama, so it is possible Democrats can point out the hypocrisy of his choice. But really, this seems like an excellent move on McCain’s part. And that’s probably the first and only time I will say that this election.
Of course, if the investigation into the firing of her state trooper brother-in-law goes anywhere, Johnny will probably have to drop her and pick someone else. At which time, you will be able to get out your forks and stick them into the campaign of John Sidney McCain III, because it will be done. So definitely a ballsy roll of the dice.
And somewhat off topic but completely relevant to the campaign, what kind of a middle name is Sidney? Did McCain get teased about this as a child? Because that might explain a lot. “Sidney, stop threatening to ‘bomb’ your brother.”
Pundits are almost universally sounding off about how Palin won’t be able to hold her own in a debate with Biden and when discussing the issues on the campaign trail. Personally, I find this to be true of a lot of Republicans. The only difference with Palin will be that because the media is expecting it, they may actually report on it when it happens. Remember, Obama has a much better understanding of policy than McCain. I’m not sure how much that is helping him with voters.
I’ve gone on too long, as I have most of the convention, but I will say this: Obama’s pick was analyzed for what it said about Obama. Was he choosing who he wanted or was he balancing out his ticket to appease voters?
McCain wanted to choose Tom Ridge (who brought you color-coded terror alerts) or Joe Lieberman, and was strongly considering Mitt Romney in the two seat (or shotgun, as I like to call it). Palin is already an awesome pick just for the fact that she is not one of these three men.
But she is a new gov from Alaska. She has not worked with John McCain. She may not even know his shameful middle name, and he knows very little about her. There is only one reason to pick her. And that is desperation. This is a political move to keep McCain viable, it has nothing to do with putting the country first and giving it a great vice president.
I happen to think that Washington needs more young people from the far corners of the country (preferably ones that don’t believe in Intelligent Design). But that is not what John McCain believes. I am really looking forward to his explanation of this decision. It’s thinking outside the box, but it’s not believing outside the box. Which is basically the story of his entire political career.
August 29th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts