and for those who can't bear to watch, here is the transcript
Couric asked Palin, "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"
Palin responded, "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. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting 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 have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."
WTF?!?!?!?
She has NO clue what she is talking about. It's like watching a dog get run over by a bus. It's Katie Couric for chrissakes! She emcees parades!
Rob, could you translate for me? Because I see about 6 talking points that she threw into a stew and stirred up. But I'm not quite sure what she's cookin'.
She has NO clue what she is talking about. It's like watching a dog get run over by a bus. It's Katie Couric for chrissakes! She emcees parades!
Be nice. After all, I heard from someone that her daughter "fixed the hair" of their special needs baby...during the convention...on camera...during her speech! YESSAH!!!
So, she's essentially already our VP, and with McCain turning 117 this October, she's pretty much already the pres as well. It's enough to make me want to have two children, and then spend years forcingteaching the older to fix the infant's hair.
What, because her voice is shrill and her accent funny? Oh, you meant the content...In retrospect, it's actually sort of funny that the knock on Obama was that "all he's done is give one convention speech (2004)".
Maybe Palin has a political future on the national stage, but so far she's played out more or less how I expected. Big excitement over a new bauble, then boredom with it. I just didn't anticipate the far-right high would be so high, nor it's eventual low so low.
I'm from Wisconsin and lived for 4 years in the upper peninsula of Michigan. I have absolutely no room to poke fun at her accent.
I'm from Wisconsin and lived for 4 years in the upper peninsula of Michigan. I have absolutely no room to poke fun at her accent.
No, I guess that would make it more difficult. I don't politically judge her on it, but I do find her voice somewhat grating.
What I find humorous is this.
Palin mingles with media in rare Q&A. It's big news when she speaks to reporters. I mean, what is this? We're talking about a VP candidate, not Howard Hughes or Bobby Fisher. She is on such a short leash right now, that it's like the McCain campaign doesn't trust her in anything unscripted. Will McCain try to get the VP debate canceled as well, just so she won't have to speak without a script?
All of this after Robroy declared her the most gifted speaker in a generation. Meanwhile, Biden is producing gaffes at a rate of about four a week, and he gets to keep talking with the press.
In further news, after a McCain landslide was announced here, McCain appears to be slipping even more in the polls. Several of the states that leaned ever so slightly red two weeks ago are now tossups again.
Here is a great video with tons of information. You actually need to pause it to read some of the stuff. I strongly believe you will find it worth your time.
Here is a great video with tons of information. You actually need to pause it to read some of the stuff. I strongly believe you will find it worth your time.
I think that the CRA is a worthy topic, but you should open up a thread in the economy section of the board. You're opening up something completely different than our fun political talk.
So I've been thinking more about the Palin choice in light of her Couric Train Wreck, and here's my thought on her.
I think that she's been a very successful Alaskan politician. I think she really understands the culture up there and has a good handle on what people up there want. However, I think that she's never bothered herself with national or international politics her entire life. I think that she has a huge ignorance on very basic national issues. I think her only involvement on the national scale is figuring out how to get lobbyists to get her money for Wasilla when she was there.
While I may not agree with the way she has governed in Alaska and wouldn't be happy with her as my governor, I think that she's done very well for herself on a local scale and got alot of attention for her Evangelical leanings.
But I don't think you can teach national politics to someone in a matter of weeks when they've had no interest in it their entire life.
So I've been thinking more about the Palin choice in light of her Couric Train Wreck, and here's my thought on her.
I think that she's been a very successful Alaskan politician. I think she really understands the culture up there and has a good handle on what people up there want. However, I think that she's never bothered herself with national or international politics her entire life. I think that she has a huge ignorance on very basic national issues. I think her only involvement on the national scale is figuring out how to get lobbyists to get her money for Wasilla when she was there.
While I may not agree with the way she has governed in Alaska and wouldn't be happy with her as my governor, I think that she's done very well for herself on a local scale and got alot of attention for her Evangelical leanings.
But I don't think you can teach national politics to someone in a matter of weeks when they've had no interest in it their entire life.
Thoughts?
I think this is pretty much it.
She didn't care about national issues and probably didn't really need to while in Alaska.
Now, she's got to cram and it is spilling everywhere in these answers that make no sense. It's like someone giving a presentation when they aren't ready. I find it painful, not because of her voice but because it is really uncomfortable to watch. It's like an episode of the Office and you're cringing in pain without the eventual laughter.
It's pretty telling when McCain is willing to take the beating the media is giving his campaign (deserved IMO) for hiding her away... The alternative is worse.
But I don't think you can teach national politics to someone in a matter of weeks when they've had no interest in it their entire life.
Thoughts?
I think it goes even further. How do you make her interested in these things? If you aren't interested in foreign policy or any national policies outside of the abortion wedge issue...is a little time cramming going to change that?
Maybe she just doesn't really care very much about any of these issues. I don't think that's a bad thing...unless you're trying to win a political office where you're in charge of managing all those things!
Really? The (almost certainly biased towards "internet savvy") online polls I've seen so far heavily favor Obama. On CNN's online poll, Obama is ahead 67% to 27% (6% undecided). That doesn't prove anything, but it hardly suggests that McCain has an ass-kicking machine strapped to his chin.
Me, I thought they both produced very well overall. A few thoughts though.
1) Obama tried to interrupt a too often. McCain was guilty of interrupting a few times as well, but Obama more so.
2) He also should either get John McCain's first name correct (I heard him call McCain Tom and Jim, he might have made other mistakes).
3) McCain spent too much time arguing earmarks. They're a disturbing trend, but Obama was right that $18 B is a small number compared to the $300 B in tax cuts McCain wants.
4) Obama should not have dodged the question on what he would cut to help balance the budget after this bailout. I understand you can't say you'll cut any services, or you'll get crucified, but Obama's answer seemed like a dodge to me.
5) Given #4, McCain's "spending freeze" was a real Hail Mary pass. He would cut everything but military, veteran spending, and some entitlement programs? What about the things that constitutionally the federal government is required to spend money on...like the treasury or collecting taxes? He didn't really mean it, but that just means nobody knows what his spending freeze actually means...which makes it meaningless and a naive sound bite.
6) Obama sounded a lot tougher on international matters than I expected. He actually sounded like more of the hawk than McCain.
7) Both candidates ignored Georgia's role in the Russia conflict. Personally, I thought McCain's responses showed a slightly greater degree of cognitive dissonance regarding that issue than Obama's, but I was not thrilled with either of them.
8) McCain's challenge of why Obama had not been to Afghanistan/Iraq in the past (he did go to Iraq this summer...) was well played.
9) I don't like hearing McCain call himself a maverick. He did that once tonight, and it didn't sit well with me. That's like me saying how much of a genius I am. Regardless of validity, it's narcissistic.
Overall, I thought it was a good debate by both of them. The only gaffe was the spending freeze comment by McCain, but it wasn't so egregious. We'll know for sure in the next couple days, however.
Yeah, I thought his spending freeze comment was BIZARRE. I mean, talk about bringing the economy to a total halt. Make sure that all federal employees don't work anymore?
Overall I think Obama won, but it wasn't decisive. I think he looked better and McCain did ramble, but wasn't terrible.
Yeah, I thought his spending freeze comment was BIZARRE. I mean, talk about bringing the economy to a total halt. Make sure that all federal employees don't work anymore?
Overall I think Obama won, but it wasn't decisive. I think he looked better and McCain did ramble, but wasn't terrible. Even the Fox Nexs webpoll is saying Obama won.
Yeah, I thought his spending freeze comment was BIZARRE. I mean, talk about bringing the economy to a total halt. Make sure that all federal employees don't work anymore?
I actually felt surreal for a moment there...like I had just entered the twilight zone.
This morning, I was trying to imagine what a spending freeze would mean. What percentage of the total work force is non-military federal employees or contractors paid by the federal government? Also, large portions of state funding actually come from the federal budget...
A spending freeze could push unemployement from 6% to over 15% overnight! I think Obama should have called him out on that comment immediately, but he didn't. Regardless, McCain couldn't actually be serious about it, but I felt like it gave me some insight into how he picked Palin and how he "suspended" his campaign this week.
Here is a great video with tons of information. You actually need to pause it to read some of the stuff. I strongly believe you will find it worth your time.
Sorry, Rob. I'm not buying it. I only got to minute three and found a flaw in the argument being put forth that I just can't get past.
The case being made is that CRA led to phoney and fraudy going wild. One problem: GSEs aren't really the problem. Both of them were losing share massively over the housing boom. Dig up the UBS report on the mortgage industry from a couple years back. There is a chart in there showing GSE share of all mortgages. Their share was about 50% (back to over 80% now). And you know what? Despite the rise in % of alt-A in their portfolios, the were still probably the best portfolio of mortgages out there. They had a problem with undercapitalization - which is a completely different issue than the quality of the loans which was "caused by CRA". Yes they had bad loans - but if they were capitalized more adequately the could have easily survived.
The real problem was the other 50% of loans which were made by brokers and CFC and securitized. That is where the really bad crap was going on (e.g. NINJA loans), and that is where the $700b bailout is going. I would wager that the government MAKES money on the bailout of Fannie and Freddie and many conservative columnists seem to agree with that view.
Bush tried the same sleight of hand in his speech the other night. Fannie and Freddie are yesterdays news. This is political spin and you are falling for it. The real problem is non-GSE loans.
Yeah, I thought his spending freeze comment was BIZARRE. I mean, talk about bringing the economy to a total halt. Make sure that all federal employees don't work anymore?
I actually felt surreal for a moment there...like I had just entered the twilight zone.
This morning, I was trying to imagine what a spending freeze would mean. What percentage of the total work force is non-military federal employees or contractors paid by the federal government? Also, large portions of state funding actually come from the federal budget...
A spending freeze could push unemployement from 6% to over 15% overnight! I think Obama should have called him out on that comment immediately, but he didn't. Regardless, McCain couldn't actually be serious about it, but I felt like it gave me some insight into how he picked Palin and how he "suspended" his campaign this week.
What does freeze mean? Does it mean we stop spending, or we freeze spending at current levels? Both seem idiotic. One takes down the economy - the other mandates continued spending at levels that McCain claims are too high
Yeah, I thought his spending freeze comment was BIZARRE. I mean, talk about bringing the economy to a total halt. Make sure that all federal employees don't work anymore?
I actually felt surreal for a moment there...like I had just entered the twilight zone.
This morning, I was trying to imagine what a spending freeze would mean. What percentage of the total work force is non-military federal employees or contractors paid by the federal government? Also, large portions of state funding actually come from the federal budget...
That's just it. It doesn't mean anything. He was just saying something random to fill in time. Obama should've called him out on it.
A spending freeze could push unemployement from 6% to over 15% overnight! I think Obama should have called him out on that comment immediately, but he didn't. Regardless, McCain couldn't actually be serious about it, but I felt like it gave me some insight into how he picked Palin and how he "suspended" his campaign this week.
What does freeze mean? Does it mean we stop spending, or we freeze spending at current levels? Both seem idiotic. One takes down the economy - the other mandates continued spending at levels that McCain claims are too high
What does freeze mean? Does it mean we stop spending, or we freeze spending at current levels? Both seem idiotic. One takes down the economy - the other mandates continued spending at levels that McCain claims are too high
Which is it?
I took it to mean to freeze government spending at current levels. To take that statement as meaning anything else borders on the absurd.
If I recall correctly, Obama's response was something along the line that he agreed that government spending should be cut, but an overall freeze was "... using an ax when a scalpel is required..."
Debates are difficult to assess objectively. We all have our preconceptions and perspectives. When listeners / viewers were polled after the famous Nixon / Kennedy debates, the majority of the people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, but the majority of the people who watched the debate on television thought Kennedy had won the debate. To me that indicates that more is going on other than simple evaluation of the substance of the articulated verbiage.
.
I still think McCain did better than Obama during this first debate.
.
My problem with that portion of the debate was that I had the sense that McCain was making it up on the fly. He has no "freeze" plan
That was quite obviously an "on-the-fly" remark. I believe his exact language was something close to "OK, how about a spending freeze?"
I interpreted it to be "cut all spending except what's on the short list", but the other interpretation makes a lot more sense. The problem is we are already some $1.1 T over budget this year - if you include the bailout for this years budget - and about $400 B over budget on a normal year. Total GDP is something like $14 T, and if the fed ends up with 25% (me just guessing) of total GDP as taxes, that means we need another $1.6T in growth just to get back to a balanced budget with a permanent freeze on new spending. Considering the severe recession we're going into, that would be a several year freeze...
I still think McCain did better than Obama during this first debate.
.
I'll accept that. I tend to like overwrought and technical explanations, so I actually liked Obama's presentation even if it was occasionally dry.
Seriously though, I gave both candidates about a 7. No real gaffes, no real barn-burners, and each candidate made their point well. From what I've read, Obama had a slight edge from undecided voters, something like 39% thought Obama won to McCain's 24%. But I think we'll need to see what the polls do this coming week before we know who really won.
My problem with that portion of the debate was that I had the sense that McCain was making it up on the fly. He has no "freeze" plan
.
You are probably right, DJO. The moderator was pushing for a direct answer to a question as to what they would do, as president, to help resolve the current economic situation. Obama went off on a bit of a tangent about all of the programs that he thought were really important and really did not answer the question, if my memory serves me correcly.
.
I know that I am a bit biased in that I really want to like McCain. It's a preconception / perception thing. He has decades of political experience and I like his "maverick" image. He had no problem criticizing the republican party during the debate. I really liked that. It indicates that he is an independent thinker and won't "toe the line" just to align with republican policy. I'm sure he is pushing that image because he needs to separate himself from Bush's unpopular administration. I also realize that that image may be carefully contrived, but that be American politics these days.
.
On the other hand, whenever I listen to Obama, I'm hypnotized. He is an incredibly good communicator. If he doesn't get all tangled up in detail, I find myself agreeing with everything he says. Whatever he may lack in experience, he will more than make up with diplomacy and clear presentation. I think he is that good.
.
Can you tell that I am an "undecided"?
.
Bravo! I'm actually trying to be as close to that as possible. I'll say this, in January I was rooting for McCain or Ron Paul to come out of the Republican primaries and Obama or Biden for the democrats. In other words, I'm mostly pretty happy about who we have in this race...except Palin who I honestly believe is danger to our nation (if and only if McCain dies in office, if he serves the entire term I hardly care about her).
Regarding the Obama hypnotism thing, I think you're right. When he is speaking, even if he's rambling a little bit, it can be quite hypnotizing. I think, he's blessed with a voice which is actually deeper than it seems, which is somehow comforting. And when he's on, he uses repeated refrains to great effect. But then, when McCain's on, he can be quite inspirational, like a coach giving a good speech about leaving it all out on the field.
I do have to ask, is anyone else getting a little tired about hearing how much of a maverick McCain is? To me, it's a little like last April/May when Obama being about change got old.
RCC-
I agree that calling McCain a "maverick" is almost cliche', but damn, he did dis republican policy at least twice during a nationally televised debate! What other type of description would you use for that?
Any one taking seriously the talk of Palin leaving the ticket? Seems like wishful thinking on the red side of the fence right now - but after her last few interviews (make that first few, I guess) she seems to be in so clearly over her head that I have to imagine the discussion is occurring...
Any one taking seriously the talk of Palin leaving the ticket? Seems like wishful thinking on the red side of the fence right now - but after her last few interviews (make that first few, I guess) she seems to be in so clearly over her head that I have to imagine the discussion is occurring...
Well, there was at first that talk right after she was announced and the oddsmakers started giving odds on it:
Although I thought after her speech she looked pretty confident.
Then recently after the Couric interview, which was a nightmare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc (cafferty's face after playing this clip is PRICELESS)
many conservative columnists are saying that she should drop out.
All of this points to either her dropping out by Thursday, or the VP debate being quite possibly the best comedy ever seen on television.
I've watched the clips from teh Couric interview each a few times because they are so funny and so bizarre.
I would not be surprised to see her drop out for "personal reasons" on Monday. Right around the time that the bailout is being voted on, so that her dropping out isn't the only thing to talk about on the news.
She can't drop out. There is no way - apart from an act of God - that McCain could win if she was swapped out. McCain would have to play some masterstroke of a switch where she leaves for "personal reasons" because Bristol goes into early labor or somesuch. But you could never get a handle on the rumors flying that she really dropped out because she is a horrible choice. Plus a miscarriage or something would only fuel the "Trig is Bristol's baby" rumors even more.
Keeping her is an insult, but dropping her off the ticket is suicide. McCain threw a hail mary pass. You can't take it back when it's an interception. (Of course, I reserve ultimate judgment until after the debate. This has been an election full of twists...)
This is quite an election. The repubs think Biden is so bad that they are afraid he will drop out and Hillary will come in to save the day.
Meanwhile, dems are now speculating about Palin dropping out.
If either one dropped out, it would guarantee a win for the other side.
Meanwhile, I still see Palin as the strongest part of the McCain ticket. But it is not that McCain is gonna win. Rather, it is Obama that will lose. And handily. Nothing has happened to shake me from that position I took a couple of weeks before the convention and almost everything that has happened since has wanted me to double up on the bets I made - if only any of those I wagered with would do it. They won't.
Case in point: "I'll have to get back to you" is a weak response. "That answer is above my paygrade" is an abysmal response.
Whenever I rate the quality of a candidate, it is always in the context of who they are running against. McCain is no Reagan, but then, Obama is no FDR. Palin is no Thatcher, but then, Biden IS a J. P. Patches...
Biden could be found in an enumclaw horse barn and not be as much of a curiousity as Palin.
Oh, and calling this the "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac financial crisis" must be a Rove-ism. It's not a fannie/freddie problem, as I said before. If that's the best the spin machine can come up with then I wish them luck.
I agree that calling McCain a "maverick" is almost cliche', but damn, he did dis republican policy at least twice during a nationally televised debate! What other type of description would you use for that?
Well, I'm not arguing against the maverick label...just suggesting it's getting overused. Also, I'm pointing out it sounds worst when he uses it on himself than it does when commentators or even Palin use it. I would suggest they add some other synonyms though to liven it up. "Independent thinker" for instance.
Any one taking seriously the talk of Palin leaving the ticket? Seems like wishful thinking on the red side of the fence right now - but after her last few interviews (make that first few, I guess) she seems to be in so clearly over her head that I have to imagine the discussion is occurring...
Seems almost impossible to me. What do you do with the 25% of the Republican base who was really charged up by her selection? I'm talking the Robroy's here. They might not vote if she drops out, especially if she looks forced out.
That said, if she does drop out here's how it goes down. Some family issue pops up (Levi runs out on Bristol, Trig appears "unwell" needing extra care, or Bristol "sneaks" out and has an abortion). The Palin's are so "distraught" that she announces she is leaving the political arena and going back to Alaska because her family needs her. McCain thanks her for her service, points out how difficult she will be to replace, and then promptly replaces her.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
and for those who can't bear to watch, here is the transcript
WTF?!?!?!?
She has NO clue what she is talking about. It's like watching a dog get run over by a bus. It's Katie Couric for chrissakes! She emcees parades!
Be nice. After all, I heard from someone that her daughter "fixed the hair" of their special needs baby...during the convention...on camera...during her speech! YESSAH!!!
So, she's essentially already our VP, and with McCain turning 117 this October, she's pretty much already the pres as well. It's enough to make me want to have two children, and then spend years forcingteaching the older to fix the infant's hair.
I'm from Wisconsin and lived for 4 years in the upper peninsula of Michigan. I have absolutely no room to poke fun at her accent.
What I find humorous is this.
Palin mingles with media in rare Q&A. It's big news when she speaks to reporters. I mean, what is this? We're talking about a VP candidate, not Howard Hughes or Bobby Fisher. She is on such a short leash right now, that it's like the McCain campaign doesn't trust her in anything unscripted. Will McCain try to get the VP debate canceled as well, just so she won't have to speak without a script?
All of this after Robroy declared her the most gifted speaker in a generation. Meanwhile, Biden is producing gaffes at a rate of about four a week, and he gets to keep talking with the press.
In further news, after a McCain landslide was announced here, McCain appears to be slipping even more in the polls. Several of the states that leaned ever so slightly red two weeks ago are now tossups again.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstat ... ideo-form/
That video isn't working for whatever reason.
I think that the CRA is a worthy topic, but you should open up a thread in the economy section of the board. You're opening up something completely different than our fun political talk.
I think that she's been a very successful Alaskan politician. I think she really understands the culture up there and has a good handle on what people up there want. However, I think that she's never bothered herself with national or international politics her entire life. I think that she has a huge ignorance on very basic national issues. I think her only involvement on the national scale is figuring out how to get lobbyists to get her money for Wasilla when she was there.
While I may not agree with the way she has governed in Alaska and wouldn't be happy with her as my governor, I think that she's done very well for herself on a local scale and got alot of attention for her Evangelical leanings.
But I don't think you can teach national politics to someone in a matter of weeks when they've had no interest in it their entire life.
Thoughts?
I think this is pretty much it.
She didn't care about national issues and probably didn't really need to while in Alaska.
Now, she's got to cram and it is spilling everywhere in these answers that make no sense. It's like someone giving a presentation when they aren't ready. I find it painful, not because of her voice but because it is really uncomfortable to watch. It's like an episode of the Office and you're cringing in pain without the eventual laughter.
It's pretty telling when McCain is willing to take the beating the media is giving his campaign (deserved IMO) for hiding her away... The alternative is worse.
I think it goes even further. How do you make her interested in these things? If you aren't interested in foreign policy or any national policies outside of the abortion wedge issue...is a little time cramming going to change that?
Maybe she just doesn't really care very much about any of these issues. I don't think that's a bad thing...unless you're trying to win a political office where you're in charge of managing all those things!
.
Really? The (almost certainly biased towards "internet savvy") online polls I've seen so far heavily favor Obama. On CNN's online poll, Obama is ahead 67% to 27% (6% undecided). That doesn't prove anything, but it hardly suggests that McCain has an ass-kicking machine strapped to his chin.
Me, I thought they both produced very well overall. A few thoughts though.
1) Obama tried to interrupt a too often. McCain was guilty of interrupting a few times as well, but Obama more so.
2) He also should either get John McCain's first name correct (I heard him call McCain Tom and Jim, he might have made other mistakes).
3) McCain spent too much time arguing earmarks. They're a disturbing trend, but Obama was right that $18 B is a small number compared to the $300 B in tax cuts McCain wants.
4) Obama should not have dodged the question on what he would cut to help balance the budget after this bailout. I understand you can't say you'll cut any services, or you'll get crucified, but Obama's answer seemed like a dodge to me.
5) Given #4, McCain's "spending freeze" was a real Hail Mary pass. He would cut everything but military, veteran spending, and some entitlement programs? What about the things that constitutionally the federal government is required to spend money on...like the treasury or collecting taxes? He didn't really mean it, but that just means nobody knows what his spending freeze actually means...which makes it meaningless and a naive sound bite.
6) Obama sounded a lot tougher on international matters than I expected. He actually sounded like more of the hawk than McCain.
7) Both candidates ignored Georgia's role in the Russia conflict. Personally, I thought McCain's responses showed a slightly greater degree of cognitive dissonance regarding that issue than Obama's, but I was not thrilled with either of them.
8) McCain's challenge of why Obama had not been to Afghanistan/Iraq in the past (he did go to Iraq this summer...) was well played.
9) I don't like hearing McCain call himself a maverick. He did that once tonight, and it didn't sit well with me. That's like me saying how much of a genius I am. Regardless of validity, it's narcissistic.
Overall, I thought it was a good debate by both of them. The only gaffe was the spending freeze comment by McCain, but it wasn't so egregious. We'll know for sure in the next couple days, however.
Overall I think Obama won, but it wasn't decisive. I think he looked better and McCain did ramble, but wasn't terrible.
I actually felt surreal for a moment there...like I had just entered the twilight zone.
This morning, I was trying to imagine what a spending freeze would mean. What percentage of the total work force is non-military federal employees or contractors paid by the federal government? Also, large portions of state funding actually come from the federal budget...
A spending freeze could push unemployement from 6% to over 15% overnight! I think Obama should have called him out on that comment immediately, but he didn't. Regardless, McCain couldn't actually be serious about it, but I felt like it gave me some insight into how he picked Palin and how he "suspended" his campaign this week.
Sorry, Rob. I'm not buying it. I only got to minute three and found a flaw in the argument being put forth that I just can't get past.
The case being made is that CRA led to phoney and fraudy going wild. One problem: GSEs aren't really the problem. Both of them were losing share massively over the housing boom. Dig up the UBS report on the mortgage industry from a couple years back. There is a chart in there showing GSE share of all mortgages. Their share was about 50% (back to over 80% now). And you know what? Despite the rise in % of alt-A in their portfolios, the were still probably the best portfolio of mortgages out there. They had a problem with undercapitalization - which is a completely different issue than the quality of the loans which was "caused by CRA". Yes they had bad loans - but if they were capitalized more adequately the could have easily survived.
The real problem was the other 50% of loans which were made by brokers and CFC and securitized. That is where the really bad crap was going on (e.g. NINJA loans), and that is where the $700b bailout is going. I would wager that the government MAKES money on the bailout of Fannie and Freddie and many conservative columnists seem to agree with that view.
Bush tried the same sleight of hand in his speech the other night. Fannie and Freddie are yesterdays news. This is political spin and you are falling for it. The real problem is non-GSE loans.
What does freeze mean? Does it mean we stop spending, or we freeze spending at current levels? Both seem idiotic. One takes down the economy - the other mandates continued spending at levels that McCain claims are too high
Which is it?
I took it to mean to freeze government spending at current levels. To take that statement as meaning anything else borders on the absurd.
If I recall correctly, Obama's response was something along the line that he agreed that government spending should be cut, but an overall freeze was "... using an ax when a scalpel is required..."
Debates are difficult to assess objectively. We all have our preconceptions and perspectives. When listeners / viewers were polled after the famous Nixon / Kennedy debates, the majority of the people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, but the majority of the people who watched the debate on television thought Kennedy had won the debate. To me that indicates that more is going on other than simple evaluation of the substance of the articulated verbiage.
.
I still think McCain did better than Obama during this first debate.
.
That was quite obviously an "on-the-fly" remark. I believe his exact language was something close to "OK, how about a spending freeze?"
I interpreted it to be "cut all spending except what's on the short list", but the other interpretation makes a lot more sense. The problem is we are already some $1.1 T over budget this year - if you include the bailout for this years budget - and about $400 B over budget on a normal year. Total GDP is something like $14 T, and if the fed ends up with 25% (me just guessing) of total GDP as taxes, that means we need another $1.6T in growth just to get back to a balanced budget with a permanent freeze on new spending. Considering the severe recession we're going into, that would be a several year freeze...
I'll accept that. I tend to like overwrought and technical explanations, so I actually liked Obama's presentation even if it was occasionally dry.
Seriously though, I gave both candidates about a 7. No real gaffes, no real barn-burners, and each candidate made their point well. From what I've read, Obama had a slight edge from undecided voters, something like 39% thought Obama won to McCain's 24%. But I think we'll need to see what the polls do this coming week before we know who really won.
You are probably right, DJO. The moderator was pushing for a direct answer to a question as to what they would do, as president, to help resolve the current economic situation. Obama went off on a bit of a tangent about all of the programs that he thought were really important and really did not answer the question, if my memory serves me correcly.
.
I know that I am a bit biased in that I really want to like McCain. It's a preconception / perception thing. He has decades of political experience and I like his "maverick" image. He had no problem criticizing the republican party during the debate. I really liked that. It indicates that he is an independent thinker and won't "toe the line" just to align with republican policy. I'm sure he is pushing that image because he needs to separate himself from Bush's unpopular administration. I also realize that that image may be carefully contrived, but that be American politics these days.
.
On the other hand, whenever I listen to Obama, I'm hypnotized. He is an incredibly good communicator. If he doesn't get all tangled up in detail, I find myself agreeing with everything he says. Whatever he may lack in experience, he will more than make up with diplomacy and clear presentation. I think he is that good.
.
Can you tell that I am an "undecided"?
.
Bravo! I'm actually trying to be as close to that as possible. I'll say this, in January I was rooting for McCain or Ron Paul to come out of the Republican primaries and Obama or Biden for the democrats. In other words, I'm mostly pretty happy about who we have in this race...except Palin who I honestly believe is danger to our nation (if and only if McCain dies in office, if he serves the entire term I hardly care about her).
Regarding the Obama hypnotism thing, I think you're right. When he is speaking, even if he's rambling a little bit, it can be quite hypnotizing. I think, he's blessed with a voice which is actually deeper than it seems, which is somehow comforting. And when he's on, he uses repeated refrains to great effect. But then, when McCain's on, he can be quite inspirational, like a coach giving a good speech about leaving it all out on the field.
I do have to ask, is anyone else getting a little tired about hearing how much of a maverick McCain is? To me, it's a little like last April/May when Obama being about change got old.
I agree that calling McCain a "maverick" is almost cliche', but damn, he did dis republican policy at least twice during a nationally televised debate! What other type of description would you use for that?
Well, there was at first that talk right after she was announced and the oddsmakers started giving odds on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... 23136.html
Although I thought after her speech she looked pretty confident.
Then recently after the Couric interview, which was a nightmare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc (cafferty's face after playing this clip is PRICELESS)
many conservative columnists are saying that she should drop out.
That along with the rumors of her completely terrible showing at her mock debate: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/26 ... 155/611072
All of this points to either her dropping out by Thursday, or the VP debate being quite possibly the best comedy ever seen on television.
I've watched the clips from teh Couric interview each a few times because they are so funny and so bizarre.
I would not be surprised to see her drop out for "personal reasons" on Monday. Right around the time that the bailout is being voted on, so that her dropping out isn't the only thing to talk about on the news.
Keeping her is an insult, but dropping her off the ticket is suicide. McCain threw a hail mary pass. You can't take it back when it's an interception. (Of course, I reserve ultimate judgment until after the debate. This has been an election full of twists...)
Meanwhile, dems are now speculating about Palin dropping out.
If either one dropped out, it would guarantee a win for the other side.
Meanwhile, I still see Palin as the strongest part of the McCain ticket. But it is not that McCain is gonna win. Rather, it is Obama that will lose. And handily. Nothing has happened to shake me from that position I took a couple of weeks before the convention and almost everything that has happened since has wanted me to double up on the bets I made - if only any of those I wagered with would do it. They won't.
Case in point: "I'll have to get back to you" is a weak response. "That answer is above my paygrade" is an abysmal response.
Whenever I rate the quality of a candidate, it is always in the context of who they are running against. McCain is no Reagan, but then, Obama is no FDR. Palin is no Thatcher, but then, Biden IS a J. P. Patches...
And in the general scheme of things, this is certainly no help for some of the candidates: http://stuckon-stupid.com/2008/09/28/th ... ac-crisis/
no, the source of this conjecture is conservative columnists who are ASKING for her to drop out.
And the difference between any doubts about the two is enormous. Biden is hardly even newsworthy. Check Google trends of the two: http://www.google.com/trends?q=palin%2C ... ytd&sort=0
Biden could be found in an enumclaw horse barn and not be as much of a curiousity as Palin.
Oh, and calling this the "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac financial crisis" must be a Rove-ism. It's not a fannie/freddie problem, as I said before. If that's the best the spin machine can come up with then I wish them luck.
Well, I'm not arguing against the maverick label...just suggesting it's getting overused. Also, I'm pointing out it sounds worst when he uses it on himself than it does when commentators or even Palin use it. I would suggest they add some other synonyms though to liven it up. "Independent thinker" for instance.
Seems almost impossible to me. What do you do with the 25% of the Republican base who was really charged up by her selection? I'm talking the Robroy's here. They might not vote if she drops out, especially if she looks forced out.
That said, if she does drop out here's how it goes down. Some family issue pops up (Levi runs out on Bristol, Trig appears "unwell" needing extra care, or Bristol "sneaks" out and has an abortion). The Palin's are so "distraught" that she announces she is leaving the political arena and going back to Alaska because her family needs her. McCain thanks her for her service, points out how difficult she will be to replace, and then promptly replaces her.