A New Hope

Americans made history on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.  Not only did Americans elect the first African-American President, but they also decided that they wanted real change to come to Washington and the country as a whole.  Looking back at this election season, this whole campaign was about a choice between holding onto the politics of the past, or embracing the 21st century and looking to dictate what the tone will be and the direction the United States will take.

Of particular significance with the election of Barack Obama is the reaction around the world.  When it was announced that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States there was streaming video of celebrations throughout the globe.  It is clear that with the election of Barack Obama as President, the damage done by the Bush administration to America's standing in the world has begun to be repaired.  Countries around the world are beginning to look at America as a beacon of freedom and true democracy again.  It remains to be seen if an Obama administration will maintain this view but it is a telling sign of an increasingly globalized world.
With the overwhelming victory that Barack Obama and the democrats share in this election, it is clear that the American people are looking for this administration to reverse the tide of eight years of failed policies that have been a major contributor of the current state of the nation.  In addition, it symbolizes a rejection of the Republican party's message.  American's are tired of the divisive politics that have plagued this country for decades.
This victory also demonstrates that Americans have embraced Barack Obama's world view, and are eager to move ahead in the 21st century.  The cold war is over, the population is becoming increasingly diverse with projections that whites will soon be the minority in the United States, and younger generations are stepping up and ensuring that they have a say in the direction the country is headed.

Read more-->

McCainisms

I've commented in prior posts about the inconsistencies that McCain and his surrogates are positing, but they just keep coming and bear response.  The Obama campaign has had its share of inconsistencies as well, but not nearly in the flagrant manner of John Sydney McCain.  In this post I would like to discuss the latest McCainisms, most notable his new housing bailout plan, and several other of the latest attacks coming from others in the McCain camp.
There has been a lot of talk in the media today about the economic plan that McCain announced in Tuesday's town hall style debate.  During the debate McCain initially proposed a plan to purchase bad mortages from the lenders at a "discounted rate."  The homeowners would then be issued new 30 year fixed rate mortages at lower interest rates while passing the buck on the losses to the taxpayers.  While McCain was espousing his "new" plan during the debate his campaign staffers were putting out all sorts of "information" about the plan on McCain's website and throughout the internet.  According to the original statement issued by the campaign regarding the proposal "Lenders in these cases must recognize the losses they've already suffered."

Dateline: The Day After - Overnight, the McCain campaign realizing the error of their ways quickly issued a new statement regarding the proposal that had conveniently left that sentence out, citing that it was mistakenly included in the original, "a simple mistake" according to one McCain campaign staffer.  A simple mistake that will cost American taxpayers $300 Billion.  I think we can all agree that struggling homeowners need help, but let's discuss what the problem is with this proposal.
The government and the taxpayers are already bailing out Wall St. with a $700 Billion bailout package, and now McCain is proposing $300 Billion in relief for the lenders whereby the government will purchase these bad assets at their full values with taxpayer money.  We know that these assets aren't worth their original values, and right away the taxpayers will be taking a loss.  In doing so, the money will be handed over to the very lenders that got Americans into this mess in the first place.  Yes, the argument can be made that these homeowners should not have bought houses, but I've worked in the mortgage market and over the past few years these lenders were giving away loans.  There was no accountability, the lender loans the money, sells the loan to another bank, and the cycle continues.  Mortgage brokers aren't even required to take any qualification tests.  And now, John McCain wants to bail these lending institutions out at the expense of the taxpayer?
This seems to me like it's a another erratic move by the McCain campaign to appear as though they are putting together a detailed proposal for this plan.  In reality this plan was put together prior to the debate by campaign staffers.  Perhaps the very people that McCain will place in cabinet positions if he's elected, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually wants to help homeowners.  According to www.politico.com, Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is an economic advisor to McCain has said that this plan has been in the works since March of this year.  The McCain campaign is touting this as though it's an original idea even though something similar was proposed in or around March by the democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. McCain said back in March about that plan:
"It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.  Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."
I think we can all agree that we are in a time of systemic risk and danger to the economy and I commend McCain for making an attempt at solving this issue.  The problem with this plan and the way that it has been proposed is "it seems hastily put together...given the lack of detail, specificity, and overlap with other programs" according to one Republican financial services lobbyist.  I really don't think McCain is helping himself with yet another "hail mary," and you know it's bad for McCain when even Republican financial services lobbyists are coming out against his economic plans.  Let's also not forget that we're coming to the head of a heated campaign season and McCain is trailing in the polls mainly because of the economy.
I want to finish up here by commenting quickly on what we're seeing from the other side of the ticket.  The DOW dropped over 678 points today, and what are we hearing at McCain's campaign rallies?  Are we hearing more about substantive issues that voters care about?  No, we're getting more smears and distortions; they've even dragged Cindy McCain into the fray.  Cindy McCain was on the stump reading a prepared statement about how Barack Obama doesn't support the troops because he voted against funding for the troops at one time or another. Most of us who follow politics know that the reason that Obama voted against that bill was because it did not contain a timeline for withdrawal.  What Cindy McCain failed to mention is that John McCain voted against various war funding provisions at one time or another because they did have timelines for withdrawal in them.  Cindy took it a step further saying that Obama voted against supporting "[her] son" and then suggested that he "walk in her shoes" for a day.  If we want to walk in Cindy McCain's silver spoon fed shoes we can go rent The Stepford Wives.
McCain also voted against more body armor for the troops and other bills that contained provisions that supported the troops which I won't get into here; if you'd like more detail on this I'd encourage you to visit www.votevets.org.  Votevets.org also reported that according to a study conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics in August of this year troops overwhelmingly have contributed to Obama's campaign vs. McCain's at a rate of 6:1 especially among those actually deployed.  Does that mean that the troops don't support the troops as the argument goes?  Think about it.

Read more-->

Here comes the mud!

As the Presidential election year comes to a head in October we need to prepare ourselves for the worst.  In spite of all of the important issues that we face as a nation such as the economy, two wars (did we forget about those?), an energy crisis, 40 Million Americans without healthcare, illegal immigration out of control, the restructuring of the Justice Department, and a whole host of others, the McCain campaign has decided to do everything it can to distract us from those issues by continuing to wage one of the most negative campaigns this country has ever seen.
The Obama campaign has responded in kind with their resurrection of McCain's ties to "The Keating Five" and the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and earlty '90s, as well as several other ads that are misleading.  But one has to ask themselves whether the Obama campaign would have come out with this if McCain didn't strike first by essentially insinuating that Barack Obama is a terrorist and/or terrorist sympathizer.  I would have to say, I think not, and the assertion that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer is ludicrous.

One thing is clear, McCain has taken a huge hit in the polls with the recent economic developments in this country and abroad, and Obama has risen.  This is characteristic of the American electorate, in times of economic crisis they look to the democrats.  As a last ditch effort to save a campaign in dire straits the McCain campaign has ratcheted up the negativity against Obama in an attempt to cast doubt on him among undecided voters, while the Obama campaign is doing their best to depict McCain as "out of touch" and show character flaws in his judgement; i.e. choosing Sarah Palin, involvement in "the Keating Five," flip-flopping on his stance on the economy, does "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" ring any bells?  Let's not forget the war, McCain essentially stands alone with his stance on the war in Iraq, not even the neo-cons support this sort of "perpetual war" strategy with no defined timeline.

This weekend we've seen Sarah Palin on the stump accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."  We've also seen the media jumping all over this from both sides to purport or refute these claims.  What I find most interesting about McCain's strategy here is that in 2000 when then Gov.  Bush was running his smear campaign against McCain, Jack Tapper, a senior McCain advisor was quoted as saying:
"When the going gets tough for Governor Bush, he turns to the darker side of our party...they could care less how they get elected."  McCain, during this time, was quoted as saying: "I can look you in the eye and say I wanted to be President of the United States, not in the worst way, but in the best way."
McCain also was quoted as saying in response to the slew of negative ads against him that "sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you don't have the ability to articulate it."
I can't say that much of this comes as a surprise.  Many of us know that the Republican base was not thrilled with John McCain being nominated to run for President.  McCain has done his best to pander to these constituents by switching his position on several issues such as his position on offshore drilling, the Bush tax cuts, executive power, and amnesty for telecom companies among others.  Not to mention the fact that McCain has employed several of George Bush's campaign advisors.

A direct correlation of this campaign staff switch, has lead to what we're seeing from McCain in these last few months: a last ditch smear effort to save his campaign.  The McCain camp is essentially throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, and doing everything in their power to destroy the credibility of Barack Obama.  In a recent McCain campaign commercial the narrator discusses how Obama promised a higher level of discourse, to paraphrase, and then discusses some of the negative ads that he's been running in battleground states and ends the commercial with the words, "He lied."  

Obama in turn has been running a number of negative ads, especially on the radio which mostly go unnoticed by the media.  Both campaigns have been forced to fire back on each other, McCain needing to respond to Obama's ads that he's "out of touch" on the economy and the war, and Obama needing to respond to McCain's assertions that he's a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer, is sexist (lipstick on a pig), wants to teach sex education to children, and is off the charts liberal.
What strikes me is the difference in tone of these negative ads.  While the Obama camp tries to link their character attacks on McCain to the issues for the most part, the McCain camp's commercials have a different tone to them, meant to distract voters from what is really at stake in the election.  

I think at such an important time, where the markets are extremely volatile, parents are sending their children to fight for this country, only 12% of the population think the country is heading in the right direction, and people are generally fearful about the future, we deserve more.
We deserve more than partisan politics as usual, attack ads, distractions, lipstick on a pig, Sarah Palin, and general distortions of each others positions.  We need to have a candid discussion about where this country is today, where it needs to go, and how each candidate will get us there. What we need now is real leadership, and we're certainly not seeing that from the McCain/Bush/Palin campaign.  It will truly be depressing if the old "Rovian" political games play out here and the American people are duped into making one of the most important decisions of our time based on disinformation and distraction again.  One can only hope that this time, the American people will see through the smokescreen.

Read more-->

Form Over Substance...

The much anticipated Vice Presidential debate has just come to a close and I'd have to say that neither candidate committed a fatal "gaffe." I think that both campaigns are happy about the way that their candidates performed last night, and each side most likely thinks that their candidate won the debate. I think that this debate can be boiled down to form vs. substance. I think if you liked Sarah Palin before the debate, chances are this didn't change your view of her and probably helped. I think if you were going into this debate looking for more depth and substance in the answers then you probably liked Joe Biden.

I truly find it comical that the media and the American people think that this debate was as close as they're portraying it. I haven't gone back to the debate yet, but it appeared to me while watching the debate that Sarah Palin never really answered ANY of the questions that were asked of the candidates. She would often say "Yes, I do" and then completely change the subject and revert back to her scripted talking points or energy where she is most comfortable. Joe Biden called her out on this a couple of times but not nearly enough.

I do think that both candidates did what was expected of them. Sarah Palin did not hurt her image and did her best to put to rest the doubts and fears that the American people had about her after the embarrassment that were the Katie Couric interviews. Joe Biden stayed middle of the road and did his best to stay on the topic of McCain, and Obama's policies; although sometimes it appeared that "Joe Biden," as he referred to himself, was running for President. I also think that he often let her get away with too much. Certainly both candidates were guilty of their distortions of the other's policies and positions.

From a political standpoint, to Palin's credit, she did OK. She stayed on message and stuck to the political talking points that were prepared for her.  But at a point in the campaign where the American people need more than just political rhetoric Biden unquestionably had the advantage. Biden was confident and knowledgable in his answers particularly around foreign policy.  He layed out specifics in his answers as to how an Obama administration would deal with the most important issues that our country is facing today.  Palin simply dodged the questions such as when she answered one question this way: "That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy -- your ticket's energy -- ticket also.  I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05."  Let's be serious, are these even complete sentences?

I think that this type of answer characterized Palin in this debate.  She was sort of all over the place, her mind cluttered from the three days of rigorous debate prep.  She reminded me of a student who had spent the previous night cramming for the test only reach "the dreaded essay question" where you must provide specifics.  Instead of actually answering the question at hand, she found a way to turn back to the areas where she was, or at least she thought she was, most comfortable.  She often did this by outright changing the subject and at one point early on in the debate she mentioned that she may not answer the questions the way the moderator wanted her to, but rather, would speak directly to the American people about her record.

I think for those middle of the road voters this strategy didn't really pay off.  If you look at the two candidates, Biden clearly offered these voters a stance on the issues, while Palin did not. Being in the senate as long as he has, Biden had a long voting record to talk about as well his vast foreign policy experience, for better or worse.  Often times Palin looked like she was grasping at straws and pleading with the American people to give her a second chance.

When the candidates were asked about their weaknesses, Biden again offered several, and explained that he was not going to change.  Palin, instead, decided to focus on her strengths and once again never answered the question.  Does this remind you of anyone?  If it doesn't, why don't we explore her response to the powers of the Vice President when she actually proposed EXPANDING the powers of the Vice Presidency beyond what Dick Cheney has done.  Indeed, this a scary thought.

I think overall the selection of Gov. Palin for Vice President could be one of the greatest political blunders in history, but if the McCain/Palin ticket wins they will be lauded as geniuses and it will be a sad day for American politics and the country as well.  Clearly, Gov. Palin, is not nearly qualified to be Vice President, let alone the President.

Read more-->