Debate 1: So Where are the Radical Differences?

Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee?

1. The debate was the high ground in the campaign thus far, for both men. With exceptions few and far between, issue discussion dominated on both sides.

2. What surprised this writer was that the policy gaps between the two candidates was nowhere as wide as I thought they were. Obama had the confidence and manners to concede on several points that "John is correct," while John never uttered similar words about anything Barack said, despite the fact that these guys held positions on most issues that were more similar than different. And most of those differences were on the margins.

Both have been subjugated to the inevitable triumph of the Goldman Sachs Bailout Plan, though McCain presented some feeble, almost comical, resistance to it earlier in the week. Neither could present any alternative plan; both bought-- hook, line and sinker--the Great Depression II argument that Goldman Sachs has used as its weapon of choice to intimidate both parties into acquiescing with the transformation of Public wealth into Private wealth.

Perhaps it should be no surprise, as the Republican's Hank Paulson and the Obama Democrat's Robert Rubin are both ex-Goldman Sachs CEOs. [Note: Paulson announced last night that he has hired yet another ex-Goldman Sachs guy as his primary adviser on executing the bailout plan. Goody, goody.]

McCain's non-sequitor replies about $18 billion in earmarks, and Obama's loophole-closing rants did not speak to the fundamental rightness, fairness or necessity of the bailout.

4. The single most dramatic economic policy difference between the two regards tax policy. McCain is adamant about extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, with Trickle Down, Supply Side ideology as its intellectual base; by not supporting the extension of the Bush tax cuts, Obama would effectively be raising taxes on households with minimum incomes of $250,000, with those below that number either having no change or a reduction in their tax rates. His is more a Demand Side, Keynesian approach.

3. Once the debate moved on to Foreign Policy there would be some fireworks, some fundamentally different policy disagreements, right? Wrong. A squabble developed about talking to our adversaries rather than giving them the silent treatment. But as Obama and McCain went back and forth a bit on this issue, it became apparant that their positions were fundamentally the same. Low level talks, said McCain, were fine; just no Summit talks right off the bat. Obama was in sync with that position as well.

Both were anxious to commit more US foot-soldiers to the next quagmire, Afghanistan. Again, some bickering about troop availability given the demands of Iraq, and a bit of back and forth on the advisability of attacking targets in Pakistan. But on the fundamental, strategic issue, these guys essentially agreed...again.

Kissinger, and/or the Council on Foreign Affairs, obviously are inputting to both campaigns. Ain't that great?

In summary, on the issues, McCain and Obama have some disagreements, but both occupy the center of political discourse, Obama coming to it from the Left, McCain from the Right.

The larger contrasts between the two were personal. I'll try writing another Hub on that later.

The Shrinking of America

Are words even necessary anymore?

Lacking anything substantive to do or say and seeing his poll numbers plummet, one of the major party candidates decides the best tactic for his campaign is saying that he's no longer campaigning, a demonstrable lie.

He adds that he's got more important things to do than debate his opponent, so he calls for a postponement of the debate scheduled for tonight. In less than 48 hours, he changes his mind and says the debate will go on as scheduled.

He calls for a bipartisan meeting at the White House to hammer-together a solution to the Financial Crisis, implying that he's the guy--the only guy--that can do it. The meeting takes place, and the savior essentially sits mute throughout it.

On the Bailout Plan itself: It's designed and will be executed by someone, Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, whose conflict of interest is so obvious and so appalling (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) that if he were acting as a Municipal Court Judge presiding over a traffic ticket case, he would be asked to recuse himself. But, hey, it's a crisis.

This is not meant as a partisan attack on McCain. Frankly, his erratic behavior transcends political issues and makes one focus on his personal suitabilty to hold the office of president.

Obama, though behaving in a calmer, more presidential manner, is not immune from criticism either. He essentially has bought into the Paulson Plan with a few trivial, piddling addendums added to it. Obama's top financial adviser is Robert Rubin. Rubin is currently employed by Citigroup and, just like Paulson, is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Did the Founders envision a country with a two-party system where both parties find it necessary to be advised on financial matters by what is essentially one person? They may have separate social security numbers, but for all intents and purposes, Rubin=Paulson. Why should anyone expect the Democrats to come up with some proposal of their own that would be fundamentally different from Paulson's?

And, finally, the dearth of specific information being offered to the Public regarding the cause(s) of the crisis, the reason(s) that the Paulson Plan is the best plan, and who exactly will be the primary direct beneficiaries of the plan is another astounding example of the contempt for the Public that its rulers have.

Maybe we should ask Putin or Palin to come up with some alternative plans to Paulson's---at least they wouldn't bring the conflict of interest baggage to the table.

Footnote: Washington Mutual was seized by the FDIC last night, the largest bank failure in US history, but nowadays barely front page news.

Modern Capitalism Implodes & Nobody Knows Nothing

The one apparent fact that is emerging from the Crisis-in-Capitalism now being played out on Wall Street is: Nobody knows nothing.

No one knows the true causes of this calamity and no one knows of any systemic approach to stem the tide of the collapse of the modern financial system.

Right now, and since at least March of this year, we are witnessing the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chairman playing the roles of Battalion Chiefs as they scurry from one bushfire to the next, dousing them with untold 100's of billions of taxpayer funds, most of which wind up in the pockets of bond holders like the Bank of China, hedge funds who bet the USG would bailout Fannie and Freddie and who therefore accumulated large holdings of the depressed debt securities of those "private sector" firms.

Nobody knows nothing.

When bewilderment reigns, it's generally a good idea to say and, especially, to do as little as is practicably possible. It's not the time to run-off at the mouth; it's not the time to assume nearly $5 trillion of private mortgage debt, as has already been done---with absolutely zero public discussion.

Obama's support should be done in the spirit of "National Unity" in a time of crisis. He should emphasize "crisis." He should emphasize Hoover-Bush-McCain. He should tie his (tepid) support to his sense of patriotism, not enthusiasm. He should make it explicitly clear that he is putting partisan politics on the shelf regarding this matter; but he should implicitly exploit the partisan advantages that this scenario gives the Democrats.

New Questions for the Pollsters to Ask

These are questions whose answers I do not know, but they are perhaps more important, at this juncture of the campaign, than the simple "Who would you vote for?" question.

1. Do you care if a Presidential candidate lies to the public during his campaign?

2. If so, would you change your vote if you knew a candidate has repeatedly lied during his campaign?

The answers would seem obvious. However, the events of the past two weeks of the campaign belie what would seem to be the obvious answers.

As the lies continue to unravel under the scrutiny of the media and the opposition, the spotlight will shift to the voters themselves.

It is by no means inconceivable that the voters will either assume a "truth be damned" attitude and continue their slow, steady drift to support of the McCain Misinformation Machine knowing full well they are supporting a candidate whose primary campaign weapon is The Lie, or they will find comfort in that warm and fuzzy cabin called denial, simply reject the truth when they hear it, and continue on the mindless, self-destructive path being carved for them by the McCain Ministry of Misinformation.

If the Truth and a Lie, irrespective of their specific content, have conflated into moral equivalents:

Obama is doomed.

The electoral process as we have known it since the Founding is doomed.

And whatever freedom we have left in the US is doomed as well.

The 21st Century Political Avant Garde

Their Weapon of Choice: The Bold-Faced Lie.

Post-Palin Campaign Slogans/Themes

The Obama campaign has wisely decided that Silence is best when it comes to dealing with Palin. There's no need to further legitimize her candidacy by treating her as if she were a serious contender for the Vice Presidency.

Furthermore, it's fairly obvious--at least to this writer--that Palin, her attractiveness and oratorical talent notwithstanding, is on a one-way road to self-destruction, the only question being, when?

The Republicans, led by the Straight Talker, have once again fallen back on their successful strategy that is composed of equal parts lying, sentimentality and confusion. It's worked before (Reagan and GW Bush twice.)

Simple themes for Obama ads and/or slogans:

DON'T LET THEM CONFUSE YOU---BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE HAPPENING EVERYDAY AROUND YOU, NOT WHAT THEY TELL YOU IS HAPPENING (a bit long-winded, yes?)

KEEP YOUR EYES ON REALITY

MORE OF BUSH/MCCAIN? LOOK AROUND.

BELIEVE YOUR LIFE, NOT THE REPUBLICAN/MCCAIN SPIN ON IT

UP IS NOT DOWN, COLD IS NOT HOT, DESPITE WHAT MCCAIN WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE

FOOL ME ONCE. SHAME ON YOU (BUSH 2000)
FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME (BUSH 2004)
FOOL ME THREE TIMES (MCCAIN/BUSH 2008)...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

WHATS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA & MCCAIN/BUSH?
THEY THINK YOU'RE DUMB, OBAMA DOESN'T

IT'S YOUR CHOICE: BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES OR BELIEVE MCCAIN'S

THE TRUTH DOESN'T NEED TO BE SPUN

I'll stop.

Palin-Pick: Nobody Wins, Nobody.

1. An Obama supporter could not, in one's wildest dreams, have imagined the Opposition putting forth a VP candidate as preposterous as SP.

2. Her selection, along with the earlier Paris/Britney and Charlton Heston/Moses ads, has reduced the democratic electoral process to nothing more than a farce. "Farce" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary thus: A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used....

3. Though the SP pick makes it more likely that Barack will win the election, it's an episode that results in pure lose, especially to the credibility of our electoral process.

Who Destroyed Palin? The Media or Herself?

1. There was no particular need for outside sources to deconstruct Palin-as-President. She carries within herself her own destruction, as will become apparent if and when she ever speaks to the press.

2. She has used her gender to her own advantage during her meteoric political rise by assiduously constructing the image of the moose-eating, hockey-playing, gun-toting Super Mom who don't take shit from nobody, while still being a girlie-girl when it fit her need. It was her choice.

3. Although I find it reprehensible that some in the liberal media found it necessary to plaster photos of the daughter and her hapless boyfriend on their homepages, I blame not them (the media), but Palin herself. THIS IS POLITICS 2008, like it or not. Palin should have anticipated the media reaction to some of her "family," issues, and declined McCain's invitation out of concern for her family's privacy. She's only 44, not 72. She's got time.

4. Virtually everything uncovered and reported over the last four days regarding the alien quantity, Sarah Palin, has been true. Hard, raw, brutal, concrete facts. Hard to argue with facts.

5. Is the coverage sexist? That's the most difficult, and subjective, question to answer. Had, for example, a 44-year-old widowed male with 5 children, who had relentlessly thumped the drums of Family Values--as Palin has done-- to get himself elected to similar offices be discovered to have presided over a typical dysfunctional family, we he be subjected to the scorn and ridicule that Palin has had to endure thus far? I think he'd be ripped to shreds.

5a. Finally, Hillary as an example: Hillary never made the foundation of her campaigns the fact that she was a wifey and mommy. She was, but that was incidental in her case. Palin, on the other hand, has emphasized the mommy/wifey-ness angle, she's pandered to the Religious Right on that issue, and espouses grossly anti-feminist views on all the hot button "women's" issues.

The public destruction of Sarah Palin is sad; even more so is the humiliation of the two young people, innocents both.
Those two young people are pure victims, but they are not victims of the media---they are victims of Sarah Palin's blind ambition.

Is This What McCain Thinks?

"This election is not about issues," said Davis.--From the Washington Post, Voices

Davis is John McCain's campaign manager.

The wheels continue to fall off the Straight Talk Express.

Up is Down: Palin as President-In-Waiting

The mass media, including but not limited to the blog-sphere, is engaged in the process of legitimizing the Palin selection by solemnly discussing her strenghs and weaknesses as if she were Leiberman or Romney or Ridge.

This is essentially a City Councilwoman, plucked from out of nowhere, by a man who doesn't even know her, to be President-in-Waiting. It's the Seinfeld Bizarro World episode, except it's not a comedy, it's a tragedy.

This is the same media that told (and continues) to tell us what a beacon of democratic light the nation of Georgia was as it unleashed an unsuccessful mini-blitzkrieg against a civilian population that was repelled and then crushed by the neo-Evil Empire.

This is the same media that has jumped on board the Afghanistan bandwagon now that Bush has accepted the Democratic Party position on Iraq and is withdrawing our troops on a specific timetable. So out of one quagmire we go and, without even taking a breath, into another we march. And the media duly leads the cheering.

Up is Down.
Black is White.
Out is In.

Palin as president is a proposition to be seriously discussed. McCain's a strategic genius.

This is getting scary.

Palin/Alaska: This Time It's Not Seward's Folly, It's McCain's

The following is from a transcript of an interview with a reporter from the newspaper identified below, according to the HuffingtonPost.



Anchorage Daily News

The reporter, Kyle Hopkins, asked, according to the transcript posted today, "Are you ready to be President Palin if necessary?"

"I am ... I am up to the task, of course, of focusing on the challenges that face America," she said. Palin then went on: "And I am very pleased with the situation that I am in, when, when you consider the situation now that Alaska will be in.

"And that is Alaska, and Alaskans will be allowed to contribute more to our great country and they'll be allowed to do that because I -- if we're elected -- will be in a position of opening the eyes of the country to what it is that Alaska is all about and what Alaska has to offer. So, I am happy to and very honored to be asked to do this. I know it's going to be great for Alaska."

No comment from me--or anyone else, for that matter--is necessary.

Palin Pick, Fourth Thought

Opined earlier that Palin might not survive as the final Republican VP-nominee.

Am starting to wonder if Sen. McCain himself will actually be the Republican Presidential nominee given the patently suicidal behavior the Palin choice represents.

Palin Pick, Third Thought

Maybe deep, deep down, John McCain, after seeing what it is like just being the official Candidate of his party, enduring the Secret Service always already there wherever he goes, having a muzzle put on his famously loquacious mouth...maybe John decided he really didn't need to end his life as the Prez, as, in a certain sense, a Prisoner of War again, only in a different cell.

Second Thought on Palin Pick

This may be a replay of the McGovern/Eagleton fiasco; same result--VP-nominee withdraws--but for different reasons, of course.

First Thought on Palin Selection

A reckless, thoughtless decision that reeks of both desperation and lack of judgment on McCain's part.

Polls, Predictions and the Presidential Race

The Polls.

They have a certain scientificity about them that Op-Ed pieces don't.

Polls are grounded in Statistics, in the formal sense of the word as a subset of Mathematics. You can't argue with Mathematics.

As this is written, the polls, irrespective of the pollster, unanimously declare the presidential election to be a very close one...a virtual tie.

This astounds Republicans, of course, because they know all too well that they should be light-years behind the Democrats, given that their nominee is effectively the incumbent and therefore must defend the record the Republicans have assembled for themselves over the past eight years. That record needs no elucidation here.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be interpreting the Polls as an indication that there is something amiss with their candidate, or least with his campaign strategy. They too think they should be light-years ahead, given the brutal and concrete facts that Bush & Co.'s tenure have bestowed upon the Democratic Party.

The poll question that matters most, and that causes all the hand-wringing on one side and jubilation on the other is: Who would you vote for for President of the United States today?

But away from Gallup, Zogby, Pew there are at least two other organizations (which I have blogged about and cited in the past) that are have been engaged in a similar yet different enterprise than the mainstream polling organizations.

These are www.intrade.com (intrade) and the University of Iowa's Prediction Markets (Iowa.)

Intrade and Iowa allow participants to buy and sell, with real money, "futures" contracts on various propositions, including but not limited to the outcome of the presidential race. Over an (statistically) significant period of time, these two market makers have had an uncannily high success rate when it comes to predicting outcomes of political races.

Iowa and Intrade are not asking their clientele, Who would you vote for today? Rather, they ask the question, Who will win the election? I have not heard of any mainstream polling polling organization that asks, or at least reports on, that question.

If one were to visit the websites of Iowa and Intrade (I will supply the url's at the end of this post), one would discover that one both sites the answer to that question is approximately, Obama: 60%, McCain: 40%.

This result is much more in line with what the socio-economic-political conditions of the United States in 2008 would lead an objective observer to surmise regarding the chances of the Democrat vs. the Republican candidate.

Why the disconnect between Intrade/Iowa and the mainstream pollsters?

Are the questions being asked so vastly different? If the pollsters would ask the same question as does Intrade/Iowa, would the results be the same?

There is one difference, at least, that can be pointed out. It doesn't cost anything to answer a Gallup pollster's question. But to "answer" an Intrade/Iowa question, one has to put one's money where one's mouth is and purchase a McCain or Obama "future's' contract.

Which produces the more accurate snapshot of reality?

Intrade: www.intrade.com
Iowa: http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres08_Quotes.html

Pressue on Obama Mounts From the Underbelly of Politics

For all intents and purposes, the general election campaign is turning into an instant replay of the primary campaign, with merely a nominal--literally--change in Obama's opponent's name.

McCain has slid comfortably into Hillary's old slot and is conducting much the same type of campaign she did once she realized that she was not going to be anointed the Dem candidate by acclamation.

The campaign (henceforth in this essay, "campaign" refers simultaneously to the McCain and Clinton campaigns), the campaign adopts the overall strategy of tearing down one's opponent on a personal, ad hominem, basis.

The tactics used are ridicule, innuendo, outright falsehoods, whispering campaigns, baseless charges, distortions and anything else that can be carved into a weapon of personal destruction.

Those who use these tactics count on the ignorance and prejudice of the voting public to ensure their efficacy. Remember Hillary's success with "under-informed" voters during the primary?

Primary-Obama faced the issue and resisted attempts to roll in the mud with his opponent. He won the Primary.

General-Obama is now faced with the virtually identical issue. Advice, publicly by the likes of Chuck Schumer, for example, and, presumably, privately is streaming in, urging Obama to "fight back, get tough, hit 'em as hard as they're hitting you"...and so on.

The media has found an angle in the election that they can enthusiastically cover because it obviates the hard work that covering real, complex issues entails, thereby increasing the pressure on Barack.

In refusing to play the game by the rules of Bush, Rove, Clinton, Penn and Schumer, as Barack has thus-far done, the single toughest objection to this path of action is this one: But what these other people do Works! These tactics Win elections, like it or not. And, not employing these tactics Loses elections.

As a political outsider, a civilian, if you will, it appears to me that professional political types are in near unanimous agreement that the previous three sentences above are gospel. But they base that conclusion (a) on and only on the results of the last two presidential elections and (b) their interpretation and perhaps creation of the causality relationship between Bush's two victories and the use of personal-destruction politics.

To say that these political professionals have restricted their universe of variables and inputs is an understatement. To these pro's, a candidate is a candidate is a candidate; Kerry=Gore=Obama; just another face and name to plug into their system of winning elections.

If Barack Obama views himself as this latest incarnation of Gore and Kerry, he might as well admit that he's in Rome and "do as the Romans do."

If, however, he thinks he's gotten this far by being something Other than the typical Dem candidate for president, by being a sort of un-candidate, or at least an atypical one, he's got to stick to the high road that brought him to within a step of the White House.

Once he descends down to the Low Road, he has already lost, regardless of the results in November.

Comments on the Warren Interviews

1. The fact that the interrogator is a religious leader is put in brackets for the purpose of these comment.

2. The content of the responses, i.e., the policy positions of the candidates will not be commented upon by me.

3. Barack's obviously better when scripted, much less so when extemporaneous.

4. The questioning was more thoughtful, more serious, than previous professional media interrogations of the candidates.

5. McCain displayed clearly that questions dealing with abstract concepts, such as "evil," are not his thing. He immediately reified the concept "evil" into bin Laden. In other words, deep thinking is not Johnny Mac's forte.

6. Obama revealed himself clearly as a deep, abstract thinker, for better or worse. His response to the "evil" question, for example, showed he understood that "evil" is an abstract idea, a concept. Warren asked the question from that point of view as well. Obama's answer was 40-times as complex as McCain's; it was also 40-times as edifying.

7. The style of the responses by the two guys was also revealing: Obama pondered; McCain shot from the hip. Obama listened to Walker until Walker completed his question; McCain blurted responses before the question was fully asked.

8. McCain came across as a guy who has made up his mind on EVERY question that may be out there; Obama, as a guy who thinks.

9. Warren and his staff did a helluva job in preparing the questions.

10. This format actually did give the voting public a fairly good venue for assessing the two candidates beyond their positions on the issues.

11. Finally,and I hate to admit this because of the fact that Warren is still--when the dust settles--an evangelical religious leader--the real Winner was Warren and the real Loser was the professional media.

Georgia on My Mind or McCain's Waterloo

John McCain has decided to attach his presidential star to the man in charge of Georgia.

The man who launched the initial attack that started this gratuitous mini-war.

McCain's top foreign policy adviser was, until March of this year, a "registered foreign agent" of the government of Georgia.

Does anyone but me think it might be a good idea to preemptively disqualify ANYONE who has been a "registered foreign agent" of any government from being a foreign policy adviser to a presidential candidate---or am I being Old Fashioned?

Bush has already amply demonstrated his credentials as an outright idiot. It's Johnny's turn now, and he's jumped in head first.

His unqualified and uninformed--except by the foreign agent embedded in his campaign--support for a dangerous foreign leader who demands American blood to protect his prerogatives, is giving the voting public a free preview of what to expect if they vote for McCain.

Georgia will survive this catastrophe; Russia will survive it as well; so too will the USA.

McCain will not.

McCain Camp Calls Their Guy "Prescient" On His Russia/Georgia Stance

I didn't realize that history has already rendered its judgment on the Russia/Georgia conflict.

Did the US Government have prior knowledge of Georgia's intent to initiate armed conflict? It was Georgia who fired the first shots, right?

The central criticism by the West of the Russians is that their response (to the Georgian attack) was "disproportionate." Obviously, Georgia had calculated that the response would be proportionate; they miscalculated.

I personally have viewed the oil-revenue-fed Russia of Putin as a quasi-dictatorship with ambitions that far outreach its resources. As long as the country remains under the rule of one man--Putin--it presents dangers to the West.

Fortunately, its new-found disposable wealth is subject to the vicissitudes of the oil market.

I believe their defense budget is something like $40 billion annually; ours is, what, $400 billion?

At this stage, Russia is more a bobcat than a tiger. It needs to be carefully watched, but it lacks the power to take on a lion (the West.)

Back to the current crisis. The idiots running Georgia opened the door for the Russians, and now they're "shocked, shocked" that the Russians marched through.