Quick Hits
1) The Obama campaign is following my advice. Check out this new two minute ad in which Obama talks directly to the voters.
2) Is it just me or is it totally insane that our government can provide an $85 billion loan in exchange for an ownership stake in one of the nation's largest companies all without any Congressional action whatsoever? What the hell? When the government guaranteed $1.5 billion in loans to bailout Chrysler in 1979, that required Congressional action--and it was a BIG deal at the time. Now the Fed and the Treasury are acting on their own, citing Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, to do something about a thousand times more serious than the Chrysler bailout. This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm not going to comment on whether they're acting within their statutory authority, but I will say this: If they they are acting within their statutory authority, their statutory authority is far too broad. We live in a democracy and it's just not acceptable for decisions of this magnitude to be made without Congressional approval.
3) In case you missed the update to my previous post, here are the results of yesterday's Online 100 poll. It was close. 49% think Obama will win. 48% say McCain. What I found more interesting than the top line results, though, is who voted for whom. According to the data PoliticsHome sent me, 76% percent of left-leaners thought Obama would win, compared to only 18% of right-leaners (58% of those in the "center" thought Obama would win). I find it strange that each side is so confident. That can't be the normal state of affairs in presidential elections. Even more interesting was the mainstream media/blogosphere breakdown of the vote. According to the data that was sent to me, only 31% of mainstream media figures in the poll thought Obama would win, compared to 67% of bloggers. That's a wide gulf of opinion. I'm not sure if that reflects a rightward slant to the mainstream media participants in the poll or some kind of inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom that isn't as prevalent among the bloggers in the poll. Either way it's interesting.
4) This Kinsley column is good. And it even has data:
2) Is it just me or is it totally insane that our government can provide an $85 billion loan in exchange for an ownership stake in one of the nation's largest companies all without any Congressional action whatsoever? What the hell? When the government guaranteed $1.5 billion in loans to bailout Chrysler in 1979, that required Congressional action--and it was a BIG deal at the time. Now the Fed and the Treasury are acting on their own, citing Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, to do something about a thousand times more serious than the Chrysler bailout. This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm not going to comment on whether they're acting within their statutory authority, but I will say this: If they they are acting within their statutory authority, their statutory authority is far too broad. We live in a democracy and it's just not acceptable for decisions of this magnitude to be made without Congressional approval.
3) In case you missed the update to my previous post, here are the results of yesterday's Online 100 poll. It was close. 49% think Obama will win. 48% say McCain. What I found more interesting than the top line results, though, is who voted for whom. According to the data PoliticsHome sent me, 76% percent of left-leaners thought Obama would win, compared to only 18% of right-leaners (58% of those in the "center" thought Obama would win). I find it strange that each side is so confident. That can't be the normal state of affairs in presidential elections. Even more interesting was the mainstream media/blogosphere breakdown of the vote. According to the data that was sent to me, only 31% of mainstream media figures in the poll thought Obama would win, compared to 67% of bloggers. That's a wide gulf of opinion. I'm not sure if that reflects a rightward slant to the mainstream media participants in the poll or some kind of inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom that isn't as prevalent among the bloggers in the poll. Either way it's interesting.
4) This Kinsley column is good. And it even has data:
If you're wondering why a formerly honorable man like John McCain would build his presidential campaign around issues that are simultaneously beside-the-point, trivial, and dishonest (sex education for kindergartners, lipstick on pigs), the numbers presented here may help to solve that mystery. Since the conventions ended, McCain has mired the presidential race in dishonest trivia because he doesn't want it to focus on what voters say is the most important issue this year: the economy.UPDATE: One more link. I agree with most of this post from Jason Zengerle. Assuming he doesn't commit any gigantic gaffes between now and election day, I think Joe Biden will begin to look like an increasingly savvy choice as running mate, particulary if economic news continues to dominate the headlines. He's a good populist campaigner and he combines that populism with a reassuring level of experience. And as the novelty of Sarah Palin wears off, I think he'll have an easier time garnering national attention.
There is no secret about any of this. The figures below are all from the annual Economic Report of the President, and the analysis is primitive. Nevertheless, what these numbers show almost beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans.
In other words, there are no figures here about income inequality, or percentage of the population with health insurance, or anything like that. This exercise implicitly assumes that lower taxes are always good and higher government spending is always bad. There is nothing here about how clean the air is or how many children are growing up in poverty. The only point is that if you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic. Of course, if you do care about things like economic inequality and children's health, you should vote Democratic as well.
posted by A.L. at 9:02 AM
11 Comments:
A.L.,
No, it's not just you. How utterly ironic that a catastrophic failure brought on by deregulation produces socialism.
Of course, this isn't true socialism, where the profits would be shared equally -- this is "crony socialism", where fat corporate cats get the vast majority of the profits, while the net benefit to the rest of us will be a tax burden.
1) Like McCain, Obama has failed to note that Congress itself has had several chances to fix the problems Obama states. Yet, nothing was done. It is nothing more than a member of Congress attempting to point the finger at someone else for their own failures, which members and former members, of both parties, are wont to do. McCain is doing it too, so I'm not saying this out of Republican bias.
2) See my previous answer. Let me add that Congress has abrogated its responsibility in this and other things over the last several decades. Congress has given away more power to the Executive Branch, Congress avoids doing any real oversight of this power, then whines about the Executive Branch having too much power. Again, this is bipartisan, and it doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, or whether Republicans or Democrats control one or both Houses of Congress.
4) Kinsley isn't proving anything. He is ignoring the role Congress has had in all this, especially since they are supposed to be a co-equal branch along with any administration (which is never mentioned by members of the media, probably because they don't understand themselves what that is), along with the make up (which party had control) of Congress over those years. He also ignores that businesses go into cycles independent of what is going on in the federal government. All he's proven is that neither are better or worse than the other.
A.L.
You are right about the ad. Obama began this campaign as a Uniter, and in this role he is at this best.
Willy-nilly, the Democrats have hit on an election-winning strategy, helped by the financial chaos. Palin's star has definitely faded. Have I missed something, but isn't she becoming increasingly irrelevant? When was the last time she said something new or interesting? McCain has not even let her talk about Energy, supposedly her special area of expertise.
Obama can focus on lifting his tone, while his surrogates (Biden at last is becoming increasingly effective) keep up the attacks on McCain-Palin.
Steve,
I think Kinsley has proved one of to things: either 1) the president doesn't really make much of difference when it comes to the economy, or 2) Republican presidents are worse for the economy than Democratic ones.
Either way, it undermines the age-old Republican argument that we need to have a Republican president to make sure the economy is strong.
What is the probability that Biden doesn't "commit any gigantic gaffes" before election day? I'd say 75%.
All it proves, A.L., is that Kinsley knows how to manipulate numbers that ignore the basic premise of having co-equal branches of the federal government in order to "prove" his Democratic talking point. All I'm saying is he needs to factor them in to make his argument not just propaganda. Because his numbers really don't show anything unless that is done.
You can put me in the lefty who thinks McCain is going to win. But that is only because I take a dim view of the american voter. That the polls are even as close as they are shows that we live with a bunch of greedy, ignorant, smill minded, tribal, bloodthirsty people and they're looking for a persident just like them.
I do think that the movers and shakers in this country (the people who really run it, excepting Lady fuckin Rothchild) can see how bad mcCain will be even for them. But I don't think they'll be able to put the tiger back in the cage.
""Is it just me or is it totally insane that our government can provide an $85 billion loan in exchange for an ownership stake in one of the nation's largest companies""
I think government ownership of business is ..is...is Socialism
I'm one of those unfortunate few who had her pension partly invested in Lehman Brothers. I went searching for a reason that Lehman was the ONLY ONE that wasn't bailed out or helped in any significant way. I found this Wall Street Journal (forget the b-s, check out the chart):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152311313139643.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The chart clearly shows that Lehman's employees donated almost 3 to 1 to Obama. No petty party politics in this one, eh? If Goldman Sachs goes down, watch out!
It's the privatization of Profit and the socialization of Debt.
I like this type of ad for the Obama campaign, but don't you think it should be bolstered w/a little fire to set the record straight, something like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
that kind of combination would be the necessary approach I would think.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home