When I was growing up, I spent a lot of time playing my friends in Streetfighter II for the Super Nintendo and Mortal Kombat on Genesis. For those who weren't teenage boys in the early to mid 90s, these were games where each player controled a fighter in a bout with the other player. To win, you had to master certain button combinations, understand the strengths and weaknesses of each of the fighters, and master the timing of attacks and counter-attacks.
Once in a while, I'd play somebody who had never played these games (or usually hadn't played any games) before. These players would usually flail around, and maybe figure out one attack (usually jump-kicks), and their very lack of skill playing the game would make them awfully hard to beat. Because they didn't know how to play, they didn't play by the same rules or strategies as regular players did, and that made them dangerous.
This is what makes me nervous about Palin in her debate Thursday night against Biden. He's an old hand who's done tons of debates and spent countless Sundays facing off against the Gwen Ifill's of the world. I'm worried that Palin's lack of skill and familiarity with foreign policy is going to throw Biden off his game, and that she'll find some kind of weird jump-kick of an attack and just do it over and over again until victory (or their mutual destruction, which works just as well for McCain's purposes).
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Mayor Mike's third go
Looks like Mayor Mike Bloomberg is semi-officially coming out in favor of a 3rd term. I'm not sure if this is going to be terribly popular with voters, even if we could use his steady hand and financial knowledge during the economic downturn.
Frankly, I'm all for it, although I'll wait to see who the other candidates are before making up my mind on who to support. With the exception of the presidency, I don't really see the need for term limits. When living in California I saw the damage they did to the state's ability to govern itself. Within a legislature, term limits destroy institutional knowledge, and they prevent the kind of long-term relationships that allow people from different parties or regions to work together to accomplish anything. Also, the lack of long-serving figures denies legislatures the kind of gravitas they need to compete with elected officials- think of how helpful it's been for Dems in Congress to have guys like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, who have been around forever, and have national reputations, to go on TV and speak out against the Bush administration. It would be a lot less helpful if we were sending in Ben Cardin and Mike Arcuri.
At least in the gerrymandered legislature I can see some kind of positive for term-limits. For the executive branch, I don't see why voters need to be protected from ourselves. For these positions, there will always be candidates desiring the job, and the prestige and influence of the positions mean that the media will cover the races (proportionate to the level of the race- the hometown paper will always cover the mayoral race, no matter how small the town) and thus allow a decent challenger to be a viable candidate. And if your mayor or governor is doing a good job, why not keep them?
I think two terms is enough for the President, not just because of Washington's example, but because there are so few checks on the modern presidency that a two term limitation is worth the downside in order to deter even the slightest possibility of anti-democratic overreaching. The only other offices that could maybe use term limits would be those like insurance commissioner or comptroller- offices that are powerful enough to invite abuse, but so obscure that it's hard for a non self-funded challenger to make a case to voters.
Frankly, I'm all for it, although I'll wait to see who the other candidates are before making up my mind on who to support. With the exception of the presidency, I don't really see the need for term limits. When living in California I saw the damage they did to the state's ability to govern itself. Within a legislature, term limits destroy institutional knowledge, and they prevent the kind of long-term relationships that allow people from different parties or regions to work together to accomplish anything. Also, the lack of long-serving figures denies legislatures the kind of gravitas they need to compete with elected officials- think of how helpful it's been for Dems in Congress to have guys like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, who have been around forever, and have national reputations, to go on TV and speak out against the Bush administration. It would be a lot less helpful if we were sending in Ben Cardin and Mike Arcuri.
At least in the gerrymandered legislature I can see some kind of positive for term-limits. For the executive branch, I don't see why voters need to be protected from ourselves. For these positions, there will always be candidates desiring the job, and the prestige and influence of the positions mean that the media will cover the races (proportionate to the level of the race- the hometown paper will always cover the mayoral race, no matter how small the town) and thus allow a decent challenger to be a viable candidate. And if your mayor or governor is doing a good job, why not keep them?
I think two terms is enough for the President, not just because of Washington's example, but because there are so few checks on the modern presidency that a two term limitation is worth the downside in order to deter even the slightest possibility of anti-democratic overreaching. The only other offices that could maybe use term limits would be those like insurance commissioner or comptroller- offices that are powerful enough to invite abuse, but so obscure that it's hard for a non self-funded challenger to make a case to voters.
Brooks on the Bailout
In his Times column today, David Brooks goes after Congress for failing to pass the bailout-
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
...
The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.
I largely agree with Brooks on this, with a couple exceptions. First, Frank and the Dems knew, and indeed negotiated for "no votes" from their caucus. They realized the bill wasn't popular, and were trying to get enough house republicans with safe seats on board so that Dems in unsafe seats could vote no… not a case of Frank being too busy with media grand-standing that he didn't realize some dems weren't going to vote. Second, it's interestingly out of Brooks's conservative character to advocate larding the bill with extra provisions to bail out homeowners… not very free-market there, although it would probably allow the bill to pass by getting more dems, thereby making it not a bi-partisan bill, but a big liberal democratic handout that Brooks can get 20 columns out of criticizing for the next few years
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
...
The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.
I largely agree with Brooks on this, with a couple exceptions. First, Frank and the Dems knew, and indeed negotiated for "no votes" from their caucus. They realized the bill wasn't popular, and were trying to get enough house republicans with safe seats on board so that Dems in unsafe seats could vote no… not a case of Frank being too busy with media grand-standing that he didn't realize some dems weren't going to vote. Second, it's interestingly out of Brooks's conservative character to advocate larding the bill with extra provisions to bail out homeowners… not very free-market there, although it would probably allow the bill to pass by getting more dems, thereby making it not a bi-partisan bill, but a big liberal democratic handout that Brooks can get 20 columns out of criticizing for the next few years
Monday, September 29, 2008
Palin continues to demonstrate that she would fail a high-school U.S. History class
The Politico is reporting that, in the unaired section of Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin, when Palin is asked about Supreme Court cases, the only one she knows is Roe. Come on... how about Brown v. Board? Marbury? I don't know about Alaska, but in New York you had to have at least heard of Brown and Marbury to get out of high school. And on top of that, how about some cases critically impacting issues that leaders should care about- cases like Hamdan (Bush's Gitmo detention policy), Kelo (eminent domain)? How about Bush v. Gore?
Any lack of knowledge that would disqualify an 11th grader from moving to 12th grade should probably disqualify somebody from being vice-president.
Any lack of knowledge that would disqualify an 11th grader from moving to 12th grade should probably disqualify somebody from being vice-president.
Spineless
So the bailout deal has gone under, and the House Republicans are on TV blaming the failure on a "partisan speech" delivered by Nancy Pelosi shortly before the vote, which GOP leader John Boehner claims caused a number of Republicans who had promised to vote "yes" to change their minds. Leaving aside the question of whether Pelosi's speech (which blamed the Bush administration's policies for the financial problems, but was not particularly sharp or inflammatory), are Republicans really so thin-skinned that they're going to change their minds after hearing a partisan speech? I would have to imagine that this isn't the first partisan speech that they've heard. Sounds to me like some spineless wonders lost their nerve...
Mainstream
Marc Ambinder has a good point on Friday's debate- the "ordinariness" of Obama's debate performance, which perhaps annoyed some of his supporters who were hoping for more fire, may wind up being a great asset. Most low-information voters, perhaps seeing Obama for the first time, came into the debate with the idea (via Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, etc.) that he was some kind of radical, or a black nationalist, or something equally wild. By appearing rational and sober, Obama probably did a lot to reduce fears of his otherness- by being a bit stiff or boring he perhaps looked like any other Democratic Senator... which is probably just what's needed to bring in the votes of people unhappy with how the country's going, but scared of too much change.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Media continues to turn on McCain
This weekend, a number of high-profile reporters and columnists have penned highly critical pieces on McCain- largely on the basis of his decision to pick Palin.
Carl Bernstein writes:
Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate.
...
John McCain is a serious man, as anyone who has spent time with him knows. But he has not run the kind of serious campaign he once promised.
Not for the first time, as many of his fellow Republicans (as opposed to friendly reporters and sympathetic Democrats) had long maintained, McCain's more reckless inclinations and lesser impulses prevailed. A great political movement that would transcend rabid partisanship and hard ideology does not seem in the cards.
And if he wins the election, Sarah Palin -- who in her first post-convention discussion of foreign policy indicated a willingness to go to war with Russia over Georgia -- stands a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Ultimately it is the choice of Palin, made in the moment when action speaks loudest, that may undermine a quarter-century of assertions by John McCain about the preeminence of duty, honor and country in his political schema.
Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria is ready for Palin to throw in the towel-
Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
McCain and courtesy
My Dad was born and raised in small towns, and lives in one still, and is a guy who has always been big on common courtesy. As an elementary school teacher, he made sure that every kid coming through his classroom knew how to shake hands, look someone in the eye, introduce themselves politely. He made sure that my brothers and I got the same lessons. He is a Democrat, but by no means a raging partisan. I spoke to him on the phone this morning, and he told me that he was absolutely disgusted with McCain's rudeness in not once making eye-contact with Obama or addressing him during the debate.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are some "small town values" other than those the cultural conservatives like to speak about. Values like courtesy, making eye-contact, a good handshake, not being openly hostile or condescending. These are values necessary to get along in a community where people know one another and interact regularly. Two points come out of this that are relevant to the election:
The first is that Obama, despite hailing from a big city, needed to understand and live out those values to be effective as a community organizer and local candidate in his Hyde Park neighborhood. McCain's first run for elective office was for Congress, and he came in as a celebrity candidate- a war hero, friend of the Reagans... not somebody who had to really get to know the folks in the neighborhood (and as the husband of a multi-millionaire probably never had to).
The second point is that there are many voters for whom values like courtesy are very important, and I think that McCain may have lost quite a few of them last night.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are some "small town values" other than those the cultural conservatives like to speak about. Values like courtesy, making eye-contact, a good handshake, not being openly hostile or condescending. These are values necessary to get along in a community where people know one another and interact regularly. Two points come out of this that are relevant to the election:
The first is that Obama, despite hailing from a big city, needed to understand and live out those values to be effective as a community organizer and local candidate in his Hyde Park neighborhood. McCain's first run for elective office was for Congress, and he came in as a celebrity candidate- a war hero, friend of the Reagans... not somebody who had to really get to know the folks in the neighborhood (and as the husband of a multi-millionaire probably never had to).
The second point is that there are many voters for whom values like courtesy are very important, and I think that McCain may have lost quite a few of them last night.
More Fallows on Palin
James Fallows, a very serious and respected journalist, had the following to say about Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin:
After thirty years of meeting and interviewing politicians, I can think of exactly three people who sounded as uninformed and vacant as this. All are now out of office. One was a chronic drunk.
After thirty years of meeting and interviewing politicians, I can think of exactly three people who sounded as uninformed and vacant as this. All are now out of office. One was a chronic drunk.
Ancillary benefit of nominating a competent VP
Biden was on almost every post-debate show last night, backing up Obama. Palin was nowhere to be seen.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Debate wrap-up
My general feeling is that, all things being equal, the debate wound up as a draw. Obama was strong on the economy, following bin Laden into Pakistan, and in his closing showing an impressive grasp global affairs. McCain seemed at times to control the tone of the debate, getting Obama to agree with him and pushing Obama to discuss problematic topics.
McCain's high-point was Obama's biggest whiff of the debate- the point where McCain sneeringly asked what Obama would say when across the table from Ahmadinejad. Obama tried to interrupt, couldn't get through and then just went on to the next question. Obama's answer should have been along the lines of "John, if I sat down with this tin-pot dictator, with all the power and prestige of the United States of America behind me, there's no doubt who would come out on top. Anyone who's afraid to debate a nobody like him shouldn't be president."
That said, Obama's goal with this debate was to cross a basic laugh-test threshold of "can I the regular voter, not having paid much attention thus far, conceive of this guy as running our nation's foreign policy?" I think Obama cleared this by miles. He was coming into what was ostsensibly McCain's turf- foreign policy- and held his own. This coupled with the fact in these debates, a tie goes to the overall leader, means that Obama definitely came out on top.
A couple other points-
-I think the visuals definitely played to Obama's benefit. McCain's suit was baggy and rumpled-looking, contributing to his generally elderly appearance, while Obama looked energetic and (aided by his newly grey hair) dignified.
-The polls seem to be coming out decidedly toward Obama:
CBS: 39% Obama, 25% McCain
CNN:
McCain's high-point was Obama's biggest whiff of the debate- the point where McCain sneeringly asked what Obama would say when across the table from Ahmadinejad. Obama tried to interrupt, couldn't get through and then just went on to the next question. Obama's answer should have been along the lines of "John, if I sat down with this tin-pot dictator, with all the power and prestige of the United States of America behind me, there's no doubt who would come out on top. Anyone who's afraid to debate a nobody like him shouldn't be president."
That said, Obama's goal with this debate was to cross a basic laugh-test threshold of "can I the regular voter, not having paid much attention thus far, conceive of this guy as running our nation's foreign policy?" I think Obama cleared this by miles. He was coming into what was ostsensibly McCain's turf- foreign policy- and held his own. This coupled with the fact in these debates, a tie goes to the overall leader, means that Obama definitely came out on top.
A couple other points-
-I think the visuals definitely played to Obama's benefit. McCain's suit was baggy and rumpled-looking, contributing to his generally elderly appearance, while Obama looked energetic and (aided by his newly grey hair) dignified.
-The polls seem to be coming out decidedly toward Obama:
CBS: 39% Obama, 25% McCain
CNN:
Who Did the Best Job In the Debate?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%Who Would Better Handle Economy?
Obama 58%
McCain 37%Who Would Better Handle Iraq?
Obama 52%
McCain 47%
Blinking
The McCain/Palin campaign seems to place a high value on leaders who "don't blink" in the face of adversity. Well, I've gotta say, in the "suspend the campaign" gambit, it's pretty clear who just blinked first.
The GOP's joke of a plan.
Time's Justin Fox on the House Republican's alternative to the bailout:
One, that of the House Republican Study Committee, seems to be a joke. It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn't be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?
The other problem would be that removing capital gains taxes for two years would have an enormous negative impact on government tax receipts which, you know, we need to pay for things like the war and all. Capital gains tax receipts vary based on how the economy is doing, but in the past few years have been between $50-120 billion annually. Looking at it conservatively, the GOP plan would cost at least $100 billion in lost tax revenue, while doing nothing to address the problem.
One, that of the House Republican Study Committee, seems to be a joke. It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn't be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?
The other problem would be that removing capital gains taxes for two years would have an enormous negative impact on government tax receipts which, you know, we need to pay for things like the war and all. Capital gains tax receipts vary based on how the economy is doing, but in the past few years have been between $50-120 billion annually. Looking at it conservatively, the GOP plan would cost at least $100 billion in lost tax revenue, while doing nothing to address the problem.
University of Oklahoma Professor exercises his first amendment right to pen nonsense
A friend brought to my attention this lovely article by University of Oklahoma professor David Deming. Deming manages the impressive task of stating that Obama is Muslim, a Black Nationalist Christian, and implying that he's a Stalinist all in two paragraphs:
When Obama refers to “my Muslim faith,” the verbal gaffe resonates as a Freudian slip because of Obama’s thinly veiled hatred for this country’s unique culture and institutions. Obama sat for 20 years in a church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr preached “goddamn America.” He only resigned from the congregation when it became politically expedient to do so. When earlier this year, Michelle Obama said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” can we conclude that her husband disagrees? Is it not remarkable that Michelle Obama can be so small-minded as to find nothing in the history of the United States that merits her admiration but the personal success of her husband?
What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is “change.” But even a 6-year-old child understands that “change” can be either good or bad. Lacking specifics, the invocation of “change” as policy is completely empty. As we witness Obama’s minions mindlessly endorse the meaningless maxim of “change,” it only can call to mind the barnyard animals in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” chanting “four legs good, two legs bad!”
Deming, a Geophysicist, is no stranger to controversy. A letter to the editor he wrote in 2000 resulted in 25 sexual harassment complaints at U of O, and several years ago was embroiled in a lawsuit against the University to regain his position after he “went on the record as having no confidence in the leadership of [the School of Geology and Geosciences.”
Not to rely on ad hominem attacks, I believe (like any good post-structuralist) that the seeds of destruction for Deming's argument lie in his text, and here they are- would you believe anything from anyone who wrote this of Sarah Palin?:
Unassisted by affirmative action, Palin has risen to national prominence on the basis of her character, intelligence and natural gifts.
When Obama refers to “my Muslim faith,” the verbal gaffe resonates as a Freudian slip because of Obama’s thinly veiled hatred for this country’s unique culture and institutions. Obama sat for 20 years in a church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr preached “goddamn America.” He only resigned from the congregation when it became politically expedient to do so. When earlier this year, Michelle Obama said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” can we conclude that her husband disagrees? Is it not remarkable that Michelle Obama can be so small-minded as to find nothing in the history of the United States that merits her admiration but the personal success of her husband?
What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is “change.” But even a 6-year-old child understands that “change” can be either good or bad. Lacking specifics, the invocation of “change” as policy is completely empty. As we witness Obama’s minions mindlessly endorse the meaningless maxim of “change,” it only can call to mind the barnyard animals in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” chanting “four legs good, two legs bad!”
Deming, a Geophysicist, is no stranger to controversy. A letter to the editor he wrote in 2000 resulted in 25 sexual harassment complaints at U of O, and several years ago was embroiled in a lawsuit against the University to regain his position after he “went on the record as having no confidence in the leadership of [the School of Geology and Geosciences.”
Not to rely on ad hominem attacks, I believe (like any good post-structuralist) that the seeds of destruction for Deming's argument lie in his text, and here they are- would you believe anything from anyone who wrote this of Sarah Palin?:
Unassisted by affirmative action, Palin has risen to national prominence on the basis of her character, intelligence and natural gifts.
Polling and turnout
A friend writes:
According to RCP, the electoral college has been locked up at Obama 273, McCain 265 for about a month. Although it seems like there have been fits and starts in the media regarding the two campaigns, it suggests to me that people's minds have essentially been made up. Do you see it that way, and if so, does that mean we're now in a full-on turnout battle?
There still seems like there's some movement in the national polls- as we've seen Obama shift from maybe down 1 or 2 to McCain during the latter's convention/Palin bump, to Obama up 3 or 4 points as voters' attention has turned toward the economy, Palin's had unsuccessful interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, etc. I think that indicates that we're probably looking at, nationally, maybe 5 to 8 points of "swing voters", barring some major catastrophe for either candidate that causes voters to wholly reconsider them.
This plays out in each of the states. At this point in the race, where many voters' perceptions are hardened, the demographic and partisan makeup of each state give them baseline numbers in comparison to a candidate's national polls. For instance, Pennsylvania seems to be about a +2 Obama state, such that when his national polls show him up 3 against McCain, PA is +5 or so for Obama. North Carolina, on the other hand, is maybe a +4 or 5 for McCain, so that when he's down 3, NC is still a +2. Most of the battleground states have base numbers that are within the 5-8 point "swing" I described above.
There are a couple other factors to keep in mind. The first is that a superior turn-out or get-out-the-vote ("GOTV") effort can be worth maybe 2-3 points for a candidate. From all evidence Obama's voter registration, early voting and GOTV efforts are going to be superior to McCain's in most blue and contested states. The second factor is that, for the first time, pollsters are finding a demonstrable partisan difference between voters who do not have a land-line telephone (and consequently are not polled by most organizations) and those who do, favoring Obama by a couple points. The third factor is the so-called Bradley effect, where voters over-report their intention to vote for a black candidate by some amount. I've read some credible research indicating that the Bradley effect is much diminished since 1996, and was not present in the Democratic primary voting this year.
So, keeping all of the above in mind, there's still a lot of possibility for national events, the debates, and the candidates' messages to drive the national polls in one direction or another, which will affect the state polls in accordance with each state's "base number." The base numbers themselves aren't entirely fixed- if either candidate was caught on tape saying the reason we needed to bail out the auto industry was because of the lazy American auto-workers, his base number would drop precipitously in Michigan. That said, with the polling numbers so close in many of the battleground states, it's quite possible for a superior gotv effort for either candidate to generate a 2-3 point bump which would put him over the top in closely contested states.
According to RCP, the electoral college has been locked up at Obama 273, McCain 265 for about a month. Although it seems like there have been fits and starts in the media regarding the two campaigns, it suggests to me that people's minds have essentially been made up. Do you see it that way, and if so, does that mean we're now in a full-on turnout battle?
There still seems like there's some movement in the national polls- as we've seen Obama shift from maybe down 1 or 2 to McCain during the latter's convention/Palin bump, to Obama up 3 or 4 points as voters' attention has turned toward the economy, Palin's had unsuccessful interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, etc. I think that indicates that we're probably looking at, nationally, maybe 5 to 8 points of "swing voters", barring some major catastrophe for either candidate that causes voters to wholly reconsider them.
This plays out in each of the states. At this point in the race, where many voters' perceptions are hardened, the demographic and partisan makeup of each state give them baseline numbers in comparison to a candidate's national polls. For instance, Pennsylvania seems to be about a +2 Obama state, such that when his national polls show him up 3 against McCain, PA is +5 or so for Obama. North Carolina, on the other hand, is maybe a +4 or 5 for McCain, so that when he's down 3, NC is still a +2. Most of the battleground states have base numbers that are within the 5-8 point "swing" I described above.
There are a couple other factors to keep in mind. The first is that a superior turn-out or get-out-the-vote ("GOTV") effort can be worth maybe 2-3 points for a candidate. From all evidence Obama's voter registration, early voting and GOTV efforts are going to be superior to McCain's in most blue and contested states. The second factor is that, for the first time, pollsters are finding a demonstrable partisan difference between voters who do not have a land-line telephone (and consequently are not polled by most organizations) and those who do, favoring Obama by a couple points. The third factor is the so-called Bradley effect, where voters over-report their intention to vote for a black candidate by some amount. I've read some credible research indicating that the Bradley effect is much diminished since 1996, and was not present in the Democratic primary voting this year.
So, keeping all of the above in mind, there's still a lot of possibility for national events, the debates, and the candidates' messages to drive the national polls in one direction or another, which will affect the state polls in accordance with each state's "base number." The base numbers themselves aren't entirely fixed- if either candidate was caught on tape saying the reason we needed to bail out the auto industry was because of the lazy American auto-workers, his base number would drop precipitously in Michigan. That said, with the polling numbers so close in many of the battleground states, it's quite possible for a superior gotv effort for either candidate to generate a 2-3 point bump which would put him over the top in closely contested states.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Theoretical Populist
Conservative blogger and author Ross Douthat, writing about Palin, snobbery and populism, nicely articulates some points that I've been toying with (and that could be equally applicable to "low-rent" Dems like Brian Schweitzer, John Tester, and ever Harry Truman):
[T]he line between an elitism that holds politicians to high standards and an "elitism of snobbery and style" can get blurry quickly. But that doesn't mean the line itself isn't worth drawing. It should be possible to believe that Palin's resume and background don't disqualify her from holding high office, that someone can be a fine President without prolonged exposure to life inside the Beltway, and that "elite experience" is not the only experience that's germane to governing the United States ... while simultaneously believing (as I do) that Palin's interviews to date haven't instilled confidence in her readiness to govern. The belief that populism has a place in American politics does not require a belief that every populist candidate should be uncritically supported; and the belief that one can acquire political wisdom outside Washington does not absolve an outsider candidate of the obligation to demonstrate that they have wisdom, as well as talking points, to fall back on.
Like Michael Gerson, I would rather be governed by a "backwoods, religious no-name" like William Jennings Bryan than by many of the sophisticates who baited him; like Ralph Peters, I think it's good for American democracy to throw up leaders whose life experience encompasses start-up churches and strip-mall suburbs, and who attended schools like the University of Idaho rather than the upper-crust institutions that have produced every President since Reagan. But supporting "Great Commoners" when they appear, and pining for them when they don't, doesn't mean that any candidate who happens to be a commoner and a conservative merits automatic support from right-wing pundits (which is more or less the subtext of a rant like this one, which takes a sledgehammer to "northeast corridor conservatives" for their Palin-skepticism), or that conservatives are hypocrites - and snobs who just don't want to admit to the designation - if they support the idea of candidates like Sarah Palin while remaining skeptical about Palin herself.
[T]he line between an elitism that holds politicians to high standards and an "elitism of snobbery and style" can get blurry quickly. But that doesn't mean the line itself isn't worth drawing. It should be possible to believe that Palin's resume and background don't disqualify her from holding high office, that someone can be a fine President without prolonged exposure to life inside the Beltway, and that "elite experience" is not the only experience that's germane to governing the United States ... while simultaneously believing (as I do) that Palin's interviews to date haven't instilled confidence in her readiness to govern. The belief that populism has a place in American politics does not require a belief that every populist candidate should be uncritically supported; and the belief that one can acquire political wisdom outside Washington does not absolve an outsider candidate of the obligation to demonstrate that they have wisdom, as well as talking points, to fall back on.
Like Michael Gerson, I would rather be governed by a "backwoods, religious no-name" like William Jennings Bryan than by many of the sophisticates who baited him; like Ralph Peters, I think it's good for American democracy to throw up leaders whose life experience encompasses start-up churches and strip-mall suburbs, and who attended schools like the University of Idaho rather than the upper-crust institutions that have produced every President since Reagan. But supporting "Great Commoners" when they appear, and pining for them when they don't, doesn't mean that any candidate who happens to be a commoner and a conservative merits automatic support from right-wing pundits (which is more or less the subtext of a rant like this one, which takes a sledgehammer to "northeast corridor conservatives" for their Palin-skepticism), or that conservatives are hypocrites - and snobs who just don't want to admit to the designation - if they support the idea of candidates like Sarah Palin while remaining skeptical about Palin herself.
Bipartisanship needed
The Times reports on the anger brewing among voters unhappy with the bailout:
At the same time, the lawmakers were under siege from angry constituents who had kept current with their own mortgage payments and now wondered why they were suddenly being stuck with the tab for a crisis set off by foreclosures.
“Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook,” Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, told the two architects of the bailout — Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke — at the banking committee session. “The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative. I count myself among the Ohioans who are angry.”
Even backers of the bailout were hardly enthusiastic. “Nobody wants to do this; nobody wants to be involved in this,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. “But I am going to argue that if we do nothing, we are jeopardizing our economy, jobs, people’s retirement security. Congress has to act and we have to act quickly.”
Given the circumstances and dire warnings of economic doom, the expectation remained that enough lawmakers would grit their teeth, hold their noses, screw up their courage and back some variation of the administration plan, a proposal Mr. Cheney privately told Republicans was a response to the worst economic situation he had seen.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, said he expected that Congress would do the responsible thing and do it soon — though just how soon remained unclear. “Acting in the near term is important to stabilize the economy and to protect our taxpayers,” Mr. Hoyer said.
There is no way that the Democrats are going to go through with this bill if it winds up being a party-line vote. With just five weeks before an election, bi-partisan cover is going to be necessary to protect lawmakers in contested seats from the wrath of a public that is more attuned to the costs and the wrong-doing on Wall Street than it is to the highly complicated, but potentially catastrophic, consequences of inaction. Nobody likes the idea of handing out cash to Wall Street, but responsible leaders like Dodd, Frank and Boehner know that doing nothing is not an acceptable option when the possible consequences include a return to the Great Depression.
At the same time, the lawmakers were under siege from angry constituents who had kept current with their own mortgage payments and now wondered why they were suddenly being stuck with the tab for a crisis set off by foreclosures.
“Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook,” Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, told the two architects of the bailout — Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke — at the banking committee session. “The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative. I count myself among the Ohioans who are angry.”
Even backers of the bailout were hardly enthusiastic. “Nobody wants to do this; nobody wants to be involved in this,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. “But I am going to argue that if we do nothing, we are jeopardizing our economy, jobs, people’s retirement security. Congress has to act and we have to act quickly.”
Given the circumstances and dire warnings of economic doom, the expectation remained that enough lawmakers would grit their teeth, hold their noses, screw up their courage and back some variation of the administration plan, a proposal Mr. Cheney privately told Republicans was a response to the worst economic situation he had seen.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, said he expected that Congress would do the responsible thing and do it soon — though just how soon remained unclear. “Acting in the near term is important to stabilize the economy and to protect our taxpayers,” Mr. Hoyer said.
There is no way that the Democrats are going to go through with this bill if it winds up being a party-line vote. With just five weeks before an election, bi-partisan cover is going to be necessary to protect lawmakers in contested seats from the wrath of a public that is more attuned to the costs and the wrong-doing on Wall Street than it is to the highly complicated, but potentially catastrophic, consequences of inaction. Nobody likes the idea of handing out cash to Wall Street, but responsible leaders like Dodd, Frank and Boehner know that doing nothing is not an acceptable option when the possible consequences include a return to the Great Depression.
This is not helpful
Sherrod Brown, Democratic Senator from Ohio, during a meeting with Paulson:
And Mr. Brown, the senator from Ohio, demanded to know whether Wall Street owed Main Street an apology.
The economic experts seemed uncertain who would issue that apology, given that Wall Street, in the words of Mr. Bernanke, is an abstraction. But Mr. Paulson conceded the public had a right to be mad.
And Mr. Brown, the senator from Ohio, demanded to know whether Wall Street owed Main Street an apology.
The economic experts seemed uncertain who would issue that apology, given that Wall Street, in the words of Mr. Bernanke, is an abstraction. But Mr. Paulson conceded the public had a right to be mad.
McCain hasn't read the 3 page bailout proposal
Despite suspending his campaign, John McCain apparently hasn't had time to read the 3 page bailout proposal issued by Paulson last Friday. Maybe it was only available online...
Time Out
It seems to me that a number of presidential campaigns have taken place during perilous times without the candidates having to "suspend their campaigns."
In September 1864, Sherman had just captured Atlanta and was marching to the sea, but McClellan and Lincoln were duking it out.
In September 1940, the German Blitz against London began, the Axis alliance was cemented, and the U.S. instituted a national draft... but FDR and Wendell Willkie didn't suspend their campaigns.
In September 1944, the allies took 15,000 casualties as Operation Market Garden (the airborne assault on the Netherlands) went awry, but neither FDR nor Thomas Dewey took a timeout.
In September 1864, Sherman had just captured Atlanta and was marching to the sea, but McClellan and Lincoln were duking it out.
In September 1940, the German Blitz against London began, the Axis alliance was cemented, and the U.S. instituted a national draft... but FDR and Wendell Willkie didn't suspend their campaigns.
In September 1944, the allies took 15,000 casualties as Operation Market Garden (the airborne assault on the Netherlands) went awry, but neither FDR nor Thomas Dewey took a timeout.
Damage Control?
A number of folks have asked whether McCain's stunt yesterday was actually an attempt at damage control- to 1.) pull the attention off of the disastrous interview Palin gave with Katie Couric and 2.) to try to push the debate schedule so as to cancel the VP debate alltogether.
I definintely think Palin's Couric interview (clip posted below) was by far worse than her Charlie Gibson interview. Gibson got her with one gotcha question which, while I think she should have known what the Bush Doctrine was, apparently didn't shock the mass of voters who also didn't know what it was. The Couric interview was different- Palin stumbled about McCain's own record, and demonstrated total ignorance about the mortgage crisis- much more damaging than not knowing the name of Bush's policy. After watching it I can definitely see how they would not want her off the teleprompter next week.
If that was the goal, I think it was to some degree misguided- Bush's national address was already going to suck up media air last night, even without McCain's stunt. I also think there's no way that the public is going to let this race happen without a VP debate- and will punish anyone who who tries to deny them.
I definintely think Palin's Couric interview (clip posted below) was by far worse than her Charlie Gibson interview. Gibson got her with one gotcha question which, while I think she should have known what the Bush Doctrine was, apparently didn't shock the mass of voters who also didn't know what it was. The Couric interview was different- Palin stumbled about McCain's own record, and demonstrated total ignorance about the mortgage crisis- much more damaging than not knowing the name of Bush's policy. After watching it I can definitely see how they would not want her off the teleprompter next week.
If that was the goal, I think it was to some degree misguided- Bush's national address was already going to suck up media air last night, even without McCain's stunt. I also think there's no way that the public is going to let this race happen without a VP debate- and will punish anyone who who tries to deny them.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Bush's statement
Setting aside my deep antipathy for the President, I actually think he did a pretty good job in his address to the nation tonight. He clearly explained the origins of the crisis in a non-partisan way. He made it clear that he understood the problems that Americans have with the bailout- using our taxes to help out rich guys on Wall Street, noted that he didn't like it either, but explained the importance of the bailout to the overall economy. He also reminded people that their savings accounts and CDs are all protected, so there's no need for folks to yank their savings out and put it under the mattress.
I'm not sure that, once the teleprompter was turned off, he would have been able to say anything about the words he'd just read, but I think it will be pretty effective getting voter support behind the compromise plan working its way through, and also preventing any kind of run on banks.
Palin's pitiful interview with Katie Couric
Palin delivers a pitiful performance in her interview with Katie Couric
High points:
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
High points:
-Not understanding that Rick Davis' recusal from lobbying efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac doesn't mean that Davis didn't benefit when his firm, Davis Manafort, was paid by Freddie.
-Not understanding that proposed changes to bankruptcy procedures to allow homeowners to extend and refinance their mortgages aren't going to benefit predatory lenders (who could readily let homeowners refinance under the current regime if it was something that would be profitable for them)
-When asked about specific instances of McCain reforming the finance industry:
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.
Public Response to suspending campaigns
Survey USA is out with a poll conducted this afternoon among 1,000 registered voters:
Should the campaigns by suspended?
14% yes
31% continue the campaigns
48% continue campaigns, but focus on the economy
Should the debate on Friday be postponed or held as scheduled?
50% hold as scheduled
36% hold but focus on the economy
10% postpone it
If the debate were postponed, would that be good or bad for America?
46% bad for America
14% good for America
Obama's response
“It’s my belief that this is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible with dealing with this mess," he says."What I think is important is that we don’t suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics," he said.
"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," he says. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else."
Apparently Harry Reid also called McCain to let him know that by showing up for an "I'm doing something" photo-op, he wouldn't be helping.
We live in a world where one doesn't need to be physically present in order to be informed about what's going on in DC and to influence that debate. McCain hasn't cast a roll-call vote in 5 months, and Obama hasn't cast one in 2 months... and both have been pretty much campaigning full-time for well over a year but have still been very much able to influence policy and legislation.
On the political side- I think this is still perhaps a risky move for Obama, although he's greatly helped by having been the first to initiate the idea of a bi-partisan statement (via an 8:30 call this morning to the McCain campaign). The "country-first" narrative has been strong for McCain, and a lot will depend on who can better handle the media. If Obama can sell this as a political stunt, and indicate that it was basically his idea first, then I think he can pull it off.
"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," he says. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else."
Apparently Harry Reid also called McCain to let him know that by showing up for an "I'm doing something" photo-op, he wouldn't be helping.
We live in a world where one doesn't need to be physically present in order to be informed about what's going on in DC and to influence that debate. McCain hasn't cast a roll-call vote in 5 months, and Obama hasn't cast one in 2 months... and both have been pretty much campaigning full-time for well over a year but have still been very much able to influence policy and legislation.
On the political side- I think this is still perhaps a risky move for Obama, although he's greatly helped by having been the first to initiate the idea of a bi-partisan statement (via an 8:30 call this morning to the McCain campaign). The "country-first" narrative has been strong for McCain, and a lot will depend on who can better handle the media. If Obama can sell this as a political stunt, and indicate that it was basically his idea first, then I think he can pull it off.
McCain suspends campaign to "work on the economy"
From McCain's statements today-
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
I'm not sure exactly what the McCain folks are up to with this choice. Neither Obama nor McCain is on the Finance or Banking committees- so neither of them is directly involved with the bailout. Also, both have staff on the Hill (who in any event would be doing most of the work) keeping tabs on what's going on and advancing the candidates' positions. There are also 533 other members of Congress already working on the bailout, so it's hard to imagine how having McCain and Obama there actually helps anything.
From a political perspective, I think it's a mixed bag. I don't see how Obama avoids agreeing to this... McCain could beat him over the head with "I'd rather lose an election than crash the economy" for the rest of the race, and more importantly would be seen as "doing something" about the crisis while Obama "played politics" even if McCain's contributions were negligible.
On the plus side for Obama, I'm not sure how putting the race in stasis for some amount of time benefits McCain. With only 5 weeks left, and Obama reasserting a lead in national and battleground polls, McCain needs every opportunity, particularly the debates, to change the direction of the race. If McCain were ahead, I'd say this was a genius move... at almost 4 points behind in the RCP average, maybe not so much.
Now maybe this move is the very game-changer that McCain is looking for- heightening his "selflessness" and "service" and trying to bring up his poll numbers on handling the economy. A lot depends on what Obama does, and whether the media decides this is a cynical ploy. On that end, it would have worked a lot better if McCain hadn't completely blown his credibility with the press.
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
I'm not sure exactly what the McCain folks are up to with this choice. Neither Obama nor McCain is on the Finance or Banking committees- so neither of them is directly involved with the bailout. Also, both have staff on the Hill (who in any event would be doing most of the work) keeping tabs on what's going on and advancing the candidates' positions. There are also 533 other members of Congress already working on the bailout, so it's hard to imagine how having McCain and Obama there actually helps anything.
From a political perspective, I think it's a mixed bag. I don't see how Obama avoids agreeing to this... McCain could beat him over the head with "I'd rather lose an election than crash the economy" for the rest of the race, and more importantly would be seen as "doing something" about the crisis while Obama "played politics" even if McCain's contributions were negligible.
On the plus side for Obama, I'm not sure how putting the race in stasis for some amount of time benefits McCain. With only 5 weeks left, and Obama reasserting a lead in national and battleground polls, McCain needs every opportunity, particularly the debates, to change the direction of the race. If McCain were ahead, I'd say this was a genius move... at almost 4 points behind in the RCP average, maybe not so much.
Now maybe this move is the very game-changer that McCain is looking for- heightening his "selflessness" and "service" and trying to bring up his poll numbers on handling the economy. A lot depends on what Obama does, and whether the media decides this is a cynical ploy. On that end, it would have worked a lot better if McCain hadn't completely blown his credibility with the press.
Bankruptcy Changes
A friend of mine has an interesting idea to deal with the potential flaws in the proposals to change bankruptcy rules for homeowners- allow the rule change (which would let bankruptcy judges restructure mortgages to give struggling homeowners more time to pay off their loans, with lower monthly payments), but apply it only to non-standard, subprime mortgages.
In effect, my friend's idea would create a safe harbor for lenders where the new bankruptcy provisions wouldn't apply, as long as those lenders act responsibly by requiring a 10% down payment, a 15 or 30 year fixed mortgage, insurance, etc.
This would probably do a lot to limit the costs of the rule changes on potential future borrowers by allowing lenders to limit their risk (and thus offer lower interest rates) to folks willing to go for a standard mortgage.
In effect, my friend's idea would create a safe harbor for lenders where the new bankruptcy provisions wouldn't apply, as long as those lenders act responsibly by requiring a 10% down payment, a 15 or 30 year fixed mortgage, insurance, etc.
This would probably do a lot to limit the costs of the rule changes on potential future borrowers by allowing lenders to limit their risk (and thus offer lower interest rates) to folks willing to go for a standard mortgage.
Davis paid by Freddie Mac through last month
The Times is reporting that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15k per month by Freddie Mac from the end of 2005 through last month. This contradicts a statement by Davis that he hadn't had a relationship with Freddie for two years.
If the McCain folks had any shame, this should stop them from running those Frank Raines ads tying Obama to Fannie Mae (where the connection is much more tangential)... I'm not holding my breath.
If the McCain folks had any shame, this should stop them from running those Frank Raines ads tying Obama to Fannie Mae (where the connection is much more tangential)... I'm not holding my breath.
McCain lawyer practicing law illegally
It looks like McCain lawyer Ed O'Callaghan, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, may be practicing law illegally in Alaska. According to Newsweek, O'Callaghan is serving as legal “consultants” to Thomas Van Flein, the Anchorage lawyer who at state expense is representing Palin and her office in the inquiry. “We are advising Thomas Van Flein on this matter to the extent that it impacts on the national campaign,” he said. “I’m helping out on legal strategy.” A McCain spokesman said Wednesday that, while Van Flein was originally hired last month by the Alaska Department of Law to represent Palin and her office, that arrangement has been changed over the past week and he is now being paid only by Palin and her husband - not state funds. He has not billed the state for his work, the spokesman said.
The problem is, pursuant to Alaska Statute 8.08.230, a person who is not a member of the Alaska Bar who while physically present inAlaska “engages in the practice of law” is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. And in Alaska the “practice of law” includes “rendering legal consultation or advice”.
I'm not sure if O'Callaghan may have gotten himself admitted pro hac vice, but I don't know if that's possible for legal advice rendered outside the context of a litigation.
More from the people who brought you Mike Brown and Harriet Miers
Talis Coberg, the Alaska Attorney General who was appointed by Sarah Palin, is (unsurprisingly) wildly unqualified for his job. Before being appointed Attorney General, he was a solo practicioner of workers comp law in Palmer, Alaska, a town of under 7,000 residents.
According to an Alaskan journalist-
When news of his nomination reached Anchorage, to the man and woman, I and every other lawyer of my acquaintance said, “Talis who?” No one, and I mean no one (other than the few attorneys who practice in Wasilla), had ever heard of the fellow.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sigh
The Times covers Palin's whirlwind attempt to find some foreign policy credentials:
When Gov. Sarah Palin sat down with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Tuesday afternoon, the polite preliminaries to their conversation centered around children, as Mr. Karzai spoke of the birth of his first child last year.
“What is his name?” Ms. Palin was heard to ask, as she met with Mr. Karzai in the suite of a midtown hotel, according to a pool report.
“Mirwais,” Mr. Karzai replied. “Mirwais, which means, ‘The Light of the House.’”
The Press Bites Back
After being denied access and fed a steady diet of nonsense by the McCain/Palin campaign, the press has decided to snark back:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.
And on CNN-
"Ticker: Press gets Palin access for 29 seconds."
(Via TNR)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.
And on CNN-
"Ticker: Press gets Palin access for 29 seconds."
(Via TNR)
Alaskans push back against McCain Meddling
Via ADN-
Senate President Lyda Green is pursuing options that might allow the state Senate to convene and deal with Troopergate.
Calling herself a "raging Republican," Green says, she is "absolutely disgusted, embarrassed, and ashamed" by the McCain-Palin campaign's intervention in the Troopergate probe.
Green is alarmed by the McCain squad's use of hardball tactics and "the length to which they're going to impede and delay" the investigation. The local press conferences held by McCain-Palin aides, she adds, "are vile. They're attacking nice people, saying things that are not true. Walt Monegan has been respected in all circles. To see him used as a scapegoat is very disheartening."
Green said she is making calls and exploring whether she could call the Senate back into session to either instruct the attorney general to change his position, or to order those subpoenaed under the Legislative investigation to honor that call. Whether the Republican-controlled House would go along is another question.
Senate President Lyda Green is pursuing options that might allow the state Senate to convene and deal with Troopergate.
Calling herself a "raging Republican," Green says, she is "absolutely disgusted, embarrassed, and ashamed" by the McCain-Palin campaign's intervention in the Troopergate probe.
Green is alarmed by the McCain squad's use of hardball tactics and "the length to which they're going to impede and delay" the investigation. The local press conferences held by McCain-Palin aides, she adds, "are vile. They're attacking nice people, saying things that are not true. Walt Monegan has been respected in all circles. To see him used as a scapegoat is very disheartening."
Green said she is making calls and exploring whether she could call the Senate back into session to either instruct the attorney general to change his position, or to order those subpoenaed under the Legislative investigation to honor that call. Whether the Republican-controlled House would go along is another question.
Taibbi on Palin
The ever-infuriated Matt Taibbi rips into Palin in the latest Rolling Stone:
The great insight of the Palin VP choice is that huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflective prejudices of their demographic, as they would for a reality-show contestants or sitcom characters. Hicks root for hicks, moms for moms, born-agains for born-agains. Sure, there was politics in the Palin speech but it was all either silly lies or merely incidental fluffery buttressing the theatrical performance. A classic example of what was at work here came when Palin proudly introduced her Down-Syndrome baby, Trig, then stared into the camera and somberly promised parents of special-needs kids that they would “Have a friend and advocate in the White House.” This was about a half-hour before she raised her hands in triumph with McCain, a man who voted against increasing funding for special-needs education.
The great insight of the Palin VP choice is that huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflective prejudices of their demographic, as they would for a reality-show contestants or sitcom characters. Hicks root for hicks, moms for moms, born-agains for born-agains. Sure, there was politics in the Palin speech but it was all either silly lies or merely incidental fluffery buttressing the theatrical performance. A classic example of what was at work here came when Palin proudly introduced her Down-Syndrome baby, Trig, then stared into the camera and somberly promised parents of special-needs kids that they would “Have a friend and advocate in the White House.” This was about a half-hour before she raised her hands in triumph with McCain, a man who voted against increasing funding for special-needs education.
More on the bailout
It seems like one of the rallying cries of the bailout, on both sides of the aisle, is that "stockholders and bondholders should lose everything." I understand the idea that sophisticated investors, and particularly the directors and officers of bailed-out companies, should take a major hit if the public is going to be cleaning up after their mistakes. I have to wonder, though, if that doesn't wind leaving some innocent folks holding the bag. I'm talking about the lower-level employees of the bailed-out companies, the ones who weren't involved in the screw-ups, yet still received much of their compensation in stock- much of which is so restricted that it's hard for these folks to diversify their savings. I realize that these folks' problems are a ways down the line of priority here, but to the extent the bailout deal involves punitive measures to ease the moral hazard problem, we should keep in mind that there are going to be a lot of secretaries, analysts and others who are going to get hit as well.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Bailout Negotiations
Fortunately it looks like the Democratic leadership in Congress (particularly Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) are showing some much-needed backbone in standing up to the administration and demanding that the bailout not turn into a handout to Wall Street.
The Senate Democrats’ proposals includes two bold provisions. One would grant the Treasury "contingent shares" of stock in any financial institution that wants to sell bad debt to the government; the other would grant bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, a step aimed at helping homeowners at risk of foreclosure.
The bankruptcy provision is staunchly opposed by the banking, lending and securities industries and by many Republicans in Congress, but Democrats insist that it is one of the few mechanisms to provide direct assistance to homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis.
The contingent shares would give taxpayers an equity stake in companies seeking help through the rescue program, potentially allowing the government not only to recoup however much of the $700 billion it spends on bad debt, but also to profit should the financial firms prosper in years ahead. The legislation would require the value of the contingent shares to equal the value of the assets purchased by the government.
I'm glad the Dems are forcing Paulson and co. to get some equity in the companies whose distressed assets we're looking at coughing up $700 billion to acquire. Given that the Federal Government doesn't run into liquidity crises, we should ideally be able to hold onto the equity until the companies are healthy again, and then at least have the chance to break even.
I'm less encouraged by the proposed changes to the bankruptcy law that would force lenders to allow delinquent homeowners to refinance. While these changes would allow some homeowners to keep houses they otherwise couldn't afford, it will make lending more risky, and thus more costly for future borrowers. This will basically mean that people who have been financially prudent and have waited on purchasing a home will face higher costs in order to save the financially foolish. I can imagine this playing less well with the voters than Democrats may think... my guess is there are a lot fewer people facing foreclosure than there are people who want to take out a loan at some point in the future.
Bailout ctd.
From the Times:
To the Editor:
Dear Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson:
My student loans are too big and it is hurting the economy. Can I have a bailout, please? I need $92,000.
Thanks.
Nathan Kottke
St. Paul,
Sept.17, 2008
To the Editor:
Dear Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson:
My student loans are too big and it is hurting the economy. Can I have a bailout, please? I need $92,000.
Thanks.
Nathan Kottke
St. Paul,
Sept.17, 2008
Leverage
Fivethirtyeight posts on the effects of knocking on doors-
In a Yale study by Donald Green and Alan Gerber on the effects of doorknocking in local elections, they concluded that a conservative estimate was that "12 successful face-to-face contacts translated into one additional vote."
Face-to-face contact is the single most important effort a volunteer can contribute to his or her candidate.Let's do a little math. 12 face-to-face contacts is one new voter who would not have otherwise voted that you personally generated. You just doubled your own vote by speaking at the door to twelve voters. Of course, then it comes down to contact rate -- how often is the person home that you're trying to reach. A very low contact rate is probably 10%, and that happens. A very high contact rate can be 50%. Average is in the 25% ballpark. On average, you'd have to knock on 48 doors to generate 12 face-to-face contacts and one additional vote. 48 doors is a pretty standard, approximate walk list.
So if you go out one four-hour walk shift every weekend between now and the election, you've generated -- on average -- six extra votes from people who would not otherwise have voted for your candidate.
Six more weekends until the election means that politically-involved individuals doing one walk-list per weekend could leverage their one vote up to 36. That's the way that people who are paying attention can beat the low-information voters.
In a Yale study by Donald Green and Alan Gerber on the effects of doorknocking in local elections, they concluded that a conservative estimate was that "12 successful face-to-face contacts translated into one additional vote."
Face-to-face contact is the single most important effort a volunteer can contribute to his or her candidate.Let's do a little math. 12 face-to-face contacts is one new voter who would not have otherwise voted that you personally generated. You just doubled your own vote by speaking at the door to twelve voters. Of course, then it comes down to contact rate -- how often is the person home that you're trying to reach. A very low contact rate is probably 10%, and that happens. A very high contact rate can be 50%. Average is in the 25% ballpark. On average, you'd have to knock on 48 doors to generate 12 face-to-face contacts and one additional vote. 48 doors is a pretty standard, approximate walk list.
So if you go out one four-hour walk shift every weekend between now and the election, you've generated -- on average -- six extra votes from people who would not otherwise have voted for your candidate.
Six more weekends until the election means that politically-involved individuals doing one walk-list per weekend could leverage their one vote up to 36. That's the way that people who are paying attention can beat the low-information voters.
Bailout
The Washington Post surveys voters in VA about their thoughts on the bailout, and finds many of them resent the idea of having their tax dollars go to bail out either Wall Street or their neighbors who bought homes recklessly-
"I'm not overextended," Merkle said. "I didn't buy a large home that I can't afford. I'm not behind on any of my payments. I'm not sure I want the government to take my tax dollars and buy someone else's house for them."
Given sentiments like this, I'm not sure how wise it is for Obama or Dems in general to push for a "bail out the homeowners" provision...
"I'm not overextended," Merkle said. "I didn't buy a large home that I can't afford. I'm not behind on any of my payments. I'm not sure I want the government to take my tax dollars and buy someone else's house for them."
Given sentiments like this, I'm not sure how wise it is for Obama or Dems in general to push for a "bail out the homeowners" provision...
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Football Buddy
A newly released AP/Yahoo poll gives Obama a slight advantage over McCain (50-47) as to with which candidate voters would rather watch a football game. I think this brings up one of Obama's strengths- his familiarity and knowledge of sports- which was on display in the primaries but hasn't been used as much during the general election.
During the primaries, Obama frequently called in to sports talk radio shows, chatted with the hosts, and made brief pitches about his candidacy. You actually have to know what you're talking about to make this work- it's pretty easy to get national attention as a John Kerry duck-hunting phony if you think Favre is still on the Packers when you call into a Green Bay station. The demographic that listens to a lot of sports-talk radio is largely working class and male- the very people who Obama needs to shore up (and also often the 'low-information voters' who side with a candidate based on personality).
During the primaries, Obama frequently called in to sports talk radio shows, chatted with the hosts, and made brief pitches about his candidacy. You actually have to know what you're talking about to make this work- it's pretty easy to get national attention as a John Kerry duck-hunting phony if you think Favre is still on the Packers when you call into a Green Bay station. The demographic that listens to a lot of sports-talk radio is largely working class and male- the very people who Obama needs to shore up (and also often the 'low-information voters' who side with a candidate based on personality).
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Bradley Effect
Many Dems and Obama supporters are worried that Obama will succumb to the "Bradley Effect," named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California Governor's race despite being ahead in the polls at the time of the election. The Bradley Effect occurs when white voters tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate, then either don't vote or vote for the opposing (presumably white) candidate when they get to the voting booth.
I'm skeptical that the Bradley effect will come much into play in this election. This isn't 1982, and furthermore people who don't want to vote for Obama because of his race have been using the cover of inexperience or his supposed Muslim background, so there's no need to lie to a pollster.
A couple recent studies have found no evidence of the Bradley effect in the primaries- Nate Silver, whose in-depth polling analysis at fivethirtyeight.com has been a revelation this campaign cycle found no evidence in the primaries and recently shot down a Republican pollster's attempt at showing Bradley effect, as well as Daniel Hopkins at the Kennedy School of Govt. who has found that the Bradley Effect has receded significantly as a political force since the 1996 welfare reform substantially deracinated national politics.
I'm skeptical that the Bradley effect will come much into play in this election. This isn't 1982, and furthermore people who don't want to vote for Obama because of his race have been using the cover of inexperience or his supposed Muslim background, so there's no need to lie to a pollster.
A couple recent studies have found no evidence of the Bradley effect in the primaries- Nate Silver, whose in-depth polling analysis at fivethirtyeight.com has been a revelation this campaign cycle found no evidence in the primaries and recently shot down a Republican pollster's attempt at showing Bradley effect, as well as Daniel Hopkins at the Kennedy School of Govt. who has found that the Bradley Effect has receded significantly as a political force since the 1996 welfare reform substantially deracinated national politics.
Breaking through the Static
A new ad by Defenders of Wildlife (who I believe typically use their money to send me an endless stream of address labels in the mail) is doing a better job than any of the ads put out by either campaign at actually changing voters minds- giving Obama/Biden a 6 point bump among tested viewers. The ad, which uses fairly graphic footage, targets Palin for promoting aerial wolf-hunting and offering a $150 bounty for sawed-off wolf forelegs.
WSJ Sharply Critical of McCain
The Opinion Page of the Journal today took McCain to task for criticisms of SEC Chair Chris Cox it labeled "false," "deeply unfair," and "un-Presidential." The article goes on to exorciate McCain's statements on naked shorting, the uptick rule, and his attacks on short-sellers and speculators.
In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.
In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Patriotic Taxes
Biden stands his ground during an interview with Katie Couric, after Palin swipes him for suggesting that it's a patriotic duty for folks making over $250k a year to pay more in taxes:
Katie: "Your vice presidential rival, Governor Palin, said "To the rest of America, that's not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse."
Biden: "How many small businessmen are making one million, four hundred thousand--average in the top 1 percent. Give me a break. I remind my friend, John McCain, what he said--when Bush called for war and tax cuts--he said, it was immoral, immoral, to take a nation to war and not have anybody pay for it. I am so sick and tired of this phoniness. The truth of the matter is that we are in trouble. And the people who do not need a new tax cut should be willing, as patriotic Americans, to understand the way to get this economy back up on their feet is to give middle class taxpayers a break. We take the tax cut they're getting and we give it to the middle class."
TPR linked to a cartoon short from WWII on the patriotism of taxpayers- absolutely worth watching for the message as well as the amazing art direction in the second half:
Imagine if the Bush administration had made a pitch like that after September 11th- that we were all in it together, and were going to all pitch in to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... instead of suggesting that our patriotic duty was to go shopping.
Katie: "Your vice presidential rival, Governor Palin, said "To the rest of America, that's not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse."
Biden: "How many small businessmen are making one million, four hundred thousand--average in the top 1 percent. Give me a break. I remind my friend, John McCain, what he said--when Bush called for war and tax cuts--he said, it was immoral, immoral, to take a nation to war and not have anybody pay for it. I am so sick and tired of this phoniness. The truth of the matter is that we are in trouble. And the people who do not need a new tax cut should be willing, as patriotic Americans, to understand the way to get this economy back up on their feet is to give middle class taxpayers a break. We take the tax cut they're getting and we give it to the middle class."
TPR linked to a cartoon short from WWII on the patriotism of taxpayers- absolutely worth watching for the message as well as the amazing art direction in the second half:
Imagine if the Bush administration had made a pitch like that after September 11th- that we were all in it together, and were going to all pitch in to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... instead of suggesting that our patriotic duty was to go shopping.
Polling News
The National Journal just released really interesting polling information for VA, OH, CO, NM and FL, broken down by race and party affiliation. The toplines show McCain ahead in VA, Obama ahead in MN, and the other three dead even. McCain leads generally among white voteers, but Obama has near unanimous votes from blacks and hispanics, except for in FL where he narrowly leads McCain (which, given the historically Republican Cuban community in South Florida is quite an accomplishment).
By party identification, McCain leads among independents commandingly in OH and VA, and narrowly in CO, indies are tied in CO, and Obama leads among them in NM. The really interesting news in the poll, which I find pretty heartening, is that in Colorado, Florida and New Mexico, Obama is doing substantially better (+6 or more) among Republicans than McCain is doing among Dems (although McCain's has the other-party advantage in OH and VA).
By party identification, McCain leads among independents commandingly in OH and VA, and narrowly in CO, indies are tied in CO, and Obama leads among them in NM. The really interesting news in the poll, which I find pretty heartening, is that in Colorado, Florida and New Mexico, Obama is doing substantially better (+6 or more) among Republicans than McCain is doing among Dems (although McCain's has the other-party advantage in OH and VA).
Tip of the Hat
Brad Pitt yesterday donated $100,000 to the campaign to fight Proposition 8, the California referendum that would overturn the California court decision legalizing gay marriage. As we focus on the national election it's important to remember that there's an ongoing push by cultural conservatives in our nation's most populous state to rescind a fundamental right which has at long last been granted to gays and lesbians. Not only would the proposed law ban gay marriage again, but it would annul thousands of marriages that have already taken place. Very "pro-family."
Right now the proposition (to ban gay marriage) is polling at 34% for, and 55% against, which looks really good, and the pro-Obama turnout should help.
Right now the proposition (to ban gay marriage) is polling at 34% for, and 55% against, which looks really good, and the pro-Obama turnout should help.
The Brain of McCain Fails Mainly on Spain
Yesterday John McCain was interviewed on the Florida affiliate of Spanish radio network Union Radio. And in the interview McCain appeared not to know who the Prime Minister of Spain was and assumed he was some anti-American leftist leader from South America.
After the interviewer presses him a couple times on the point and tries to focus him on the fact that Prime Minister Zapatero isn't from Mexico and isn't a drug lord either McCain comes back at her saying, "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the Hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
Then there's a moment of awkward pause before she says. "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."
McCain: "What about me, what?
Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"
McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."
At this point, the interviewer gets tongue-tied presumably because she can't get over McCain not knowing what Spain is.
(TPM)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
And I thougth Bobby Jindal's Exorcism was weird...
Apparently Palin credits her success in the race for Alaska governor to Pastor Thomas Muthee, a Kenyan "Witch Hunter," whose previous exploits are documented here:
According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a “divination” centre called the Emmanuel Clinic.
Her alleged involvement in fortune-telling and the fact that she lived near the site of a number of fatal car accidents led Pastor Muthee to publicly declare her a witch responsible for the town’s ills, and order her to offer her up her soul for salvation or leave Kiambu.
Says the Monitor, “Muthee held a crusade that “brought about 200 people to Christ”.” They set up round-the-clock prayer intercession in the basement of a grocery store and eventually, says the pastor “the demonic influence – the ‘principality’ over Kiambu –was broken”, and Mama Jane fled the town.
According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as Prayer Links Ministries, after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon.
After Mama Jane was questioned by police – and released – she decided it was time to leave town, the account says.
Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”. In October 2005, he delivered ten sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the audio of which was available on the church’s website until it was removed around the time Mrs Palin’s candidacy was announced. The blog Irregular Times has listings and screen grabs of the sermons.
It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a “divination” centre called the Emmanuel Clinic.
Her alleged involvement in fortune-telling and the fact that she lived near the site of a number of fatal car accidents led Pastor Muthee to publicly declare her a witch responsible for the town’s ills, and order her to offer her up her soul for salvation or leave Kiambu.
Says the Monitor, “Muthee held a crusade that “brought about 200 people to Christ”.” They set up round-the-clock prayer intercession in the basement of a grocery store and eventually, says the pastor “the demonic influence – the ‘principality’ over Kiambu –was broken”, and Mama Jane fled the town.
According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as Prayer Links Ministries, after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon.
After Mama Jane was questioned by police – and released – she decided it was time to leave town, the account says.
Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”. In October 2005, he delivered ten sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the audio of which was available on the church’s website until it was removed around the time Mrs Palin’s candidacy was announced. The blog Irregular Times has listings and screen grabs of the sermons.
It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”.
Palin's first press question
When asked about the AIG bailout, Palin's answer was:
“Dissapointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one,” she said. “Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they’re holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one.”
Along with the answer being utterly incoherent... I'm not aware that AIG held any significant amount of construction bonds (at least construction bonds aren't the problem- it's their credit default swaps). Also the bailout was handled by Hank Paulson of the Treasury Department and Ben Bernanke of the Fed (not "Feds"- if you want to be second in command of the Federal Government you need to know what things are called).
“Dissapointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one,” she said. “Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they’re holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one.”
Along with the answer being utterly incoherent... I'm not aware that AIG held any significant amount of construction bonds (at least construction bonds aren't the problem- it's their credit default swaps). Also the bailout was handled by Hank Paulson of the Treasury Department and Ben Bernanke of the Fed (not "Feds"- if you want to be second in command of the Federal Government you need to know what things are called).
Faith
Douglas Kmiec, a former Reagan official who has endoresed Obama, writes very movingly about the night he was denied communion because of his endorsement:
These men of faith were generous of heart, conduits of the Holy Spirit and always inclusive. Taking time to talk, to encourage, to share happiness and to comfort sadness. Most of all, supplying the gifts of faith, hope and love. A faith that carries us through this life in exile we don't always fully understand or appreciate. A hope for a destination that in all of its unknown quality one knows is a sublime contentment and peace freed of this world's anxieties. A love that didn't depend upon status, intelligence, or even how much we were able to put in the collection basket. We were accepted as we were--flaws and all.
Until that evening, when all was revoked.
Suddenly the life-long chain of liturgy was broken into pieces. The priest--the priest who had just joined with us in the prayer of the Rosary was now red-faced shouting. I thought. Talking about me. I had cooperated with evil. I had? I had killed babies? My heart was black. I was giving scandal to the entire church. I had once been a leader but now I forfeited any semblance of respectability or leadership. The good father grasped tightly the edges of the ambo, the unusual name given to the lectern in the Catholic Church. No faithful Catholic would ever contemplate doing what I had done. I was dead to the Holy Mother Church.
My wife held my hand tightly. We looked at each other in disbelief. Here was someone in the vestments of the priesthood who had called us to have our prayers be heard, who recited the Kyrie with us, asking the Lord's mercy upon us, now seemingly merciless, telling me and the many there assembled that I was unworthy. I was to be publicly shunned and humiliated. My offense? Endorsing Senator Barak Obama for President of the United States.
The irony of ironies was that my motivation for the endorsement was entirely Catholic. No, Obama doesn't share the Catholic faith, but he certainly campaigns like he does. As reflected in his book, the Senator is focused on the human person, on the common good, on the social justice of economic arrangement. All is so very Catholic.
It was time for Communion. Notwithstanding the indictment of the homily, I did not think of myself as unworthy of receipt of the sacrament--at least no more so then pre-Obama endorsement. Communion in the Catholic tradition is indeed sacred. We believe the bread and the wind is transformed--transubstantiated--into the body and blood of Christ. I have often watched my parish priest focus his gaze with reverence upon the bread and the wine during the offertory to gain some appreciation for the significance of the divine person whose presence on can scarcely grasp....
. Like a child feeling unfairly disciplined, but disciplined nonetheless, I pleaded with empty hand outstretched: "I think you're making a mistake, Father." His red complexion redder now, betraying righteous anger. His stretched hand over the top of the Ciborium, the container for the consecrated bread as if I was going to grab a handful and make a run for it, and then the pronouncement: "No, you are the one who made the mistake."
From the back of the Communion line someone shouted out, "Are you judging this man, Father?" I was grateful for the intervention. Will the Last Day be like this? One friend making an appeal for another? The response was cold: "He has judged himself and been found unworthy."
With no further appeal possible and with my wife exiting in confusion, tears, and offended embarrassment, I returned to my place along. My place? Did I have a place any longer? Was I expected to leave? The double significance of losing the body of Christ--of not having ingested and no longer standing among "the body"--was suddenly all I could think of. Condemned for announcing to the world that I intended to vote for a man who I thought lived the Beatitudes. A black man; a caring man; a talented man. A man different from conservative self and yet calling me to find the best of that self. A man who, in so many ways, asks to care for the least advantaged as he seeks the public responsibility to carry with him, as if it was his own burden the plight of the marginalized and unemployed worker, the uninsured, the widowed mother grieving over a son lost in Iraq. Their hurts, far worse than mine. It was wrong to be damned; to be excluded from the grace of the sacrament of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all I could think was the old Tolstoy folk wisdom "God knows the truth, but waits."
These men of faith were generous of heart, conduits of the Holy Spirit and always inclusive. Taking time to talk, to encourage, to share happiness and to comfort sadness. Most of all, supplying the gifts of faith, hope and love. A faith that carries us through this life in exile we don't always fully understand or appreciate. A hope for a destination that in all of its unknown quality one knows is a sublime contentment and peace freed of this world's anxieties. A love that didn't depend upon status, intelligence, or even how much we were able to put in the collection basket. We were accepted as we were--flaws and all.
Until that evening, when all was revoked.
Suddenly the life-long chain of liturgy was broken into pieces. The priest--the priest who had just joined with us in the prayer of the Rosary was now red-faced shouting. I thought. Talking about me. I had cooperated with evil. I had? I had killed babies? My heart was black. I was giving scandal to the entire church. I had once been a leader but now I forfeited any semblance of respectability or leadership. The good father grasped tightly the edges of the ambo, the unusual name given to the lectern in the Catholic Church. No faithful Catholic would ever contemplate doing what I had done. I was dead to the Holy Mother Church.
My wife held my hand tightly. We looked at each other in disbelief. Here was someone in the vestments of the priesthood who had called us to have our prayers be heard, who recited the Kyrie with us, asking the Lord's mercy upon us, now seemingly merciless, telling me and the many there assembled that I was unworthy. I was to be publicly shunned and humiliated. My offense? Endorsing Senator Barak Obama for President of the United States.
The irony of ironies was that my motivation for the endorsement was entirely Catholic. No, Obama doesn't share the Catholic faith, but he certainly campaigns like he does. As reflected in his book, the Senator is focused on the human person, on the common good, on the social justice of economic arrangement. All is so very Catholic.
It was time for Communion. Notwithstanding the indictment of the homily, I did not think of myself as unworthy of receipt of the sacrament--at least no more so then pre-Obama endorsement. Communion in the Catholic tradition is indeed sacred. We believe the bread and the wind is transformed--transubstantiated--into the body and blood of Christ. I have often watched my parish priest focus his gaze with reverence upon the bread and the wine during the offertory to gain some appreciation for the significance of the divine person whose presence on can scarcely grasp....
. Like a child feeling unfairly disciplined, but disciplined nonetheless, I pleaded with empty hand outstretched: "I think you're making a mistake, Father." His red complexion redder now, betraying righteous anger. His stretched hand over the top of the Ciborium, the container for the consecrated bread as if I was going to grab a handful and make a run for it, and then the pronouncement: "No, you are the one who made the mistake."
From the back of the Communion line someone shouted out, "Are you judging this man, Father?" I was grateful for the intervention. Will the Last Day be like this? One friend making an appeal for another? The response was cold: "He has judged himself and been found unworthy."
With no further appeal possible and with my wife exiting in confusion, tears, and offended embarrassment, I returned to my place along. My place? Did I have a place any longer? Was I expected to leave? The double significance of losing the body of Christ--of not having ingested and no longer standing among "the body"--was suddenly all I could think of. Condemned for announcing to the world that I intended to vote for a man who I thought lived the Beatitudes. A black man; a caring man; a talented man. A man different from conservative self and yet calling me to find the best of that self. A man who, in so many ways, asks to care for the least advantaged as he seeks the public responsibility to carry with him, as if it was his own burden the plight of the marginalized and unemployed worker, the uninsured, the widowed mother grieving over a son lost in Iraq. Their hurts, far worse than mine. It was wrong to be damned; to be excluded from the grace of the sacrament of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all I could think was the old Tolstoy folk wisdom "God knows the truth, but waits."
Speaking to Voters
Obama's new ad, which features a static camera with him speaking directly about the economy for about 2 minutes, is running in a number of battleground states. I think that the different format should do a good job cutting through the clutter of other ads, and I hope that this will allow his intelligence and reasonableness to get through to voters-
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Response to the Crash
I think the problems on Wall Street may wind up working out to Obama's benefit. Unlike a lot of other questions facing the country- "Should we bomb Iran?" "Should we cut taxes?" The question of how to deal with the problems in the economy is not one for which most Americans think they have an answer. It's actually something that requires some expertise and some serious thinking... and probably a better policy than appointing a commission
Making things up
From Matt Yglesias:
Sarah Palin, during her interview with Charlie Gibson said that Akaska producers “nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.”
That was a lie. And people in the press pointed out that it was a lie. So Palin changed her line. And she told a rally in Colorado yesterday that “My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas.”
First off, the 20% line is a blatant lie: Alaska produces 13% of the U.S. oil supply and under 2.3% of natural gas, for about 3.5% of the total American domestic energy supply. So Alaska actually produces six times less energy than she thinks it does.
Second point- by no means has it been her job to "oversee 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." It's not NY Governor David Paterson's job to oversee the majority of securities litigation or derivatives trading, just because they take place in New York. Paterson didn't even pass the bar, but somehow the practice of law in New York City hums along just fine. The governor of California doesn't oversee movie-making (a good thing during the Gray Davis years). My hometown, Oswego, NY, has three nuclear plants- but that doesn't make the mayor a nuclear engineer.
Sarah Palin, during her interview with Charlie Gibson said that Akaska producers “nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.”
That was a lie. And people in the press pointed out that it was a lie. So Palin changed her line. And she told a rally in Colorado yesterday that “My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas.”
First off, the 20% line is a blatant lie: Alaska produces 13% of the U.S. oil supply and under 2.3% of natural gas, for about 3.5% of the total American domestic energy supply. So Alaska actually produces six times less energy than she thinks it does.
Second point- by no means has it been her job to "oversee 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." It's not NY Governor David Paterson's job to oversee the majority of securities litigation or derivatives trading, just because they take place in New York. Paterson didn't even pass the bar, but somehow the practice of law in New York City hums along just fine. The governor of California doesn't oversee movie-making (a good thing during the Gray Davis years). My hometown, Oswego, NY, has three nuclear plants- but that doesn't make the mayor a nuclear engineer.
McCain also invents wheel, fire
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry. "He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
(From Politico)
Finally some comeuppance
Palin's favorability numbers have fallen pretty significantly over the past week- from last week's 52-35 (a +17) to 45-44 (+1) in a new Research 2000 poll. A slightly older Hotline/Diageo poll also has her favorability down 12- from 48-24 (+24) to 48-36 (+12). The Hotline poll is interesting, because her favorability stays the same at 48 points, but it seems like people who have been slow to make up their minds about her are coming to negative conclusions, as her unfavorability rating has gone up by 12.
Palin's lies become pathological
Most of us probably had friends growing up who were ridiculous liars. Maybe when you were really young they'd swear up and down that they'd really seen Santa. When you were older they were the ones who always had a really hot significant other who mysteriously was never seen by anyone else. I'm starting to think that Sarah Palin is that person:
At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.
“There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio.”
This struck many of us -- who, as she spoke, followed along with her prepared remarks, and noted how closely she stuck to the script -- as an unusual claim. (Especially those of my colleagues on the convention floor at the time, reading along on the prompter with her, noticing her excellent and disciplined delivery, how she punched words that were underlined and paused where it said "pause," noting that "nuclear" was spelled out for her phonetically.)
...
"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."
Says Martin, "Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems."
At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.
“There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio.”
This struck many of us -- who, as she spoke, followed along with her prepared remarks, and noted how closely she stuck to the script -- as an unusual claim. (Especially those of my colleagues on the convention floor at the time, reading along on the prompter with her, noticing her excellent and disciplined delivery, how she punched words that were underlined and paused where it said "pause," noting that "nuclear" was spelled out for her phonetically.)
...
"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."
Says Martin, "Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems."
Monday, September 15, 2008
Hockey Moms
I can tell you, as the son of a hockey mom, that the real ones don't own their own $35,000 tanning beds.
Hoover '08
From TPR-
John McCain issued a statement today on the financial crisis in which he blamed government “regulation” for what happened: McCain declares, "We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors.” That’s 1920s Republicanism—and exactly what one would expect from a candidate whose chief economic advisor was former Sen. Phil Gramm.
John McCain issued a statement today on the financial crisis in which he blamed government “regulation” for what happened: McCain declares, "We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors.” That’s 1920s Republicanism—and exactly what one would expect from a candidate whose chief economic advisor was former Sen. Phil Gramm.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
From the people who brought you Harriet Miers and Mike Brown
The Times has an in-depth (and very frightening) article about how Palin governed in Wasilla and Anchorage. Hiring completely unqualified buddies and stifling dissent were hallmarks of her "leadership" style:
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
...
And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
...
And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”
We cannot allow her anywhere near the presidency.
SNL: Palin and Clinton
Watched this last night... spot on, and by far the funniest thing I've seen on SNL in at least three years:
Ground Game
Back from Pennsylvania today. Yesterday I drove out to Doylestown, PA, site of one of the two Obama offices in Bucks County. The Obama campaign also has 55 other offices throughout Pennsylvania with more slated to open. The campaign clearly has its GOTV operations going full-steam, and the organization and energy were impressive.
When I decided to go to Pennsylvania to canvass and register voters, I sent an email to the general PA email address, and was directed to the Doylestown office where the need was greatest at the moment. We arrived at the office around 10:30, and found it filled with people. We received a quick training, along with maybe 20 other volunteers, on the basics of canvassing. Then packets were distributed to each pair of volunteers, each of which had a map of the location indicating all the houses we were to hit, directions to the neighborhood and back, and a very detailed log in which to enter the results of our canvass- altogether I was very impressed with the organization. 50 days out and they were ahead of where my office was at in Florida in 2000 a week before the election.
We were dispatched to Quakertown, a small working-class town about an hour north of Philly. We weren't knocking on all the doors, or even all of the Democrats- we hit a few independents, Greens, and even a couple Republicans (one of whom told me to "shoo" when he saw my shirt). There were definitely more Obama supporters than not, but that makes sense since most of the voters were Dems. I was surprised by the number of folks we spoke to who hadn't decided and thought that they wouldn't make up their minds until just before the election.
Many of the folks we spoke to were very vocal in their criticism of perceived mudslinging by both campaigns, wanting Obama and McCain to focus on the issues. That said, many of these folks were quite cynical about the ability of either candidate to enact any of their campaign promises.
I'm a little nervous about the number of Dems who were still on the fence. In 2004 15% of registered Dems went to Bush and Kerry still won the state. I think that, in the area we were in (where one man asked if we'd knocked on the door of the "colored people" who lived across the street) there's some general resistance to Obama, and I imagine that this will be offset by increased turnout in Philly and Pittsburgh.
Strategically, if the campaign is hoping to reach these voters, they should stick to their guns and stay clear of ad hominem attacks on McCain, no matter how satisfying they are to the base. Obama needs to highlight parts of his economic plan that are appealing to working-class seniors, like the goal of allowing seniors making under $50k a year to forgo paying any federal income taxes.
Friday, September 12, 2008
I love the 80s
Obama hits McCain hard on the "out of touch" theme- focusing on being on Washington since 1982, not knowing how to use computers or email, and apparently using a giant Zach Morris cellphone:
Day off
Readers- I'll be offline tomorrow, as I'm headed to lovely Bucks County, PA to canvass and register voters and haven't figured out how to post from my blackberry yet. Hopefully on my return I'll have some good news on voter registration and outreach efforts in Pennsylvania. If you run across stories that might be worth posting when I return on Sunday, send 'em over to cnyexpat@gmail.com
Palin: Ok, so I was pretty much actually for the Bridge to Nowhere
More goodies from Palin's interview:
GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.
GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.
PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...
PALIN: I was...
GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.
PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.
GIBSON: Right.
PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.
(via TPM)
UPDATE: Palin also called the story that she tried to ban books "an old wives' tale." Do they not cover the whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness" thing at the Wasilla Assembly of God?
GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.
GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.
PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...
PALIN: I was...
GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.
PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.
GIBSON: Right.
PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.
(via TPM)
UPDATE: Palin also called the story that she tried to ban books "an old wives' tale." Do they not cover the whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness" thing at the Wasilla Assembly of God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)