Categories
Economics Election 2008 Obama Politics

A year ago today…

A year ago today, long-shot candidate Barack Obama gave a speech at Nasdaq calling on Wall Street to support his program to revitalize our economy:

Seventy-five years ago this week, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt took his campaign for the presidency to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

It was a time when faith in the American economy was shaken – a time when too many of our leaders clung to the conventional thinking that said all we could do is sit idly by and wish that our problems would go away on their own. But Franklin Roosevelt challenged that cynicism. Amid a crisis of confidence Roosevelt called for a “re-appraisal of values.” He made clear that in this country, our right to live must also include the right to live comfortably; that government must favor no small group at the expense of all its citizens; and that in order for us to prosper as one nation, “…the responsible heads of finance and industry, instead of acting each for himself, must work together to achieve the common end.”

This vision of America would require change that went beyond replacing a failed President. It would require a renewed trust in the market and a renewed spirit of obligation and cooperation between business and workers; between a people and their government. As FDR put it, “Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, and faith in ourselves demands that we all recognize the new terms of the old social contract.”

Seventy-five years later, this faith is calling us to act once more…

In recent years, we have seen a dangerous erosion of the rules and principles that have allowed our market to work and our economy to thrive. Instead of thinking about what’s good for America or what’s good for business, a mentality has crept into certain corners of Washington and the business world that says, “what’s good for me is good enough.”

…The quick kill is prized without regard to long-term consequences for the financial system and the economy. And while this may benefit the few who push the envelope as far as it will go, it’s doesn’t benefit America and it doesn’t benefit the market. Just because it makes money doesn’t mean it’s good for business…

In this modern, interconnected economy, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. The decisions that are made in New York’s high-rises and hedge funds matter and have consequences for millions of Americans across the country. And whether those Americans keep their homes or their jobs; whether they can spend with confidence and avoid falling into debt – that matters and has consequences for the entire market.

We all have a stake in each other’s success. We all have a stake in ensuring that the market is efficient and transparent; that it inspires trust and confidence; that it rewards those who are truly successful instead of those who are just successful at gaming the system. Because if the last few months have taught us anything, it’s that we can all suffer from the excesses of a few.

[And after outlining his economic agenda, summarized here by me, and in the speech by the Senator – and fleshed out more in this speech several months later.]

I ask for your support for this economic agenda, both in this campaign and if I should get the chance to enact these policies as your President. I will not pretend it will come without cost, but I do believe we can do achieve this in a fiscally responsible way – certainly more so than the current Administration that’s given us deficits as far as the eye can see.

I know some may say it’s anathema to come to Wall Street and call for shared sacrifice so that all Americans can benefit from this new economy of ours. But I believe that all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America. I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America. I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal.

I also realize that there are some who will say that achieving all of this is far too difficult. That it is too hard to build consensus. That we are too divided and self-interested to think about the responsibilities we have to each other and to our country. That the times are simply too tough.

But then I am reminded that we have been in tougher times and we have faced far more difficult challenges. And each time we have emerged stronger, more united, and more prosperous than the last. It is faith in the American ideal that carries us through, as well as the belief that was voiced by Franklin Roosevelt all those years ago this week: “Failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope we must all shoulder our common load.” That is the strength and the hope we seek both today – and in all the days and months to come.

At this time last year, John McCain wasn’t talking about economics, despite the growing sense of a forthcoming crisis on Wall Street. He was talking about Iraq – predicting that the troops would be home soon. His only mention of economics during this week last year that I have been able to find was in discussing Iraq.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Did Obama violate the Logan Act?

My sister just texted me to ask if Obama had violated the Logan Act – a law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. This apparently is the I’m sure this question is a result of this story by the infamous Amir Taheri. Even Jonah Goldberg of the National Review in his post on the matter concedes:

If memory serves, Taheri hasn’t always panned out…

This I suppose is Goldberg’s way of saying that he will fan the flames if it hurts Obama whether Taheri’s “reporting” is true or not. Most famously, Taheri recently claimed that the government of Iran was forcing Jews to wear yellow stars a la Nazi Germany. He refused to retract the story although the publisher of the story later issued an apology.

I don’t see an official response from the campaign yet on this issue, but I will post it as soon as I get it.

I’m sure it’s forthcoming as the McCain camp has issued an official response fanning these flames – saying that even the possibility that Obama may have violated the Logan act was “unprecedented.” Of course, McCain has been accused in the past of violating the Logan Act on a number of occasions – with regards to Georgia and Columbia; and the right has accused Nancy Pelosi of violating the Logan Act as well.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

A Pro-Obama, Anti-McCain Email

I’m attempting to put together a pro-Obama, anti-McCain viral email. I have about 50 topics listed and I’m in the process of whittling them down and organizing them in a fashion. It’s directly inspired by this smear email debunked by Snopes. Here’s a taste of my attempt, which is based on the theory expressed by the philosopher Stephen Colbert that “reality has a well-known liberal bias”:

McCain called the media his “base.”

Actually true.

The media is “in the tank for Obama.”

Not exactly. The only study I’ve found about this is from July of this year and concludes that though the big TV networks (which were the only media studied) paid far more attention to Barack Obama than John McCain, they were tougher on Obama than McCain.

The media’s feeding frenzy over Sarah Palin was an unprecedented attack on a candidate for public office.

Not exactly. Does anyone remember the media frenzy surrounding Rev. Wright? Remember that infamous debate moderated by Charlie Gibson in which half the debate was about various smears? It took that debate and Obama’s nuanced race speech to “lance the boil.” Palin, so far, isn’t commenting all that much on these matters.

Obama’s campaign has been just as untruthful as McCain’s.

Not exactly. While both sides have stretched the truth, McCain’s campaign has told
Obama said several times that McCain wants to “continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.”

Not exactly. McCain has said that he’s willing to keep troops in Iraq for as much as 100 years, but he doesn’t anticipate them fighting the whole time, and he’s started talking about drawing down troops at some point in the unspecified future. Obama has stopped using this line of attack.

One of McCain’s closest friends and advisers who wrote McCain’s economic plan and who McCain said he would rely on and was expected to be Treasury Secretary, Phil Gramm, said “This is a mental recession…We sort of become a nation of whiners.”

Actually True. After Gramm said this, McCain ditched him though, and McCain distanced himself from the comments, although he kept Gramm’s plans in place.

Joe Biden claimed that McCain has “hired to run this campaign” “the very people” who smeared McCain in the infamous 2000 primary in South Carolina against Bush.

Actually True. Or at least McCain has hired some of them. ABC News reported that McCain hired Tucker Eskew who was one of the people in Bush’s camp that McCain held responsible for the vicious campaign in South Carolina that derailed his campaign in 2000. Also, in 2007, he hired the same firm, Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, that made the Swift Boat ads he criticized in 2004 to work for his campaign.

McCain wants to tax my heath care benefits.

McCain has said in a number of his ads that Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class.

Not at all. Obama pledged not to raise middle class taxes. Here’s a breakdown of the where McCain’s and Obama’s tax cuts would go:

McCain’s Tax Cuts:
Top 10% of Americans
Above $2.87 million                 -$269,364
$603,403 to $2.87 million           -$45,361
$226,982 to $603,402                 -$7,871
$160,973 to $226,981                 -$4,380
$111,646 to $160,972                 -$2,614
90% of Americans
$66, 355 to $111,645                  -$1,009
$37,596 to $66,345                       -$319
$18,982 to $37,595                       -$113
Up to $18,981                                -$19

Obama’s Tax Cuts:
Top 10% of Americans
Above $2.87 million                 +$701,885
$603,403 to $2.87 million         +$115,975
$226,982 to $603,402                     -$12
$160,973 to $226,981                 -$2,789
$111,646 to $160,972                 -$2,204
90% of Americans
$66, 355 to $111,645                  -$1,290
$37,596 to $66,345                     -$1,042
$18,982 to $37,595                       -$892
Up to $18,981                              -$567

Based on the graph created by the Washington Post to illustrate the analysis done by the Tax Policy Center.

Alan Greenspan said that the country can’t afford John McCain’s tax cuts.

Actually True. Greenspan said he would support the cuts if McCain also cut government spending – which McCain has pledged to do, but hasn’t explained what programs he would cut aside from eliminating earmarks which would account for less than half of a percent of the estimated cost of McCain’s tax cuts.
Categories
National Security Politics The War on Terrorism The Web and Technology

Thanking the Jawa Report

I emphatically disagree with The Jawa Report‘s politics. I don’t know anything about the Internet Haganah. I think the attitude towards Islam exemplified by the pictures and headlines you can see by glancing at both sides is almost as medieval as the attitude of islamist extremists towards “the West.”

But if, as is being reported, they are responsible for preventing Al Qaeda from releasing their annual commemorative video on 9/11 – then they deserve praise. Rusty Shackleford of The Jawa Report denies responsibility though:

Neither I nor Aaron are responsible for the take down of al Qaeda’s main forum and two of its sister forums. Reporting that they are down does not mean I’m taking credit. Neither does reporting on it mean that I even approve of taking down al Qaeda’s main propaganda outlet.

But if I was responsible I’d deny it.

He repeats that last phrase several times in the post.

Regardless, if the reports are true. Congratulations. And this liberal, Obama-supporting New Yorker thanks you.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics Videos

McCain: Without Honor

[digg-reddit-me]Pass it on…

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Israel McCain National Security Politics Russia

Neoconservatives, gleeful, see Palin as “a blank page”

[digg-reddit-me]
[Photo by amypalko licensed under Creative Commons.]

Tim Shipman, writing in the London Telegraph, reports on the intense foreign policy briefings being given to Sarah Palin. The crowd assigned to brief her consists exclusively of neoconservatives – as was evident in the answers she gave in the Charlie Gibson interview on Russia, Israel, and national security. Most especially was her thrice-repeated formulation about Israel’s defense: “We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.”

She is being groomed to be a female George W. Bush – but even Bush has realist foreign policy voices around him – from Condoleeza Rice to Colin Powell.

As one former White House official working at the American Enterprise Institute put it: “She’s a blank page.”

Think of that – “A blank page.”

They see her as the vessel which will give them influence and will keep them in power. They see her as the best agent to sell their ideas, to accomplish their goals.

“She’s a blank page.”

Lest it be called sexism, let’s remember that George W. Bush was a blank page as well – one that neoconservatives filled with their ideas as well.

And let’s remember that even the Bush administration has turned away from the neoconservative project in the past few years, embracing a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy. And understanding that Sarah Palin has become a political figure in her own right, in many ways, more influential than John McCain, and certainly someone who is seen as the Future of the Republican party. This is an individual who, when asked about the surge explained that she wasn’t really paying attention to such things. She was thrust into the spotlight having formed few opinions of the world, having thought about foreign policy very little, and being ill-informed. Those who directed our disasterous foreign policy see her as a fresh face who can sell their ideas – and as someone who has not studied the matters herself needs a tutor: “She’s a blank page.”

For a writer, there is great possibility in a blank page. As we all look to Sarah Palin – with her combative but warm personality; her shameless ability to sell her lines, to make them her own (like an actress or a car salesman); her unique cultural blend of femininity and feminism – we project onto her our dreams and fears, and it takes quite a lot to dislodge these dreams or fears once they have settled in. This is the essence of politics. It is the core of McCain strength. It is the core of the sense of possibility around Palin. It was what led voters to choose Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, and Bush over Kerry. Each side sought to shape the projection of the other, but the essential decision as to who would win was made in a blink. Stubborn facts only gradually affect our projections – as we can see in Bush’s gradual decline in popularity.

But William Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, and other neoconservatives have the opportunity to fill in this blank page with their own dreams and fears – to make their projections reality. “She’s a blank page,” they say, which must terrify the rest of us.

Continue reading “Neoconservatives, gleeful, see Palin as “a blank page””
Categories
Election 2008 Humor Politics Videos

The Palin-Clinton Press Conference on Sexism – Live from New York on Saturday Night

[digg-reddit-me]

Saturday Night Live’s excellent season opener. If only the rest of the show had been so good.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Obama: Everyone chill the f*** out, I got this.

From prosebeforehos.

Categories
Economics Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Brooks and Krugman on the State of the Campaign

The New York Times had two useful columns this morning – one by  Paul Krugman explaining how McCain’s lies about Obama are even worse than Bush’s lies about Kerry or Gore:

[T]he muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern…

I’m talking…about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

I give Krugman a lot of grief for his attacks on Obama – which resemble small-minded tantrums. But despite these frustrations with Krugman, I have always acknowledged he can be quite effective. He is simply a polemicist – and he will force the facts to fit into his pre-conceived arguments (except perhaps on economics where he is more subtle.) But when the facts happen to fit his pre-conceived arguments well – then his columns are a thing of beauty, like this past one, making a very important point.

David Brooks, conservative, writes the other column worth reading today. He attempts to explain the next steps the Republican party has to take in order to seriously address the major issues facing the nation:

If there’s a thread running through the gravest current concerns, it is that people lack a secure environment in which they can lead their lives. Wild swings in global capital and energy markets buffet family budgets. Nobody is sure the health care system will be there when they need it. National productivity gains don’t seem to alleviate economic anxiety. Inequality strains national cohesion. In many communities, social norms do not encourage academic achievement, decent values or family stability. These problems straining the social fabric aren’t directly addressed by maximizing individual freedom.

And yet locked in the old framework, the Republican Party [has a] knee-jerk response…

The irony, of course, is that, in pre-Goldwater days, conservatives were incredibly sophisticated about the value of networks, institutions and invisible social bonds. You don’t have to go back to Edmund Burke and Adam Smith (though it helps) to find conservatives who understood that people are socially embedded creatures and that government has a role (though not a dominant one) in nurturing the institutions in which they are embedded.

Brooks is describing here Barack Obama’s economic plans. Although I think he still is prejudiced enough against liberals and Democrats – assuming they will act irresponsibly if they are in power – that he cannot support Obama. And he seems to have a very positive feeling towards McCain that will lead him to hope that McCain will adopt Obama’s economic plan with a slightly more conservative tilt – despite what McCain is promising now – rather than to back the man with the plan he agrees with.

But despite this, it is because he writes columns like this that I truly look to David Brooks as an almost independent-minded thinker – even if he still remains tethered to the Republican party.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

McCain Bipartisanship vs. Obama Bipartisanship

[digg-reddit-me]McCain has branded himself “The Original Maverick”. He bases this assertion of his brand on the numerous times he has gone against his party and, in another branding phrase, “Put Country First.” He and his surrogates have asked constantly – and some more independent-minded writers have also asked – “When has Obama challenged his party in a way similar to McCain?” The implication, and sometimes the outright attack, is that Obama is unable or unwilling to challenge the Democratic party in the same way McCain is willing to challenge the Republican party. A good example of this is in Rick Warren’s questions to McCain and Obama at the Saddleback forum. Warren asked McCain:

John, you know that a lot of good legislation dies because of partisan politics, and party loyalty keeps people from really getting forward on putting America’s best first. Can you give me an example of where you led against your party’s interests — oh, this is hard — (LAUGHTER) — and really, maybe against your own best interests for the good of America?

For John McCain, the answers to this question are clear – he stood against his party on the issue of torture (although he later qualified his initial opposition to torturing); he stood against his party on the issue of global warming; he challenged the Bush administration on how they were handling the Iraq war; he stood against his party on Bush’s tax cuts (although he again completely reversed positions on this issue); he stood against the base of his party on the issue of immigration; and he stood against his party on the issue of campaign finance reform. ((I have left out McCain’s Gang of Fourteen compromise which secured the appointments of Roberts and Alito – which is a rare case of McCain’s actual bipartisanship. However, it is worth noting that McCain’s bipartisanship in this instance did not actually result in a compromise for the Republicans – but in a total victory for them.))

In all of these cases, McCain stood against his party and with the Democrats. His positions were not “bi-partisan” – they were examples of a Republican acknowledging his party had the wrong position.

He went against his party’s interests because he clearly believed his party had the wrong position for America. It is also worth noting that the Republican party on all of these issues had blatantly wrong and unserious positions. Defending torture? Denying global warming despite the widespread consensus of scientists? Rick Warren’s question presumes that Republicans and Democrats are both equally wrong about the issues – and that we can get past this impasse by compromising. But that is not, in fact, the situation. He didn’t compromise and wasn’t bipartisan – he took the side of his political opponents because his party had taken an untenable position. That takes a measure of courage, but to demand Obama take stands against his party, you first have to identify similar no-brainer issues on which the Democratic party has taken a side. Obama instead is faulted for partisanship, in part, for having the same position on these issues as McCain. McCain, for coming to the same conclusions, is a maverick. What few acknowledge is that on the issues on which McCain has stood against his party, they have clearly been in the wrong.

The wedge issues of the 1990s divided the country between conservatives and liberals who competing ideologies – abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, welfare, homosexuality ((And government spending fits in here too, but not as neatly, so I will reserve this issue.)) – these were issues in which both sides had entrenched positions – and on which the country was in broad and deep disagreement. These are issues on which bipartisanship and moderation and federalism are the only solutions – because to legislate either side would leave half of the population in extremely strong disagreement. And it is worth noting that on these issues Obama has embraced bipartisanship – which he understands to mean finding goals both sides agree on related to these issues (from his speech in Denver):

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

(APPLAUSE)

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

McCain has rejected bipartisanship on these issues in his presidential campaign – embracing a hard right position on abortion and an enforcement first approach to immigration. His examples of embracing “bipartisanship” are really just examples of him taking the Democratic position.

It’s worth noting in the days ahead how differently these two men define bipartisanship. Obama defines it as working with people you disagree with to find common goals; McCain defines it as standing with the Democrats when he can they are clearly in the right.

Continue reading “McCain Bipartisanship vs. Obama Bipartisanship”