The debate is on, and I will be liveblogging when the time comes. See you here.
Monthly Archives: September 2008
McCain’s Bluff Has Been Called
As of 8 AM today there is still no word whether John McCain will show up for tonight’s debate. However, in most media (I don’t count Faux News) there appears to be consensus that McCain’s skipping the debate would be a boneheaded move. Even Republicans are saying that, unless there are critical negotiations going on in the White House at the exact time the debate is scheduled, McCain had better haul his ass to Mississippi.
And it’s unlikely the Dems, who would have to agree to hold those critical negotiations, would give McCain an excuse not to be in Mississippi.
This morning a number of news stories say that McCain was a near non-participant in yesterday’s White House photo op meeting. Adam Nagourney and Elisabeth Bumiller write for the New York Times,
At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.
That was the “giving McCain the benefit of the doubt” version of the story. David Kurtz provides a little more detail:
During the late afternoon meeting at the White House (a meeting which was McCain’s idea), McCain sat silently at the table until nearly the end, according to a Hill source who was briefed on the meeting. At that point, I’m told, McCain vaguely brought up the proposal being pushed by the Republican Study Committee, the group of House conservatives that is bucking the GOP leadership. But McCain didn’t offer any specifics and didn’t necessarily advocate for the plan, according to the Hill source.
Responding to McCain, Treasury Secretary Paulson said that the RSC proposal was unworkable, my source says, at which point McCain didn’t really advocate for it or state his own position. The meeting adjourned soon after, amid confusion over where negotiations could go next.
There are other news stories that give different accounts of who introduced the RSC proposal. Marc Ambinder says other Republicans in the meeting brought it up. David Rogers of The Politico says Barack Obama brought it up first to squeeze the Republicans.
Whatever the details, all accounts agree on one point — McCain sat through most of the meeting silently, like a bump on a log, and made no substantive contribution.
In a column in which he reveals something that perhaps he didn’t intend, David Brooks writes about McCain in the past tense. The McCain of the past as described by Brooks is in no way the same man who showed up at yesterday’s White House meeting. Either Brooks’s views of past McCain were highly skewed (which is highly possible), or McCain is deteriorating before our eyes.
This morning Americans — the ones paying attention, anyway — are hearing the news that negotiations on a bailout deal fell apart after McCain got to Washington. Oh, and guess what? Here’s the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. Way to go!
It’s not clear to me what will happen if Obama shows up tonight and McCain doesn’t. However, I say again that unless some critical meetings or negotiations are taking place in Washington tonight, most Americans will assume McCain just plain ducked out. Not very heroic of him.
Also: A bold, fresh piece of pathology — listen to rightie “intelligentsia” eating its own. Revealing, but not in the way Allahpundit thinks it is.
Update:
W: The Movie
Like many of you, my nerves are raw from the last eight years, and so this trailer is somewhat difficult to watch. It’s for Oliver Stone’s new movie, “W”, which opens Oct 17. The casting looks great, and the music in this trailer, IMO is spot on. "A devil in a white hat", indeed.
UPDATE: I don’t normally report name-calling, but it’s pretty significant when someone of Paul Begala’s stature calls Bush a “high-functioning moron” on CNN.
Anderson, speaking of Bush’s robotic delivery of his address to America on the economic crisis, said he “did not seem to be there,” and Ed Rollins chimed in with “it was not his words,” while Gloria Borger said he was “not comfortable,” but Begala drove the final nail in W’s coffin with the magic words.
Gloria Borger turned and gave Paul a look, but Republican strategist Rollins did not interject to protest or contest Begala’s remarks. Apparently, at long last, it is now a given that the emperor has no clothes.
If only we had a parliamentary form of government, this administration would have been driven out with a vote of no confidence several years ago. I hope we can hold on until January 20, 2009.
h/t abrauer
Whose Ego?
All indications are that John McCain’s debate-skipping stunt will backfire on him, especially after the roasting he got on Letterman last night. Lots of folks in the Homeland do watch Letterman. I suspect the late-night comedians have at least as big an impact on public opinion as the “pundits.” Maybe bigger.
One of Letterman’s points — a valid one — is that even if McCain were to be called off the campaign trail by a crisis, there is no reason his running mate, who is not in Congress, couldn’t keep up the campaigning. Except, well, apparently she can’t.
CNN reports that the McCain campaign wants to “postpone” the vice presidential debate and use that time for a first presidential debate. I believe either Letterman or Olbermann predicted last night that’s what they would do. The McCain campaign seems almost desperate to keep Palin in a media burqa, which is peculiar given that she’s the only reason McCain’s campaign has been competitive since the conventions.
I don’t know how accurate this is, but a poll conducted last night by SurveyUSA showed overwhelming opposition to canceling tomorrow night’s debate. I don’t think McCain is foolin’ anybody, except those predisposed to be fooled.
DAVID LETTERMAN THINKS HIS COMEDY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE UNITES STATES FINANCIAL CRISIS … What an ego! … The LEFT just does not get it. It’s not a matter that McCain canceled the Letterman appearance and instead was doing an interview with Katie Couric as Comments from the Left explains. The fact of the matter is that going on a LATE NIGHT COMEDY SHOW WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIMES!
So, what, ten days into THE UNITES STATES FINANCIAL CRISIS McCain and Bush suddenly decide it’s serious? And the “LEFT” doesn’t get it?
What’s a Republican presidential nominee to do?
If you’re named John McCain, the answer became apparent yesterday afternoon — make the solution to the economic crisis all about you. Suspend your campaign. Pull out of tomorrow’s debate — a trivial exercise merely allowing Americans to judge the two candidates side by side. Change the terms of the nation’s economic discussion from the course we should take, and the defects of the laissez-faire model that got us here, to the indispensability of John McCain, leader of leaders.
One gets the impression that McCain wants us to see him as the white knight riding to Washington to rescue the fair damsel in the tower. But unless he pulls off something extraordinary in the next couple of days, like maybe talking Sweden into buying all those subprime mortgages, I doubt this will work. If McCain’s presence in Washington has no dramatic impact on the crisis, ducking the debate makes McCain look weak, not strong.
On the other hand, if Congress suddenly comes to an agreement in the next couple of days, McCain probably will get credit for this and remain competitive in the campaign. Since most of the opposition is coming from Republicans, I suppose this could happen. We’ll see.
Michael Tomasky says the real reason McCain is riding into Washington is to turn attention away from the connection between his campaign manager, Rick Davis, and Freddie Mac. That’s probably part of it. The fact is, McCain was having a terrible week and needed to turn attention away from a lot of things.
[Update: Tomasky’s speculation is supported by the latest news about the Davis-Freddie Mac connection.]
For example, there was George Will’s highly publicized criticism that McCain lacks the temperament to be president. “Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama,” Will said. Ouch. I bet that punched McCain right in the ego. Rookie, huh? I’ll show him!
The Anonymous Liberal speculates that the real purpose of the stunt was Palin damage control.
I’m serious. The more I look at what happened today, the more I think it was all an elaborate attempt to stem the fallout from the truly disastrous interview Sarah Palin taped this morning with Katie Couric. In that interview, Palin did two things that hurt the McCain campaign and, but for McCain’s late afternoon shenanigans, would have garnered much more attention. First, buying into the premise of one of Couric’s questions, she all but stated that if no bailout legislation is passed, we’ll be headed into the next Great Depression. Even if true, that’s not a very smart thing for a politician to say and, importantly, it all but foreclosed any possibility of McCain voting against the bailout.
The other thing that hurt McCain is revealed in this part of the interview:
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?
PALIN: I’ll try to find you some, and I’ll bring them to you.
Palin is turning into a joke. Even Alaskans may be having second thoughts about her.
Letterman Tonight
I take it that McCain cancelled an appearance with Letterman tonight, telling Letterman he was flying back to Washington to save America. But Letterman realized that as he was taping tonight’s show, McCain actually was in the CBS building being interviewed by Katie Couric. Olbermann said Letterman, um, reacts to this in the program tonight. Could be fun. I may stay up and watch.
Update: Letterman quote —
“What are you going to do if you’re elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We’ve got a guy like that now!”
This will be on Letterman tonight. McCain may have just screwed the pooch.
Whoa — McCain Suspends Campaign? Chickens Out on Debate?
[More and more updates below.]
I didn’t see this coming.
Republican John McCain said Wednesday he is directing his staff to work with Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign and the presidential debate commission to delay Friday’s debate because of the economic crisis.
In a statement, McCain said he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Clinton’s Global Initiative session on Thursday and return to Washington to focus on the nation’s financial problems.
I passed up a chance to get press credentials for CGI before it was announced McCain and Obama would be there, dammit.
Anyway, this move is —
- A maneuver to demonstrate McCain’s “leadership” and make him seem more “presidential”; or
- A signal either he or his campaign are cracking up.
Update: The Faux News announcement makes ducking the debate sound like McCain’s patriotic duty. Ben Smith of Politico calls it a “gambit.”
I’ve never even heard of a presidential candidate acting in such a reckless, compulsive, and ultimately haphazard fashion. McCain just decided to “suspend” campaign activities? This rivals picking Sarah Palin for the ticket on the list of desperation moves. …
… The moment the winds shifted and Obama had a growing lead in the polls, it’s time to suspend the campaign. Good lord, McCain really does think voters are idiots.
Update: This is from Joe Klein —
McCain suspends his campaign because of financial crisis? Oh please. Given today’s poll numbers–even Fox has him dropping–it seems another Hail Mary (like the feckless selection of Palin) to try make McCain seem a statesman, which is difficult given the puerile tenor of his campaign’s message operation.
Obama should counter with a suggestion that the topic of the debate be changed form foreign policy to the financial crisis.
I like this headline — McCain: Can’t Debate, Gotta Save Country.
The Young Turks are mildly chagrined.
Update: Barack Obama is supposed to issue a statement any minute now. Here he is.
Obama says he called McCain this morning to suggest the two candidates issue a joint statement on the financial crisis.
He says he’s been in touch with leaders in Congress and Secretary Paulson. Time for politics, and a time to put politics aside. Grrr, he’s not being clear.
OK, he says this is the time the people need to hear from the candidates. A president has to do more than one thing at once. More important than ever for candidates to present themselves to the people.
Debate is on, as far as Obama is concerned.
Update: You may have heard that the Creature is giving an address on the financial crisis tonight. Today WH mouthpiece Dana Parino said the White House thinks negotiations are going very well. There’s no crisis about the crisis, she said.
Update: The Debate Commission says the debate is on, according to MSNBC.
Good News/Bad News
The good news is that yesterday House Republicans rebelled against Dick the Dick.
The vice president traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to silence a chorus of GOP complaints about Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion plan. But House Republicans who walked into a closed-door meeting with Cheney steaming over the plan walked out just as angry, and they described what happened in between as both “a bloodbath†and “an unmitigated disaster.â€
The bad news is that House Republicans are going to play the partisan politics game with the financial crisis.
Republican leaders are now hoping Democrats load the legislation with unrelated measures that would give them the political cover to oppose it, members and aides said. At the same time, party leaders are using back channels in the business community to gauge member support for a “clean†bill.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) warned his former colleagues that they would pay a price in November for backing the bailout now — and that John McCain could ride to victory over Barack Obama by persuading voters that the bailout is really the “Obama-Bush plan.â€
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but I find it baffling that some Senate Democrats are waiting to see how McCain votes on the measure before they decide how they will vote. See also Digby.
Back to good news/bad news. The good news is that Obama has a clear lead over McCain in the latest Washington Post-NBC News poll. Much of this lead is coming from white women switching their preference from McCain to Obama. Obama now has a small lead among white women.
The bad news is that media are still going with the “white women don’t like Obama” story.
File this under “weird news.” Michelle Malkin blames illegal immigrants for the financial crisis. The girl belongs in a carnival freak show.
More weird news, although I’m not surprised. Pew Research says 57 percent of the public favors the Wall Street bailout. On the other hand, the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll says 55 percent of the public is opposed to the Wall Street bailout.
The Pew poll told respondents that the government is “potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure” and asked whether that’s the right thing to do. The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll asked whether “the government should use taxpayers’ dollars to rescue ailing private financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy and market, or is it not the government’s responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers’ dollars?”
I extrapolate from this that about two-thirds of the public doesn’t know what the hell is going on. Anyway, the good news/bad news I see here is that, politically, it doesn’t much matter what Congress does. All that matters is how it’s explained. This opens the door to the possibility that Congress could do the right thing without political penalty. It also opens the door to the possibility that Congress could do the wrong thing without political penalty.
Sort of bad news: The Right thinks the Fannie-Freddie issue can be blamed on Democrats.
The good news is that John McCain’s campaign manager has been on Freddie Mac’s payroll from the end of 2005 until last month.
Bring it on, righties.
Update: The McCain campaign is slamming the New York Times for running the story about the campaign manager’s ties to Freddie Mac. Not true, says Michael Goldfarb. Freddie Mac did pay a monthly retainer of $15,000 to Rick Davis’s firm, Davis Manafort, but Davis himself did not take any of that money.
For the record, the New York Times story published a statement from the McCain campaign saying David is not receiving income from his company. The Times also said, however, that Davis “as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income.”
Goldfarb is having one major hissy fit and complaining that the New York Times has not published any nasty investigations into whatever nefarious things David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, is into. Press bias!
David Isikoff at Newsweek is biased also, apparently.
See also John Cole.
Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road
Hidden in an article reporting that Cheney’s going to go hunt up some support for the $700,000,000,000 bailout is this admission that the Bush Administration has been sitting on it for some time:
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough. [my emphasis]
So, for months the Administration has been telling everyone they’ve got the financial situation under control, then all of a sudden Congress has to pass a $700 billion giveaway to the financial sector right now don’t think about it just do it now now now. And Congress is warned that if it doesn’t act now now now and pass this bill as the Administration wrote it with no changes there will be terrible consequences and they would be Congress’s fault. And Congress can’t take any time to read the bill, even though it’s been sitting around in Cheney’s desk drawer for months.
Uh huh.
Let’s Target “Stupid”
Captain Ed says the rate of abortion in the U.S. has dropped again, according to the Los Angeles Times, citing an Alan Guttmacher report. However, the decline has been most dramatic among white women. The rate of abortion among African American women is 5 times that of whites, and among Latinas is 3 times that of whites.
Why? Some experts point to poverty and life stresses in general. Nah, says Captain Ed. These minorities are targeted for abortion services. By way of documentation, he quotes another guy who claims minorities are being targeted for abortion services. Well, that proves it then.
However, everyone’s a bit vague on exactly how minorities are being “targeted.” Are abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods handing out free toasters?
For perspective, see this Alan Guttmacher report of October 2007: “Abortion Declines Worldwide, Falls Most Where Abortion Is Broadly Legal.”
I’d like to repeat that last part — abortion rates fell most where abortion is broadly legal.
For every 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) worldwide, 29 were estimated to have had an induced abortion in 2003, compared with 35 in 1995. The decline was most substantial in Europe, where the rate fell from 48 to 28 abortions per 1,000 women, largely because of dramatic declines in Eastern Europe. On the whole, the abortion rate decreased more in developed countries, where abortion is generally safe and legal on broad grounds (from 39 to 26), than in developing countries, where the procedure is largely illegal and unsafe (from 34 to 29). Significantly, the abortion rate for 2003 was roughly equal in developed and developing regions—26 and 29, respectively—despite abortion being largely illegal in developing regions. Health consequences, however, vary greatly between the two regions, since abortion is generally safe where it is broadly legal and mostly unsafe where restricted. …
… The lowest abortion rate in the world in 2003 was for Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), where contraceptive services and use are widespread and safe abortion is easily accessible and legal under broad grounds. The rate was 17 for Northern Europe and 21 for the Northern America region (Canada and the United States). Africa, Asia and Latin America had the highest regional abortion rates, even though abortion is generally legally restricted and often unsafe in those regions. Abortion rates in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean have declined since 1995, but the estimated number of abortions has increased in Africa because of the increasing number of women of reproductive age and a possible underestimate of abortions in 1995. Because the world’s population is concentrated in Asia, most abortions occurred there—about 26 million yearly; China alone accounted for nine million procedures.
To drive the point home, The uber-liberal, anything-goes Netherlands in 2007 had an abortion rate among residents of 8.6. The most recent data says the abortion rate for the U.S. is 20. It’s higher than that in most nations where abortion is illegal.
I remember reading a report that said abortion rates tend to be higher in cultures that are conservative and authoritarian and lower in cultures that are liberal and egalitarian. I can’t put my hands on that report now, but the stats do tend to bear that out. See also “Abortion in the Netherlands and the United States: Worlds Apart.”
Let’s go back to Captain Ed:
The most interesting aspect of this will be the effect it has on politicians who pay lip service to seeing fewer abortions while blocking any and all attempts to limit them. Will they cheer this drop in abortions, or will they claim that it proves that more intervention is needed to ensure “access�
We can’t tell from the numbers if the fall in abortion rates in the U.S. is from anything the so-called “Right to Life” movement is doing or if it’s just part of the worldwide trend of falling abortion rates. However, what we see over and over again is that “blocking access” to abortion doesn’t stop abortion. If Captain Ed is serious about lowering abortion rates even further, he should help promote a more liberal culture that openly promotes contraceptive use and makes contraceptives easily obtainable by anyone who is sexually active.
On the other hand, if he wants to increase abortion rates, the way to go is to criminalize abortion to drive it underground, support “abstinence-only” sex ed in public schools, discourage contraceptive use and, even better, make contraceptives difficult for teenagers to obtain without parental permission or a court order. That should do it.
Finally, remember that the report says African American and Latina women have higher abortion rates than whites? I give you this Hot Air commenter: “Crime rate will greatly increase in about 15 yrs.”
In some quarters the stupid rate is already through the roof.
Is Anyone FOR the Bleeping Bailout?
There seems to be nearly unanimous disapproval of Paulson’s $700 billion bailout, henceforth called “Plan B.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that “Liberal advocacy groups have mobilized to stop the financial bailout package, just as Bush administration officials are urging lawmakers to act quickly and decisively.” At Salon, Glenn Greenwald documents “Growing right-wing opposition to the Paulson plan.”
Righties opposed to Paulson include Little Lulu, who calls Paulson a “wrong-headed, ChiCom-promoting, liberal Democrat-installing, Gore global warming alarmist” (in keeping with Lulu’s understanding of political science — if she doesn’t like it, it must be liberal) and who wants a return to conservatives principles. Yes, I see the oxymoron, too.
One of Little Lulu’s readers responded to the question, “Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up?” with “There aren’t any. Phil Gramm retired long ago.” They’re still willfully refusing to see that Phil Gramm and “conservative principles” caused the bloody mess to begin with. Oh, and a lot of Lulu’s readers seem to think illegal aliens are behind this, somehow.
But the point is that, wonder of wonders, the Right and the Left halves of the blogosphere are moving toward the same opinion, which is that Paulson’s plan must be stopped.
I’ve been surfing around for a respectable economist, i.e. one not on the Bush Administration’s or Republican Party’s payroll, who supports the plan. The only favorable comments I find are from last week, before details were announced. Now there is near unanimity among economists and finance experts that Plan B is a bad plan.
So, who’s for Plan B? Via Josh Marshall, the Wall Street Journal (behind firewall) says,
House Republican staffers met with roughly 15 lobbyists Friday afternoon, whose message to lawmakers was clear: Don’t load the legislation up with provisions not directly related to the crisis, or regulatory measures the industry has long opposed.
“We’re opposed to adding provisions that will affect [or] undermine the deal substantively,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation’s largest banks, securities firms and insurers.
A deal killer for the group: a proposal that would grant bankruptcy judges new powers to lower the principal, interest rate or both on a mortgage as part of a bankruptcy proceeding.
So, says Josh, “finance industry lobbyists are already giving orders to Republican hill staffers not to allow any meaningful reforms or protections for taxpayers. So, just the money. No strings attached.”
(Don’t tell Lulu about not lowering principal or interest rates on mortgages in bankruptcy, or she might change her mind about the evilness of the Plan. Sticking it to the poor and distressed is what righties live for. It makes them feel superior.)
President Bush this morning warned lawmakers against trying to make too many changes to the proposed financial bailout legislation, but Senate Democrats announced that they would add provisions to the plan that could spur opposition from the administration or congressional Republicans and bog down the measure.
In Bush World, Congress is redundant.
Does President Bush’s support for a radical financial bailout represent a reversal in his political ideology? Not likely.
For one, it seems to be less a reversal than a recusal. Bush appears ideologically spent, rather than transformed. He has for all intents and purposes become the bystander-in-chief, letting others in his administration do the heavy lifting.
Furthermore, the plan concocted by two Bush appointees features some distinctive characteristics of major Bush initiatives past: It would be spectacularly expensive, primarily benefit the very rich, and grant the executive branch unlimited power with no transparency or accountability.
Explained that way, one would think righties would like it. They supported just about every other plan like that that the Bushies have come up with.
See also Sean-Paul Kelley.