Archive for Uncategorized

I’ll be back soon!

Just a note to my wonderful returning readers…. Thanks for reading and coming back!!  You’re my favorites,  you know that, right?

Now I know I’ve been missing for a few days since Hope Came to America, but I’m not abandoning this blog.  I fully intend to come roaring, or dawdling, back to it, and to keep trying to amuse you while thinking about politics and news you could find interesting.

You could say that I am resting, but what I am actually doing is working really really hard again these next few weeks. (which was about time, wasn’t it!) 

Please be back.  Or maybe root through some old posts you may not have read.  Miss Teen Alaska was pretty popular. 

I’ll be back.

Leave a Comment

Obama’s closer: “Will our country be better off four years from now?”

I live in Washington, DC, so when I see a political ad, I can only assume it is intended to reach crucial swing voters in Virginia.  For the first time today, I saw a two minute spot for Barack Obama entitled “Defining Moment.”  


  
The ad is an excellent closer for Obama.  Rather than ask the question, are you better off than you were four years ago (Obama, who speaks directly to the camera, says we know the answer to that question), we should ask ourselves will we be better off four years from now.  It is an excellent, excellent question.  It speaks to people who either don’t want to blame anyone, or have come to terms with the failures of the Bush administration, and are looking toward the future.  And when you ask yourself that question, will we be better off, you imagine four years whizzing by of either McCain or Obama in charge.  

I’d be willing to bet that a lot of folks’ gut reaction is that they don’t envision things being better with McCain.  He is, afterall, closely tied to President Bush, even if he has managed to separate himself a bit more in the last few weeks.  

But because Obama is a new face, and his whole campaign turns on the notion that we should recapture hope for this country, viewers might allow themselves to imagine that this new guy could really pull it off.  They don’t know enough about him to be convinced he can’t.

Obama also addresses some of the major criticisms he must deflect to win over undecided voters in states like Ohio, Virginia, Nevada (which has the highest home foreclosure rate in the country) and Pennsylvania, where the McCain campaign’s hammering Obama as a tax-and-spender seems to have tightened that race.  Obama explains how he will deal with the current financial crisis, promises tax cuts to families making less than $200,000, talks about energy independence and education, and describes how he will pay for his plans.  

It is a solid, meaty closing argument, and it ends on a positive note, something which John McCain doesn’t have the luxury of as he tries to catch up to Obama by Tuesday.

Leave a Comment

On the road again

For those folks who for some reason keep coming back to inform your consent, you’re going to read less from me over the next ten days or so.  I’m hittin’ the road, and can’t be sure how often I’ll be able to get the news and post on the blog while I’m away.    

I welcome comments and guest posts . . . and hope you’ll still be here when I get back.

Thanks for reading!

Leave a Comment

Five reasons why Barack Obama won the townhall debate

Barack Obama won the second presidential debate tonight.  Here are five reasons why:

1) To understand what the candidates did right and wrong tonight, let’s take a moment to review the last debate.  As the first presidential debate opened, John McCain was having the worst week of his campaign, and expectations were extremely low for him.  People were impressed he didn’t freak out and go Jack Nicholson on Obama or Lehrer.  For not taking a knockout punch that night, and for being articulate (though repetitive) and surprisingly quick on his feet, McCain was able to fight to a respectable draw that night.

Not so tonight.  With the economy flatlining for more than two straight weeks, and polls showing a marked advantage for Obama even among the reddest of swing states (North Carolina??), it is clearly taking its toll on John McCain’s poll numbers across the board.  Conventional wisdom said that McCain needed to win this debate to get back in the race.  He simply did not do that.

2) The conventional wisdom of the week has also suggested that McCain needs to come out swinging.  (You’re hearing a lot about a 1960’s anti-Vietnam radical who engaged in domestic terrorism, am I right?)  But there is a stark difference between punching in ads and on paper, through surrogates and slogans, and having one of the candidates repeatedly injecting childish venom into every question he fields in a 90-minute period, as millions of Americans hang on their every word (if it’s interesting enough).  McCain’s incessant finger-pointing at Obama predictably registered negatively with the 30 or so Ohio undecideds sitting in CNN’s studio.  “You know who voted for it? You might never know.  That one,” with a sneer and a point at Obama, came off shockingly juvenile on McCain’s part.  It was unnerving and unpresidential.

McCain’s finger-pointing left him no time to talk about his own positive message, and his own plans for America.  He said it best himself eight years ago–the voters turn away from negative attacks because they convey a lack of vision for the country.

3) Need I even say this?  The economic woes – five straight days of stock market tumbles, taking with them billions of dollars in average Americans’ pension and IRA plan earnings – only serve to remind voters that heads need to roll in Washington.  And it may not be simply a rejection of George Bush, but that there is a fundamental preference for Democrats during deep financial crisis.  When the majority of the population begins to really worry about their own financial  future (not just their neighbors’), to whom will they turn?  To the government, of course. Who else is there?  The free market?  I certainly don’t mean to advocate for a socialist takeover (as John McCain seemed to do tonight!), but we’re getting awfully close to seeing how the Great Depression and the New Deal came to pass.  And while people may not trust Democrats to cut our taxes, but they do seem to trust Democrats to give a boost to the needier among us when we need it.  And nowadays, more swing voters are feeling needy than usual.

4) It seems unfair to keep beating up on McCain, but there’s more.  You had the sense listening to McCain that he was just throwing campaign slogan bites and policy rhetorical flourish bits around, one after another in a rushed, breathy fashion.  He sounded, actually like he was trying to nail jello to the wall (to steal one of his lines tonight).  Obama, in contrast, did a good job of consistently sounding mellifluous; he was listing coherent points in order and connecting them with poise and clarity.  CNN’s viewer reaction gauge at the bottom of the screen told the story.  Obama was much more consistently scoring high marks, with some dips and crests of course, whereas McCain’s favorability ratings remained largely lower, flat and unmoving.  He was putting the viewers to sleep – a lot.

5) Finally, McCain’s characteristic accusatory, jargon-filled, up-and-down cadence and delivery have probably begun to grate on people at this point in the campaign.  I went a little bit mad every time he repeated in that nasal, holier-than-thou tone, “I know what it’s like . . . ”  The word “reform” has lost all meaning to America.  To McCain, it’s become mere filler.  If I spent the time poring over the transcript, I could give copious examples, but you don’t need me to.  Just trust me on this one, my friends.

So, to wrap:

Rather than list for you five things Barack Obama did right tonight, I’m going to point out why I don’t have to.  As long as he didn’t stumble or fall (he didn’t), Obama is sitting in the catbird seat.  He’s in charge and he just needs to keep her steady as she goes.  Tonight, he did just that, and that is all he needed to do.

Leave a Comment

You call that a breakthrough?

Given the brouhaha House Republicans started last week over the bailout plan that was emerging in bicameral negotiations, you’d think that the deal that was just announced this weekend would look quite a bit different than it did last Thursday. But you would be wrong.

Officials said they had also agreed to include a proposal by House Republicans that gives the Treasury secretary an additional option of issuing government insurance for troubled financial instruments as a way of reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent up front on the rescue effort.

The Treasury would be required to create the insurance program, officials said, but not necessarily to use it. Mr. Paulson had expressed little interest in that plan, and initial cost projections suggested it would be enormously expensive. But final details were not immediately available.

Then, another bitter fight on how to pay for any losses:

Among the last sticking points was an unexpected and bitter fight over how to pay for any losses that taxpayers may experience after distressed debt has been purchased and resold.

Democrats had pushed for a fee on securities transactions, essentially a tax on financial firms, saying it was fitting that they contribute to the cost.

In the end, lawmakers and the administration opted to leave the decision to the next president, who must present a proposal to Congress to pay for any losses.

If this is what they ended up with, what was all the kicking and screaming about?  That’s not a breakthrough; it’s the agreement they had on Thursday.

And, why exactly would Republicans oppose making financial firms pay for any losses the taxpayers incur, when it was their opposition to taxpayers footing this bill that nearly killed the bailout in the first place?

Leave a Comment

Washington’s game of chicken on Wall Street crisis

First there was agreement – in principle – on a bailout package, and now there is not.  Why?

Secretary Paulson delivered his sweeping three page proposal to Congress last Friday.   Congressional leaders on both sides of the capitol (and the aisle) began negotiating the parameters of a retooled deal. They debated priorities like, does Paulson really need this much money upfront?  How do we know how much is needed?  Will taxpayers be left holding the bag, or is there a way to structure potential buyouts in such a way that taxpayers get any profits and Wall Street CEOs get chastened (with limited compensation packages).  And is there a way to help stop more home foreclosures?

All the while that the bipartisan, bicameral negotiators defined and addressed these questions, John McCain was refusing to take any clear position on the deal.  On Tuesday he claimed to not have read the Paulson proposal yet.  By Wednesday, a deal was in sight.  Word was most Senate Republicans would support it, thus Senator Bennett’s comment today that they had an agreement.

But while McCain waffled, House Republicans, led by the most conservative of them, were balking. They are up for re-election and a taxpayer bailout fundamentally violated the absolutist free market principles to which they adhere.  So even if John Boehner was open to the agreement taking shape in negotiations, it doesn’t mean the caucus is with him.  And even though Paulson reportedly reached out to McCain on Wednesday (the excuse to suspend the campaign), it’s not clear McCain can bring the caucus along either.  Speculation was (and still is) rampant that the rank and file GOP want to oppose the deal, while the Democrats grudgingly sign off.  It could pass, just barely, Bush would sign the bill, and Republicans would bludgeon Democrats over the next month as the party that used taxpayer money to rescue an unrepentant Wall Street.

And so that is the dynamic that took over in today’s meeting in the White House, in which John McCain reportedly took no stand and said little at all.  Neither House Minority Leader John Boehner nor John McCain can deliver the party, or afford to break with it.  And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t willing to risk being backed into a corner and locked into a deal with Washington’s least popular Republican, when $700 million dollars are at stake.  The question arises, should they just hold their nose, do the right thing and hope to talk taxpayers through why this was this right thing to do?  I’m not holding my breath on that one.

So what we have here is a game of chicken.  The upside to McCain will be if he and his renegade Republicans can force some of their alternative ideas onto a deal that gains bipartisan consensus. But no one has explained these ideas and McCain hasn’t backed them.  As I understand it a group including Eric Cantor (R-Va) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) want Wall Street “to pay for its bailout” by offering them government backed insurance, sort of like a homebuyer might buy mortgage insurance.  But if it is government backed – whatever that means – it still sounds a lot like our tax dollars at work, and I don’t see any potential profit at the other end, either.

So, could this all fall apart?  McCain has staked — rather, suspended — his campaign on getting a deal.  If he really wants a deal, can he force Republicans to move to the middle?  After the White House meeting with the candidates and congressional leaders, it wasn’t looking good.  Paulson later pleaded – reportedly on one knee?? – to Democrats, “Please don’t blow this up!”  To which Pelosi said, ‘We’re not the ones trying to blow this up; it’s the House Republicans!” “I know, I know,” Paulson sighed.

Maybe it will turn out that Paulson, Democrats and Senate Republicans were being too easy on Wall Street and the sky won’t really fall without this bailout.  Maybe there is a better way to restore confidence without the government footing or fronting the bill.  No one is crazy about the idea of buying “toxic waste,” especially with Ben Bernanke admitting in Q and A on Capitol Hill, he can’t guarantee this will work, and that he’s “been wrong quite a few times before.” If there is a better way, I’d sure like to hear it.

It is equally possible that the Republican party (minus, unbelievably, President Bush), with a little help from the Democrats, gambled the stability of our capital markets today — and thus ordinary Americans’ access to home, car, construction or school loans for the forseeable future — for the sake of this election.  What else could we have expected them to do?

Comments (1)

Free Sarah Palin!

I guess Hillary Clinton was right – sexism in the presidential election really is rampant.  Campbell Brown, a CNN anchor, weighs in with this hard-hitting commentary:

Frankly I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there who are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end.

She was in New York on Tuesday meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do?

They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.

I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment.

This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong, she is tough, she is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff.

Allow her to face down those pesky reporters just like Barack Obama did today, just like John McCain did today. Just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions. Let her have a real news conference with real questions.

By treating Sarah Palin differently from other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves.

Free Sarah Palin.

Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with.

Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do.

Leave a Comment

“You’ve been a bad disinterested voter…”

Just for giggles, I have to share something I just heard on the wonderful Rachel Maddow’s new show on MSNBC (I know, I know- but she is excellent.  Weekdays 9pm and 11pm, you can watch her while you read my blog:o).  Her pop culture guru, whose name unfortunately escapes me, reporting on the new ad released by “Declare yourself,” a nonpartisan national youth voter initiative, wisecracked:

“You’ve been a bad disinterested voter….”  Ah, laughter!  Love it.

 

Leave a Comment

I heart Tina Fey

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler leave nothing unsaid in this searing and hilarious Saturday Night Live skit from last night.  When the campaign drives you crazy, just watch this video.  (I bet Hillary Clinton will- alot.) Laughter is really the best therapy.

Leave a Comment

Miss Teen Alaska

Fred Kaplan gives an excellent, excellent point by point assessment and critique of the national security portion of the Gibson-Palin interview.  A few highlights:

Gov. Palin was obviously briefed by Sen. John McCain’s advisers, and briefed fairly well. She recited what were plainly the main points of these tutorials with an assertive confidence familiar to those who engaged in high-school debate competitions.

But it was painfully obvious—from the rote nature of her responses, the repetitions of hammered-home phrases, and the non sequiturs that leapt up when she found herself led around an unfamiliar bend—that there is not a millimeter of depth undergirding those recitations, that she had never given a moment’s thought to these matters before two weeks ago….

When Palin brought up her proximity to Russia (“They’re our next-door neighbor,” she proclaimed), Gibson asked what insights she derived from this fact. She replied:

“Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relations with our allies, pressuring also, helping us to remind Russia that it is their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.”

What does this mean? I have no idea, and I doubt that she does, either.

Ok, first let’s pretend that this was a coherent answer.  It simply doesn’t make sense to be saying you’d be ready for war with Russia (“so be it”) and at the same time stress the importance of the relationship and not starting a Cold War.  They are mutually exclusive concepts of the relationship with Russia.

Second, it wasn’t a coherent answer, at all.  And you know what her answer reminded me of?

Comments (3)

September 11, 2001

I just want to take a moment to remember this morning seven years ago.  MSNBC replayed its Today Show coverage from that day, and it was painful to watch.  I was reminded how utterly unclear everything was, and how scared and out of control it made us all feel.  I remember being glued to the TV in the office, how it all seemed so impossible, and the moment, with a fourth plane in the air, downtown DC evacuated.  We didn’t know where we were going, we just didn’t feel safe in the city.  So many of us were afraid to fly for months after the attacks.  I can only imagine the horror of those who saw the the twin towers fall right before their eyes. 

My heart breaks every time I think about the people on those four planes and those who never came out of the towers; of their loved ones, the children who won’t know their fathers, the parents who miss their daughters.  I hope that as time passes those who were left behind find a measure of peace and hope that can help them heal what can heal.

Leave a Comment

I’ll take “windfall profits for $1200” please, Alex

This snarky but otherwise informative commentary in Time magazine taught me a lot about Alaska’s economy under Governor Palin’s watch, and even more about our national debate over oil drilling and windfall profits taxes.

A few of the highlights:

  • Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska’s government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.
  • Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state’s unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
  • Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
  • Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed “nearly $500 million” in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget

Ok, so what do all of these numbers tell us about Palin’s record, and about our energy policies in general?  Palin is no doubt popular in Alaska for bringing back to Alaska a cut of the profits that oil companies make off of $100+ a barrel oil prices.  But the thing is, those profits that Alaskans enjoyed come at the expense of the rest of us taxpayers: we’re footing the bill for all of those federal projects Alaska gets, even though the state is awash in windfall profits that–wait for it–Palin herself taxed the oil companies on.  So, even though McCain opposes Obama’s proposed windfall profit tax proposal, Palin has put it into practice up in oil-rich Alaska.  No wonder they want to open up ANWR.

Comments (1)

Anne Kilkenny speaks

Wow.  I’m so late to the party.  I know I JUST blogged about how Palinvestigating is not productive, with the world hanging in the balance and all.  But I have to share an email I just stumbled on. 
It was written 10 days ago by Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla, AK housewife and community activist (and registered Democrat) in an attempt to give some context to inquiring friends and family when news of McCain’s Veep selection got out.

The email is extremely rich in detail on countless issues.  It is not gossip rag stuff, it is the stuff you want to know about someone running for higher office, and from someone you could certainly argue is biased, but has borne witness to 16 years of Palin.  The letter itself- 2400 words long!- is here and a McClatchy wire story on who this woman is and some of the highlights of the famous email is here.

I’ll comment about this later, I’m sure.  For now, I just want to put them out there for folks to digest.

And then here is this story I found on the WSJ website.  It appears the mainstream media is now comfortable stating for the record that indeed Palin did not kill the bridge to nowhere, she in fact supported it, gave a consolation speech to its supporters when Congress withdrew the support, and then reprogrammed the unspent money (aside from the funds used to built the lead in to the bridge) elsewhere in the state.

Sarah Palin dissing the bridge to nowhere

Sarah Palin dissing the bridge to nowhere

A key factoid comes out at the end of the article, on the larger issue of earmarks.  Team McCain says Obama has requested $1 billion for Illinois.  WSJ says its more like $316 million in ’07, none in ’08 and that Palin, as governor these last two budget cycles, has requested more than $700 million.

Comments (1)

Nothing really matters, anyone can see

First of all, thanks for the great feedback some of you have already given me!  Since this is part political diary and part resource, I was a little worried it would be like singing off key in the car by myself, where no one should ever hear me….

I digress.

Two good commentaries I want to highlight.  First an analysis which puts the latest polling data and the electoral math in realtime perspective.  Very informative, and for those of you Obama backers, heartening.

Now, on to Obama, and what he needs to do to win this election.  Arianna Huffington writes a great post today pointing up that the Obama campaign needs to give us all a good smack in the face, get us out of our Palin-panic tailspin or lovefest, whichever the case may be, and get us focused on what’s really at stake here over the next 57 days.  Here’s a taste:

And the plan has worked beautifully. Just look at what’s being discussed just 57 days before the election. Is it the highest unemployment rate in five years? The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The suicide bombing yesterday in Iraq that killed six people and wounded 54 — in the same market where last month a bomb killed 28 people and wounded 72? That the political reconciliation that was supposedly the point of “the surge” is nowhere near happening? That Iraq’s Shiite government is now rounding up the American-backed Sunni leaders of the Awakening? That the reason 8,000 soldiers may be leaving Iraq soon is so more can be deployed to Afghanistan where the Taliban is steadily retaking the country?

Leave a Comment

Personality contest

So. I am a woman, and I take real offense when I hear people talk about the big bad old boys club that Sarah Palin has outfoxed with her X-tra chromosome.  It drove me insane (and Palin too, actually, if you google that interview, you know, the one where she just doesn’t look six months pregnant, and she’s telling Hillary to quit whining) to watch Hillary punch hard and then whimper if one of the boys landed a punch on her.

Palin is already fond of smirking that she wasn’t running for a congeniality contest in Alaska (oh, that’s cute- she really did win one!).  What Palin has done what any good politician should- take advantage of the climate (Murkowski was unpopular), sculpt a cult narrative (hot mama huntress goes to Washington) and love what your audience loves (oil, pipelines and oil pipeline profits).  I don’t begrudge her for any of that.

Obama is, well, a black and white cookie.  He’s got both sides to him, which is what makes him so appealing to people who want national reconciliation (and international healing).  The community, and the professor.  But either of those sides can easily get someone caught up and not look farther.  Someone close to me who had been considering Obama shut the door completely once Rev. Wright appeared on the scene.  I happen to think Obama was in that church of his largely because it was useful, it was how to meet people and how to BE somebody in what I hear is a rough and tumble politics town.  But part of where he falters is that he takes his professor personality with him into office- and I love it.  He considers things, he looks for compromises, he explains the nuance.  That’s what I want in a leader.  Other people.  Like short.  Choppy sentences. Like George Dubya uses.  Makes ya feel good.

Now, McCain likes to compromise too, and that makes him an effective lawmaker.  But he does it by slashing and burning; he makes his name by embarassing someone else (who often, in the past, has deserved it), or by bullying.  When every Republican is lockstep with George W., there is an opening for a ‘maverick’ legislator to get in there and shake things up.  Frankly, I think he is far more valuable in the Senate than the White House (where he would surely get us into some kind of war with or around Russia, oh goody!).  He can be lynchpin-in-chief.

Biden, back in the Senate, I’d heard he was really egotistical, a jerk.  But he loves the sound of his voice so much he’d chat with anyone, other people’s staff sitting dutifully on the back bench of the chamber.  He came sat among myself and others once, and I will admit to being impressed.  (Hillary always seemed so cold and calculating in a ‘let’s get this overwith’ sort of way)  I enjoyed his exuberant indignance.  What I like best about Biden is his experience in foreign policy.  He knows it cold.  I can’t fathom what he was thinking on the plagiarism thing, it is just so utterly random.  I ought to be disgusted with the charge, but frankly, I just don’t care so much.  If plagiarism is the worst we can come up with, I’m ok with Joe.

So far, on Palin, the vibe I get is that she likes to play the accountability executive.  I’ve been reading quotes from folks who say she wants to expose ethics violations but doesn’t (obviously) like the light when its turned on her.  I’ve been reading about some 1100 emails she’s withholding from a FOIA-type request in her state, claiming executive privilege (even though her husband is cc’ed on many of them?).  She’s clearly a strong and winning personality, but, as she has said herself (and I will link to these things just as soon as I learn how;o), she “hasn’t thought much” about Iraq.  I don’t suspect she has any more insight on what the Fannie and Freddie takeover means for the economic system in the US any more than I do….though, given that I listened to a great story on NPR this morning, I probably know more.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »