Thoughts on the VEEP debate

A draw. I thought Sarah Palin outperformed incredibly low expectations. I don't think she shined to the extent that she changes any undecided minds. But Joe Biden did a wonderful job of thoughtfully engaging and being substantive without offending. All in all, I thought it was an enjoyable debate: not especially challenging, but not especially phoney.

This is not a game changer, but you can bet that the punditry will have less to mock about Sarah Palin. For that, she made me respect her again as a woman .

FYI, the Manhattan was the right drink to accompany this debate: fun and a little substantive. What will be the drink for election night? Comments?

The electoral field begins its tightening

So it begins: Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that the McCain campaign is pulling out of Michigan. Based on recent polls, that means in 2008 the election will likely hinge on... wait for it....

Florida and Ohio.

Joy.

Silverman for Obama

Warning: link to indelicate language follows.
(You're totally going to watch now, right?)

Sarah Silverman's plan for winning a swing state: "The Great Schlepp". Classic Silverman.

More swing state polling

Remember those swing states we looked at yesterday? Let's look at some new swing state polling this one from CNN/Time:

Florida: Obama +4
Minnesota: Obama +11
Missouri: Obama +1
Nevada: Obama +4
Virginia: Obama +9

OK - the polls have consistently shown that Obama has the momentum. If you're following the horse race, I think you can ignore polling for about a week. By next Thursday or Friday, people will have had time to digest both the VP debate and, more importantly, the second Presidential debate, which is scheduled for Tuesday. As I've argued before, people are going to vote the top of the ticket this year. Sarah Palin would have to prove herself to be an utterly disasterous possibility for the Presidency in the eyes of her GOP following in order to have any additional downward drag on McCain.

Also, look for any stories coming out of Kenya for the October surprise that could change the narrative in the way McCain needs.

Patriotism, taxes, and the conventional wisdom

This recent exchange between Joe Biden and ABC News' Kate Snow has been pointed to by the media as an example of a Biden gaffe. Can ANYONE explain to me why this is a gaffe?

Snow: "Anyone making over $250,000..."

Biden: "Is going to pay more. You got it. Its time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And the way to do that is - they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."

I'm with Biden! All the way, man. Why is it that we CANNOT seem to accept sacrifice? Isn't this what got us into our financial crisis? An expectation of entitlement? We deserve to have a bigger house, a better vacation, cheaper goods, and not pay ANY more in taxes during an incredibly expensive war. This notion seems to be a political standard: Americans do not need to give more. Do actual Americans really feel this way?

Do YOU feel that way? And, by the way, are you sure you AREN'T giving more?

Biden is talking about wealthier Americans (do you make over $250,000 year? I actually don't have a single friend who does.) getting fewer tax write-offs, thereby increasing the nation's income. Are you going to tell me that families with McMansions and Escalades can't afford to chip in to the cause? The America I grew up admiring expected its wealthy members to step up during tough times. That's who we were supposed to be.

We can't help the largely middle-class Americans who are in trouble with mortgages and debt. After all, they made uninformed, impulsive decisions, making bad investments, ignoring what the long term consequences would be so that they could get the best deals for right now. We have a moral obligation to let them face the consequences. Now, where did I put that Bailout Bill?

Glittering generalities: ooo, SHINY

One tactic to watch for in tonight's veep debate: folksy tales and "glittering generalities". In yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, Alaska state rep and former gubernatorial candidate Andrew Halcro writes about what we can expect to see from Sarah Palin:

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.

Become ONE with your candidate

In the Washington Post today, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote about the response she's received since writing her famous "Sarah Palin should bow out" column on Sunday. Apparently the response was vicious and personal:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should "off" myself. ...
The emotional pitch of many comments suggests an overinvestment in Palin as "one of us."
Palin's fans say they like her specifically because she's an outsider, not part of the Washington club. When she flubs during interviews, they identify with that, too. "You see the lack of polish, we applaud it," one reader wrote.

This harkens to something that irked me during the Democratic primaries, this personal attachment to the candidates. As a woman who was never particularly jazzed about candidate Clinton, I could never get the rabid devotion displayed by many of her supporters. Furthermore I did and DO find it offensive that so many women think that Hillary was our last hope. What an incredible slap in the face to all of the other brilliant women whose greatest aspiration is public service! (I'm winking at you, Jess!)

Dahlia Lithwick and the smart ladies over at the XX Factor have discussed this phenomenon of over-identification with our candidates. Its one thing to want to be like those we admire. Its a whole different neurosis to want them to be like us. Maybe we could all use a crash course in Hiring Practice 101. Qualifications for this position do not include affability and beer-drinking skills.

Final thoughts from Parker:

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve. ...

Our day of reckoning may indeed be upon us. Between war and economic collapse, we have enormous challenges. It will take the best of everyone to solve them. That process begins minimally with a commitment to engage in civil discourse and a cease-fire in the war against unwelcome ideas.

Brava.

Liberal Baby Eaters

This one is so good I just had to copy the post. From Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones' MOJO blog (thanks, Allison!)

Hugh Hewitt and the Department of Caricatures

Folks on the interwebs are making fun of the questions right wing blogger and talk show host Hugh Hewitt recently put to Sarah Palin. They are the softest of softballs — they make Sean Hannity look like Edward R. Murrow. You can check them out here.

I want to highlight this one in particular:

"You're pro-life, and how much of the virulent opposition to you on the left do you attribute to your pro-life position, and maybe even to the birth of, your decision, your and Todd's decision to have Trig?"

That's right. Hugh Hewitt think the left opposes Sarah Palin because she decided to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome. Not because she knows nothing about foreign affairs while we're engaged in two wars. Not because she has nothing coherent to say about the government bailout of Wall Street as we face a dire economic crisis. Not because of her retrograde views on science and books. Not because she undermines every feminist accomplishment Hillary Clinton fought for earlier this election season.

The left opposes Sarah Palin because she gave birth to a baby with Down Syndrome. Just think about the misconceptions about the left that need to be in place for someone to make that claim. The left either hates infants with disabilities, or it hates women who refuse to abort unborn children with disabilities. Or it wants to jack up some kind of karmic abortion counter as high as possible and is disappointed when it misses an opportunity.

Has Hugh Hewitt ever met a Democrat?

"The most anticipated Vice Presidential debate in a long time"

That seems to be the headline today. "In a long time"? OK, maybe I'm unschooled in our nation's electoral history, but I think we can say with some certainty that this is the most anticipated Vice Presidential debate in EXACTLY 24 years.

The Debates: the Basics

While Syd and I were watching the first ("foreign policy") debate, he asked me when the next debates were and what there "themes" were. Amazingly, I've not seen that info provided once in the media. So, you're welcome!

Oct. 2 - Palin / Biden VP debate
Host: PBS's Gwen Ifill**

Oct. 7 - Town Hall debate
Host: Tom Brokaw
NOTE: The Commission on Presidential Debates is taking your submissions for questions for this debate until FRIDAY!

Oct. 15 - Domestic Policy debate
Host: Bob Schieffer

All debates start at 9pm EST / 6pm PST and are available on all major networks.

**UPDATE: The hosting of the veep debate may be in question. Turns out Gwen Ifill has a book coming out around the time of the inauguration entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". From the Amazon.com description, this doesn't sound like an in-the-tank-for-Obama tome, but rather an analysis of modern race politics. Still, it has the appearance of impropriety, and it was bad vetting on the McCain camps part for them only to realize this now. Ifill could indeed be out.

Obama Pulls Ahead in Swing States

If you're still looking at the Gallup Daily Tracking polls to see how your candidate is doing in the Presidential horse race, you need to stop. Now. The electoral college elects the president, and Obama won't get more electoral votes from California the more popular he is here. That said...

The Quinnipiac poll of the three big swing states - Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania -released today shows Obama pulling ahead in all of them. Barring any repeat shenannigans in Ohio or Florida, this bodes very well for Obama.

Consider: 1) the economy will not be getting better in the next 30 days, and conventional wisdom and polling agree that Obama benefits when the economy is our number one worry, and 2) Obama has put the one debate that was supposedly his weak spot behind him. Things will likely only get better for Obama in the upcoming debates.

Now, I don't think Florida is remotely settled. The Jewish American population there seems to be uneasy (at best) with Barack Obama. And there's no way I'll put it past Florida officials to screw up the election in their state. But its a hugely important state and worth watching closely.

Furthermore, let's put this to rest: even if Joe Biden calls Sarah Palin a tartlette in tomorrow night's debate, its not going to sway the electorate one way the other. People will vote the top of the ticket this year.

Just for the record, here are the swing states you need to watch and their respective electoral votes:

Florida - 27
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Michigan - 17
North Carolina - 15
Virginia - 13
Indiana - 11
Missouri - 11
Minnesota - 10
Colorado - 9
Nevada - 5
New Mexico - 5
New Hampshire - 4
Montana - 3

I'm just sayin...

If I have to hear one more report on what Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor yesterday, I'm going to throw a brick at the TV. It isn't important right now. And on that note, I'm taking my daughter to dance class.

NOTE: For the record, Pelosi's speech was stupid, useless, and was the beginning of the end of all the warm feelings I had about Congress' weekend of real, hard work.

Addressing the root cause

So here's what no one is reporting and DESPERATELY needs to be communicated to people: what is the root cause of the devaluation of mortgage-backed securities and why don't we address THAT problem?

Well, maybe not no one. NPR's Chris Arnold reports talks to several economists who think that we can be more productive in our bailout measures if we try to salvage securities by readjusting mortgages. Its not a new notion, but can someone explain to me why the GOP is opposed to restructuring mortgages for people who are able to pay them? FDIC chief Sheila Bair took that approach when her agency took over Indie Mac, and its been working.

Instead of bitching about how crap the Paulson bill was on arrival at Capitol Hill, perhaps we should all take the time to get educated on this issue and tell our elected officials how we want them to solve the problem.

And - seriously - please explain to me why we don't want to restructure these mortgages?

If it looks fishy even to the banking industry...

In our current crisis, here's a new rule of thumb: if even the financial services industry would suspect fraud and launch an investigation, its probably stinks.

According to The BRAD BLOG's reporting of the voter fraud case King Lincoln vs. OH Sec. of State and the testimony of GOP's cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore:

...control of Ohio's election system by [GOP IT Consultant Michael] Connell's firm, may have allowed for the compromise of election results as they were being reported. The structure of the system,as results were allowed to be first diverted to Connell's servers that night, would have been "cause to launch an immediate fraud investigation" in the banking industry.

Whether you think claims of voter fraud stem from sour grapes or valid concerns, as long as these cases have merit in our legal system, we need to keep them highly visible, get them resolved and have some strong vote security measures implemented on a national level if we want to restore our role in the world as a beacon of democracy.

Why the GOP rejected this bill

From Crooks and Liars » Barney Frank: Because Someone Hurt The Republicans Feelings They Decide To Punish The Country

(thanks, Rob)

Yeah, in an election where both Dems and Repubs couldn't get far enough away from Bush if they took a LEAR JET, it was Nancy Pelosi's insult of the Pres that kept the GOP from supporting this bill. Perhaps they have a bridge they'd like to sell us.

The problem: support for this bill was lacking on a bi-partisan level. You can blame one or the other party for not following through with whatever machinations could have gotten this thing passed, but the bottom line was that the electorate was not convinced that this bill was in THEIR best interests.

UPDATE: GIVE. ME. A. BREAK. This morning, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) is saying he is "incredibly dissapointed" that 2/3 of House Republicans voted against this bill when "60% of House Democrats" voted for this bill. Is there some psychology that says a number seems more positive as a percentage than as a fraction? Both parties balked. Suck on it, Moran.

In honor of the new christening

Have you heard about them but not sure what they are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exurbs

Paul Krugman's take on the bill - BEFORE and AFTER defeat

BEFORE:

Bailout questions answered

I'm being asked two big questions about this thing: (1) Was it really necessary? (2) Shouldn't Dems have tossed the whole Paulson approach out the window and done something completely different?

On (1), the answer is yes. It's true that some parts of the real economy are doing OK even in the face of financial disruption; big companies can still sell bonds (and have lots of cash on hand), qualifying home buyers can still get Fannie-Freddie mortgages, and so on. But commercial paper, which is important to a lot of businesses, is in trouble, and I'm hearing anecdotes about reduced credit lines causing smaller businesses to pull back. Plus there's a serious chance of a run on the hedge funds, which could make things a lot worse. With the economy already looking like it's headed into a serious recession by any definition, the risks of doing nothing look too high.

It's true that we might be able to stagger through with more case-by-case rescues ― I think of this as the "two, three, many AIGs" strategy; in fact, we might not be at this point if Paulson hadn't decided to make an example of Lehman. But right now it's not even clear who to rescue, and the credit markets are freezing up as you read this (1-month t-bill at 0.04 %, TED spread at 3.5)

On (2), the call is tougher. But putting myself in Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi's shoes, I'd look at it this way: the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms ― basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That's what the plan should have looked like.

Maybe such a plan would have passed Congress; and maybe, just maybe Bush would have signed on; Paulson is certainly desperate for a deal.

But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes ― and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

So that, I think, is why it had to be done this way. I don't like it, and I don't like the plan, but I see the constraints under which Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid were operating.

AND AFTER:

OK, we are a banana republic

House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I've already explained, I don't think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn't.

I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it ― though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.

For now, I'm just going to quote myself:

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we've become a banana republic with nukes.

Carbon Offsets: a green red herring

Do you know what a carbon offset ACTUALLY is? Check out this great interview with Peter Schweizer arguing that carbon offsets are simply a way for people with money to outsource their moral obligation to be more green.

See, here's the thing: global warming is a symptom of more than carbon overuse. Its part of a larger habit of consumption that is killing us. When will we get it? All the carbon offsets in the world won't help us if we continue to need more house, more car, new clothes, new furniture, better bargains, more stuff. Newer. More. Both antithesis to reduce, reuse, recycle, conserve.

Do You Need Another Reason to Buy American?

Toxic toys. Disintegrating tires. Poisoned toothpaste, pet food, and human food. Deadly baby formula. These are just the newest reasons not to buy MADE IN CHINA. But what about the other reasons? They've been there all along.

Outsourcing of American jobs. Loss of livable wages. Profit-at-any-cost corporations. Walmartification and the death of local business. Lack of quality control (um, YEAH). If you think all of those things aren't inextricably tied to MADE IN CHINA then, baby, you're just kidding yourself.

Did you need the FDA to tell you that buying from China was putting savings above safety, quality and even your health? Your family's health? You didn't, really. You knew it. Cheap food, cheap toys, cheap tablecloths are all products of corner-cutting, and China is at the top of that heap. Add to that the environmental impact of all those American dollars being sent to companies who demonstrate their value in their willingness to pollute with impunity.

Look through your house at everything that is Made in China and think about all the ways you're putting your health and the health of your family in China's hands. And ask yourself, "Did I sell my soul for WalMart's low prices?" Always.

Quotable Marquez:

“She discovered with great delight that one does not love one's children just because they are one's children but because of the friendship formed while raising them.”