Big Rumble

Big question: How is Joe Biden going to blow the debate on Thursday? (And yes, my expectations for Palin are set realistically low, but my fear is that Joe he will commit a world-class gaffe that dominates the headlines after the debate.  The media will be desperately looking for one.)  I really hope Joe can prove me wrong.

Some things will never change

I have not felt like I have too much to add on the current economic crisis since my post from a few days ago. My argument still holds, and I think that my proposal makes much more sense than the current (temporary) failed, modified "Paulson plan". (I'm under no delusions - I'm sure that what I suggest isn't perfect, that I'm no economist, and that smart, disinterested experts could craft something much better.)

But at the end of the day, the reality is that all parties have behaved entirely consistently with what you would expect from them.

The Bush Administration, having no credibility on this issue, aggressively pushes a plan that it crafted in secret, with no input, and with a demand that the bill had to be passed or doom would follow. The plan empowered the same parties to create a solution that also created the problem. And then the Administration was unable to exercise any real leadership to get something done.

The Democrats fell in line behind a bad Administration Plan for the supposed good of achieving a higher purpose, in this case saving the U.S. financial system, rather than holding firm to their principles. We can debate it was a courageous example of putting country over party, or just plain cowardice, but it's the same question that arises over and over again when considering the motives of congressional Democrats getting on board with a bad Bush Administration plan.

Conservative House Republicans, led by Eric Cantor (who while simultaneously voting for the plan appears to have engineered its demise), torpedoed a bipartisan approach to passing an imperfect bill in an attempt to turn the plan into a Democratic bill and allow Republicans to pin any failure of the plan, and any voter anger, on the Democrats. And meanwhile the lie is given to their alleged concern for "Main Street" or "average Americans" by their insistence that an acceptable bill should get rid of the Mark to Market rules, so that the bankers can pretend that worthless assets really have some value.

And John McCain grandstanded and lied and made a fool of himself.

All true to form.

Sticks and stones

I'm sure the Republicans are going to see McCain as being strong and forceful in this debate, and the media will portray both candidates as having scored points, and that the debate is in large part a draw.

But I'm seeing something different here. We've got one candidate who is consistently petty and condescending and grandstanding, and another candidate who is being decisive and showing competence and knowledge and leadership. Lots of people confuse the first for the later, but they're not the same thing.

This debate may not change too many minds, but Barack Obama is demonstrating the skills that we need in the next president of the United States.

High as the sky

I've been a bit quiet of late. It's not that I don't have much to say, but, frankly, Josh is doing such a good job that as long as that link to TPM is over there on the left side of the page, I'm pretty comfortable about the message.

That being said, the whole bailout package is just one big disaster, and it's made that way not just because the proposal itself is horrible, but the conceptual framework behind it is focused on protecting the wrong side of the equation. We need to stop focusing on bailing out the fools who led the charge that placed us in this mess, e.g. the investment bankers, brokers and so-called financial professionals, and instead focus on protecting the consumers and homeowners. Now I know that sounds like a populist or, as the right would have it, socialist standpoint. Fine, whatever.

But my focus isn't on who "deserves" protection but rather on where we can do the most good without encouraging more bad behavior.

And it seems to me by crafting a recovery plan (rather than a "bailout") that focuses on getting the homeowners out of the bad mortgages that are the underlying garbage in this whole mess, would be much more productive and valuable in the short and long run.

Rather than writing checks to corporations, then, we should instead focus on the government taking over defaulted mortgages, albeit at renegotiated amounts. If the federal government comes in and buys a defaulting mortgage, the banks would agree to reduce the principal to some percentage of current appraised value, for example 65% or so (could be less or more, may depend on region or overall price, etc., but needs to be based on some rational formula - my inclination is to make it as low as possible, though). In exchange, the homeowner is released from the mortgage and title transfers to the federal government, and the homeowner leases back the property from the federal government. The homeowner gets a option to repurchase the home from the government at a price approximating the original (not discounted - they do not get rewarded) principal plus some interest factor, perhaps with deductions based on the value of the rent paid over time. Banks get some immediately liquidity but have to take a loss. The CDO's are valued at something, so a floor is established. Banks can then rely on each others' assets. The government price gets set low enough that if private companies can offer a better deal, or the floor that the government sets helps stabilize the market, there is opportunity for investors and bankers to come in and offer a better deal (yeah, I guess that would possibly leave the feds with the crappy assets, which is why you set the price really low). Everyone bears some burden, but nobody is let off scot-free, bad behavior is not incentivized too much, and the free market is allowed to continue to operate with simply a new form of price support.

Why is nothing like this on the table?

UPDATE: Thursday morning, Sully points to this, which is the first thing I've seen that talks about something like what I mention above.

Selling me a nickel for a dime

I've been getting more and more frustrated by the dishonest campaign being run by John McCain, and the lack of a reaction by the Obama camp. I understand that responding presents a difficult equation - you don't want McCain to set Obama's agenda, and cannot allow Senator Obama to come across as angry or bitter.

But the campaign needs to do something, and I would like to see a snappy advertising campaign that targets McCain's integrity over and over based on the vulgar campaign that he has been running.

Specifically, I would propose a series of advertisements along the following lines:

(1) Short clips of demonstrable lies about Obama by the McCain camp (such as the complete distortion about the sex ed law);
(2) A statement that John McCain has to know that this is a lie, and that everyone knows that the reality is the polar opposite of what McCain has said;
(3) Then state that if Obama were running his campaign like McCain runs his, he'd would accuse him of [yadda yadda] because of this quote, which we have taken out of context, just like McCain has repeatedly done to us;
(4) But we're running a different kind of campaign, one whose goal is not just to win, but to change course, improve our nation, and let America live up to it's promise;
(5) So to John McCain and the Republican lies, I say "Enough!" It's time for a change.
(7) I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

This probably needs a fair amount of work, but the idea is to not focus on defense (although getting the rebuttal in), but instead to make McCain's lack of honesty and decency the issue.

It's time to step away from policy and tear down the illusion of McCain's integrity and decency, to reflect loud and clear that Barack Obama is a better man than John McCain. A campaign that draws on the distinction between the true character of the two men. Relentlessly beat McCain's image down. Use the word "lie" over and over. Use McCain's nasty campaign against him, but do it by being on offense. No apologies, no explanations, just a concise statement that McCain is a liar.

Just as important, don't fall into the trap of playing to a Democratic base. Don't get distracted and talk about McCain's relationship with lobbyists, his hiring of Rove protégés, whatever. Make this all about McCain, and make it clear that the man is a dangerous jerk. Don't give the Chris Matthews cadre the opportunity to say this is McCain's people, not McCain. Stop conceding that this guy is a hero. McCain's campaign is trash, the campaign speaks for McCain, and McCain is his campaign.

(And, I would add, don't be shy about saying that on the issue of McCain's character, Joe Biden was woefully, horribly wrong, that he was mislead by someone who has now proved that he didn't deserve the respect that he was given, and that, just like with respect to the vote for the war, Biden has learned from his mistake. This part may be over the line, but I wouldn't be afraid to say that it turns out that some Democrats developed a respect for McCain because of the way he was slimed by the Bush campaign, but that in some battles like Bush-McCain - like the Iraq-Iran war - neither side actually deserved our backing. If they respond about what this says about Biden's judgment, say that Biden is along for his experience and relationships, but that it's Obama's judgment that matters. With Palin in the campaign, the McCain camp cannot make the argument about what happens if the VP is elevated to president, except to the radical base that Obama isn't going to win over in any event.)

And, finally, don't back down when McCain responds with his characteristic distress about the tone of the campaign, his sympathetic-sounding interviews with a media that still reflexively kowtow's to McCain. When McCain complains about tone, tear him apart for being the problem.

Make it clear that when Obama is talking about Change, McCain is a significant part of what needs to be changed.

Everyone stands in judgement

At this point in the campaign we're witnessing the classic Republican dirty trick playbook in action. It's one of the main reasons why I would have liked to have seen Wes Clark on the ticket - even after the Bob Schieffer nonsense. Obama has to take the high road; it's who he is and how he got to where he is today. Joe Biden is hampered by his friendship with and prior effusive praise of McCain (not to mention his criticisms of Barack Obama, which probably should have disqualified him from the position, but 'nuff said on that), as well as the handcuffs that are on him to keep him from saying something stupid (see prior parenthetical). Not to rehash, but along with helping bring a peace with the Clinton camp, which is still somewhat shaky, Wes Clark would not have been restrained, would have called it like it is, and would have controlled the conversation.

During the whole Wes Clark-Schieffer-"being shot down is not a qualification" fiasco, I did a number of posts about the ridiculous media reactions, including those of Andrew Sullivan, indicating my annoyance at their "unrepentant" criticism of Clark, with Sully calling him "ham-fisted," and their failure to apply equal standards to the McCain campaign's tactics and insistence that there is a "good McCain".

Water under the bridge, I know.

But the Obama campaign is now in a position that it needs to do something to shake things up, take control of the conversation back from McCain and his enablers, and do it while not changing the character of Barack Obama or Joe Biden themselves.

At this point, I think the Obama campaign needs a game changer. The best way I can see to do this is for the campaign to move forward and leak out some shadow cabinet picks, and, most important, leak Wes Clark's name as pick for Secretary of Defense or State. Give them a reason to get General Clark out there, so he can attack McCain on honor and duty. The campaign doesn't even need to make any official statement about cabinet picks, so that the inevitable attacks on Wes shouldn't impact Obama as much as if Clark were on the ticket. But Clark owes nothing to McCain and isn't restrained by a past with McCain. Get him on Countdown and Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper, sure, but also on Meet the Press and back onto Face the Nation to directly confront Schieffer's previous ridiculous treatment of him, putting the issue of McCain's character back on the table.

(It also would have the effect of putting McCain back on the defensive, and possibly counter with his shadow cabinet, which I can only imagine would be scary or even more scary, take your pick. It would, of course, help if Obama could secure Colin Powell on his side or at least get assurances that Powell stays on the sidelines.)

It's time to turn this campaign into high gear, and it's not going to happen unless somebody is willing to take out John McCain at the knees. Despite the desire for change, the nation is still easily manipulated by fear.

The media might question some of Palin's comments or give some lip service to McCain's deceptive ads, but they're not going to take McCain down themselves. Someone like Wes Clark is needed to erase the myth of John McCain the hero. So long as Democrats concede that myth, McCain can - and probably will - win this election, because he'll scorch the earth to get there. It may be painful, but McCain's tenure as a hero must end. Others may not understand the importance of this strategy, but General Clark certainly does, and is the perfect person to lead that battle.

I'm here with the elephants, I'm cleaning up mess

I just caught Thursday night's Daily Show.  Jon Stewart pulls out the broom and tries to sweep away the nonsense of the RNC's "elite" bashing and contempt for the idea of being a "community organizer," then summarizes their attitude in perfect fashion:  

Yeah, so to everyone out there trying to make a difference in your communities, f#*% you, you stupid #@*es, you jerkoffs.  You know what you are, you know what you are, people ...?  You're a thousand points of bull#@*!, that's what you are.

The Changes

As I said last night, my view of John McCain's speech last night was that it was 45 minutes of telling us that he is going to change government by doing the same things as Bush. Apparently, others, like Tom Toles, noticed that too.

Just blowing smoke

After the complete disgrace that was last night at the GOP convention, after the nasty speeches by Rudy! and the GOP's new queen, Sarah Palin, I was not planning to either watch John McCain's speech tonight or liveblog about it. I just didn't want to submit myself to that again. How morally bankrupt must a political movement be - particularly one that likes to pretend it is the guardian of all that is righteous - to seethe with comtempt whenever they mention "community organizer," as if helping the needy find a voice and improve their lives and social condition was worthy of derision rather than tremendous respect? Those aren't my values (they're not really "values" at all, are they?), and certainly not the values I want my children to see, so why would I possibly want to let that into my home again?

But my daughter had to watch part of the convention for her social studies class, so despite my best intentions I caved on the idea of going cold turkey tonight.

But I didn't break down completely. I still left the live-blogging to Josh. And he has summed McCain's speech all up in one of his live-blog comments that he just made: "It's astonishing that he's giving this whole speech from memory."

As a related side note, a few minutes ago McCain said that Sarah Palin has worked "with her hands and nose." McCain's handlers really need to do a more careful job of punctuating on McCain's teleprompter - John, the pause comes after "hands," not after "knows." Sheesh!

On the bright side, it's a good thing that John McCain is so reluctant to talk about his POW experience. He sure lays it on thick, doesn't he?

And now, even McCain cannot resist joining in the nasty sarcasm that marked last night and that is so indicative of classic Republican campaigning. Said McCain, with his characteristic scorn: "I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need." Give it a rest already; there's one candidate who has made his campaign and convention all about his personal greatness, and that candidate is not Barack Obama. It is amazing how Republicans consistently project their own behavior onto their Democratic opponents, and then heap that behavior full with unrelenting scorn in Freudian dimensions. It's even more amazing that, so taken in by rhetoric, the media lets the Republican nonsense stick, without questioning or reason.

I have never bought into the whole nonsense about McCain being a moderate (and that has been, over the years, the source of many arguments that I've had with my Democratic friends, such as those who pushed the idea that McCain would have made a great VP choice for John Kerry), the delusion that so many convince themselves of, that John McCain really believes in the so-called moderate views that they personally believe in, despite McCain's specific words in opposition to those views. For instance, he opposes choice and pledges to put more Scalias and Alitos on the Supreme Court, but some still insist on believing that he wants to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land. He changes his stated positions, or votes in complete contrast to his stated positions, on innumerable issues, from gay marriage to torture to environmental policy, yet he still enjoys a reputation as a "straight talker." It's remarkable what careful branding can do.

Nevertheless, at one time I too thought that, although I had policy differences with him, the man had a certain dignity.

But it's just not so. I'm sick and tired of hearing that he's a good man, willing to defy his party on issues of conscience and good sense. Let's be real already. John McCain is all about John McCain, and will do whatever he thinks is necessary to advance the cause of John McCain. Whether or not this is the man that John McCain used to be eight years ago, I just don't care. It doesn't matter. Those who lament that he has changed, whether because they truly believe it or instead resist the notion that they have in fact been duped by a duplicitous egoist, just need to get over it and recognize John McCain for who he is, now, today.

John McCain is not just wrong; he's dangerous. He either lacks the courage of convictions, or those convictions are not those that everyone likes to pretend he holds.

We need to make sure he's defeated.

I'll close the night with two points:

First, I just checked in with TPM again, and, to my point above, here's what Josh just said: "Nothing brings so much happiness as betraying all the ideals you said you believed in to try to take advantage of your last chance to be president."

Second, my summary of the speech in one sentence: We need to change everything that went on in the Bush years by behaving in the exact same way as in the Bush years.

I guess I've now also gone back on my decision not to blog about McCain's speech.

Walk on

This so-called controversy about Sarah Palin's youngest son and her daughter's pregnancy can only be bad for the Obama campaign. Obama supporters need to focus on the issues, and John McCain's and Sarah Palin's positions on the issues, not on personal characteristics of Sarah Palin. I don't want to discuss the details and as a result add to the discussion of this issue. But it's just not a winning issue for the Democrats, except to the extent that it shows a policy flaw, and even then it's problematic. That is, to the extent that Sarah Palin opposes sex education and instead pushes abstinence only programs, it is perhaps relevant to that. But even then, discussions tend to get away from you, and mentioning it in the context of sex education would almost certainly bridge to a broader and certainly unhelpful discussion of issues we shouldn't touch. And it's an issue that we shouldn't care about, beyond the policy issues.

Sarah Palin's nomination as a Vice Presidential candidate has many issues, mostly wrapped up in her views on key issues (or her lack of views, as the case appears to be with respect to foreign policy), such as her belief that global warming is not man-made, her anti-choice views, her desire to open up ANWR to drilling, etc. We should be focused on the fact that the current talking points about Palin's positions and leadership are bogus - for instance, the nonsense idea that she has "stood up to big oil", where the only standing up has been her desire to get the state a bigger portion of the revenues and to push for more drilling than the oil companies wanted. She also comes into the game with her own real ethics scandal, which does deserve attention. This attention on the baby issues is a distraction, and is playing with fire.

Let's be smart, people.