Check out my rundown of the 2010 Senate races here

Monday, September 29, 2008

Thoughts on the First Debate

On Friday night, Barack Obama and John McCain met for the first time together to debate foreign policy at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS.

Here's my thoughts: no one won, which means no one lost. Which means that McCain didn't do what he needed to do.

McCain came into this debate down about four percentage points nationally, and needed to make up some serious ground after the economic crisis and his unpopular and ineffective (and strange) suspension of his campaign. And by essentially tying Obama Friday night, he didn't accomplish that. Here's my take on how it went, step by step.

Let's start with the way they carried themselves.

Obama looked and sounded crisp, and addressed the camera and McCain directly, and mentioned the middle class several times. From the polls that were done during and directly after the debate, people generally thought he was more in touch with their needs.

McCain looked and sounded old. At least for the first half of the debate, he looked and sounded a lot like a corpse. His attempts at jokes were feeble and dated, and he made a few references (something about bears in Montana) and an old Reagan reference that no one under 50 would understand.

He started to look more alive as they got to the topic of foreign policy, but it did remind of the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate, at least in appearance. The contrasts were remarkable. Old and young. White and black. Conservative and liberal. The past and the future, etc.

Now, let's get down to how they responded to the questions.

Obama's initial responses to moderator Jim Lehrer's lead questions concerning the economy. He came across as knowledgeable and prepared, which was exactly what he needed to do. The economy is the issue that the vast majority of Americans care about and many viewers (i.e. undecided voters) probably lost interest after that.

McCain did not start off very strong on the economic front, constantly mentioning pork barrel spending and earmarks, which, frankly, the American people don't really care about that much right now.It took him a while to warm up. But once he did, on the topic of foreign policy, he really stuck it to Obama (with the exception of Iraq), often repeating "you don't understand." For example, on the topic of meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions, McCain frankly made Obama look naive. He also controlled the agenda of the debate in the entire second half.

When Lehrer asked where the two candidates stood on the $600 billion bailout, they both avoided the question entirely. The way they see it, it is way too politically risky to take a side on this issue before Congress approves it.

The only moment in which Obama took control on foreign policy is when he said that McCain was wrong about the Iraq War, wrong about us being greeted as liberators, wrong about Sunni-Shiite relations, etc. That was actually the most memorable sound clip from this fairly uneventful debate.

After the debate was over, Joe Biden gave the Democratic response, like a vice presidential nominee is supposed to do. Sarah Palin turned down the invitation to do the Republican response, probably because the McCain campaign was too worried about what she's say after her horrible, horrible interview with Katie Couric. So Rudy Giuliani gave it instead.

The bottom line about this debate is this. If you were for Obama going in, you're still for him. If you were for McCain going in, you're still for him. And if you were undecided going in, you're probably still undecided.

The only thing that might have changed is that undecided voters might see Obama as even more strong on the issue they're most concerned with: the economy. Undecideds also may see Obama as more presidential and more ready to lead after this debate, seeing him go toe-to-toe with McCain on his best issue.

But overall, this won't be a game-changer. And that is bad news for McCain going forward. He has trailed Obama by similar margins before, but he's always had time to make it up. Now, as we get closer and closer to election, there is less time to make up the difference. Each day, there are less undecided voters and less people's opinions to sway.

And this debate--focused on foreign policy--was supposed to be his strong suit. Friday night was the night he was supposed to at least cut the gap a little in the polls, but so far they are showing that nothing has changed. McCain has to do something in order to salvage his campaign soon, or we could potentially be looking at an Obama landslide come November 4.

Friday, September 26, 2008

McCain to Participate in Debate

After announcing that he would not attend tonight's debate unless a decision was reached by Congress regarding the proposed bill that would grant $700 billion in bailouts to banks and large corporations, John McCain decided to go back on his word.

He was very firm and resolute when he announced his vow not to attend the debate on Wednesday, and promptly took off for Washington late the next morning.

But when he arrived in Washington, ready and rearing to solve the nation's economic woes, he was as quiet as a mouse almost the entire time. He met briefly with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Minority Leader John Boehner, but did not go too in depth at all in the process--or so it seemed from an outsider's point of view. He also has not given any indication whether he supports Boehner's plan or Treasury Secretary Paulson's plan to help solve the crisis.

But earlier today, his campaign announced that he would be attending tonight's debate. In a statement released this afternoon, the McCain campaign announced that enough progress had been made in Congress (because of him?) that he felt it was okay to attend the debate and un-suspend his campaign.

Late this morning, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Chris Dodd--chairman of the Senate banking committee--appeared at a press conference together. Reid said that the addition of presidential politics (a.k.a. John McCain) into the Senate and House negotiations was not helping the process, in fact it was harming it.

So basically, the the negotiations in the Senate made little to no progress, but McCain decided to scram anyway, going against his vow that he would not debate Barack Obama unless the country's economic woes were on the fast track to a tangible solution. And he may have even done some harm and caused a delay in the negotiations.

And on top of that, McCain's campaign mistakenly released an internet add that read "John McCain Wins Debate!" several hours before he officially announced that he would even be attending. This shows that it was intention to attend the debate all along, and that it was in fact a political ploy.

Although I'm still not sure (along with most Americans) what the true intentions reasons behind this move were. But in my opinion, this whole debacle made John McCain--who is normally a very even-handed man, even on the campaign trail--look desperate and erratic.

And meanwhile, Obama has played this whole thing perfectly, calling McCain out on his bluff and staying cool, calm and collected during this whole process. He's even looking a little presidential!

When I'm watching the debate tonight, I will look to see if the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, will ask McCain what the hell he was doing the past 48 hours, or even if he just hints at it. The main topic of the debate was supposed to be foreign policy and national security, but I imagine we will see a good deal of questions regarding the economy and where the candidates specifically stand on the issue after the recent developments on Wall Street.

After all, that is far and away what the American people want to hear about tonight.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

McCain Suspends Campaign to Focus on Economy

Earlier today, John McCain said that he would suspend his campaign starting tomorrow to return to Washington D.C. to focus on the economic crisis.

McCain says he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session on Thursday.
He said he will suspend his ads and campaign events until further notice.

In a statement earlier today, McCain also called on the Commission on Presidential Debates to postpone Friday night's debate on foreign policy and national security in Mississippi in light of the economic crisis and to ensure quick congressional action. In his statement, he emphasized bipartisanship and unity to solve the countries financial woes.

"I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me," McCain said in New York City Wednesday. "I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

However, Barack Obama, who was preparing for the debate in Florida, argued that the debate should go on as scheduled.

"I believe that we should continue to have the debate," Obama said. "It's my belief that this is exact time when the American people need to hear form the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsibly for dealing with this mess and I think that it is going to be part of the President’s job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Obama said that he would not be suspending ads or campaign events before Friday's debate. He also said that he will not return to Washington unless they believe that he is needed.

“In my mind, it’s more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people and describe where we want to take the country and where we want to take the economy.”

He added, "I've told the leadership in Congress is that if I can be helpful then I am prepared to be anywhere at anytime," he said. He also said that he did not want to clutter Capitol Hill with the partisanship and possibly counterproductive attention that presidential politics would bring along with him.

Now, let's get down to the nitty gritty. Why is McCain really doing this? In a word: politics.

By flying into Washington as the savior he might appear as a man of action to people who don't know how the Senate works. In reality, Obama and McCain's appearance in the Senate would instantly turn the entire event into a political circus and could possibly erase all of the progress that has taken place so far. And McCain knows as well as anyone that his presence won't have any major positive effect on getting the economic bill getting passed in the Senate.

Also, by pulling all of his TV ads for a few days saves his campaign money, something Obama has a lot more of.

On top of that, today's ABC News/Washington Post national tracking poll has Obama up 52 to 43 over McCain. Today's FOX News poll (that's right, FOX) has Obama up by six points nationally. The bottom line? McCain's in trouble.

The recent economic downturn does not bode well for McCain. He felt that he needed to do something--he needed a game changer. After all, that's what he did by picking Sarah Palin (who has mysteriously disappeared from the public eye, while Obama, Biden, and McCain duel it out over the economy). And we all know that McCain is an impulsive risk-taker, especially when times are tough.

This most recent move to suspend his campaign and not show up to Friday's foreign policy debate (which is , ironically, his field of expertise) is a risky, bold move. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a smart move. In fact, I think it is reckless, and it will be looked back on as one of the major mistakes of his candidacy, along with calling the foundations of the economy strong.

I'm assuming that his plan is to say that he's going to put country first, and that he'd rather lose an election than an economically stable future, or whatever. But then he will reemerge at the debate on Friday with an attitude of "I would rather be solving the nation's financial problems than be here," which would demonstrate his willingness to put his country ahead of partisan politics. But right now, the American people aren't buying it.

Right after McCain's announcement, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 adults nationwide. It found that 3 of 4 Americans say the presidential campaign should continue, and 10% said it should be postponed. It also found that 36% of Americans think the focus of the debate should be modified to focus more on the economy. Just 14% say the presidential campaign should be suspended. If Friday’s debate does not take place 46% of Americans say that would be bad for America.

So, the public may not have responded to McCain's announcement in the way he might have liked. The question is, will the American people see it as a campaign stunt, or that he's actually going out of the goodness of his heart? Will they see this as his third recent reckless act (following the selection of an unknown female governor as his running mate and canceling the first day of the RNC) while Obama is cool, calm and collected, and looking more ready than ever to lead?

We'll just have to wait and see.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

McCain's Remarks on the Economy

Here is John McCain's economic address that he gave yesterday in Green Bay, Wisconsin:


Thank you all very much. It's a great pleasure to be introduced by Governor Sarah Palin -- and I can't wait to introduce her to Washington.


If Governor Palin and I are elected in 46 days, we are not going to waste a moment in changing the way Washington does business. And we're going to start where the need for reform is greatest. In short order, we are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street.


Here and all across our country, people are wondering what exactly is happening on Wall Street. And with good reason, they want to know how their government will meet the crisis. Clear answers are hard to come by in Washington.


As Senator Obama's leader in Congress memorably put it the other day -- and I quote -- "no one knows what to do." Perhaps given that reaction, it shouldn't surprise us that the Congressional leaders of this do-nothing Congress also said that they weren't going to take action until after the election, claiming that it wasn't their fault. I am hopeful that last night's discussions are a sign they have changed their mind and will take action soon. But any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system.


There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.


Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search.


This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars.


Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House.


My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.


We've heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it.


The financial services industry -- and there are many honest and honorable people who work in it -- plays a vital role in our economy. Mutual fund companies help Americans save for retirement. Banks and lending companies provide the mortgages that help us buy our homes. Investment firms supply the seed money that helps entrepreneurs create tomorrow's jobs. Insurance companies protect us against unknown risks.


Yet as the financial crisis continues and bailouts and bankruptcies mount, it's clear financial firms have lost the trust of the American people. That trust cannot be regained unless we adopt some fundamental reforms. Government has a clear responsibility to act and to defend the public interest. That is exactly what I intend to do.


First, to deal with the immediate crisis, I will lead in the creation of the Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust -- the MFI. The underlying principle of the MFI or any approach considered by Congress should be to keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets. This trust will work with the private sector and regulators to identify institutions that are weak and fix them before they become insolvent. The MFI is an early intervention program to help financial institutions avoid bankruptcy, expensive bailouts and damage to their customers. This will get the Treasury and other financial regulatory authorities in a proactive position instead of reacting in a crisis mode to one situation after another.


The MFI will restore investor and market confidence, build sound financial institutions, assist troubled institutions and protect our financial system while minimizing taxpayer exposure. This is an important step, but it is not enough. I will also take the additional actions needed to make sure a crisis like this is never allowed to build and break over the American people again.


Second, I will propose and sign into law reforms to prevent financial firms from concealing their bad practices. An inexcusable lack of financial transparency allowed Wall Street firms to engage in reckless behavior that padded their profits and fattened executive bonuses when times were good, but now imperil the financial security of millions of Americans when their bets turned sour.


So much of the damage to our economy could have been avoided if these practices had been exposed to the light of day. Americans have a right to know when their jobs, pensions, IRAs, investments, and our whole economy are being put at risk by the recklessness of Wall Street. And under my reforms for the financial sector, that fundamental right will be protected.


Third, we need regulatory clarity. The lack of transparency in our financial markets went unnoticed by the regulatory agencies scattered throughout Washington charged with protecting the common good. We've got the SEC, the FDIC, the CFTC, the SIPC, the OCC, the Fed. At best, this confusing assortment of regulators and institutions was egregiously lax in carrying out their responsibilities. At worst, they engaged in the old Washington game of guarding their bureaucratic turf, instead of safeguarding the public interest and protecting investors.


Many in the financial services industry also either forgot or neglected their duty to act ethically and honorably. This shortcoming was aided and abetted by the creation of financial instruments that allowed lenders to escape any responsibility for the risk of their loans. In the past, lenders had to pay a price if they made a bad loan. Today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked with Wall Street to bundle together all these dicey subprime loans and then pushed them off on investors who didn't have the tools of transparency needed to assess or even understand the risk.


The current system promotes confusion, encourages bureaucratic infighting and creates incentives for financial firms to cut corners. We need to enhance regulatory clarity by holding the same financial activity to one regulatory standard. We don't need a dozen federal agencies doing the job badly -- we need the best federal agencies to do the job right.


Fourth, we must ensure that consumers and investors are protected. Our regulatory system must protect consumers and investors by punishing individuals who engage in fraud, break contracts, or lie to customers -- like the predatory lenders who know you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, but mislead you into signing one. These actions are criminal and the people who commit them should be behind bars. And corporate governance rules will be reformed so that shareholders have a clear say in determining the pay of CEOs and other senior executives. On my watch, the consequences for corporate abuse will not be more enrichment, but more likely an indictment.


Fifth, in cases where failing companies seek taxpayer bailouts, the Treasury Department will follow consistent policies in deciding whether to guarantee loans. It must have well developed remedies for a financial crisis. With billions of dollars in public money at stake, it will not do to keep making it up as we go along.

Finally, the Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation. It needs to get out of the business of bailouts. The Fed needs to return to protecting the purchasing power of the dollar. A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices. It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again.


All of these measures will calm and help us to avoid future panics and disasters in the financial markets. But to get through this tough time for America, and to come out stronger, we need a strategy of economic growth. And the massive new tax burden that my opponent plans for the American economy is exactly the wrong answer. His tax increase -- along with the enormous new federal programs he proposes -- are the surest way to turn a recession into a depression. In every respect, the Obama tax hikes would make things even worse for the working people of this country.


I have proposed, and will sign into law, an economic recovery plan for working Americans that is directed to the middle class. It will grow this economy, create millions of jobs and bring opportunity back to Americans. You will get a tax policy that creates family prosperity and allows you to save for the future. I will not raise your taxes on income or investments. And we will simplify the tax code so people can understand it and do their tax returns themselves.


I will give every family a $5,000 credit to buy their own health insurance policy and let them chose their own doctor. This will make insurance affordable to every American.


I will double the child exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 to help families pay for the rising cost of living.


Under my plan, a married couple with two children making $35,000 will get $5,000 to pay for health insurance and additional medical expenses. This family would get another $1,050 from my child exemption. That adds up to over $6,000. That is a lot more than what any hardworking middle class family, gets under the Obama plan.


Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent. Tax incentives will spur investment in new plants and equipment. Research and development incentives will keep companies on the cutting edge of their industries. Healthcare costs will diminish. Companies will stop sending jobs overseas to low-cost, low-tax countries and start creating jobs here in America.


I will expand markets for our goods and services. A one in five of all jobs in this country are linked to world trade. In five states alone Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Colorado over 5 million jobs depend on trade. My economic recovery plan will create millions of jobs in America instead of driving them overseas.


I will adopt an "all of the above" energy policy which expands our use of oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear facilities. We will embark on a national mission to build an alternative energy base, creating millions of new jobs. We will create the most diversified energy economy in the world. And, I will return to the American economy the $700 billion dollars we send overseas every year to buy oil.


My opponent offers a very different economic future. He has continuously shifted his position on taxes. At the beginning of this campaign he promised to raise taxes on your savings and investments. He said he won't raise taxes for most people but he has voted 94 times in his short Senate career for tax increases and against tax cuts. He said he would only tax the rich, but he voted this year to raise taxes on those making just $42,000. Senator Obama has simply not given Americans good reason to trust him with your tax dollars.


My opponent is against lowering taxes on businesses which are the second highest in the world. He will impose mandated health insurance on businesses that would cost up to $12,000 per employee. He opposes free trade. He also wants to take away the fundamental right of workers to have a secret ballot when voting to be part of a union.


Now is not the time for these destructive policies that will cripple business growth, destroy jobs and hurt the middle class. Now is the time to take action to address this crisis and take action to put our economy back on a path of growth.


Even though Democratic leaders say they don't know what to do, I believe the deep problems afflicting our financial system won't be solved by one political party. There is only one candidate in this race who has a record of reaching across the aisle to work out the bipartisan solutions needed to move our country forward in times of crisis -- and I will bring that same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the White House. It took members of both parties to get America into this mess, and it will take all of us, working together, to lead the way out.


Thank you.

Obama's Remarks on the Economy

Yesterday, in Coral Gables, Florida, Barack Obama finally made a formal address regarding the recent economic turmoil on Wall Street:


"We are facing one of the most serious financial crises in this nation's history. The events of the last week - from the failure of Lehman to the bailout of AIG to the continued volatility of the market - have not just threatened the trading floors and high-rises of Wall Street, but the stability and security of our entire global economy. Across this country, Americans are worried about whether they can make their mortgage payments, or keep their jobs, or ensure that their retirement is secure. Truly, we are all in this together.


Our government and the Federal Reserve have already taken unprecedented action to prevent a deepening of this crisis that could jeopardize the life savings and well-being of millions of Americans. But it is now clear that even bolder and more decisive action is necessary.


In recent years, I have outlined plans that would have helped prevent the problems we now face, and yesterday I proposed the outlines of a plan that would establish a more stable and permanent solution to strengthen our financial system. Today, I fully support the effort of Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with Congress to find this kind of solution.

What we're looking at right now is to provide the Treasury and the Federal Reserve with as broad authority as necessary to stabilize markets and maintain credit. We need a more institutional response to create a system that can manage some of the underlying problems with bad mortgages, help homeowners stay in their homes, protect the retirement and savings of working Americans.


In the coming days, I will more closely examine the details of the Treasury and Fed proposal, and as I do, I'll work to ensure that it provides an effective emergency response by including four basic principles that my economic advisors and I just discussed this morning.


First, we cannot only have a plan for Wall Street. We must also help Main Street as well. I'm glad that our government is moving so quickly in addressing the crisis that threatens some of our biggest banks and corporations. But a similar crisis has threatened families, workers and homeowners for months and months and Washington has done far too little to help.


For too long, this Administration has been willing to hit the fast-forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping people in their homes. We already know that the credit crisis that has emerged from our largest financial institutions is becoming a credit crunch for small business owners, homeowners, and students seeking loans in big cities and small towns. Now that American taxpayers are being called on to share in this new burden, we must take equally swift and serious action to help lift the burdens they face every day.


In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families - a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, spark job creation through repair of our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance for America's auto industry. John McCain and I can continue to argue about our different economic agendas for next year, but we should come together now to work on what this country urgently needs this year.


The second principle I would like to see in the emerging plan from the Treasury and the Fed is that our approach should be one of mutual responsibility and reciprocity. It must not be designed to reward particular companies or the irresponsible decisions of borrowers or lenders. It must not be designed to enhance the personal gain of CEOs and management. The recklessness of some of these executives has helped cause this mess, even as they walk away with multimillion dollar golden parachutes while taxpayers are left holding the bag. As taxpayers are asked to take extraordinary steps to protect our financial system, it is only appropriate that those who benefit be expected to contribute to the protection of American homeowners and the American economy. Just as support is not designed to payoff egregious executive compensation, it should not reward those who are ruthlessly foreclosing on American families.


Third, this plan must be temporary and coupled with tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions, and there must be a clear process to wind down this plan and restore private sector assets into private sector hands after restoring stability to the system. Taxpayers must share in any upside benefit that such stability brings.


Fourth, this plan should be part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20. This is a worldwide issue, and while the United States can and will lead in stabilizing the credit markets, we should ask other nations, who share in this crisis, to be part of the solution as well.


One last point. We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am President of the United States. We must build upon the ideas I have laid out over the last several years about how to modernize our financial regulation in this country, and establish commonsense rules of the road for our financial system to help restore confidence in our financial system.


Finally, given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I will refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until I can fully review the details of the plan proposed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. It is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand.


I know these are difficult days. And I know there are a lot of families out there right now who are feeling anxiety - about their jobs, about their homes, about their retirement savings. But here's what I also know. This isn't a time for fear or panic. This is a time for resolve and for leadership. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenges as one people, and one nation. That is the America we need to be and can be today."

Palin Loses Her Luster

The Republican National Convention combined with the daring selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for as his running mate gave John McCain a comfortable week and a half bounce in the polls.

The national and state polls reflected this bounce, and Republicans around the country finally got energized about their candidate. Meanwhile, Democrats, as they are apt to do, started to lose faith in Barack Obama.

The main-stream media obsessed about Palin, and closely (but in my opinion, not unfairly) examined her thin resume, and the Republicans had her play the role of the sexism victim. And through this, McCain's numbers with white women improved.

But as the public got a better look at Palin, they liked less of what they saw. Her record of reform turned out to be largely exaggerated, as demonstrated by her flat-out lie about her position on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." It turns out that the earmark crusader was a big fan of pork as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Also, her continued involvement and lack of cooperation with the "Troopergate" investigation being leveled against her in Alaska has showed the public that she's not as squeaky clean as everyone thought she was at first.

On top of that, in her first major primetime interview with ABC's Charlie Rose, she basically admitted that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was--proving that she was out of the loop on foreign policy. I guess being close to Russia isn't enough. And I'm sure that Tina Fey's portrayal of her on Saturday Night Live didn't help her too much either.

Also, since the excitement around her selection began to die down, the American public began to discover what she actually stood for, and it became clear that several of her views are way, WAY out of the mainstream.

Women learned that she did not support abortions for victims of rape and incest, and in the past week her numbers with women have dropped. Others learned about the fact that she thought the war in Iraq was reflecting God's will, and that she didn't believe in evolution.

And thus, her favorable/unfavorable ratings--which were sky high last week--have suffered a stunning 21 point collapse in just one week, according to Research 2000 polling. Last week, 52% approved and 35% disapproved of the GOP vice presidential nominee (+17 net). This week, 42% approved and 46% disapprove (-4 net).

When McCain first announced that he had picked Palin as his running mate, and I saw the immediate effects of the pick, I thought that this was a stroke of brilliance from his campaign. But now, myself and many political pundits see her possibly as more of a liability than an asset to McCain. Sure, she helped to shore up the base, but it was only in places that were going red anyway.

Here is CQ Politics columnist Taegan Goddard's take on it:

"In a political environment not generally friendly to Republicans, McCain's biggest advantage over Obama has been his perceived readiness to be president. He hammered away at this message all summer and kept the race reasonably close.

However, when McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate -- a person just two years removed from being mayor of a town with fewer people than the Fenway Park bleachers -- he essentially gave up experience as a campaign issue. It's hard to argue that Obama is inexperienced when McCain's choice to be just a heartbeat away from the presidency has even less experience."

Palin still has to face off against Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate in two weeks, where his 36 years of experience in the Senate will dwarf her 2 years of experience as governor of a state with a quarter of the population of Brooklyn. To even keep it competitive, she must have the performance of her life, and all Biden has to do is not seem arrogant and not punch too hard.

Combining all of the negatives that have poured out about Palin in the past week with a poor debate performance could turn a significant number of voters off who were initially attracted (not literally) to her.

Now normally, I don't place too much stake in what effects the VP candidates have in the elections--I think in the end people vote based on the top of the ticket--but seeing as how much attention she's gotten and how much she's changed the dynamic of the race, she does have more power to gain or lose votes than a typical VP pick such as Biden.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

McCain Daringly Picks Palin for VP

Last Friday, John McCain announced his running mate to offset the bounce and media hype that his opponent, Barack Obama, would get from his historic speech. Everyone expected him to pick either Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but he fooled everyone with a surprise pick.

McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, a little-known figure on the national scale. Here's a little bit of background on Palin.

Palin is an evangelical Christian "hockey" mom, who hunts and fishes. She has five kids--two boys and three girls--all with extraordinarily bizarre names: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Yikes. She gave birth to her youngest son, Trig, in April knowing fully well that he would have down syndrome. She is strongly pro-life and said she never even considered aborting him, calling him "a gift from God."

Her husband Todd is a (bearded) commercial fisherman, is a world champion snowmobile racer, and is a member of the National Steel Workers Union. A few days after Palin's selection, it was discovered that her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant and she is going to marry the father, Levi, who is also 17.

Sarah Palin was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant when she was younger and was a member of the local PTA before she became the mayor of Wasilla, which had about 6,500 people in it when she was mayor.

In 2006, she defeated the incumbent Republican governor in the primaries and defeated a former Democratic governor in the general election. She has been in office for 21 months. As governor, she has taken on members in her own party, has dealt with corruption in both parties in her state, and proudly calls herself a reformer.

Here's her stances on some major issues.

Palin is pro-Iraq war, and is a strong believer in Reaganomics--lower taxes (including the wealthy) and lower government spending. Palin is also a strong advocate for offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR, but has only convinced McCain on the former. She is a lifelong NRA member and a champion of right to bear arms.

Palin is and has always been strongly pro-life, even in the case of rape and incest. Her decision not to abort her youngest son, Trig, and her daughter's decision not to abort her unborn child are popular with pro-life groups.

She vetoed a bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional, but is mostly against gay rights such as same-sex marriage. She is against stem cell research and believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. She also opposes explicit sex-education programs.

Those are the facts. Tomorrow, I will go more into what kind of impact she's had on the race this past week, and what impact she might have in the future.