On the horse race--in my opinion, whatever good Sarah Palin can do for your ticket is done. I suspect the McCain people know this too, as she isn't really out and about. She energized the goober base, but doesn't seem to bring anything else to the ticket.

If we were facing a foreign policy crisis rather than a financial one, McCain would probably be holding his own right now. Or, had McCain gone ahead and chosen Romney (or even, gasp, Huckabee) his ticket might look stronger as well.

TenuredVulture wrote:On the horse race--in my opinion, whatever good Sarah Palin can do for your ticket is done. I suspect the McCain people know this too, as she isn't really out and about. She energized the goober base, but doesn't seem to bring anything else to the ticket.

She's been out the last few days in Manhattan meeting tons of world leaders. She's all over the place right now

The Dude wrote:She's been out the last few days in Manhattan meeting tons of world leaders. She's all over the place right now

she can prolly see the UN from her room at the Marriott

The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:On the horse race--in my opinion, whatever good Sarah Palin can do for your ticket is done. I suspect the McCain people know this too, as she isn't really out and about. She energized the goober base, but doesn't seem to bring anything else to the ticket.

She's been out the last few days in Manhattan meeting tons of world leaders. She's all over the place right now

(but still not answering questions or talking with reporters)

Woody wrote:

The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:On the horse race--in my opinion, whatever good Sarah Palin can do for your ticket is done. I suspect the McCain people know this too, as she isn't really out and about. She energized the goober base, but doesn't seem to bring anything else to the ticket.

She's been out the last few days in Manhattan meeting tons of world leaders. She's all over the place right now

(but still not answering questions or talking with reporters)

True, but still in front of the cameras and getting the leaders of foreigns countries wanting to bone her

The Dude wrote:

Woody wrote:

The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:On the horse race--in my opinion, whatever good Sarah Palin can do for your ticket is done. I suspect the McCain people know this too, as she isn't really out and about. She energized the goober base, but doesn't seem to bring anything else to the ticket.

She's been out the last few days in Manhattan meeting tons of world leaders. She's all over the place right now

(but still not answering questions or talking with reporters)

True, but still in front of the cameras and getting the leaders of foreigns countries wanting to bone her

I've heard of that movie. It had Elizabeth Taylor in it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/cramer_pearlstein_discuss_wall.html

Video here of the segment Floppy and I were referencing last night. I felt smarter after watching it. I think it's probably worth a watch for anyone who is interested about this whole mess.

jerseyhoya wrote:Additionally, McCain's gonna lose this election unless we have something really nasty on Obama saved up and/or a global war breaks out between now and November. Yikes, nine points, WaPo/ABC?

Much as I might wish that poll tracks something real, I think McCain's pollster probably is onto something here:

The McCain camp rolled out their top pollster Bill McInturff, who argued on a conference call with reporters moments ago that the poll is an outlier whose results are skewed by lopsided party identification numbers, which showed the Democrats with a 16-point advantage over the GOP after leaners were pushed.

"It's appropriate to say politely that this one poll is an unusual outlier that does not represent where this campaign is or where it's heading as we go into the first presidential debate," McInturfff said.

McInturff noted that the self-identification margins have not been greater than five points in any of the presidential elections since Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984. "We don't know what it's going to be in 2008. And I wish I had the revealed wisdom of God to know what it would be," McInturff said -- but he's confident it won't be minus-16 for the GOP.

I feel like I read something last week about how the party ID gap had closed to something like +4 for the Democrats after the conventions. If that's even close to true, than the ABC/WaPo is way off.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/cramer_pearlstein_discuss_wall.html

Video here of the segment Floppy and I were referencing last night. I felt smarter after watching it. I think it's probably worth a watch for anyone who is interested about this whole mess.

For my money (all in my sock - size 14 feet),News Hour's Paul Solman did a better job with an overarching explanation than Pearlstein did, & I like Pearlstein. Cramer comes off like a goofus Paulson sock puppet, which ordinarily isn't like him.

"markets are irrational" - Pearlstein, what? Is that "except when they're rational?" If they're not rational, they're driven by personalities, which means by politics, which means fuck them all - & fuck them hard.

Kramer "will buy 5 homes" in inland CA if the package is rammed thru without the nuisance of actually having anyone question Paulson's plans for himself as Property Buyer In Chief - what a total fuck nozzle.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/cramer_pearlstein_discuss_wall.html

Video here of the segment Floppy and I were referencing last night. I felt smarter after watching it. I think it's probably worth a watch for anyone who is interested about this whole mess.

For my money (all in my sock - size 14 feet),News Hour's Paul Solman did a better job with an overarching explanation than Pearlstein did, & I like Pearlstein. Cramer comes off like a goofus Paulson sock puppet, which ordinarily isn't like him.


"markets are irrational" - Pearlstein, what? Is that "except when they're rational?" If they're not rational, they're driven by personalities, which means by politics, which means $#@! them all - & $#@! them hard.

Kramer "will buy 5 homes" in inland CA if the package is rammed thru without the nuisance of actually having anyone question Paulson's plans for himself as Property Buyer In Chief - what a total $#@! nozzle.

Are you serious Smoothie? That was the best overarching explanation? You're kidding right? What's his solution... go back to a gold-backed monetary system?

Also, Vox, let's make no mistake here. This is a bail-out. There is no other term for it. Somebody screwed up, they need our help, and without our help, they're in worse trouble. We MAY benefit from the deal (unlikely, otherwise you might find more private companies willing to assist). But we're bailing out.

Your statement about not caring about the little people is just baffling on so many levels.

What? Wrong Paulson?

jeff2sf wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/cramer_pearlstein_discuss_wall.html

Video here of the segment Floppy and I were referencing last night. I felt smarter after watching it. I think it's probably worth a watch for anyone who is interested about this whole mess.

For my money (all in my sock - size 14 feet),News Hour's Paul Solman did a better job with an overarching explanation than Pearlstein did, & I like Pearlstein. Cramer comes off like a goofus Paulson sock puppet, which ordinarily isn't like him.


"markets are irrational" - Pearlstein, what? Is that "except when they're rational?" If they're not rational, they're driven by personalities, which means by politics, which means $#@! them all - & $#@! them hard.

Kramer "will buy 5 homes" in inland CA if the package is rammed thru without the nuisance of actually having anyone question Paulson's plans for himself as Property Buyer In Chief - what a total $#@! nozzle.

Are you serious Smoothie? That was the best overarching explanation? You're kidding right? What's his solution... go back to a gold-backed monetary system?

jeff, your anxiety for answers is clouding your brain - and guess what? That's what's happening to almost everybody else.

If you actually paid attention, Solman - unlike Pearlstein - didn't suggest he had the solution. Instead, he outlined the roots of the problem - a loss of credibility, translated to financial markets as creditworthiness.

Pearlstein - to his discredit in my opinion - suggested the 'irrational' market needed a Strong, Smart (white, bald) Guy to slap its face & settle it down, make it rational (Kramer literally needed that, & never got it in that segment). He left untended how we suckers - er, citizens - get some measure of payback from the Paulson Property Purchasing Poultice. What is it "we" own from the deal? If it's only a respite from the bleating of Wall St wiseguys, pleading to be allowed to return to their same old ways of getting deals done with other people's money, I say let's at least look at the alternatives. Cramer's goggle-eyed assertion that if the whole thing's not tidied up in a week we'll have soup lines running from Sacramento to Albany is juuusssst the kind of fear-mongering malarkey Paulson Co. wants spread around.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Additionally, McCain's gonna lose this election unless we have something really nasty on Obama saved up and/or a global war breaks out between now and November. Yikes, nine points, WaPo/ABC?

Much as I might wish that poll tracks something real, I think McCain's pollster probably is onto something here:

The McCain camp rolled out their top pollster Bill McInturff, who argued on a conference call with reporters moments ago that the poll is an outlier whose results are skewed by lopsided party identification numbers, which showed the Democrats with a 16-point advantage over the GOP after leaners were pushed.

"It's appropriate to say politely that this one poll is an unusual outlier that does not represent where this campaign is or where it's heading as we go into the first presidential debate," McInturfff said.

McInturff noted that the self-identification margins have not been greater than five points in any of the presidential elections since Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984. "We don't know what it's going to be in 2008. And I wish I had the revealed wisdom of God to know what it would be," McInturff said -- but he's confident it won't be minus-16 for the GOP.

I feel like I read something last week about how the party ID gap had closed to something like +4 for the Democrats after the conventions. If that's even close to true, than the ABC/WaPo is way off.

On the other hand, McInturff says the electoral college is "functionally tied" at this moment. Typically, when a campaign says they're tied, their internals show them behind.

Wizlah wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I know I'd prefer to let a failed private institution fail, but I feel like the cost is very high to allow that to happen in this case because of the nature of these businesses (sorry, I'm not sweating the little guy and his job).

Really? Because it does seem like if a lot of these businesses went down, that's a nice hefty leap in your unemployed figures, at at time when many companies will be worried about taking on new labour. No matter how limited your unemployment benefit may be, that's still a cost to the treasury, and running the risk of bumping up your Long-Term Unemployed (6 months of more folks).

What I mean by my comment about the little guy for all interested and assuming I'd send them to meat grinders for the sin of being unemployed (I kid):

People lose jobs, I've lost jobs, job loss happens. People find new jobs. I mean I don't care as in it's not worth $700 billion dollars to me to save a few thousand jobs. Hell, divide that crap up and just give it away if you're doing it for that reason. I also don't buy that only the guys on the top are responsible for business failures. While the ability to impact the failure is smaller on the bottom, businesses fail becase people do incompetant and dumb stuff at every level.

VoxOrion wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I know I'd prefer to let a failed private institution fail, but I feel like the cost is very high to allow that to happen in this case because of the nature of these businesses (sorry, I'm not sweating the little guy and his job).

Really? Because it does seem like if a lot of these businesses went down, that's a nice hefty leap in your unemployed figures, at at time when many companies will be worried about taking on new labour. No matter how limited your unemployment benefit may be, that's still a cost to the treasury, and running the risk of bumping up your Long-Term Unemployed (6 months of more folks).

What I mean by my comment about the little guy for all interested and assuming I'd send them to meat grinders for the sin of being unemployed (I kid):

People lose jobs, I've lost jobs, job loss happens. People find new jobs. I mean I don't care as in it's not worth $700 billion dollars to me to save a few thousand jobs. Hell, divide that crap up and just give it away if you're doing it for that reason. I also don't buy that only the guys on the top are responsible for business failures. While the ability to impact the failure is smaller on the bottom, businesses fail becase people do incompetant and dumb stuff at every level.

But we're probably not talking about a few thousand jobs, we're talking a jump in unemployment to a level that is politically and probably morally unacceptable. Or at least that what the doomsayers who want this passed now are saying.

VoxOrion wrote:People lose jobs, I've lost jobs, job loss happens. People find new jobs. I mean I don't care as in it's not worth $700 billion dollars to me to save a few thousand jobs.

Right. I would almost be with you on that, but consider this - when lehman bros london branch went down, 4500 people lost jobs. Not a huge number in and of itself, but that's just one investment bank. I was quite surprised - that's like a small factory closing down. Given that there degree of finanical interdependency for some of the larger banks, mortgage companies and insurance groups, you're talking a potentially a significantly larger job loss. outwith the problems of liquidity amongst the financial markets, you're lining up a second economic shock for yourself.

mccain has asked to postpone the friday debate to "work on the economy"...

Obama's response should be to suggest changing the topic of the debate on Friday to how to solve the nation's fiscal crisis.

Camp Holdout wrote:mccain has asked to postpone the friday debate to "work on the economy"...

Not just postpone the debate--he's "suspending his campaign."

The political atmospherics--"I'm putting country first and working on the most pressing problem rather than just trying to win for my own glory like whatsisname"--are clear enough. But I'm not sure exactly what he's going to do. Give Paulson an atomic wedgie until he accepts more reasonable terms for the bailout? Have a long argument with Phil Gramm?