This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:46:50

Trent Steele wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

Yeah it would be terrible. But if she is awful in the debate, and she comes out with some statement about how being on the campaign trail while caring for her infant son was more challenging than she first thought, I think that would be better than letting her be a drag on the ticket through the election. He'd probably have to pick Lieberman or Ridge or maybe Romney. Someone with national name ID already, so the vetting process in the media doesn't take too long.

I can't see how he could survive that (unless he names Warren Buffett VP). But, then again, I can't see how he can survive keeping her.

If Palin bails on mommy grounds, she sets women back in the political arena substantially. It also would reflect so poorly on McCain's judgment in selecting her in the first place, I don't how he can recover.

He was probably going to lose anyway before he picked her. He's probably going to lose anyway no matter what he does with her. If she butchers the debate as bad as is possible, I think he would be better served if she voluntarily bowed out. But maybe not, I don't know.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:49:53

jerseyhoya wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

Yeah it would be terrible. But if she is awful in the debate, and she comes out with some statement about how being on the campaign trail while caring for her infant son was more challenging than she first thought, I think that would be better than letting her be a drag on the ticket through the election. He'd probably have to pick Lieberman or Ridge or maybe Romney. Someone with national name ID already, so the vetting process in the media doesn't take too long.

That's not going to work. It's going to majorly piss off the social cons, many of whom still seem love Palin, and then if you go with the first two, you'll really alienate them. If you go with Romney, you'll piss off all the people already pissed off about the bailout stuff.

There's only one man who could salvage this mess for you people. His name? Mike Huckabee. And that probably won't work either.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 09:58:15

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:Dropping her would also be sort of cataclysmic though, eh, JH? Or not so much?

Yeah it would be terrible. But if she is awful in the debate, and she comes out with some statement about how being on the campaign trail while caring for her infant son was more challenging than she first thought, I think that would be better than letting her be a drag on the ticket through the election. He'd probably have to pick Lieberman or Ridge or maybe Romney. Someone with national name ID already, so the vetting process in the media doesn't take too long.

That's not going to work. It's going to majorly piss off the social cons, many of whom still seem love Palin, and then if you go with the first two, you'll really alienate them. If you go with Romney, you'll piss off all the people already pissed off about the bailout stuff.

There's only one man who could salvage this mess for you people. His name? Mike Huckabee. And that probably won't work either.

Eh, then maybe we can lose with Palin and blame it on the social conservatives for not going to better colleges.

by **Trent Steele** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:03:05

JH, the Phils play tomorrow. The Mets don't. No worries.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:04:57

Trent Steele wrote:JH, the Phils play tomorrow. The Mets don't. No worries.

Oh, I'm not too worried. Apparently my uncle is going to get me a job. I'm starting to think that we might be better off burning this fucker down, letting Obama ruin things further, and start the comeback in the House in 2010 and try and take back all three in 2012.

I'm incredibly good at making myself believe stuff. I've still got a bit to go on the sales job, but I'm close.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:08:57

The Senate's notorious "Dr. No" said before the House rejected the $700 billion financial bailout bill Monday that he would likely vote for it.

That may come as a surprise to lawmakers who are used to Tom Coburn, a nay saying Republican from Oklahoma, who consistently blocks and votes against big spending bills. He fancies himself a lone voice for fiscal responsibility in Washington.

The bailout, however, is different.

"We don't have a choice as a country," he said, but added, "I don't like the fact that we're going to have to do this."

The comments came shortly before the bailout plan (HR 3997) failed in the other chamber. Before the vote, Coburn said he thought it would be "irresponsible" of his House colleagues "if in fact we don't pass this and we see a big market crash."

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:09:04

Dumping Palin would basically be suicide at this point, it'd probably kill the Republicans down ticket in the "social conservative" states where they're likely to struggle already, and would harm the conservative movement in the long term.

The fact is that whomever is elected President is going to have huge, daunting challenges, ones that will take years or decades to overcome. Our chances of being in tip-top shape come 2012 are low. And I think the chances of a President being re-elected in that kind of environment are pretty low. Taking your lumps in 2008 and getting a "true believer" back in the White House in 2012 is probably not the worst way for the conservatives to look at things in terms of long-term strategy.

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:10:54

Harvard economist weights in and says let the banks go bankrupt

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:12:28

When people and institutions go bankrupt, doesn't the government sort of end up paying for it anyway?

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:14:07

VoxOrion wrote:Harvard economist weights in and says let the banks go bankrupt

I think that argument needs to be out there. It's a thought that occurred to me as well. You hear things like it's terrible that a 150 year old firm is going out of business--well, yes, they do. All the time. It's creative destruction. Perhaps the investment bank business model has become obsolete, like the telegraph and farriers. Or mom and pop grocery stores.

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:18:15

TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Harvard economist weights in and says let the banks go bankrupt

I think that argument needs to be out there.

I agree. There was a sense, particularly last week, that this was a verboten concept. It should be out there.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:19:53

Yes indeed, Schumpeter really is a man for our times. Put down your Hayek, and pick up Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Corporate welfare is socialism!

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:21:29

VoxOrion wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Harvard economist weights in and says let the banks go bankrupt

I think that argument needs to be out there.

I agree. There was a sense, particularly last week, that this was a verboten concept. It should be out there.

Are the any top economists without ties to wall street who think this bailout is a good idea? Where are people like Sen (on the left) and Gary Becker (on the right)?

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:26:43

VoxOrion wrote:"drsmooth's View on the State of Nature" by Woody Publishing Collective available at fine internet bookstores now!

that pansy frog Rousseau's got nothing on me

VoxOrion wrote:"the life of man, sort of lonely, almost poor, not that nice, tough, and on the short side"

-- drsmooth

sharp dresser, fitter than you'd, etc

TenuredVulture wrote:Of course, there is no commerce in the state of nature, so, it does have that going for it.

but there's scarcity, so there's applied economics of some kind going on in there anyway

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:32:05

VoxOrion wrote:Harvard economist weights in and says let the banks go bankrupt

And tacitly punish the lenders who acted irrationally and/or in bad faith, while simultaneously creating a disincentive for future behavior of a similar kind? No, we can't have accountability!

(Yes, I know it's not that simple, but The Bailout(TM) seems to let them off completely scot-free. I'd like to tan their hydes a little, so to speak.)

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:35:51

If there's no bailout, will any CEO types really be punished, or will they still find a way to come out of this stinking rich??

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:38:14

Houshphandzadeh wrote:If there's no bailout, will any CEO types really be punished, or will they still find a way to come out of this stinking rich??

Well chances are they were stinking rich to begin with. It's not like anyone is going to seize their assets

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:39:44

TenuredVulture wrote:Perhaps the investment bank business model has become obsolete, like the telegraph and farriers. Or mom and pop grocery stores.

The heirs of the old-timey investment bankers are strutting up & down Mason St & Greenwich Ave in Greenwich CT in kelly green slacks with little blue whales embroidered on them

and their panic time will likely follow this little bailout blowup. That will give us all a chance to learn who really runs things in the US.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:41:12

Umm, who really runs things in the US?

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:50:11

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Umm, who really runs things in the US?

money gon hit, son

Archived

This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD