This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD

by **BuddyGroom** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:04:58

Trent Steele wrote:Pelosi's speech was disgraceful and self-serving.

That said, any Republican who voted against the bill because of the speech (or even intimated that this was a reason) should be required to hand in their balls to the security guard at the Capitol building. Man up.

This speech? I can't even figure out what the Republicans are complaining about.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008 ... lings.html

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:11:47

Pelosi's speech was different in tone, by a long shot, from pretty much all of the other speeches that were given yesterday. It is a dumb excuse for the GOP, but it really was a poorly timed speech from a tone deaf politician.

by **dajafi** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:17:23

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.

Everything I read suggested that he wanted Lieberman in the first place, but people told him that he'd run the risk of a revolt on the floor of the convention if he picked someone who wasn't anti-abortion.

The convention is over of course, but I think the RNC still could exercise a veto. They probably wouldn't, but it would still kill the grass-roots operation which, it seems, has been entirely energized by Palin--the ultimate "identity politics" candidate.

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:22:39

I had heard the same things dajafi heard (though I'm not sure if I heard them FROM dajafi but that's neither here nor there.

I'm curious though... has anyone speculated on why he didn't choose Huckabee? Doesn't he basically have the same political ideas as Palin, longer experience as governor, handles the media better than Palin, more vetted by virtue of his run than Palin, and just all in all charming enough so that I'm beguiled enough to not question his and McCain's sanity on a daily basis?

Never mind the fact that as somewhat of a populist, his message would be resonating nicely during the economic crisis.

by **uncle milt** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:25:41

i must admit, much as i want to, i cannot dislike huck. he's just... nice.

by **pacino** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:26:12

jeff2sf wrote:I had heard the same things dajafi heard (though I'm not sure if I heard them FROM dajafi but that's neither here nor there.

I'm curious though... has anyone speculated on why he didn't choose Huckabee? Doesn't he basically have the same political ideas as Palin, longer experience as governor, handles the media better than Palin, more vetted by virtue of his run than Palin, and just all in all charming enough so that I'm beguiled enough to not question his and McCain's sanity on a daily basis?

Never mind the fact that as somewhat of a populist, his message would be resonating nicely during the economic crisis.

Who knows? He seems like Palin w/o any baggage or 'lack of experience' questions.

by **Camp Holdout** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:26:47

Bracing for More Palin
Howard Kurtz reviews last week's trainwreck interviews Katie Couric did with Gov. Sarah Palin and notes "the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing."

Update: Ben Smith confirms "the recorded segments are scheduled to air Wednesday and Thursday before the vice presidential debate."

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:28:51

jeff2sf wrote:I had heard the same things dajafi heard (though I'm not sure if I heard them FROM dajafi but that's neither here nor there.

I'm curious though... has anyone speculated on why he didn't choose Huckabee? Doesn't he basically have the same political ideas as Palin, longer experience as governor, handles the media better than Palin, more vetted by virtue of his run than Palin, and just all in all charming enough so that I'm beguiled enough to not question his and McCain's sanity on a daily basis?

Never mind the fact that as somewhat of a populist, his message would be resonating nicely during the economic crisis.

The ANSWER is in the GENITALS.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:30:09

uncle milt wrote:i must admit, much as i want to, i cannot dislike huck. he's just... nice.

Bingo. Of all the major candidates this cycle he won the "best next door neighbor" assessment.

His politics, on the other hand...

by **FTN** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:30:25

I still fail to understand how letting these companies "fail" only hurts the big wigs on Wall Street. Do people really believe those are the only people this has an effect on? Do people really believe that the crumbling of the stock market doesn't have an effect on "Main Street"....? They're not that dumb, are they?

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:35:45

I think those that say "let them fail" believe the ZOMG DEPRESSION TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE talk is overstating the case. Me personally, I can see both sides of the argument and quite frankly have no idea what to think

by **dajafi** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:52:33

FTN wrote:I still fail to understand how letting these companies "fail" only hurts the big wigs on Wall Street. Do people really believe those are the only people this has an effect on? Do people really believe that the crumbling of the stock market doesn't have an effect on "Main Street"....? They're not that dumb, are they?

A lot of people simply don't understand the interconnectedness of the economy. My guess is that a good chunk of this is simple economic illiteracy (myself, I think I'm economically literate only at about a fifth-grade level), but another portion is a psychological reluctance to acknowledge how little control we have over our own circumstances.

Particularly those who perceive themselves as honest and virtuous--which is probably most people--don't want to see themselves as tied to the fates of rapacious Wall Streeters. (If you want to put an anti-Semitic cherry on top of this shit sundae, that's probably justified as well.)

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:01:21

FTN wrote:I still fail to understand how letting these companies "fail" only hurts the big wigs on Wall Street. Do people really believe those are the only people this has an effect on? Do people really believe that the crumbling of the stock market doesn't have an effect on "Main Street"....? They're not that dumb, are they?

"crumbling of stock market" = "no one ever trades equities ever again"?

don't be a sucker, tucker

by **lethal** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:03:24

Why shouldn't homes of people who can't pay their mortgages be foreclosed? Many of these people bought homes that they couldn't realistically afford in the first place for mortgages that they knew would increase in later years. Many people took those interest only balloon mortgages and hoped to sell the house for a profit or refinance before the balloon payment hit. Even if they weren't looking to profit, they took that morgage on those terms because they thought it was a better deal and would save them money. They were speculating on the market just as anyone investing in stocks. Why should they be rewarded or bailed out? If their homes get foreclosed they don't become homeless, they can buy a home they can actually afford or they can rent something they can afford. Why is living beyond your means now an American right?

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:16:55

lethal wrote:Why shouldn't homes of people who can't pay their mortgages be foreclosed? Many of these people bought homes that they couldn't realistically afford in the first place for mortgages that they knew would increase in later years. Many people took those interest only balloon mortgages and hoped to sell the house for a profit or refinance before the balloon payment hit. Even if they weren't looking to profit, they took that morgage on those terms because they thought it was a better deal and would save them money. They were speculating on the market just as anyone investing in stocks. Why should they be rewarded or bailed out? If their homes get foreclosed they don't become homeless, they can buy a home they can actually afford or they can rent something they can afford. Why is living beyond your means now an American right?

In answer to your closing question: when bankers intimate that your slow-growth earnings, lackluster employment history, sketchy credit reports, and lack of assets won't deter them from handing you dough to buy a house.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:17:01

If dajafi is economically literate on a 5th grade level, I'm somewhere around basic canine obedience level. I know not to urinate on the carpet but that's about it.

Nonetheless, does/did The Bailout(TM) provide sufficient "punitive" measures to hopefully prevent something like this from happening ever again? Is there any disincentive at all? Or is it just a case of "You acted like malicious idiots, bad boys! Here you go, now don't do it again!" Or is there really no way to "punish" these jay-ohs without causing the financial suffering of millions?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:21:53

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).

Or Jimmy Buffet

Or Hillary (to address the concern below) :shock:

Trent Steele wrote:If Palin bails on mommy grounds, she sets women back in the political arena substantially.

Something the left has to be careful of is that they don't go too far picking on Palin, or there may be an unintended effect of people thinking she's getting picked on or being treated unfairly (possibly to the extent of some perceived misogyny). This is sort of what happened with HRC, and she used that to her advantage and went populist... thus her surprising "comeback" at the tail of the primaries where she finished much stronger than Obama but fell short. The left has to be careful not to come off as major sphincters in the eyes of the middle.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:26:48

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.

I kinda liked the Huckster... until he said that "align the constitution with the bible" thing. I know he was pandering to the "Jeebuz Fundies", but still...

by **dajafi** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:30:29

Bakestar wrote:If dajafi is economically literate on a 5th grade level, I'm somewhere around basic canine obedience level. I know not to urinate on the carpet but that's about it.

Nonetheless, does/did The Bailout(TM) provide sufficient "punitive" measures to hopefully prevent something like this from happening ever again? Is there any disincentive at all? Or is it just a case of "You acted like malicious idiots, bad boys! Here you go, now don't do it again!" Or is there really no way to "punish" these jay-ohs without causing the financial suffering of millions?

I could very easily--very easily--be overstating my own credentials as an economic literate.

But my sense is that, no, it doesn't include either ass-kicking or rules changes to to deter future irresponsibility. This alone could be sufficient grounds to have cast a "No" vote, if your primary concern is either justice/vengeance or ensuring fair play.

The point you made earlier about this one being Bush's Boy Who Cried Wolf moment, after all the artificial zOMG crises of Iraq et al, is relevant here. But at the same time, I think the need for some kind of timely action is probably real, just for the psychology of the market. What I wonder is if Congress could effectively split the difference by allocating, say, $50 billion for immediate use and then disbursing the balance of it (whatever the number really is; we know they pulled $700b out of the aperture) only after a robust new regulatory regime is in place. (This also would have the benefits of allowing expertise and debate to inform the rules changes, and pushing back the final vote beyond Election Day, which probably would help.)

But the two arguments against this that occur to me are, one, that $50 billion might not amount to much given that the Fed evidently has pumped $630b into the economy; and two, that maybe now is the moment of maximum leverage--if you wait, lobbyists and insiders can put their thumbs on the scales in all kinds of ways.

So I dunno. And probably I should be sent back to the economic 2nd grade or thereabouts.

by **FTN** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:33:18

I don't think anyone believes this bill is the savior of the US economy. But its a stopgap to stabilize and then followups need to be put in place. Everyone agrees with that.

When the ambulance shows up at the crime scene and finds the gunshot victim, what do they do? They put a tourniquet on the wound, stop the bleeding, and get the person to the hospital. If they stand around, arguing over whether or not the gunshot wound is the worst they've ever seen, they might have to amputate, or the guy might not make it.

This bill isn't a fix all. Its a tourniquet needed to stabilize the economy until more measures can be put in place.

Archived

This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD