This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:41:33

AG:
Rob Johnson. He was on with us yesterday, the former chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee. He was in Washington yesterday through the negotiations. Rob Johnson, if you can just bring us up to speed—what actually happened? And how is it that the Senate will be voting before the House? The House, expected to vote tomorrow, two days ago they voted the plan down.

ROBERT JOHNSON: Well, it appears that the Senate has a very strong majority in both parties supporting the bill, as many as seventy votes. In order to make the bill more palatable for the Republicans, Majority Leader Reid appears to be offering various business tax cut possibilities, that were covered on the wires last night, and other things, including an increase in the limit on deposit insurance, which small banks favor. Also, among all the business groups—Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable—they’ve put out a call that said if you don’t want a bill, a left-wing bill, then you’ve got to support this right now, because the President is going to have to sign whatever comes to us, and that’s because the markets are so fragile.

So you’ve seen a tremendous business lobbying effort, an attempt by the Democratic leadership to pass this bill, not by moving to the left and doing more progressive legislation, but by moving to the right to please the business groups and the Republican voters that would change over.

The Senate will vote first, and then my understanding is they plan to adjourn, so the House has to pass the bill or take responsibility for the turmoil in the markets that would ensue.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:46:15

Wizlah wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:But this bailout thing is different. I believe, if the bailout is successful, and followed by bailouts of the big 3 and the airlines, we're going to find ourselves in a nation very much like pre-Thatcher Britain.

I'm not being snarky, but I am curious as to why you think you might end up like the UK in the 70s. It sounds too much like hyperbole. There's going to be nowhere near the wide level of state ownership, nor will there be problems with unions bringing the country to a standstill, nor will you face the problems of a slowly dying manufacturing sector.

I realise in the states that state ownership is anathama to most, but how it is used varies widely. Hell, even in denationalised UK, we've still got a state owned tv and radio, and currently two banks (both of which crashed). Instead of arguing against the principle, people should be looking for the best use.

It might be a bit hyperbolic, and I will admit my knowledge of post-war British industrial policy is worse than patchy. Furthermore, it's unlikely that we'll see anything like the British labor movement here. And, it may be that we end up having a centralized national industrial policy that works better than that in England.

All that being said, isn't it the case that widespread state ownership didn't start out that way--it was initiated as a series of what looked to be sensible responses to a crisis--the basic belief was that the smart guys could solve this problem through a planned economy. (I'll admit, I'm reading this through a Hayek lens right.) And isn't that what the smart guys in government are telling us now--that good policy can solve these problems. We've nationalized a large insurance company, we're arranging deals for bank mergers, we're throwing money at the automobile and airline industry, and people like Steve Forbes are telling us it's only a start. (And, ironically, the doofus is in favor of all this!)

Now, all this may be an attempt for a ruling class to try to maintain their position, but I think post-war Britain for lots of reasons presents a cautionary tale of where this may end up.

On a side note--I have been spending a good chunk of time over the last year reading a lot of post-war British (and Anglophile--ie Hayek) conservatives. So, that's affecting my brain as well. You guys definitely got the better of us with your German/Austrian intellectual refugees--you get Hayek, we get Strauss.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:51:20

BuddyGroom wrote:I hope you're right, Seke. But with more than a month to play, I'm sure the Republicans have more up their sleeve than what we've seen so far. Whether they have a good candidate or not, they are better at this game than the Democrats.

No doubt that's gonna happen. But the Rev. Wright stuff is old news, and I think the Ayres thing is too abstract for anyone who is already on board with Obama. In the current environment, I'd think a Keating 5 ad would be a lot more effective.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:52:43

Run a few dire network news specials on the Weather Underground and things might go differently on the Ayres connection - you know, kind of the way journalists are going to Vietnam to find people that can confirm John McCain's story...

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:56:59

VoxOrion wrote:Run a few dire network news specials on the Weather Underground and things might go differently on the Ayres connection - you know, kind of the way journalists are going to Vietnam to find people that can confirm John McCain's story...

Um, I don't think the network is gonna do that.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:59:20

True story:

I have a friend, she's 30, just started back to university and has a part time job in a local jewelry shop where we know the owner, another friend. She generally reads for school when its slow. The other night, a man, woman and their kids came in. Obvious tourists. My friend is a bright woman who is in to spiritual development, but she is not an intellectual or political or historical -- at all. She's from Connecticut. Somehow the woman, gets in to some blather about how she can't understand what's going on with SF? Why is everyone for Obama. She then calls my friend out. My friend doesn't really want to go there, do you want to buy some earrings m'am? Finally she presses my friend who says, yeah, I'm voting for OBama. The woman gets agitated and declares, I can't believe you are going to vote for a Muslim!

My friend calmly points out, "he's not a Muslim". The woman ignores this statement of fact, and repeats I can't believe you want your country run by one of those Muslims, you want to live under those laws. She then can take no more, tells her again, HE"S NOT MUSLIM, however, I'm married to a muslim (french guy of Algerian roots). The woman is dumbfounded but won't shut up. This is a Christian Nation... on and on.

Finally, my friend isn't smiling, the husband is trying to reign his wife in, and she reluctatly apologizes, as they depart.

They were from Florida.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:06:45

He is a Muslim. How is that news?

by **Woody** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:10:49

This is me contemplating the pros and cons of suffrage

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:25:57

Monkeyboy wrote:....or heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial given her religious right bona fides.

What was the monkey on trial for? Illegal trafficing of mouthwash?

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:33:48

Have you all heard about Gwen Ifill? She is the moderator for the upcoming VP Debate. Apparently she is writing a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." All the conservative pundits are in an uproar because she clearly favors Obama.

My question is don't both sides agree on how the debate is run including who is the moderator? If that is true why are people in such a fuss. Maybe they should just be mad at McCain for allowing her to be moderator.

by **Woody** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:40:16

On October 5, 2004, she moderated the vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. In the debate when Cheney asked for more than 30 seconds to react to a particular statement, Ifill told him "Well, that's all you've got." Ifill said that though it was not her intent, Democratic partisans were delighted with her because she was seen as being "snippy" to Cheney

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:40:32

CalvinBall wrote:Have you all heard about Gwen Ifill? She is the moderator for the upcoming VP Debate. Apparently she is writing a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." All the conservative pundits are in an uproar because she clearly favors Obama.

My question is don't both sides agree on how the debate is run including who is the moderator? If that is true why are people in such a fuss. Maybe they should just be mad at McCain for allowing her to be moderator.

It depends on when her book information was released. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=76645

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 13:44:31

How The Senate Rescue Bill Is Different

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 15:05:54

a little humor

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 15:21:37

dajafi wrote:Friedman ftw:

This is a credit crisis. It’s all about confidence. What you can’t see is how bank A will no longer lend to good company B or mortgage company C. Because no one is sure the other guy’s assets and collateral are worth anything, which is why the government needs to come in and put a floor under them. Otherwise, the system will be choked of credit, like a body being choked of oxygen and turning blue.

Well, you say, “I don’t own any stocks — let those greedy monsters on Wall Street suffer.” You may not own any stocks, but your pension fund owned some Lehman Brothers commercial paper and your regional bank held subprime mortgage bonds, which is why you were able refinance your house two years ago. And your local airport was insured by A.I.G., and your local municipality sold municipal bonds on Wall Street to finance your street’s new sewer system, and your local car company depended on the credit markets to finance your auto loan — and now that the credit market has dried up, Wachovia bank went bust and your neighbor lost her secretarial job there.

We’re all connected. As others have pointed out, you can’t save Main Street and punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in a rowboat with someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the boat at his end is not going to sink you, too. The world really is flat. We’re all connected. “Decoupling” is pure fantasy.

Friedman makes the point that we're all connected, via our 'mutual' ownership of fraught securities and derivatives. We've gotten what absentee owners frequently get - abuse. The custodians - those guys with the snappy suspenders, ill-treating the tenants - are due for a share, inasmuch as, as fiduciaries, they pretty much only satisfy the 2nd-syllable criterion.

I can think that the guy I hate with the leak in his end of the boat can stick his OWN head in the hole first, or I'll offer to pummel him to a gruel with one of the oars.

We're all connected, yea - time to get the miscreants to 'feel' the connection.

by **Camp Holdout** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 18:45:51

they are playing the palin roe v wade thing now... its rough... SNL rejoice!!!

here's the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml

im sure the clip will follow.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 18:58:27

Conservative Kathleen Parker on the response to her "Palin is unready" column:

The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I'm familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.

Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party—not a "true" conservative.
...
extreme partisanship has a crippling effect on government, which may be desirable at times, but not now. More important in the long term is the less-tangible effect of stifling free speech. My mail paints an ugly picture and a bleak future if we do not soon correct ourselves.

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve. Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different than one's own, then we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk.

Do both sides do this? Yeah. That doesn't make it right either.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 19:02:13

Camp Holdout wrote:they are playing the palin roe v wade thing now... its rough... SNL rejoice!!!

here's the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml

im sure the clip will follow.

This is actually the point that would enrage the right, were not so invested in Palin as an identity candidate:

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Am I wrong in my sense that this is offensive to conservative legal doctrine both on style points (if it isn't explicitly granted in the Constitution, it's simply not there, no?) and doctrine (because if you concede it here, you can't get upset about, say, the '03 decision that struck down the anti-sodomy laws)?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 19:19:37

Flipping back and forth between TBS and CSPAN2. It's times like this when you appreciate the difference between watching the House and Senate. Even Senators who I don't like and whom I disagree with on this issue (Cantwell at the moment) speak damn well.

by **Laexile** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 19:41:06

Woody wrote:It seems that since phdave returned, LAexile has fallen from the face of the earth. My theory is that neither of them actually exist. They are both personalities created by PartisanBot

Aw. Woody misses me. I was in DC all last week and didn't have time to be on the board. Last I checked in was a thread or thread and a half ago. What did I miss?

Archived

This campaign isn't about the issues POLITICS THREAD