John McCain is giddy for Sarah Palin

I find McCain's hyperactive enthusiasm for Sarah Palin to be odd and sort of manic.
He's so giddy for her as a fellow 'maverick' and a great vice presidential candidate he cackles and looks creepy.

Barack Obama's 30 minutes

I just watched Barack Obama's 30 minute presentation on You Tube.

Emotionally, I'm very proud and hopeful and I believe if he wins things could be better. We could start down a path in which people believe again - in each other, and in the government, and will start trying again. The most destructive thing both Reagan and George HW Bush did as President was create an uncompassionate atmosphere in our country. By their policies and their attitudes they gave 'permission', in a way, to people to be mean to each other. They lacked compassion and empathy for every person's humanity. Its painful.

With Barack Obama, I believe, I hope, I pray that we'll turn the corner and become more positive and we'll see change and experience hope again. It could really happen.

God Bless Him. Its not going to be easy. He's going to have a lot of pushback on his programs and ideas. But, I believe he might be the one who can make a breakthrough. He won't just be standing up for the ideas - he'll fight for them by doing what he has to do. And he might have to compromise at first and he'll probably disappoint some people. But, please God, give him the strength to overcome it and keep pushing through. I wish I could help him. I don't know how people like that get made - people who have the courage to be President of the United States (not just the ego and the conceipt - but the courage). Again - all I can say is God Bless Him.

I'm getting a little overblown here. But, I need him to win.
I hope Joe Biden isn't right - that someone will test him. We have enough problems already. I don't want him to be crucified and villified because of the mess George Bush has given us.

I have high hopes.

As far as the 30 minute presentation itself? It was a little all over the map and didn't really get any more specific than he has in the last 20 months. I would have been interested to see how his programs might have specifically benefited the families he showed us. And he seemed to move from one topic to the next without really answering anything about the first topic.

Its okay with me because I've read his plans and I know I agree with him already. I'm fired up and ready for change. But, I hope other people got what they needed.

Only 5 more days and then ELECTION DAY! Thank you!

McCain campaign

Discounting any isssue or policy discussions, it seems obvious by the nature of his campaign strategy that McCain would not be a good leader.

The campaign has been running multiple tracks for some time. Look back to August 2007 when McCain was broke and had to fire his campaign staff. He started over and during the time he was running against a phantom Democratic candidate, he did fine. He couldn't get any news coverage because of the Democratic primary, but other than that - it was a quiet campaign.

Since they've had to battle it out, its been a disorganized wreck it seems to me.

The message changes from week to week and even within a week; I'm a Maverick, I have Experience, I put my Country First, Barack Obama is inexperienced, Barack Obama has relations that aren't reputable, Barack Obama is a Socialist...and its continued to descend.

The level of disarray suggests a leader who isn't leading. And why would anyone - on the face of that alone - think McCain can be a good leader of the United States of America?

The stories of election 2008 will be:
The disillusionment of the (elite) fiscal conservatives with the Republican Party.
The collapse of the Republican Party
The horrible campaign strategies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain
The superb campaign strategy of Barack Obama

The strange thing about the Republican party is the alliance between the Religious Conservatives and the Fiscal Conservatives. They don't really mix, except the neocons expertly rebranded both of them so they could build a coalition to win.

The idea was that if you believe in aggressive defense, a small government in the free market, a big government in the social realms, and God, then you are helped by a Republican - whatever being a Republican means.

The idea is hanging on this election, but only out of inertia. I suspect in the next couple election cycles we'll see something else emerge from those groups.

And maybe a big reason Democrats were willing to bet the Presidency on either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton instead of a more 'traditional' and 'safe' choice (at the time anyway) of John Edwards is because the Republicans are in disarray. So, good on us for taking advantage of the Republican foibles to further our cause.

And what is our cause? In my mind, its making sure every American is housed, fed, healthy, and educated to an acceptable standard considering the overall wealth of our country. It may be called Socialism by the Right wing, but I call it "Whatsoever You Do To The Least Of My Brothers That You Do Unto Me" . In other words, its the 'right' thing to do.

More Republican Divisiveness

I hardly have the energy to say anything about this...its the saddest thing ever, and yet I'm so glad its more out in the open so people can see it and feel it and think on it. Its always been around. Maybe the people doing it are more amateurish than they were before? Its less subtle and easier to prove. And the sheer volume of it - strange how it can all fall apart so quickly.

I wonder why its so obvious this year? It was just as bad in 2004 wasn't it? We should have had an easy time getting rid of George Bush. Poor Kerry. Its not easy.

Maybe its the blogs. They do get the word out, and the mainstream broadcast media is forced to print or talk about some of it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/GOP_Rep_Liberals_Hate_Real_Americans_That_Work_And_Achieve_And_Believe_In_God.html?showall

Comedy on the Campaign Trail

1. Sarah Palin on SNL - I watched the opening sketch last night, and the Weekend Update sketch this morning.
In the past, appearing on any television show has given candidates the opportunity to appear more human and likable. It was thought of as a brash move - daring and courageous. Now it looks like pandering.
On the one hand, Sarah Palin has to go on SNL because she doesn't have a good reputation among young liberals (for whom this show appears to be geared) and she needs to show that she can laugh at herself, so they might be influenced to look at her with fresh eyes.

Maybe it will work.

She's certainly not fearful about going into the mudpit, I'll give her that.
But, the two sketches weren't really that good at making fun of her. In real life she's so much a parody of her own right wing nuttiness that its hard to turn that in on itself and make it funny or satirical again. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, somebody might have created a Sarah Palin like character to mock the nuttiness of the John McCain. But, instead he went and nominated her.

I didn't think the sketches were all that funny for her. It didn't make her seem more human or likeable. It was something everyone was doing for the sake of ratings - SNL didn't live up to their best, and Sarah Palin probably did, but there you are.

I thought it was uncomfortable how Alec Baldwin was essentially telling her to her face (if he weren't looking at cue cards so much) all the things we liberals don't like about her. That's not funny - she just had to stand there and take it.

And the exchange between Tina Fey and Sarah Palin was uncomfortable - Tina just walked by her - no handshake or acknowledgement that I saw.
Even in the Amy Poehler thing - well, there Sarah Palin was - just taking it. For no good reason. It was as if she didn't even have to be there in order for them to do these skits.

2. Al Smith Dinner.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15091

Now THAT was comedy. I laughed a lot at both McCain and Obama. In fact, I thought McCain bested Obama in this case. His delivery was more well-timed that Barack's.

Its kind of weird that their speech writer's were able to so clearly make fun of each other and themselves with the very things that really ARE funny (in a good and bad way) about them.

It makes me wonder what politicians are really like. When they're on the campaign trail they're really saying some hard truth stuff (Barack Obama) or making up really mean things (John McCain) (HA! That was my own joke because it shows my bias so completely!)

Anyway - the truth is the campaign is not for the faint of heart. And yet, the people can still make fun of themselves and each other. Which is real? I'm not sure I could be both.

Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, John McCain

Unbelievable...

Michelle Bachman says Obama is Anti-American. She called Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi a troika.
She believes the press should do a big expose to determine which members of Congress are Anti-American.

John McCain called Obama's tax policies 'socialist'.

Sarah Palin talks about the 'Pro-America' part of the country.


Wow - the United States of America has been degraded by partisan, ideological sound bytes.

What did this woman learn in school that she doesn't understand that America is about freedom? Freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm shocked and disgusted and fearful for what this country will become. Even if Obama wins, he'll have a fringe element of the angry right wing of the country that will do everything they can to make it hard to govern. And then, they'll blame it on Obama himself.

I just don't understand the ignorance that this Michelle Bachman is showing. Its so odd to say you're for America and then be against the things that make America special and great.

I'd be interested to know what she thinks is Pro-American.

Sarah Palin is dividing America

Sarah Palin represents a view that exhausts me. Its nothing but evidence of a closed mind and...what's the word? It kind of disgusts me because its all about making some people feel better about who they are because the 'others' aren't as good. Marketers use it to get us to buy stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/palin-clarifies-what-part_n_135641.html

The McCain campaign is seeking to clarify a remark reported from a Sarah Palin fundraiser in North Carolina yesterday in which the Alaska Governor declared that she loved to visit the "pro-America" areas of the country -- implying, implicitly, that there were some parts of the United States she viewed as not pro-America.
The reporter who broke the story, the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin, sends over the following, extended quote from a more detailed version of the pool report.

"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe" -- here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers -- "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."

Not sure how much this helps Palin out. Is the VP candidate saying that small towns are more authentically American than, say, suburbia or cities?
As Eilperin writes: "The upshot? Washington D.C. is neither 'real America' or 'pro-America.' Other parts of the nation? It's unclear, but if you live in a small town, you're probably patriotic from Palin's point of view."

3rd Presidential Debate

If you support John McCain, you probably liked his debate performance last night.

I think John McCain was fidgety, discourteous, and his debate 'points' were fired like scattershot.

The people who track negative ads consider a negative ad to be any one that mentions the opposition (at least that's what I've noticed in my internet browsing).

I think there are two kinds of negative ads - the ones designed to point out policy differences, and the personal distraction kind.

I don't like policy difference ads because they don't really give the facts - they give a spin on the facts. But, I recognize that and I've accepted that's what happens.

The personal distraction kinds are the ones I consider very negative.

In the debate last night, I feel John McCain was equating negative policy ads from Obama with personal distraction ads from McCain. I find that to be more sleazy negative ads and the argument irritates me.

I'm a little surprised that much of the mainstream media considers the debate an Obama win. But, I'm glad of it.

I'm glad to see people are appreciating Obama's temperament. I don't know that Obama will do everything I want him to, but I trust he'll think about it intelligently and make a decision that benefits the overall goals I support.

John McCain

I am not supportive of John McCain, but right now, I feel sorry for him. He's a victim of his own ambition. Deep down, he's probably an honorable person who really wants to the do the right thing. But, in order to win the Presidency he's willingly allied with rabid ideologues and fear based conservatives who will sacrifice whatever principles they might think they have in order to win. And now, his allies have gotten out of control and he's being forced, by his own supporters, to defend his opponent. That's sad.

Second Presidential Debate

I wanted Barack Obama to be more responsive to the questions and change up his stump speech answers.
I wanted John McCain to stop with his childish, disrespectful attitude.

Oh well.

I don't understand why I haven't heard more about how stupid John McCain's plan to help the foreclosure people is.

He proposes that the United States government should buy people's mortgages directly and then lower the value of the home to the current market value and refinance the loan.
That sounds stupid to me.
I understand it to mean that if I bought a house for 200,000 and its now worth 150,000, the government will buy my mortgage, then they'd lower the price to 150,00 and put a 30 year fixed loan in place that I'd pay on.
1) What about in 20 years when I sell for 300,000...I'm making 50,000 extra dollars that the government put up on my house. If I kept my original loan and house value, I'd make 100,000, but since the government got in on it, I'd make 150,000.
2) Sounds suspiciously like that REX Agreement. See my previous post on the Rex Agreement.
3) What about all the people who paid a normal price for their homes, watched the value rise and fall. Too bad for them.
4) It would cost an additional 300 billion to the bailout bill that already passed. And parts of it are already included in the bailout bill as I understand.

Anyway - based on what I know right now, it sounds like a completely rotten idea that I can't imagine why people aren't jumping all over.
I think its a great idea to help the mortgage owners...consider paying for refinancing, but don't decrease the house value.

Sigh.

Obviously, times are very precarious so I've kept my eye on CNBC mostly. I can't help but see some of the crap the McCain/Palin people are doing, but I'm going to try and mostly ignore it and definitely not write about it unless its imperative.

I only want to hold onto my job.

The House votes again...HR 1424

Too often, the policies of the Bush administration and Republicans in general put us in a position where we have no good options to get us out of a crisis. First the surge, and now this economic crisis.

I like the bill from Monday more than the bill being signed today. I blame the Republican 12, and the Republican leadership for the continued stock market volatility during this week and the deepening of the crisis that is now forcing passage of a bill with even more items that will continue to negatively affect the economy into the future. Note: I do not blame the Democrats who voted no, because the Democratic leadership gave their 50% of the Democrats and the Republicans did not give theirs. In order for this to be a bipartisan effort they needed at least half of each half.

Additional tax credits beyond the 'tax extender' package and cosidering suspension of mark to market accounting rules for example. The bill on Monday, while not perfect, had fewer 'extras' which focused the bill on solving the actual economic problem. The extras in the current bill could cloud the issues. And, I might add, make for political blame and deflection
in elections down the road as well. That is boring.

The House must pass the bill, but I think it would have been better for the United States if they'd passed it on Monday.

I reserve the right to find out I'm mistaken about the details of the current bill, but I understand the 'bailout' portion of the bill hasn't changed all that much.
I understand why the Senate attached the 'bailout' bill to the tax extender bill (which I believe had previously passed easily in the House), so I exclude that from my critique of the current bill.

I don't think most Americans have a true understanding of what the bill is intended to do. Without actually taking time to find this stuff out, they have to rely on mainstream news media. And I'm going to write another post about the lack of news in mainstream broadcast media. Its hard to find objective information on television.

I don't appreciate the Republican leaders twisting the truth that they're the ones who stood up for regular Americans on Monday by forcing a better bill that supports the taxpayers. I think that's a lie and a joke. They thought they had the votes but they couldn't convince their members to buy into it. Before the vote John McCain swooped in and helped convince Republican House members to understand how important the bill was. But, after the vote didn't happen (and the Republican leaders blamed their hurt feelings over Nancy Pelosi's speech), John McCain's swooping in was characterized as John McCain standing up for the American taxpayer. Which is pretty clearly bullshit (since he voted for essentially the same bill in the Senate).
And even now, the Republicans are saying they've spoken up for the American people by the adjustments they've made to the bill.
But, I contend that there are hidden consequences to this bill that will reverberate for years to come. And, as I underand, there isn't even any bankruptcy adjustment.

I think this is salvageable if the House and Senate use this bill to forestall the current crisis, and then come back to actually solve the problems. I will accept that this bill buys us time to prepare a comprehensive and fundamental solution later. I still think they could have done that on Monday as well.

Again, the Bush administration and the Republican members of Congress have put us in an untenable situation. We're stuck. Pass the bill.

(As many Republicans are noting in their floor comments, this bill isn't all that much changed except that it adds 150 billion in tax credits)

P.S. I have increased respect for Barney Frank. He's been there all along. He seemed to want people to understand and come to agreement.

P.P. S. Nancy Pelosi seems to be detailing the positives in the bill. I've missed a bunch of that. Too bad.

*****

While they're voting, the stock market is waiting. Right when they started to vote, the market went up a bit, and now its moved down and its just waiting. Interesting. I wonder what the volume is right now?

Its both refreshing and disturbing that George Bush is so out of this, at least publically.

While I watched the debate on C-SPAN, I switched to CNN while the vote is going on. One commenter suggested John McCain will take credit for this when (if) it passes. How ludicrous is that?

I wish Barack Obama had included more educational information in his speeches over the last couple weeks. Maybe he has, but not where I've seen it. I would like him to have been more involved, but I realize there are pitfalls to that strategy.

For some of us who are not professionals or educated in economics, but who tried to figure out what's going on, we'll definitely remember the new terms we've learned mark-to-market accounting, LIBOR rate, credit default swaps, the credit market vs the equity market, capitalization, etc.

*****

Hmmm...the bill has passed, and yet the equity market is dropping. Before the vote the Dow was hovering around 254.15 to 270.72. Just after voting it increased up to 310.15, and now my last check was 194.66.
Why?

According to the CNN guy, its uncertainty that's causing the lower numbers...what's next - how fast can the bill get signed, when does money start funneling into the system. will credit loosen up?
Common understanding among traders: "Buy the rumor, sell the news"

There is also mixed news...
Job loss numbers came out today, for the year 750,000 jobs have been lost.
Wells Fargo offerred to buy all of Wachovia instead of Citigroup's offer to buy parts of Wachovia.

We might not have anything changing in the stock market until the end of the month.

Current DOW is 116.20.

This has been like watching a big soap opera in the last couple weeks. Always something happening. Cliffhangers.

Biden - Palin debate

I don't think Sarah Palin needs to be embarrassed, but she really was at the limit of her ability. I thought her 'folksy-ness' became a bit irritating by the end.

If Biden had done a bad or mediocre job, Palin would have been a clear winner.
But, I thought Biden did a wonderful job. I was proud of him. Of course I support Obama - Biden so of course I thought he did well.

In terms of a debate, it was a rather good one. It wasn't uncomfortable to watch Palin and Biden supported his candidate admirably.

Strictly speaking of a debate - Biden won. Palin evaded and had an aggressive defensive posture. Does that make sense? I mean, she took on some of McCain's expectation of insult. Hmmm...that doesn't make sense either. She was really quick to say that she might not answer the questions that Gwen Ifill or Joe Biden had. I thought that was unnecessarily aggressive. I think the word aggressive is where I'm missing the point. Anyway...

I thought Biden made a fantastic closing comment, though I can't remember it anymore.

I also thought Palin said some shocking things - but of course I can't remember those anymore either. Just a couple but it made me groan.

Okay - so as a supporter of Obama - Biden, I think Sarah Palin has done her best and I don't think it was quite enough to move people to McCain. I think she reinforced her own base and gave them a little more confidence. That's all. I still think we can beat 'em. I'm not sad.

Pushing Daisies

From 09/30/2008 The Watcher from the Chicago Tribune (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/):

"Even something as gossamer as whimsy can grate after a while. Perhaps the irritation comes from the fact that this show’s tone of arch amusement never, ever varies. The show’s visuals may be eye-poppingly creative, but its emotional range is very narrow."

I agree. That's why I don't care so much about watching "Pushing Daisies". I wanted to like it. I enjoyed the visual look and I especially enjoyed seeing all the actors and actresses. In fact, none of them bug me or anything. Swoozie Kurtz (I remember her show with Tony Randall "Love, Sydney in 1981) and Kristin Chenoweth are particular favorites.

I watched most of it last season, but this season I decided I was a slave to my TIVO and cancelled a lot of shows I didn't always feel like watching that much, no matter when I watched it.

I am not a decider...

I should not be in charge of hiring or firing, being on a jury, or being a voting member of congress.

When I don't have to be the one who decides, I can come up with what I think are essentially the right choices.

In the case of this vote in the Senate and the economic crisis vote, well - I see both sides and I don't really know what the exact right answer is, but I'm willing to trust the people in charge.
Even though the people who will help us get OUT of this problem are some of the people who got us IN to this problem (at least in this term). So, why should I trust them?
Well, I guess I feel I can trust them to at least get us back to where we were because they have a vested interest in the way the economy made them rich before.

Anyway - I know a lot of Americans aren't really hearing anything but bailout. And the truth is, the little provision they put in the plan to limit executive compensation is going to be meaningless in the scheme of things and was only put in because they wanted to satisfy the people (even though it hasn't helped yet).
But, there are a lot of economists who really do think either 1) we shouldn't do the 700 billion bill, or 2) we shouldn't do THIS bill.
And, on the other hand, there are lots of economists who believe we have to do it whether we like it or not.
I'm kind of in that group, but I hope I never have to defend it.

Passing the bill means the people will still be left with a crappy situation and the only way they will know what they avoided is to go to a parallel world.
Not passing the bill means we would have a more clear understanding of which was the right answer - the economy will either right itself or we'll all be in a huge mess.

Okay - so if they pass it, which it seems they will, then tomorrow is the VP debate and Friday the House will vote. Hopefully in time to cheer the stock market.

I read on a left blog that some expect McCain to vote no so he can get the 'people's vote'.
He decided not to speak at the podium today.
He's an odd one - he keeps saying he is playing these great roles but he doesn't say anything in the meeting with the President, he doesn't say anything on this vote, he makes statements and then doesn't stay to answer questions (his statement about the bailout, and his statement that he was suspending his campaign.)
That doesn't bode well for an open McCain administration.

Anyway - I suspect the idea that McCain would vote no is wishful thinking on someone's part. It would definitely be an intereting development. I don't need anymore interesting developments.

I wish Obama would be more vocal and more of a leader. He doesn't have to usurp anyone, but I wish he was explaining things to the people more instead of just giving versions of his stump speech.

That's all for now. No more tonight unless something crazy happens.

Before the Senate votes

Before the Senate vote...

I haven't spent as much time trying to understand this Senate bill because I didn't have time.
But, its being added to a 'tax extender' bill which I don't normally like. I mean, this should be a stand alone bill. I don't understand why they have to do it this way.
I understand there are 'sweeteners' to get House Republicans to vote for it, but I think - completely on the face of it - that some of these 'tax extenders' are too much. Somebody is giving away the store just to get the money into the system.

I know that some of the changes are tax breaks for business and alternative energy/research and development, an adjustment to the Alternate Minimum Tax, change the limits of the FDIC insurance for a year, and disaster recovery.
But, I think there's more.

Proponents of the bill cite anecdotal evidence of people who want to buy a house or a car or get a loan to expand their business but can't get a loan. This is intended to prove that the credit system is broken, needs immediate attention, and does affect average Americans.

I think its the wrong 'evidence' and they do a disservice to the problem. People can wait a couple months to get a new car, a new house, or a expand their business.
However, a review of the way people in different industries do business would be a benefit. I've heard people talking (Washington Journal call in portion) about cash business as the only 'responsible' way to do business. But, that's not the way a lot of businesses run. Farming, retail, stuff like that. Seems like they do business on credit a lot. And its accepted.
Also, what about state and local governments. We should have a refresher course on how they get revenue. I understand my state is saying they expect repercussions of this problem for a while down the road.

Anyway - I'm still for the bill because I think we need it. But I'm wary of the extra parts they've added to the bill that might not have anything to do with the current financial crisis.

Seante Revisisions
Icreasese FDC limits from 100 K per account to 250K
extend certain expiritng tax cuts
limit executive compensation
et al