OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[wco81]

Reason why the Bridge to Nowhere has gotten so much play is that when they introduced Palin, they cited her opposition as one of her accomplishments, as part and parcel of her reformer cred.

In her convention speech, she said "Thanks but no thanks."

In the week following the convention, she repeated that mantra over and over again.

I don't know if she's still saying it but when she makes a claim, of course people are going to look into that claim.

Especially since as a newcomer, people are going to scrutinize her closely to fill in the blanks.

It's not going to change minds on either side.

McCain made earmarks a big issue, even though they're a very small part of federal spending.

Alaska has more earmarks per capita than any other state. Also, supposedly Palin asked for earmarks in the last year that McCain opposed (well he's against ALL earmarks, right?).

[matthewk]

Matt,

Has Obama made any statements against the Bridge itself? (I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean they're not out there.) If he hasn't done that, then how is he being dishonest? What I know Obama/Biden have been hammering her on is being dishonest about her position on the Bridge to Nowhere.

I think were we are diverging is that I don't think she has been dishonest about it. I looked it up at factcheck.org and read the timeline, along with the transcript from the Gibson interview. I accepted her answer and reasoning behind it. Politicians have made much further reaches (this year even) than the one she made with the "thanks, but no thanks" line.

I think Obama/Biden are being more dishonest by hammering on her as if she was for the bridge, when they were the ones that actually voted to give Alaska the money for it. Dishonesty isn't always about what you say. It can just as easily be about what you don't say.

[matthewk]

I must hand it to you guys: You have indefatigable bladders. This thread has become just as vigorous of a partisan pissing match as the prior politics thread.



Take care,
PK

At least this one has remained civil (so far).

So if some of us are on the right pissing left, and others are on the left pissing right, I guess that means PK is catching it all in the middle

[Brando70]

I must hand it to you guys: You have indefatigable bladders. This thread has become just as vigorous of a partisan pissing match as the prior politics thread.



Take care,
PK

Golden showers bring November flowers

[Brando70]

And Brando, don't stay away. How many Madden posts can you read without your eyes glossing over anyway

LOL. I actually got diagnosed with high blood pressure a couple weeks ago (no surprise, it's rampant in my family) and I thought, "I know the source!" Politics angers up the blood as Grandpa Simpson would say. But give me endless politics threads or give me death!

[Jared]

I think were we are diverging is that I don't think she has been dishonest about it. I looked it up at factcheck.org and read the timeline, along with the transcript from the Gibson interview. I accepted her answer and reasoning behind it. Politicians have made much further reaches (this year even) than the one she made with the "thanks, but no thanks" line.

Really? She wasn't "against" it until Congress had already removed the earmarks. You can't say "thanks, but no thanks" to something that isn't being offered to you, especially when you were saying "please, give me" when it was being offered. The factcheck.org article (as well as many others) said that line has been "discredited". Saying she hasn't been dishonest for those statements, whereas Obama has (who, to my knowledge, hasn't gone after the bridge but rather has gone after Palin's flip-flopping) is just spin w/o basis in fact.

[Teal]

I think were we are diverging is that I don't think she has been dishonest about it. I looked it up at factcheck.org and read the timeline, along with the transcript from the Gibson interview. I accepted her answer and reasoning behind it. Politicians have made much further reaches (this year even) than the one she made with the "thanks, but no thanks" line.

Really? She wasn't "against" it until Congress had already removed the earmarks. You can't say "thanks, but no thanks" to something that isn't being offered to you, especially when you were saying "please, give me" when it was being offered. The factcheck.org article (as well as many others) said that line has been "discredited". Saying she hasn't been dishonest for those statements, whereas Obama has (who, to my knowledge, hasn't gone after the bridge but rather has gone after Palin's flip-flopping) is just spin w/o basis in fact.

Question: Who fact checks factchecks facts?(Say that five times, real fast) Why are they regarded as the final word? Just curious as to why so many consider that the end-all, be-all in the he said, she said world of politics. What are their politics?

[Teal]

It was defeated, along strict partisan lines.

No. It never made it out of committee.

right. Because it was defeated, along party lines.

[Jared]

right. Because it was defeated, along party lines.

Sorry, I don't see any evidence of that from the govtrack link, or from any primary sources. And in that Congress (the 109th), Sen. Shelby (R-AL) was the chair, and there were more Republicans than Democrats on the committee (11-9, see here). So I don't know it could have been defeated along party lines w/a Republican majority, unless the Republicans defeated it.

As for the fact-checkers, I don't consider them the final word, but they are often a good source if they've done their research thoroughly and fairly.

[Teal]

Wow, now this I like:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

[Teal]

This I DON'T like-there's simply no place for stupidity like this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ss ... eorge.html

[GTHobbes]

Wow, now this I like:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

This stuff's probably too serious for me to be getting on typos, but "an historic"? "Ever corner"? You'd think he'd have someone proof-reading, at least the first paragraph.

[Teal]

Uh...'an historic' is proper grammer, GT...

And 'ever corner'? Well, it's phonetically correct...here in the south...

[GTHobbes]

Uh...'an historic' is proper grammer, GT...

It goes against the rule I was taught in school, but it looks like there are plenty of people who agree with you, so my bad:

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html

[matthewk]

Really? She wasn't "against" it until Congress had already removed the earmarks. You can't say "thanks, but no thanks" to something that isn't being offered to you, especially when you were saying "please, give me" when it was being offered. The factcheck.org article (as well as many others) said that line has been "discredited". Saying she hasn't been dishonest for those statements, whereas Obama has (who, to my knowledge, hasn't gone after the bridge but rather has gone after Palin's flip-flopping) is just spin w/o basis in fact.

She did get $223 millon. I take "Her thanks, but no thanks" as: she got $223 million, but chose not to use it for the bridge. She never said "I rejected the earmarks".

Good to know that the line has been oficially discredited. I like going to factcheck.org for unbiased info, but I don't recall them ever being declared the ruling body for politcial scorecards.

Calling Obama & Biden dishonest is not "just spin". I already explained why I think they are dishonest, and my reasoning is based on facts.

[Jackdog]

Wow, now this I like:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

Update

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement a while ago which basically says thanks but no thanks. Here’s an excerpt: “But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nations economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.”

Senator Obama suggested in his response today that he will go forth with plans for a debate on Friday. It sounds like he will stay away from D.C. for now unless Congressional leaders say they need him to come. He said he initiated a call to Senator McCain this morning asking that the two candidates issue a joint statement of principles to be included in the bailout proposal. This was partially done because of a suggestion made by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who spoke to Obama by phone. He does not plan to suspend his campaign at this time.

McCain wants to go to work. Obama wants to campaign. This is a huge crisis and I am happy to see McCain want to go back and help get this sorted out. It shows me who really cares about the people they work for.

[RobVarak]

I caught only a snippet of Obama's response, but apparently he's used his divine powers to amend the Constitution to get himself sworn in on the day of the election LOL

[Jackdog]

I caught only a snippet of Obama's response, but apparently he's used his divine powers to amend the Constitution to get himself sworn in on the day of the election LOL

The Dems wanted McCain yesterday. They said they needed him for the vote to pass. Today.......not so much.

Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain will “demagogue” the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration’s deeply unpopular proposal.

A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain “won’t be a problem” — in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.
“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

Reid is essentially calling the Republican bluff on a political gambit. There’s a growing chorus of Republicans in both chambers _ especially House conservatives _ who would love to yell about the bailout and vote against it knowing it will pass. In this strategy, Republicans will be able to hit the campaign trail and boast about how they’ve voted against the Bush administration and Democratic Congress while protecting Main Street.

But Democrats aren’t going to let that strategy fly.

House Minority Whip James Clyburn says his leaders are not going to push through a bill that only passes with Democratic votes either…

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”

[Naples39]

I have no doubt this call by McCain was every bit the calculated campaign maneuver moreso than an act of 'patriotism' (does this word mean anything anymore?), but Obama's response was pretty lame. Truthfully, Obama's 2 years in the Senate have been little more than an extended presidential campaign, so why change that approach now?

"It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Which is why you're going to stay away from DC and solely focus on debate prep?

[Jackdog]

I have no doubt this call by McCain was as much a calculated campaign maneuver rather than an act of 'patriotism' (does this word mean anything anymore?), but Obama's response was pretty lame. Truthfully, Obama's 2 years in the Senate have been little more than an extended presidential campaign, so why change that approach now?

"It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Which is why you're going to stay away from DC and solely focus on debate prep?

Honestly,they have 40 days to debate "Foreign Policy". The proposed Bailout Plan is more important than any debate. Warren Buffett says that the plan is akin to the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor. Don't think—just fight back.I want my Senator to do his job. If you want to run a campaign then drop out of the Senate.

Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke are annoyed at Congress for having the gall to actually debate the plan.

The real cherry on top came when Frank made this truly jaw-dropping statement (hat tip to the Agitator):

I think we have to recognize the reality that we don't have a choice now of debating whether this is a good or a bad thing.

Excuse me? Do you remember one of the last times Congress enacted legislation that was deemed too important to actually debate—or even read? The funny (and sad) thing is that this bailout plan as originally conceived contains massive deference to the executive branch in ways all too familiar to that historic legislation.

So why wait? Well, it turns out that there are tons of reasons. They all revolve around one central point: We don't know how much good this plan will really do for the American small businesses and consumers who will pay its massive price tag.
Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution points out that the evidence is not yet all in to show that the credit crunch has even really expanded beyond the short-term, asset-backed securities. If that's the case, why not hold onto the cool $700 billion and save it for when we actually do see a broad credit crunch for consumers and businesses, instead of bailing out the middleman? Tom Brokaw has an interesting op-ed that is kind of making the same point: There are plenty of small businesses that could use the money directly. I'm not sure if he explicitly is calling for that kind of bailout, but the point stands that there's no clear evidence that such a bailout would be any worse than bailing out the large banks, as Paulson would have it.
There are some interesting proposals for alternative measures that could save the financial system and economy from unraveling without the massive expense of Paulson's plan. Sweden was able to bail out its ailing financial system in the early '90s at a price lower relative to its GDP.
Finally, Dawn Rivers Baker explains in simple terms the problems with the moral hazard this bailout could create. If the plan doesn't work, it could make things worse in the long run.

I'm not bringing these points up to say that nothing should be done and that we should let the problems sort themselves out. Smart people like Megan McArdle have explained that the consequences of doing nothing are likely to be horrific. But that uncertainty is all the more reason to carefully go over all the options and figure out the right response. Let's not just implement the first thing onto which Buffett stamps his approval.

[GTHobbes]

Interesting response by Obama. So what does McCain do now?

[Jackdog]

Interesting response by Obama. So what does McCain do now?

He'll do his job and go to work. They can debate next week.

[GTHobbes]

Interesting response by Obama. So what does McCain do now?

He'll do his job and go to work. They can debate next week.

Interesting way to look at it. Who's been doing his "job" all these months that he's been out on the campaign trail? And who are these guys...Batman and Robin? What exactly are they going to come in and do?

[Jackdog]

Interesting response by Obama. So what does McCain do now?

He'll do his job and go to work. They can debate next week.

Interesting way to look at it. Who's been doing his "job" all these months that he's been out on the campaign trail? And who are these guys...Batman and Robin? What exactly are they going to come in and do?

That's a great question. I never agreed with a sitting Senator running for President. I think when they decide to run they need to give up their seat. They both should go in and vote for or aginist the 700 Billion bailout plan. My wallet gives a fu*k about that more than foreign policy this week. Plus I would like to see my next President involved in this crisis. Someone needs to slap the lisp out of Barney Frank.

[RobVarak]

So the man who, in the Senate, co-authored the Feingold-Obama Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act, who spearheaded campaign finance reform legislation in the Illinois state Senate (which, according to good government groups, resulted in "most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years"), or when running for President urged Emil Jones to vote for an Illinois ethics reform bill...he's done nothing substantial to reform the system?

Obama's actually doing something about ethics reform (it's not just claims, as you make it out to be). But instead of mentioning any of this actual reform legislation, the strategy is to tar by association and ignore his actual policies and legislation.

McCain now got an ad out trying to tag Obama with the Chicago machine, using the same guilt by association strategy, which has been eviscerated by factcheck.org.

Let's take the issue that I know best first, if you don't mind. His touting of the Illinois ethics reform bill that he "spearheaded" is comical for several reasons. First and foremost, despite the "good governments' groups" praise it's a shell, barely a measurable first step to reasonable reform in a state that is positively filthy in its politics. The fact that Illinois remains a desperately crooked place to do political business underlines the efficacy of the legislation.

More germaine to our discussion though, is Obama's actual role in the legislation and the reality behind it. Obama did not write the law. Obama played absolutely no role whatsoever in the content of the legislation, and Obama didn't even sign on as a sponsor for the bill until Emil Jones picked him to be the co-sponsor for the bill the day the bill was passed.

Much is made of Obama's skillfull ushering of the legislation through the vote, reaching across he aisle etc. (One example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02262.html). That is not accurate. I worked for years with Senator Phil Rock, who was the President of the Illinois Senate for a record 7-terms. I've watched that body work very closely for 15 years, and I was watching it closely then. It passed 52-4! It was going to pass 52-4 if Satan himself had co-sponsored.

Moreover, all the bill does is ban personal use of campaign funds, prohibit fundraising on public property and the tendering of personal payoffs and gifts to legislators by lobbyists and contractors. It did almost nothing to change the pay-to-play fundamentals of Illnois politics. How could it, that's Tony Rezko's bread and butter?

In short, Obama played no meaningful role in the passing of a bill which ultimately did nothing to change the status quo. That's only to be expected given the fact that he was just acting at the direction of Jones.

Why would Jones, a notoriously corrupt and craven individual assist in the passage of an ethics law at all? The fact is that due to terrible corruption in successive gubernatorial administrations an ethics bill was coming. But Jones was, in true Chicago fashion, going to make sure that the bill took care of him and his.

Lo and behold, the shining crown of Obama's Illinois legislative career and bullet point no. 1 in his resume of reform credentials holds a whopper of a grandfather clause. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1 ... 08.article

In fact, when Emil Jones walks away from his Senate seat and holds the door open for his hand-picked successor (his son, naturally) he will be able to do so in style. He has over $500,000.00 in his campaign fund that he will be able to convert to his personal accounts due to the grandfather clause in that legislation.

Thats a lot of change in his pockets that Jones can believe in.

As for Feingold-Obama, the importance of that amendment and the role that Obama played in getting the billed passed are both exaggerted. Sound familiar? The amendment itself is summarized as follows:

With Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., proposed requiring senators to make full reimbursement for the market rate of corporate jet flights. Under old rules, senators reimbursed for the first-class commercial rate of the flight. In some cases, that meant paying $2,000 for a private jet flight that actually may have cost upwards of $20,000 per seat. The proposal was incorporated into a broader package of reforms.

Not exactly the "toughest ethics reform since Watergate." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/153/

And in Barackian fashion, he has inflated his own role in the ethics reforms passed during his brief time in the Senate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... cs-reform/

Now to answer your question. No. He has not done anything to reform the system.

I'd give him a pass because he hasn't had much time to do much of anything in the US Senate, particularly between taking Fannie/Freddie campaign donations and campaigning.

But he had a nice long time to plant his reformer flag in Illinois, the most target-rich environment for reform this side of Tammany Hall. And all he did during that time was hop on a slow moving train at the direction of his patron. And the reason that he did nothing more was because he was serving at the behest of Jones, Daley and his ilk.

And that is why his association with those people is relevant. They were his principal constituency, his principal supporters and his principal advisors. Because he's built on the same flimsy hypocrisy that has supported Democratic Machine pols in Illinois for generations: Even as they claim to be looking out for the little guy or the general good, all they are doing is legislating and governing for their own benefit and the benefit of their cronies and patrons. They put themselves and their sponsors first in all cases. And "reform" is the hollowest word in their lexicon.